Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Black-tailed Prairie Dog as Threatened or Endangered, 63343-63366 [E9-28852]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
There is some variability between
models in projecting the effect of future
climate change on Sprague’s pipit
habitat. One model projected that the
Sprague’s pipit’s breeding range would
experience a wetter climate by the end
of this century (United States Global
Change Research Program Great Plains
2009, p. 125). In contrast, another model
suggested that much of the remaining
suitable habitat for Sprague’s pipit
nesting would likely become drier due
to climate change (Johnson et al. 2005,
p. 871). Temperatures in the wintering
range are also expected to rise, while
precipitation is projected to decline
(United States Global Change Research
Program: Southwest 2009, p. 125).
Substantial landscape changes are
therefore expected in the wintering
range (United States Global Change
Research Program: Southwest 2009, p.
131). These changes in temperature and
precipitation throughout the species’
range may have a large impact on
ecosystems (United States Global
Change Research Program Great Plains
2009, p. 126; United States Global
Change Research Program: Southwest
2009, p. 131) and thus the Sprague’s
pipit.
Long-term effects of global climate
change on Sprague’s pipit habitat could
have significant, deleterious effects, and
should be monitored in the future.
However, the climate change models are
based on projections with some
uncertainty (Johnson et al. 2005, p. 869),
and current data may not be reliable
enough at the local level for us to draw
conclusions regarding the degree to
which climate change would affect
Sprague’s pipit and its habitat.
The petitioner states that harassment
of birds from cropland may negatively
impact the birds’ energy stores during
migration, when they may already be
low on reserves (Hagy et al. 2007, pp.
62, 69). Also, the petitioner contends
that poisoning of sunflower fields with
grain bait used to kill blackbirds may
impact Sprague’s pipits, which have
been documented in sunflower fields
during migration (Hagy et al. 2007, p.
66). Sprague’s pipits primarily feed on
arthropods, including those in
sunflower fields (Hagy et al. 2007, p.
66). However, the impacts of harassment
and poisoning on Sprague’s pipits are
unlikely to be substantial. Some
sunflower growers harass birds,
primarily several species of blackbirds
that feed on their crops. Any Sprague’s
pipits that are present in sunflower
fields could be incidentally harassed out
of those fields along with blackbirds and
any other species present. There have
been experimental efforts in the past to
selectively poison blackbirds that feed
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
on sunflowers; however, these efforts
have been limited to date and not
applied on a systematic, widespread
basis. Therefore, we deem the potential
impacts of harassment and poisoning on
Sprague’s pipits to be primarily
speculative and likely minimal at this
time.
Summary of Factor E
We find the information presented in
the petition and readily available in our
files on the subject of climate change to
be insufficiently specific to the
Sprague’s pipit; however, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) states that warming of
the climate is unequivocal (IPCC 2007,
p. 15). We intend to investigate the
effects of climate change on the
Sprague’s pipit and its habitat further in
the status review for the species.
While all of the following factors may
negatively impact the Sprague’s pipit,
on the basis of our evaluation of the
material provided in the petition and
available in our files, we determined
that the petition does not present
substantial evidence indicating that
listing the Sprague’s pipit may be
warranted based on drought, climate
change, harassment, or poisoning of
cropland.
Finding
On the basis of our determination
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we
have determined that the petition
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
listing the Sprague’s pipit throughout all
or a significant portion of its range may
be warranted. This finding is based on
information provided under Factors A
and D. Because we have found that the
petition presents substantial
information that listing the Sprague’s
pipit may be warranted, we are
initiating a status review to determine
whether listing the Sprague’s pipit
under the Act is warranted. We will
issue a 12-month finding as to whether
the petitioned action is warranted.
The ‘‘substantial information’’
standard for a 90-day finding differs
from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and
commercial data’’ standard that applies
to a status review to determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted. A 90day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month
finding, we will determine whether a
petitioned action is warranted after we
have completed a thorough status
review of the species, which is
conducted following a substantial 90day finding. Because the Act’s standards
for 90-day and 12-month findings are
different, as described above, a
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63343
substantial 90-day finding does not
mean that the 12-month finding will
result in a warranted finding.
We encourage interested parties to
continue gathering data that will assist
with the conservation and monitoring of
the Sprague’s pipit. You may submit
information regarding the Sprague’s
pipit by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section until the date shown
in the DATES section of this document.
After this date, you must submit
information directly to the North Dakota
Field Office (SEE FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below).
Please note that we may not be able to
address or incorporate information that
we receive after the above requested
date. The petitioner requested we
designate critical habitat for this
species. If we determine in our 12month finding that listing the Sprague’s
pipit is warranted, we will address the
designation of critical habitat at the time
of the proposed listing rulemaking.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
regulations.gov and upon request from
the North Dakota Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary authors of this notice are
the staff members of the North Dakota
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: November 19, 2009.
Sam D. Hamilton,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E9–28868 Filed 12–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R6-ES-2008-0111] [MO 92210 50083
B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition to List the Black-tailed Prairie
Dog as Threatened or Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of a 12–month petition
finding.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
63344
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce our
12–month finding on a petition to list
the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys
ludovicianus) as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
After review of all available scientific
and commercial information, we find
that listing the black-tailed prairie dog
as either threatened or endangered is
not warranted at this time. However, we
ask the public to continue to submit to
us any new information that becomes
available concerning the status of, or
threats to, the black-tailed prairie dog or
its habitat at any time. This information
will help us to monitor and conserve the
species.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on December 3,
2009.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, South Dakota
Ecological Services Office, 420 South
Garfield Avenue, Suite 400, Pierre, SD
57501; telephone (605) 224-8693. Please
submit any new information, materials,
comments or questions concerning this
finding to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete
Gober, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, South Dakota
Ecological Services Office (see
ADDRESSES section). If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act)
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that for
any petition to revise the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants that contains substantial
scientific and commercial information
indicating that listing the species may
be warranted, we make a finding within
12 months of the date of receipt of the
petition. In this finding, we will
determine that the petitioned action is:
(a) not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c)
warranted but the immediate proposal
of a regulation implementing the
petitioned action is precluded by other
pending proposals to determine whether
species are threatened or endangered,
and expeditious progress is being made
to add or remove qualified species from
the Federal Lists of Endangered and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Such
12–month findings must be published
in the Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
We received a petition dated October
21, 1994, from the Biodiversity Legal
Foundation and Jon C. Sharps, to
classify the black-tailed prairie dog as a
Category 2 candidate species. Category 2
includes taxa for which information in
our possession indicates that a proposed
listing rule was possibly appropriate,
but for which sufficient data on
biological vulnerability and threats were
not available to support a proposed rule.
We reviewed the petition and on May 5,
1995, we concluded that the black-tailed
prairie dog did not warrant Category 2
candidate status.
On July 31, 1998, we received a
petition from the National Wildlife
Federation dated July 30, 1998, to list
the black-tailed prairie dog as
threatened throughout its range. On
August 26, 1998, we received another
petition to list the black-tailed prairie
dog as threatened throughout its range
from the Biodiversity Legal Foundation,
Predator Project, and Jon C. Sharps. We
accepted this second request as
supplemental information to the
National Wildlife Federation petition.
On February 4, 2000, we announced a
12–month finding that issuing a
proposed rule to list the black-tailed
prairie dog was warranted but
precluded by other higher priority
actions (65 FR 5476), and the species
was included in the list of candidate
species. Two candidate assessments and
resubmitted petition findings for the
black-tailed prairie dog were completed
on October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54303), and
June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40657). On August
18, 2004, we completed a resubmitted
petition finding for the black-tailed
prairie dog (69 FR 51217) concluding
that listing the species was not
warranted, and the species was removed
from the candidate list. This removal
was the result of new information
regarding the amount of occupied
habitat present throughout the species’
range and a reevaluation of potential
threats. Estimates from the 2004 finding
were more accurate than those available
during the earlier assessments and
indicated nearly 3 times more occupied
habitat was present than we originally
believed. We concluded that the trends
in the amount of occupied habitat did
not support listing the species.
On February 7, 2007, Forest
Guardians and others filed a complaint
challenging the decision to remove the
black-tailed prairie dog from the
candidate list. On August 6, 2007, we
received a formal petition dated August
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1, 2007, from Forest Guardians (now
WildEarth Guardians), Biodiversity
Conservation Alliance, Center for Native
Ecosystems, and Rocky Mountain
Animal Defense, requesting that we list
the black-tailed prairie dog throughout
its historical range in Arizona, Colorado,
Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming and in
Canada and Mexico. The petitioners
requested that, if the Service believes
that Cynomys ludovicianus arizonensis
is a distinct subspecies or population
segment, we list it as threatened or
endangered throughout its historical
range. The petitioners also requested
that the Service designate critical
habitat for the species.
The petition clearly identified itself as
a petition and included the requisite
identification information as required in
50 CFR 424.14(a). We acknowledged
receipt of the petition in a letter on
August 24, 2007, and indicated that
emergency listing of the black-tailed
prairie dog was not warranted. We also
explained that we would not be able to
address their petition until fiscal year
2009, due to existing court orders and
settlement agreements for other listing
actions. However, in fiscal year 2008,
funding became available, and we began
work on this petition finding. The
plaintiffs withdrew their February 7,
2007, complaint on October 9, 2007.
On March 13, 2008, WildEarth
Guardians filed a complaint for failure
to complete a 90–day finding on their
August 1, 2007, petition. On July 1,
2008, a stipulated settlement and order
was signed, in which we agreed to
submit a 90–day finding to the Federal
Register by November 30, 2008, and
deliver a 12–month finding to the
Federal Register by November 30, 2009.
We published a 90–day finding for the
black-tailed prairie dog in the Federal
Register on December 2, 2008 (73 FR
73211). Today’s notice constitutes the
12–month finding on the August 1,
2007, petition to list the black-tailed
prairie dog as threatened or endangered.
Species Information
The black-tailed prairie dog is a
member of the Sciuridae family, which
includes squirrels, chipmunks,
marmots, and several species of prairie
dogs. Prairie dogs constitute the genus
Cynomys. Taxonomists currently
recognize five species of prairie dogs
belonging to two subgenera, all in North
America (Hoogland 2006a, pp. 8-9). The
white-tailed subgenus,
Leucocrossuromys, includes Utah (C.
parvidens), white-tailed (C. leucurus),
and Gunnison’s prairie dogs (C.
gunnisoni) (Hoogland 2006a, pp. 8-9).
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
The black-tailed subgenus, Cynomys,
consists of Mexican (C. mexicanus) and
black-tailed prairie dogs (Hoogland
2006a, pp. 8-9). Generally, the blacktailed prairie dog occurs east of the
other four species in less xeric (dry)
habitat (Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365).
The Utah and Mexican prairie dogs
are currently listed as threatened (49 FR
22330, May 29, 1984) and endangered
(35 FR 8491, June 2, 1970), respectively.
The Gunnison’s prairie dog is currently
a candidate species within the montane
portion of its range (73 FR 6660,
February 5, 2008). The Service is
considering whether listing is warranted
for the white-tailed prairie dog through
a formal status review which is due to
be submitted to the Federal Register by
June 1, 2010, under a court-approved
settlement agreement.
Research on the evolutionary
divergence of the various taxa and
populations of Cynomys indicates that
the black-tailed prairie dog should be
considered a monotypic species (a
taxonomic group without lower level
subdivisions) (Pizzimenti 1975, p. 64).
Based on this information, we
determined that the black-tailed prairie
dog is a valid taxonomic species and a
listable entity under the Act.
We also investigated the petitioners’
request that we list the subspecies
Cynomys ludovicianus arizonensis if we
found it to be a distinct subspecies. The
best available information indicates that
C. l. arizonensis is not a distinct
subspecies (Pizzimenti 1975, p. 64).
Pizzimenti (1975, p. 64) researched the
evolutionary divergence of the various
taxa and populations of Cynomys and
concluded that the black-tailed prairie
dog should be considered a single
monotypic species and that further
subspecific differentiation was not
supported due to the similarity of
characteristics between purported
subspecies. Later research on the genetic
variability within and among
populations of black-tailed prairie dogs
in New Mexico also concluded that
subspecies classification could not be
supported (Chesser 1983, p. 326).
Therefore, based on currently available
information, we conclude that there are
no distinct subspecies of black-tailed
prairie dog.
The black-tailed prairie dog is a
burrowing, colonial mammal that is
brown in color (Hoogland 2006a, pp. 89). Black-tailed prairie dogs are
approximately 12 inches (in) (30
centimeters (cm)) in length and weigh 1
to 3 pounds (lbs) (500 to 1,500 grams
(g)) (Hoogland 2006a, pp. 8-9). Key
characteristics distinguish the blacktailed prairie dog from other prairie dog
species:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
(1) It has a longer (2 to 3 in (7-10 cm))
tail that is black-tipped;
(2) It is generally non-hibernating,
except possibly in the northern and
southern extremes of its range
(Tuckwell and Everest 2009, p. 1; Truett
et al. 2007, p. 10); and
(3) It lives at lower elevations (2,3007,200 feet (ft) (700-2,200 meters (m)))
(Hoogland 2006a, pp. 8-9). Overlap of
the geographic ranges of the five species
is minimal; consequently, species
usually can be identified by locality
(Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365; Hoogland
2006a, pp. 8-9).
The black-tailed prairie dog is
typically found in level or gently
sloping short- and mixed-grass
rangeland, primarily east of the Rocky
Mountains (Koford 1958, p. 8). The
species is an herbivore, consuming
short-grasses such as buffalograss
(Buchloe dactyloides) and blue grama
(Bouteloua gracilis) as well as several
forb species (Koford 1958, p. 6). Prairie
dogs also clip taller forage, without
consuming it, to enhance their detection
of predators (Hoogland 2006a, p. 15).
Numerous species prey on the prairie
dog including badger (Taxidea taxus),
coyote (Canis latrans), black-footed
ferret (Mustela nigripes), golden eagle
(Aquila chrysaetos), and many other
species of raptor (Hoogland 1995, pp.
14-15).
Several biological factors determine
the reproductive potential of the blacktailed prairie dog. Females live 4 to 5
years, usually do not breed until their
second year, and produce a single litter
with an average of three pups annually
(Hoogland 2001, p. 917; Hoogland
2006b, p. 29). Therefore, one female
may produce zero to 15 young in its
lifetime. While the species is not
prolific in comparison to many other
rodents, it is capable of rapid
population increases after population
reductions (Collins et al. 1984, p. 360;
Pauli 2005, p. 17; Reeve and Vosburgh
2006, p. 144).
The colonial nature of prairie dogs,
especially the black-tailed prairie dog, is
a noteworthy characteristic of the
species (Miller et al. 1996, p. 20).
Historically, black-tailed prairie dogs
generally occurred in large complexes,
containing multiple colonies that often
contained thousands of individuals.
These complexes covered hundreds or
thousands of acres (ac), and extended
for miles (Lantz 1903, p. 2671; Bailey
1905, p. 90; Bailey 1932, p. 122;
Ceballos et al. 1993, p. 109). Currently,
most colonies and complexes are much
smaller.
Colonial behavior offers an
advantageous defense mechanism by
aiding in the detection of predators and
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63345
by deterring predators through mobbing
behavior (Hoogland 1995, pp. 3-6).
Colonial behavior also increases
reproductive success through
cooperative rearing of juveniles and aids
parasite removal via shared grooming
(Hoogland 1995, pp. 3-6). However,
colonial behavior can increase the
disadvantageous transmission of disease
(Olsen 1981, p. 236; Biggins and Kosoy
2001, p. 911; Antolin et al. 2002, p.
122). Plague is a disease that was
introduced to North America and can
spread from prairie dog to prairie dog
through social behaviors such as
grooming that transfers fleas carrying
the disease. The disease can also be
transmitted by pneumonic (airborne) or
septicemic (blood) routes (see Threats
Analysis, Factor C).
An estimated 2.4 million ac (1 million
hectares (ha)) of occupied habitat exists
in a constantly shifting mosaic
throughout an estimated 283 million ac
(115 million ha) of suitable habitat that
occurs across a range of approximately
440 million ac (178 million ha).
Historically, unsuitable habitat included
wetlands, lands with steep slopes, lands
with shallow or sandy soils, and
wooded areas. More recently, tilled
croplands and urban areas have also
been considered to be only marginally
suitable. Black-tailed prairie dog
colonies may expand or contract from
year to year (Koford 1958, p. 12).
Whether a colony expands or contracts
depends on a combination of several
factors such as climate, poisoning,
disease, and shooting. Prairie dogs may
also disperse over considerably long
distances and establish new colonies.
Dispersal distances up to 6 miles (mi)
(10 kilometers (km)) over a period of a
few weeks have been documented
(Knowles 1985, p. 37). Dispersal can
maintain genetic diversity or restore it
following plague epizootics (Trudeau et
al. 2004, p. 206).
The black-tailed prairie dog is
considered a keystone species; that is, it
is an indicator of diverse species
composition within an ecosystem, and
key to the persistence of that ecosystem
(Kotliar et al. 1999, pp.183, 185). The
black-footed ferret, swift fox (Vulpes
velox), golden eagle, and ferruginous
hawk (Buteo regalis) use prairie dogs as
a food source. The mountain plover
(Charadrius montanus) and burrowing
owl (Athene cunicularia) use habitat
(burrows) created by prairie dogs
(Kotliar et al. 1999, pp. 181-182). The
most obligatory species of this group is
the black-footed ferret, which has a
clearly documented dependence on the
prairie dog (Linder et al. 1972, pp. 2324; Kotliar et al. 2006, pp. 55-57).
Numerous other species share habitat
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
63346
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
with prairie dogs, and rely on them to
varying degrees (Kotliar et al. 2006, pp.
54-55).
Species Range
The historical range of the blacktailed prairie dog included portions of
11 States (Arizona, Colorado, Kansas,
Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas,
and Wyoming), Canada, and Mexico
(Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365). This
corresponds approximately with the
Great Plains Physiographic Province, a
zone of about 400 miles wide extending
eastward from the Rocky Mountains.
Approximately 395 million ac (160
million ha) of potential habitat are
estimated to have existed across a range
of approximately 440 million ac (178
million ha) (Black-footed Ferret
Recovery Foundation (BFFRF) 1999, p.
4; Ernst 2008, p. 2). The species
currently exists in the same 11 States,
Canada, and Mexico, from extreme
south-central Canada to northeastern
Mexico and from approximately the 98th
meridian west to the Rocky Mountains.
This very roughly corresponds to the
western halves of North Dakota, South
Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma,
and Texas and the eastern halves of
Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New
Mexico. The species was largely
extirpated from Arizona before 1940
(Arizona Game and Fish Department
1988, p. 22), and later described as
extinct in that State (Cockrum 1960, p.
76). However, in 2008, the species was
reintroduced into a small portion of its
historical range in Arizona via
translocations from wild populations in
New Mexico (Van Pelt 2009, p. 41).
Range contractions have occurred in the
southwestern portion of the species’
range in Arizona, New Mexico, and
Texas through conversion of grasslands
to desert shrub (Weltzin et al. 1997, pp.
758-760; Pidgeon et al. 2001, p. 1773).
In the eastern portion of the species’
range in Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma,
South Dakota, and Texas, range
contractions are largely due to habitat
destruction as a result of cropland
development (BFFRF 1999, p. 1).
Population Estimates
Most estimates of black-tailed prairie
dog populations are based on estimates
of the amount of occupied habitat
(Facka et al. 2008, p. 360), not numbers
of individual animals. Biggins et al.
(2006 p. 94) evaluated several
methodologies for estimating prairie dog
populations and concluded that
counting actual numbers of prairie dogs
is feasible only for small areas.
Determining the actual population of a
colony requires marking all colony
residents. This method is reasonable for
only a small number (less than five) of
small colonies (each with less than 200
residents) because of the difficulty and
impracticality of catching and marking
all residents (Biggins et al. 2006, p. 102).
Estimates of occupied habitat remain
the best measure of estimating prairie
dog abundance over a larger area. The
actual number of prairie dogs present
depends upon the density of animals in
that locality. Density of prairie dogs
varies depending on the season,
ecological region, and climatic
conditions, but typically ranges from 2
to 18 individuals per ac (5 to 45 per ha)
in early spring, before the emergence of
young-of-the year (King 1955, p. 46;
Koford 1958, pp. 10-11; Hoogland 1995,
p. 98; Fagerstone and Ramey 1996, p.
85). Prairie dog occupied habitat may
expand locally during drought, with a
concurrent decline in density, due to
the extended foraging area needed to
obtain food. Density can also vary
spatially and temporally due to
poisoning, plague, and recreational
shooting as discussed in later sections.
A more accurate large-scale estimate
of occupied habitat can be derived by
applying a correction factor for percent
occupancy (the percent of habitat with
burrows currently occupied by blacktailed prairie dogs) to an initial estimate.
We can estimate percent occupancy via
an on-site inspection of a portion of a
survey area to confirm the presence of
prairie dogs. This is particularly
important in colonies that have been
impacted by plague or poisoning. In
these instances burrows remain but
prairie dogs are absent. This unoccupied
habitat should not be included in
estimations of occupied habitat. We
believe that occupied habitat is a
reasonable measure to use in evaluating
the persistence of the species inasmuch
as comparisons involve millions of acres
(hectares) and several-fold more
millions of individual prairie dogs,
whose numbers may fluctuate between
and within years.
We have relied on the best available
estimates of occupied habitat from
States, land managers, researchers, or
other sources to evaluate distribution,
abundance, and trends of prairie dog
populations. Recent trends of prairie
dog populations are an appropriate
surrogate for evaluating the status of the
species.
Numerous estimates of black-tailed
prairie dog occupied habitat are
available, spanning a time period from
1903 to the present. In Table 1, we
summarize historical estimates,
estimates from a 1961 range wide
survey, and the most recent available
estimates. The 1961 estimates came
from a Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife (BSFW) range wide survey that
followed large-scale poisoning efforts
and represent a low point in occupied
habitat. Other estimates are from a
variety of agencies and individuals as
cited in Table 1. Additional estimates
derived between 1961 and the most
recent available estimates are also
available in the Service’s 2000 12–
month finding and in the 2004 species
assessment that removed the blacktailed prairie dog from the candidate list
(Service 2000, p. 98; Service 2004, p. 7).
Some of these intermediate estimates
are derived from field efforts, others are
based on censuses by phone or mail,
and the remainder are a result of
desktop extrapolations. Desktop
extrapolations used known estimates of
occupied habitat that existed for
portions of a state to derive a Statewide
estimate for occupied habitat. These
studies provide intermediate estimates
of occupied habitat and additional
information regarding trends.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 1. OCCUPIED HABITAT ESTIMATES FOR THE BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG
Historical
c (ha)A
1961 (BSFW)
ac (ha)A
650,000 (263,000) 1
1,396,000 (565,000) 2
0
State or Country
Arizona
Colorado
VerDate Nov<24>2008
3,000,000 (1,214,000)
5,445,000 (2,204,000)
7,000,000 (2,833,000)
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
4
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2008
6
2006
788,657 (319,158)
5
Frm 00016
Year of Most
Recent Survey
8 (3)3
96,000
(39,000)
2
Most Recent
ac (ha)
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
63347
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1. OCCUPIED HABITAT ESTIMATES FOR THE BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG—Continued
Most Recent
ac (ha)
Year of Most
Recent Survey
Historical
c (ha)A
1961 (BSFW)
ac (ha)A
Kansas
2,000,000 (809,000) 7
2,500,000 (1,012,000) 5
7,503,000 (3,036,000) 2
50,000
(20,000)
173,593 (70,251)3
2006
Montana
1,471,000 (595,000) 8
6,000,000 (2,428,000) 5
10,667,000 (4,317,000) 2
28,000
(11,000)
193,862 (78,453)9
2008
Nebraska
6,000,000 (2,428,000)
9,021,000 (3,651,000)
30,000
(12,000)
136,991 (55,438)10
2003
17,000
(7,000)
40,000 (16,187)12
2003
20,000
(8,000)
22,597 (9,145)13
2006
15,000
(6,000)
57,677 (23,341)3
2002
1,757,000 (711,000) 14
6,411,000 (2,594,000) 2
33,000
(13,000)
630,849 (255,296)15
2006
16,703,000 (6,759,000) 2
57,600,000 (23,310,000) 16
26,000
(11,000)
115,000 (46,539)3
2006
5,786,000 (2,342,000) 2
16,000,000 (6,475,000) 5
49,000
(20,000)
229,607 (92,919)17
2006
78,708,000 (31,852,000) 2
102,583,000 (41,514,000)
(non-BFFRF citations) B
364,000
(147,000)
2,388,841 (966,730)
State or Country
5
2
6,640,000 (2,687,000) 11
8,950,000 (3,622,000) 2
New Mexico
North Dakota
2,000,000 (809,000)
2,201,000 (891,000)
5
2
950,000 (384,000) 5
4,625,000 (1,872,000)
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Texas
Wyoming
U.S. Total
5
Canada
2,000 (1,000)
Mexico
1,384,000 (560,000)
Range wide
Total
2
4,485 (1,815)3
36,561 (14,796)3
18
80,094,000-103,969,000
(32,413,000-42,075,000)
2007
2006
2,429,887 (983,340)
1
A
Estimates rounded to the nearest thousand.
Low U.S. total estimate derived from the total of all BFFRF2 estimates (a single methodology described below) for each State. High total estimates were derived by adding all other estimates; in States with more than one other historical estimate (CO, KS, MT) the average was used.
1 Van Pelt 1998
2 BFFRF 1999
3 Koch 2009
4 Clark 1989
5 Knowles 1998
6 Odell et al. 2008
7 Lantz 1903
8 Flath and Ibach 2009
9 Hanauska-Brown 2009
10 Amack and Ibach 2009
11 Bailey 1932
12 Johnson et al. 2004
13 Knowles 2007
14 Linder et al. 1972
15 Vonk 2009
16 Bailey 1905
17 Grenier et al. 2007a
18 Ceballos et al. 1993
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
B
Historical estimates of black-tailed
prairie dog occupied habitat for a
particular State are often quite variable.
This is likely due to the imprecise
survey methodologies used to derive
early estimates. Additionally, some
historical estimates were made after
land conversion and poisoning had been
initiated. If the average historical
estimates (not including estimates from
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
BFFRF 1999) in Table 1 for each State,
Canada, and Mexico are summed, the
range wide historical estimate of
occupied habitat is approximately 104
million ac (42 million ha).
The Black-footed Ferret Recovery
Foundation (BFFRF) (1999, p. 4)
addressed this variability in historical
estimates by evaluating U.S. Geological
Survey land use and land cover data
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
throughout the range of the black-tailed
prairie dog. The BFFRF assumed that
suitable land cover types such as
grassland and agricultural land were
potential habitat for the species
historically. Other land cover types such
as forests, rocky areas, wetlands, and
lands with excessive slopes were not
considered. Whicker and Detling (1988,
p. 778) estimated that black-tailed
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
63348
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
prairie dogs occupied at least 20 percent
of short- and mixed-grass prairies
historically. BFFRF applied this 20
percent historical occupancy rate to its
estimate of potential habitat to derive an
estimate of approximately 79 million ac
(32 million ha) of historically occupied
habitat in the United States.
A reasonable range wide estimate of
historically occupied habitat for the
black-tailed prairie dog that considers
all historical estimates from Table 1 is
approximately 80 to104 million ac (32
to 42 million ha).
In 1961, the BSFW, a predecessor
agency of the Service, tabulated habitat
estimates on a county-by-county basis
throughout the range of all prairie dog
species in the United States (BSFW
1961, p. 1). These estimates were
completed by District Agents for BSFW
who were familiar with remaining
extant prairie dog populations. The
survey was completed in response to
concerns from within the agency
regarding possible adverse impacts to
prairie dogs following large-scale
poisoning (Oakes 2000, p. 167). These
data provide an estimate for a single
point in time when prairie dogs were
reduced to very low numbers following
a half century of intensive, coordinated
government poisoning efforts.
The petitioners questioned the use of
the BSFW (1961) survey due to its
brevity and the fact that it represented
an extreme low point in black-tailed
prairie dog occupied habitat. However,
this survey has been cited in other
seminal documents, including Leopold
(1964, p. 38) and Cain et al. (1972,
Appendix VIII). These latter two
documents resulted in substantial
changes in predator and rodent control
policies in the United States, including
a ban of Compound 1080, a highly toxic
poison once widely used to control
prairie dogs and other mammalian
species. We agree that the early 1960s
likely represented an extreme low in
occupied habitat, but believe that the
BSFW (1961) estimates of occupied
habitat for the species are useful for
trend analyses and represent the best
available information for that time
period.
The most recent Statewide estimates
vary in survey date from 2002 to 2008
and include all black-tailed prairie dog
occupied habitat known in a given
State. The most current range wide
estimate is approximately 2.4 million ac
(1 million ha) including Canada and
Mexico. Trends for occupied habitat in
the United States appear to be
increasing from the low point of 364,000
ac (147,000 ha) in 1961. Statewide
trends for the same period (1961 –
present) range from nearly stable in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
North Dakota to an approximately 19fold increase in South Dakota. The
status in Arizona is currently
indeterminate due to the recent
reintroduction.
We recognize that different
methodologies were used at different
times and in different locales for the
various occupied habitat estimates.
However, we believe that these
estimates are the best available
information and are comparable for the
purpose of determining general
population trends. Methods for
determining occupied habitat have
improved in recent years with the
advent of tools such as aerial survey,
satellite imagery, and Geographic
Information Systems (GIS).
Consequently, estimates that use these
tools can be expected to be more
accurate. Ground-truthing a percentage
of the land surveyed to determine the
percent of habitat occupied adds
additional confidence to any large-scale
estimate. States continue to refine their
methodologies. A workshop is being
planned in 2010 by the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies to further evaluate current
survey methodologies for accuracy,
statistical validity, cost, and other
considerations. More detailed
information regarding survey
methodology, distribution, abundance,
and trends for each State is provided as
follows.
Arizona
Survey methodology – The most
recent survey by the Arizona Game and
Fish Department in 2008 consisted of
ground mapping, including groundtruthing (Van Pelt 2009, p. 41). The
small amount of occupied habitat
enabled a detailed survey effort with
ground-truthing throughout and a high
degree of confidence in the estimate.
Distribution – Historically, blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed in extreme southeastern Arizona
(Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365). The
species was extirpated from the State by
approximately 1940 (Arizona Game and
Fish Dept. 1988, p. 22). In October 2008,
the species was reintroduced on Las
Cienegas National Conservation Area
(Voyles 2009, pp. 1-2).
Abundance – Historically
approximately 650,000 ac (263,000 ha)
(Van Pelt 1998, p. 1) to 1,396,000 ac
(565,000 ha) (BFFRF 1999, p. 4) of
black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed in Arizona. The most recent
survey was conducted in 2008 (Van Pelt
2009, p. 41) and percent occupancy was
100 percent. The most recent estimate is
8 ac (3 ha) of occupied habitat,
following an October 2008
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reintroduction on Las Cienegas National
Conservation Area (Koch 2009, p. 7).
The next survey is scheduled for 2009
(Van Pelt 2009, p. 41).
Trends – Arizona contains
approximately 1 percent of the potential
habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and less than
1 percent of currently occupied habitat
in the United States. In 1961, no blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat was
found in Arizona (BSFW 1961, p. 1).
Currently 8 ac (3 ha) are estimated to
occur (Koch 2009, p. 7). The recent date
of reintroduction does not allow for any
interpretation of trends. However,
reintroduction of the species after
approximately 70 years of absence in
the State is notable.
Colorado
Survey methodology – The most
recent survey by the Colorado Division
of Wildlife (CDOW) in 2006 consisted of
aerial line-intercept surveys. The
observers in airplanes fly line-intercepts
and record the flight path and length of
lines flown above black-tailed prairie
dog colonies, then estimate the
cumulative area of colonies from the
percentage of the flight path intercepted
by prairie dog colonies. CDOW
attempted to ground-truth 10 percent of
recorded colony intercepts (dependent
upon landowner permission) (Odell et
al. 2008, p. 1312). Improvements were
made in previous survey methods, and
results were published in the Journal of
Wildlife Management (Odell et al. 2008,
p. 1312). However, petitioners and other
parties expressed concerns that this
study overestimated the amount of
occupied habitat in Colorado (Knowles
2009, pp. 1-2; McCain 2009, p. 2; Miller
2009, pp. 1-3; Proctor 2009, p. 2;
Reading 2009, pp. 1-9; Sidle 2009a, p.
1). Specific concerns included the
method of designating active and
inactive colonies, the absence of density
evaluation in determination of
occupancy, differences in occupancy
levels compared to surrounding states,
and the likelihood of this methodology
being adopted by other states without
further refinement.
Estimates derived from large-scale
surveys, such as those conducted at a
Statewide level, are not as accurate as
smaller-scale, more intensive surveys
that can include ground-truthing of 100
percent of the habitat. This level of
effort is not feasible in large surveys.
Nearly all States, including Colorado,
dedicate considerable resources to
conducting surveys and refining their
methodologies, which contribute to
improved estimates in future surveys.
The CDOW added ground-truthing to
their most recent survey, which further
refined their estimate of black-tailed
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
prairie dog occupied habitat. We
consider the estimate provided by Odell
et al. (2008, p. 1311) to constitute the
best available information for Colorado.
Distribution – Historically, blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed in the eastern half of Colorado,
east of the Front Range mountains (Hall
and Kelson 1959, p. 365). Currently,
distribution appears to be scattered in
remnant populations throughout at least
75 percent of the historical range (Van
Pelt 2009, p. 14).
Abundance – Historically,
approximately 3,000,000 ac (1,214,000
ha) (Clark 1989, p. 17) to 7,000,000 ac
(2,833,000 ha) (Knowles 1998, p. 12) of
black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed in Colorado. CDOW completed
the most recent survey in 2006 (Van Pelt
2009, p.14). Percent occupancy was 88
percent (Odell et al. 2008, p. 1311).
Adjusted to account for 88 percent
occupancy, the most recent estimate of
occupied habitat is 788,657 ac (319,158
ha) (Odell et al. 2008, p. 1311). The next
survey is scheduled for 2011 (Van Pelt
2009, p. 14).
Trends – Colorado contains
approximately 8 percent of the potential
habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and
approximately 33 percent of currently
occupied habitat in the United States. In
1961, Colorado contained an estimated
96,000 ac (39,000 ha) of black-tailed
prairie dog occupied habitat (BSFW
1961, p. 1). Currently, 788,657 ac
(319,158 ha) of occupied habitat are
estimated to occur in the state (Odell et
al. 2008, p. 1311). This amount
represents an apparent eight-fold
increase in occupied habitat since 1961.
Kansas
Survey methodology – The Kansas
Department of Wildlife and Parks
conducted the most recent survey in
2006. It consisted of a combination of
line transect (a survey along a straight
path of standard width where the
presence of appropriate habitat is
recorded when observed) and
interpretation of National Agriculture
Imagery Program photographs (Van Pelt
2009, p. 15). No record of groundtruthing information was available.
Because the State did not determine
percent of habitat occupied, the estimate
is less accurate than if they had groundtruthed a percentage of the lands
surveyed and addressed percent
occupancy. Nevertheless, the estimate is
the most recent and best available
information regarding the amount of
black-tailed prairie dog habitat within
the State.
Estimates of percent occupancy
provided in 10 recent Statewide surveys
range from 73-89 percent, with an
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
average of 81 percent (EDAW 2000, p.
20; Sidle et al. 2001, p. 930; Bischof et
al. 2004. p. 2; Johnson et al. 2004, p. 11;
Knowles 2007, p. 2; Odell et al. 2008,
p. 1311; Emmerich 2009, p. 2;
Hanauska-Brown 2009, p. 1). If the
current Kansas estimate of 173,593 ac
(70,251 ha) of occupied habitat were
assumed to have 81 percent occupancy,
this would equate to 140,610 ac (56,903
ha).
Distribution – Historically, blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed in the western two-thirds of
Kansas (Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365).
Currently, distribution appears to be
scattered in remnant populations
throughout at least 75 percent of the
historical range (Van Pelt 2009, p. 16).
Abundance – Historically,
approximately 2,000,000 ac (809,000 ha)
(Lantz 1903, p. 150) to 7,503,000 ac
(3,036,000 ha) (BFFRF 1999, p. 4) of
black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed in Kansas. The Kansas
Department of Wildlife and Parks
completed the most recent survey in
2006 (Van Pelt 2009); it did not note
percent occupancy. The most recent
estimate is 173,593 ac (70,251 ha) (Van
Pelt 2009, p. 15). The next survey is
scheduled for 2009 (Van Pelt 2009, p.
15).
Trends – Kansas contains
approximately 10 percent of the
potential habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and
approximately 7 percent of currently
occupied habitat in the United States. In
1961, 50,000 ac (20,000 ha) of blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat were
estimated to occur in Kansas (BSFW
1961, p. 1). Currently 173,593 ac (70,251
ha) of occupied habitat are estimated to
occur (Koch 2009, p. 7). This area
represents an apparent three-fold
increase since 1961.
Montana
Survey methodology – The most
recent survey conducted by the
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks in 2008 consisted of an aerial
line intercept survey, patterned after
Sidle et al. (2001, pp. 929-931), White
et al. (2005, pp. 266-268), and Odell et
al. (2008, pp. 1312-1313). No
information was provided by the
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks regarding ground-truthing
efforts in their preliminary report,
although estimates for active and
inactive colonies were provided, and
percent occupancy was addressed
(Hanauska-Brown 2009, p. 1).
Distribution – Historically, blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed in the eastern two-thirds of
Montana, with the exception of the
northeastern corner of the State (Hall
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63349
and Kelson 1959, p. 365). Currently,
distribution appears to be scattered in
remnant populations throughout over 90
percent of the historical range (Van Pelt
2009, p. 20).
Abundance – Historically,
approximately 1,471,000 ac (595,000 ha)
(Flath and Clark 1986, p. 67) to
10,667,000 ac (4,317,000 ha) (BFFRF
1999, p. 4) of black-tailed prairie dog
occupied habitat existed in Montana.
The most recent survey was completed
by the Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks in 2008 (Van Pelt
2009, p. 19). The percent of habitat
occupied was 85 percent (HanauskaBrown 2009, p. 1). Adjusted to account
for 85 percent occupancy, the most
recent estimate of occupied habitat is
193,862 ac (78,453 ha) (HanauskaBrown 2009, p. 1). The next survey is
scheduled for 2011.
Trends – Montana contains
approximately 12 percent of the
potential habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and
approximately 8 percent of currently
occupied habitat in the United States. In
1961, an estimated 28,000 ac (11,000 ha)
of black-tailed prairie dog occupied
habitat occurred in Montana (BSFW
1961, p. 1). Currently, 193,862 ac
(78,453 ha) of occupied habitat are
estimated to occur (Hanauska-Brown
2009, p. 1). This area represents nearly
a seven-fold increase since 1961.
Nebraska
Survey methodology – The Nebraska
Game and Parks Commission conducted
the most recent survey in 2003,
consisting of an aerial line intercept
survey by county using variably spaced
transects based on the estimated number
of occupied acres in each county, with
more transects in the more densely
populated counties (Bischof et al. 2004,
pp. 3-6). Methodology was patterned
after Sidle et al. (2001, pp. 929-931).
Based on the information provided
regarding methodology, ground-truthing
was not conducted; however, habitat
was only classified as active (occupied)
if black-tailed prairie dogs were seen
(Bischof et al. 2004, pp. 3-6). Additional
habitat was classified as ‘‘possibly
active’’ if no prairie dogs were visible
but evidence of recent activity was
present.
Distribution – Historically, blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed throughout most of Nebraska
west of the 97th meridian, with the
exception of most of the Sandhills
region in the north-central portion of the
State (Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365).
The current distribution is unknown,
but the species occurs in less than 75
percent of counties with historical
records (Luce 2003, p. 17).
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
63350
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Abundance – Historically,
approximately 6,000,000 ac (2,428,000
ha) (Knowles 1998, p. 12) to 9,021,000
ac (3,651,000 ha) (BFFRF 1999, p. 4) of
black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed in Nebraska. The most recent
survey was completed by the Nebraska
Game and Parks Commission in 2003
(Amack and Ibach 2009, p. 1). The
percent of habitat occupied was 74
percent (Bischoff et al. 2004, p. 6).
Adjusted to account for 74 percent
occupancy, the most recent estimate of
occupied habitat is 136,991 ac (55,438
ha) (Amack and Ibach 2009, p. 1). An
additional 102,828 ac (41,613 ha) were
not verified and were classified as
possibly active. No future surveys are
scheduled at this time (Amack and
Ibach 2009, p. 2).
Trends – Nebraska contains
approximately 11 percent of the
potential habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and
approximately 6 percent of currently
occupied habitat in the United States. In
1961, 30,000 ac (12,000 ha) of blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat were
estimated to occur in Nebraska (BSFW
1961, p. 1). Currently, 136,991 ac
(55,438 ha) of occupied habitat are
estimated to occur (Amack and Ibach
2009, p. 1). This area represents nearly
a five-fold increase since 1961.
New Mexico
Survey methodology – New Mexico
Department of Game and Fish
conducted the most recent survey in
2003, which consisted of examination of
digital orthophoto quadrangle imagery,
followed by an effort to ground-truth 15
percent of recorded colonies (dependent
upon landowner permission) (Johnson
et al. 2004, pp. 3-4). Due to lack of
permission in some cases, the actual
amount of habitat ground-truthed was
slightly less than 15 percent.
Distribution – Historically, blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed in the eastern and southwestern
two-thirds of the State (Hall and Kelson
1959, p. 365). Currently, distribution
appears to be scattered in remnant
populations in 54 percent of the
counties that had historical records (Van
Pelt 2009, p. 28).
Abundance – Historically,
approximately 6,640,000 ac (2,687,000
ha) (Bailey 1932, pp. 14 and 16) to
8,950,000 ac (3,622,000 ha) (BFFRF
1999, p. 4) of black-tailed prairie dog
occupied habitat existed in New
Mexico. The most recent survey was
completed by the New Mexico
Department of Game and Fish in 2003
(Johnson et al. 2004, p. 11). The percent
of habitat occupied was 81 percent
(Johnson et al. 2004, p. 11). Adjusted to
account for 81 percent occupancy, the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
most recent estimate of occupied habitat
is 40,000 ac (16,187 ha) (Johnson et al.
2004, p. 11). The next survey is
underway and scheduled to be
completed in 2009 (Van Pelt 2009, p.
27).
Trends – New Mexico contains
approximately 12 percent of the
potential habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and
approximately 2 percent of currently
occupied habitat in the United States. In
1961, 17,000 ac (7,000 ha) of blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat were
estimated to occur in New Mexico
(BSFW 1961, p. 1). Currently, 40,000 ac
(16,187 ha) of occupied habitat are
estimated to occur (Johnson et al. 2004,
p. 11). This area represents an apparent
two-fold increase since 1961.
North Dakota
Survey methodology – The most
recent survey conducted by the North
Dakota Game and Fish Department in
2006 consisted of aerial surveys,
followed by an effort to ground-truth all
active colonies that they were able to get
landowner permission to visit and then
map colonies using GPS (Knowles 2007,
p. 3).
Distribution – Historically, blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed in the southwestern third of
North Dakota, west of the Missouri
River (Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365).
Currently, distribution appears to be
scattered in remnant populations in 79
percent of counties that historically
contained prairie dogs (Van Pelt 2009,
p. 24).
Abundance – Historically,
approximately 2,000,000 ac (809,000 ha)
(Knowles 1998, p. 12) to 2,201,000 ac
(891,000 ha) (BFFRF 1999, p. 4) of
black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed in North Dakota. The most
recent survey was completed by the
North Dakota Game and Fish
Department in 2006 (Knowles 2007, p.
1). 89 percent of acres were occupied
(Knowles 2007, p. 2). Adjusted to
account for 89 percent occupancy, the
most recent estimate of occupied habitat
is 22,597 ac (9,145 ha) (Knowles 2007,
p. 1). The next survey is scheduled for
2010 (Van Pelt 2009, p. 24).
Trends – North Dakota contains
approximately 3 percent of the potential
habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and
approximately 1 percent of currently
occupied habitat in the United States. In
1961, 20,000 ac (8,000 ha) of blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat were
estimated to occur in North Dakota
(BSFW 1961, p. 1). Currently, 22,597 ac
(9,145 ha) of occupied habitat are
estimated to occur (Knowles 2007, p. 7).
Occupied habitat has apparently
remained relatively stable since 1961.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Oklahoma
Survey methodology – The Oklahoma
Department of Wildlife Conservation
conducted the most recent survey in
2002, which consisted of interpretation
of aerial maps and on-site groundtruthing with input from county game
wardens (Van Pelt 2009, p. 30).
Distribution – Historically, blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed throughout approximately the
western two-thirds of Oklahoma west of
the 97th meridian (Hall and Kelson
1959, p. 365). Currently, distribution is
largely limited to the panhandle,
although scattered remnant populations
occur elsewhere throughout 87 percent
of the historical range (Van Pelt 2009, p.
30).
Abundance – Historically,
approximately 950,000 ac (384,000 ha)
(Knowles 1998, p. 12) to 4,625,000 ac
(1,872,000 ha) (BFFRF 1999, p. 4) of
black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed in Oklahoma. Ground-truthing
was conducted in the most recent
survey completed by the Oklahoma
Department of Wildlife Conservation in
2002 (Van Pelt 2009, p. 30), however the
percent of habitat occupied was not
noted (Van Pelt 2009). The most recent
estimate of occupied habitat is 57,677 ac
(23,341 ha) (Koch 2009, p. 7) based
upon the 2002 survey (Van Pelt 2009, p.
30). The next survey is scheduled for
2008 through 2009 (Van Pelt 2009, p.
30). We have not yet received any
survey results.
Trends – Oklahoma contains
approximately 6 percent of the potential
habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and
approximately 2 percent of currently
occupied habitat in the United States. In
1961, 15,000 ac (6,000 ha) of blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat were
estimated to occur in Oklahoma (BSFW
1961, p. 1). Currently, 57,677 ac (23,341
ha) of occupied habitat are estimated to
occur (Koch 2009, p. 7). This area
represents a nearly four-fold increase
since 1961.
South Dakota
Survey methodology – The South
Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and
Parks conducted the most recent survey
conducted in 2009 which consisted of
interpretation of aerial photographs
(Kempema et al. 2009, p. 2; Vonk 2009,
p. 1). Ground-truthing was conducted
on 25 percent of the surveyed area
(Kempema et al. 2009, pp. 3, 5).
Distribution – Historically, blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed throughout the western threefourths of the State (Hall and Kelson
1959, p. 365). Currently, distribution
appears to be scattered in remnant
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
populations throughout 78 percent of
the counties within the historical range
(Van Pelt 2009, p. 34).
Abundance – Historically,
approximately 1,757,000 ac (711,000 ha)
(Linder et al. 1972, p. 29) to 6,411,000
ac (2,594,000 ha) (BFFRF 1999, p. 4) of
black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed in South Dakota. The most
recent survey was completed by the
South Dakota Department of Game,
Fish, and Parks in 2009. Percent
occupancy was 93 percent (Kempema et
al. p. 5). Adjusted to account for 93
percent occupancy, the most recent
estimate of occupied habitat is 630,849
ac (255,296 ha). The next survey is
scheduled for 2011 (Van Pelt 2009, p.
32).
Trends – South Dakota contains
approximately 9 percent of the potential
habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and
approximately 26 percent of currently
occupied habitat in the United States. In
1961, 33,000 ac (13,000 ha) of blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat were
estimated to occur in South Dakota
(BSFW 1961, p. 1). Currently, 630,849
ac (255,296 ha) of occupied habitat are
estimated to occur (Kempema et al.
2009, p. 4; Vonk 2009, p. 1). This
represents an apparent 19-fold increase
since 1961.
Texas
Survey methodology – The Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department in 2006
conducted the most recent survey which
consisted of interpretation of Digital
Orthoimagery Quarter Quadrangles
(DOQQs) and ground-truthing (Van Pelt
2009, p. 37). The proportion of habitat
that was ground-truthed was not noted.
Distribution – Historically, blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed throughout approximately the
northwestern one-third of Texas (Hall
and Kelson 1959, p. 365). Currently,
distribution appears to be scattered in
remnant populations throughout 75
percent of the historical range (Van Pelt
2009, p. 38).
Abundance – Historically,
approximately 57,600,000 ac
(23,310,000 ha) (Bailey 1905, p. 90) to
16,703,000 ac (6,759,000 ha) (BFFRF
1999, p. 4) of black-tailed prairie dog
occupied habitat existed in Texas. The
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
completed the most recent survey in
2006 (Van Pelt 2009, p. 37). Percent
occupancy was not noted. The most
recent estimate of occupied habitat is
115,000 ac (46,539 ha) based upon the
2006 survey (Koch 2009, p. 7). The next
survey is scheduled for 2010 (Van Pelt
2009, p. 37).
Trends – Texas contains
approximately 21 percent of the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
potential habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and
approximately 5 percent of currently
occupied habitat in the United States. In
1961, 26,000 ac (11,000 ha) of blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat were
estimated to occur in Texas (BSFW
1961, p. 1). Currently, 115,000 ac
(46,539 ha) of occupied habitat are
estimated to occur (Koch 2009, p. 7).
This area represents an apparent fourfold increase since 1961.
Wyoming
Survey methodology – The Wyoming
Game and Fish Department conducted
the most recent survey in 2006 which
consisted of delineation of colony
boundaries from interpretation of
DOQQs, followed by aerial survey to
confirm status (Grenier et al. 2007b, pp.
115-116).
Distribution – Historically, blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed in the eastern half of Wyoming,
east of the Rocky Mountains (Hall and
Kelson 1959, p. 365). Currently,
distribution appears to be scattered in
remnant populations throughout at least
75 percent of the historical range (Van
Pelt 2009, p. 40).
Abundance – Historically,
approximately 5,786,000 ac (2,342,000
ha) (BFFRF 1999, p. 4) to 16,000,000 ac
(6,475,000 ha) (Knowles 1998, p. 12) of
black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed in Wyoming. The most recent
survey was completed by the Wyoming
Game and Fish Department in 2006
(Emmerich 2009, p. 2). Occupied habitat
was categorized as healthy (87 percent)
or impacted (13 percent) (Grenier et al.
2007a, p. 125. Adjusted to account for
87 percent occupancy, the most recent
estimate of occupied habitat is 229,607
ac (92,919 ha) (Grenier et al. 2007a, p.
125). The next survey is scheduled for
2009 (Van Pelt 2009, p. 39).
Trends – Wyoming contains
approximately 6 percent of the potential
habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and nearly 10
percent of currently occupied habitat in
the United States. In 1961, 49,000 ac
(20,000 ha) of black-tailed prairie dog
occupied habitat were estimated to
occur in Wyoming (BSFW 1961, p. 1).
Currently, 229,607 ac (92,919 ha) of
occupied habitat are estimated to occur
(Grenier et al. 2007a, p. 125). This area
represents an apparent nearly five-fold
increase since 1961.
Canada
Survey methodology – The most
recent survey was described as mapping
with GPS (Koch 2009, p. 7). We do not
have more detailed information
concerning the methods used, including
whether data was ground-truthed or
corrected for occupancy.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63351
Distribution – Historically, blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed in southernmost Saskatchewan
(Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365).
Currently, distribution is limited to
remnant populations within the same
range, primarily in Grasslands National
Park (Tuckwell and Everest 2009, p. 2).
Abundance – Historically,
approximately 2,000 ac (809 ha) of
black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed in Canada (Knowles 1998, p.
12). Surveys are conducted every other
year (Tuckwell and Everest 2009, p. 16).
The most recent survey was completed
in 2007 (Van Pelt 2009, p. 64). Percent
occupancy was not noted. The most
recent estimate of occupied habitat is
4,485 ac (1,815 ha) based upon the 2007
survey (Koch 2009, p. 3).
Trends – Canada represents the
periphery of the black-tailed prairie
dog’s range and habitat has always been
limited, but the amount of occupied
habitat appears stable (Tuckwell and
Everest 2009, p. 2).
Mexico
Survey methodology – Recent survey
techniques and extent of groundtruthing efforts was not reported.
Distribution – Historically, blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat
existed throughout the northern portion
of the Mexican States of Chihuahua and
Sonora (Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365).
Currently, distribution appears limited
to remnant populations in a small area
of northern Chihuahua (List 1997, p.
141).
Abundance – Historically,
approximately 1,384,000 ac (560,000 ha)
of black-tailed prairie dog occupied
habitat existed in Mexico (Ceballos et al.
1993, p. 109). The most recent survey
was completed in 2006 (Koch 2009, p.
3). Percent occupancy was not noted.
The most recent estimate is 36,561 ac
(14,796 ha) of occupied habitat (Koch
2009, p. 3). The year of the next survey
is not known.
Trends – Mexico experienced a
prolonged drought in recent years,
which resulted in dramatic loss of
vegetation, followed by a reduction in
black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat
(Larson 2008, p. 87). The most recent
estimate is 36,561 ac (14,796 ha) of
occupied habitat in 2006 (Koch 2009, p.
3). Occupied habitat appears to be
declining in recent years.
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
We have considered all scientific and
commercial information available in our
files, including pertinent information
received during this status review. We
relied primarily on published, peer-
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
63352
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
reviewed literature; information
provided by affected state wildlife
agencies; and information provided by
the Western Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies. We received more
than 18,000 comment letters from
individuals, agencies, organizations,
and companies. Most were form letters
that expressed support or opposition to
listing the black-tailed prairie dog.
However, we cite several submissions
that provided useful information in this
finding. Much of the data refers to the
98 percent of occupied habitat that
occurs in the United States, but we
include data on Canada and Mexico
where available.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533),
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding
species to, removing species from, or
reclassifying species on the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be
determined to be endangered or
threatened based on any of the
following five factors: (A) present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or education
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
We addressed the potential threats
discussed in the petition under the most
appropriate factor; however, we
recognize that several potential threats
might be considered under more than
one factor. For example, poisoning can
affect habitat (Factor A), and can be
affected by state and Federal regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D), but is primarily
addressed in this finding under other
factors (Factor E). In making this
finding, information pertaining to the
black-tailed prairie dog , in relation to
the five factors provided in section
4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
Some black-tailed prairie dog habitat
has been destroyed, modified, or
curtailed by:
(1) conversion of native prairie habitat
to cropland;
(2) urbanization;
(3) oil, gas, and mineral extraction;
(4) habitat loss caused by loss of
prairie dogs; and
(5) livestock grazing, fire suppression,
and weeds.
In some instances, black-tailed prairie
dog habitat continues to be impacted by
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
these same stressors. The Black-tailed
Prairie Dog Conservation Team
developed conservation plans that
address issues of habitat loss. Each is
discussed below.
Conversion of native prairie habitat to
cropland
The present or threatened destruction
of habitat due to cropland development
affects portions of the black-tailed
prairie dog’s range. Regular cultivation
precludes burrow development by the
species. This practice is the most
substantial cause of habitat destruction
that we are able to quantify. Conversion
of native prairie to cropland has largely
progressed across the species’ range
from east to west. The most intensive
agricultural use is in the eastern portion
of the black-tailed prairie dog’s range, in
portions of North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and
Texas, where higher rainfall amounts
and generally better soils result in
greater agricultural production. Land
with the highest potential for traditional
farming uses was converted many years
ago. Consequently, the present and
future destruction of habitat through
cropland conversion is likely much less
than in the early days of agricultural
development in the Great Plains.
A detailed assessment using the
National Land Cover Dataset determined
that there are approximately 110 million
ac (45 million ha) of cropland and 283
million ac (115 million ha) of rangeland
within the species’ range at present
(Ernst 2008, pp. 10-19). When the 2.4
million ac (1 million ha) of currently
occupied habitat is contrasted with the
283 million ac (115 million ha) of
rangeland, it appears that sufficient
potential habitat still occurs within the
range of the species in the United States
to accommodate large expansions of
prairie dog populations. These areas
could be colonized over time by
expansion of existing colonies if the
landowners and public sentiment
allows.
In recent years, ethanol production
from corn has expanded in the United
States (Westcott 2007, p. 1). However,
most corn is cultivated east of the range
of the black-tailed prairie dog (Westcott
2007, p. 3). Additionally, the increase in
corn production largely occurs by
adjusting crop rotations between corn
and soybeans (Westcott 2007, p. 7). We
do not anticipate that increased ethanol
production will result in a substantial
loss in the species’ occupied or
potential habitat.
The current status of the black-tailed
prairie dog, as indicated by increasing
trends in the species’ occupied habitat
since the early 1960s, suggests that the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
present or threatened destruction of
habitat due to cropland development is
not a limiting factor for the species.
Urbanization
The present or threatened destruction
of habitat due to urbanization affects
portions of the black-tailed prairie dog’s
range, particularly east of the Front
Range in Colorado. However, in a
Statewide or range wide context, loss of
habitat due to urbanization is not
substantial. In Colorado, approximately
502,000 ac (203,000 ha) of urban lands
and 21.6 million ac (8.8 million ha) of
rangeland occur within the species’
range (Ernst 2008, pp. 10-11). This
equates to approximately 2 percent of
potential habitat lost to urbanization in
Colorado. Throughout the United States,
approximately 2.4 million ac (1 million
ha) of urban lands occur within the
species’ historic range (Ernst 2008, pp.
10-18), while approximately 283 million
ac (115 million ha) of rangeland exist
within the species’ range. This equates
to less than 1 percent of potential
habitat lost to urbanization in the
United States. A very small percentage
of potential prairie dog habitat has been
lost to urbanization. As a consequence,
it appears that sufficient potential
habitat still occurs within the range of
the species, including Colorado, to
accommodate existing or large
expansions of prairie dog populations,
even if some local prairie dog
populations may be lost to urbanization
in the future.
The current status of the black-tailed
prairie dog, as indicated by increasing
trends in the species’ occupied habitat
since the early 1960s, indicates that the
present or threatened destruction of
habitat due to urbanization is not a
limiting factor for the species.
Oil, gas, and mineral extraction
The present or threatened curtailment
of habitat due to oil, gas, and mineral
extraction may affect portions of blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat;
however, we have no information that
quantifies these impacts. Qualitative
information was submitted on behalf of
the Petroleum Association of Wyoming,
the Public Lands Advocacy, the
Montana Petroleum Association, the
New Mexico Oil and Gas Association,
Oklahoma Independent Petroleum
Association, and the Independent
Petroleum Association of Mountain
States. Mapping in colonies within oil
and gas development areas in Wyoming
indicates increased prairie dog
occupancy in these areas (Sorensen et
al. 2009, pp. 5-6). Although we have not
confirmed this conclusion, the current
status of the black-tailed prairie dog, as
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
indicated by increasing trends in the
species’ occupied habitat since the early
1960s, indicates that the present or
threatened curtailment of habitat due to
energy development is not a limiting
factor for the species in Wyoming or
elsewhere throughout its range.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Habitat loss caused by loss of prairie
dogs
The present or threatened
modification of habitat due to the
extirpation of black-tailed prairie dogs
may affect portions of the species’ range.
The petitioners theorized that the loss of
prairie dogs from their habitats may
create a negative feedback loop,
resulting in their habitat becoming less
suitable. Documentation of the species’
effects on habitat is mixed. In some
instances, prairie dogs may have a
positive effect on habitat (Koford 1958,
pp. 43–62; Kotliar et al. 1999, p. 178;
Johnson-Nistler et al. 2004, p. 641;
Lantz et al. 2006, p. 2671). Positive
effects have been particularly notable in
the southwestern portion of the species’
range where the foraging and clipping
habits of prairie dogs destroy seedlings
of undesirable shrub and tree species
that might otherwise invade and
eventually convert grasslands to
scrublands. The aeration of soil from
burrow construction may increase the
growth of grasses (Koford 1958, pp. 43–
62; Davis 1974, p. 156; Fagerstone and
Ramey 1996, p. 89; List 1997, p. 150;
Weltzin et al. 1997, pp. 758–760).
Prairie dogs may also have a negative
habitat effect by reducing grass species
and causing conversion to less desirable
forb species (Koford 1958, pp. 43–62;
Bonham and Lerwick 1976, p. 225; Klatt
and Hein 1978, p. 316; Fagerstone and
Ramey 1996, p. 88; Johnson-Nistler et
al. 2004, p. 641). However, the current
status of the black-tailed prairie dog, as
indicated by increasing trends in the
species’ occupied habitat since the early
1960s, indicates that the present or
threatened modification of habitat due
to the presence or absence of prairie
dogs on their habitat is not a limiting
factor for the species.
Livestock grazing, fire suppression, and
weeds
The present or threatened
modification of habitat due to livestock
grazing, fire suppression, and weeds
may affect portions of the black-tailed
prairie dog’s range. Nonnative plant
species may increase as a result of
overgrazing and in the absence of fire,
may modify the habitat. However, the
impact of plant composition on habitat
suitability for prairie dogs is
contradictory. Some studies suggest that
prairie dogs cause deterioration in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
forage quality, while others contend that
livestock grazing causes a deterioration
in forage quality (Koford 1958, pp. 43–
62; Uresk et al. 1981, p. 200; Cerovski
2004, p. 101; Vermeire et al. 2004, p.
691; Detling 2006, p. 115). Available
information indicates that livestock
grazing typically encourages blacktailed prairie dog expansion by
maintaining vegetation at a lower height
that improves visibility for prairie dogs
(Osborn and Allan 1949, p. 330; Koford
1958, p. 68; Snell and Hlavachick 1980,
p. 240; Uresk et al. 1981, p. 200;
Hubbard and Schmitt 1983, p. 30; Marsh
1984, p. 203; Snell 1985, p. 30;
Groombridge 1992, p. 290; U.S. Forest
Service 1995, p. 5; Fagerstone and
Ramey 1996, p. 88; Wuerthner 1997, pp.
460–461; U.S. Forest Service 1998, p. 4;
Forest 2005, p. 528; Andelt 2006, p.
131).
The current status of the black-tailed
prairie dog, as indicated by increasing
trends in the species’ occupied habitat
since the early 1960s, indicates that the
present or threatened modification of
habitat due to livestock grazing, fire
suppression, or weeds is not a limiting
factor for the species.
The Black-tailed Prairie Dog
Conservation Assessment and Strategy
Following the 1998 petitions to list
the black-tailed prairie dog, a group of
representatives from each State within
the historical range of the species
formed the Black-tailed Prairie Dog
Conservation Team. The team intended
to reduce threats to the species and
increase the amount of habitat occupied
by the species. The Team developed
‘‘The Black-tailed Prairie Dog
Conservation Assessment and Strategy’’
(Van Pelt 1999), which initiated
development of ‘‘A Multi-State
Conservation Plan for the Black-tailed
Prairie Dog, Cynomys ludovicianus, in
the United States’’ (Multi-State Plan)
(Luce 2002).
The purpose of the Multi-State Plan
was to provide adaptive management
goals for future prairie dog management
within the 11 States. The Multi-State
Plan identified the following minimum
10–year target objectives:
(1) maintain at least the currently
occupied acreage of black-tailed prairie
dog habitat in the United States;
(2) increase occupied habitat to at
least 1,693,695 ac (685,414 ha) in the
United States by 2011;
(3) maintain at least the current
occupied acreage in the two complexes
greater than 5,000 ac (2,023 ha) that
then occurred on and adjacent to Conata
Basin–Buffalo Gap National Grassland,
South Dakota, and Thunder Basin
National Grassland, Wyoming;
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63353
(4) develop and maintain a minimum
of 9 additional complexes greater than
5,000 ac (2,023 ha), with each State
managing or contributing to at least one
complex greater than 5,000 ac (2,023 ha)
by 2011;
(5) maintain at least 10 percent of
total occupied acreage in colonies or
complexes greater than 1,000 ac (405 ha)
by 2011; and
(6) maintain distribution over at least
75 percent of the counties in the
historical range, or at least 75 percent of
the historical geographic distribution.
Objectives 1, 2, and 3 have been
achieved. Objectives 4, 5, and 6 have
not yet been demonstrated in all States.
The progress of individual states in
achieving these objectives is described
in more detail under Factor D.
The States also agreed to draft
Statewide management plans for the
black-tailed prairie dog. The States
approve their own Statewide
management plans. Colorado and
Wyoming have finalized grassland
conservation plans that support and
meet the objectives of the Multi-State
Plan. South Dakota has a finalized
management plan that supports and
meets the Multi-State Plan’s objectives,
but reserves the right to preserve its own
management authority and identify its
own goals and objectives. Kansas,
Oklahoma, and Texas have finalized
management plans that support the
Multi-State Plan objectives, but have not
yet met all of those objectives. Montana,
New Mexico, and North Dakota have
finalized management plans that do not
support or meet all of the objectives of
the Multi-State Plan. Arizona has a draft
plan that supports the Multi-State Plan’s
objectives, but their Wildlife
Commission did not approve it.
Nevertheless, Arizona continues to work
toward the Multi-State Plan’s objectives.
Nebraska has a draft plan that supports
the Multi-State Plan objectives, but it its
Wildlife Commission did not approve it.
In Nebraska, work toward the MultiState Plan’s objectives has been halted.
As a result of the development of the
Multi-State and Statewide management
plans, state wildlife agencies are
surveying and monitoring black-tailed
prairie dogs on a more regular basis.
These efforts will enable the States to
monitor the status of the black-tailed
prairie dog and the progress of the
conservation programs.
Summary of Factor A
Cropland conversion, urbanization,
energy development, conversion to
scrubland in the absence of prairie dogs,
and invasion of non-native species all
occur within the historical range of the
black-tailed prairie dog, and will likely
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
63354
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
continue to occur in the future.
However, when the approximately 2.4
million ac (1 million ha) of currently
occupied habitat is contrasted with the
extant 283 million ac (115 million ha)
of rangeland, it appears that sufficient
potential habitat still occurs within the
range of the species in the United States
to accommodate prairie dog expansions
over time despite some habitat loss from
these stressors. Since the early 1960s,
occupied habitat has increased in every
State. The species’ occupied habitat in
the United States is estimated to have
increased by over 600 percent from 1961
until the present time. This increase has
occurred despite continued impacts to
the species’ habitat and impacts from
other factors. The current status of the
black-tailed prairie dog, as indicated by
increasing trends in the species’
occupied habitat since the early 1960s,
indicates that the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range is not a
limiting factor for the species. The most
significant impact to the species’ habitat
that we are able to quantify is habitat
loss due to cropland conversion, and the
rate of conversion is likely much less
than in the early days of agricultural
development in the Great Plains.
Consequently, we do not anticipate that
impacts from habitat loss are likely to
negatively impact the status of the
species in the foreseeable future.
We conclude that the best scientific
and commercial information available
indicates that the black-tailed prairie
dog is not now, or in the foreseeable
future, threatened by the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range to the
extent that listing under the Act as a
threatened or endangered species is
warranted at this time. Abundant
suitable habitat in the form of rangeland
exists and is not a limiting factor for the
species. The present or threatened
modification of prairie dog habitat
presented by sylvatic plague is
addressed under Factor C, and the
present or threatened curtailment of
prairie dog habitat presented by
poisoning is addressed under Factor E.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Recreational shooting of black-tailed
prairie dogs can reduce population
densities, cause behavioral changes,
diminish reproduction and body
condition, increase emigration, and
cause extirpation in isolated
circumstances (Stockrahm 1979, pp. 80–
84; Knowles 1988, p. 54; Vosburgh
1996, pp. 13, 15, 16, and 18; Vosburgh
and Irby 1998, pp. 366–371; Pauli 2005,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
p. 1; Reeve and Vosburgh 2006, p. 144).
This may be due to the colonial nature
of prairie dogs, their sensitivity to social
disruption, and the intense nature of
some recreational shooting. However,
available information from several of the
same studies indicates that populations
can also often recover from very low
numbers following intensive shooting
(Knowles 1988, p. 54; Vosburgh 1996,
pp. 16, 31; Dullum et al. 2005, p. 843;
Pauli 2005, p. 17; Cully and Johnson
2006, pp. 6–7). Based on the research
cited above, it appears that a typical
scenario is either: (1) once populations
have been reduced, shooters go
elsewhere and populations recover; or
(2) continued shooting maintains
reduced population size at specific sites.
Some landowners maintain prairie dog
populations and derive income from
charging people for recreational
shooting. Monetary gain from shooting
fees may motivate landowners to
preserve prairie dog colonies for future
shooting opportunities. This is currently
an alternative to eradicating them by
poisoning (Vosburgh and Irby 1998, pp.
366–371; Reeve and Vosburgh 2006, pp.
154–155).
Pauli (2005) studied five colonies not
exposed to shooting and compared
population effects with five colonies
where shooting occurred. He found that
in the colonies with shooting,
reproductive output decreased by 76
percent from 2003-2004 on the shot
colonies (Pauli 2005, p. 29). However,
all colonies but one expanded from
2003-2004, although expansion was
greater in control colonies (49.6 percent)
than in colonies where shooting
occurred (25.0 percent) (Pauli 2005, p.
17). The colony that did not expand was
a control colony that experienced
plague (Pauli et al. 2006, p. 77). A
second paper on the same research
project noted a decline in reproductive
output in colonies with shooting, of 82
percent from 2003-2004, but did not
discuss colony expansion (Pauli and
Buskirk 2007a, p. 1228).
Recreational shooting may increase
the potential for lead poisoning in
predators and scavengers consuming
shot prairie dogs (Reeve and Vosburgh
2006, p. 154). This risk may extend to
prairie dogs, which have occasionally
been observed to cannibalize carcasses
(Hoogland 1995, p. 14). Recreational
shooters primarily use bullets designed
to expand on impact and rarely remove
carcasses. In one study, expanding
bullets left an average of 3.426 grains
(228.4 milligrams (mg)) of lead in a
prairie dog carcass, while nonexpanding bullets averaged 0.297 grains
(19.8 mg) of lead (Pauli and Buskirk
2007b, p.103). The authors noted that
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the amount of lead in a single prairie
dog carcass shot with an expanding
bullet is potentially sufficient to acutely
poison scavengers or predators, and may
provide an important portal for lead
entering wildlife food chains. A wide
range of sublethal toxic effects are also
possible from smaller quantities of lead
(Pauli and Buskirk 2007, p.103).
Black-tailed prairie dogs are
occasionally collected for the pet trade,
plague research, and zoo displays.
However, we have no information
indicating any adverse effects resulting
from possible overutilization for
commercial (pet trade), scientific
(plague research), or educational (zoo
displays) purposes.
Summary of Factor B
Recreational shooting of prairie dogs
can cause localized effects on a
population. However, literature
documenting effects from shooting of
prairie dogs also frequently describes
subsequent rebounds in local
populations. Extirpations due to
recreational shooting, while
documented, are rare and therefore not
considered a significant threat overall to
the species. Recent Statewide estimates
of occupied habitat further reinforce this
observation by documenting population
increases in States that allow shooting.
There is no information available to
indicate that the type of bullet used to
shoot prairie dogs poses a substantial
risk of lead poisoning to surviving
prairie dogs due to scavenging
carcasses. However, the risk to other
species that may scavenge prairie dog
carcasses should be a management
consideration if intensive recreational
shooting occurs. Since the early 1960s,
occupied habitat has increased in every
State. Throughout the United States,
occupied habitat is estimated to have
increased by over 600 percent from 1961
until the present time. This increase has
occurred despite recreational shooting
and impacts from other factors.
The current status of the black-tailed
prairie dog, as indicated by increasing
trends in the species’ occupied habitat
since the early 1960s, indicates that
recreational shooting is not a limiting
factor for the species. Consequently, we
do not anticipate that impacts from
recreational shooting are likely to
negatively impact the status of the
species in the foreseeable future.
We conclude that the best scientific
and commercial information available
indicates that the black-tailed prairie
dog is not now, or in the foreseeable
future, threatened by overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes to the extent that
listing under the Act as a threatened or
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
endangered species is warranted at this
time. Regulations specific to shooting
are described under Factor D.
C. Disease and Predation
Plague is an exotic disease foreign to
the evolutionary history of North
American prairie dogs. It is caused by
the bacterium Yersinia pestis, which
fleas acquire by biting infected animals
and subsequently transmit via a bite to
other animals (Gage and Kosoy 2005,
pp. 516-517). The disease can also be
transmitted through pneumonic
(airborne) or septicemic (blood)
pathways from infected to disease-free
animals (Barnes 1993, p. 28; Ray and
Collinge 2005, p. 203; Cully et al. 2006,
p. 158; Rocke et al. 2006, p. 243; Webb
et al. 2006, p. 6236). Plague was first
observed in wild rodents in North
America near San Francisco, California,
in 1903 (Eskey and Haas 1940, p. 1), and
was first documented in black-tailed
prairie dogs in Texas in 1946 (Miles et
al. 1952, p. 41). Plague spread
approximately 1,400 mi (2,250 km)
eastward from its initial introduction in
San Francisco into the species’ habitat
in approximately 40 years, but eastward
expansion has since slowed (Adjemian
et al. 2007, p. 365). Plague has only
spread a few hundred miles in the past
50-60 years.
Plague is maintained in nature
through fleas and certain rodent hosts
that have sufficient resistance to
maintain the disease at a low level of
63355
at the Cimarron National Grassland in
Kansas (Cully and Williams 2001, pp.
899–903) and Pawnee National
Grassland in Colorado (Derner et al.
2006, p. 459).
Several reports have suggested that
the response of black-tailed prairie dogs
to plague may vary based on population
density or degree of colony isolation
(Cully 1989, p. 49; Cully and Williams
2001, pp. 899–903; Lomolino et al.
2003, pp. 118–119). Colony complexes
with a history of recurring plague are
typically composed of smaller colonies
with greater intercolony distances. A
frequent assumption of metapopulation
conservation is that larger and closer
populations are preferable to smaller
and more isolated populations;
however, this may not be the case when
populations are exposed to a highly
virulent pathogen such as plague that
can be transferred from patch to patch
by species movement (Johnson 2005,
pp. 73-74).
Table 2 illustrates die-offs and extent
of recovery for several well-studied sites
that have experienced plague epizootics
(outbreak), although some of these sites
may have also been influenced by
poisoning. Any conclusions as to
decreasing or increasing trends in blacktailed prairie dog populations described
in Table 2 are temporal in nature and
site-specific. Long-term, large-scale
population trends appear to be
increasing.
transmission with little evident
mortality in animals carrying plague
(enzootic cycle). Occasionally, the
disease spreads from enzootic hosts to
more susceptible animals, resulting in a
rapidly spreading die-off affecting a
large number of animals (epizootic
cycle) (Barnes 1993, p. 29; Biggins and
Kosoy 2001, p. 909; Cully and Williams
2001, p. 900; Gage and Kosoy 2005, pp.
506-508). The factors that cause a
change from an enzootic to epizootic
cycle are still being researched, but may
include host density, flea density, and
climatic conditions (Cully 1989, p. 49;
Parmenter et al. 1999, p. 814; Cully and
Williams 2001, pp. 899–903; Enscore et
al. 2002, p. 186; Lomolino et al. 2003,
pp. 118–119; Stapp et al. 2004, p. 237;
Gage and Kosoy 2005, p. 509; Ray and
Collinge 2005, p. 204; Stenseth et al.
2006, p. 13110; Adjemian et al. 2007, p.
¨
372; Snall et al. 2008, p. 246).
Black-tailed prairie dogs are very
sensitive to plague, and mortality
frequently reaches 100 percent (Barnes
1993, p. 28). Two patterns of die-offs are
typically described for black-tailed
prairie dogs: (1) A rapid and nearly 100
percent die-off with incomplete
recovery, such as has occurred at the
Rocky Mountain Arsenal and the
Comanche National Grassland in
Colorado (Cully and Williams 2001, pp.
899–903); and (2) a partial die-off
resulting in smaller, but stable,
populations and smaller, more
dispersed colonies, such as has occurred
TABLE 2. SITE-SPECIFIC POPULATION ESTIMATES OF OCCUPIED BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG HABITAT PRE- AND POSTPLAGUE (PP = POST-PLAGUE)
1st Estimate
Site
2nd Estimate
3rd Estimate
4th Estimate
Comanche NG,
CO
5,000 (2,023),
1995 1
1,600 (647),
1999 1 (PP)
10,700 (4,330),
2005 1
Meadow Springs
Ranch, CO
3,336 (1,351),
2006 2
1,393 (564), 2007
(PP)
360 (146), 2008
(PP)
Pawnee NG, CO
731 (296), 1998
4
983 (398), 2000
4
3
744 (301), 1999
6
Pueblo Chemical
Depot, CO
4,333 (1,753),
1998 6
67 (27), 2000
(PP)
Rocky Mt.
Arsenal, CO
4,574 (1,851),
1988 7
247 (99), 1989
(PP)
Cimarron NG, KS
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
6th Estimate
2
2
5th Estimate
1,716 (695),
1988 3
CMR NWR, MT
3,000 (1,214),
2006 1 (PP)
3,300 (1,337),
2005 5
3,423 (1,385),
2005 6
2,712 (1,097),
2006 6 (PP)
2,429 (982),
1994 7
22 (8), 1995
(PP)
1,287 (521),
1998 3
1,688 (684),
1999 4
4,859 (1,968),
2004 10
2,064 (836),
2007 10 (PP)
1,729 (700),
2008 10 (PP)
Ft. Belknap Res.,
MT
24,000 (9,720),
1990 11
11,000 (4,455),
1996 11 (PP)
N Cheyenne Res.,
MT
10,720 (4,338),
1990 13
378 (152), 1995
14 (PP)
2,398 (971), 2008
(PP)
5
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
7
Frm 00025
7
8
1,646 (666),
2000 7
314 (127), 2002
(PP)
2,639 (1,069),
2001 4
3,321 (1,345),
2002 9
1,337 (541), 2008
(PP) 5
13,475 (5,457),
1998 11
14,230 (5,763),
1999 12
12,987 (5,260),
2000 12
12,989 (5,261),
2002 12
3,300 (1,335),
2002 15
3,913 (1,585),
2003 15
5,683 (2,299),
2006 13
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
63356
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2. SITE-SPECIFIC POPULATION ESTIMATES OF OCCUPIED BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG HABITAT PRE- AND POSTPLAGUE (PP = POST-PLAGUE)—Continued
1st Estimate
Site
2nd Estimate
3rd Estimate
4th Estimate
5th Estimate
Kiowa/Rita Blanca
NG, TX, OK,
NM
1,600 (647),
1999 9
6,800 (2,751),
2003 9
4,500 (1,821),
2004 9 (PP)
3,000 (1,214),
2005 9 (PP)
Cimarron County,
OK
1,837 (744),
1967 16
5,500 (2,228),
1972 17
10,406 (4,214),
1989 18
2,370 (960),
1991 19 (PP)
1,975 (800),
1999 20
Buffalo Gap NG,
SD
42,600 (17,253),
1980 4
13,270 (5,374),
1998 3
18,105 (7,333),
2002 4
~38,000 (15,400),
2007 5
28,993 (11,742),
2008 5 (PP)
Thunder Basin
NG, WY
6,301 (2,552),
1980 4
18,340 (7,428),
1997 4
18,239 (7,387),
1998 3
15,864 (6,425),
2001 4 (PP)
9,000 (3,642),
2003 22 (PP)
6th Estimate
13,523 (5,477),
2002 21
3,700 (1,500),
2008 5 (PP)
1
Augustine et al. 2008
Bachland 2008
3 Sidle 1999
4 Thompson 2002
5 Sidle 2009b
6 Young 2008
7 Seery 2001
8 Seery 2002
9 Cully and Johnson 2006
10 Dullum 2009
11 FaunaWest 1998
12 Vosburg 2002
13 Larson 2008
14 Fourstar 1998
15 Vosburg 2003
16 Tyler 1968
17 Lewis and Hassien 1973
18 Shackford et al. 1990
19 Shaw et al. 1993
20 Lomolino 1999
21 Luce 2002
22 Byer 2003
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
2
Some studies have documented the
development of antibodies in blacktailed prairie dogs surviving a plague
epizootic. Over 50 percent of survivors
developed antibodies at one Colorado
site (Pauli 2005, pp. 1, 71). The degree
of evolved resistance, assuming little or
no resistance initially, is not known.
However, a preliminary assessment of
natural resistance to plague found that
prairie dogs collected from South
Dakota (minimal plague), Texas
(historical plague outbreaks), and
Colorado (ongoing plague outbreaks)
had differing levels of resistance. When
challenged with the same doses of
plague inoculum, nearly all South
Dakota animals died, but 60 percent and
50 percent of animals from Texas and
Colorado respectively survived over all
doses (Rocke 2009, p. 1). Laboratory
research indicates that at low levels of
exposure a small percentage of blacktailed prairie dogs show some immune
response and consequently some
resistance to plague, indicating that
development of a plague vaccine may be
feasible (Creekmore et al. 2002, pp. 32,
38). Research on development of a
plague vaccine has demonstrated
significantly higher antibody levels and
survival rates in vaccinated black-tailed
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
prairie dogs that were challenged with
the plague bacterium (Mencher et al.
2004, pp. 5, 8–9; Rocke et al. 2008, p.
930). Oral vaccination may be effective
for managing plague epizootics in select
free-ranging prairie dog populations by
reducing mortality in exposed
individuals (Mencher et al. 2004, pp. 8–
9). However, we need to conduct field
tests before using it as a management
tool.
Since our last evaluation of the status
of the black-tailed prairie dog in 2004,
when it was removed from the
candidate list, plague has expanded its
range into South Dakota, previously the
only State where plague had not been
documented in prairie dogs (U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service 2005a, p. 1). The
disease reached Conata Basin in 2008,
despite 3 years of treating prairie dog
burrows in portions of the affected area
with insecticide in an effort to kill fleas
and thereby limit plague transmission (a
process referred to as ‘‘dusting’’).
Conata Basin is one of the largest
remaining black-tailed prairie dog
complexes and is the most successful
recovery site in North America for the
endangered black-footed ferret.
Approximately 10,505 ac (4,251 ha)
have been affected by plague through
May 2009 in Conata Basin (Griebel
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2009, p. 1). Within the plague zone,
there are typically scattered individuals
or small pockets of 1 to 2 ac (0.4 to 0.8
ha) where prairie dogs either have
natural immunity or escaped exposure
by chance (Griebel 2008, p. 4).
Plague has also been documented on
Pine Ridge and Cheyenne River
Reservations in South Dakota (MannKlager 2008, pp. 1-2). Creekmore et al.
(2002, p. 38) noted that the
establishment of sylvatic plague in
South Dakota could have a substantial
impact on population dynamics of both
the black-tailed prairie dog and the
black-footed ferret in South Dakota.
However, at this time less than 2
percent of occupied habitat in the State
has been affected by plague and
occupied habitat continues to increase
Statewide. Occupied habitat also
continues to increase in States that have
had plague present for more than 50
years.
Sylvatic plague remains a significant
population stressor and the spread and
effects of plague on the species could be
exacerbated by climate change in the
future. The extent to which the spread
of plague may expand or contract in the
future is not clear. Regardless of how
plague is affected by climate change, the
black-tailed prairie dog has proven to be
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
a resilient species. In spite of the past
and current effects of plague and
climate change and resulting impacts
acting on the species, occupied habitat
(a surrogate measure for population
trends and status) in the United States
has increased by more than 600 percent
since the early 1960s. Although the
effects of plague could be exacerbated
by climate change in the future, the
current status of the black-tailed prairie
dog does not suggest that plague, or the
combined effects of plague and climate
change, are a limiting factors for the
species in the foreseeable future, and we
do not believe these will result in
significant population-level impacts.
The present or threatened curtailment of
prairie dog habitat presented by climate
change is addressed further under
Factor E.
Tularemia and monkey pox are
diseases that have had impacts on
captive black-tailed prairie dogs
associated with the pet trade; however,
we have no information to indicate that
either of these diseases are a concern for
wild prairie dogs.
Many species prey upon the blacktailed prairie dog; however, we have no
information to indicate that predation is
a concern.
Summary of Factor C
Plague has expanded its range to all
States within the range of the blacktailed prairie dog in recent years and
has caused local population declines at
several sites. These declines are
typically followed by partial or
complete recovery. Development of a
vaccine to protect prairie dog
populations has begun, and resistance to
plague has been observed in some
individuals. Since the early 1960s,
occupied habitat has increased in every
State, even in those States where plague
has been present for over 50 years.
Throughout the United States, occupied
habitat is estimated to have increased by
over 600 percent from 1961 until the
present time. This increase has occurred
despite continued impacts from plague
and other factors.
The current status of the black-tailed
prairie dog, as indicated by increasing
trends in the species’ occupied habitat
since the early 1960s, indicates that
plague is not a limiting factor for the
species. Although Sylvatic plague
remains a population stressor and the
spread and effects of plague on the
species could be exacerbated by climate
change in the long term future, the
black-tailed prairie dog has proven to be
a resilient species. In spite of the past
and current effects of plague and
climate change and resulting impacts on
the species, black-tailed prairie dog
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
occupied habitat (a surrogate measure
for population trends and status) in the
U.S. has increased by more than 600
percent since the early 1960s. Although
the effects of plague could be
exacerbated by climate change in the
future, the current status of the blacktailed prairie dog does not suggest that
the combined effects of climate change
and plague, are a limiting factor for the
species in the foreseeable future, and we
do not believe these will result in
significant population-level impacts.
Consequently, we do not anticipate that
impacts from the disease are likely to
negatively impact the status of the
species in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we have no reason to suspect
that plague poses a significant threat to
the species.
We conclude that the best scientific
and commercial information available
indicates that the black-tailed prairie
dog is not now, or in the foreseeable
future, threatened by disease or
predation to the extent that listing under
the Act as a threatened or endangered
species is warranted at this time.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Traditionally, resident species that are
not federally threatened or endangered
are usually managed by States or Tribes.
Federal land management agencies may
have additional management policies on
their lands. The three primary means by
which agencies can effectively influence
black-tailed prairie dog populations are
via shooting regulations, poisoning
regulations, and proactive management.
Detailed information regarding existing
regulatory and management measures
affecting the species is provided below.
Arizona
Classification – The species is
classified as nongame (animals that are
not traditionally hunted, fished, or
trapped) (Voyles 2009, p. 2).
Shooting – A hunting license is
required to shoot prairie dogs. The
hunting season for black-tailed prairie
dogs has been closed since 1999 (Voyles
2009, p. 2).
Poisoning – Toxicants are permitted
for use on prairie dogs in Arizona,
typically in conjunction with human
health related to plague or safety
concerns; however, plague has not been
identified within the range of the blacktailed prairie dog in Arizona since its
reintroduction in 2008, and no
poisoning has occurred (Voyles 2009, p.
2).
Management Plans – Arizona is a
signatory to the interstate Conservation
Assessment and Strategy (Van Pelt 1999,
p. 71). The Statewide management plan
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63357
(Van Pelt et al. 2001) for Arizona
supports, but does not meet, the
objectives described in the Multi-State
Plan. The Statewide management plan
for Arizona has not been approved. The
Statewide comprehensive wildlife
strategy recognizes the black-tailed
prairie dog as a species of concern
(Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 2006, pp.
443-445). However, this designation
does not result in any protection for the
species.
Colorado
Classification – The black-tailed
prairie dog is classified as small game
(CDOW 2009, p. 2).
Shooting – In 2006, the State removed
the ban on hunting black-tailed prairie
dogs on public land (Nesler 2009, p. 5).
The hunting season is year-round on
private land and June 15 through the
end of February on public land. A small
game license is required. There is no bag
limit (CDOW 2009, p. 2).
Poisoning – Chemical control is
jointly regulated by the Colorado
Department of Agriculture, and the
CDOW and is limited to those pesticides
legally permitted for use on black-tailed
prairie dogs. Prairie dogs may also be
taken by use of explosive gases where
necessary to control damage on private
lands (CDOW 2009, p. 4).
Management Plans – Colorado is not
a signatory to the interstate
Conservation Assessment and Strategy
(Van Pelt 1999, p. 71). The Statewide
management plan (CDOW 2003) for
Colorado supports and meets all of the
objectives described in the Multi-State
Plan. The Statewide management plan
for Colorado has been approved. The
Statewide comprehensive wildlife
strategy recognizes the black-tailed
prairie dog as a species of concern
(CDOW 2006, p. 98). However, this
designation does not result in any
protection for the species.
Kansas
Classification – The Kansas
Department of Wildlife and Parks
classifies the species as wildlife (Kansas
Department of Wildlife and Parks 2009,
p. 1).
Shooting – The hunting season is
year-round on private and public lands.
A hunting license is required for
residents and nonresidents. There is no
bag limit (Kansas Department of
Wildlife and Parks 2009, p. 2).
Poisoning – The most recent
information available to us indicates
that a permit is required to use any
poisonous gas or smoke, but is not
required to use above ground toxicants
(Mitchener 2003, p. 2). According to
Kansas Statutes 80-1201, 1202, and
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
63358
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
1203, control may be legislated at a local
level. For example, several townships
have imposed mandatory control
requirements. In some cases,
landowners are instructed to control
prairie dogs on their land; if they fail to
do so, it is done by the county at the
landowner’s expense (Kansas
Legislature 2009, pp. 1-8).
Management Plans – Kansas is a
signatory to the interstate Conservation
Assessment and Strategy (Van Pelt 1999,
p. 71). The Statewide management plan
(Kansas Department of Wildlife and
Parks 2002) for Kansas supports, but
does not meet, all of the objectives
described in the Multi-State Plan.
Kansas does not meet the objective of
maintaining at least 10 percent of total
occupied area in complexes greater than
1,000 ac (405 ha) (Van Pelt 2009, p. 16).
The Statewide management plan for
Kansas has been approved. The
Statewide comprehensive wildlife
strategy recognizes the black-tailed
prairie dog as a species of concern
(Wasson et al. 2005, Appendix 1).
However, this designation does not
result in any protection for the species.
Montana
Classification – The species is
classified as a vertebrate pest under the
Montana Department of Agriculture
(Bamber 2009, pp. 1-2). The State
legislature allowed the dual status of
‘‘nongame wildlife in need of
management’’ and ‘‘vertebrate pest’’ to
expire in 2007 (Bamber 2009, pp. 1-2).
A bill to resume dual classification and
management of the black-tailed prairie
dog failed to pass in the 2009 Montana
legislative session (Hanauska-Brown
2009, p. 2).
Shooting – The hunting season is
year-round on private and public lands.
No hunting license is required for
residents or nonresidents (Van Pelt
2009, p. 21). There is no bag limit.
Poisoning – Chemical control is
regulated by the Montana Department of
Agriculture. The Department employs a
vertebrate pest specialist to assist
Federal, State, and County agencies and
private landowners with training and
certification of pesticide applicators.
There is no funding or personnel for the
Montana Department of Agriculture to
conduct prairie dog control programs.
No control is currently occurring on
Federal or tribal lands, and the level of
control on private and State lands has
remained stable in recent years (Bamber
2009, pp. 1-2).
Management Plans – Montana is a
signatory to the interstate Conservation
Assessment and Strategy (Van Pelt 1999,
p. 71). The Statewide management plan
(Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
and Parks 2002) for Montana does not
support or meet the occupied area
objective. The Statewide management
plan for Montana has been approved.
The Statewide comprehensive wildlife
strategy recognizes the black-tailed
prairie dog as a species of concern
(Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 2005,
pp. 375-378). However, this designation
does not result in any protection for the
species.
Nebraska
Classification – The species is
classified as unprotected nongame
(Amack and Ibach 2009, p. 2).
Shooting – The hunting season is
year-round on private and public lands.
No hunting license is required for
residents. Nonresidents must have a
small game hunting license. There is no
bag limit (Amack and Ibach 2009, p. 2).
Poisoning – Chemical control is
regulated by the Nebraska Department
of Agriculture and is limited to those
pesticides legally permitted for use on
black-tailed prairie dogs. The U. S.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service and landowners conduct control
work (Amack and Ibach 2009, p. 3).
Management Plans – Nebraska is a
signatory to the interstate Conservation
Assessment and Strategy (Van Pelt 1999,
p. 71). The Statewide management plan
(Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
2001) for Nebraska supports, but does
not meet, all of the objectives described
in the Multi-State Plan. Nebraska does
not meet the objective of managing or
contributing to at least one complex
greater than 5,000 ac (2,023 ha) and
does not meet the objective of
maintaining distribution throughout at
least 75 percent of the historic range in
the State (Van Pelt 2009, p. 26). The
Statewide management plan for
Nebraska has not been approved. The
Statewide comprehensive wildlife
strategy does not recognize the blacktailed prairie dog as a species of concern
(Schneider et al. 2005, pp. 203, 236).
New Mexico
Classification – The species is not
classified as having any status by the
State other than that described by the
Statewide comprehensive wildlife
strategy (Van Pelt 2009, p. 28).
Shooting – The hunting season is
year-round on private and public lands.
No hunting license is required for
residents. Nonresidents must have a
hunting license (Van Pelt 2009, p. 28).
There is no bag limit.
Poisoning – Chemical control is
limited to pesticides legally permitted
for use on black-tailed prairie dogs.
Management Plans – New Mexico is
a signatory to the interstate
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Conservation Assessment and Strategy
(Van Pelt 1999, p. 71). The Statewide
management plan (New Mexico Blacktailed Prairie Dog Working Group 2001)
for New Mexico does not support or
meet all of the objectives described in
the Multi-State Plan. New Mexico does
not support the objective of managing or
contributing to at least one complex
greater than 5,000 ac (2,023 ha),
although it does meet that objective
(Van Pelt 2009, p. 28). It does not meet
the occupied area objective or the
objective of maintaining distribution
throughout at least 75 percent of the
historic range in the State (Van Pelt
2009, p. 28). The Statewide management
plan for New Mexico has been
approved. The Statewide
comprehensive wildlife strategy
recognizes the black-tailed prairie dog
as a species of concern (New Mexico
Department of Game and Fish 2006, pp.
55, 577). However, this designation does
not result in any protection for the
species.
North Dakota
Classification – The species is
classified as a pest species by the North
Dakota Department of Agriculture
(McKenna 2009, p. 1).
Shooting – The hunting season is
year-round on private and public lands.
No hunting license is required for
residents. Nonresidents must have a
nongame or furbearers license
(McKenna 2009, p. 2). There is no bag
limit.
Poisoning – Current regulations allow
landowners to poison black-tailed
prairie dogs if they are certified
applicators (McKenna 2009, p. 2).
Management Plans – North Dakota is
not a signatory to the interstate
Conservation Assessment and Strategy
(Van Pelt 1999, p. 71). The Statewide
management plan (North Dakota Game
and Fish Department 2001) for North
Dakota does not support or meet all of
the objectives described in the MultiState Plan. North Dakota does not
support any of the objectives and does
not meet any objectives except
distribution over at least 75 percent of
the historical range (Van Pelt 2009, p.
24). The Statewide management plan for
North Dakota has been approved. The
Statewide comprehensive wildlife
strategy recognizes the black-tailed
prairie dog as a species of concern
(Hagen et al. 2005, pp. 27, 305-307).
However, this designation does not
result in any protection for the species.
Oklahoma
Classification – The species is
classified as wildlife-nongame (Van Pelt
2009, p. 30).
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Shooting – The hunting season is
year-round on private and public lands.
Residents and nonresidents must have a
valid State hunting license. There is no
bag limit (Van Pelt 2009, p. 30).
Poisoning – A permit from the
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife
Conservation is required. No permit will
be issued in a county with less than 100
ac (40 ha) of black-tailed prairie dog
occupied habitat (Van Pelt 2009, p. 30).
Management Plans – Oklahoma is a
signatory to the interstate Conservation
Assessment and Strategy (Van Pelt 1999,
p. 71). The Statewide management plan
(Hoagland 2001) for Oklahoma supports,
but does not meet all of the objectives
described in the Multi-State Plan.
Oklahoma does not meet the occupied
area objective (Van Pelt 2009, p. 30).
The Statewide management plan for
Oklahoma has not been approved. The
Statewide comprehensive wildlife
strategy recognizes the black-tailed
prairie dog as a species of concern
(Oklahoma Department of Wildlife
Conservation 2005, pp. 358, 360).
However, this designation does not
result in any protection for the species.
South Dakota
Classification – The State of South
Dakota modified the designation of
‘‘species of management concern’’ for
the black-tailed prairie dog by
designating it as a pest if plague is
reported east of the Rocky Mountains,
the Statewide population is greater than
approximately 145,000 ac (59,000 ha),
or the species is colonizing within a 1
mi (1.6 km) buffer around concerned
landowners (South Dakota State
Legislature 2005, pp. 3-4). Currently, all
of these criteria are being met; therefore,
the species is considered a pest in South
Dakota.
Shooting – The hunting season is
year-round on private lands and open
from June 15 through February 28 on
public lands, except for a year-round
closure in Conata Basin. Residents and
nonresidents must have a valid South
Dakota hunting license. There is no bag
limit (Van Pelt 2009, p. 34).
Poisoning – Chemical control is
limited to pesticides legally permitted
for use on black-tailed prairie dogs.
Management Plans –South Dakota is a
signatory to the interstate Conservation
Assessment and Strategy (Van Pelt 1999,
p. 72). The Statewide management plan
(Cooper and Gabriel 2005) for South
Dakota supports and meets all of the
objectives described in the Multi-State
Plan (Vonk and Even 2009, pp. 3-4).
South Dakota’s management plan also
notes that the state has identified its
own goals and objectives, specific to
South Dakota, and reserves the right to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
preserve their own management
authority. The Statewide management
plan for South Dakota has been
approved. The Statewide
comprehensive wildlife strategy does
not recognize the black-tailed prairie
dog as a species of concern (South
Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and
Parks 2006, pp. 65-69).
Texas
Classification – The species is
classified as nongame (Van Pelt 2009, p.
38).
Shooting – The hunting season is
year-round on private and public lands.
Residents and nonresidents must have a
valid State hunting license. There is no
bag limit for shooting. A nongame
commercial dealer’s permit is required
for capture and selling of more than 25
individuals (Van Pelt 2009, p. 38).
Poisoning – Chemical control is
limited to pesticides legally permitted
for use on black-tailed prairie dogs.
Management Plans – Texas is a
signatory to the interstate Conservation
Assessment and Strategy (Van Pelt 1999,
p. 72). The Statewide management plan
(Texas Black-tailed Prairie Dog Working
Group 2004) for Texas supports, but
does not meet all of the objectives
described in the Multi-State Plan. Texas
does not meet the occupied area
objective (Van Pelt 2009, p. 37). The
Statewide management plan for Texas
has been approved. The Statewide
comprehensive wildlife strategy
recognizes the black-tailed prairie dog
as a species of concern (Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department 2005, p. 744).
However, this designation does not
result in any protection for the species.
Wyoming
Classification – The species is
classified as a nongame mammal by the
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
and as a pest by the Wyoming
Department of Agriculture. A
Memorandum of Understanding exists
to coordinate management of the species
between the two Departments if survey
results indicate that occupied habitat for
the species is less than the Wyoming
Game and Fish Department objectives
(Emmerich 2009, p. 3).
Shooting – The hunting season is
year-round on private and public lands.
Residents and nonresidents are not
required to have a State hunting license.
There is no bag limit for shooting (Van
Pelt 2009, p. 40). Unlike most States, the
Wyoming Game and Fish Commission
has the authority to implement a
shooting closure if it deems it necessary
(Emmerich 2009, p. 3).
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63359
Poisoning – Chemical control is
limited to pesticides legally permitted
for use on black-tailed prairie dogs.
Management Plans – Wyoming is a
signatory to the interstate Conservation
Assessment and Strategy (Van Pelt 1999,
p. 72). The Statewide management plan
(Kruckenberg et al. 2001) for Wyoming
supports and meets all of the objectives
described in the Multi-State Plan. The
Statewide management plan for
Wyoming has not been approved.
However, a grasslands conservation
plan (Wyoming Game and Fish
Department 2006, pp. 23-29, 94-130)
addresses the species and has specific
management objectives consistent with
the Multi-State Plan (Emmerich 2009,
pp. 3-4). The Statewide comprehensive
wildlife strategy recognizes the blacktailed prairie dog as a species of concern
(Wyoming Game and Fish Department
2005, pp. 10, 141-143). However, this
designation does not result in any
protection for the species.
Tribes
There are several Indian Reservations
within the range of the black-tailed
prairie dog in Montana, New Mexico,
North Dakota, and South Dakota.
However, we are only aware of nine
Tribes that have black-tailed prairie dog
occupied habitat within their
Reservations (Cheyenne River Sioux
Indian Reservation, SD; Crow Indian
Reservation, MT; Crow Creek Indian
Reservation, SD; Fort Belknap Indian
Reservation, MT; Lower Brule Indian
Reservation, SD; Northern Cheyenne
Indian Reservation, MT; Pine Ridge
Indian Reservation, SD; Rosebud Indian
Reservation, SD; and Standing Rock
Indian Reservation in ND and SD).
Tribes did not provide any new
information. It is our understanding that
hunting black-tailed prairie dogs on
tribal lands requires a permit. The
season is typically year-round, and there
are no bag limits. Poisoning is
prohibited or requires a permit. Tribes
generally meet or exceed their
proportional requirements for occupied
habitat, as described in the Multi-State
Plan.
Federal Agencies
There are numerous Federal laws,
acts, and policies in addition to the Act
that encourage coordination of activities
that may impact wildlife and promote
conservation of wildlife. Some of the
most frequently encountered that may
influence black-tailed prairie dog
management are described. The Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.) requires consultation
between the Service and other Federal
agencies and equal consideration of
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
63360
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
wildlife conservation with water
resource development programs. The
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (16
U.S.C. 2901 et seq.) authorizes financial
and technical assistance to States for the
development of conservation plans and
programs for nongame fish and wildlife.
The National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires all
Federal agencies to examine the
environmental impacts of their actions,
incorporate environmental information,
and utilize public participation in the
planning and implementation of all
actions. Specific information for
affected Federal agencies is provided as
follows.
U.S. Air Force – The most recent
available information indicates that no
recreational shooting is allowed on
Ellsworth Air Force Base and Badlands
Bombing Range in South Dakota;
however, some chemical control has
been conducted (Morgenstern 2003, pp.
3-4). Similarly, at Buckley Air Force
Base in Colorado there is no recreational
shooting, but some chemical control
(Friese 2003, pp. 2, 4). We have no
information on black-tailed prairie dog
management policies from other bases.
Department of Agriculture, U.S.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) – APHIS, Wildlife
Services (WS) does not manage any
Federal lands. However, it supports
prairie dog control programs in several
States. In 2008, 129 projects were
conducted regarding the control of
black-tailed prairie dogs (primarily
personal consultations) in Colorado,
Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming (APHIS
2009, pp. 1-7). At a black-footed ferret
reintroduction site in Kansas, the
Service has an agreement with APHISWS to provide a staff person to control
prairie dogs if neighboring landowners
request control (LeValley 2009, pp. 1-2).
APHIS-WS also has supported several
research efforts in recent years regarding
disease, control, non-target impacts that
can be accessed on their website.
U.S. Army – The most recent
available information indicates that the
U.S. Army manages approximately
8,800 ac (3,600 ha) of black-tailed
prairie dog occupied habitat (Hoefert
2002, pp. 2-6). The majority of occupied
habitat (approximately 7,000 ac/2,800
ha) occurs on Fort Carson Garrison in
Colorado (Larson 2008, p. 73).
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs – The
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs’
involvement in black-tailed prairie dog
management has been principally
through management of funding for
prairie dog control programs on tribal
lands in Montana, North Dakota, and
South Dakota. The last large-scale
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
chemical control effort for the species
was directed by U.S. Bureau of Indian
Affairs on the Pine Ridge/Oglala Sioux
Reservation in South Dakota in the
1980s (Roemer and Forrest 1996, p.
353).
U.S. Bureau of Land Management –
The most recent available information
indicates that the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) manages
approximately 39,000 ac (16,000 ha) of
black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat
in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New
Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota,
and Wyoming (Lawton 2003, p. 14). The
BLM manages prairie dogs to meet
multiple-use resource objectives
including production of livestock forage
and prevention of prairie dog
encroachment onto adjacent lands. The
BLM generally adheres to State
regulations regarding shooting, although
some additional closures exist at blackfooted ferret recovery sites.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency – The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) influences
regulatory mechanisms through its
pesticide labeling programs that
determine which pesticides can be
legally used to poison prairie dogs, who
can apply them, and what other label
restrictions apply. The EPA has
approved several chemicals for control
of black-tailed prairie dogs. The impacts
of poisoning by these chemicals are
described in greater detail under
‘‘Poisoning’’ in Factor E below. Here, we
describe the regulatory process
employed by the EPA.
The EPA approved zinc phosphide as
a legal prairie dog control chemical in
1973 (Forrest and Luchsinger 2006, p.
124). The EPA has not responded to our
request to provide information on the
amount of area poisoned with zinc
phosphide or the amount of chemical
sold. This information would enable us
to better monitor the extent and effects
of poisoning with zinc phosphide on
black-tailed prairie dogs.
The EPA recently permitted the use of
chlorophacinone and diphacinone (both
anticoagulants) to poison prairie dogs.
Use of these two chemicals to control
prairie dogs constitutes new uses for
these poisons. Since 2004, State
agricultural departments have issued
Special Local Needs permits under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 U.S. C. 136
et seq.) Section 24(c) authorizing the use
of chlorophacinone for poisoning prairie
dogs in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska,
Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming and
authorizing the use of diphacinone for
poisoning prairie dogs in Colorado,
Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, and Wyoming.
In 2009, the EPA further broadened the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
potential scope of chlorophacinone by
registering it under FIFRA section 3,
which allows its use throughout the 11
States within the range of the blacktailed prairie dog. Prairie dogs are
highly susceptible to both
chlorophacinone and diphacinone,
which is why the chemicals are popular
as a control mechanism. Unlike zinc
phosphide, secondary poisoning of
several species is documented from
chlorophacinone and diphacinone
(Erickson and Urban 2004, pp. 48, 51;
Lydick 2006, pp. 1-2; Klataske 2009, pp.
1-6; Service 2007, pp. 1-10).
We have limited information
regarding the number of prairie dogs
that are killed by anticoagulants or the
amount of habitat treated. We are
concerned about the impacts to both the
black-tailed prairie dog and the
secondary poisoning of other species,
such as black-footed ferrets, other
mammals, eagles, and other raptors.
Despite this concern, the amount of
habitat occupied by the black-tailed
prairie dog throughout the United States
increased by over 600 percent from 1961
until the present time.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – The
Service manages over 500 National
Wildlife Refuges and their satellites, but
only about 15 refuges, satellites, or
Waterfowl Production Areas have blacktailed prairie dogs. Three refuges have a
majority of occupied habitat on Service
lands (approximately 6,000 ac/2,400
ha). On Charles M. Russell and UL Bend
National Wildlife Refuges in Montana,
black-tailed prairie dog habitat is
managed to enhance its value as a blackfooted ferret reintroduction site. The
Rocky Mountain Arsenal National
Wildlife Refuge in Colorado is managed
to support black-tailed prairie dogs and
a diversity of wildlife. Current Service
management policy allows managers on
Service lands to:
(1) control the species as needed for
public health and safety,
(2) translocate up to 30 percent of the
population annually with proper
coordination with State wildlife
agencies, and
(3) control the species to
accommodate wildlife and habitat
objectives after completion of a prairie
dog management plan and evaluation by
a Service review committee (Service
2005b, pp. 1-2).
Managers of Service lands are also
encouraged to work cooperatively with
neighboring landowners and local
governments through the use of
agreements and technical and financial
assistance.
Department of Agriculture, U.S Forest
Service – The U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) reduced their restrictions on
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
poisoning by rescinding a 2000 policy
letter regarding control of black-tailed
prairie dogs and allowing expanded
poisoning on their lands (Manning
2004, pp. 2-4). The USFS manages an
estimated 57,606 ac (23,312 ha) of blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat
(Sidle 2009b, p. 3). The USFS manages
prairie dogs to meet multiple-use
resource objectives including
production of livestock forage and
prevention of prairie dog encroachment
onto adjacent lands. Recreational
shooting is typically regulated by the
State and is allowed on most National
Grasslands, although some additional
closures exist at black-footed ferret
recovery sites. In 2008, the USFS
poisoned 3,679 ac (1,489 ha) of blacktailed prairie dog occupied habitat
(Sidle 2009b, p. 3). This control
addressed encroachment of prairie dogs
onto adjacent private lands. Most of this
(2,489 ac/1,008 ha) was on Buffalo Gap
National Grassland. Nevertheless, lands
poisoned on Buffalo Gap constitute less
than 0.4 percent of occupied habitat in
South Dakota.
U.S. National Park Service – The U.S.
National Park Service manages
approximately 13,777 ac (5,575 ha) of
black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat
(Van Pelt 2009, p. 71). A majority of
occupied habitat (8,993 ac/3,642 ha)
occurs on Badlands National Park in
South Dakota (Van Pelt 2009, p. 71).
Some poisoning with zinc phosphide
and shooting by National Park Service
rangers occurs in boundary areas for
‘‘good neighbor’’ purposes (Davila 2009,
p. 1). The most recent National Park
Service guidance notes that black-tailed
prairie dogs are managed under policies
for conserving native species, but that
some control may be necessary for
‘‘good neighbor’’ and human health
reasons. The use of anticoagulants is not
approved due to impacts on non-target
species (Davila 2009, pp. 3-4).
Canada – The black-tailed prairie dog
is designated as vulnerable by the
Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada. The management
plan for the black-tailed prairie dog in
Canada notes that the species will be
allowed to naturally fluctuate on land
managed by the Province of
Saskatchewan, but if colonies expand
beyond their 2007 boundaries, the
affected land manager may implement
control measures under authority of a
permit issued by Saskatchewan
Environment, with nonlethal control
measures encouraged (Tuckwell and
Everest 2009, p. 15).
Mexico – The most recent available
information indicates that there is no
shooting of black-tailed prairie dogs and
little chemical control in Mexico (List
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
2001, p. 1). The species is listed as
threatened by the Lista de las Especies
Amerzadas, the official endangered and
threatened species list of the Mexican
government (SEMARNAP 1994).
Summary of Factor D
The affected State and Federal
agencies are engaged in black-tailed
prairie dog management and monitoring
to a much greater extent than they were
10 years ago, before creation of the
Prairie Dog Conservation Team.
Nevertheless, agencies continue to have
conflicting policies regarding prairie
dog management. For example, Kansas
has an approved management plan that
supports all of the objectives described
in the Multi-State Plan, and their
Statewide comprehensive wildlife
strategy recognizes the black-tailed
prairie dog as a species of concern.
However, the State’s only complex
greater than 5,000 ac (2,023 ha), which
satisfies an objective from the MultiState Plan and is also a black-footed
ferret recovery site, potentially could be
reduced or eliminated by the Logan
County Commission, which under state
law has authority to control prairie
dogs, against the landowners’ wishes
and at the landowners’ expense
(Haverfield and Haverfield 2009, pp. 16).
In some cases, Statewide occupied
habitat is increasing in spite of, rather
than because of, agency actions, which
indicates that the species has been
persistent despite state management
contradictions. However, there is no
evident correlation between the
magnitude of increase in the species’
population in a particular State and the
extent to which a State is engaged in
proactive management. Since the early
1960s, occupied habitat has increased in
every State. Throughout the United
States, occupied habitat is estimated to
have increased by over 600 percent from
1961 until the present time. This
increase has occurred despite regulatory
mechanisms that favor control of the
species and other factors.
The current status of the black-tailed
prairie dog, as indicated by increasing
trends in the species’ occupied habitat
since the early 1960s, indicates that
inadequate regulatory mechanisms are
not a limiting factor for the species.
Consequently, we do not anticipate that
impacts from inadequate regulatory
mechanisms are likely to negatively
impact the status of the species in the
foreseeable future.
We conclude that the best scientific
and commercial information available
indicates that the black-tailed prairie
dog is not now, or in the foreseeable
future, threatened by inadequate
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63361
regulatory mechanisms to the extent
that listing under the Act as an
endangered or threatened species is
warranted at this time.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
Under this factor we evaluate
poisoning, drought, and climate change.
Poisoning
Early poisoning of prairie dogs
typically was conducted with
strychnine and carbon bisulphide, with
Compound-1080 becoming popular after
World War II (Forrest and Luchsinger
2006, p. 122). Early poisoning efforts led
to extirpation of the black-tailed prairie
dog in Arizona by approximately 1940
(Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 1988, p.
26). Both Compound-1080 and
strychnine can cause secondary
poisoning of non-target predators and
scavengers that prey on poisoned prairie
dogs. Concern over secondary poisoning
from strychnine and Compound-1080
led to a report by Cain et al. (1972, p.
6). The Council on Environmental
Quality and the Department of the
Interior requested this report and
instructed the authors to evaluate
existing animal control programs and
provide recommendations. One of the
recommendations was to remove from
registration all toxicants used for
predator control and those toxicants
used for rodent control that resulted in
secondary poisoning of non-target
animals, because such methods were
likely to be inhumane (Cain et al. 1972,
pp. 5-6).
These recommendations led to
Executive Order 11643, which in 1972
banned the use of toxicants that might
cause secondary poisoning on public
lands or via Federal programs. In 1982,
this order was revoked by Executive
Order 12342. However, poisoning
prairie dogs with strychnine and
Compound-1080 did not resume. The
total area throughout the range of the
species that was poisoned from 19151965 was likely more than 37 million ac
(15 million ha) (Forrest and Luchsinger
2006, p. 120). The broad-scale,
government sponsored poisoning that
occurred during the first half of the
twentieth century likely contributed to
the species reaching a low point of
364,000 ac (147,000 ha) of occupied
habitat in the early 1960s. Since then,
poisoning has generally occurred on a
more local scale and been conducted by
individual landowners.
Since 1973, the two most commonly
used toxicants have been zinc
phosphide (administered via oats or
other grain) and fumigants
(administered via insertion into
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
63362
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
the black-tailed prairie dog prior to
mortality than zinc phosphide.
Anticoagulants act as blood thinners,
with poisoned animals loosing blood
through various orifices, including
eventually the skin membranes, over a
period of weeks (Erickson and Urban
2004, p. 3). For example, two weeks
after an illegal application of
chlorophacinone on 160 ac (65 ha) in
South Dakota in 2005, we found dying
prairie dogs. In contrast, zinc phosphide
causes mortality in a matter of hours.
We do not have any information on the
amount of anticoagulants sold for
prairie dog control or the amount of
land treated.
The most complete information that
we have regarding the amount of blacktailed prairie dog habitat poisoned or
the amount of poison sold is from the
South Dakota Department of
Agriculture, which jointly manages
prairie dog control with the South
Dakota Department of Game, Fish and
Parks. South Dakota is the only State
that has been permitted by EPA to
manufacture and sell zinc phosphide.
Sales from the South Dakota bait station
are largely limited to South Dakota,
Wyoming, and Nebraska. The available
information indicates that sales from the
South Dakota bait station fluctuate, but
in general have increased since we
removed the black-tailed prairie dog
from the candidate list in 2004
(Cerovski 2004, p. 101; Kempema 2007,
p. 8). Figure 1 includes the total sales of
zinc phosphide bait by the South Dakota
bait station in the 4 years prior to
candidate removal and the 4 years
following candidate removal.
Figure 1. Sales of Zinc Phosphide Bait
Prior (Fridley 2003, p. 2) and
Subsequent to (Josten 2009, p. 3) our
2004 Removal of the Black-tailed Prairie
Dog from the Federal Candidate List.
Total sales for 2009 not yet tabulated.
Zinc phosphide sales do not
necessarily reflect effective application.
For example, individuals may stockpile
poison, re-treat previously poisoned
land, or apply it at rates different than
the recommended rate of 1/3 pound per
acre (Hygnstrom and Virchow 1994, p.
B89). Additionally, the South Dakota
bait station is only one of several
suppliers of prairie dog poison.
However, to provide some perspective,
if all of the zinc phosphide bait were
applied at the recommended rate of 1/
3 pound per acre, enough poison has
been sold by this one facility since
removal of the black-tailed prairie dog
from the candidate list in 2004 to
theoretically poison over 3.5 million ac
(1.4 million ha). This equates to more
than all estimated occupied habitat in
the United States with enough
remaining to poison an additional one
million ac (400,000 ha).
Some additional information
regarding the extent of poisoning is
available for other States within the
range of the black-tailed prairie dog. In
Kansas, an estimated 40,000 ac (16,200
ha) of private land have been poisoned
recently (Van Pelt 2009, p. 16). There
has been no indication of an increase in
poisoning in Montana in recent years
(Bamber 2009, p. 2). The most recent
survey in North Dakota noted that
approximately 43 percent of colonies on
private land (approximately 9,700 ac/
3,900 ha) had some indication of
poisoning, although total occupied
habitat increased (Knowles 2007, p. 2).
An estimated 900 ac (400 ha) have been
poisoned recently in Oklahoma (Van
Pelt 2009, p. 30). The Texas Wildlife
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
EP03de09.079</GPH>
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
burrows) (Forrest and Luchsinger 2006,
p. 124). Both toxicants can pose a risk
to non-target wildlife from primary
exposure. In recent years anticoagulants
such as chlorophacinone (trade name
Rozol) and diphacinone (trade name
Kaput) have become popular, as
described under Factor D. In addition to
risks of primary toxicity to non-target
wildlife, these products pose a risk of
secondary poisoning to non-target
wildlife that is not a concern with zinc
phosphide. These risks from secondary
poisoning are similar to those raised 37
years ago by Cain et al. (1972, p. 6).
Secondary poisoning has been
documented in badgers (Lydick 2006,
pp. 1-2; Klataske 2009, pp. 1-6) and a
bald eagle (Service 2007, pp. 1-10) as a
result of legal application of
chlorophacinone for control of blacktailed prairie dogs.
Anticoagulants such as
chlorophacinone and diphacinone cause
a more prolonged period of distress for
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Damage Management Service estimated
3,500 ac (1,420 ha) were poisoned in
2008 (Van Pelt 2009, p. 38). As
described under Factor D, the USFS
estimated 3,679 ac (1,490 ha) were
poisoned on their lands in 2008; the
majority was 2,489 ac (1,008 ha) in
Buffalo Gap National Grassland, South
Dakota, and 670 ac (271 ha) in Pawnee
National Grassland, Colorado (Sidle
2009b, p. 3). No other recent estimates
regarding poisoning were available.
If we total poison estimates for 2008
from the South Dakota Bait Station,
Kansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas,
and Pawnee National Grasslands, the
amount of black-tailed prairie dog
occupied habitat poisoned in 2008 was
approximately 801,000 ac (324,000 ha),
or 33 percent of estimated range wide
occupied habitat. This figure does not
include estimates for Montana or New
Mexico, and only partial estimates are
available for Colorado, Nebraska, and
Wyoming.
In a review of available research,
Andelt (2006, p. 135) concluded that
colony size increases by about 30
percent annually for several consecutive
years following poisoning; after intense
but not total elimination, colony size
can initially increase by as much as 71
percent annually. Colonies usually
require 3 to 5 years to attain pretreatment size. The author further notes
that complete eradication with 100
percent mortality is ‘‘formidably
elusive.’’ Earlier, government sponsored
poisoning efforts such as those that led
to the eradication of the black-tailed
prairie dog in Arizona were likely more
effective due to a synchronized effort by
the Federal government over a large
landscape. In recent years poisoning has
typically been conducted over a smaller
landscape such as the property of a
single landowner. Despite the long-term
and widespread poisoning of the blacktailed prairie dog, increasing population
trends both range wide and Statewide
indicate that localized poisoning is not
adversely impacting the species’ status
and long-term conservation.
The current status of the black-tailed
prairie dog, as indicated by increasing
trends in the species’ occupied habitat
since the early 1960s, indicates that
poisoning is not a threat to the species.
There is no evidence that poisoning
poses a significant threat to the species
now or into the future.
Drought
Drought is a natural and cyclical
occurrence within the range of the
black-tailed prairie dog to which the
animal has adapted (Forrest 2005, p.
528). In at least some instances,
occupied habitat tends to increase
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
during periods of drought and densities
decrease, because animals spread out in
search of food (Young 2008, p. 5).
However, we are aware of no
information that quantifies the effect of
drought, singly or in conjunction with
other threats, on the species range wide.
The current status of the black-tailed
prairie dog, as indicated by increasing
trends in the species’ occupied habitat
since the early 1960s, suggests that
drought is not a limiting factor for the
species. Therefore, we have no reason to
suspect this poses a significant threat to
the species.
Climate Change
No information on the direct
relationship between climate change
and black-tailed prairie dog population
trends is available. However, climate
change could potentially impact the
species. According to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC 2007, p. 6), ‘‘warming of
the climate system is unequivocal, as is
now evident from observations of
increases in global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of
snow and ice, and rising global average
sea level.’’ Average Northern
Hemisphere temperatures during the
second half of the 20th century were
very likely higher than during any other
50–year period in the last 500 years and
likely the highest in at least the past
1,300 years (IPCC 2007, p. 6). It is very
likely that over the past 50 years cold
days, cold nights, and frosts have
become less frequent over most land
areas, and hot days and hot nights have
become more frequent (IPCC 2007, p. 6).
It is likely that heat waves have become
more frequent over most land areas, and
the frequency of heavy precipitation
events has increased over most areas
(IPCC 2007, p. 6).
Changes in the global climate system
during the 21st century are likely to be
larger than those observed during the
20th century (IPCC 2007, p. 19). For the
next 2 decades, a warming of about 0.2
°C (0.4 °F) per decade is projected (IPCC
2007, p. 19). Afterward, temperature
projections increasingly depend on
specific emission scenarios (IPCC 2007,
p. 19). Various emissions scenarios
suggest that by the end of the 21st
century, average global temperatures are
expected to increase 0.6-4.0 °C (1.1-7.2
°F), with the greatest warming expected
over land (IPCC 2007, p. 20).
The IPCC (2007, pp. 22, 27) report
outlines several scenarios that are
virtually certain or very likely to occur
in the 21st century including:
(1) over most land, there will be
warmer and fewer cold days and nights,
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63363
and warmer and more frequent hot days
and nights;
(2) areas affected by drought will
increase; and
(3) the frequency of warm spells and
heat waves over most land areas will
likely increase.
The IPCC predicts that the resiliency
of many ecosystems is likely to be
exceeded this century by an
unprecedented combination of climate
change associated disturbances (e.g.,
flooding, drought, wildfire, and insects),
and other global drivers. With medium
confidence, IPCC predicts that
approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant
and animal species assessed so far are
likely to be at an increased risk of
extinction if increases in global average
temperature exceed 1.5 – 2.5 °C (3 – 5
°F).
The black-tailed prairie dog, along
with its habitat, will likely be affected
in some manner by climate change. A
shift in the species’ geographic range
may occur due to an increase in
temperature and drought, although
climate change would likely not pose as
great a risk to prairie dog habitat as it
would to species in polar, coastal, or
montane ecosystems. Additionally, a
strong relationship between plague
outbreaks and climatic variables has
been established (Parmenter et al. 1999,
p. 814; Enscore et al. 2002, p. 186; Stapp
et al. 2004, p. 237; Gage and Kosoy
2005, p. 509; Ray and Collinge 2005, p.
204; Stenseth et al. 2006, p. 13110;
¨
Adjemian et al. 2007, p. 372; Snall et al.
2008, p. 246). The key climatic variables
influencing plague appear to be
maximum daily summer temperature
(plague is enhanced by cooler summer
temperatures) and late winter
precipitation (plague is enhanced by
increased precipitation). Modeling
efforts indicate that shifts in plague
distribution may be a result of shifts of
pathogen, vector, or host distribution
due to climate change scenarios
(Nakazawa et al. 2007, p. 537). The
distribution of plague may expand north
and east (Nakazawa et al. 2007, p. 537).
The recent expansion of plague into
South Dakota supports this. However,
variables associated with climate change
and increased plague activity conflict.
Plague is enhanced by cooler summer
temperatures and by increased
precipitation. Consequently, the extent
to which plague may shift due to
climate change versus expand or
contract is supposition. Although the
black-tailed prairie dog will likely be
affected by climate change, it is not
apparent that a net loss in occupied
habitat or a significant impact to the
status of the species will result. The
species is adaptable to a wide array of
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
63364
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
climes, as evidenced by a geographic
range that includes 11 States, Canada,
and Mexico. Unlike vulnerable species
in polar, coastal, and montane
ecosystems, a shift in range could be
possible.
The current status of the black-tailed
prairie dog, as indicated by increasing
trends in the species’ occupied habitat
since the early 1960s, indicates that
climate change is not a threat to the
species.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Summary of Factor E
Poisoning has impacted black-tailed
prairie dogs from the early 1900s until
the present time. Efforts to obtain more
detailed information regarding the
extent of poisoning, as well as efforts to
interpret the additional recent impacts
of anticoagulants, have been
unsuccessful. Drought is a natural
phenomenon throughout the range of
the black-tailed prairie dog to which we
believe the species has adapted.
Continued climate change will likely
cause shifts in the species’ range, as
well as changes in occurrence of plague.
Additional information, particularly
regarding impacts from poisoning and
climate change, would improve our
understanding of the effects on the
species.
The current status of the black-tailed
prairie dog, as indicated by increasing
trends in the species’ occupied habitat
since the early 1960s, shows that
poisoning, drought, climate change, or
other factors are not threats to the
species. Consequently, we do not
anticipate that impacts from these
stressors are likely to negatively impact
the status of the species in the
foreseeable future.
We conclude that the best scientific
and commercial information available
indicates that the black-tailed prairie
dog is not now, or in the foreseeable
future, threatened by poisoning,
drought, or climate change to the extent
that listing under the Act as an
endangered or threatened species is
warranted at this time.
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered
the five factors in assessing whether the
black-tailed prairie dog is threatened or
endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We have
carefully examined the best scientific
and commercial information available
regarding the status and the past,
present, and future threats faced by the
black-tailed prairie dog. We reviewed
information provided by the petitioners,
information in our files, other available
published and unpublished
information, and information provided
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
by other interested parties during the
status review. We also consulted with
Federal and State land managers. On the
basis of the best scientific and
commercial information available, we
find that the magnitude and imminence
of threats do not indicate that the blacktailed prairie dog is in danger of
extinction (endangered), or likely to
become endangered within the
foreseeable future (threatened),
throughout its entire range.
There have been several impacts to
the black-tailed prairie dog, in particular
habitat loss due to conversion to
cropland, sylvatic plague, and
poisoning. Sylvatic plague and
poisoning remain significant population
stressors and are exacerbated by
conflicting Federal and state
management policies. Additionally,
climate change may potentially impact
the species in future decades. The
effects of plague could be exacerbated
by climate change in the future.
However, the current status of the blacktailed prairie dog does not suggest that
plague, or the combined effects of
plague and climate change, are limiting
factors for the species in the foreseeable
future, and we do not believe these will
result in significant population-level
impacts. In spite of these stressors and
resulting impacts on the species,
occupied habitat (a surrogate measure
for population trends and status) in the
United States has increased by more
than 600 percent since the early 1960s.
The species has proven to be quite
resilient and is not expected to be
significantly affected by these stressors
in the future.
Improved management and continued
research regarding plague and climate
change could further improve the status
of the black-tailed prairie dog.
Continuing research will help increase
our understanding of how plague,
climate change, and the combined
effects of these stressors will affect the
species in the future. This will allow for
informed management decisions related
to these stressors that could further
improve the status of the species. It
could also improve the status of the
many species that depend upon the
prairie dog as a food source or upon
prairie dog burrows for shelter. The
smaller, more scattered prairie dog
complexes that are typical today cannot
support the diversity of wildlife that
historically depended upon the prairie
dog. For example, the black-footed ferret
requires large, healthy prairie dog
complexes for its survival.
Our review of the information
pertaining to the five factors does not
support the assertion that there are
threats of sufficient imminence,
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
intensity, or magnitude to cause
substantial losses of population
distribution or viability of the blacktailed prairie dog. Therefore, we do not
find that the black-tailed prairie dog is
in danger of extinction (endangered),
nor is it likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future
(threatened) throughout its entire range.
Therefore, listing the species as
threatened or endangered under the Act
is not warranted at this time.
Distinct Vertebrate Population
Segments and Significant Portion of the
Range
After assessing whether the species is
threatened or endangered throughout its
range, we next consider whether a
distinct vertebrate population segment
(DPS) exists or whether any significant
portion of the black-tailed prairie dog’s
range meets the definition of
endangered or is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future
(threatened).
Distinct Vertebrate Population
Segments
To interpret and implement the
distinct vertebrate population segment
(DPS) provisions of the Act, the Service
and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration published
the Policy Regarding the Recognition of
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
Under the Endangered Species Act in
the Federal Register on February 7,
1996 (61 FR 4722). Under the DPS
Policy, three elements are considered in
the decision regarding the establishment
and classification of a population of a
vertebrate species as a possible DPS:
(1) The discreteness of a population 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, delisting, or
reclassification.
Both discreteness and significance are
required for a species population to
meet our criteria for classification as a
DPS. If any portion of a species
population is considered a valid DPS,
we may list, delist, or reclassify that
DPS under the Act. We address these
elements with respect to the black-tailed
prairie dog.
Discreteness
Under the DPS policy, a population
segment of a vertebrate species may be
considered discrete if it satisfies either
one of the following conditions.
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(1) It is markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors.
Quantitative measures of genetic or
morphological discontinuity may
provide evidence of this separation.
(2) It is delimited by international
governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation,
management of habitat, conservation
status, or regulatory mechanisms exist
that are significant in light of section
4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
We do not consider any population
segment of black-tailed prairie dog to be
markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors. As a
colonial species, black-tailed prairie
dogs are naturally distributed across the
landscape in a discontinuous fashion.
Black-tailed prairie dog occupied
habitat exists in a constantly shifting
mosaic throughout an estimated 283
million ac (115 million ha) of suitable
habitat that occurs across a range of
approximately 440 million ac (178
million ha). Because this discontinuous
distribution is the ‘‘baseline’’ condition
for the species, for us to consider any
geographic discontinuity as being
evidence of marked separation (i.e.,
discreteness) under the DPS policy, we
would need the best available
information to indicate that the amount
of discontinuity is over and above what
is considered to be normal for the
species.
We do not have detailed mapping of
occupied habitat throughout the range
of the species. We recognize the likely
occurrence of some small, isolated
black-tailed prairie dog colonies, but
have very limited information available
that identifies their locations. Therefore,
we looked for other measures of
discontinuity, such as measures of
genetic or morphological differences as
guided by the DPS policy, to determine
whether any populations showed
evidence of marked separation. There is
minimal information available to us to
indicate that any population segments
express any genetic or morphological
discontinuity due to separation from
other prairie dog populations. We are
aware of one study that found
measurable genetic divergence in
certain populations in Texas (Biggs
2007, p. 51). However, other studies
have concluded that genetic differences
are often as great among individuals
from local populations as those from
vastly different parts of their range
(Chesser 1983, p. 329; Trudeau et al.
2004, p. 205). Therefore, we do not
believe that genetic or morphological
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
discontinuity provides evidence of
discrete prairie dog populations.
The black-tailed prairie dog spans
international boundaries between the
United States, Canada, and Mexico,
with approximately 98 percent of
occupied habitat occurring in the
United States. However, there are no
substantial differences in exploitation,
habitat management, or regulatory
mechanisms between the three
countries. Additionally, the relative
distribution of prairie dogs between the
three countries has remained constant
in recent years. Therefore, we do not
believe that international boundaries
provide evidence of discrete prairie dog
populations.
We determine, based on a review of
the best available information, that no
black-tailed prairie dog population
segments meet the discreteness
conditions of the 1996 DPS policy.
Therefore, no black-tailed prairie dog
population segment qualifies as a DPS
under our policy and is not a listable
entity under the Act. The DPS policy is
clear that significance is analyzed only
when a population segment has been
identified as discrete. Because no
discrete populations of black-tailed
prairie dogs exist, we did not further
analyze whether any populations meet
the criteria in the DPS policy for
significance.
Significant Portion of the Range (SPR)
Having determined that the blacktailed prairie dog does not meet the
definition of a threatened or endangered
species range wide or in a DPS, we must
next consider whether there are any
significant portions of the range where
the black-tailed prairie dog is in danger
of extinction or is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future.
On March 16, 2007, a formal opinion
was issued by the Office of the Solicitor
of the Department of the Interior, ‘‘The
meaning of ‘In Danger of Extinction
Throughout All or a Significant Portion
of Its Range’’’ (USDI 2007c). We have
summarized our interpretation of that
opinion and the underlying statutory
language below. A portion of a species’
range is significant if it is part of the
current range of the species and it
contributes substantially to the
representation, resiliency, or
redundancy of the species. The
contribution must be at a level such that
its loss would result in a decrease in the
ability to conserve the species.
In determining whether a species is
threatened or endangered in a
significant portion of its range, we first
identify any portions of the range of the
species that warrant further
consideration. The range of a species
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63365
can theoretically be divided into
portions an infinite number of ways.
However, there is no purpose to
analyzing portions of the range that are
not reasonably likely to be significant
and threatened or endangered. To
identify only those portions that warrant
further consideration, we determine
whether there is substantial information
indicating that: (1) the portions may be
significant, and (2) the species may be
in danger of extinction there or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future.
In practice, a key part of this analysis is
whether the threats are geographically
concentrated in some way. If the threats
to the species are essentially uniform
throughout its range, no portion is likely
to warrant further consideration.
Moreover, if any concentration of
threats applies only to portions of the
species’ range that are not significant,
such portions will not warrant further
consideration.
If we identify portions that warrant
further consideration, we then
determine whether the species is
threatened or endangered in these
portions of its range. Depending on the
biology of the species, its range, and the
threats it faces, the Service may address
either the significance question or the
status question first. Thus, if the Service
considers significance first and
determines that a portion of the range is
not significant, the Service need not
determine whether the species is
threatened or endangered there.
Likewise, if the Service considers status
first and determines that the species is
not threatened or endangered in a
portion of its range, the Service need not
determine if that portion is significant.
However, if the Service determines that
both a portion of the range of a species
is significant and the species is
threatened or endangered there, the
Service will specify that portion of the
range as threatened or endangered
under section 4(c)(1) of the Act.
The terms ‘‘resiliency,’’
‘‘redundancy,’’ and ‘‘representation’’ are
intended to be indicators of the
conservation value of portions of the
range. Resiliency of a species allows the
species to recover from periodic
disturbance. A species will likely be
more resilient if large populations exist
in high-quality habitat that is
distributed throughout the range of the
species in such a way as to capture the
environmental variability found within
the range of the species. A portion of the
range of a species may make a
meaningful contribution to the
resiliency of the species if the area is
relatively large and contains particularly
high-quality habitat, or if its location or
characteristics make it less susceptible
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
63366
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 231 / Thursday, December 3, 2009 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
to certain threats than other portions of
the range. When evaluating whether or
how a portion of the range contributes
to resiliency of the species, we evaluate
the historical value of the portion and
how frequently the portion is used by
the species, if possible. In addition, the
portion may contribute to resiliency for
other reasons—for instance, it may
contain an important concentration of
certain types of habitat that are
necessary for the species to carry out its
life-history functions, such as breeding,
feeding, migration, dispersal, or
wintering.
Redundancy of populations may be
needed to provide a margin of safety for
the species to withstand catastrophic
events. This does not mean that any
portion that provides redundancy is
necessarily a significant portion of the
range of a species. The idea is to
conserve enough areas of the range such
that random perturbations in the system
act on only a few populations.
Therefore, each area must be examined
based on whether that area provides an
increment of redundancy that is
important to the conservation of the
species.
Adequate representation ensures that
the species’ adaptive capabilities are
conserved. Specifically, the portion
should be evaluated to see how it
contributes to the genetic diversity of
the species. The loss of genetically
based diversity may substantially
reduce the ability of the species to
respond and adapt to future
environmental changes. A peripheral
population may contribute meaningfully
to representation if there is evidence
that it provides genetic diversity due to
its location on the margin of the species’
habitat requirements.
SPR Evaluation for black-tailed prairie
dog
We evaluated the black-tailed prairie
dog’s current range in the context of the
primary stressors affecting the species
(plague, inadequate regulatory
mechanisms, and poisoning) to
determine if there is any apparent
geographic concentration of these
stressors. If effects to the species from
all of these stressors are not
disproportionate in any portion of the
species’ range, no portion is likely to
warrant further consideration; and a
determination of significance based
upon resiliency, redundancy, or
representation is not necessary.
Plague – We regard sylvatic plague as
the most substantial impact on the
black-tailed prairie dog at the present.
However, with the spread of plague into
South Dakota, the disease now is
present in portions of every State within
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:13 Dec 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
the species’ range, and the effects of
plague are presumably no longer
geographically concentrated in the
western portion of the range. The
current status of the black-tailed prairie
dog, as indicated by increasing trends in
the species’ occupied habitat in every
State, since the early 1960s, indicates
that plague is not a limiting factor for
the species in any State. These
increasing trends are evident even in
States with a long history of plague.
Plague does not appear to result in
disproportionate impacts to the blacktailed prairie dog in any portion of its
range. Therefore, a determination of
significance based upon resiliency,
redundancy, or representation is not
necessary.
Inadequate regulatory mechanisms –
We evaluated the differences in
management between States. All States
within the historical range of the blacktailed prairie dog demonstrate both
positive and negative management
practices with regard to the species.
Some States are more engaged than
others; however, all have had stable to
increasing black-tailed prairie dog
populations since 1961. Additionally,
there is no evident correlation between
the status of the species’ population in
a particular State and the extent to
which a State is engaged in proactive
management. Differences in
management and the adequacy of
regulatory mechanisms do not appear to
result in disproportionate impacts to the
black-tailed prairie dog in any portion of
its range. Therefore, a determination of
significance based upon resiliency,
redundancy, or representation is not
necessary.
Poisoning – The most complete
information with regard to the extent of
poisoning is probably available for
Arizona, South Dakota, Kansas, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas. Only
partial estimates are available for
Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming.
Little or no information is available for
Montana and New Mexico. However,
black-tailed prairie dog populations
have been stable to increasing in all
States. Some of the most intensive
poisoning we are aware of has occurred
in South Dakota, which is also the State
with the largest percentage increase in
the species’ population. Poisoning does
not appear to result in disproportionate
impacts to the black-tailed prairie dog in
any portion of its range. Therefore, a
determination of significance based
upon resiliency, redundancy, or
representation is not necessary.
We do not find that the black-tailed
prairie dog is in danger of extinction
now, nor is it likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. Therefore, listing
the black-tailed prairie dog as
threatened or endangered under the Act
is not warranted at this time.
We request that you submit any new
information concerning the status of, or
threats to, this species to our South
Dakota Ecological Services Office (see
ADDRESSES section) whenever it
becomes available. New information
will help us monitor this species and
encourage its conservation. If an
emergency situation develops for this
species or any other species, we will act
to provide immediate protection.
References Cited
A complete list of all cited references
is available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and on request
from the South Dakota Ecological
Services Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, South Dakota
Ecological Services Office (see
ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: November 18, 2009.
Sam D. Hamilton,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E9–28852 Filed 12–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
FWS-R4-ES-2009-0079 92210–1117–0000–
B4
[RIN 1018-AW52]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Vermilion Darter
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, propose to designate
critical habitat for the vermilion darter
(Etheostoma chermocki) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. We propose to designate as
critical habitat approximately 21.0
kilometers (13.0 stream miles) in 5
units. The proposed critical habitat is
E:\FR\FM\03DEP1.SGM
03DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 231 (Thursday, December 3, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63343-63366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-28852]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R6-ES-2008-0111] [MO 92210 50083 B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition to List the Black-tailed Prairie Dog as Threatened or
Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of a 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63344]]
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our
12-month finding on a petition to list the black-tailed prairie dog
(Cynomys ludovicianus) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of all available
scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the black-
tailed prairie dog as either threatened or endangered is not warranted
at this time. However, we ask the public to continue to submit to us
any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or
threats to, the black-tailed prairie dog or its habitat at any time.
This information will help us to monitor and conserve the species.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on December 3,
2009.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Supporting documentation we used in preparing this
finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South
Dakota Ecological Services Office, 420 South Garfield Avenue, Suite
400, Pierre, SD 57501; telephone (605) 224-8693. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments or questions concerning this finding
to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete Gober, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, South Dakota Ecological Services Office (see
ADDRESSES section). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that for any petition
to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants that contains substantial scientific and commercial information
indicating that listing the species may be warranted, we make a finding
within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. In this
finding, we will determine that the petitioned action is: (a) not
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but the immediate proposal
of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by
other pending proposals to determine whether species are threatened or
endangered, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Such 12-month findings must be published in the
Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
We received a petition dated October 21, 1994, from the
Biodiversity Legal Foundation and Jon C. Sharps, to classify the black-
tailed prairie dog as a Category 2 candidate species. Category 2
includes taxa for which information in our possession indicates that a
proposed listing rule was possibly appropriate, but for which
sufficient data on biological vulnerability and threats were not
available to support a proposed rule. We reviewed the petition and on
May 5, 1995, we concluded that the black-tailed prairie dog did not
warrant Category 2 candidate status.
On July 31, 1998, we received a petition from the National Wildlife
Federation dated July 30, 1998, to list the black-tailed prairie dog as
threatened throughout its range. On August 26, 1998, we received
another petition to list the black-tailed prairie dog as threatened
throughout its range from the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Predator
Project, and Jon C. Sharps. We accepted this second request as
supplemental information to the National Wildlife Federation petition.
On February 4, 2000, we announced a 12-month finding that issuing a
proposed rule to list the black-tailed prairie dog was warranted but
precluded by other higher priority actions (65 FR 5476), and the
species was included in the list of candidate species. Two candidate
assessments and resubmitted petition findings for the black-tailed
prairie dog were completed on October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54303), and June
13, 2002 (67 FR 40657). On August 18, 2004, we completed a resubmitted
petition finding for the black-tailed prairie dog (69 FR 51217)
concluding that listing the species was not warranted, and the species
was removed from the candidate list. This removal was the result of new
information regarding the amount of occupied habitat present throughout
the species' range and a reevaluation of potential threats. Estimates
from the 2004 finding were more accurate than those available during
the earlier assessments and indicated nearly 3 times more occupied
habitat was present than we originally believed. We concluded that the
trends in the amount of occupied habitat did not support listing the
species.
On February 7, 2007, Forest Guardians and others filed a complaint
challenging the decision to remove the black-tailed prairie dog from
the candidate list. On August 6, 2007, we received a formal petition
dated August 1, 2007, from Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians),
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Center for Native Ecosystems, and
Rocky Mountain Animal Defense, requesting that we list the black-tailed
prairie dog throughout its historical range in Arizona, Colorado,
Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming and in Canada and Mexico. The petitioners
requested that, if the Service believes that Cynomys ludovicianus
arizonensis is a distinct subspecies or population segment, we list it
as threatened or endangered throughout its historical range. The
petitioners also requested that the Service designate critical habitat
for the species.
The petition clearly identified itself as a petition and included
the requisite identification information as required in 50 CFR
424.14(a). We acknowledged receipt of the petition in a letter on
August 24, 2007, and indicated that emergency listing of the black-
tailed prairie dog was not warranted. We also explained that we would
not be able to address their petition until fiscal year 2009, due to
existing court orders and settlement agreements for other listing
actions. However, in fiscal year 2008, funding became available, and we
began work on this petition finding. The plaintiffs withdrew their
February 7, 2007, complaint on October 9, 2007.
On March 13, 2008, WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint for
failure to complete a 90-day finding on their August 1, 2007, petition.
On July 1, 2008, a stipulated settlement and order was signed, in which
we agreed to submit a 90-day finding to the Federal Register by
November 30, 2008, and deliver a 12-month finding to the Federal
Register by November 30, 2009. We published a 90-day finding for the
black-tailed prairie dog in the Federal Register on December 2, 2008
(73 FR 73211). Today's notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the
August 1, 2007, petition to list the black-tailed prairie dog as
threatened or endangered.
Species Information
The black-tailed prairie dog is a member of the Sciuridae family,
which includes squirrels, chipmunks, marmots, and several species of
prairie dogs. Prairie dogs constitute the genus Cynomys. Taxonomists
currently recognize five species of prairie dogs belonging to two
subgenera, all in North America (Hoogland 2006a, pp. 8-9). The white-
tailed subgenus, Leucocrossuromys, includes Utah (C. parvidens), white-
tailed (C. leucurus), and Gunnison's prairie dogs (C. gunnisoni)
(Hoogland 2006a, pp. 8-9).
[[Page 63345]]
The black-tailed subgenus, Cynomys, consists of Mexican (C. mexicanus)
and black-tailed prairie dogs (Hoogland 2006a, pp. 8-9). Generally, the
black-tailed prairie dog occurs east of the other four species in less
xeric (dry) habitat (Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365).
The Utah and Mexican prairie dogs are currently listed as
threatened (49 FR 22330, May 29, 1984) and endangered (35 FR 8491, June
2, 1970), respectively. The Gunnison's prairie dog is currently a
candidate species within the montane portion of its range (73 FR 6660,
February 5, 2008). The Service is considering whether listing is
warranted for the white-tailed prairie dog through a formal status
review which is due to be submitted to the Federal Register by June 1,
2010, under a court-approved settlement agreement.
Research on the evolutionary divergence of the various taxa and
populations of Cynomys indicates that the black-tailed prairie dog
should be considered a monotypic species (a taxonomic group without
lower level subdivisions) (Pizzimenti 1975, p. 64). Based on this
information, we determined that the black-tailed prairie dog is a valid
taxonomic species and a listable entity under the Act.
We also investigated the petitioners' request that we list the
subspecies Cynomys ludovicianus arizonensis if we found it to be a
distinct subspecies. The best available information indicates that C.
l. arizonensis is not a distinct subspecies (Pizzimenti 1975, p. 64).
Pizzimenti (1975, p. 64) researched the evolutionary divergence of the
various taxa and populations of Cynomys and concluded that the black-
tailed prairie dog should be considered a single monotypic species and
that further subspecific differentiation was not supported due to the
similarity of characteristics between purported subspecies. Later
research on the genetic variability within and among populations of
black-tailed prairie dogs in New Mexico also concluded that subspecies
classification could not be supported (Chesser 1983, p. 326).
Therefore, based on currently available information, we conclude that
there are no distinct subspecies of black-tailed prairie dog.
The black-tailed prairie dog is a burrowing, colonial mammal that
is brown in color (Hoogland 2006a, pp. 8-9). Black-tailed prairie dogs
are approximately 12 inches (in) (30 centimeters (cm)) in length and
weigh 1 to 3 pounds (lbs) (500 to 1,500 grams (g)) (Hoogland 2006a, pp.
8-9). Key characteristics distinguish the black-tailed prairie dog from
other prairie dog species:
(1) It has a longer (2 to 3 in (7-10 cm)) tail that is black-
tipped;
(2) It is generally non-hibernating, except possibly in the
northern and southern extremes of its range (Tuckwell and Everest 2009,
p. 1; Truett et al. 2007, p. 10); and
(3) It lives at lower elevations (2,300-7,200 feet (ft) (700-2,200
meters (m))) (Hoogland 2006a, pp. 8-9). Overlap of the geographic
ranges of the five species is minimal; consequently, species usually
can be identified by locality (Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365; Hoogland
2006a, pp. 8-9).
The black-tailed prairie dog is typically found in level or gently
sloping short- and mixed-grass rangeland, primarily east of the Rocky
Mountains (Koford 1958, p. 8). The species is an herbivore, consuming
short-grasses such as buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides) and blue grama
(Bouteloua gracilis) as well as several forb species (Koford 1958, p.
6). Prairie dogs also clip taller forage, without consuming it, to
enhance their detection of predators (Hoogland 2006a, p. 15). Numerous
species prey on the prairie dog including badger (Taxidea taxus),
coyote (Canis latrans), black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), golden
eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and many other species of raptor (Hoogland
1995, pp. 14-15).
Several biological factors determine the reproductive potential of
the black-tailed prairie dog. Females live 4 to 5 years, usually do not
breed until their second year, and produce a single litter with an
average of three pups annually (Hoogland 2001, p. 917; Hoogland 2006b,
p. 29). Therefore, one female may produce zero to 15 young in its
lifetime. While the species is not prolific in comparison to many other
rodents, it is capable of rapid population increases after population
reductions (Collins et al. 1984, p. 360; Pauli 2005, p. 17; Reeve and
Vosburgh 2006, p. 144).
The colonial nature of prairie dogs, especially the black-tailed
prairie dog, is a noteworthy characteristic of the species (Miller et
al. 1996, p. 20). Historically, black-tailed prairie dogs generally
occurred in large complexes, containing multiple colonies that often
contained thousands of individuals. These complexes covered hundreds or
thousands of acres (ac), and extended for miles (Lantz 1903, p. 2671;
Bailey 1905, p. 90; Bailey 1932, p. 122; Ceballos et al. 1993, p. 109).
Currently, most colonies and complexes are much smaller.
Colonial behavior offers an advantageous defense mechanism by
aiding in the detection of predators and by deterring predators through
mobbing behavior (Hoogland 1995, pp. 3-6). Colonial behavior also
increases reproductive success through cooperative rearing of juveniles
and aids parasite removal via shared grooming (Hoogland 1995, pp. 3-6).
However, colonial behavior can increase the disadvantageous
transmission of disease (Olsen 1981, p. 236; Biggins and Kosoy 2001, p.
911; Antolin et al. 2002, p. 122). Plague is a disease that was
introduced to North America and can spread from prairie dog to prairie
dog through social behaviors such as grooming that transfers fleas
carrying the disease. The disease can also be transmitted by pneumonic
(airborne) or septicemic (blood) routes (see Threats Analysis, Factor
C).
An estimated 2.4 million ac (1 million hectares (ha)) of occupied
habitat exists in a constantly shifting mosaic throughout an estimated
283 million ac (115 million ha) of suitable habitat that occurs across
a range of approximately 440 million ac (178 million ha). Historically,
unsuitable habitat included wetlands, lands with steep slopes, lands
with shallow or sandy soils, and wooded areas. More recently, tilled
croplands and urban areas have also been considered to be only
marginally suitable. Black-tailed prairie dog colonies may expand or
contract from year to year (Koford 1958, p. 12). Whether a colony
expands or contracts depends on a combination of several factors such
as climate, poisoning, disease, and shooting. Prairie dogs may also
disperse over considerably long distances and establish new colonies.
Dispersal distances up to 6 miles (mi) (10 kilometers (km)) over a
period of a few weeks have been documented (Knowles 1985, p. 37).
Dispersal can maintain genetic diversity or restore it following plague
epizootics (Trudeau et al. 2004, p. 206).
The black-tailed prairie dog is considered a keystone species; that
is, it is an indicator of diverse species composition within an
ecosystem, and key to the persistence of that ecosystem (Kotliar et al.
1999, pp.183, 185). The black-footed ferret, swift fox (Vulpes velox),
golden eagle, and ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) use prairie dogs as
a food source. The mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) and burrowing
owl (Athene cunicularia) use habitat (burrows) created by prairie dogs
(Kotliar et al. 1999, pp. 181-182). The most obligatory species of this
group is the black-footed ferret, which has a clearly documented
dependence on the prairie dog (Linder et al. 1972, pp. 23-24; Kotliar
et al. 2006, pp. 55-57). Numerous other species share habitat
[[Page 63346]]
with prairie dogs, and rely on them to varying degrees (Kotliar et al.
2006, pp. 54-55).
Species Range
The historical range of the black-tailed prairie dog included
portions of 11 States (Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming),
Canada, and Mexico (Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365). This corresponds
approximately with the Great Plains Physiographic Province, a zone of
about 400 miles wide extending eastward from the Rocky Mountains.
Approximately 395 million ac (160 million ha) of potential habitat are
estimated to have existed across a range of approximately 440 million
ac (178 million ha) (Black-footed Ferret Recovery Foundation (BFFRF)
1999, p. 4; Ernst 2008, p. 2). The species currently exists in the same
11 States, Canada, and Mexico, from extreme south-central Canada to
northeastern Mexico and from approximately the 98\th\ meridian west to
the Rocky Mountains. This very roughly corresponds to the western
halves of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and
Texas and the eastern halves of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New
Mexico. The species was largely extirpated from Arizona before 1940
(Arizona Game and Fish Department 1988, p. 22), and later described as
extinct in that State (Cockrum 1960, p. 76). However, in 2008, the
species was reintroduced into a small portion of its historical range
in Arizona via translocations from wild populations in New Mexico (Van
Pelt 2009, p. 41). Range contractions have occurred in the southwestern
portion of the species' range in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas through
conversion of grasslands to desert shrub (Weltzin et al. 1997, pp. 758-
760; Pidgeon et al. 2001, p. 1773). In the eastern portion of the
species' range in Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas,
range contractions are largely due to habitat destruction as a result
of cropland development (BFFRF 1999, p. 1).
Population Estimates
Most estimates of black-tailed prairie dog populations are based on
estimates of the amount of occupied habitat (Facka et al. 2008, p.
360), not numbers of individual animals. Biggins et al. (2006 p. 94)
evaluated several methodologies for estimating prairie dog populations
and concluded that counting actual numbers of prairie dogs is feasible
only for small areas. Determining the actual population of a colony
requires marking all colony residents. This method is reasonable for
only a small number (less than five) of small colonies (each with less
than 200 residents) because of the difficulty and impracticality of
catching and marking all residents (Biggins et al. 2006, p. 102).
Estimates of occupied habitat remain the best measure of estimating
prairie dog abundance over a larger area. The actual number of prairie
dogs present depends upon the density of animals in that locality.
Density of prairie dogs varies depending on the season, ecological
region, and climatic conditions, but typically ranges from 2 to 18
individuals per ac (5 to 45 per ha) in early spring, before the
emergence of young-of-the year (King 1955, p. 46; Koford 1958, pp. 10-
11; Hoogland 1995, p. 98; Fagerstone and Ramey 1996, p. 85). Prairie
dog occupied habitat may expand locally during drought, with a
concurrent decline in density, due to the extended foraging area needed
to obtain food. Density can also vary spatially and temporally due to
poisoning, plague, and recreational shooting as discussed in later
sections.
A more accurate large-scale estimate of occupied habitat can be
derived by applying a correction factor for percent occupancy (the
percent of habitat with burrows currently occupied by black-tailed
prairie dogs) to an initial estimate. We can estimate percent occupancy
via an on-site inspection of a portion of a survey area to confirm the
presence of prairie dogs. This is particularly important in colonies
that have been impacted by plague or poisoning. In these instances
burrows remain but prairie dogs are absent. This unoccupied habitat
should not be included in estimations of occupied habitat. We believe
that occupied habitat is a reasonable measure to use in evaluating the
persistence of the species inasmuch as comparisons involve millions of
acres (hectares) and several-fold more millions of individual prairie
dogs, whose numbers may fluctuate between and within years.
We have relied on the best available estimates of occupied habitat
from States, land managers, researchers, or other sources to evaluate
distribution, abundance, and trends of prairie dog populations. Recent
trends of prairie dog populations are an appropriate surrogate for
evaluating the status of the species.
Numerous estimates of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat are
available, spanning a time period from 1903 to the present. In Table 1,
we summarize historical estimates, estimates from a 1961 range wide
survey, and the most recent available estimates. The 1961 estimates
came from a Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (BSFW) range wide
survey that followed large-scale poisoning efforts and represent a low
point in occupied habitat. Other estimates are from a variety of
agencies and individuals as cited in Table 1. Additional estimates
derived between 1961 and the most recent available estimates are also
available in the Service's 2000 12-month finding and in the 2004
species assessment that removed the black-tailed prairie dog from the
candidate list (Service 2000, p. 98; Service 2004, p. 7).
Some of these intermediate estimates are derived from field
efforts, others are based on censuses by phone or mail, and the
remainder are a result of desktop extrapolations. Desktop
extrapolations used known estimates of occupied habitat that existed
for portions of a state to derive a Statewide estimate for occupied
habitat. These studies provide intermediate estimates of occupied
habitat and additional information regarding trends.
Table 1. Occupied Habitat Estimates for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical ac 1961 (BSFW) ac Most Recent ac Year of Most
State or Country (ha)\A\ (ha)\A\ (ha) Recent Survey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona 650,000 (263,000) 0 8 (3)\3\ 2008
\1\
1,396,000
(565,000) \2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado 3,000,000 96,000 788,657 (319,158) 2006
(1,214,000) \4\ (39,000).......... \6\
5,445,000
(2,204,000) \2\.
7,000,000
(2,833,000) \5\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63347]]
Kansas 2,000,000 50,000 173,593 2006
(809,000) \7\ (20,000).......... (70,251)\3\
2,500,000
(1,012,000) \5\.
7,503,000
(3,036,000) \2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana 1,471,000 28,000 193,862 2008
(595,000) \8\ (11,000).......... (78,453)\9\
6,000,000
(2,428,000) \5\.
10,667,000
(4,317,000) \2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska 6,000,000 30,000 136,991 2003
(2,428,000) \5\ (12,000).......... (55,438)\10\
9,021,000
(3,651,000) \2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico 6,640,000 17,000 40,000 2003
(2,687,000) \11\ (7,000)........... (16,187)\12\
8,950,000
(3,622,000) \2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Dakota 2,000,000 20,000 22,597 (9,145)\13\ 2006
(809,000) \5\ (8,000)...........
2,201,000
(891,000) \2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma 950,000 (384,000) 15,000 57,677 (23,341)\3\ 2002
\5\ (6,000)...........
4,625,000
(1,872,000) \2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Dakota 1,757,000 33,000 630,849 2006
(711,000) \14\ (13,000).......... (255,296)\15\
6,411,000
(2,594,000) \2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas 16,703,000 26,000 115,000 2006
(6,759,000) \2\ (11,000).......... (46,539)\3\
57,600,000
(23,310,000) \16\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming 5,786,000 49,000 229,607 2006
(2,342,000) \2\ (20,000).......... (92,919)\17\
16,000,000
(6,475,000) \5\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Total 78,708,000 364,000 2,388,841 ..................
(31,852,000) \2\ (147,000)......... (966,730)
102,583,000
(41,514,000).
(non-BFFRF
citations) \B\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada 2,000 (1,000) \5\ 4,485 (1,815)\3\ 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico 1,384,000 36,561 (14,796)\3\ 2006
(560,000) \18\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range wide Total 80,094,000- 2,429,887 ..................
103,969,000 (983,340) \1\
(32,413,000-
42,075,000).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\A\ Estimates rounded to the nearest thousand.
\B\ Low U.S. total estimate derived from the total of all BFFRF\2\ estimates (a single methodology described
below) for each State. High total estimates were derived by adding all other estimates; in States with more
than one other historical estimate (CO, KS, MT) the average was used.
\1\ Van Pelt 1998
\2\ BFFRF 1999
\3\ Koch 2009
\4\ Clark 1989
\5\ Knowles 1998
\6\ Odell et al. 2008
\7\ Lantz 1903
\8\ Flath and Ibach 2009
\9\ Hanauska-Brown 2009
\10\ Amack and Ibach 2009
\11\ Bailey 1932
\12\ Johnson et al. 2004
\13\ Knowles 2007
\14\ Linder et al. 1972
\15\ Vonk 2009
\16\ Bailey 1905
\17\ Grenier et al. 2007a
\18\ Ceballos et al. 1993
Historical estimates of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat
for a particular State are often quite variable. This is likely due to
the imprecise survey methodologies used to derive early estimates.
Additionally, some historical estimates were made after land conversion
and poisoning had been initiated. If the average historical estimates
(not including estimates from BFFRF 1999) in Table 1 for each State,
Canada, and Mexico are summed, the range wide historical estimate of
occupied habitat is approximately 104 million ac (42 million ha).
The Black-footed Ferret Recovery Foundation (BFFRF) (1999, p. 4)
addressed this variability in historical estimates by evaluating U.S.
Geological Survey land use and land cover data throughout the range of
the black-tailed prairie dog. The BFFRF assumed that suitable land
cover types such as grassland and agricultural land were potential
habitat for the species historically. Other land cover types such as
forests, rocky areas, wetlands, and lands with excessive slopes were
not considered. Whicker and Detling (1988, p. 778) estimated that
black-tailed
[[Page 63348]]
prairie dogs occupied at least 20 percent of short- and mixed-grass
prairies historically. BFFRF applied this 20 percent historical
occupancy rate to its estimate of potential habitat to derive an
estimate of approximately 79 million ac (32 million ha) of historically
occupied habitat in the United States.
A reasonable range wide estimate of historically occupied habitat
for the black-tailed prairie dog that considers all historical
estimates from Table 1 is approximately 80 to104 million ac (32 to 42
million ha).
In 1961, the BSFW, a predecessor agency of the Service, tabulated
habitat estimates on a county-by-county basis throughout the range of
all prairie dog species in the United States (BSFW 1961, p. 1). These
estimates were completed by District Agents for BSFW who were familiar
with remaining extant prairie dog populations. The survey was completed
in response to concerns from within the agency regarding possible
adverse impacts to prairie dogs following large-scale poisoning (Oakes
2000, p. 167). These data provide an estimate for a single point in
time when prairie dogs were reduced to very low numbers following a
half century of intensive, coordinated government poisoning efforts.
The petitioners questioned the use of the BSFW (1961) survey due to
its brevity and the fact that it represented an extreme low point in
black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat. However, this survey has
been cited in other seminal documents, including Leopold (1964, p. 38)
and Cain et al. (1972, Appendix VIII). These latter two documents
resulted in substantial changes in predator and rodent control policies
in the United States, including a ban of Compound 1080, a highly toxic
poison once widely used to control prairie dogs and other mammalian
species. We agree that the early 1960s likely represented an extreme
low in occupied habitat, but believe that the BSFW (1961) estimates of
occupied habitat for the species are useful for trend analyses and
represent the best available information for that time period.
The most recent Statewide estimates vary in survey date from 2002
to 2008 and include all black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat known
in a given State. The most current range wide estimate is approximately
2.4 million ac (1 million ha) including Canada and Mexico. Trends for
occupied habitat in the United States appear to be increasing from the
low point of 364,000 ac (147,000 ha) in 1961. Statewide trends for the
same period (1961 - present) range from nearly stable in North Dakota
to an approximately 19-fold increase in South Dakota. The status in
Arizona is currently indeterminate due to the recent reintroduction.
We recognize that different methodologies were used at different
times and in different locales for the various occupied habitat
estimates. However, we believe that these estimates are the best
available information and are comparable for the purpose of determining
general population trends. Methods for determining occupied habitat
have improved in recent years with the advent of tools such as aerial
survey, satellite imagery, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
Consequently, estimates that use these tools can be expected to be more
accurate. Ground-truthing a percentage of the land surveyed to
determine the percent of habitat occupied adds additional confidence to
any large-scale estimate. States continue to refine their
methodologies. A workshop is being planned in 2010 by the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to further evaluate current
survey methodologies for accuracy, statistical validity, cost, and
other considerations. More detailed information regarding survey
methodology, distribution, abundance, and trends for each State is
provided as follows.
Arizona
Survey methodology - The most recent survey by the Arizona Game and
Fish Department in 2008 consisted of ground mapping, including ground-
truthing (Van Pelt 2009, p. 41). The small amount of occupied habitat
enabled a detailed survey effort with ground-truthing throughout and a
high degree of confidence in the estimate.
Distribution - Historically, black-tailed prairie dog occupied
habitat existed in extreme southeastern Arizona (Hall and Kelson 1959,
p. 365). The species was extirpated from the State by approximately
1940 (Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 1988, p. 22). In October 2008, the
species was reintroduced on Las Cienegas National Conservation Area
(Voyles 2009, pp. 1-2).
Abundance - Historically approximately 650,000 ac (263,000 ha) (Van
Pelt 1998, p. 1) to 1,396,000 ac (565,000 ha) (BFFRF 1999, p. 4) of
black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat existed in Arizona. The most
recent survey was conducted in 2008 (Van Pelt 2009, p. 41) and percent
occupancy was 100 percent. The most recent estimate is 8 ac (3 ha) of
occupied habitat, following an October 2008 reintroduction on Las
Cienegas National Conservation Area (Koch 2009, p. 7). The next survey
is scheduled for 2009 (Van Pelt 2009, p. 41).
Trends - Arizona contains approximately 1 percent of the potential
habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and less than 1 percent of currently
occupied habitat in the United States. In 1961, no black-tailed prairie
dog occupied habitat was found in Arizona (BSFW 1961, p. 1). Currently
8 ac (3 ha) are estimated to occur (Koch 2009, p. 7). The recent date
of reintroduction does not allow for any interpretation of trends.
However, reintroduction of the species after approximately 70 years of
absence in the State is notable.
Colorado
Survey methodology - The most recent survey by the Colorado
Division of Wildlife (CDOW) in 2006 consisted of aerial line-intercept
surveys. The observers in airplanes fly line-intercepts and record the
flight path and length of lines flown above black-tailed prairie dog
colonies, then estimate the cumulative area of colonies from the
percentage of the flight path intercepted by prairie dog colonies. CDOW
attempted to ground-truth 10 percent of recorded colony intercepts
(dependent upon landowner permission) (Odell et al. 2008, p. 1312).
Improvements were made in previous survey methods, and results were
published in the Journal of Wildlife Management (Odell et al. 2008, p.
1312). However, petitioners and other parties expressed concerns that
this study overestimated the amount of occupied habitat in Colorado
(Knowles 2009, pp. 1-2; McCain 2009, p. 2; Miller 2009, pp. 1-3;
Proctor 2009, p. 2; Reading 2009, pp. 1-9; Sidle 2009a, p. 1). Specific
concerns included the method of designating active and inactive
colonies, the absence of density evaluation in determination of
occupancy, differences in occupancy levels compared to surrounding
states, and the likelihood of this methodology being adopted by other
states without further refinement.
Estimates derived from large-scale surveys, such as those conducted
at a Statewide level, are not as accurate as smaller-scale, more
intensive surveys that can include ground-truthing of 100 percent of
the habitat. This level of effort is not feasible in large surveys.
Nearly all States, including Colorado, dedicate considerable resources
to conducting surveys and refining their methodologies, which
contribute to improved estimates in future surveys. The CDOW added
ground-truthing to their most recent survey, which further refined
their estimate of black-tailed
[[Page 63349]]
prairie dog occupied habitat. We consider the estimate provided by
Odell et al. (2008, p. 1311) to constitute the best available
information for Colorado.
Distribution - Historically, black-tailed prairie dog occupied
habitat existed in the eastern half of Colorado, east of the Front
Range mountains (Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365). Currently, distribution
appears to be scattered in remnant populations throughout at least 75
percent of the historical range (Van Pelt 2009, p. 14).
Abundance - Historically, approximately 3,000,000 ac (1,214,000 ha)
(Clark 1989, p. 17) to 7,000,000 ac (2,833,000 ha) (Knowles 1998, p.
12) of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat existed in Colorado.
CDOW completed the most recent survey in 2006 (Van Pelt 2009, p.14).
Percent occupancy was 88 percent (Odell et al. 2008, p. 1311). Adjusted
to account for 88 percent occupancy, the most recent estimate of
occupied habitat is 788,657 ac (319,158 ha) (Odell et al. 2008, p.
1311). The next survey is scheduled for 2011 (Van Pelt 2009, p. 14).
Trends - Colorado contains approximately 8 percent of the potential
habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and approximately 33 percent of currently
occupied habitat in the United States. In 1961, Colorado contained an
estimated 96,000 ac (39,000 ha) of black-tailed prairie dog occupied
habitat (BSFW 1961, p. 1). Currently, 788,657 ac (319,158 ha) of
occupied habitat are estimated to occur in the state (Odell et al.
2008, p. 1311). This amount represents an apparent eight-fold increase
in occupied habitat since 1961.
Kansas
Survey methodology - The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks
conducted the most recent survey in 2006. It consisted of a combination
of line transect (a survey along a straight path of standard width
where the presence of appropriate habitat is recorded when observed)
and interpretation of National Agriculture Imagery Program photographs
(Van Pelt 2009, p. 15). No record of ground-truthing information was
available. Because the State did not determine percent of habitat
occupied, the estimate is less accurate than if they had ground-truthed
a percentage of the lands surveyed and addressed percent occupancy.
Nevertheless, the estimate is the most recent and best available
information regarding the amount of black-tailed prairie dog habitat
within the State.
Estimates of percent occupancy provided in 10 recent Statewide
surveys range from 73-89 percent, with an average of 81 percent (EDAW
2000, p. 20; Sidle et al. 2001, p. 930; Bischof et al. 2004. p. 2;
Johnson et al. 2004, p. 11; Knowles 2007, p. 2; Odell et al. 2008, p.
1311; Emmerich 2009, p. 2; Hanauska-Brown 2009, p. 1). If the current
Kansas estimate of 173,593 ac (70,251 ha) of occupied habitat were
assumed to have 81 percent occupancy, this would equate to 140,610 ac
(56,903 ha).
Distribution - Historically, black-tailed prairie dog occupied
habitat existed in the western two-thirds of Kansas (Hall and Kelson
1959, p. 365). Currently, distribution appears to be scattered in
remnant populations throughout at least 75 percent of the historical
range (Van Pelt 2009, p. 16).
Abundance - Historically, approximately 2,000,000 ac (809,000 ha)
(Lantz 1903, p. 150) to 7,503,000 ac (3,036,000 ha) (BFFRF 1999, p. 4)
of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat existed in Kansas. The
Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks completed the most recent
survey in 2006 (Van Pelt 2009); it did not note percent occupancy. The
most recent estimate is 173,593 ac (70,251 ha) (Van Pelt 2009, p. 15).
The next survey is scheduled for 2009 (Van Pelt 2009, p. 15).
Trends - Kansas contains approximately 10 percent of the potential
habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and approximately 7 percent of currently
occupied habitat in the United States. In 1961, 50,000 ac (20,000 ha)
of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat were estimated to occur in
Kansas (BSFW 1961, p. 1). Currently 173,593 ac (70,251 ha) of occupied
habitat are estimated to occur (Koch 2009, p. 7). This area represents
an apparent three-fold increase since 1961.
Montana
Survey methodology - The most recent survey conducted by the
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks in 2008 consisted of an
aerial line intercept survey, patterned after Sidle et al. (2001, pp.
929-931), White et al. (2005, pp. 266-268), and Odell et al. (2008, pp.
1312-1313). No information was provided by the Montana Department of
Fish, Wildlife and Parks regarding ground-truthing efforts in their
preliminary report, although estimates for active and inactive colonies
were provided, and percent occupancy was addressed (Hanauska-Brown
2009, p. 1).
Distribution - Historically, black-tailed prairie dog occupied
habitat existed in the eastern two-thirds of Montana, with the
exception of the northeastern corner of the State (Hall and Kelson
1959, p. 365). Currently, distribution appears to be scattered in
remnant populations throughout over 90 percent of the historical range
(Van Pelt 2009, p. 20).
Abundance - Historically, approximately 1,471,000 ac (595,000 ha)
(Flath and Clark 1986, p. 67) to 10,667,000 ac (4,317,000 ha) (BFFRF
1999, p. 4) of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat existed in
Montana. The most recent survey was completed by the Montana Department
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks in 2008 (Van Pelt 2009, p. 19). The percent
of habitat occupied was 85 percent (Hanauska-Brown 2009, p. 1).
Adjusted to account for 85 percent occupancy, the most recent estimate
of occupied habitat is 193,862 ac (78,453 ha) (Hanauska-Brown 2009, p.
1). The next survey is scheduled for 2011.
Trends - Montana contains approximately 12 percent of the potential
habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and approximately 8 percent of currently
occupied habitat in the United States. In 1961, an estimated 28,000 ac
(11,000 ha) of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat occurred in
Montana (BSFW 1961, p. 1). Currently, 193,862 ac (78,453 ha) of
occupied habitat are estimated to occur (Hanauska-Brown 2009, p. 1).
This area represents nearly a seven-fold increase since 1961.
Nebraska
Survey methodology - The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
conducted the most recent survey in 2003, consisting of an aerial line
intercept survey by county using variably spaced transects based on the
estimated number of occupied acres in each county, with more transects
in the more densely populated counties (Bischof et al. 2004, pp. 3-6).
Methodology was patterned after Sidle et al. (2001, pp. 929-931). Based
on the information provided regarding methodology, ground-truthing was
not conducted; however, habitat was only classified as active
(occupied) if black-tailed prairie dogs were seen (Bischof et al. 2004,
pp. 3-6). Additional habitat was classified as ``possibly active'' if
no prairie dogs were visible but evidence of recent activity was
present.
Distribution - Historically, black-tailed prairie dog occupied
habitat existed throughout most of Nebraska west of the 97\th\
meridian, with the exception of most of the Sandhills region in the
north-central portion of the State (Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365). The
current distribution is unknown, but the species occurs in less than 75
percent of counties with historical records (Luce 2003, p. 17).
[[Page 63350]]
Abundance - Historically, approximately 6,000,000 ac (2,428,000 ha)
(Knowles 1998, p. 12) to 9,021,000 ac (3,651,000 ha) (BFFRF 1999, p. 4)
of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat existed in Nebraska. The
most recent survey was completed by the Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission in 2003 (Amack and Ibach 2009, p. 1). The percent of habitat
occupied was 74 percent (Bischoff et al. 2004, p. 6). Adjusted to
account for 74 percent occupancy, the most recent estimate of occupied
habitat is 136,991 ac (55,438 ha) (Amack and Ibach 2009, p. 1). An
additional 102,828 ac (41,613 ha) were not verified and were classified
as possibly active. No future surveys are scheduled at this time (Amack
and Ibach 2009, p. 2).
Trends - Nebraska contains approximately 11 percent of the
potential habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and approximately 6 percent of
currently occupied habitat in the United States. In 1961, 30,000 ac
(12,000 ha) of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat were estimated
to occur in Nebraska (BSFW 1961, p. 1). Currently, 136,991 ac (55,438
ha) of occupied habitat are estimated to occur (Amack and Ibach 2009,
p. 1). This area represents nearly a five-fold increase since 1961.
New Mexico
Survey methodology - New Mexico Department of Game and Fish
conducted the most recent survey in 2003, which consisted of
examination of digital orthophoto quadrangle imagery, followed by an
effort to ground-truth 15 percent of recorded colonies (dependent upon
landowner permission) (Johnson et al. 2004, pp. 3-4). Due to lack of
permission in some cases, the actual amount of habitat ground-truthed
was slightly less than 15 percent.
Distribution - Historically, black-tailed prairie dog occupied
habitat existed in the eastern and southwestern two-thirds of the State
(Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365). Currently, distribution appears to be
scattered in remnant populations in 54 percent of the counties that had
historical records (Van Pelt 2009, p. 28).
Abundance - Historically, approximately 6,640,000 ac (2,687,000 ha)
(Bailey 1932, pp. 14 and 16) to 8,950,000 ac (3,622,000 ha) (BFFRF
1999, p. 4) of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat existed in New
Mexico. The most recent survey was completed by the New Mexico
Department of Game and Fish in 2003 (Johnson et al. 2004, p. 11). The
percent of habitat occupied was 81 percent (Johnson et al. 2004, p.
11). Adjusted to account for 81 percent occupancy, the most recent
estimate of occupied habitat is 40,000 ac (16,187 ha) (Johnson et al.
2004, p. 11). The next survey is underway and scheduled to be completed
in 2009 (Van Pelt 2009, p. 27).
Trends - New Mexico contains approximately 12 percent of the
potential habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and approximately 2 percent of
currently occupied habitat in the United States. In 1961, 17,000 ac
(7,000 ha) of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat were estimated
to occur in New Mexico (BSFW 1961, p. 1). Currently, 40,000 ac (16,187
ha) of occupied habitat are estimated to occur (Johnson et al. 2004, p.
11). This area represents an apparent two-fold increase since 1961.
North Dakota
Survey methodology - The most recent survey conducted by the North
Dakota Game and Fish Department in 2006 consisted of aerial surveys,
followed by an effort to ground-truth all active colonies that they
were able to get landowner permission to visit and then map colonies
using GPS (Knowles 2007, p. 3).
Distribution - Historically, black-tailed prairie dog occupied
habitat existed in the southwestern third of North Dakota, west of the
Missouri River (Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365). Currently, distribution
appears to be scattered in remnant populations in 79 percent of
counties that historically contained prairie dogs (Van Pelt 2009, p.
24).
Abundance - Historically, approximately 2,000,000 ac (809,000 ha)
(Knowles 1998, p. 12) to 2,201,000 ac (891,000 ha) (BFFRF 1999, p. 4)
of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat existed in North Dakota.
The most recent survey was completed by the North Dakota Game and Fish
Department in 2006 (Knowles 2007, p. 1). 89 percent of acres were
occupied (Knowles 2007, p. 2). Adjusted to account for 89 percent
occupancy, the most recent estimate of occupied habitat is 22,597 ac
(9,145 ha) (Knowles 2007, p. 1). The next survey is scheduled for 2010
(Van Pelt 2009, p. 24).
Trends - North Dakota contains approximately 3 percent of the
potential habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and approximately 1 percent of
currently occupied habitat in the United States. In 1961, 20,000 ac
(8,000 ha) of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat were estimated
to occur in North Dakota (BSFW 1961, p. 1). Currently, 22,597 ac (9,145
ha) of occupied habitat are estimated to occur (Knowles 2007, p. 7).
Occupied habitat has apparently remained relatively stable since 1961.
Oklahoma
Survey methodology - The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife
Conservation conducted the most recent survey in 2002, which consisted
of interpretation of aerial maps and on-site ground-truthing with input
from county game wardens (Van Pelt 2009, p. 30).
Distribution - Historically, black-tailed prairie dog occupied
habitat existed throughout approximately the western two-thirds of
Oklahoma west of the 97\th\ meridian (Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365).
Currently, distribution is largely limited to the panhandle, although
scattered remnant populations occur elsewhere throughout 87 percent of
the historical range (Van Pelt 2009, p. 30).
Abundance - Historically, approximately 950,000 ac (384,000 ha)
(Knowles 1998, p. 12) to 4,625,000 ac (1,872,000 ha) (BFFRF 1999, p. 4)
of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat existed in Oklahoma.
Ground-truthing was conducted in the most recent survey completed by
the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation in 2002 (Van Pelt
2009, p. 30), however the percent of habitat occupied was not noted
(Van Pelt 2009). The most recent estimate of occupied habitat is 57,677
ac (23,341 ha) (Koch 2009, p. 7) based upon the 2002 survey (Van Pelt
2009, p. 30). The next survey is scheduled for 2008 through 2009 (Van
Pelt 2009, p. 30). We have not yet received any survey results.
Trends - Oklahoma contains approximately 6 percent of the potential
habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and approximately 2 percent of currently
occupied habitat in the United States. In 1961, 15,000 ac (6,000 ha) of
black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat were estimated to occur in
Oklahoma (BSFW 1961, p. 1). Currently, 57,677 ac (23,341 ha) of
occupied habitat are estimated to occur (Koch 2009, p. 7). This area
represents a nearly four-fold increase since 1961.
South Dakota
Survey methodology - The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and
Parks conducted the most recent survey conducted in 2009 which
consisted of interpretation of aerial photographs (Kempema et al. 2009,
p. 2; Vonk 2009, p. 1). Ground-truthing was conducted on 25 percent of
the surveyed area (Kempema et al. 2009, pp. 3, 5).
Distribution - Historically, black-tailed prairie dog occupied
habitat existed throughout the western three-fourths of the State (Hall
and Kelson 1959, p. 365). Currently, distribution appears to be
scattered in remnant
[[Page 63351]]
populations throughout 78 percent of the counties within the historical
range (Van Pelt 2009, p. 34).
Abundance - Historically, approximately 1,757,000 ac (711,000 ha)
(Linder et al. 1972, p. 29) to 6,411,000 ac (2,594,000 ha) (BFFRF 1999,
p. 4) of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat existed in South
Dakota. The most recent survey was completed by the South Dakota
Department of Game, Fish, and Parks in 2009. Percent occupancy was 93
percent (Kempema et al. p. 5). Adjusted to account for 93 percent
occupancy, the most recent estimate of occupied habitat is 630,849 ac
(255,296 ha). The next survey is scheduled for 2011 (Van Pelt 2009, p.
32).
Trends - South Dakota contains approximately 9 percent of the
potential habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and approximately 26 percent of
currently occupied habitat in the United States. In 1961, 33,000 ac
(13,000 ha) of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat were estimated
to occur in South Dakota (BSFW 1961, p. 1). Currently, 630,849 ac
(255,296 ha) of occupied habitat are estimated to occur (Kempema et al.
2009, p. 4; Vonk 2009, p. 1). This represents an apparent 19-fold
increase since 1961.
Texas
Survey methodology - The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in
2006 conducted the most recent survey which consisted of interpretation
of Digital Orthoimagery Quarter Quadrangles (DOQQs) and ground-truthing
(Van Pelt 2009, p. 37). The proportion of habitat that was ground-
truthed was not noted.
Distribution - Historically, black-tailed prairie dog occupied
habitat existed throughout approximately the northwestern one-third of
Texas (Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365). Currently, distribution appears
to be scattered in remnant populations throughout 75 percent of the
historical range (Van Pelt 2009, p. 38).
Abundance - Historically, approximately 57,600,000 ac (23,310,000
ha) (Bailey 1905, p. 90) to 16,703,000 ac (6,759,000 ha) (BFFRF 1999,
p. 4) of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat existed in Texas.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department completed the most recent
survey in 2006 (Van Pelt 2009, p. 37). Percent occupancy was not noted.
The most recent estimate of occupied habitat is 115,000 ac (46,539 ha)
based upon the 2006 survey (Koch 2009, p. 7). The next survey is
scheduled for 2010 (Van Pelt 2009, p. 37).
Trends - Texas contains approximately 21 percent of the potential
habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and approximately 5 percent of currently
occupied habitat in the United States. In 1961, 26,000 ac (11,000 ha)
of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat were estimated to occur in
Texas (BSFW 1961, p. 1). Currently, 115,000 ac (46,539 ha) of occupied
habitat are estimated to occur (Koch 2009, p. 7). This area represents
an apparent four-fold increase since 1961.
Wyoming
Survey methodology - The Wyoming Game and Fish Department conducted
the most recent survey in 2006 which consisted of delineation of colony
boundaries from interpretation of DOQQs, followed by aerial survey to
confirm status (Grenier et al. 2007b, pp. 115-116).
Distribution - Historically, black-tailed prairie dog occupied
habitat existed in the eastern half of Wyoming, east of the Rocky
Mountains (Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365). Currently, distribution
appears to be scattered in remnant populations throughout at least 75
percent of the historical range (Van Pelt 2009, p. 40).
Abundance - Historically, approximately 5,786,000 ac (2,342,000 ha)
(BFFRF 1999, p. 4) to 16,000,000 ac (6,475,000 ha) (Knowles 1998, p.
12) of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat existed in Wyoming.
The most recent survey was completed by the Wyoming Game and Fish
Department in 2006 (Emmerich 2009, p. 2). Occupied habitat was
categorized as healthy (87 percent) or impacted (13 percent) (Grenier
et al. 2007a, p. 125. Adjusted to account for 87 percent occupancy, the
most recent estimate of occupied habitat is 229,607 ac (92,919 ha)
(Grenier et al. 2007a, p. 125). The next survey is scheduled for 2009
(Van Pelt 2009, p. 39).
Trends - Wyoming contains approximately 6 percent of the potential
habitat (Ernst 2008, p. 2) and nearly 10 percent of currently occupied
habitat in the United States. In 1961, 49,000 ac (20,000 ha) of black-
tailed prairie dog occupied habitat were estimated to occur in Wyoming
(BSFW 1961, p. 1). Currently, 229,607 ac (92,919 ha) of occupied
habitat are estimated to occur (Grenier et al. 2007a, p. 125). This
area represents an apparent nearly five-fold increase since 1961.
Canada
Survey methodology - The most recent survey was described as
mapping with GPS (Koch 2009, p. 7). We do not have more detailed
information concerning the methods used, including whether data was
ground-truthed or corrected for occupancy.
Distribution - Historically, black-tailed prairie dog occupied
habitat existed in southernmost Saskatchewan (Hall and Kelson 1959, p.
365). Currently, distribution is limited to remnant populations within
the same range, primarily in Grasslands National Park (Tuckwell and
Everest 2009, p. 2).
Abundance - Historically, approximately 2,000 ac (809 ha) of black-
tailed prairie dog occupied habitat existed in Canada (Knowles 1998, p.
12). Surveys are conducted every other year (Tuckwell and Everest 2009,
p. 16). The most recent survey was completed in 2007 (Van Pelt 2009, p.
64). Percent occupancy was not noted. The most recent estimate of
occupied habitat is 4,485 ac (1,815 ha) based upon the 2007 survey
(Koch 2009, p. 3).
Trends - Canada represents the periphery of the black-tailed
prairie dog's range and habitat has always been limited, but the amount
of occupied habitat appears stable (Tuckwell and Everest 2009, p. 2).
Mexico
Survey methodology - Recent survey techniques and extent of ground-
truthing efforts was not reported.
Distribution - Historically, black-tailed prairie dog occupied
habitat existed throughout the northern portion of the Mexican States
of Chihuahua and Sonora (Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 365). Currently,
distribution appears limited to remnant populations in a small area of
northern Chihuahua (List 1997, p. 141).
Abundance - Historically, approximately 1,384,000 ac (560,000 ha)
of black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat existed in Mexico
(Ceballos et al. 1993, p. 109). The most recent survey was completed in
2006 (Koch 2009, p. 3). Percent occupancy was not noted. The most
recent estimate is 36,561 ac (14,796 ha) of occupied habitat (Koch
2009, p. 3). The year of the next survey is not known.
Trends - Mexico experienced a prolonged drought in recent years,
which resulted in dramatic loss of vegetation, followed by a reduction
in black-tailed prairie dog occupied habitat (Larson 2008, p. 87). The
most recent estimate is 36,561 ac (14,796 ha) of occupied habitat in
2006 (Koch 2009, p. 3). Occupied habitat appears to be declining in
recent years.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
We have considered all scientific and commercial information
available in our files, including pertinent information received during
this status review. We relied primarily on published, peer-
[[Page 63352]]
reviewed literature; information provided by affected state wildlife
agencies; and information provided by the Western Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies. We received more than 18,000 comment letters
from individuals, agencies, organizations, and companies. Most were
form letters that expressed support or opposition to listing the black-
tailed prairie dog. However, we cite several submissions that provided
useful information in this finding. Much of the data refers to the 98
percent of occupied habitat that occurs in the United States, but we
include data on Canada and Mexico where available.
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to,
removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened
based on any of the following five factors: (A) present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or education
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
We addressed the potential threats discussed in the petition under
the most appropriate factor; however, we recognize that several
potential threats might be considered under more than one factor. For
example, poisoning can affect habitat (Factor A), and can be affected
by state and Federal regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), but is primarily
addressed in this finding under other factors (Factor E). In making
this finding, information pertaining to the black-tailed prairie dog ,
in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act
is discussed below.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
Some black-tailed prairie dog habitat has been destroyed, modified,
or curtailed by:
(1) conversion of native prairie habitat to cropland;
(2) urbanization;
(3) oil, gas, and mineral extraction;
(4) habitat loss caused by loss of prairie dogs; and
(5) livestock grazing, fire suppression, and weeds.
In some instances, black-tailed prairie dog habitat continues to be
impacted by these same stressors. The Black-tailed Prairie Dog
Conservation Team developed conservation plans that address issues of
habitat loss. Each is discussed below.
Conversion of native prairie habitat to cropland
The present or threatened destruction of habitat due to cropland
development affects portions of the black-tailed prairie dog's range.
Regular cultivation precludes burrow development by the species. This
practice is the most substantial cause of habitat destruction that we
are able to quantify. Conversion of native prairie to cropland has
largely progressed across the species' range from east to west. The
most intensive agricultural use is in the eastern portion of the black-
tailed prairie dog's range, in portions of North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, where higher rainfall amounts
and generally better soils result in greater agricultural production.
Land with the highest potential for traditional farming uses was
converted many years ago. Consequently, the present and future
destruction of habitat through cropland conversion is likely much less
than in the early days of agricultural development in the Great Plains.
A detailed assessment using the National Land Cover Dataset
determined that there are approximately 110 million ac (45 million ha)
of cropland and 283 million ac (115 million ha) of rangeland within the
species' range at present (Ernst 2008, pp. 10-19). When the 2.4 million
ac (1 million ha) of currently occupied habitat is contrasted with the
283 million ac (115 million ha) of rangeland, it appears that
sufficient potential habitat still occurs within the range of the
species in the United States to accommodate large expansions of prairie
dog populations. These areas could be colonized over time by expansion
of existing colonies if the landowners and public sentiment allows.
In recent years, ethanol production from corn has expanded in the
United States (Westcott 2007, p. 1). However, most corn is cultivated
east of the range of the black-tailed prairie dog (Westcott 2007, p.
3). Additionally, the increase in corn production largely occurs by
adjusting crop rotations between corn and soybeans (Westcott 2007, p.
7). We do not anticipate that increased ethanol production will result
in a substantial loss in the species' occupied or potential habitat.
The current status of the black-tailed prairie dog, as indicated by
increasing trends in the species' occupied habitat since the early
1960s, suggests that the present or threatened destruction of habitat
due to cropland development is not a limiting factor for the species.
Urbanization
The present or threatened destruction of habitat due to
urbanization affects portions of the black-tailed prairie dog's range,
particularly east of the Front Range in Colorado. However, in a
Statewide or range wide context, loss of habitat due to urbanization is
not substantial. In Colorado, approximately 502,000 ac (203,000 ha) of
urban lands and 21.6 million ac (8.8 million ha) of rangeland occur
within the specie
