Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Reclassify the Utah Prairie Dog From Threatened to Endangered, 36053-36068 [2011-15283]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
criteria of our DPS policy have not been
met.
Fish and Wildlife Service
Conservation Status
As stated previously, we determined
that the Utah population of the Gila
monster does not meet the discreteness
criteria or the significance criteria.
Therefore, the Utah population does not
constitute a valid DPS. As such, we do
not need to evaluate whether the
information contained in the petition
regarding the conservation status in
relation to the Act’s standards for listing
is substantial.
Finding
In summary, the petition does not
present substantial information
supporting the characterization of the
Utah population of the Gila monster as
a DPS, because the discreteness and
significance criteria were not met.
Therefore, this population is not a valid
listable entity under section 3(16) of the
Act.
On the basis of our determination
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we
conclude that the petition does not
present substantial scientific or
commercial information to indicate that
listing the Utah population of the Gila
monster as a DPS as threatened or
endangered under the Act may be
warranted at this time. Although we
will not review the status of the species
at this time, we encourage interested
parties to continue to gather data that
will assist with conservation of the Gila
monster. If you wish to provide
information regarding the Gila monster,
you may submit your information or
materials to the Utah Field Supervisor
(see ADDRESSES) at any time.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Utah Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
The primary authors of this notice are
staff members of the Mountain-Prairie
Regional Office and the Utah Field
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: June 8, 2011.
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–15399 Filed 6–20–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 20, 2011
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Jkt 223001
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0037]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Revised 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To Reclassify the Utah
Prairie Dog From Threatened to
Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of revised 90-day
petition finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
revised 90-day finding on a petition to
reclassify the Utah prairie dog (Cynomys
parvidens) from threatened to
endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
As we concluded in our 90-day finding
published on February 21, 2007, we find
that the February 3, 2003, petition does
not present substantial information
indicating that reclassifying the Utah
prairie dog from threatened to
endangered may be warranted.
Therefore, we are not initiating a status
review in response to the February 3,
2003, petition. However, we ask the
public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available
concerning the status of, or threats to,
the Utah prairie dog or its habitat at any
time.
DATES: The revised 90-day finding
announced in this document was made
on June 21, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R6–ES–2011–0037. 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 Ecological
Services 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 address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah
Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES), by telephone (801–975–
3330), or by facsimile (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:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36053
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we
make a finding on whether a petition to
list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with
the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files. To the maximum
extent practicable, we are to make this
finding within 90 days of our receipt of
the petition, and publish our notice of
this finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific
or commercial information within the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with
regard to a 90-day petition finding is
‘‘that amount of information that would
lead a reasonable person to believe that
the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)).
If we find that substantial information
was presented, we are required to
promptly conduct a species status
review, which we subsequently
summarize in our 12-month finding.
In making this finding, we applied the
standards described above for
substantial information. Under the Act,
a threatened species is defined as a
species which is likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. An
endangered species is defined as a
species which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Therefore, in evaluating the
information in this petition to reclassify
the Utah prairie dog from threatened to
endangered, we have based our
determination on whether the petition
presents substantial scientific and
commercial information indicating that
the species may be currently in danger
of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Petition History
On February 3, 2003, we received a
petition, dated the same day, from
Forest Guardians, Center for Native
Ecosystems, Escalante Wilderness
Project, Boulder Regional Group,
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and
Terry Tempest Williams (Petitioners)
requesting that the Utah prairie dog be
reclassified as endangered under the Act
(Forest Guardians et al. 2003, entire).
The petition clearly identified itself as
such and included the requisite
identification information for the
petitioners, as required by 50 CFR
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
36054
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
424.14(a). We acknowledged receipt of
the petition in a letter to Nicole
Rosmarino on November 21, 2003. In
that letter we also advised the
Petitioners that, due to prior listing
allocations in Fiscal Years 2003 and
2004, we would not be able to begin
processing the petition in a timely
manner. On February 2, 2004, we
received a Notice of Intent to sue from
the Petitioners for failure to issue the
90-day finding.
On February 2, 2006, the Petitioners
filed a complaint for injunctive and
declaratory relief in the United States
District Court for the District of
Columbia. On June 2, 2006, the parties
reached a settlement that required the
Service to make a 90-day finding on the
February 3, 2003, petition on or before
February 17, 2007. The 90-day finding
published on February 21, 2007 (72 FR
7843), constituted our compliance with
the settlement agreement. We found that
the petition did not provide substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that reclassification may be
warranted. This decision was
challenged by WildEarth Guardians in
litigation.
On September 28, 2010, the United
States District Court for the District of
Columbia vacated and remanded our
February 21, 2007, not-substantial 90day finding (72 FR 7843) back to us for
further consideration (WildEarth
Guardians v. Salazar, Case 1:08–cv–
01596–CKK (D.D.C. 2010)). We were
directed to address cumulative effects
and to consider whether the loss of
historical range constituted a significant
portion of the species’ range. We have
considered both of these remanded
items in our Findings section below.
Additionally, because the finding was
remanded by the Court, we considered
the petition as resubmitted at the time
of the Court’s order and now evaluate
the information submitted in the
petition and the information in Service
files as of the remanded date (September
28, 2010). We considered whether this
current data affect our original 2007
decision that the petition did not
present substantial information
indicating that reclassification may be
warranted. Although we supplemented
our revised 90-day finding with new
information since our 2007 90-day
finding, our evaluation continues to
support a ‘‘not substantial’’
determination. This revised 90-day
finding constitutes our compliance with
the District Court’s order dated
September 28, 2010 (WildEarth
Guardians v. Salazar, Case 1:08–cv–
01596–CKK (D.D.C. 2010)).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
Previous Federal Actions
We listed the Utah prairie dog as an
endangered species on June 4, 1973 (38
FR 14678), pursuant to the Endangered
Species Conservation Act of 1969 (the
predecessor to the 1973 Act). On
November 5, 1979, the Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources (UDWR) petitioned
the Service to remove the Utah prairie
dog from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. Based on
information provided in the petition,
the species was reclassified from
endangered to threatened on May 29,
1984 (49 FR 22330).
Species Information
We have updated this information
since our February 21, 2007, 90-day
finding, based on the best information
currently available in our files. We
determined that updating the basic
biological information for the species
with information contained in our files
has no effect on our decision as to
whether or not the petition contains
substantial information.
Taxonomy
Prairie dogs belong to the Sciuridae
family of rodents, which also includes
squirrels, chipmunks, and marmots.
There are five species of prairie dogs, all
of which are native to North America,
and all of which have non-overlapping
geographic ranges (Hoogland 2003, p.
232). Taxonomically, prairie dogs
(Cynomys spp.) are divided into two
subgenera (Hoogland 1995, p. 8): the
white-tail and the black-tail. The Utah
prairie dog (C. parvidens) is a member
of the white-tailed group, subgenus
Leucocrossuromys. Other members of
this group, which also occur in Utah,
are the white-tailed prairie dog (C.
leucurus) and the Gunnison prairie dog
(C. gunnisoni).
The Utah prairie dog is recognized as
a distinct species (Zeveloff 1988, p. 148;
Hoogland 1995, p. 10), but is most
closely related to the white-tailed
prairie dog. These two species may have
once belonged to a single interbreeding
species (Pizzimenti 1975, p. 16), but are
now separated by ecological and
physiographic barriers. We accept the
characterization of the Utah prairie dog
as a distinct species because of these
ecological and physiographic barriers
from other prairie dog species (Zeveloff
1988, p. 148).
Species Description
The Utah prairie dog is the smallest
species of prairie dog; individuals are
typically 250 to 400 millimeters (mm)
(10 to 16 inches (in.)) long (Hoogland
1995, p. 8)). Weight ranges from 300 to
900 grams (g) (0.66 to 2.0 pounds (lb))
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in the spring and 500 to 1,500 g (1.1 to
3.3 lb) in the late summer and early fall
(Hoogland 1995, p. 8). Utah prairie dogs
range in color from cinnamon to clay.
The Utah prairie dog is distinguishable
from other prairie dog species by a
relatively short (30 to 70 mm (1.2 to 2.8
in.)) white- or gray-tipped tail and a
black ‘‘eyebrow’’ above each eye
(Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 1;
Hoogland 2003, p. 232).
Life History
Utah prairie dogs hibernate for 4 to 6
months underground each year during
the harsh winter months, although they
are occasionally seen above ground
during mild weather (Hoogland 2001, p.
918). Adult males cease surface activity
during August and September, and
females follow suit several weeks later
(Hoogland 2003, p. 235). Juvenile prairie
dogs remain above ground 1 to 2 months
longer than adults and usually hibernate
by late November. Emergence from
hibernation usually occurs in late
February or early March (Hoogland
2003, p. 235).
Mating begins 2 to 5 days after
females emerge from hibernation, and
can continue through early April
(Hoogland 2003, p. 236). Approximately
97 percent of female Utah prairie dogs
breed in any given year. They come into
estrus (period of greatest female
reproductive responsiveness usually
coinciding with ovulation) and are
sexually receptive for a few hours for
only 1 day during the breeding season
(Hoogland 2001, p. 919). Females give
birth to only one litter per year, in April
or May (Hoogland 2001, pp. 919–920;
Hoogland 2003, p. 236). Only 67 percent
of female prairie dogs successfully wean
a litter, which ranges from one to seven
pups, with an average of four pups
(Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 2;
Wright-Smith 1978, p. 10; Hoogland
2001, pp. 919–920, 923). The young
emerge from their nursery burrow by
early to mid-June and primarily forage
on their own (Hoogland 2003, p. 236).
Prairie dog pups attain adult size by
October and reach sexual maturity at the
age of 1 year (Wright-Smith 1978, p. 9).
Less than 50 percent of Utah prairie
dogs survive to breeding age (Hoogland
2001, p. 919). Male Utah prairie dogs
frequently cannibalize juveniles, which
may eliminate 20 percent of the litter
(Hoogland 2003, p. 238). Only about
20 percent of females and less than
10 percent of males survive to age 4
(Hoogland 2001, Figures 1 and 2, pp.
919–920). Utah prairie dogs rarely live
beyond 5 years of age (Hoogland 2001,
p. 919).
Natal dispersal (movement of firstyear individuals away from their area of
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
birth) and breeding dispersal
(movement of sexually mature
individuals away from the areas where
copulation occurred) are comprised
mostly of male prairie dogs. Young male
Utah prairie dogs disperse in the late
summer, with average dispersal events
of 0.56 kilometers (km) (0.35 mile (mi))
and long-distance dispersal events of up
to 1.7 km (1.1 mi) (Mackley 1988, p. 10).
Most dispersers move to adjacent
territories (Hoogland 2003, p. 239).
Utah prairie dogs are organized into
social groups called clans, consisting of
an adult male, several adult females,
and their offspring (Wright-Smith 1978,
p. 38; Hoogland 2001, p. 918). Clans
maintain geographic territorial
boundaries, which only the young
regularly cross, although all animals use
common feeding grounds.
Habitat Requirements and Food Habits
Utah prairie dogs occur in semiarid
shrub-steppe and grassland habitats
(McDonald 1993, p. 4; Roberts et al.
2000, p. 2; Bonzo and Day 2003, p. 1).
Within these habitats, they prefer swaletype formations where moist herbaceous
vegetation is available (Collier 1975, p.
43; Crocker-Bedford and Spillett 1981,
p. 24). Vegetation on prairie dog
colonies is of short stature and allows
the prairie dogs to see approaching
predators and to have visual contact
with other members of the colony
(Collier 1975, p. 54; Crocker-Bedford
and Spillett 1981, p. 25; Player and
Urness 1983, pp. 517, 522).
Utah prairie dogs are predominantly
herbivores, though they also eat insects
(primarily cicadas (Cicadidae))
(Crocker-Bedford and Spillett 1981, p. 8;
Hoogland 2003, p. 238). Grasses are a
staple of their annual diet (CrockerBedford and Spillett 1981, p. 8;
Hasenyager 1984, pp. 19, 27), but other
plants are selected during different
times of the year. Utah prairie dogs only
select shrubs when they are in flower,
and then only eat the flowers (CrockerBedford and Spillett 1981, p. 8). Forbs
are consumed in the spring. Forbs also
may be crucial to prairie dog survival
during drought (Collier 1975, p. 43).
Soil characteristics are an important
factor in the location of Utah prairie dog
colonies (Collier 1975, pp. 52–53;
Turner 1979, p. 51; McDonald 1993,
p. 9). Well-drained soils are necessary
for Utah prairie dogs’ burrows. Soils
should be deep enough (at least 1 meter
(m)
(3.3 feet (ft)) to allow burrowing to
depths sufficient to provide protection
from predators and insulation from
environmental and temperature
extremes (McDonald 1993, p. 9). Soil
color may aid in disguising prairie dogs
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
from surface predators (Collier 1975,
p. 53).
Historical Distribution and Abundance
The Utah prairie dog is the
westernmost member of the genus
Cynomys. Historically, the species’
distribution included portions of Utah
in Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Juab,
Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier,
Washington, and Wayne Counties
(Collier 1975, Figure 1, p. 16). The Utah
prairie dog may have occurred in
portions of over 700 different sections (a
section is a land unit equal to 260
hectares (ha) (640 acres (ac)) in
southwestern Utah (Collier and Spillett
1973, Table 1, p. 86); but the actual area
that the species occupied within each of
these sections is not known. While the
historical abundance was estimated at
95,000 animals (McDonald 1993, p. 2),
we do not consider this a reliable
estimate because it was derived from
informal interviews with landowners
and not actual survey data.
Utah prairie dog populations began to
decline when control programs were
initiated in the 1920s, and by the 1960s,
the species’ distribution was greatly
reduced as a result of poisoning and
unregulated shooting (see B.
Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes below), sylvatic plague (a
nonnative disease (see C. Disease or
Predation below), drought, and habitat
alteration from conversion of land to
agricultural crops (see A. Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification,
or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
below) (Collier and Spillett 1972,
pp. 32–35; Service 1991, pp. 3, 6). While
the actual numeric reductions in
population and habitat occupancy are
not known, it is clear that by the early
1970s, the Utah prairie dog was
eliminated from large portions of its
historical range and populations
declined to an estimated 3,300
individuals distributed among 37 Utah
prairie dog colonies (Collier and Spillett
1972, pp. 33–35).
Current Distribution and Abundance
The Utah prairie dog’s current range
is limited to the southwestern quarter of
Utah in Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane,
Piute, Sevier, and Wayne Counties. The
species occurs in three geographically
identifiable areas within southwestern
Utah, which are designated as recovery
areas in our 1991 Recovery Plan
(Service 1991, pp. 5–6) and in the
petition, and as recovery units in our
Draft Revised Recovery Plan (Service
2010, pp. 1.3–3, 3.2–7 to 3.2–8). These
three recovery units are: (1) The Awapa
Plateau in portions of Piute, Garfield,
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36055
Wayne, and Sevier Counties; (2) the
Paunsaugunt in western Garfield
County, extending into small areas of
Iron and Kane Counties; and (3) the
West Desert in Iron County, extending
into southern Beaver and northern
Washington Counties.
The best available information
concerning Utah prairie dog habitat and
population trends comes from surveying
and mapping efforts conducted by the
UDWR annually since 1976. These
surveys (hereafter referred to as ‘‘spring
counts’’) count adult Utah prairie dogs
every year on all known and accessible
colonies in April and May, after the
adults have emerged, but before the
young are above ground in June (see
‘‘Life History’’).
Prairie dog spring counts typically
underestimate the actual number of
adult animals, because only 40 to 60
percent of individual prairie dogs are
above ground at any one time (CrockerBedford 1975, p. 6). Therefore, we
assume that spring counts represent
approximately 50 percent of the adult
population. We calculate total
population estimates from the spring
counts by taking into account the
proportion of animals we expect to see
(roughly 50 percent as just discussed),
the proportion of successfully breeding
adult females (67 percent of the 97
percent), and average litter size (four
pups) (see ‘‘Life History’’ section above).
Taking these factors into consideration,
the total population estimate,
accounting for reproduction and
juveniles, is the spring count multiplied
by 7.2. It should be noted that spring
count surveys and population estimates
are not censuses. Rather, they are
designed to monitor population trends
over time.
In our 2007 finding, we reported
information on the spring counts
conducted from 1976 to 2005 in each
recovery unit: Awapa Plateau varied
from 201 to 1,145 adult prairie dogs;
Paunsaugunt varied from 652 to 2,205
adult prairie dogs; and the West Desert
varied from 610 to 4,778 adult Utah
prairie dogs (see Figure 1 below)
(UDWR 2005, entire; 72 FR 7843). As of
2010, the Awapa Plateau recovery unit
had a spring count of 614 adult prairie
dogs, the Paunsaugunt recovery unit
had 835 adult prairie dogs, and the West
Desert recovery unit had 4,199 adult
prairie dogs (see Figure 1 below)
(UDWR 2010a, entire). Overall, spring
counts from the past 34 years show
considerable annual fluctuations, but
stable-to-increasing long-term trends
(Figure 1) (UDWR 2005, entire; UDWR
2010a, entire).
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
In addition to population trend
information, the UDWR surveys provide
information on the amount of mapped
and occupied habitat across the species’
range. We define mapped habitat as all
areas within the species’ range that were
identified and delineated as being
occupied by Utah prairie dogs at any
time since 1976. Occupied habitats are
defined as areas that currently support
Utah prairie dogs (i.e., where prairie
dogs are seen or heard or where active
burrows or other signs are found). The
UDWR has mapped 24,142 ha (59,656
ac) of habitat rangewide, of which
13,365 ha (33,025 ac) were occupied in
2009 (UDWR 2010b, entire). All of the
mapped habitat is not occupied by Utah
prairie dogs, as the species’ distribution
is constantly shifting across the
landscape. Additional information on
Utah prairie dog distribution,
abundance, and trends in each recovery
unit can be found in our Draft Revised
Recovery Plan (Service 2010, section
1.3)
Evaluation of Information for This
Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations at 50
CFR 424 set forth the procedures for
adding a species to, or removing a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
species from, the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of 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 considering what factors might
constitute threats, we must look beyond
the mere exposure of the species to the
factor to determine whether the species
responds to the factor in a way that
causes actual impacts to the species. If
there is exposure to a factor, but no
response, or only a positive response,
that factor is not a threat. If there is
exposure and the species responds
negatively, the factor may be a threat
and we then attempt to determine how
significant a threat it is. If the threat is
significant, it may contribute to the risk
of extinction of the species such that the
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
species may warrant listing as
threatened or endangered as those terms
are defined by the Act. This does not
necessarily require empirical proof of a
threat. The combination of exposure and
some corroborating evidence of how the
species is likely impacted could suffice.
The mere identification of factors that
could impact a species negatively may
not be sufficient to compel a finding
that listing or reclassification may be
warranted. In our finding for this
petition to reclassify a species from
threatened to endangered, the
information should contain evidence
sufficient to suggest that threats that
may be acting on the species could
result in the species being currently in
danger of extinction versus being likely
to become so in the foreseeable future.
In making this 90-day finding, we
evaluated whether information
regarding the threats to the Utah prairie
dog, as presented in the petition and
other information available in our files,
is substantial, thereby indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
Our evaluation of this information is
presented below.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
EP21JN11.024
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
36056
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Livestock Grazing
A. Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Habitat or Range
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Information Provided in the Petition
The Petitioners state that threats to
the species’ habitat include the
following: (1) Habitat loss from
agricultural and urban land conversions;
(2) livestock grazing; (3) road
construction, off-highway vehicle (OHV)
use, and recreation; (4) oil, gas, and
mineral development and seismic
exploration; and (5) impacts of isolation
and fragmentation.
Habitat Loss From Agricultural and
Urban Land Conversion
The Petitioners provide two citations
(McDonald 1996, pp. 1–2; O’Neill et al.
1999, pp.1–2) that described a decline
in the species’ rangewide habitat
occupancy from the 1920s through
1995. Based on these citations, the
Petitioners calculate that occupied Utah
prairie dog habitat declined from
181,299 to 2,824 ha (448,000 to 6,977
ac) as of 1995, a decline of 98.4 percent.
The Petitioners state that much of the
historical, high-quality Utah prairie dog
habitat was in valleys, where crop
agriculture and urban activities and
expansion historically occurred and are
ongoing (Forest Guardians et al. 2003,
p. 55). The Petitioners cite ongoing
habitat loss due to urbanization as a
threat to the Utah prairie dog,
particularly in the West Desert recovery
unit (Bonzo and Day 2003, p. 23) which
contains the highest percentage of Utah
prairie dogs on private land and is
undergoing the highest rate of
urbanization compared to other areas
across the species’ range (Iron County
2006, p. 22).
The Petitioners discuss various urban
development projects that resulted in
translocation of Utah prairie dogs and
loss of their habitat, both legally (Bonzo
and Day 2003, pp. 22–23) (i.e., under
habitat conservation plan (HCP) section
10(a)(1)(B) permits and through section
7 consultation) and illegally (McDonald
1996, pp. 24–25). The Petitioners also
state that increasing development on
private lands can negatively impact
prairie dogs on adjacent Federal lands
by increasing human activities such as
OHV use in previously undisturbed
habitats (Forest Guardians et al. 2003,
p. 57). Finally, the Petitioners are
concerned that Utah School and
Institutional Trust Lands
Administration (SITLA) lands
containing Utah prairie dog habitat are
being sold to private landowners and,
therefore, are not safe from future
development (Williams 2002, pp. 91–
93).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
The petition states that livestock
grazing, particularly overgrazing, can
degrade Utah prairie dog habitat by
causing shrub encroachment (McDonald
1993, pp. 6, 16). The Petitioners provide
numerous general references that
characterize the effects of overgrazing to
grassland habitats, including reducing
grass cover and vegetative biomass,
degrading riparian areas, damaging
cryptobiotic crusts (communities of
cyanobacteria, green algae, lichens,
mosses, liverworts, and microorganisms
that colonize the surface of bare soil),
degrading soil conditions, and
increasing invasive weeds and wildfires
(Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 57–
75).
With respect to livestock grazing
impacts to Utah prairie dogs
specifically, the Petitioners cite the 1991
Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Plan (Service
1991, p. 11), a 1993 analysis of 20 years
of Utah prairie dog recovery efforts
(McDonald 1993, pp. 16–17, 55), and
the Utah Prairie Dog Interim
Conservation Strategy (Utah Prairie Dog
Recovery Implementation Team
(UPDRIT) 1997, p. 5) as acknowledging
the potential for livestock grazing to
degrade Utah prairie dog habitat. The
Petitioners conclude that livestock
grazing must be recognized as a threat
to Utah prairie dogs and curtailed in a
manner that promotes Utah prairie dog
conservation (Forest Guardians et al.
2003, p. 58).
Road Construction, Off-Highway
Vehicle Use, and Recreation
The Petitioners state that roads have
a negative impact on Utah prairie dogs
by increasing direct mortalities from
motor vehicle strikes, through loss of
habitat due to new road construction
and upgrades of existing roads, and
through degradation of habitat and
increased disturbance due to increased
OHV use (Noriega 2000, entire; Forest
Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 76–79). The
Petitioners conclude that recreational
activity in Utah prairie dog habitat,
including camping, hunting and fishing,
OHV use, and hiking, can lead to
population declines or extirpation of
colonies through direct disturbance or
habitat loss (Forest Guardians et al.
2003, pp. 78–79). The Petitioners
specifically mention the possible
extirpation of the Three Peaks Utah
prairie dog colony due to intense
recreational use (Service 2005a, p. 5).
Oil, Gas, and Mineral Development, and
Seismic Exploration
The Petitioners cite numerous
references stating that oil and gas
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36057
exploration and extraction results in the
degradation and loss of vegetation and
habitats through crushing vegetation,
introducing weed species, and
increasing soil erosion or soil
compaction (Forest Guardians et al.
2003, p. 80). The Petitioners rely on two
studies (Young and Sawyer 1981, entire;
Menkens and Anderson 1985, entire)
that expressed concerns about the
impacts of crushed vegetation,
compacted soil, and the potential for
noise disruption on hibernating prairie
dogs.
The petition states that oil and gas
leases are being offered in Millard and
Sevier Counties within the range of the
Utah prairie dog (Forest Guardians et al.
2003, p. 88). Mineral development,
including shalestone and flagstone
extraction, and geothermal leasing are
cited as occurring within the range of
the Utah prairie dog (Forest Guardians
et al. 2003, pp. 88–89).
Impacts of Isolation and Fragmentation
The petition states that the remaining
prairie dog colonies tend to be isolated
and fragmented due to loss and
degradation of Utah prairie dog habitat,
and the effects of extermination
campaigns and plague. Factors such as
low reproductive rate, genetic drift, and
inbreeding may increase the potential
for local extinctions in small
populations (Brussard and Gilpin 1989,
p. 37). The Petitioners cite several
references on black-tailed prairie dogs to
conclude that these small, isolated
colonies are then more susceptible to
local extirpation from factors such as
sylvatic plague (Miller et al. 1994, 1996
in Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 90;
Mulhern and Knowles 1995, p. 26;
Wuerthner 1997, pp. 459, 464).
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
The Petitioners conclude that the
factors responsible for the loss of Utah
prairie dog habitat include habitat loss
from agricultural and urban land
conversions; livestock grazing; road
construction, OHV use, and recreation;
oil, gas, and mineral development and
seismic exploration; and the impacts of
isolation and fragmentation (Forest
Guardians et al. 2003, p. 54). We agree
with the Petitioners’ assessment that
these factors are threats to the Utah
prairie dog. These factors are, in part,
the reason that the Utah prairie dog is
Federally listed as a threatened species
(Service 2010, section 1.7; 75 FR 5705,
September 17, 2010). However, as
described below, the Petitioners do not
present substantial information
indicating that these factors will cause
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
36058
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
the Utah prairie dog to be in current
danger of extinction such that it may
warrant reclassification from threatened
to endangered.
Habitat Loss From Agricultural and
Urban Land Conversion
We agree with the Petitioners’
conclusion that historical Utah prairie
dog habitat and populations were lost to
agricultural conversion and urban
development. However, we believe that
the Petitioners’ assessment of the extent
of historical habitat loss and population
decline is inaccurate. The Petitioners’
assessment is based largely on the
assumption that Utah prairie dogs
historically occurred within 713
sections of land (Collier 1975, p. 15),
and that mapped habitat was reduced to
2,824 ha (6, 977 ac) by 1995 (McDonald
1997, p. 11). However, much of the area
within the 713 sections of land contains
unsuitable habitat and was never
occupied by prairie dogs (see
‘‘Historical Distribution and
Abundance’’ section above). Therefore,
it is inaccurate to calculate historical
habitat loss based on the total area
within those 713 sections (184,666 ha
(456,320 ac)).
Our current data show that there are
24,142 ha (59,656 ac) of mapped habitat
rangewide, of which 13,365 ha (33,025
ac) were occupied in 2009 (UDWR
2010b, entire). This is almost five times
the amount of occupied habitat reported
by the Petitioners. Furthermore, our
data show that Utah prairie dog habitat
occupancy and population trends (see
Figure 1) have been stable to increasing
since 1995 (McDonald 1997, p. 11;
Bonzo and Day 2000, p. 13; UDWR
2010b, entire). Overall, we believe that
the Petitioners overestimated the
amount of occupied historical habitat,
and used outdated information that does
not reflect the current amount of
occupied habitat and more recent
population trends. Given that our data
show larger areas of occupied habitat
than reported by the Petitioners, and
stable-to-increasing long-term
population trends, we conclude that we
have no substantial scientific or
commercial information to indicate that
threats from habitat loss may warrant
reclassification of the Utah prairie dog
from threatened to endangered. We
further discuss the consequences of the
loss of historical habitat in the
Significant Portion of the Range section
(see Finding below).
We acknowledge that historical Utah
prairie dog habitat was lost in large part
due to agricultural conversion, a factor
considered in our May 29, 1984,
reclassification of the species from
endangered to threatened (49 FR 22330).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
However, the Petitioners do not provide
any information on current losses from
new agricultural developments. We do
not have any information in our files
indicating that there are any recent
conversions of Utah prairie dog habitat
to agricultural use.
We agree that habitat loss due to
urbanization is a threat to the species,
particularly in the West Desert recovery
unit (primarily Iron County); we
identified this threat in our May 29,
1984, reclassification of the species from
endangered to threatened (49 FR 22330),
the 1991 Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Plan
(Service 1991, pp. iv, 11), and the 2010
Draft Revised Recovery Plan (Service
2010, pp. 1.7–1 to 1.7–2). Loss of habitat
due to urbanization remains one of the
primary threats to the species, and is
one of the primary reasons that the
species remains listed as threatened.
However, the Petitioners do not present
information that indicates that threats
from urbanization may warrant
reclassification of the Utah prairie dog
from threatened to endangered.
Since our 2007 finding, and primarily
during development of our Draft
Revised Recovery Plan (Service 2010,
entire), we assessed the most currently
available information regarding impacts
to Utah prairie dog habitat from
urbanization. We summarize this
evaluation below to ensure that our
current information remains consistent
with our 2007 finding.
The threatened status of the Utah
prairie dog results in the need to
develop and implement habitat
conservation plans (HCPs) to minimize
and mitigate impacts to the species from
urban development on non-Federal
lands. Ongoing development and the
resulting incidental take of Utah prairie
dogs in Iron County is authorized
through 2018 under a permit issued
under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act and
the Iron County HCP (Iron County 2006,
entire). The Iron County HCP process
includes an annual assessment of the
amount of incidental take allowed each
year. The allowed annual incidental
take is calculated as 10 percent of the
running 5-year average of prairie dogs
counted on Federal or otherwiseprotected lands in the West Desert
recovery unit.
As of 2009, following 11 years of
implementation, the Iron County HCP
has permitted a total of 154 ha (381 ac)
of habitat and 937 Utah prairie dogs to
be incidentally taken since 1998. This is
an average of 78 prairie dogs and 12.9
ha (32 ac) of habitat taken annually. The
Iron County HCP expires in 2018. We
believe these past levels of take are
reflective of the average levels of take
that are likely to occur in the future,
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
given recent stable population trends for
the species. Using the average annual
take, we estimate that an additional 702
prairie dogs and 116.5 ha (288 ac) of
habitat may be taken through 2018, for
a total of 271 ha (669 ac) of occupied
habitat and 1,639 prairie dogs over the
life of the permit. If the estimated level
of take occurs, approximately 6.5
percent of occupied habitat and 5.6
percent of the Utah prairie dog
population (see ‘‘Current Distribution
and Abundance’’ above) in the West
Desert recovery unit will be lost to
urbanization. While this amount of take
is not to be dismissed, we concluded
that this level of take over the life of the
20-year permit was not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the species (Service 1998, p. 15). Over
the last ten years of implementing this
HCP, the Utah prairie dog population
has been stable to increasing (UDWR
2005, entire; UDWR 2010a, entire).
Based on these population trends while
implementing the HCP, we anticipate
the additional take estimated over the
remaining life of the permit does not
threaten the species to the extent that
reclassification, or ‘‘uplisting,’’ to
endangered status may be warranted. In
addition, the take authorized under the
Iron County HCP is mitigated through
restoration of habitat on Federal lands
and the translocation of animals from
impacted private lands to approved
translocation sites on Federal lands.
There is no current mechanism (i.e.,
no approved HCP) to authorize
incidental take of Utah prairie dogs on
non-Federal lands in the Awapa or
Paunsaugunt recovery units; and no
current mechanism to authorize
incidental take in Iron County beyond
2018. We are working with the counties
to develop a rangewide HCP that would
authorize additional take in Iron,
Garfield, and Wayne Counties. The
rangewide HCP will be required to
minimize and mitigate impacts to the
extent practicable, and to ensure that
the action will not appreciably reduce
the likelihood of the survival and
recovery of the species in the wild.
Similarly, although there is the potential
for SITLA to sell lands occupied by
Utah prairie dogs to private developers,
the development of these lands could
only occur through a permitting process
and development of an HCP.
We do not dispute that human
activities (i.e., recreation) may increase
on Federal lands as a result of nearby
private developments. However, the
Petitioners only identify one specific
development on private land inholdings
on the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
Powell Ranger District that could
negatively impact prairie dogs. Because
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
the level of development from this one
project is on a small scale with localized
impacts, and not indicative of more
widespread development, we believe
that the information does not indicate
that this threat contributes to the risk of
extinction of the species such that the
species may warrant reclassification to
endangered.
In summary, we do not have
information, and the Petitioners do not
present information, indicating that
agricultural conversions are still
occurring at high levels or that they
threaten the Utah prairie dog to the
extent that it may be in current danger
of extinction. Habitat loss due to
urbanization is a threat to the species,
and one of the primary reasons that the
species remains listed as threatened.
Because of the species’ threatened status
(see D. Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms below), urban
development in Utah prairie dog
habitats on non-Federal lands can only
proceed under approved HCPs and
associated 10(a)(1)(B) permits. The only
existing countywide HCP for the Utah
prairie dog is in Iron County, Utah, and
the projected loss of habitat from
development through 2018 under the
Iron County HCP does not rise to a level
where it places the species in danger of
extinction. The Iron County HCP was
authorized in 1998; since its
implementation, the rangewide
population of the Utah prairie dog has
remained stable to increasing (see
Figure 1). Therefore, the Petitioners do
not provide substantial information—
and we do not have information in our
files—that indicates that threats from
urbanization may warrant
reclassification of the Utah prairie dog
from threatened to endangered.
Livestock Grazing
We concur that improper livestock
grazing can affect various attributes of
prairie dog habitat and food supply.
However, most of the citations provided
by the Petitioners speak generally to the
impacts of improper grazing to
grassland habitats. The citations
provided by the Petitioners that are
specific to Utah prairie dogs indicate
that there was historical loss of Utah
prairie dog habitats due to improper
grazing, and some site-specific
reductions in habitat quality,
particularly at translocation sites
(McDonald 1993, pp. 16–17). However,
information in the petition and in our
files fails to indicate that grazing
negatively impacts Utah prairie dogs to
the extent that uplisting to endangered
status may be warranted.
We agree that improperly managed
grazing regimes can have negative
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
effects on Utah prairie dogs and their
habitat, including decreased habitat
quality and decreased vegetation
diversity (Collier and Spillett 1973, p.
86; McDonald 1993, p. 16). Overgrazing
can decrease forage availability,
potentially increase Utah prairie dog
foraging time, and consequently
decrease vigilance and survivorship
(Ritchie 1998, p. 9; Cheng and Ritchie
2006, pp. 550–551). Improperly grazed
lands resulting in lowered plant
diversity can be vulnerable to greater
amounts of invasive plant species.
Invasive plant species, such as
cheatgrass, create an altered fire regime,
increasing the amount of fire and further
reducing native grasses and shrubs
(Masters and Sheley 2001, p. 503). The
resultant decreased plant diversity can
impact Utah prairie dog weight gain and
survival, particularly during drought
conditions (Ritchie 1998, p. 9). Invasive
species, cheatgrass in particular, occur
throughout the range of the Utah prairie
dog. However, since our 2007 finding,
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
has released revised Resource
Management Plans concluding
cheatgrass monocultures are generally
localized as a result of habitat
perturbations (BLM 2008a, pp. 3–34).
We conclude that while invasive species
may impact Utah prairie dog habitat on
a site-specific basis, information
provided by the Petitioners and in our
files does not indicate that invasive
species may threaten the Utah prairie
dog across the species’ range to the
point that uplisting to endangered status
may be warranted.
We further agree that overgrazing in
swale habitats historically led to erosion
and reduced the amount of moisture
available for grasses and forbs (CrockerBedford and Spillett 1981, p. 22).
However, the Petitioners provided no
information regarding the current level
of swale and riparian habitat
degradation from livestock grazing in
Utah prairie dog habitats, and we have
no information in our files showing that
this is a long-term or rangewide
concern.
We agree that soil characteristics are
an important factor in the location of
Utah prairie dog colonies (Collier 1975,
pp. 52–53; Turner 1979, p. 51;
McDonald 1993, p. 9). The petitioners
provided ample information on how
livestock grazing reduces soil crusts.
However, information provided by the
Petitioners and in our files does not
indicate that the loss of soil crusts has
had any impact on the Utah prairie dog.
We have information in our files that
demonstrates that livestock grazing also
can have beneficial effects on Utah
prairie dogs. For example, in properly
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36059
managed, grazed habitats, there is
higher quality vegetation and a greater
amount of nutrient-rich young shoots
(Cheng and Ritchie 2006, p. 554).
Livestock grazing in early spring, fall,
and winter is generally beneficial to
Utah prairie dogs because it reduces
horizontal cover, which allows animals
to spend less time looking for predators
(Ritchie and Brown 2005, p. 15).
Prescribed rotational grazing may help
to maintain suitable vegetation height
for Utah prairie dogs, especially in
highly productive sites like irrigated
pastures or where shrub invasion has
occurred (Ritchie and Cheng 2001, p. 2).
Other studies suggest that prairie dog
density is positively correlated with
heavy grazing, which simulates the
shortgrass environment preferred by
prairie dogs (Coppock et al. 1983, p. 7;
Holland et al. 1992, p. 686; Marsh 1984,
p. 203; Fagerstone and Ramey 1996, pp.
88, 92; Slobodchikoff et al. 1988, p.
406). Even so, tall vegetation is more
common in Gunnison and Utah prairie
dog colonies than in black-tailed prairie
dog colonies (Hoogland 2003, p. 239).
Utah prairie dogs use this taller
vegetation as hiding cover. Because
Utah prairie dogs use habitats with a
shrub component, the UPDRIT revised
the Utah prairie dog vegetation
guidelines to include a higher
percentage of shrubs (UPDRIT 2006, p.
1). This supports our conclusion that
there is not substantial information in
the petition and in our files suggesting
that livestock grazing and shrub
encroachment negatively impact the
Utah prairie dog to the extent that
uplisting to endangered status may be
warranted.
In summary, we agree with the
Petitioners that livestock grazing can be
a threat to the Utah prairie dog,
particularly in site-specific areas where
improper grazing negatively affects
habitat conditions. We have previously
acknowledged this threat, most recently
in our Draft Revised Recovery Plan
(Service 2010, pp. 1.7–3 to 1.7–4).
However, neither the Petitioners’
information nor information in our files
supports the assertion that grazing is
endangering the Utah prairie dog with
extinction, especially given that Utah
prairie dog populations are stable to
increasing rangewide (see Figure 1
above) (UDWR 2005, entire; UDWR
2010a, entire).
Road Construction, Off-Highway
Vehicle Use, and Recreation
We acknowledge that direct mortality
of prairie dogs occurs on roads. We also
acknowledge that OHV use and other
types of recreational use, including
recreational infrastructure development,
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
36060
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
has occurred in Utah prairie dog habitat,
resulting in habitat loss and possibly, in
the instance of the Three Peaks colony,
extirpation of the colony (Service 2005a,
p. 5).
In our 90-day finding in 2007, we
concluded that the impacts of roads and
OHV use were limited to localized areas
and did not result in population-level
effects (72 FR 7843). Since 2007, we
have evaluated additional information
regarding OHV use across the species’
range. We find that there is an increased
planning effort on Federal lands toward
directing OHV use to designated trails
or play areas, and consequently away
from Utah prairie dog habitats (Service
2010, p. 1.7–4). Currently, all of the
USFS districts and two of the three BLM
field offices within the range of the
species include off-road travel
restrictions in their land use plans. For
example, the Dixie and Fishlake
National Forests prohibit cross-country
vehicle travel forest wide (U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2006, p. 16; USDA 2009, p. 2). Almost
the entire Richfield BLM district is
either closed to OHV use or limited to
designated routes (BLM 2008b, pp. 52–
55). The Kanab BLM Resource
Management Plan includes a
conservation measure to preclude crosscountry motorized use in occupied or
inactive Utah prairie dog colonies (BLM
2008c, p. 62).
In summary, we do not have
substantial information suggesting that
the localized impacts of roads and OHV
recreational use result in populationlevel effects. In addition, the majority of
existing land use plans across the range
of the Utah prairie dog restrict off-road
recreational use in order to avoid or
minimize impacts to prairie dog habitat.
Therefore, we conclude that the
Petitioners do not provide substantial
information—and we do not have
information in our files—that indicates
that threats from roads and OHV
recreational use may warrant
reclassification of the Utah prairie dog
from threatened to endangered.
Oil, Gas, and Mineral Development and
Seismic Exploration
We are aware that oil and gas leasing
is occurring within the range of the Utah
prairie dog. In our 2007 90-day finding,
we stated that there was no scientific or
commercial information either in the
petition or in our files that quantified
the extent of these activities in occupied
Utah prairie dog habitat. Since our 2007
90-day finding, the USFS completed a
biological assessment for their Oil and
Gas Leasing Environmental Impact
Statement and determined that no Utah
prairie dog habitat will be impacted by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
development or production activities
due to a no-surface-occupancy
stipulation (USFS 2010, p. 22). This
stipulation prohibits occupancy or
disturbance on the lease parcel ground
surface and, therefore, oil and gas
resources may only be accessed through
use of directional drilling from sites
outside the no-surface-occupancy area.
Furthermore, using a geographic
information system to analyze the
overlap between Utah prairie dog
recovery units and energy resources, we
found there are very little coal bed
methane and geothermal reserves within
the range of the species (Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory 2003, p. 1; Energy
Information Administration 2007, p. 1).
In addition, there are no producing oil
or gas wells within any of the three
recovery units (Utah Division of Oil,
Gas, and Mining 2009, p. 1). Based on
the location of known reserves and the
lack of producing oil and gas wells, we
expect direct and indirect impacts from
oil and gas development on Utah prairie
dogs will be minor and localized.
Since publishing our 2007 90-day
finding, we have completed
programmatic consultations with the
BLM and USFS regarding oil and gas
development on lands they manage
(BLM 2008b, pp. A11–18; USFS 2010,
pp. 10–11). Through the consultation
process, we worked with both agencies
to develop a set of avoidance and
minimization measures for Federal oil
and gas leases within the range of the
Utah prairie dog (BLM 2005, p. 8; BLM
2008b, pp. A11–18; BLM 2008c, pp. A3–
9, A9–13 to A9–14; USFS 2010, pp. 10–
11). These measures include
prohibitions against surface disturbance
within 0.8 km (0.5 mi)) of active Utah
prairie dog colonies, and prohibitions
against permanent disturbance within
0.8 km (0.5 mi) of potentially suitable,
unoccupied Utah prairie dog habitat, as
identified by UDWR (BLM 2005, p. 8;
BLM 2008b, pp. A11–18; BLM 2008c,
pp. A3–9, A0–13 to A9–14; USFS 2010,
pp. 10–11). These measures are
currently attached to all BLM and USFS
leases within the Utah prairie dog’s
range. We conclude that these measures
avoid and minimize threats to the Utah
prairie dog from oil and gas
development.
We are aware that seismic exploration
is occurring within the range of the Utah
prairie dog. The USFS estimates that up
to 48.6 ha (120 ac) of Utah prairie dog
habitat on USFS land (less than 1
percent of the total available suitable
habitat on USFS lands) may be affected
by seismic surveys (USFS 2010, p. 22).
We do not have similar estimates for
BLM lands within Utah prairie dog
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
habitat. However, given the lack of
proven reserves and producing wells
within any of the recovery units, we
anticipate low levels of future seismic
exploration on BLM lands. Furthermore,
although the Petitioners cited studies
that identified potential effects of
seismic testing on Utah prairie dogs,
these same studies concluded that any
impact from seismic testing on Utah
prairie dogs is negligible (Young and
Sawyer 1981, p. 2; Menkens and
Anderson 1985, p. 13). After evaluating
the information provided by Petitioners
and in our files, we conclude that
threats from seismic exploration are
localized and temporary.
In summary, we are aware that oil,
gas, and mineral development and
seismic exploration are occurring within
the range of the Utah prairie dog. We
agree that oil, gas, and mineral
development can impact the species
where it occurs—the Utah prairie dog is
listed as a threatened species due to
threats from a variety of human land use
activities. However, there has been a
low level of exploration and
development to date, and projections for
future exploration and development
remain low for the majority of the
species’ range (Service 2010, p. 1.7–6).
In addition, the Federal land
management agencies have committed
to conservation measures that
effectively avoid impacts in occupied or
historically occupied Utah prairie dog
habitats and minimize impacts in
suitable habitats. Thus, we conclude
that the Petitioners do not provide
substantial information—and we do not
have information in our files—that
indicates that threats from oil, gas, and
mineral development, and seismic
exploration may threaten the Utah
prairie dog to the point that uplisting it
from threatened to endangered under
the Act may be warranted.
Isolation and Fragmentation
We concur that the majority of
existing Utah prairie dog colonies are
small, numbering fewer than 200
individuals (UDWR 2005, entire), and
that habitat loss from a variety of land
use activities can result in increased
isolation and fragmentation of prairie
dog habitats. However, the studies
presented by the Petitioners for blacktailed prairie dogs may not be directly
applicable to the small size and
isolation of Utah prairie dog colonies,
particularly with respect to the species’
response to plague (see C. Disease or
Predation below). Plague is active across
the landscape and, as a result, colonies
tend to increase in numbers for a period
of years, decline to very small numbers
following a plague event, and then
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
increase again (see C. Disease or
Predation below). Although not
explicitly discussed in our 2007 90-day
finding, studies show that the lower
density of white-tailed prairie dog
colonies (compared to black-tailed or
Gunnison’s prairie dog colonies) may
actually benefit that species by slowing
plague transmission rates (Eskey and
Haas 1940, pp. 18–19; Cully 1993, p. 40;
Cully and Williams 2001, p. 898). This
benefit also may apply to Utah prairie
dogs, which have similar colony sizes
and densities to white-tailed prairie
dogs (Service 2010, p. 1.7–7). Despite
the fact that Utah prairie dog colonies
tend to be small and dispersed across
the landscape, their overall population
trend is stable to increasing (see Figure
1, above). Therefore, we conclude that
the Petitioners do not provide
substantial information—and we do not
have information in our files—that
indicates that isolation and
fragmentation may threaten the Utah
prairie dog to the point that the species
may warrant uplisting from threatened
to endangered.
Summary of Factor A
In summary, we find that the
information provided in the petition, as
well as other information in our files,
does not constitute substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that uplisting the Utah prairie dog from
threatened to endangered under the Act
may be warranted due to present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat. We agree that
there are numerous human land-use
threats to the species, including those
presented in the Petition, such as
urbanization; agricultural uses; livestock
grazing; roads; OHV and other
recreational uses; and oil, gas, and
mineral development and seismic
exploration. These threats may result in
the loss, fragmentation, and isolation of
prairie dog populations. These threats
are the reason the Utah prairie dog
remains listed as a threatened species.
As stated in the Background section, a
threatened species is defined as a
species which is likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, whereas
an endangered species is a species
which is currently in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. The information on
threats discussed in Factor A indicates
that the Utah prairie dog should
continue to be listed as threatened.
Many of the claims cited by the
Petitioners, and information in our files,
indicate that most of the threats have
largely localized impacts on specific
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
Utah prairie dog colonies or complexes,
particularly those impacts from
livestock grazing; roads; OHV use; and
oil, gas, and mineral development and
seismic exploration. Therefore, we do
not have substantial information
indicating that the threats rise to the
level at which they may put the species
in current danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.
Urbanization is one of the largest of
the identified threats to the species
(Service 2010, p. 1.8–4). For
development to proceed, a section
10(a)(1)(B) permit and HCP with
meaningful mitigation and
compensation are required. In addition,
the rangewide population of the Utah
prairie dog is stable to increasing,
indicating that ongoing threats are not
having a negative effect on the
recoverability of the species (see Figure
1 above). Thus, we have determined that
the petition, as well as other
information in our files, does not
present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat
or range is a threat to the Utah prairie
dog to the extent that uplisting from
threatened to endangered under the Act
may be warranted.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition states that illegal
shooting of Utah prairie dogs still occurs
(Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 94–98)
and provides references to show that
shooting can negatively affect prairie
dogs in general through population
reduction, decreased colony expansion
rates, and changes in behavior (Reading
et al. 1989, p. 19; Miller et al. 1993, p.
91; Vosburgh and Irby 1998, pp. 366–
368).
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
Because the Utah prairie dog is
already a listed species, shooting is
prohibited by the Act, except as
provided for by the special 4(d) rule (see
50 CFR 17.40(g) and D. Inadequacy of
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms below).
Therefore, we conclude that many of the
Petitioners’ citations regarding the
effects of recreational or otherwise
broad-scale shooting are not directly
applicable to the Utah prairie dog. We
acknowledge that isolated instances of
shooting do occur, and that it is not
feasible for UDWR and Federal land
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36061
management agencies to patrol all
colony locations on a routine basis.
Since the fall of 2007, three poisoning
incidents and one shooting incident
occurred in the West Desert recovery
unit. These unauthorized killings
resulted in impacts to a few colonies,
but these impacts did not extend to the
population level (Bell 2008, pers.
comm.).
No information is available in the
petition or in our files to indicate that
illegal shooting occurs on a broad-scale,
rangewide basis such that it may
significantly affect the species at the
population level. Therefore, we
conclude that the information provided
in the petition, as well as other
information in our files, does not
present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
uplisting from threatened to endangered
under the Act may be warranted due to
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
Information Provided in the Petition
The Petitioners do not specifically
identify predation as a threat to the Utah
prairie dog. Predation is briefly
mentioned by the petitioners as a
component of the species ecology
(Service 1991, p. 10); as a factor that
results in mortality of translocated Utah
prairie dogs (Service 1991, p. 13;
UPDRIT 1997, p. 5); and as a factor that
may increase due to overgrazing, road
construction, and energy development
(McDonald 1993, p. 6; Forest Guardians
et al. 2003, pp. 58, 76, 83).
The Petitioners assert that sylvatic
plague (Yersinia pestis), an exotic
bacterial disease, is a significant threat
to prairie dogs. They estimate that
plague can result in 95 to 100 percent
mortality in Gunnison prairie dog
colonies (Barnes 1993, p. 33; Fitzgerald
1993, p. 52) and that recovery from
plague in black-tailed prairie dog
colonies is a slow process (Knowles
1995, p. 41). In their discussion on
isolation and fragmentation, the
Petitioners also indicated that small,
isolated colonies of black-tailed and
Gunnison prairie dogs are more
susceptible to local extirpation from
factors such as sylvatic plague (Miller et
al. 1994, 1996 in Forest Guardians et al.
2003, p. 90; Mulhern and Knowles 1995,
p. 26; Wuerthner 1997, pp. 459, 464).
The Petitioners cite numerous
instances of documented and suspected
plague events occurring throughout the
Utah prairie dog range (Service 1991, p.
12; McDonald 1996, pp. 8–10; Bonzo
and Day 2000, pp. 11–14). They also cite
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
36062
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
ongoing research in Utah prairie dog
habitat on plague mitigation through the
use of insecticides to kill the fleas that
carry the plague bacterium (Forest
Guardians et al. 2003, p. 100). The
Petitioners take the view that as long as
plague is present in the ecosystem, the
Utah prairie dog may not reach its
recovery goals even if all other threat
factors are removed (Forest Guardians et
al. 2003, p. 100).
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
In the 2007 90-day finding, we
concluded that the Petitioners did not
identify predation as a threat to the Utah
prairie dog. We agree that predation can
have adverse impacts on Utah prairie
dogs in unnaturally fragmented colonies
or at new translocation sites (Service
2010, p. 1.7–9). For example, badgers
can disrupt a translocation site by
digging up Utah prairie dogs that have
not had a chance to fully develop a
burrow system. However, predation is a
natural component of healthy prairie
dog populations (Collier and Spillett
1972, p. 36; Service 2010, p. 1.7–9).
Thus, we conclude that predation can
be a localized threat to some Utah
prairie dog colonies, but we have no
information to indicate that predation
places the species in danger of
extinction.
We agree with the petitioners that
plague is a threat to the Utah prairie
dog; this threat is one of the primary
reasons that the species is listed as
threatened. Plague was identified as a
threat to the species in the 1984
reclassification (49 FR 22330) rule and
the 1991 Recovery Plan. In the Draft
Revised Recovery Plan, plague is in the
top tier of threats to the species and is
considered to be a primary threat to the
species’ survival and conservation
(Service 2010, p. 1.7–7). We discussed
plague in our 2007 finding, and present
updated information to consider in this
finding.
We acknowledge that plague exists
within all three Utah prairie dog
recovery units; individual Utah prairie
dog colonies are affected by the disease;
and there is currently no mechanism
available to prevent periodic plague
events from reoccurring. However, we
conclude that the Petitioners
mischaracterized how plague spreads
through Utah prairie dog colonies and,
therefore, its effects on the species, by
primarily relying on results from studies
of Gunnison’s and black-tailed prairie
dogs. For example, as discussed under
A. Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of its
Habitat or Range, white-tailed and Utah
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
prairie dog colonies are less dense and
more widely dispersed than black-tailed
or Gunnison prairie dog colonies.
Studies of Gunnison’s and black-tailed
prairie dogs have shown that the higher
density of their colonies contributes to
plague transmission and subsequent
mortality (Cully 1993, p. 40; Cully and
Williams 2001, p. 901). Therefore, the
lower density of white-tailed and Utah
prairie dog colonies may slow plague
transmission rates and reduce the
overall long-term impact of the disease
(Cully 1993, p. 40; Cully and Williams
2001, p. 901).
Social and behavioral traits of the
Utah prairie dogs also may reduce the
transmission of plague. Utah prairie
dogs are more behaviorally similar to
white-tailed prairie dogs than blacktailed prairie dogs. White-tailed prairie
dogs (and similarly, Utah prairie dogs)
spend less time socializing than blacktailed or Gunnison prairie dogs; this
characteristic appears to favor their
long-term persistence in a plague
environment (Biggins and Kosoy 2001,
p. 64; 75 FR 30338). Hibernation by
Utah and white-tailed prairie dogs also
may reduce or delay plague
transmission among individual animals
(Barnes 1993, p. 34).
Since our 2007 finding, we have
learned more about potential methods to
minimize the impacts of plague.
Deltamethrin and Pyraperm are two
insecticides (‘‘dust’’) used to
successfully control fleas on colonies of
different prairie dog species, resulting in
higher prairie dog survival rates (Seery
et al. 2003, p. 721; Hoogland et al. 2004,
p. 379; Biggins et al. in press 2009).
Experimental vaccine-laden baits are
being studied to determine their
effectiveness in immunizing prairie
dogs against plague; initial lab results
showed high level of survival of blacktailed prairie dogs (Mencher et al. 2004,
p. 5504; Rocke et al. 2008, p. 935). A
systemic flea control bait is being tested
to reduce flea loads on Utah prairie
dogs, the primary vector in spreading
plague in prairie dogs (Poche et al. 2008,
pp. 11, 31–32; Jachowski 2009, pp. 14–
16, 19–22). Although there are many
ongoing efforts to mediate this threat to
the Utah prairie dog, we do not yet
know the long-term effectiveness of
these plague-control methods, and thus
do not rely on their potential success for
our conclusions.
In summary, we acknowledge that
plague is a threat to the Utah prairie
dog. In fact, plague is one of the primary
reasons the Utah prairie dog remains
listed as a threatened species. However,
as previously noted, Utah prairie dog
population trends remain stable to
increasing (see Figure 1 above) despite
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the long-term presence of plague in the
environment. Thus, we find that the
information provided in the petition, as
well as other information in our files,
does not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
uplisting from threatened to endangered
under the Act may be warranted due to
the effects of disease and predation.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
The Petitioners make several
assertions regarding the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms,
specifically discussing: (1) Downlisting;
(2) the special 4(d) rule; (3) the Recovery
Plan and Interim Conservation Strategy;
(4) Federal land management policies;
and (5) section 10 HCPs.
Downlisting
The Petitioners state that there was
little basis for UDWR to request that the
species be delisted in 1984 and little
basis for the Service to partially grant
the request by downlisting the Utah
prairie dog to threatened. The
Petitioners base their conclusion largely
on Utah prairie dog population trend
data from 1976 to 1983. They conclude
that the Service originally downlisted
the Utah prairie dog in 1984 for political
reasons, and that the species has
suffered since that downlisting (Forest
Guardians et al. 2003, p. 103).
Special 4(d) Rule
In those circumstances where the
standard regulatory provisions under
the Act may not be necessary or
appropriate for a threatened species, the
Secretary of the Department of the
Interior has the discretion under section
4(d) of the Act to determine in a special
rule those measures and prohibitions
that are necessary and advisable for the
conservation of that species. The
Petitioners evaluated the 1984 (49 FR
22330) and 1991 (56 FR 27438) special
4(d) rules for the Utah prairie dog.
These special rules, as implemented by
UDWR, authorize take of prairie dogs on
agricultural lands. The Petitioners claim
that, when considered cumulatively
with threats such as translocation,
habitat loss, and plague, the special 4(d)
rule is likely harming the Utah prairie
dog because of the species’ low rate of
reproduction (Hoogland 2001, pp. 918–
924; Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p.
107).
Recovery Plan and Interim Conservation
Strategy
The Petitioners assert that the Utah
Prairie Dog Recovery Plan contributes to
declines of the Utah prairie dog. They
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
believe that the Recovery Plan’s
scientific basis is in error, with specific
respect to prairie dog litter sizes; that
the recovery goal is too low; that the
emphasis in the plan on translocations
is flawed; that there is a lack of adequate
staff and funding resources; and that the
Recovery Plan neglects conservation of
Utah prairie dogs on private lands
(Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 108–
114, 147). They further discuss control
authorized under the special 4(d) rule as
a fundamental concern of the Recovery
Plan (see Special 4(d) Rule above). The
Petitioners also state that the Interim
Conservation Strategy failed in
adequately addressing threats such as
plague and livestock grazing (see A.
Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Habitat or Range above) (Forest
Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 115–119).
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Federal Land Management Policies
The Petitioners state that Federal land
management policies contribute to the
imperiled status of the Utah prairie dog
(Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 119–
139). The Petitioners express concern
regarding Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS)—Wildlife
Services’ policies on grasshopper
control and control of Utah prairie dogs.
They conclude that livestock allotments
on the BLM and USFS lands do not
meet the recommended Interim
Conservation Strategy vegetation
guidelines (Forest Guardians et al. 2003,
pp. 120–122). They also conclude that
noxious weeds are a significant problem
in all BLM management areas (Forest
Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 123–124). The
Petitioners assert that BLM believes that
Utah prairie dogs will tolerate economic
activity such as mineral extraction
(Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 129),
citing a 1997 BLM management plan.
Finally, the Petitioners conclude that
translocations of prairie dogs to Federal
lands are not leading to increased Utah
prairie dog populations and, therefore,
should be considered a threat to the
species.
Section 10 Habitat Conservation Plans
The Petitioners assert that existing
HCPs undermine Utah prairie dog
conservation efforts. They specifically
discuss several small and large-scale
(countywide) HCPs and associated
permits, most of which were issued in
the 1990s (Forest Guardians et al. 2003,
pp. 150–161). The Petitioners conclude
that the HCPs are flawed because they
do not consider the cumulative impacts
of incidental take, they do not include
sufficient discussions of alternative
actions, and they fail to implement
mitigation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
The inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms was not evaluated as a
threat to the species in the 1973 listing
(38 FR 14678, June 4, 1973), 1984
downlisting (49 FR 22330, May 29,
1984), or 1991 Recovery Plan. The Draft
Revised Recovery Plan concludes that
regulatory mechanisms are adequate to
address the threats facing the Utah
prairie dog with the species’ threatened
status under the Act (Service 2010, pp.
1.7–9 to 1.7–12).
Downlisting
In 1984, following a petition from
UDWR to delist the Utah prairie dog, we
analyzed the best available information
regarding the species’ population and
threat factors, and determined that the
species should be downlisted to
threatened status (49 FR 22330). In our
2007 finding, we determined that there
was not substantial information
indicating that uplisting the Utah prairie
dog to endangered may be warranted.
Since our 2007 finding, we have
reevaluated the population status and
threats to the species. As previously
described (see ‘‘Current Distribution and
Abundance’’ section above), the Utah
prairie dog population is considered to
be stable to increasing on a rangewide
basis and, therefore, we believe that the
current status of the species as
threatened, as opposed to being uplisted
to endangered, is not placing the species
in danger of extinction. Thus, we
conclude that information regarding the
effects of the species’ regulatory status
as threatened under the Act does not
indicate that uplisting to endangered
may be warranted.
Special 4(d) Rule
The special 4(d) rule (56 FR 27438,
June 14, 1991) for Utah prairie dogs
allows regulated take of Utah prairie
dogs on private agricultural lands where
damage from prairie dogs is observed
(see E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species below).
Although the current 1991 rule exempts
take of up to 6,000 Utah prairie dogs
annually, the actual number of prairie
dogs taken during the period 1985–2009
did not exceed 1,760 animals annually
(UDWR 2010c, entire). Since 1985, an
average of 864 animals has been taken
annually, representing an average of 2.5
percent, and never more than 5.3
percent, of the total rangewide
estimated population (UDWR 2010c,
entire). We have implemented the 4(d)
rule for over 25 years, and Utah prairie
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36063
dog populations continue to remain
stable to increasing (see ‘‘Current
Distribution and Abundance’’ section
above), indicating that the special 4(d)
rule is not placing the species in danger
of extinction.
Recovery Plan and Interim Conservation
Strategy
We agree that the 1991 Recovery Plan
is in need of an update. In our 2007 90day finding we indicated that efforts to
revise the 1991 Recovery Plan were
underway. Since the 2007 finding, we
published a notice of availability for the
Draft Revised Recovery Plan on
September 17, 2010 (75 FR 57055); we
expect to complete the revised Recovery
Plan in 2011. This new plan updates
and replaces both the 1991 Recovery
Plan and Interim Conservation Strategy.
With respect to the Petitioners’
concerns, the Draft Revised Recovery
Plan’s population recovery criteria are
to achieve counts of 1,000 adult Utah
prairie dogs in each recovery unit—this
is a higher number than envisioned by
the 1991 Recovery Plan and is based on
current biological information regarding
Utah prairie dog densities and
reproductive rates (Service 2010, p. 3.1–
7). The Draft Revised Recovery Plan still
envisions the use of translocations,
enhanced by improved techniques, as
an important component of Utah prairie
dog recovery efforts (Service 2010, p.
2.3–4). However, the 2010 Draft Revised
Recovery Plan places increased
emphasis on protecting Utah prairie
dogs on private lands where willing
landowners may be interested (Service
2010, pp. 2.3–2 to 2.3–3). Although the
Petitioners claim there was a lack of
recovery efforts on private land, we
have taken significant steps to conserve
prairie dogs on private lands, including
the use of the Safe Harbor Agreement
(SHA) program, conservation easements,
conservation banks, and the habitat
credit and exchange program. We will
briefly discuss each of these tools in the
next several paragraphs.
The SHA program promotes voluntary
agreements between the Service and
private or other non-Federal property
owners whose actions contribute to the
recovery of Utah prairie dogs. Prior to
our 2007 90-day finding, we entered
into three SHAs covering 97 ha (240 ac)
of occupied and unoccupied habitat
within the Paunsaugunt and Awapa
Plateau recovery units (Service 2005b,
entire; Service 2005c, entire; Service
2006, entire). As of 2010, two more
SHAs are in place with private
landowners, covering an additional 400
ha (990 ac) of Utah prairie dog habitat.
In addition, a rangewide programmatic
SHA was completed in 2009,
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
36064
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
administered by Panoramaland
Resource Conservation and
Development Council (2009, entire)
(Service 2010, p. 1.9–4), to help
facilitate the completion of additional
SHAs. The SHA program not only
facilitates Utah prairie dog conservation
efforts on private lands, but also
increases the habitat that is actively
managed for the species while the
landowners are enrolled in the program.
Conservation banks, another recovery
effort on private lands, are a means to
collectively provide mitigation in an
effective manner to offset the impacts of
habitat loss. In our 2007 90-day finding,
we discussed one approved
conservation bank: The 2005 SITLA
conservation bank located on Parker
Mountain within the Awapa Plateau
recovery unit and totaling
approximately 307 ha (758 ac). Since
then, a second conservation bank was
approved in 2009 in the West Desert
recovery unit: The Little Horse Valley
conservation bank is an 89-ha (220-ac)
parcel owned by Iron County (Service
2010, p. 1.9–5). Other conservation
banks are in the initial stages of
development (Service 2010, p. 1.9–5).
Our Draft Revised Recovery Plan sets a
goal of protecting 2,023 ha (5,000 ac) of
occupied habitat in conservation banks
within each recovery unit (Service 2010,
p. 3.1–6). The SITLA and Little Horse
Valley conservation banks alone
represent 15 percent and 4 percent,
respectively, of the protected habitat
acreage goal in the Awapa and West
Desert recovery units.
The Petitioners assert there is a lack
of agency personnel and resources to
implement the (1991) Recovery Plan
and the Interim Conservation Strategy
(Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 147);
however, they do not quantify this
assertion with any examples or
information regarding how lack of
personnel adversely affect the prairie
dog. As government agencies, we are
required to work within our allocated
annual budgets. However, despite
funding limitations, the Utah prairie dog
recovery program is moving forward
with several significant actions to
further conservation of the species. For
example, the BLM implements Utah
prairie dog habitat management
projects; supports annual plague
treatments; and conducts and funds
plague, population, and habitat
monitoring and research. The Dixie
National Forest dusts Utah prairie dog
colonies to reduce plague (over 295 ha
(730 ac) were treated in 2009); conducts
habitat improvement projects; and
manages translocation sites (USFS 2009,
entire). Bryce Canyon National Park
implements habitat restoration projects;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
monitors for plague; and hosts Utah
prairie dog research efforts.
Additionally, the Park conducts
outreach programs with local
communities, including hosting the first
Utah Prairie Dog Day in 2010. In
summary, there have been major efforts
made within the Utah prairie dog
recovery program by all of the Federal
agencies involved.
Overall, the Utah Prairie Dog
Recovery Plan, and actions within the
plan, are not contributing to declines of
the Utah prairie dog. If anything, the
1991 Recovery Plan, Interim
Conservation Strategy, and 2010 Draft
Revised Recovery Plan show a clear
progression in our understanding of
Utah prairie dog ecology and our ability
to address threats to the species. For
example, we have improved in our
understanding and ability to manage
plague outbreaks. We continue to
improve translocation techniques and
success rates. In addition, we have
increased our efforts to work with
private landowners to conserve Utah
prairie dog habitats. The species’ longterm population trend is stable to
increasing, indicating that recovery
efforts by all of our partners are working
to achieve the criteria set forth in the
recovery plans.
Federal Land Management Policies
The Petitioners contend that Federal
land management policies facilitate
Utah prairie dog habitat loss and
degradation (Forest Guardians et al.
2003, pp. 119–139). They primarily
reference 1997 BLM land management
plans, but do not provide any evidence
that these policies have resulted in the
decline of Utah prairie dogs to the point
where the species should be listed as
endangered. In addition, we concluded
in A. Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of its
Habitat or Range that the information
provided by the petition and in our files
does not indicate that threats from land
use activities on these Federal lands rise
to the level at which they may put the
species in current danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.
Because the Utah prairie dog is
already listed as threatened, the Federal
land management agencies (i.e., BLM,
USFS, National Park Service (NPS))
review all proposed land use actions
with the Service through consultation
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act to
ensure that actions will not jeopardize
the species, and to minimize effects
through implementation of conservation
measures and terms and conditions. For
example, the BLM and USFS are in the
process of revising their land
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
management plans. Through these
revisions and associated section 7
consultation processes, the agencies are
committed to conservation measures
that protect Utah prairie dogs and their
habitat from various land use activities
(USFS 1986, pp. iv–20 to iv–21, iv–33;
BLM 2008b, Appendices 10, 11, 14;
BLM 2008c, p. 62, Appendices 1, 2, 9).
Similarly, we completed a
programmatic consultation with APHISWildlife Services under section 7 of the
Act, to ensure that grasshopper control
actions will not have adverse effects on
listed species, including Utah prairie
dogs. The consultation contains
required conservation measures to
protect the species, including a 1.0-mi
(1.6-km) buffer zone around occupied
Utah prairie dog habitat (USDA 2005,
p. 12).
While the Petitioners also are
concerned with APHIS-Wildlife
Services’ prairie dog control activities
(Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 140–
145), we have received application for
and approved only one permit to control
Utah prairie dogs on private agricultural
land adjacent to a parcel of land
protected under a conservation
easement. The approval of this permit
will not endanger the Utah prairie dog
because of its limited scope and the fact
that the permitted take is limited to the
number of animals that exceed the
baseline population size.
The Petitioners are concerned that the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
labeling for toxicants and fumigants is
not adequate for Utah prairie dog
protection (Forest Guardians et al. 2003,
p. 144); however, these chemicals are
not registered for use on Utah prairie
dogs. We do not currently allow
toxicants or fumigants to be used as
lethal control methods for Utah prairie
dogs and no information exists in our
files or in the petition indicating that
use of these chemicals is occurring
illegally other than in isolated instances.
All Federal agencies are obligated by
section 7(a)(1) of the Act to use their
authorities to conserve and recover
listed species. Because the Utah prairie
dog is a threatened species, section
7(a)(1) of the Act is applicable. The
BLM, USFS, and NPS are part of the
Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Team and
routinely conduct Utah prairie dog
recovery efforts (see the ‘‘Recovery Plan
and Interim Conservation Strategy’’
section above).
In summary, we agree that the Utah
prairie dog is impacted by a variety of
Federal land use activities, and that
these are in part why the species is
listed as threatened; however, as
discussed in A. Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range
above, these activities do not put the
species in danger of extinction. Thus,
we conclude that the information
regarding the effects of Federal land
management policies does not indicate
that uplisting to endangered may be
warranted.
Section 10 Habitat Conservation Plans
In our 2007 90-day finding, we
discussed the Iron County HCP, the
Garfield County HCP (never finalized),
and an additional HCP (now called the
Golf Course HCP) (finalized in 2007). In
the section of this finding entitled A.
Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of its
Habitat or Range, we again conclude
that the information regarding the
effects of urban development and the
associated HCPs does not indicate that
uplisting to endangered may be
warranted.
Summary of Factor D
Federal regulatory mechanisms apply
in whole or in part to threats described
in the sections discussing Factors A, B,
C, and E. We conclude in this finding
that we do not have substantial
information from the Petitioners or in
our files that indicates that those
threats, as managed under current
regulatory mechanisms, rise to the level
that places the species in current danger
of extinction. We have supplemented
this section with new information since
our 2007 90-day finding, and our
evaluation continues to support our
conclusion. Therefore, we find that the
information provided in the petition, as
well as other information in our files,
does not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
uplisting from threatened to endangered
under the Act may be warranted due to
inadequate regulatory mechanisms.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Continued Existence of the
Species
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Information Provided in the Petition
The Petitioners state that rodent
control efforts, the Utah prairie dog
translocation program, and drought
present significant threats to Utah
prairie dogs. The petition cites legal take
under the special 4(d) rule (50 CFR
17.40(g)) and ongoing illegal poisoning
and shooting as endangering the species
(Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 161–
162). In particular, the Petitioners point
out that control of Utah prairie dogs
under the special 4(d) rule has resulted
in legal take of 14,002 prairie dogs (as
of 2003) and suggest that annual take
levels may be contributing to population
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
declines (Forest Guardians et al. 2003,
pp. 162–163). The petition alleges that
any illegal poisoning that occurs
increases the magnitude of permitted
take (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p.
165). The petition calls the translocation
program a failure, stating that
translocations have not resulted in an
increase of Utah prairie dog populations
on public lands, and have resulted in a
loss of animals on private lands (Forest
Guardians et al. 2003, p. 166). The
petition points out that many
translocation sites do not meet Interim
Conservation Strategy vegetation
guidelines, and that Utah prairie dogs
translocated to the Adams Well site
have lost weight, thus making them less
likely to survive through winter (Forest
Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 170–184). The
petition states that, although drought is
a naturally occurring phenomenon,
continuing livestock grazing during
drought conditions exacerbates the
effects of drought on Utah prairie dogs
(McDonald 1993, pp. 16–17; Forest
Guardians et al. 2003, p. 185).
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
The threat addressed in the petition
regarding the relationship of drought
and livestock grazing regimes on Utah
prairie dog habitat is discussed under A.
Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of its
Habitat or Range. We acknowledged that
improper grazing can impact the species
during drought conditions in sitespecific areas, but the information
presented by the Petitioners and in our
files does not indicate that this warrants
uplisting to endangered status. Illegal
shooting is discussed under B.
Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes. Legal take occurring in
compliance with the special 4(d) rule
(50 CFR 17.40(g)) is discussed under D.
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms. We concluded that these
threats are all part of the reason that the
species remains listed as threatened;
however, none of these factors rise to
the level that places the Utah prairie dog
currently in danger of extinction (see
‘‘Livestock Grazing’’ under ‘‘A., Present
or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of its
Habitat or Range’’; see ‘‘Illegal shooting’’
under ‘‘B., Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes’’; and see
‘‘Special 4(d) Rule’’ under ‘‘D.,
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms’’).
The translocation program is
discussed in the next several
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36065
paragraphs, including additional
information evaluated since our 2007
90-day finding. Translocation of Utah
prairie dogs is used to increase the
numbers of prairie dog colonies in new
locations across the species’ range.
Translocation of Utah prairie dogs
occurs within and between recovery
units in part to address the species’
limited levels of genetic diversity
(Service 1991, p. 19; Roberts et al. 2000,
p. 45). Translocation efforts include
habitat enhancement at selected
translocation sites and live trapping of
Utah prairie dogs from existing colonies
to move them to the selected
translocation sites.
We acknowledge that the
translocation program was historically
not as successful as predicted. As
translocation methodology has
improved (Jacquart et al. 1986, pp. 54–
55; Coffeen 1989, p. 7; Truett et al. 2001,
pp. 868–869), so has our success rate
(Service 2010, pp. 1.9–1 to 1.9–3). For
example, 12 of 15 (80 percent) post-1986
translocation sites still had prairie dogs
present in 1992, whereas only 5 of 23
(22 percent) of pre-1986 translocation
sites were still occupied by prairie dogs
in 1992. Furthermore, by 1992, post1986 translocation sites had a
significantly higher number of prairie
dogs per site (840 animals) versus pre1986 translocation sites (157 animals).
By 2008, 23,359 Utah prairie dogs had
been translocated from private to public
lands (McDonald 1993, p. 39; Table 4,
p. 42; Bonzo and Day 2003, pp. 14–16;
Brown pers. comm. 2009). As of 2009,
24 translocation sites were occupied:
Four of 8 sites in the Awapa Plateau
recovery unit; 6 of 8 sites in the
Paunsaugunt recovery unit; and 14 of 20
sites in the West Desert recovery unit
(Brown pers. comm. 2009) (these are not
necessarily the same sites described in
the 1980s and 1990s, as new
translocation sites are sometimes
developed while some old sites may no
longer be in use). While translocation
success and survival rates were
historically low, they have improved
over time and it is noteworthy that
translocation has resulted in the
establishment of new colonies.
The Service’s 2006 Recommended
Translocation Procedures define
specific procedures for locating
translocation sites, preparing the sites,
live trapping, handling, transporting,
releasing, monitoring, and managing
animals (Service 2010, Appendix D).
For example, current translocation
procedures include restrictions on the
timing of movements for certain age and
sex categories (i.e., early translocation of
males to aid in establishing burrows for
subsequent females and juveniles
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
36066
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
released in late summer) (Jacquart 1986,
p. 54). Supplemental food and water are
used at new translocation sites to
increase survival because increased
energy expenditures are incurred during
the trapping and transport process;
increased stimuli of a new environment;
increased burrowing activity upon
release; and increased vigilance of
newly released prairie dogs (Truett et al.
2001, p. 869). We also use retention
cages to keep the newly translocated
prairie dogs at the intended release
areas and exclude predators (Truett et
al. 2001, pp. 868–869). Furthermore, in
an effort to minimize the potential for
plague transmission between colonies,
prairie dogs are not translocated into
already-established colonies; animals
are not captured and moved from any
colonies where plague is suspected; all
animals are treated with an insecticide
called Deltamethrin (Delta dust) prior to
release at translocation sites; and
translocation colonies are provided
additional treatments of Delta dust as
needed. These safeguards appear to be
further improving translocation success.
We conclude, based on the long-term
stable-to-increasing Utah prairie dog
rangewide population trends, that there
is no indication that translocations have
moved the species’ trajectory toward
endangerment, despite the mortality of
individual animals. Overall,
translocations have resulted in the
establishment of new Utah prairie dog
colonies on Federal lands.
Translocations will continue to play an
important role in recovery of the Utah
prairie dog (Service 2010, p. 2.3–4).
Thus, we find that the information
provided in the petition, as well as other
information in our files, does not
present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
uplisting from threatened to endangered
under the Act may be warranted due to
other natural or manmade factors
affecting the species’ continued
existence.
Finding
In summary, we agree with the
Petitioners’ overall identification of
threats to the Utah prairie dog. Our 2010
Draft Revised Recovery Plan identifies
all of the threats raised by the
petitioners, concluding that
urbanization and plague remain the toptier threats to the species (Service 2010,
pp. 2.3–1 to 2.3–2). However, the
petition does not present substantial
information indicating that the level of
threats to the species may place the
Utah prairie dog in current danger of
extinction. Long-term population trends
since the downlisting of Utah prairie
dog in 1984 remain stable to increasing,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
indicating that the threats, while they
still exist, are not negatively changing
the population trends. In addition, the
species is already listed as threatened
under the Act, and is already subject to,
and receives protection from, the
regulatory mechanisms of the Act. As
stated in the ‘‘Background’’ section, a
threatened species is defined as a
species which is likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The level
of threats facing Utah prairie dogs
indicates that the species should
continue to be listed as threatened. This
decision is consistent with our original
‘‘not substantial’’ determination when
we first evaluated and presented our
findings in 2007 (72 FR 7843).
Additional Findings in Compliance
With Court Order
On September 28, 2010, the U.S.
District Court for the District of
Columbia ordered the 2007 90-day
finding to be vacated and remanded to
the Service for two reasons:
(1) The Service failed to explain how
the reduction in the Utah prairie dog’s
historical range did not indicate that
reclassifying the species as endangered
may be warranted, and failed to explain
how the reduction in the Utah prairie
dog’s historical range does not
constitute a ‘‘significant portion of the
species’ range.’’
(2) The Service failed to explain
whether the listing factors’ cumulative
effect indicates that reclassifying the
Utah prairie dog as endangered may be
warranted.
The following sections are
incorporated into this 90-day finding in
order to comply with the Court’s order.
Below we explain our listing process,
outline the information provided in the
petition, evaluate the information in the
petition and available in our files,
discuss our interpretation of both
‘‘significant portion of the range’’ and
‘‘cumulative effect,’’ and summarize our
findings on these topics.
Significant Portion of the Range
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we
make a finding on whether a petition to
list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with
the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files. To the maximum
extent practicable, we are to make this
finding within 90 days of our receipt of
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the petition, and publish our notice of
this finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires
that, for any petition that is found to
contain substantial scientific or
commercial information that listing or
reclassifying the species may be
warranted, we conduct a status review
and make a finding within 12 months of
the date of receipt of the petition. In the
12-month finding, we determine
whether the petitioned action is: (1) Not
warranted, (2) warranted, or (3)
warranted but 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. We
must publish these 12-month findings
in the Federal Register.
At the 12-month finding stage, we
consider the five factors in assessing
whether a petitioned entity is
threatened or endangered throughout all
of its range. If we determine that the
petitioned entity does not meet the
definition of a threatened or endangered
species throughout all of its range, we
must next consider in the 12-month
finding whether there are any
significant portions of the range where
the petitioned entity is in danger of
extinction or is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future.
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 current
range of the species that warrant further
consideration. The range of a species
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
currently in danger of extinction. 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.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
The above description outlines our
usual process for considering significant
portions of the range in 12-month
findings. To comply with the Court’s
order to explain both how the reduction
in the Utah prairie dog’s historical range
does not constitute a ‘‘significant
portion of the species’’ range, and how
the reduction in the Utah prairie dog’s
historical range does not indicate that
reclassifying the species as endangered
may be warranted, we include the
following evaluation.
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Information Provided in the Petition
The Petitioners assert that the Utah
prairie dog should be reclassified as
endangered within its historical range
(Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 1). As
noted in our discussion under A.
Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of its
Habitat or Range, they cite that the
historical area of the species declined
98.4 percent (Forest Guardians et al.
2003, p. 2). The Petitioners also state
that Utah prairie dog populations
decreased from 95,000 individuals
historically to a count of 4,217 in 2001.
The Petitioners note that the species’
distribution was much larger prior to
the poisoning campaigns in the 1900s
(Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 16), and
was then further impacted in the
1960s—resulting in the species’
extirpation from significant portions of
their historical range (Forest Guardians
et al. 2003, p. 17). They further assert
that these reductions in range continue
to occur (Forest Guardians et al. 2003,
p. 4).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
When analyzing whether a portion of
a species’ range is significant, we
examine the current status of a species,
which necessitates examining the
species in its current range. Lost
historical range, by itself, cannot
comprise a significant portion of a
species’ range as we define it (above)
based on our current practice, but is
relevant to the analysis of the current
and future viability of the species.
Therefore, we cannot list a species
based merely on the fact that it has lost
historical range (however large that loss
might be). However, the effect of lost
historical range on the viability of the
species could potentially prompt us to
list a species because the loss of
historical range has made the species
vulnerable to the point that the entire
species is at risk of extinction. In this
case, we are not considering listing (or
reclassifying) a species based on
whether or not it is ‘‘endangered’’ or
‘‘threatened’’ in its lost historical range,
but based on whether it is ‘‘endangered’’
or ‘‘threatened’’ throughout its current
range because that loss of historical
range is so substantial that it
undermines the viability of the species
as it exists today.
We acknowledge that historical Utah
prairie dog habitat was lost; this factor
was considered in our May 29, 1984,
reclassification of the species from
endangered to threatened (49 FR 22330)
and in the Draft Revised Recovery Plan
(Service 2010, p. 1.3–1). The primary
reason for the reduction in historical
range was widespread Utah prairie dog
poisoning and shooting campaigns
(Service 2010, p. 1.3–1); however, these
poisoning campaigns are no longer
active.
Today, although the species’ range is
reduced from historical times, the
species’ long-term (since 1976)
population trend is considered stable to
increasing (Figure 1) (UDWR 2010a,
entire). Thus, we conclude that the
viability of the remaining population is
not compromised to the point that the
species is currently in danger of
extinction.
Both the 1991 Recovery Plan and the
Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Utah
prairie dog support this justification
(Service 2010, pp. 3.2–7 to 3.2–8). In the
Draft Revised Recovery Plan, we
considered the species’ historical range,
current range, and recovery needs. Our
designation of three recovery units
within the species’ current range is
based on the conservation concepts of
representation, redundancy, and
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36067
resiliency (Service 2010, pp. 3.2–7 to
3.2–8). These recovery units are
individually necessary to conserve the
genetic, demographic, and ecological
diversity necessary for the long-term
sustainability of Utah prairie dogs.
However, neither the 1991 Recovery
Plan nor the Draft Revised Recovery
Plan indicates that achieving Utah
prairie dog recovery will require their
lost historical range (i.e., areas outside
of the three designated recovery units)
to be repopulated. In addition, because
widespread Utah prairie dog poisoning
campaigns no longer occur in the
species’ habitat, we do not anticipate
similar future losses of prairie dog
populations. Thus, we conclude that the
reduction of the Utah prairie dog’s
historical range has not made the
species vulnerable to the point that the
entire species may be currently in
danger of extinction.
In summary, the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia asked us to
explain how the reduction in the Utah
prairie dog’s historical range does not
constitute a ‘‘significant portion of the
species’ range,’’ and how the reduction
in the Utah prairie dog’s historical range
does not indicate that reclassifying the
species as endangered may be
warranted. As discussed above, for the
purpose of giving meaning to
‘‘significant portion of the range’’ in the
context of a listing determination, we
consider a portion of the species range
to be 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 Utah
prairie dog’s lost historical range is not
a portion of the species’ current range,
does not describe the status of the
species where and as it exists at the time
of our listing determination, and, as
such, does not contribute to the
representation, resiliency, and
redundancy of the species that we
consider when making a listing
determination. Therefore, the Utah
prairie dog’s lost historical range does
not constitute a ‘‘significant portion of
the range.’’ Further, as previously
explained, we have determined that the
reduction in the Utah prairie dog’s
historical range does not indicate that
reclassifying the species as endangered
may be warranted, because we believe
that the effects of the loss of historical
range of the species does not place it in
danger of extinction such that
reclassifying the Utah prairie dog from
threatened to endangered may be
warranted.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
36068
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Cumulative Effects of Listing Factors
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1
Information Provided in the Petition
The Petitioners assert that Utah
prairie dog viability is cumulatively
impacted by all five of the listing
factors. They state that activities such as
destruction and degradation of private
and public lands, inadequate habitat
conservation planning, illegal shooting
and poisoning, an ineffective
translocation program, and plague
cumulatively impact Utah prairie dog
persistence and, therefore, necessitate
the reclassification of the species from
threatened to endangered (Forest
Guardians et al. 2003, p. 186).
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
We acknowledge that the Utah prairie
dog is threatened by several factors,
most notably habitat loss and
degradation from urbanization, and
plague (Service 2010, p. 1.8–3). Ongoing
threats, as described in the discussion of
Factors A through E, include livestock
grazing, road construction, OHV and
recreational use, habitat loss from
agricultural and urban land conversions,
illegal shooting, and plague. The species
is listed as threatened because of these
factors.
Throughout this finding, we clearly
identified the effects of each of these
factors to the Utah prairie dog. In many
cases, we identified that the effects are
often localized to specific areas within
the species’ range. For example, the
threat of urbanization is greatest in the
West Desert recovery unit (see ‘‘Habitat
Loss from Agricultural and Urban Land
Conversion’’ under ‘‘A., Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification,
or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range’’);
albeit it is one of the largest overall
threats to the species. Livestock grazing
can be a threat to the species in sitespecific areas where improper grazing
negatively affects habitat conditions (see
‘‘Livestock Grazing’’ under ‘‘A., Present
or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of its
Habitat or Range’’). Road construction,
OHV use, and recreation may have
effects to individuals or colonies that
occur adjacent to the roadways, trails, or
play areas; however, these are localized
areas and do not result in populationlevel effects (see ‘‘Road Construction,
Off-Highway Vehicle Use, and
Recreation’’ under ‘‘A., Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification,
or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range’’).
Furthermore, there is an increased
planning effort on Federal lands toward
directing these activities away from
Utah prairie dog habitats (Service 2010,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Jun 20, 2011
Jkt 223001
p. 1.7–4). Existing and anticipated oil
and gas development occurs on only a
small percentage of the species habitat,
and even then effects are minimized by
Federal minimization and mitigation
requirements that avoid impacts to
suitable prairie dog habitats (see ‘‘Oil,
Gas, and Mineral Development’’ under
‘‘A., Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of its
Habitat or Range’’). Illegal shooting
occurs in some instances, but we have
only documented isolated incidents.
Illegal shooting is not widespread across
the species’ range (see ‘‘B.,
Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes’’). Similarly, predation is a
natural occurrence in Utah prairie dog
colonies. Effects are normally realized
in only isolated instances at highly
fragmented colonies or at new
translocation sites (see ‘‘C., Disease or
Predation’’).
We determined that none of these
threats, by themselves, act to place the
species in current danger of extinction.
Although most of the threats we
analyzed have localized distributions, it
is possible that more than one threat
may act together to cause the local
reduction or extirpation of a colony.
However, at a rangewide level, Utah
prairie dog population trends are stable
to increasing, indicating that the factors
identified above, both individually and
cumulatively, have no broad-scale
effects that threaten the species to the
extent that it is currently in danger of
extinction.
Plague occurs across the species’
entire range, and could certainly act
cumulatively with other threat factors to
cause individual colonies to be reduced
in size or extirpated (see ‘‘C., Disease or
Predation’’). For example, if habitat is
degraded from overgrazing or wildfire, it
may hinder the ability of prairie dogs to
reestablish a colony that is reduced or
eliminated by plague.
However, despite the fact that plague
and the other threats to the species have
occurred for decades, and sometimes act
cumulatively to affect individual
colonies or complexes, the population
trend of the Utah prairie dog remains
stable to increasing across the species’
range. Therefore, we conclude that the
cumulative effects of these factors do
not threaten the species to the extent
that reclassifying the species from
threatened to endangered may be
warranted.
On the basis of our determination
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we
conclude that the petition does not
present substantial scientific or
commercial information to indicate that
reclassifying the Utah prairie dog
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(Cynomys parvidens) under the Act as
an endangered species may be
warranted at this time. Although we
will not review the status of the species
at this time, we encourage interested
parties to continue to gather data that
will assist with the conservation of the
Utah prairie dog. If you wish to provide
information regarding the Utah prairie
dog, you may submit your information
or materials to the Field Supervisor,
Utah Ecological Services Field Office
(see ADDRESSES), at any time.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Utah Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the Utah
Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES). The primary authors of the
90-day finding published on February
21, 2007, were the staff members of both
the Utah Ecological Services Field
Office and the Colorado Ecological
Services Field Office.
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: June 7, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–15283 Filed 6–20–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0044; MO
92210–0–0009]
RIN 1018–AW86
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Sonoma County Distinct
Population Segment of the California
Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma
californiense)
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; revision and
reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM
21JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36053-36068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15283]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2011-0037]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised 90-Day
Finding on a Petition To Reclassify the Utah Prairie Dog From
Threatened to Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of revised 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
revised 90-day finding on a petition to reclassify the Utah prairie dog
(Cynomys parvidens) from threatened to endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). As we concluded in our 90-day
finding published on February 21, 2007, we find that the February 3,
2003, petition does not present substantial information indicating that
reclassifying the Utah prairie dog from threatened to endangered may be
warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a status review in response
to the February 3, 2003, petition. However, we ask the public to submit
to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status
of, or threats to, the Utah prairie dog or its habitat at any time.
DATES: The revised 90-day finding announced in this document was made
on June 21, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2011-0037. 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 Ecological Services 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 address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES), by telephone (801-
975-3330), or by facsimile (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)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with the petition, and information
otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we
are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition,
and publish our notice of this finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
information was presented, we are required to promptly conduct a
species status review, which we subsequently summarize in our 12-month
finding.
In making this finding, we applied the standards described above
for substantial information. Under the Act, a threatened species is
defined as a species which is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. An endangered species is defined as a species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. Therefore, in evaluating the information in this petition to
reclassify the Utah prairie dog from threatened to endangered, we have
based our determination on whether the petition presents substantial
scientific and commercial information indicating that the species may
be currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
Petition History
On February 3, 2003, we received a petition, dated the same day,
from Forest Guardians, Center for Native Ecosystems, Escalante
Wilderness Project, Boulder Regional Group, Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance, and Terry Tempest Williams (Petitioners) requesting that the
Utah prairie dog be reclassified as endangered under the Act (Forest
Guardians et al. 2003, entire). The petition clearly identified itself
as such and included the requisite identification information for the
petitioners, as required by 50 CFR
[[Page 36054]]
424.14(a). We acknowledged receipt of the petition in a letter to
Nicole Rosmarino on November 21, 2003. In that letter we also advised
the Petitioners that, due to prior listing allocations in Fiscal Years
2003 and 2004, we would not be able to begin processing the petition in
a timely manner. On February 2, 2004, we received a Notice of Intent to
sue from the Petitioners for failure to issue the 90-day finding.
On February 2, 2006, the Petitioners filed a complaint for
injunctive and declaratory relief in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia. On June 2, 2006, the parties reached a
settlement that required the Service to make a 90-day finding on the
February 3, 2003, petition on or before February 17, 2007. The 90-day
finding published on February 21, 2007 (72 FR 7843), constituted our
compliance with the settlement agreement. We found that the petition
did not provide substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that reclassification may be warranted. This decision was
challenged by WildEarth Guardians in litigation.
On September 28, 2010, the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia vacated and remanded our February 21, 2007, not-
substantial 90-day finding (72 FR 7843) back to us for further
consideration (WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, Case 1:08-cv-01596-CKK
(D.D.C. 2010)). We were directed to address cumulative effects and to
consider whether the loss of historical range constituted a significant
portion of the species' range. We have considered both of these
remanded items in our Findings section below. Additionally, because the
finding was remanded by the Court, we considered the petition as
resubmitted at the time of the Court's order and now evaluate the
information submitted in the petition and the information in Service
files as of the remanded date (September 28, 2010). We considered
whether this current data affect our original 2007 decision that the
petition did not present substantial information indicating that
reclassification may be warranted. Although we supplemented our revised
90-day finding with new information since our 2007 90-day finding, our
evaluation continues to support a ``not substantial'' determination.
This revised 90-day finding constitutes our compliance with the
District Court's order dated September 28, 2010 (WildEarth Guardians v.
Salazar, Case 1:08-cv-01596-CKK (D.D.C. 2010)).
Previous Federal Actions
We listed the Utah prairie dog as an endangered species on June 4,
1973 (38 FR 14678), pursuant to the Endangered Species Conservation Act
of 1969 (the predecessor to the 1973 Act). On November 5, 1979, the
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) petitioned the Service to
remove the Utah prairie dog from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife. Based on information provided in the petition, the species
was reclassified from endangered to threatened on May 29, 1984 (49 FR
22330).
Species Information
We have updated this information since our February 21, 2007, 90-
day finding, based on the best information currently available in our
files. We determined that updating the basic biological information for
the species with information contained in our files has no effect on
our decision as to whether or not the petition contains substantial
information.
Taxonomy
Prairie dogs belong to the Sciuridae family of rodents, which also
includes squirrels, chipmunks, and marmots. There are five species of
prairie dogs, all of which are native to North America, and all of
which have non-overlapping geographic ranges (Hoogland 2003, p. 232).
Taxonomically, prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) are divided into two
subgenera (Hoogland 1995, p. 8): the white-tail and the black-tail. The
Utah prairie dog (C. parvidens) is a member of the white-tailed group,
subgenus Leucocrossuromys. Other members of this group, which also
occur in Utah, are the white-tailed prairie dog (C. leucurus) and the
Gunnison prairie dog (C. gunnisoni).
The Utah prairie dog is recognized as a distinct species (Zeveloff
1988, p. 148; Hoogland 1995, p. 10), but is most closely related to the
white-tailed prairie dog. These two species may have once belonged to a
single interbreeding species (Pizzimenti 1975, p. 16), but are now
separated by ecological and physiographic barriers. We accept the
characterization of the Utah prairie dog as a distinct species because
of these ecological and physiographic barriers from other prairie dog
species (Zeveloff 1988, p. 148).
Species Description
The Utah prairie dog is the smallest species of prairie dog;
individuals are typically 250 to 400 millimeters (mm) (10 to 16 inches
(in.)) long (Hoogland 1995, p. 8)). Weight ranges from 300 to 900 grams
(g) (0.66 to 2.0 pounds (lb)) in the spring and 500 to 1,500 g (1.1 to
3.3 lb) in the late summer and early fall (Hoogland 1995, p. 8). Utah
prairie dogs range in color from cinnamon to clay. The Utah prairie dog
is distinguishable from other prairie dog species by a relatively short
(30 to 70 mm (1.2 to 2.8 in.)) white- or gray-tipped tail and a black
``eyebrow'' above each eye (Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 1; Hoogland
2003, p. 232).
Life History
Utah prairie dogs hibernate for 4 to 6 months underground each year
during the harsh winter months, although they are occasionally seen
above ground during mild weather (Hoogland 2001, p. 918). Adult males
cease surface activity during August and September, and females follow
suit several weeks later (Hoogland 2003, p. 235). Juvenile prairie dogs
remain above ground 1 to 2 months longer than adults and usually
hibernate by late November. Emergence from hibernation usually occurs
in late February or early March (Hoogland 2003, p. 235).
Mating begins 2 to 5 days after females emerge from hibernation,
and can continue through early April (Hoogland 2003, p. 236).
Approximately 97 percent of female Utah prairie dogs breed in any given
year. They come into estrus (period of greatest female reproductive
responsiveness usually coinciding with ovulation) and are sexually
receptive for a few hours for only 1 day during the breeding season
(Hoogland 2001, p. 919). Females give birth to only one litter per
year, in April or May (Hoogland 2001, pp. 919-920; Hoogland 2003, p.
236). Only 67 percent of female prairie dogs successfully wean a
litter, which ranges from one to seven pups, with an average of four
pups (Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 2; Wright-Smith 1978, p. 10;
Hoogland 2001, pp. 919-920, 923). The young emerge from their nursery
burrow by early to mid-June and primarily forage on their own (Hoogland
2003, p. 236).
Prairie dog pups attain adult size by October and reach sexual
maturity at the age of 1 year (Wright-Smith 1978, p. 9). Less than 50
percent of Utah prairie dogs survive to breeding age (Hoogland 2001, p.
919). Male Utah prairie dogs frequently cannibalize juveniles, which
may eliminate 20 percent of the litter (Hoogland 2003, p. 238). Only
about 20 percent of females and less than 10 percent of males survive
to age 4 (Hoogland 2001, Figures 1 and 2, pp. 919-920). Utah prairie
dogs rarely live beyond 5 years of age (Hoogland 2001, p. 919).
Natal dispersal (movement of first-year individuals away from their
area of
[[Page 36055]]
birth) and breeding dispersal (movement of sexually mature individuals
away from the areas where copulation occurred) are comprised mostly of
male prairie dogs. Young male Utah prairie dogs disperse in the late
summer, with average dispersal events of 0.56 kilometers (km) (0.35
mile (mi)) and long-distance dispersal events of up to 1.7 km (1.1 mi)
(Mackley 1988, p. 10). Most dispersers move to adjacent territories
(Hoogland 2003, p. 239).
Utah prairie dogs are organized into social groups called clans,
consisting of an adult male, several adult females, and their offspring
(Wright-Smith 1978, p. 38; Hoogland 2001, p. 918). Clans maintain
geographic territorial boundaries, which only the young regularly
cross, although all animals use common feeding grounds.
Habitat Requirements and Food Habits
Utah prairie dogs occur in semiarid shrub-steppe and grassland
habitats (McDonald 1993, p. 4; Roberts et al. 2000, p. 2; Bonzo and Day
2003, p. 1). Within these habitats, they prefer swale-type formations
where moist herbaceous vegetation is available (Collier 1975, p. 43;
Crocker-Bedford and Spillett 1981, p. 24). Vegetation on prairie dog
colonies is of short stature and allows the prairie dogs to see
approaching predators and to have visual contact with other members of
the colony (Collier 1975, p. 54; Crocker-Bedford and Spillett 1981, p.
25; Player and Urness 1983, pp. 517, 522).
Utah prairie dogs are predominantly herbivores, though they also
eat insects (primarily cicadas (Cicadidae)) (Crocker-Bedford and
Spillett 1981, p. 8; Hoogland 2003, p. 238). Grasses are a staple of
their annual diet (Crocker-Bedford and Spillett 1981, p. 8; Hasenyager
1984, pp. 19, 27), but other plants are selected during different times
of the year. Utah prairie dogs only select shrubs when they are in
flower, and then only eat the flowers (Crocker-Bedford and Spillett
1981, p. 8). Forbs are consumed in the spring. Forbs also may be
crucial to prairie dog survival during drought (Collier 1975, p. 43).
Soil characteristics are an important factor in the location of
Utah prairie dog colonies (Collier 1975, pp. 52-53; Turner 1979, p. 51;
McDonald 1993, p. 9). Well-drained soils are necessary for Utah prairie
dogs' burrows. Soils should be deep enough (at least 1 meter (m) (3.3
feet (ft)) to allow burrowing to depths sufficient to provide
protection from predators and insulation from environmental and
temperature extremes (McDonald 1993, p. 9). Soil color may aid in
disguising prairie dogs from surface predators (Collier 1975, p. 53).
Historical Distribution and Abundance
The Utah prairie dog is the westernmost member of the genus
Cynomys. Historically, the species' distribution included portions of
Utah in Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete,
Sevier, Washington, and Wayne Counties (Collier 1975, Figure 1, p. 16).
The Utah prairie dog may have occurred in portions of over 700
different sections (a section is a land unit equal to 260 hectares (ha)
(640 acres (ac)) in southwestern Utah (Collier and Spillett 1973, Table
1, p. 86); but the actual area that the species occupied within each of
these sections is not known. While the historical abundance was
estimated at 95,000 animals (McDonald 1993, p. 2), we do not consider
this a reliable estimate because it was derived from informal
interviews with landowners and not actual survey data.
Utah prairie dog populations began to decline when control programs
were initiated in the 1920s, and by the 1960s, the species'
distribution was greatly reduced as a result of poisoning and
unregulated shooting (see B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes below), sylvatic
plague (a nonnative disease (see C. Disease or Predation below),
drought, and habitat alteration from conversion of land to agricultural
crops (see A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range below) (Collier and Spillett 1972,
pp. 32-35; Service 1991, pp. 3, 6). While the actual numeric reductions
in population and habitat occupancy are not known, it is clear that by
the early 1970s, the Utah prairie dog was eliminated from large
portions of its historical range and populations declined to an
estimated 3,300 individuals distributed among 37 Utah prairie dog
colonies (Collier and Spillett 1972, pp. 33-35).
Current Distribution and Abundance
The Utah prairie dog's current range is limited to the southwestern
quarter of Utah in Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Piute, Sevier, and
Wayne Counties. The species occurs in three geographically identifiable
areas within southwestern Utah, which are designated as recovery areas
in our 1991 Recovery Plan (Service 1991, pp. 5-6) and in the petition,
and as recovery units in our Draft Revised Recovery Plan (Service 2010,
pp. 1.3-3, 3.2-7 to 3.2-8). These three recovery units are: (1) The
Awapa Plateau in portions of Piute, Garfield, Wayne, and Sevier
Counties; (2) the Paunsaugunt in western Garfield County, extending
into small areas of Iron and Kane Counties; and (3) the West Desert in
Iron County, extending into southern Beaver and northern Washington
Counties.
The best available information concerning Utah prairie dog habitat
and population trends comes from surveying and mapping efforts
conducted by the UDWR annually since 1976. These surveys (hereafter
referred to as ``spring counts'') count adult Utah prairie dogs every
year on all known and accessible colonies in April and May, after the
adults have emerged, but before the young are above ground in June (see
``Life History'').
Prairie dog spring counts typically underestimate the actual number
of adult animals, because only 40 to 60 percent of individual prairie
dogs are above ground at any one time (Crocker-Bedford 1975, p. 6).
Therefore, we assume that spring counts represent approximately 50
percent of the adult population. We calculate total population
estimates from the spring counts by taking into account the proportion
of animals we expect to see (roughly 50 percent as just discussed), the
proportion of successfully breeding adult females (67 percent of the 97
percent), and average litter size (four pups) (see ``Life History''
section above). Taking these factors into consideration, the total
population estimate, accounting for reproduction and juveniles, is the
spring count multiplied by 7.2. It should be noted that spring count
surveys and population estimates are not censuses. Rather, they are
designed to monitor population trends over time.
In our 2007 finding, we reported information on the spring counts
conducted from 1976 to 2005 in each recovery unit: Awapa Plateau varied
from 201 to 1,145 adult prairie dogs; Paunsaugunt varied from 652 to
2,205 adult prairie dogs; and the West Desert varied from 610 to 4,778
adult Utah prairie dogs (see Figure 1 below) (UDWR 2005, entire; 72 FR
7843). As of 2010, the Awapa Plateau recovery unit had a spring count
of 614 adult prairie dogs, the Paunsaugunt recovery unit had 835 adult
prairie dogs, and the West Desert recovery unit had 4,199 adult prairie
dogs (see Figure 1 below) (UDWR 2010a, entire). Overall, spring counts
from the past 34 years show considerable annual fluctuations, but
stable-to-increasing long-term trends (Figure 1) (UDWR 2005, entire;
UDWR 2010a, entire).
[[Page 36056]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21JN11.024
In addition to population trend information, the UDWR surveys
provide information on the amount of mapped and occupied habitat across
the species' range. We define mapped habitat as all areas within the
species' range that were identified and delineated as being occupied by
Utah prairie dogs at any time since 1976. Occupied habitats are defined
as areas that currently support Utah prairie dogs (i.e., where prairie
dogs are seen or heard or where active burrows or other signs are
found). The UDWR has mapped 24,142 ha (59,656 ac) of habitat rangewide,
of which 13,365 ha (33,025 ac) were occupied in 2009 (UDWR 2010b,
entire). All of the mapped habitat is not occupied by Utah prairie
dogs, as the species' distribution is constantly shifting across the
landscape. Additional information on Utah prairie dog distribution,
abundance, and trends in each recovery unit can be found in our Draft
Revised Recovery Plan (Service 2010, section 1.3)
Evaluation of Information for This Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species
to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of 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 considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may
be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat
it is. If the threat is significant, it may contribute to the risk of
extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as
threatened or endangered as those terms are defined by the Act. This
does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of
factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to
compel a finding that listing or reclassification may be warranted. In
our finding for this petition to reclassify a species from threatened
to endangered, the information should contain evidence sufficient to
suggest that threats that may be acting on the species could result in
the species being currently in danger of extinction versus being likely
to become so in the foreseeable future.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding the threats to the Utah prairie dog, as presented in the
petition and other information available in our files, is substantial,
thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our
evaluation of this information is presented below.
[[Page 36057]]
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Its Habitat or Range
Information Provided in the Petition
The Petitioners state that threats to the species' habitat include
the following: (1) Habitat loss from agricultural and urban land
conversions; (2) livestock grazing; (3) road construction, off-highway
vehicle (OHV) use, and recreation; (4) oil, gas, and mineral
development and seismic exploration; and (5) impacts of isolation and
fragmentation.
Habitat Loss From Agricultural and Urban Land Conversion
The Petitioners provide two citations (McDonald 1996, pp. 1-2;
O'Neill et al. 1999, pp.1-2) that described a decline in the species'
rangewide habitat occupancy from the 1920s through 1995. Based on these
citations, the Petitioners calculate that occupied Utah prairie dog
habitat declined from 181,299 to 2,824 ha (448,000 to 6,977 ac) as of
1995, a decline of 98.4 percent.
The Petitioners state that much of the historical, high-quality
Utah prairie dog habitat was in valleys, where crop agriculture and
urban activities and expansion historically occurred and are ongoing
(Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 55). The Petitioners cite ongoing
habitat loss due to urbanization as a threat to the Utah prairie dog,
particularly in the West Desert recovery unit (Bonzo and Day 2003, p.
23) which contains the highest percentage of Utah prairie dogs on
private land and is undergoing the highest rate of urbanization
compared to other areas across the species' range (Iron County 2006, p.
22).
The Petitioners discuss various urban development projects that
resulted in translocation of Utah prairie dogs and loss of their
habitat, both legally (Bonzo and Day 2003, pp. 22-23) (i.e., under
habitat conservation plan (HCP) section 10(a)(1)(B) permits and through
section 7 consultation) and illegally (McDonald 1996, pp. 24-25). The
Petitioners also state that increasing development on private lands can
negatively impact prairie dogs on adjacent Federal lands by increasing
human activities such as OHV use in previously undisturbed habitats
(Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 57). Finally, the Petitioners are
concerned that Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration
(SITLA) lands containing Utah prairie dog habitat are being sold to
private landowners and, therefore, are not safe from future development
(Williams 2002, pp. 91-93).
Livestock Grazing
The petition states that livestock grazing, particularly
overgrazing, can degrade Utah prairie dog habitat by causing shrub
encroachment (McDonald 1993, pp. 6, 16). The Petitioners provide
numerous general references that characterize the effects of
overgrazing to grassland habitats, including reducing grass cover and
vegetative biomass, degrading riparian areas, damaging cryptobiotic
crusts (communities of cyanobacteria, green algae, lichens, mosses,
liverworts, and microorganisms that colonize the surface of bare soil),
degrading soil conditions, and increasing invasive weeds and wildfires
(Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 57-75).
With respect to livestock grazing impacts to Utah prairie dogs
specifically, the Petitioners cite the 1991 Utah Prairie Dog Recovery
Plan (Service 1991, p. 11), a 1993 analysis of 20 years of Utah prairie
dog recovery efforts (McDonald 1993, pp. 16-17, 55), and the Utah
Prairie Dog Interim Conservation Strategy (Utah Prairie Dog Recovery
Implementation Team (UPDRIT) 1997, p. 5) as acknowledging the potential
for livestock grazing to degrade Utah prairie dog habitat. The
Petitioners conclude that livestock grazing must be recognized as a
threat to Utah prairie dogs and curtailed in a manner that promotes
Utah prairie dog conservation (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 58).
Road Construction, Off-Highway Vehicle Use, and Recreation
The Petitioners state that roads have a negative impact on Utah
prairie dogs by increasing direct mortalities from motor vehicle
strikes, through loss of habitat due to new road construction and
upgrades of existing roads, and through degradation of habitat and
increased disturbance due to increased OHV use (Noriega 2000, entire;
Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 76-79). The Petitioners conclude that
recreational activity in Utah prairie dog habitat, including camping,
hunting and fishing, OHV use, and hiking, can lead to population
declines or extirpation of colonies through direct disturbance or
habitat loss (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 78-79). The Petitioners
specifically mention the possible extirpation of the Three Peaks Utah
prairie dog colony due to intense recreational use (Service 2005a, p.
5).
Oil, Gas, and Mineral Development, and Seismic Exploration
The Petitioners cite numerous references stating that oil and gas
exploration and extraction results in the degradation and loss of
vegetation and habitats through crushing vegetation, introducing weed
species, and increasing soil erosion or soil compaction (Forest
Guardians et al. 2003, p. 80). The Petitioners rely on two studies
(Young and Sawyer 1981, entire; Menkens and Anderson 1985, entire) that
expressed concerns about the impacts of crushed vegetation, compacted
soil, and the potential for noise disruption on hibernating prairie
dogs.
The petition states that oil and gas leases are being offered in
Millard and Sevier Counties within the range of the Utah prairie dog
(Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 88). Mineral development, including
shalestone and flagstone extraction, and geothermal leasing are cited
as occurring within the range of the Utah prairie dog (Forest Guardians
et al. 2003, pp. 88-89).
Impacts of Isolation and Fragmentation
The petition states that the remaining prairie dog colonies tend to
be isolated and fragmented due to loss and degradation of Utah prairie
dog habitat, and the effects of extermination campaigns and plague.
Factors such as low reproductive rate, genetic drift, and inbreeding
may increase the potential for local extinctions in small populations
(Brussard and Gilpin 1989, p. 37). The Petitioners cite several
references on black-tailed prairie dogs to conclude that these small,
isolated colonies are then more susceptible to local extirpation from
factors such as sylvatic plague (Miller et al. 1994, 1996 in Forest
Guardians et al. 2003, p. 90; Mulhern and Knowles 1995, p. 26;
Wuerthner 1997, pp. 459, 464).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
The Petitioners conclude that the factors responsible for the loss
of Utah prairie dog habitat include habitat loss from agricultural and
urban land conversions; livestock grazing; road construction, OHV use,
and recreation; oil, gas, and mineral development and seismic
exploration; and the impacts of isolation and fragmentation (Forest
Guardians et al. 2003, p. 54). We agree with the Petitioners'
assessment that these factors are threats to the Utah prairie dog.
These factors are, in part, the reason that the Utah prairie dog is
Federally listed as a threatened species (Service 2010, section 1.7; 75
FR 5705, September 17, 2010). However, as described below, the
Petitioners do not present substantial information indicating that
these factors will cause
[[Page 36058]]
the Utah prairie dog to be in current danger of extinction such that it
may warrant reclassification from threatened to endangered.
Habitat Loss From Agricultural and Urban Land Conversion
We agree with the Petitioners' conclusion that historical Utah
prairie dog habitat and populations were lost to agricultural
conversion and urban development. However, we believe that the
Petitioners' assessment of the extent of historical habitat loss and
population decline is inaccurate. The Petitioners' assessment is based
largely on the assumption that Utah prairie dogs historically occurred
within 713 sections of land (Collier 1975, p. 15), and that mapped
habitat was reduced to 2,824 ha (6, 977 ac) by 1995 (McDonald 1997, p.
11). However, much of the area within the 713 sections of land contains
unsuitable habitat and was never occupied by prairie dogs (see
``Historical Distribution and Abundance'' section above). Therefore, it
is inaccurate to calculate historical habitat loss based on the total
area within those 713 sections (184,666 ha (456,320 ac)).
Our current data show that there are 24,142 ha (59,656 ac) of
mapped habitat rangewide, of which 13,365 ha (33,025 ac) were occupied
in 2009 (UDWR 2010b, entire). This is almost five times the amount of
occupied habitat reported by the Petitioners. Furthermore, our data
show that Utah prairie dog habitat occupancy and population trends (see
Figure 1) have been stable to increasing since 1995 (McDonald 1997, p.
11; Bonzo and Day 2000, p. 13; UDWR 2010b, entire). Overall, we believe
that the Petitioners overestimated the amount of occupied historical
habitat, and used outdated information that does not reflect the
current amount of occupied habitat and more recent population trends.
Given that our data show larger areas of occupied habitat than reported
by the Petitioners, and stable-to-increasing long-term population
trends, we conclude that we have no substantial scientific or
commercial information to indicate that threats from habitat loss may
warrant reclassification of the Utah prairie dog from threatened to
endangered. We further discuss the consequences of the loss of
historical habitat in the Significant Portion of the Range section (see
Finding below).
We acknowledge that historical Utah prairie dog habitat was lost in
large part due to agricultural conversion, a factor considered in our
May 29, 1984, reclassification of the species from endangered to
threatened (49 FR 22330). However, the Petitioners do not provide any
information on current losses from new agricultural developments. We do
not have any information in our files indicating that there are any
recent conversions of Utah prairie dog habitat to agricultural use.
We agree that habitat loss due to urbanization is a threat to the
species, particularly in the West Desert recovery unit (primarily Iron
County); we identified this threat in our May 29, 1984,
reclassification of the species from endangered to threatened (49 FR
22330), the 1991 Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Plan (Service 1991, pp. iv,
11), and the 2010 Draft Revised Recovery Plan (Service 2010, pp. 1.7-1
to 1.7-2). Loss of habitat due to urbanization remains one of the
primary threats to the species, and is one of the primary reasons that
the species remains listed as threatened. However, the Petitioners do
not present information that indicates that threats from urbanization
may warrant reclassification of the Utah prairie dog from threatened to
endangered.
Since our 2007 finding, and primarily during development of our
Draft Revised Recovery Plan (Service 2010, entire), we assessed the
most currently available information regarding impacts to Utah prairie
dog habitat from urbanization. We summarize this evaluation below to
ensure that our current information remains consistent with our 2007
finding.
The threatened status of the Utah prairie dog results in the need
to develop and implement habitat conservation plans (HCPs) to minimize
and mitigate impacts to the species from urban development on non-
Federal lands. Ongoing development and the resulting incidental take of
Utah prairie dogs in Iron County is authorized through 2018 under a
permit issued under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act and the Iron County
HCP (Iron County 2006, entire). The Iron County HCP process includes an
annual assessment of the amount of incidental take allowed each year.
The allowed annual incidental take is calculated as 10 percent of the
running 5-year average of prairie dogs counted on Federal or otherwise-
protected lands in the West Desert recovery unit.
As of 2009, following 11 years of implementation, the Iron County
HCP has permitted a total of 154 ha (381 ac) of habitat and 937 Utah
prairie dogs to be incidentally taken since 1998. This is an average of
78 prairie dogs and 12.9 ha (32 ac) of habitat taken annually. The Iron
County HCP expires in 2018. We believe these past levels of take are
reflective of the average levels of take that are likely to occur in
the future, given recent stable population trends for the species.
Using the average annual take, we estimate that an additional 702
prairie dogs and 116.5 ha (288 ac) of habitat may be taken through
2018, for a total of 271 ha (669 ac) of occupied habitat and 1,639
prairie dogs over the life of the permit. If the estimated level of
take occurs, approximately 6.5 percent of occupied habitat and 5.6
percent of the Utah prairie dog population (see ``Current Distribution
and Abundance'' above) in the West Desert recovery unit will be lost to
urbanization. While this amount of take is not to be dismissed, we
concluded that this level of take over the life of the 20-year permit
was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species
(Service 1998, p. 15). Over the last ten years of implementing this
HCP, the Utah prairie dog population has been stable to increasing
(UDWR 2005, entire; UDWR 2010a, entire). Based on these population
trends while implementing the HCP, we anticipate the additional take
estimated over the remaining life of the permit does not threaten the
species to the extent that reclassification, or ``uplisting,'' to
endangered status may be warranted. In addition, the take authorized
under the Iron County HCP is mitigated through restoration of habitat
on Federal lands and the translocation of animals from impacted private
lands to approved translocation sites on Federal lands.
There is no current mechanism (i.e., no approved HCP) to authorize
incidental take of Utah prairie dogs on non-Federal lands in the Awapa
or Paunsaugunt recovery units; and no current mechanism to authorize
incidental take in Iron County beyond 2018. We are working with the
counties to develop a rangewide HCP that would authorize additional
take in Iron, Garfield, and Wayne Counties. The rangewide HCP will be
required to minimize and mitigate impacts to the extent practicable,
and to ensure that the action will not appreciably reduce the
likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild.
Similarly, although there is the potential for SITLA to sell lands
occupied by Utah prairie dogs to private developers, the development of
these lands could only occur through a permitting process and
development of an HCP.
We do not dispute that human activities (i.e., recreation) may
increase on Federal lands as a result of nearby private developments.
However, the Petitioners only identify one specific development on
private land inholdings on the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Powell Ranger
District that could negatively impact prairie dogs. Because
[[Page 36059]]
the level of development from this one project is on a small scale with
localized impacts, and not indicative of more widespread development,
we believe that the information does not indicate that this threat
contributes to the risk of extinction of the species such that the
species may warrant reclassification to endangered.
In summary, we do not have information, and the Petitioners do not
present information, indicating that agricultural conversions are still
occurring at high levels or that they threaten the Utah prairie dog to
the extent that it may be in current danger of extinction. Habitat loss
due to urbanization is a threat to the species, and one of the primary
reasons that the species remains listed as threatened. Because of the
species' threatened status (see D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms below), urban development in Utah prairie dog habitats on
non-Federal lands can only proceed under approved HCPs and associated
10(a)(1)(B) permits. The only existing countywide HCP for the Utah
prairie dog is in Iron County, Utah, and the projected loss of habitat
from development through 2018 under the Iron County HCP does not rise
to a level where it places the species in danger of extinction. The
Iron County HCP was authorized in 1998; since its implementation, the
rangewide population of the Utah prairie dog has remained stable to
increasing (see Figure 1). Therefore, the Petitioners do not provide
substantial information--and we do not have information in our files--
that indicates that threats from urbanization may warrant
reclassification of the Utah prairie dog from threatened to endangered.
Livestock Grazing
We concur that improper livestock grazing can affect various
attributes of prairie dog habitat and food supply. However, most of the
citations provided by the Petitioners speak generally to the impacts of
improper grazing to grassland habitats. The citations provided by the
Petitioners that are specific to Utah prairie dogs indicate that there
was historical loss of Utah prairie dog habitats due to improper
grazing, and some site-specific reductions in habitat quality,
particularly at translocation sites (McDonald 1993, pp. 16-17).
However, information in the petition and in our files fails to indicate
that grazing negatively impacts Utah prairie dogs to the extent that
uplisting to endangered status may be warranted.
We agree that improperly managed grazing regimes can have negative
effects on Utah prairie dogs and their habitat, including decreased
habitat quality and decreased vegetation diversity (Collier and
Spillett 1973, p. 86; McDonald 1993, p. 16). Overgrazing can decrease
forage availability, potentially increase Utah prairie dog foraging
time, and consequently decrease vigilance and survivorship (Ritchie
1998, p. 9; Cheng and Ritchie 2006, pp. 550-551). Improperly grazed
lands resulting in lowered plant diversity can be vulnerable to greater
amounts of invasive plant species. Invasive plant species, such as
cheatgrass, create an altered fire regime, increasing the amount of
fire and further reducing native grasses and shrubs (Masters and Sheley
2001, p. 503). The resultant decreased plant diversity can impact Utah
prairie dog weight gain and survival, particularly during drought
conditions (Ritchie 1998, p. 9). Invasive species, cheatgrass in
particular, occur throughout the range of the Utah prairie dog.
However, since our 2007 finding, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
has released revised Resource Management Plans concluding cheatgrass
monocultures are generally localized as a result of habitat
perturbations (BLM 2008a, pp. 3-34). We conclude that while invasive
species may impact Utah prairie dog habitat on a site-specific basis,
information provided by the Petitioners and in our files does not
indicate that invasive species may threaten the Utah prairie dog across
the species' range to the point that uplisting to endangered status may
be warranted.
We further agree that overgrazing in swale habitats historically
led to erosion and reduced the amount of moisture available for grasses
and forbs (Crocker-Bedford and Spillett 1981, p. 22). However, the
Petitioners provided no information regarding the current level of
swale and riparian habitat degradation from livestock grazing in Utah
prairie dog habitats, and we have no information in our files showing
that this is a long-term or rangewide concern.
We agree that soil characteristics are an important factor in the
location of Utah prairie dog colonies (Collier 1975, pp. 52-53; Turner
1979, p. 51; McDonald 1993, p. 9). The petitioners provided ample
information on how livestock grazing reduces soil crusts. However,
information provided by the Petitioners and in our files does not
indicate that the loss of soil crusts has had any impact on the Utah
prairie dog.
We have information in our files that demonstrates that livestock
grazing also can have beneficial effects on Utah prairie dogs. For
example, in properly managed, grazed habitats, there is higher quality
vegetation and a greater amount of nutrient-rich young shoots (Cheng
and Ritchie 2006, p. 554). Livestock grazing in early spring, fall, and
winter is generally beneficial to Utah prairie dogs because it reduces
horizontal cover, which allows animals to spend less time looking for
predators (Ritchie and Brown 2005, p. 15). Prescribed rotational
grazing may help to maintain suitable vegetation height for Utah
prairie dogs, especially in highly productive sites like irrigated
pastures or where shrub invasion has occurred (Ritchie and Cheng 2001,
p. 2). Other studies suggest that prairie dog density is positively
correlated with heavy grazing, which simulates the shortgrass
environment preferred by prairie dogs (Coppock et al. 1983, p. 7;
Holland et al. 1992, p. 686; Marsh 1984, p. 203; Fagerstone and Ramey
1996, pp. 88, 92; Slobodchikoff et al. 1988, p. 406). Even so, tall
vegetation is more common in Gunnison and Utah prairie dog colonies
than in black-tailed prairie dog colonies (Hoogland 2003, p. 239). Utah
prairie dogs use this taller vegetation as hiding cover. Because Utah
prairie dogs use habitats with a shrub component, the UPDRIT revised
the Utah prairie dog vegetation guidelines to include a higher
percentage of shrubs (UPDRIT 2006, p. 1). This supports our conclusion
that there is not substantial information in the petition and in our
files suggesting that livestock grazing and shrub encroachment
negatively impact the Utah prairie dog to the extent that uplisting to
endangered status may be warranted.
In summary, we agree with the Petitioners that livestock grazing
can be a threat to the Utah prairie dog, particularly in site-specific
areas where improper grazing negatively affects habitat conditions. We
have previously acknowledged this threat, most recently in our Draft
Revised Recovery Plan (Service 2010, pp. 1.7-3 to 1.7-4). However,
neither the Petitioners' information nor information in our files
supports the assertion that grazing is endangering the Utah prairie dog
with extinction, especially given that Utah prairie dog populations are
stable to increasing rangewide (see Figure 1 above) (UDWR 2005, entire;
UDWR 2010a, entire).
Road Construction, Off-Highway Vehicle Use, and Recreation
We acknowledge that direct mortality of prairie dogs occurs on
roads. We also acknowledge that OHV use and other types of recreational
use, including recreational infrastructure development,
[[Page 36060]]
has occurred in Utah prairie dog habitat, resulting in habitat loss and
possibly, in the instance of the Three Peaks colony, extirpation of the
colony (Service 2005a, p. 5).
In our 90-day finding in 2007, we concluded that the impacts of
roads and OHV use were limited to localized areas and did not result in
population-level effects (72 FR 7843). Since 2007, we have evaluated
additional information regarding OHV use across the species' range. We
find that there is an increased planning effort on Federal lands toward
directing OHV use to designated trails or play areas, and consequently
away from Utah prairie dog habitats (Service 2010, p. 1.7-4).
Currently, all of the USFS districts and two of the three BLM field
offices within the range of the species include off-road travel
restrictions in their land use plans. For example, the Dixie and
Fishlake National Forests prohibit cross-country vehicle travel forest
wide (U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2006, p. 16; USDA 2009, p.
2). Almost the entire Richfield BLM district is either closed to OHV
use or limited to designated routes (BLM 2008b, pp. 52-55). The Kanab
BLM Resource Management Plan includes a conservation measure to
preclude cross-country motorized use in occupied or inactive Utah
prairie dog colonies (BLM 2008c, p. 62).
In summary, we do not have substantial information suggesting that
the localized impacts of roads and OHV recreational use result in
population-level effects. In addition, the majority of existing land
use plans across the range of the Utah prairie dog restrict off-road
recreational use in order to avoid or minimize impacts to prairie dog
habitat. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioners do not provide
substantial information--and we do not have information in our files--
that indicates that threats from roads and OHV recreational use may
warrant reclassification of the Utah prairie dog from threatened to
endangered.
Oil, Gas, and Mineral Development and Seismic Exploration
We are aware that oil and gas leasing is occurring within the range
of the Utah prairie dog. In our 2007 90-day finding, we stated that
there was no scientific or commercial information either in the
petition or in our files that quantified the extent of these activities
in occupied Utah prairie dog habitat. Since our 2007 90-day finding,
the USFS completed a biological assessment for their Oil and Gas
Leasing Environmental Impact Statement and determined that no Utah
prairie dog habitat will be impacted by development or production
activities due to a no-surface-occupancy stipulation (USFS 2010, p.
22). This stipulation prohibits occupancy or disturbance on the lease
parcel ground surface and, therefore, oil and gas resources may only be
accessed through use of directional drilling from sites outside the no-
surface-occupancy area. Furthermore, using a geographic information
system to analyze the overlap between Utah prairie dog recovery units
and energy resources, we found there are very little coal bed methane
and geothermal reserves within the range of the species (Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 2003, p. 1; Energy Information
Administration 2007, p. 1). In addition, there are no producing oil or
gas wells within any of the three recovery units (Utah Division of Oil,
Gas, and Mining 2009, p. 1). Based on the location of known reserves
and the lack of producing oil and gas wells, we expect direct and
indirect impacts from oil and gas development on Utah prairie dogs will
be minor and localized.
Since publishing our 2007 90-day finding, we have completed
programmatic consultations with the BLM and USFS regarding oil and gas
development on lands they manage (BLM 2008b, pp. A11-18; USFS 2010, pp.
10-11). Through the consultation process, we worked with both agencies
to develop a set of avoidance and minimization measures for Federal oil
and gas leases within the range of the Utah prairie dog (BLM 2005, p.
8; BLM 2008b, pp. A11-18; BLM 2008c, pp. A3-9, A9-13 to A9-14; USFS
2010, pp. 10-11). These measures include prohibitions against surface
disturbance within 0.8 km (0.5 mi)) of active Utah prairie dog
colonies, and prohibitions against permanent disturbance within 0.8 km
(0.5 mi) of potentially suitable, unoccupied Utah prairie dog habitat,
as identified by UDWR (BLM 2005, p. 8; BLM 2008b, pp. A11-18; BLM
2008c, pp. A3-9, A0-13 to A9-14; USFS 2010, pp. 10-11). These measures
are currently attached to all BLM and USFS leases within the Utah
prairie dog's range. We conclude that these measures avoid and minimize
threats to the Utah prairie dog from oil and gas development.
We are aware that seismic exploration is occurring within the range
of the Utah prairie dog. The USFS estimates that up to 48.6 ha (120 ac)
of Utah prairie dog habitat on USFS land (less than 1 percent of the
total available suitable habitat on USFS lands) may be affected by
seismic surveys (USFS 2010, p. 22). We do not have similar estimates
for BLM lands within Utah prairie dog habitat. However, given the lack
of proven reserves and producing wells within any of the recovery
units, we anticipate low levels of future seismic exploration on BLM
lands. Furthermore, although the Petitioners cited studies that
identified potential effects of seismic testing on Utah prairie dogs,
these same studies concluded that any impact from seismic testing on
Utah prairie dogs is negligible (Young and Sawyer 1981, p. 2; Menkens
and Anderson 1985, p. 13). After evaluating the information provided by
Petitioners and in our files, we conclude that threats from seismic
exploration are localized and temporary.
In summary, we are aware that oil, gas, and mineral development and
seismic exploration are occurring within the range of the Utah prairie
dog. We agree that oil, gas, and mineral development can impact the
species where it occurs--the Utah prairie dog is listed as a threatened
species due to threats from a variety of human land use activities.
However, there has been a low level of exploration and development to
date, and projections for future exploration and development remain low
for the majority of the species' range (Service 2010, p. 1.7-6). In
addition, the Federal land management agencies have committed to
conservation measures that effectively avoid impacts in occupied or
historically occupied Utah prairie dog habitats and minimize impacts in
suitable habitats. Thus, we conclude that the Petitioners do not
provide substantial information--and we do not have information in our
files--that indicates that threats from oil, gas, and mineral
development, and seismic exploration may threaten the Utah prairie dog
to the point that uplisting it from threatened to endangered under the
Act may be warranted.
Isolation and Fragmentation
We concur that the majority of existing Utah prairie dog colonies
are small, numbering fewer than 200 individuals (UDWR 2005, entire),
and that habitat loss from a variety of land use activities can result
in increased isolation and fragmentation of prairie dog habitats.
However, the studies presented by the Petitioners for black-tailed
prairie dogs may not be directly applicable to the small size and
isolation of Utah prairie dog colonies, particularly with respect to
the species' response to plague (see C. Disease or Predation below).
Plague is active across the landscape and, as a result, colonies tend
to increase in numbers for a period of years, decline to very small
numbers following a plague event, and then
[[Page 36061]]
increase again (see C. Disease or Predation below). Although not
explicitly discussed in our 2007 90-day finding, studies show that the
lower density of white-tailed prairie dog colonies (compared to black-
tailed or Gunnison's prairie dog colonies) may actually benefit that
species by slowing plague transmission rates (Eskey and Haas 1940, pp.
18-19; Cully 1993, p. 40; Cully and Williams 2001, p. 898). This
benefit also may apply to Utah prairie dogs, which have similar colony
sizes and densities to white-tailed prairie dogs (Service 2010, p. 1.7-
7). Despite the fact that Utah prairie dog colonies tend to be small
and dispersed across the landscape, their overall population trend is
stable to increasing (see Figure 1, above). Therefore, we conclude that
the Petitioners do not provide substantial information--and we do not
have information in our files--that indicates that isolation and
fragmentation may threaten the Utah prairie dog to the point that the
species may warrant uplisting from threatened to endangered.
Summary of Factor A
In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition,
as well as other information in our files, does not constitute
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
uplisting the Utah prairie dog from threatened to endangered under the
Act may be warranted due to present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat. We agree that there are
numerous human land-use threats to the species, including those
presented in the Petition, such as urbanization; agricultural uses;
livestock grazing; roads; OHV and other recreational uses; and oil,
gas, and mineral development and seismic exploration. These threats may
result in the loss, fragmentation, and isolation of prairie dog
populations. These threats are the reason the Utah prairie dog remains
listed as a threatened species. As stated in the Background section, a
threatened species is defined as a species which is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, whereas an endangered species is a
species which is currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The information on threats discussed
in Factor A indicates that the Utah prairie dog should continue to be
listed as threatened. Many of the claims cited by the Petitioners, and
information in our files, indicate that most of the threats have
largely localized impacts on specific Utah prairie dog colonies or
complexes, particularly those impacts from livestock grazing; roads;
OHV use; and oil, gas, and mineral development and seismic exploration.
Therefore, we do not have substantial information indicating that the
threats rise to the level at which they may put the species in current
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
Urbanization is one of the largest of the identified threats to the
species (Service 2010, p. 1.8-4). For development to proceed, a section
10(a)(1)(B) permit and HCP with meaningful mitigation and compensation
are required. In addition, the rangewide population of the Utah prairie
dog is stable to increasing, indicating that ongoing threats are not
having a negative effect on the recoverability of the species (see
Figure 1 above). Thus, we have determined that the petition, as well as
other information in our files, does not present substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating that the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a
threat to the Utah prairie dog to the extent that uplisting from
threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition states that illegal shooting of Utah prairie dogs
still occurs (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 94-98) and provides
references to show that shooting can negatively affect prairie dogs in
general through population reduction, decreased colony expansion rates,
and changes in behavior (Reading et al. 1989, p. 19; Miller et al.
1993, p. 91; Vosburgh and Irby 1998, pp. 366-368).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Because the Utah prairie dog is already a listed species, shooting
is prohibited by the Act, except as provided for by the special 4(d)
rule (see 50 CFR 17.40(g) and D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms below). Therefore, we conclude that many of the Petitioners'
citations regarding the effects of recreational or otherwise broad-
scale shooting are not directly applicable to the Utah prairie dog. We
acknowledge that isolated instances of shooting do occur, and that it
is not feasible for UDWR and Federal land management agencies to patrol
all colony locations on a routine basis. Since the fall of 2007, three
poisoning incidents and one shooting incident occurred in the West
Desert recovery unit. These unauthorized killings resulted in impacts
to a few colonies, but these impacts did not extend to the population
level (Bell 2008, pers. comm.).
No information is available in the petition or in our files to
indicate that illegal shooting occurs on a broad-scale, rangewide basis
such that it may significantly affect the species at the population
level. Therefore, we conclude that the information provided in the
petition, as well as other information in our files, does not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
uplisting from threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted
due to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
Information Provided in the Petition
The Petitioners do not specifically identify predation as a threat
to the Utah prairie dog. Predation is briefly mentioned by the
petitioners as a component of the species ecology (Service 1991, p.
10); as a factor that results in mortality of translocated Utah prairie
dogs (Service 1991, p. 13; UPDRIT 1997, p. 5); and as a factor that may
increase due to overgrazing, road construction, and energy development
(McDonald 1993, p. 6; Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 58, 76, 83).
The Petitioners assert that sylvatic plague (Yersinia pestis), an
exotic bacterial disease, is a significant threat to prairie dogs. They
estimate that plague can result in 95 to 100 percent mortality in
Gunnison prairie dog colonies (Barnes 1993, p. 33; Fitzgerald 1993, p.
52) and that recovery from plague in black-tailed prairie dog colonies
is a slow process (Knowles 1995, p. 41). In their discussion on
isolation and fragmentation, the Petitioners also indicated that small,
isolated colonies of black-tailed and Gunnison prairie dogs are more
susceptible to local extirpation from factors such as sylvatic plague
(Miller et al. 1994, 1996 in Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 90;
Mulhern and Knowles 1995, p. 26; Wuerthner 1997, pp. 459, 464).
The Petitioners cite numerous instances of documented and suspected
plague events occurring throughout the Utah prairie dog range (Service
1991, p. 12; McDonald 1996, pp. 8-10; Bonzo and Day 2000, pp. 11-14).
They also cite
[[Page 36062]]
ongoing research in Utah prairie dog habitat on plague mitigation
through the use of insecticides to kill the fleas that carry the plague
bacterium (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 100). The Petitioners take
the view that as long as plague is present in the ecosystem, the Utah
prairie dog may not reach its recovery goals even if all other threat
factors are removed (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 100).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
In the 2007 90-day finding, we concluded that the Petitioners did
not identify predation as a threat to the Utah prairie dog. We agree
that predation can have adverse impacts on Utah prairie dogs in
unnaturally fragmented colonies or at new translocation sites (Service
2010, p. 1.7-9). For example, badgers can disrupt a translocation site
by digging up Utah prairie dogs that have not had a chance to fully
develop a burrow system. However, predation is a natural component of
healthy prairie dog populations (Collier and Spillett 1972, p. 36;
Service 2010, p. 1.7-9). Thus, we conclude that predation can be a
localized threat to some Utah prairie dog colonies, but we have no
information to indicate that predation places the species in danger of
extinction.
We agree with the petitioners that plague is a threat to the Utah
prairie dog; this threat is one of the primary reasons that the species
is listed as threatened. Plague was identified as a threat to the
species in the 1984 reclassification (49 FR 22330) rule and the 1991
Recovery Plan. In the Draft Revised Recovery Plan, plague is in the top
tier of threats to the species and is considered to be a primary threat
to the species' survival and conservation (Service 2010, p. 1.7-7). We
discussed plague in our 2007 finding, and present updated information
to consider in this finding.
We acknowledge that plague exists within all three Utah prairie dog
recovery units; individual Utah prairie dog colonies are affected by
the disease; and there is currently no mechanism available to prevent
periodic plague events from reoccurring. However, we conclude that the
Petitioners mischaracterized how plague spreads through Utah prairie
dog colonies and, therefore, its effects on the species, by primarily
relying on results from studies of Gunnison's and black-tailed prairie
dogs. For example, as discussed under A. Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range,
white-tailed and Utah prairie dog colonies are less dense and more
widely dispersed than black-tailed or Gunnison prairie dog colonies.
Studies of Gunnison's and black-tailed prairie dogs have shown that the
higher density of their colonies contributes to plague transmission and
subsequent mortality (Cully 1993, p. 40; Cully and Williams 2001, p.
901). Therefore, the lower density of white-tailed and Utah prairie dog
colonies may slow plague transmission rates and reduce the overall
long-term impact of the disease (Cully 1993, p. 40; Cully and Williams
2001, p. 901).
Social and behavioral traits of the Utah prairie dogs also may
reduce the transmission of plague. Utah prairie dogs are more
behaviorally similar to white-tailed prairie dogs than black-tailed
prairie dogs. White-tailed prairie dogs (and similarly, Utah prairie
dogs) spend less time socializing than black-tailed or Gunnison prairie
dogs; this characteristic appears to favor their long-term persistence
in a plague environment (Biggins and Kosoy 2001, p. 64; 75 FR 30338).
Hibernation by Utah and white-tailed prairie dogs also may reduce or
delay plague transmission among individual animals (Barnes 1993, p.
34).
Since our 2007 finding, we have learned more about potential
methods to minimize the impacts of plague. Deltamethrin and Pyraperm
are two insecticides (``dust'') used to successfully control fleas on
colonies of different prairie dog species, resulting in higher prairie
dog survival rates (Seery et al. 2003, p. 721; Hoogland et al. 2004, p.
379; Biggins et al. in press 2009). Experimental vaccine-laden baits
are being studied to determine their effectiveness