Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding on a Petition to List the White-tailed Prairie Dog as Endangered or Threatened, 30338-30363 [2010-12599]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 1, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30338-30363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12599]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2008-0053]
[MO 92210-0-0008-B2]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding 
on a Petition to List the White-tailed Prairie Dog as Endangered or 
Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of a 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announce a 12-month 
finding on a petition to list the white-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys 
leucurus) as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended. After a review of all available scientific and 
commercial information, we find that listing the white-tailed prairie 
dog is not warranted at this time. However, we ask the public to submit 
to us any new information that becomes available concerning the threats 
to the white-tailed prairie dog or its habitat at any time.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on June 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2008-0053. 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, Utah Field Office, 2369 West Orton Circle, 
Suite 50, West Valley City, UT 84119. Please submit any new 
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding 
to the above street address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah 
Field Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 801-975-3330; or by 
facsimile at 801-975-3331. If you use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD), please 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 or commercial information 
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: (1) Not warranted, (2) 
warranted, or (3) warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation 
implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending 
proposals to determine whether species are endangered or threatened, 
and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove qualified 
species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a 
petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but 
precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, 
requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must 
publish these 12-month findings in the Federal Register.

Previous Federal Action

    On July 15, 2002, we received a petition dated July 11, 2002, from 
the Center for Native Ecosystems, Forest Guardians, Biodiversity 
Conservation Alliance, and Terry Tempest Williams, requesting that the 
white-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus) be listed as endangered or 
threatened across its entire range. We acknowledged the receipt of the 
petition in a letter to the petitioners, dated August 27, 2002. In that 
letter we also stated that higher priority actions precluded addressing 
the petition immediately, but it would be addressed when funding 
allowed.
    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that for any petition to 
revise the Lists of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants, to 
the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving the 
petition, we make a finding as to whether the petition presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted. On November 9, 2004, we announced 
our 90-day finding (69 FR 64889) that the petition did not present 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that 
listing may be warranted. On July 12, 2007, in a Director's memorandum, 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announced that we would 
review the November 9, 2004, finding after questions were raised about 
the integrity of scientific information used and whether the decision 
was consistent with the appropriate legal standards. We received notice 
of a lawsuit from the Center for Native Ecosystems, and three other 
entities, on November 27, 2007, regarding our not-substantial 90-day 
finding. We agreed in a stipulated

[[Page 30339]]

settlement agreement on February 22, 2008, to submit a notice 
initiating a 12-month finding for the white-tailed prairie dog to the 
Federal Register on or before May 1, 2008, and to submit a 12-month 
finding for the white-tailed prairie dog to the Federal Register on or 
before June 1, 2010. Due to the stipulated settlement agreement, the 
petitioners dismissed the lawsuit on February 26, 2008. This notice 
constitutes the 12-month finding under the stipulated settlement 
agreement on the petition to list the white-tailed prairie dog as 
endangered or threatened.

Species Information

Species Description

    White-tailed prairie dogs are between 340 to 370 millimeters (mm) 
(13.4 to 14.6 inches (in)) in length with a 40- to 65-mm (1.6- to 2.6-
in) long tail (Clark et al. 1971, p. 1). The tail has a grayish white 
tip and is white on the terminal half. The coat is generally yellow-tan 
with distinctive dark brown or black cheek patches that extend above 
the eye with a lighter black stripe that extends below the eye onto the 
cheek (Clark et al. 1971, p. 1).

Taxonomy

    The white-tailed prairie dog is one of five prairie dog species 
that inhabit western North America (Clark et al. 1971, p. 1; Pizzimenti 
1975, pp. 62-63). Prairie dogs are in the squirrel family, Sciuridae, 
and belong to the genus Cynomys (Hollister 1916, p. 5). The genus is 
split into two subgenera; Leucocrossuromys includes prairie dogs with 
white tails and Cynomys includes prairie dogs with black tails. White-
tailed prairie dogs are included in the subgenus Leucocrossuromys along 
with Utah and Gunnison prairie dogs (Clark et al. 1971, p. 1; 
Pizzimenti 1975, pp. 15-16). Due to this consensus, we determined that 
the white-tailed prairie dog is a valid taxonomic species and a 
listable entity under the Act.

Ecology and Life History

    White-tailed prairie dogs occur at elevations ranging from 1,150 
meters (m) (3,773 feet (ft)) (Flath 1979, p. 63) to 3,200 m (10,500 ft) 
(Tileston and Lechleitner 1966, p. 295). Unlike the grass-dominated 
habitats of black-tailed prairie dogs, white-tailed prairie dogs 
inhabit drier landscapes with shrubland vegetation (Tileston and 
Lechleitner 1966, p. 295; Clark 1977, pp. 3-5; Collins and Lichvar 
1986, pp. 88-91; Gadd 2000, pp. 15-16). Their habitats are generally 
flat (Collins and Lichvar 1986, p. 92).
    Prairie dogs are primarily herbivorous and mainly eat grasses and 
forbs (Kelso 1939, pp. 7-11). However, they consume other plants 
seasonally. Prairie dog selection of plants is somewhat dependent on 
site-specific conditions and seasonality. For example, white-tailed 
prairie dogs eat sagebrush and saltbush during early spring, grasses in 
the summer, and seed heads and rabbitbrush flowers in the fall (Kelso 
1939, p. 10; Tileston and Lechleitner 1966, p. 302). White-tailed 
prairie dogs eat the least amount of grass of any prairie dog species 
and the most saltbush (Kelso 1939, p. 11). White-tailed prairie dogs 
also eat insects (Stockard 1929, p. 476). Prairie dogs obtain most of 
their water by eating vegetation and can become water-stressed if 
sufficient succulent vegetation is unavailable (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 
7).
    White-tailed prairie dogs prefer areas with lower vegetation 
heights (Collins and Lichvar 1986, p. 92), but they may use dense 
sagebrush adjacent to grassier areas (Tileston and Lechleitner 1966, p. 
314). White-tailed prairie dogs use the dense vegetation within 
sagebrush habitat to hide from predators (Hoogland 1981, pp. 266-268; 
Gadd 2000, pp. 24-26), reducing their need to visually search for 
predators and consequently reducing their need for dense colonies and 
cohesive social structures. This habitat use differs from black-tailed 
prairie dogs, who actively work to maintain the grassland vegetation 
surrounding their burrows for visibility.
    White-tailed prairie dogs dig their own burrows. Burrow 
construction requires deep, well-drained soils. Preferred soils are 
derived from sandstone or shale and may be clay-loam, silty clay, or 
sandy loam (Lupis et al. 2007, p. 6). Burrows are used throughout the 
year for hibernation, cover from temperature extremes, predator 
avoidance, and birthing and raising young (Clark 1977, p. 9; Hoogland 
1981, pp. 258-264). Burrow complexes are usually widespread with 
numerous entrances, tunnels, and chambers. The number of burrows in an 
area varies greatly from location to location, ranging from 0.12 to 
47.75 per hectare (ha) (0.3 to 118 per acre (ac)) with a mean of 0.32 
to 6.79 per ha (0.8 to 16.8 per ac) (Tileston and Lechleitner 1966, p. 
314; Menkens and Anderson 1989, p. 84; Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 
94).
    For purposes of this finding, a group of burrows is referred to as 
a colony. A complex is a collection of colonies grouped on the 
landscape. There is usually a high degree of connectivity between 
colonies in the same complex.
    White-tailed prairie dog colonies have fewer animals per unit area 
with less obvious borders than black-tailed prairie dog colonies 
(Tileston and Lechleitner 1966, pp. 297, 314; Hoogland 1981, p. 252). 
Home range sizes range from 0.2 to 1.9 ha (0.5 to 4.7 ac) (Clark 1977, 
p. 65; Cooke 1993, p. 23), which are generally larger than black-tailed 
prairie dog home ranges (Clark 1977, p. 65).
    White-tailed prairie dogs can live up to 8 years in captivity but 
may not live past 4 years in the wild (Pauli et al. 2006, p. 18). 
Prairie dog annual mortality rates average 30 to 60 percent, largely 
due to disease and predation (Tileston and Lechleitner 1966, p. 305; 
Clark 1977, pp. 80-81).
    Adult sex ratios are approximately one male to two females (Clark 
1977, p. 76; Hoogland 2010, pers. comm.). White-tailed prairie dogs can 
reproduce at 1 year of age, and they have a single litter once a year 
averaging four to five pups (Bakko and Brown 1967, pp. 110-111). 
Breeding occurs from late March to mid-April (Tileston and Lechleitner 
1966, p. 303). Pups are born in the burrows after a gestation period of 
approximately 30 days (Tileston and Lechleitner 1966, p. 304), and 
emerge from the burrow for the first time 4 to 6 weeks after birth 
(Bakko and Brown 1967, p. 103). They begin to disperse from the colony 
in June and July when population densities are the highest (Clark 1977, 
p. 72). Migration is recognized as an important factor to white-tailed 
prairie dog population dynamics (Clark 1977, p. 80). Plague in this 
species often results in near extirpation of colonies. Rapid 
recolonization of some areas post-plague with few or no surviving 
reproductive adults suggests the species is highly mobile (Seglund et 
al. 2006, p. 10). Dispersal distances of up to 8 kilometers (km) (4.8 
miles (mi)) have been observed (Cooke 1993 in Seglund et al. 2006, p. 
10)
    White-tailed prairie dogs have the least cohesive social structure 
of any prairie dog species. Their social system is organized around 
family groups or ``clans,'' comprised of several reproductive females, 
one or two males of reproductive age, and dependent young (Clark 1977, 
p. 62; Cooke 1993, p. 22). Adult white-tailed prairie dogs spend little 
time displaying social behavior, and most of their time feeding or in 
alert postures (Clark 1977, p. 44). Pups spend a large amount of time 
playing during their first few weeks (Tileston and Lechleitner 1966, p. 
300).
    White-tailed prairie dog populations exhibit large fluctuations of 
more than

[[Page 30340]]

50 percent from year to year (Menkens and Anderson 1989, p. 345). 
Population fluctuations are likely due to disease cycles, vegetation 
quantity and quality, and drought (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 16) 
(see Factor A. Climate Change; Factor C. Disease). We do not know the 
level at which population fluctuations are a natural part of white-
tailed prairie dog ecology, or the result of environmental or human-
caused threat factors. In many cases, prairie dog colonies persist 
despite large population fluctuations (see Factor C. Disease). We 
define ``persistence'' as the long-term continuance of white-tailed 
prairie dog colonies, at a high enough level to exist in the long-term 
with minimal management assistance.
    White-tailed prairie dogs are diurnal (active during the day) 
(Tileston and Lechleitner 1966, p. 200). They are active approximately 
5 to 7 months per year from early spring to fall and hibernate during 
late fall and winter (Clark 1977, pp. 59-60; Cooke 1993, p. 11). Time 
spent hibernating is determined by available food resources (Clark 
1977, p. 60). In warm weather, even in mid-winter, white-tailed prairie 
dogs will feed if grasses are growing (Hollister 1916, p. 6; Goodrich 
and Buskirk 1998, p. 177). If resources are not sufficient, prairie 
dogs become inactive and spend more time in their burrows (Harlow and 
Menkens 1986, p. 795). During periods of high summer temperatures, 
white-tailed prairie dogs avoid the highest temperatures of midday by 
foraging in the cooler morning and evening hours (Clark 1977, p. 58).

Distribution and Abundance

    The overall species' distribution is mapped as ``gross range.'' The 
available white-tailed prairie dog literature uses the term ``gross 
range'' to describe the outer boundary identifying the overall 
rangewide distribution of the white-tailed prairie dog (Figure 1). 
However, not all lands within the species' gross range are occupied or 
have the potential to be occupied by white-tailed prairie dogs (Seglund 
et al. 2006, p. 100). The predicted range is a subset of the gross 
range and thus represents a more accurate spatial representation of the 
potential range of the white-tailed prairie dog (Seglund et al. 2006, 
pp. 16, 110; Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 23). Predicted range is 
defined using habitat characteristics of vegetation, land use, slope, 
and elevation (Seglund et al. 2006, pp. 14-39). Depending on available 
data, we use gross range, predicted range, or mapped occupied habitat 
throughout this document to evaluate status and threats to the species. 
For example, gross range mapping data was available for our use for all 
States across the species' range. However, the data for the predicted 
range map (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 110; Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 
23) was only available for the State of Colorado. Information regarding 
mapped occupied habitat (all areas mapped on Federal lands as occupied 
by white-tailed prairie dogs since 1985) was available for the State of 
Utah, but not for any other States.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S

[[Page 30341]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JN10.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 30342]]

    The white-tailed prairie dog occurs from a small area in south-
central Montana, throughout much of Wyoming, into western Colorado, and 
northeastern Utah. There are 20,224,801 ha (49,976,572 ac) within the 
gross range of the white-tailed prairie dog and 13,066,887 ha 
(32,288,981 ac) within the species' predicted range (Seglund et al. 
2006, p. 91). Therefore, approximately 65 percent of the gross range 
has the characteristics necessary to support the white-tailed prairie 
dog. Wyoming contains the largest amount of white-tailed prairie dog 
predicted range (75 percent) (Knowles 2002, p. 4). Less than 1 percent 
of predicted range occurs in Montana (Table 1). The majority of white-
tailed prairie dog predicted range (56 percent) occurs on land managed 
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). A significant portion of the 
predicted range occurs on private land (37 percent). Very little of the 
predicted range is managed by the Service (0.4 percent), U.S. Forest 
Service (USFS) (0.5 percent), or National Park Service (NPS) (0.9 
percent) (Table 1).

                 TABLE 1. Percent Predicted Range by State and Land Management Entity (Seglund et al. 2006, pp. 91, 98, 100, 104, 109).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Total Range     Private         BLM          USFS           NPS          USFWS         State         Other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado                                           11            37            56           < 1             1           < 1             5           < 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana                                       < \*\ 1            49            44             2             0             0             5           < 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah                                               13            20            60           < 1           < 1           < 1            11             7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming                                            75            33            54           < 1           < 1           < 1             6             6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                            37            56           < 1           < 1           < 1             5           < 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* < less than

    Historical abundance and distribution are not well documented for 
white-tailed prairie dogs prior to the 1980s (Pauli et al. 2006, p. 13; 
Seglund et al. 2006, p. 11). The distribution of white-tailed prairie 
dogs has not changed appreciably since historic times (Knowles 2002, 
pp. 5-6). The only recorded change in distribution is in Montana, where 
white-tailed prairie dogs were previously captured 40 miles north of 
currently occupied habitat (Knowles 2002, p. 5). However, abundance 
declined as a result of past control efforts and plague (Cully 1993, p. 
38; Knowles 2002, pp. 1-2) (see Factor B. Overutilization and Factor C. 
Disease). We are not able to quantify changes in occupied habitat for 
the species because mapping did not use standardized methods, and we do 
not have accurate estimates of historical occupied habitat (Seglund et 
al. 2006, p. 13).
    We do not have rangewide population trend information due to a lack 
of historical population information and inconsistencies in survey 
methodologies (Seglund et al. 2006, pp. 4, 13). Surveys for white-
tailed prairie dog distribution and occupancy rates were recently 
conducted across portions of the species' gross range (Grenier and 
Filipi 2009, entire; Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 27; Wright 2009, 
entire). While occupancy surveys are intended to determine population 
trends (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 10), the data are not yet 
available to provide trend information. In addition, each State used 
different methods to conduct ground surveys and determine occupancy 
rates; thus, the results are not comparable. We present State-by-State 
information below with the caveat that comparing colony occupancy rates 
across the gross range of the species is not possible.
Colorado
    White-tailed prairie dog predicted range includes Moffat, Routt, 
Rio Blanco, Garfield, Mesa, Delta, Montrose, Eagle, Jackson, Ouray, and 
Larimer Counties in northwestern Colorado (Seglund et al. 2004, p. 
133). Approximately 1,246,441 ha (3,104,733 ac) of predicted white-
tailed prairie dog habitat occurs in three Individual Population Areas 
(IPAs): Grand Valley-Uncompahgre IPA, North IPA, and Northwest IPA 
(Hotze 2010, pp. 9-10). An IPA is an area physically separated from 
other populations that may face a unique subset of threats (Seglund and 
Schnurr 2009, p. 1). These population areas are geographically 
separated from each other but connected to population areas in Utah and 
Wyoming (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. E-5).
    Colorado completed Statewide white-tailed prairie dog surveys in 
2004 and 2008; occupancy rates were 24.1 and 23.1 percent, 
respectively, a statistically insignificant difference (Seglund and 
Schnurr 2009, pp. 27-28). Occupancy rate is the number of randomly 
selected plots in predicted habitat with prairie dogs, and is not a 
measure of abundance. We do not have population trend information 
across the entire predicted range of the species in Colorado. Localized 
declines and habitat degradation were reported in the Grand Valley-
Uncompahgre IPA due largely to urbanization (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, 
p. 54). Information in the North IPA is restricted to colonies 
associated with black-footed ferret reintroduction; a historical record 
of ferrets in this area suggests it once supported abundant populations 
of prairie dogs (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 58). Only two colonies 
remain, although they have remained stable for the past 20 years 
(Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 58). Population densities and 
distribution in the Northwest IPA appear to fluctuate greatly in large 
part due to the prevalence of plague (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, pp. 63-
76).
Montana
    White-tailed prairie dogs occur in one population area in Carbon 
County, along the Montana-Wyoming border (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 25). 
Fifteen colonies were mapped in the 1970s across 312.8 ha (773 ac) 
(Flath 1979, p. 63). White-tailed prairie dogs were previously reported 
in north Sage Creek in Carbon County (Hollister 1916, p. 27), and in 
Yellowstone County just northeast of Carbon County (Kelso 1939, p. 7), 
but no animals were found in these locations in later surveys (Flath 
1979, entire).
    Current occupied area of white-tailed prairie dogs in Montana 
includes 112 ha (277 ac) across 11 colonies; 8 colonies were considered 
active in 2009 (MFWP 2009a, p. 1). The apparent loss in occupied 
habitat is likely due to plague and agricultural land conversion (Parks 
et al. 1999 in Knowles 2002, p. 15). We do not have population trend 
data for the white-tailed prairie dog in Montana.

[[Page 30343]]

Utah
    White-tailed prairie dogs occur in Rich, Summit, Daggett, Uintah, 
Duchesne, Carbon, Emery, and Grand Counties (Seglund et al. 2004, p. 
140) in northern and eastern Utah. In 2002 and 2003, 57,463 ha (141,808 
ac) of occupied white-tailed prairie dog habitat were documented, 
mostly within Uintah and Duchesne Counties (Lupis et al. 2007, p. 17). 
Smaller population areas are found in the Cisco Desert in Emery and 
Grand Counties (10,869 ha (26,856 ac)), and in Rich County (73 ha (180 
ac)) (Lupis et al. 2007, p. 15). Surveys did not include private lands; 
therefore, the amount of occupied habitat is an underestimate. These 
population areas are mostly disconnected from each other, but connect 
to population areas in Wyoming and Colorado. Based on surveys conducted 
in 2008, the white-tailed prairie dog occupancy rate was 46 percent of 
sampled plots (Wright 2009, p. 5).
    We do not have information on long-term population status or trends 
for white-tailed prairie dogs in Utah. Surveys in black-footed ferret 
management areas in the Uintah basin recorded fluctuating population 
levels: increasing densities since the early 1990s, declines in 1999 
and 2003, and population recoveries in 2004-2008 (Seglund et al. 2006, 
p. 28; Maxfield 2009, pers. comm.) (see Factor A. Climate Change).
Wyoming
    White-tailed prairie dogs are found in the Counties of Big Horn, 
Park, Hot Springs, Natrona, Fremont, Sublette, Sweetwater, Lincoln, 
Uinta, Carbon, and Albany in northern and southern central Wyoming 
(Seglund et al. 2004, p. 130). Wyoming Fish and Game documented 
11,511,356 ha (27,822,847 ac) of potential habitat and 1,170,952 ha 
(2,893,487 ac) of occupied habitat in 2008 by aerial survey (Grenier 
and Filipi 2009, p. 5). The majority of these acres are in Albany and 
Carbon Counties. Habitat in Wyoming is mostly continuous and not split 
into discrete population areas. Approximately 68 percent of the 
surveyed areas were estimated to be occupied (Grenier and Filipi 2009, 
p. 5). This estimate is not a statistically determined ``occupancy 
rate.'' Occupancy from these aerial surveys cannot be compared with 
ground surveys from Colorado and Utah, because the observed location of 
colony boundaries varies between methods, presumably due to the 
difficulty in measuring colony boundaries from the air (Andelt et al. 
2005, p. 3). We do not have long-term status or trend information for 
white-tailed prairie dogs in Wyoming.
Summary of White-Tailed Prairie Dog Population Status
    We do not have reliable long-term historical or current white-
tailed prairie dog status, trend, or distribution data. White-tailed 
prairie dog populations are likely below historical levels, though 
their overall distribution has not substantially changed (Knowles 2002, 
p. 6). Large acreages of occupied habitat exist across the species' 
range, particularly in Wyoming. Each State plans to continue occupancy 
surveying, so more information may be available in the future.

Evaluation of Information Pertaining to the Five Threat Factors

    Section 4 of the Act and 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) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In making this 12-month finding, information pertaining to the 
white-tailed prairie dog in relation to the five factors provided in 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In making our 12-month 
finding on the petition we considered and evaluated the best available 
scientific and commercial information.

Factor A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of the species' habitat or range.

    The following potential factors that may affect the habitat or 
range of the white-tailed prairie dog are discussed in this section, 
including: (1) Oil and gas exploration and development, (2) oil shale 
and tar sands development, (3) mineral development, (4) renewable 
energy development--wind and solar, (5) urbanization, (6) agricultural 
land conversion, (7) grazing, (8) fire occurrence and suppression, (9) 
invasive plant species and (10) climate change.
Oil and Gas Exploration and Development
    Exploration and development of oil and gas resources is widespread 
throughout the gross range of the white-tailed prairie dog (Hotze 2010, 
pp. 11-26). Between 2004 and 2008, exploration of oil and gas in the 
intermountain west increased substantially because of political and 
economic incentives (National Petroleum Council 2007, pp. 5-7). The 
2005 Energy Policy Act expedited the leasing and permitting process on 
Federal lands (42 U.S.C. 15801). The global recession of 2008 resulted 
in decreased energy demand resulting in a reduced rate of energy 
development. Fossil fuel production is expected to regain and surpass 
the early 2008 levels in 2010-2030 (Copeland et al. 2009, p. 1; Energy 
Information Administration (EIA) 2009, p. 109).
    Energy development includes exploration, drilling, production, and 
reclamation phases (Tribal Energy and Environmental Information 
Clearinghouse (TEEIC) 2009, entire), each of which may potentially 
impact the white-tailed prairie dog or its habitat. During the 
exploration phase, oil and gas resources are delineated using a variety 
of technologies, including seismic shot-hole surveys (planting and 
detonation of underground explosives to produce vibrations that reveal 
locations of mineral resources) and vibroseis trucks (vehicle with a 
vibration plate used to survey mineral resources) (TEEIC 2009, p. 6). 
These activities may result in mortality and the crushing of vegetation 
along the seismic route, but there are no permanent structures 
established during the exploration phase. If oil and gas resources are 
proven, the lessee moves into the drilling phase. During the drilling 
phase, access roads and well pads are constructed, pipelines are 
installed, and the infrastructure necessary for the production phase 
(such as compressor stations) is developed and constructed (TEEIC 2009, 
p. 9). This phase typically results in longer-term disturbance to 
white-tailed prairie dog habitat. The production phase includes 
maintaining the wells and infrastructure as well as continuing the 
extraction of the oil and gas resources. Wells may be in the production 
phase for up to 20 to 30 years for gas wells (TEEIC 2009, p. 5) and up 
to 100 years for oil wells (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7:41). The final 
phase begins when a well is no longer producing oil or gas because the

[[Page 30344]]

resource is depleted. The lessee is responsible for reclaiming the land 
back to its original condition, or as close to the original condition 
as possible (BLM 2007a, p. 2; TEEIC 2009, p. 15).
    Oil and gas developments are typically configured as point (e.g., 
well pads, compressors) and line (e.g., roads, pipelines) disturbances 
across broad areas. The amount of direct habitat loss may encompass 5 
to 10 percent of leased areas. However, the extent of disturbance to 
white-tailed prairie dogs may reach far beyond the direct habitat loss, 
due to the loss and fragmentation of habitats; the alteration of 
vegetation resources, which often promotes nonnative invasive plant 
species; increased noise levels; increased vehicle traffic; and 
increased human access to previously remote areas (Pauli et al. 2006, 
p. 27; Seglund et al. 2006, p. 46; Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 126; 
Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) 2009, p. 10). The amount of 
direct habitat loss and total fragmentation varies greatly depending on 
well density (number of acres per well) and spacing (distance between 
individual well pads). Increasing wells per unit area decreases the 
amount of habitat available for wildlife. Well densities and spacing 
are typically designed to maximize recovery of the resource and are 
administered by State oil and gas agencies and the BLM on Federal 
mineral estate. Each geologic basin has a standard spacing, but 
exemptions are granted (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-39 to 7-40). Within 
the range of the white-tailed prairie dog, well spacing can vary from 5 
to 160 acres per well. Larger well spacing is often characterized by 
more wells drilled per pad. Increasing the number of wells per pad 
increases the size of the individual pad but decreases the amount of 
habitat fragmented. The variation in well and well pad spacing results 
in a variation in the intensity of effects across the species' range. 
However, we are unable to determine how the ultimate effects to the 
species vary with well density. The threshold levels of oil and gas 
development that result in reduced populations or eliminated colonies 
are unknown.
    Resulting impacts to white-tailed prairie dogs from oil and gas 
development may include direct mortality from vehicles; direct 
mortality associated with increased access by recreational shooters who 
utilize the new access routes (Gordon et al. 2003, p. 12); increased 
disturbance responses from increased human activity; direct loss of 
habitat and forage resources during exploration, drilling, and 
production; and indirect loss of forage resources from invasive, 
nonnative plant species (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 126).
    No studies have been done regarding the short-term or long-term 
impact of oil and gas development on individual white-tailed prairie 
dogs or their colonies. White-tailed prairie dogs can be negatively 
impacted by the direct loss of habitat that occurs as a result of 
development. For example, white-tailed prairie dog burrow densities 
were lower at well locations compared to areas further from the well 
pads (Biggins et al. 1984, p. 12). Dead prairie dogs were found in oil 
and gas reserve pits (Esmoil 1995 in Peterson 2008, p. 5), although the 
extent of population level impact is not known. The use of vibroseis 
trucks in prairie dog colonies appears to impact vegetation, but 
preliminary results did not document prairie dog mortality or burrow 
collapse (Young and Sawyer 1981, pp. 1-2; Menkens and Anderson 1985, p. 
7).
    However, as described above, exposure to a factor does not 
necessarily indicate that the factor is a threat. We know that white-
tailed prairie dog colonies exist in areas with long-term oil and gas 
development. Some of the largest and most robust colonies are located 
near areas of intense oil and gas development (see Distribition and 
Abundance, above, and our discussion under Factor C, below). For 
example, the Coyote Basin, Kennedy Wash, and Snake John colonies in 
Uintah County, Utah, occur within a landscape fragmented by oil and gas 
infrastructure, although their immediate occupied habitats have not 
sustained significant energy development. Fifty percent of the mapped 
occupied habitat in this region has been leased with 17 percent 
currently producing (See Utah, below). Populations in this area have 
fluctuated; although this has been attributed to drought (See Climate 
Change, below). Despite the high amount of leasing in this area, 
populations have recovered to their 20 year recorded peak. Similarly, 
Coyote Basin and Wolf Creek are historically Colorado's most robust 
colonies and occur within the Northwest IPA where oil and gas 
development is high. Forty one percent of this IPA has already been 
leased, with 7 percent currently producing (Hotze 2010, p. 20). Prairie 
dogs continue to occupy a moderately sized complex within the Coal Oil 
Basin (Colorado's largest oil field) despite an active drilling history 
that extends back to 1944 (Wolf Creek Work Group 2001, p. 15).
    Available information does not indicate that white-tailed prairie 
dogs are currently reacting to oil and gas activities on a local 
landscape scale or at the population or species level. We also do not 
know if there is a level of oil and gas development at which the status 
of prairie dogs at the population or species level would be negatively 
impacted. As described above, white-tailed prairie dogs persist in 
several areas with oil and gas activity.
    To evaluate the extent to which oil and gas development may affect 
white-tailed prairie dogs in the foreseeable future, we overlaid BLM-
authorized oil and gas leases with the species' gross range. More 
specific information was available for Utah and Colorado, so we 
overlaid oil and gas development with white-tailed prairie dog 
predicted range (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 24) in Colorado and 
mapped occupied habitat in Utah (Hotze 2010, p. 7). We also reviewed 
information on State-specific potential oil and gas reserves where that 
information was available. The results are presented below and in the 
State-by-State analysis sections.
    In additional to managing lands in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, the 
BLM manages the Federal mineral estate, including authorizing oil and 
gas leases. Leases may be producing or non-producing. Producing leases 
are those being actively developed. Non-producing leases are leased; 
however, the resources for which they were leased are not currently 
being extracted. Non-producing leases may become developed in the 
future, but development is not guaranteed (Thompson 2010, pers. comm.). 
We consider these leases to be indicative of potential development. 
However, we do not know the percent of non-producing leases that will 
become developed in the future because the variables governing 
development are complex and include the price of gas, the number of 
other leases the company holds, the actual amount of resource the lease 
contains (often unknown at the time of lease), and other complex 
economic and social factors.
    In addition to the producing and non-producing leases, BLM has 
authorized a significant amount of the Federal mineral estate that may 
be leased in the future. Each BLM field office developed a resource 
management plan that delineates areas available for leasing and depicts 
surface access constraints (e.g., BLM 2008a, p. 7). The areas that are 
available for leasing are larger than those that have already been 
authorized, and include areas that may be developed in the future 
should proven reserves be located. Development of the entire area 
available for leasing is unlikely due to BLM's multi-use mandate, but 
the area available for

[[Page 30345]]

leasing represents a potential maximum of oil and gas development. Non-
Federal mineral estates are managed by State, tribal, and private 
mineral rights owners under different programs and using different 
processes.
    We were unable to specifically quantify the impacts of development 
on non-Federal mineral rights. Total active and plugged wells are 
available as GIS layers from each State's oil and gas development 
commission. However, number of wells is not a biologically meaningful 
measure to the white-tailed prairie dog because the effects depend on 
the amount of land leased and well density and spacing. As previously 
stated, the impacts to the species at different well spacing densities 
are not well understood. Approximately two-thirds of wells within the 
species range are located on Federal versus non-Federal estate (BLM 
2009; Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 2010; Wyoming Oil 
and Gas Conservation Commission 2010; Utah Division of Oil and Mining 
2010; unpublished data). Similarly, approximately two-thirds of the 
species range is in Federal vs. non-Federal ownership. We assume that a 
similar ratio of development of non-Federal minerals is likely to occur 
in the future as is occurring for Federal minerals. Because leasing 
does not guarantee development, and the fact that we are unable to 
estimate leasing rates on non-Federal estate, we consider the numbers 
presented below (in the State-by-State analysis) as an approximate 
measurement of Federal and non-Federal development that could occur in 
the foreseeable future.
    The BLM has authorized 5,687,259 ha (14,053,523 ac) of producing 
and non-producing leases for oil and gas development, representing 
approximately 28 percent of the white-tailed prairie dog's gross range 
(Hotze 2010, p. 18). Producing leases occur across 1,435,580 ha 
(3,547,395 ac), or 7 percent, of the species' gross range (Hotze 2010, 
p. 18). Future exploration and development of fossil fuels is likely to 
focus in areas of highest potential return. Highest potential return is 
defined by several geological characteristics including permeability 
and porosity of the underlying rock (BLM 2005a, p. 41). For example, in 
the BLM Little Snake field office of northwest Colorado, approximately 
96 percent of new wells will be drilled in areas with high oil and gas 
potential (BLM 2007b, p. 3:100). In high and moderate potential areas 
in Wyoming, a single well can produce 4 to 30 times as much as a well 
in low potential areas (BLM 2008b, p. A20:6). Therefore, we assume 
these areas will be the focus of future leasing.

Colorado

    In Colorado, the BLM authorized oil and gas leases on 30 percent of 
the white-tailed prairie dog's predicted range in the State (Hotze 
2010, p. 20) across the Northwest, North, and Grand Valley-Uncompahgre 
IPAs. Of the authorized oil and gas leases within the predicted range 
in Colorado, there are 61,334 ha (151,560 ac) of producing leases, 
which comprise approximately 5 percent of the predicted State range 
(Hotze 2010, p. 14). Non-producing leases encompass 311,650 ha (770,104 
ac), or approximately 25 percent of the predicted State range (Hotze 
2010, p. 14).

Northwest Individual Population Area (IPA)

    The Northwest IPA in Moffat and Rio Blanco Counties is within the 
Greater Green River Basin (DOI et al. 2006, p. 20) and has the highest 
potential for oil and gas development (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 
61). This IPA comprises approximately 54 percent of white-tailed 
prairie dog predicted habitat in Colorado (Hotze 2010, p. 10). 
Authorized lease areas in 2009 encompassed approximately 41 percent of 
the Northwest IPA (Hotze 2010, p. 20), and oil and gas development is 
projected to significantly increase over the next 20 years (Seglund and 
Schnurr 2009, p. 128). For example, the BLM anticipates authorizing the 
drilling of 3,031 oil and gas wells over the next 20 years in Routt and 
southwestern Moffat Counties (BLM 2007b, p. 3:100), whereas the 
previous 20 years resulted in 594 drilled wells (BLM 2007b, p. 3:99). 
Similarly, the BLM anticipates between 17,800 and 21,200 new wells will 
be drilled over the next 20 years in Rio Blanco and central and 
northern Moffat Counties, whereas there were 5,800 wells drilled 
previously (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 129). However, the majority of 
these wells will occur outside of the white-tailed prairie dog's 
predicted range (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 129). Approximately 96 
percent of new wells will be drilled in areas with high oil and gas 
potential as defined by the BLM (2007b, p. 3:100); we believe this 
localizes the development to some extent and thus limits the amount of 
prairie dog habitat impacted.
    Three potential coal bed methane areas partially overlap white-
tailed prairie dog habitat in the Northwest IPA: eastern Sand Wash 
Basin, Lower White River, and Danforth Hill (BLM 2007b, p. 3:102). 
However, the majority of the coal bed methane areas occur outside the 
predicted range for the species within Colorado (BLM 2007b, Figure 3-
16; Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 119).

Grand Valley-Uncompahgre IPA

    There is potential for energy development to occur in a corridor of 
the Grand Valley-Uncompahgre IPA in Mesa, Montrose, and Ouray Counties 
(Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 54). Approximately 14 percent of the 
white-tailed prairie dog's predicted range in this IPA is authorized 
for lease or contains pending leases from the BLM (Seglund and Schnurr 
2009, p. 131; Hotze 2010, p. 20). The BLM estimates authorizing 3,600 
wells on 1,519 pads over the next 20 years in this IPA (Ewing 2009, 
pers. comm.). The total area disturbed is estimated at 13,200 ac (5,342 
ha) of short-term disturbance and 4,100 ac (1,659 ha) of long-term 
disturbance (Ewing 2009, pers. comm.). We do not know where this 
development will occur with respect to known prairie dog colonies. 
However, 85 percent of this IPA remains unleased, and future wells 
represent a relatively small (less than 2 percent of this IPA) amount 
of additional disturbance.

North IPA

    Crude oil was historically produced in the North IPA to a limited 
degree. However, EOG Resources discovered a large reservoir of crude 
oil in this area in 2008, and subsequently acquired a lease for 100,000 
ac (40,469 ha) of land in the area (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 129). 
Approximately 25 percent of the white-tailed prairie dog's predicted 
range in the North IPA has authorized or pending leases (Seglund and 
Schnurr 2009, p. 131; Hotze 2010, p. 20).
    In summary, BLM has authorized and has pending leases on 
approximately 30 percent of the predicted range of the species within 
Colorado for oil and gas development (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 131; 
Hotze 2010, p. 20). The largest potential for overlap and impacts to 
white-tailed prairie dogs occurs in the Northwest IPA; oil and gas 
development is projected to increase substantially in this IPA over the 
next 20 years (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 129). We expect the 
majority of future oil and gas development to occur in this IPA. We do 
not know the exact locations of energy development facilities with 
respect to locations of white-tailed prairie dog colonies. Oil and gas 
development will likely impact white-tailed prairie dogs, causing 
individual mortalities and habitat loss and fragmentation. However, the 
majority of oil and gas development will occur in

[[Page 30346]]

areas of high potential energy reserves, and particularly in the 
Northwest IPA, so impacts to the species are likely to be more 
localized, and are not expected to occur at high levels across the 
species' predicted range in Colorado. Based on the available 
information, we do not believe oil and gas development in Colorado is a 
threat to the species now or in the foreseeable future.

Montana

    White-tailed prairie dog habitat in Montana represents less than 1 
percent of the gross range of the species (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 91), 
and is contained entirely within Carbon County. Therefore we did not 
calculate the area impacted by oil and gas leasing. The area containing 
the South Sage Creek white-tailed prairie dog colony was leased in 
January 2002, but is not yet developed (Begley 2010a, pers. comm.). The 
South Sage Creek colony occupies less than 6 ha (15 ac), or 5 percent 
of the occupied habitat in Montana (MFWP 2009b, p. 3). The area 
containing the Robertson Draw colony is available for leasing but has 
not yet been leased (Begley 2010a, pers. comm.). Oil and gas 
development is not impacting the remaining six colonies in Montana 
(Seglund et al. 2006, p. 26). Because of the small amount of habitat 
impacted, oil and gas development is not a significant threat in this 
State, now or in the foreseeable future.

Utah

    The BLM has authorized oil and gas leases on 31 percent of the 
white-tailed prairie dog's gross range in Utah (Hotze 2010, p. 18). The 
highest overlap between the gross range of the white-tailed prairie dog 
and oil and gas development potential occurs in Uintah, Duchesne, 
Grand, and Carbon Counties (Hotze 2010, pp. 21-22; Utah Department of 
Natural Resources 2004 in Seglund et al. 2006, p. 33).
    The Uinta and Piceance Basin areas of Utah have significant oil and 
gas resources (BLM 2008a, p. 3:38). Approximately 82 percent of 18,982 
existing well locations in Utah occur in the Uinta Basin in Duchesne 
and Uintah Counties (Hotze 2010, pp. 15-16). There are 97,266 ha 
(240,350 ac) of mapped occupied white-tailed prairie dog habitat in 
Uinta and Duchesne Counties (Hotze 2010, pp. 7-8). The BLM has 
authorized oil and gas leasing on approximately 51 percent of this 
mapped occupied habitat (Hotze 2010, p. 22). The BLM estimates that 
approximately 2,055 new oil wells, 4,345 new gas wells, and 130 new 
coal bed methane wells will be drilled within the Uinta Basin during 
the 15- to 20-year planning period (BLM 2008a, p. 3:36). Approximately 
73 percent of the Federal mineral rights open to leasing in the Uinta 
Basin area have already been authorized (Hotze 2010, p. 24). Therefore, 
the authorized leases represent a fair assessment of the potential 
impact to white-tailed prairie dogs. These leases have a 201-meter 
(660-ft) no surface occupancy stipulation adjacent to occupied prairie 
dog colonies, which will minimize direct mortality of prairie dogs and 
the loss of habitat from future development (see Factor D. Inadequacy 
of Regulatory Mechanisms, below, for a discussion of these 
stipulations).
    There are 14627 ha (36,144 ac) of mapped white-tailed prairie dog 
habitat in Carbon and Emery Counties (Hotze 2010, p. 8). The BLM has 
authorized oil and gas leasing on approximately 52 percent of this 
occupied mapped habitat (Hotze 2010, p. 22). About 2300 ha (5,600 ac) 
(15 percent) of this habitat is located within areas considered to have 
high potential for oil and gas resources (BLM 2004, p. 4:119). These 
leases also have a no surface occupancy stipulation for prairie dog 
colonies (see Factor D).
    In summary, oil and gas leasing and development is authorized by 
BLM across 31 percent of the species' gross range in Utah. The majority 
of current and future project development occurs in the Uinta Basin in 
northeastern Utah, and thus potential impacts to the species could be 
greatest in this area, particularly because 52 percent of the species' 
mapped occupied habitat is leased. We consider the Uinta Basin to be 
the highest potential development area in Utah. Exploration and 
drilling, as previously discussed, can result in mortality of 
individual prairie dogs and the loss and fragmentation of habitats. 
However, robust white-tailed prairie dog colonies continue to persist 
in the Uinta Basin, in areas associated with existing oil and gas 
development. The BLM imposes a no surface occupancy stipulation that 
prohibits activity within 201 meters (660 ft) of white-tailed prairie 
dog colonies in the Uinta Basin (see Factor D), which will minimize 
direct mortality of prairie dogs and the loss of habitat from future 
development. The likely concentration of oil and gas development in 
high potential resource areas should also minimize the amount of white-
tailed prairie dog habitat directly lost to development. Due to these 
factors, we do not believe oil and gas development in Utah is a threat 
to the species now or in the foreseeable future.

Wyoming

    Seventy-seven percent of the species' gross range in Wyoming 
overlaps potential energy resources in Wyoming (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 
39). However, not all potential energy resources will be developed. 
Therefore, we further reviewed leases and potential energy resources to 
determine the extent of development in the foreseeable future (the next 
20 years).
    Approximately 3,443,269 ha (88,508,503 ac) of land, or 27 percent 
of the species' gross range in Wyoming, is authorized for leasing by 
BLM (Hotze 2010, p. 18). These leases are either producing or are non-
producing. However, we expect the majority of new wells will be drilled 
in areas with high oil and gas potential. In high and moderate 
potential areas in Wyoming, a single well can produce 4 to 30 times as 
much as a well in low potential areas (BLM 2008b, p. A20:6). Most wells 
will be drilled in areas of high potential oil and gas resources 
(Copeland et al. 2009). Only 415,649 ha (1,027,057 ac), or 4.2 percent 
of the species' predicted range in Wyoming, occurs in high potential 
oil and gas resource in areas as defined by Seglund et al. (2006, p. 
39). Low and medium potential oil and gas resources overlap 73 percent 
of the gross range of white-tailed prairie dog (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 
39). Twenty-three percent of the gross range has no oil or gas 
resources. Given the existing development, we consider the area in 
southern Wyoming between Rawlins and Rock Springs to be a high 
potential area (Hotze 2010, p. 11).
    Oil and gas development and reserves occur throughout the gross 
range in Wyoming. We do not know the exact locations of future energy 
development facilities with respect to locations of white-tailed 
prairie dog colonies. Oil and gas development will likely impact white-
tailed prairie dogs, causing individual mortalities and habitat loss 
and fragmentation. However, as previously discussed, only a small 
portion (4.2 percent) of the species' gross range overlaps areas of 
high potential energy reserves. Energy development is most likely to be 
concentrated in areas of high potential reserves, so impacts to the 
white-tailed prairie dog will not occur at high levels across the 
species' entire gross range in Wyoming. Based on the available 
information, we do not believe oil and gas development in Wyoming is a 
threat to the species now or in the foreseeable future.

[[Page 30347]]

Summary of Oil and Gas Development

    Table 2 (below) gives a summary of the percentage of BLM-leased 
area for oil and gas in gross, predicted, and mapped occupied range, by 
State. Generally, the area attributed to producing leases makes up a 
small portion of the species' range, although up to 28 percent of the 
species' gross range has been leased for potential development.

 TABLE 2. Percentage of leased area for oil and gas in gross, predicted,
       and mapped occupied range of the white-tailed prairie dog.
  (Totals include a small amount of land authorized for leasing but not
  yet leased; and therefore not included in the other two categories.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Percent    Percent Non-      Total
             State                Producing     Producing      Percent
                                   Leases        Leases        Leased*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado (Gross)                          9            20            30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Northwest IPA                     7            34            41
         (Predicted)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        North IPA (Predicted)             2            22            25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Grand Valley/                     3            11            14
         Uncompahgre IPA
         (Predicted)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Predicted range            5            25            30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah (Gross)                             10            19            31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Uintah Basin (mapped             17            32            51
         occupied)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Carbon and Emery                  4            48            52
         Counties (mapped
         occupied)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming (Gross)                           6            21            27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (Gross)                             7            20            28
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Oil and gas development is a major cause of development in the 
gross range of the species and is likely to continue into the 
foreseeable future at similar rates of development. Twenty-eight 
percent of the species' gross range is authorized for leasing. Leasing 
does not guarantee development, and therefore we consider the area 
leased Federally to be an estimate of the rangewide development, 
including non-Federal estate. A minimum of 13,000 additional wells will 
be authorized in the foreseeable future. However, energy development 
will not occur uniformly across the landscape. Most development will 
occur in areas of high resource potential. Development is also mediated 
by variations in well density and spacing. There are localized regions 
across the white-tailed prairie dog's gross range where development is 
most prevalent, including the Uinta Basin in Utah, the Northwest IPA in 
northwestern Colorado, and the southwestern region of Wyoming. The 
impacts to white-tailed prairie dogs would thus be greater in these 
locations than in other parts of the species' gross range.
    In areas where energy development overlaps occupied white-tailed 
prairie dog habitats, the resulting habitat loss and fragmentation 
likely has negative effects on individuals and populations, including 
mortality, noise disturbance, and habitat loss and fragmentation. 
Presumably, there is a threshold level wherein habitat loss and 
fragmentation may threaten the white-tailed prairie dog, at least in 
localized regions. However, our available information indicates energy 
development does not currently significantly threaten the species; for 
example, large prairie dog complexes continue to persist in areas of 
high energy development (see Colorado and Utah, above). Based on the 
information available to us, we have determined that oil and gas 
development does not significantly threaten the white-tailed prairie 
dog now or in the foreseeable future.
Development of Oil Shale, Tar Sands, and Other Minerals
    Extraction of oil shale and tar sands results in the removal of 
wide swaths of habitat. Oil shale and tar sands development results in 
a loss of habitat of the entire lease, although only portions of the 
lease would be impacted at a given time. Impact footprints for oil 
shale leases for strip mines are approximately 2,331 ha (5,760 ac) in 
size (BLM 2008c, p. 4:4), and each surface retort mine (an underground 
mine with processing of the material above ground) is approximately 668 
ha (1,650 ac) (BLM 2008c, p. 4:8). When an area is processed, the 
impact footprint shifts to another portion of the lease, and mined 
areas are reclaimed. The success of reclamation varies dependent on 
site conditions (BLM 2008c, p. 4:71). Oil shale and tar sand 
development activities can result in long- term or permanent habitat 
loss and fragmentation of white-tailed prairie dog habitats (BLM 2008c, 
p. 4:109) depending on the quality and success of habitat reclamation.
    Oil shale and tar sands resources occur across 8 percent of the 
gross range of the species (Hotze, 2010, p. 34). Approximately 
1,228,100 ha (3,034,696 ac) of potentially productive land for oil 
shale and tar sands occurs in Wyoming and Utah (BLM 2008c, p. 2:113), 
and the BLM made available 660,215 ha (1,631,424 ac) of Federal land 
for leasing in this area (BLM 2008c, p. ES:7). A very small portion of 
the white-tailed prairie dog's gross range is identified for leasing in 
Colorado (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 121).
    Oil shale and tar sands development has failed to materialize due 
largely to technological problems and unfavorable economics. 
Significant economic questions remain regarding the development of the 
Green River formation oil shale and tar sands resources (Bartis et al. 
2005, pp. 15, 53; BLM 2006, pp. 7, 15-19, 31, 34-36). The cost 
associated with an essentially new industry using new and innovative 
technologies is likely to be great.

[[Page 30348]]

Economic success of oil shale- and tar sands-derived petroleum will 
depend on continuing high and stable petroleum prices. Due to past 
fluctuation of petroleum prices, private industry has exhibited a 
reluctance to proceed with research, development, and subsequent 
commercial production of oil shale. This situation will likely continue 
unless the petroleum industry is convinced that petroleum prices will 
remain high well into the future (Bartis et al. 2005, pp. 59-61; Bunger 
et al. 2004, pp. 7-9).
    Oil shale and tar sands extraction and development remains a 
speculative industry. At this time, we believe it is unlikely that the 
BLM will begin leasing the identified properties for development within 
the foreseeable future, which we define as approximately 10-15 years. 
In addition, while oil shale and tar sands resources overlap 8 percent 
of the species' gross range, actual oil shale and tar sands development 
facilities overlap with only a small portion (less than 0.1 percent) of 
the species' gross range. We do not believe development of oil shale 
and tar sands is a significant threat to the species now or in the 
foreseeable future.
Mineral Development
    Coal, uranium, sand, and gravel mining can result in the removal of 
habitat (BLM 2004, p. 4:12). These activities have the potential to 
result in long-term or permanent habitat loss and fragmentation, 
depending on the quality and success of habitat reclamation. These 
activities are not common land uses on BLM holdings in the gross range 
of the species. The BLM solid mineral leases total 108,170 ha (445,209 
ac), less than 1 percent of the species' gross range (Hotze 2010, p. 
30). The BLM coal leases total 88,167 ha (217,866 ac), also less than 1 
percent of the species' gross range (Hotze 2010, p. 32). Available 
evidence does not suggest solid mineral leases are more common on 
private lands. Available information does not suggest they will become 
more widespread within the species' gross range in the future. Given 
the small percentage of the gross range impacted by these activities, 
we do not believe mineral development is a significant threat to the 
species now or in the foreseeable future.
Renewable Energy Development--Wind and Solar
    The BLM has accessed areas of renewable resource potential with the 
objective of allowing the industries to focus development in the areas 
of highest potential (BLM and DOE 2003, p. 2). The majority of the 
species' gross range (Federal and non-Federal lands) has a low (~ 5kWh/
m2/day) amount of direct solar resources (BLM and DOE 2003, p. A2). 
Currently, less than 1 percent of the species' range has been leased by 
BLM for development of solar resources (BLM 2009, unpublished data). We 
are unaware of solar developments on private land within the gross 
range of the species. The majority of the land containing the species' 
range is federally owned, and therefore we consider potential solar 
developments on non-Federal land to be insufficient to threaten the 
species. Given the limited solar resources and lack of development to 
date in the species' range, we do not consider solar energy to be a 
significant threat to the species now or in the foreseeable future.
    Wind energy could impact the species by creating habitat loss, 
disturbance, or fragmentation; increasing the amount of invasive 
vegetation; increasing direct mortality; and increasing disturbance 
from noise and human presence (BLM 2005b, p. 5:42). Wind power has 
experienced a rate of expansion greater than any other renewable energy 
resource, and continued increases are predicted through 2030 (EIA 2009, 
pp. 47, 74). Depending on costs, wind power production could increase 
nationwide by as much as 38 percent by 2030 (EIA 2009, p. 74).
    The BLM manages more land areas of high wind resource potential 
than any other land management agency. In 2005, the BLM completed the 
Wind Energy Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
that provides an overarching guidance for wind project development on 
BLM-administered lands (BLM 2005b, entire). Best management practices 
are prescribed to minimize impacts of all phases of construction and 
operation of a wind production facility. We do not have information on 
how or where the EIS guidance was applied since 2005 and, therefore, 
cannot evaluate its effectiveness.
    Wind energy developments leased by the BLM total 823,358 ha 
(2,034,562 ac), or approximately 4 percent of the species' gross range 
(Hotze 2010, p. 28). Only 5 to 10 percent of a development will have 
long-term surface disturbances (i.e., roads, foundations, substation, 
fencing) (BLM 2005b, p. 5:2).
    To evaluate the potential of future wind energy developments to 
impact the species, we examined the potential locations for 
development. Within the species' gross range in Colorado and Utah, only 
poor and marginal wind power resources exist (NREL 2003, entire; NREL 
2004, entire). In Wyoming, there are pockets of good, excellent, and 
outstanding wind power within the species' gross range in Fremont, 
Natrona, and Carbon Counties (NREL 2002, entire). The majority (more 
than 75 percent) of these counties are federally owned land. However, 
better wind power resources (rated as outstanding and superb, based on 
wind speeds) are available east of the species' gross range (NRE