[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 http://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 in immunizing
prairie dogs against plague; initial lab results showed high level of
survival of black-tailed 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 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
[[Page 36063]]
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).
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.
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 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 90-day 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,
[[Page 36064]]
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; 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' long-term 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 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 APHIS-
Wildlife 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
[[Page 36065]]
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
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 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 site-
specific 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
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, post-1986 translocation sites had a
significantly higher number of prairie dogs per site (840 animals)
versus pre-1986 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
[[Page 36066]]
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 top-tier 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, 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 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.
[[Page 36067]]
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.
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).
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 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.
[[Page 36068]]
Cumulative Effects of Listing Factors
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 site-specific 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 population-level 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, 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 (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
http://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