[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 21, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7843-7852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2834]
[[Page 7843]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To Reclassify the Utah Prairie Dog From Threatened to
Endangered and Initiation of a 5-Year Review
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of a 5-year
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
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). We find that the petition does
not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that reclassification of the Utah prairie dog from threatened to
endangered may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a further
status review in response to this petition. We are, however, initiating
a 5-year review under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act for this species
because such a review has not been conducted in the last 5 years. We
ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes
available concerning the status of the Utah prairie dog or threats to
the species.
DATES: The 90-day finding announced in this document was made on
February 21, 2007. Comments and information for the 5-year review must
be submitted on or before April 23, 2007.
ADDRESSES: The petition, administrative finding, supporting data, and
comments will be available for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the Utah Ecological Services Field
Office, 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT 84119.
The petition and finding are available on our Web site at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/utprairiedog/.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials
by any one of the following methods:
(1) You may mail or hand-deliver written comments and information
to Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological Services Office, at the address
given above.
(2) You may submit your comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to
[email protected]. For directions on how to submit comments by e-
mail, see the ``Public Comments Solicited'' section of this notice. In
the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please submit
your comments by mail, hand-delivery, or fax.
(3) You may fax your comments to (801) 975-3331.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) (telephone 801-975-
3330; facsimile 801-975-3331). Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), 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 and supporting information
available in our files at the time of the petition review. 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 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 commence a review of the status of the
species.
In making this finding, we relied on information provided by the
petitioners and evaluated that information in accordance with 50 CFR
424.14(b). Our 90-day finding process under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act and Sec. 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a
determination of whether the information in the petition meets the
``substantial information'' threshold. A substantial finding should be
made when the Service deems that adequate and reliable information has
been presented that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the
petitioned action may be warranted. In making our determination on the
petition evaluated in this 90 day finding, which petitions us to
reclassify the Utah prairie dog from threatened to endangered, we have
made our determination on whether the petition presents substantial
scientific and commercial information indicating the species is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
Petition
On February 3, 2003, we received a petition submitted by Forest
Guardians, Center for Native Ecosystems, Escalante Wilderness Project,
Boulder Regional Group, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and Terry
Tempest Williams (Petitioners) requesting that we reclassify the Utah
prairie dog from threatened to endangered. 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 agreement
that requires the Service to make a 90-day finding on the petition on
or before February 17, 2007. This finding constitutes our compliance
with the settlement agreement.
Species Information
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: The white-tail and black-tail. The Utah prairie dog (C.
parvidens) is a member of the white-tail 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 distinguished by a
relatively short (30 to 70 millimeters (mm)/1.2 to 2.8 inches (in))
white- or gray-tipped tail (Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 1; Hoogland
2003, p. 232). The Utah prairie dog is most closely related to the
white-tailed prairie dog, and chromosomal and biochemical data suggest
that these two species may once have belonged to a single interbreeding
[[Page 7844]]
species (Pizzimenti 1975, p. 16). The two species are now separated by
ecological and physiographic barriers. Both Chesser (1984, p. 4) and
Ritchie and Brown (2005, p. 11) found that genetic variance within Utah
prairie dog populations is very low, less than half that commonly
observed for black-tailed prairie dogs (C. ludovicianus). This may be
the result of genetic drift on small populations (Chesser 1984, p. 5).
Life History
Detailed information on the life history of the Utah prairie dog
can be found in our May 29, 1984, final rule to reclassify the species
as threatened (49 FR 22330), in the recovery plan for the species
(Service 1991a), and on our Web site at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/utprairiedog/. A brief synopsis of
information on the species' life history that is relevant to this
finding follows:
Utah prairie dogs are true hibernators, ceasing most surface
activity during harsh winter months. Female Utah prairie dogs come into
estrus (period of greatest female reproductive responsiveness usually
coinciding with ovulation) and are sexually receptive for several hours
for only 1 day during the breeding season (generally mid-March through
early April). Consequently, only 67 percent of female prairie dogs wean
a litter, and they have only one litter per year (Hoogland 2001, pp.
919, 920). Litters range between 1 to 7 pups, but average between 3.88
and 4.8 pups (Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 2; Wright-Smith 1978, p.
10; Hoogland 2001, p. 923). The young 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 can eliminate 20 percent up to the entire litter
before the pups first appear aboveground (Hoogland 2003, p. 238).
After the first year, female survivorship is higher than male
survivorship, though still low for both sexes. 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). Such low survivorship severely
limits prairie dog reproduction (Hoogland 2001, p. 921). Utah prairie
dogs rarely live beyond 5 years (Hoogland 2001, p. 919).
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). Clans maintain geographic territorial
boundaries, which only the young regularly cross, although all animals
use common feeding grounds.
Habitat Requirements
Available moisture and prairie dog abundance and density are
positively correlated (Crocker-Bedford 1976, pp. 71-72). Prairie dogs
appear to prefer swale type formations where moist herbage is available
even during drought periods (Collier 1975, p. 43; Crocker-Bedford and
Spillett 1981, p. 24). Soil characteristics are also an important
factor in the location of Utah prairie dog colonies. A well-drained
area is necessary for home burrows. The soil should be deep enough to
allow burrowing to depths sufficient to provide protection from
predators and insulation from environmental and temperature extremes.
Prairie dogs must be able to inhabit a burrow system 1 meter (m) [3.3
feet (ft)] underground without becoming wet. Prairie dogs will avoid
areas where brushy species dominate, and will eventually decline or
disappear in areas invaded by brush (Collier 1975, pp. 44, 59; Player
and Urness 1983, p. 522).
Food Habits
Prairie dogs are predominantly herbivores, and they prefer alfalfa
and grasses during all seasons (Crocker-Bedford and Spillett 1981, p.
8). Grasses are the staple of their annual diet, with forbs being
preferred in summer and fall. Although forbs, other than alfalfa, are
not always highly preferred items throughout the year, they may be
critical to a prairie dog colony's survival during drought. Ritchie and
Brown (2005, p. 7) found that plant seeding in Utah prairie dog
transplant areas increased plant diversity and prairie dogs were more
likely to use or persist in seeded areas.
Current Distribution and Numbers
The Utah prairie dog is the westernmost member of the genus
Cynomys. The species' range, which is limited to the southwestern
quarter of Utah, is currently the most restricted of all prairie dog
species in the United States. As could best be ascertained by Collier
(1975, pp. 15-17), the species' distribution was much broader prior to
control programs and at one time extended across the desert almost to
the Nevada-Utah State line. Collier and Spillett (1975, p. 151)
estimate a 50 percent range reduction from 1925 to 1975, with the
greatest declines occurring in the western and northern parts of the
range. However, due to the lack of data from the early to mid 1900s,
this estimate is speculative.
Factors that resulted in the historical decline of Utah prairie
dogs were poisoning, which removed Utah prairie dogs from approximately
8,094 hectares (ha) [20,000 acres (ac)] of their range in Sevier,
Wayne, Garfield, and Iron Counties prior to 1963; drought; habitat
alteration, primarily in the form of cultivation to agricultural crops;
shooting; and disease (Collier and Spillett 1972, pp. 33-35). Major
predators include coyotes (Canis latrans), badgers (Taxidea taxis),
long-tailed weasels (Mustela frenata), various raptor species, and
prairie rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis) (Service 1991a, p. 9; Hoogland
2001, p. 922). In established colonies, predators probably do not exert
a controlling influence on numbers of prairie dogs (Collier and
Spillett 1972, p. 36). Long-term overgrazing, drought, disease
(plague), and competition with Uinta ground squirrels (Spermophilus
armatus) have contributed to larger-scale historic declines in prairie
dog numbers, including loss of entire colonies (Service 1991a, pp. 11-
12).
Historically, Utah prairie dog colonies were found as far west as
Pine and Buckskin Valleys in Beaver and Iron Counties, and may have
occurred as far north as Nephi, Utah, southeast to Bryce Canyon
National Park, east to the foothills of the Aquarius Plateau, and south
to the northern borders of Kane and Washington Counties (Pizzimenti and
Collier 1975, p. 1). Prior to 1920, the species occurred within
approximately 713 map sections (184,666 ha/456,320 ac) in 10 areas of
southwestern Utah (Collier 1975, p. 15). In 1971, Collier (1975, p. 15)
determined the species occurred within 96 sections (24,863 ha/61,440
ac), based on landowner questionnaires. The 1920 and 1971 habitat
estimates are misleading because they assume all 640 acres within a
section are occupied if the occurrence of Utah prairie dogs was
reported from that section, regardless of actual numbers or
distribution within the section. We believe the best information
concerning actual Utah prairie dog habitat is from ongoing mapping
efforts conducted by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR).
UDWR has mapped 17,444 ha (43,106 ac) of habitat throughout the current
and historic Utah prairie dog range; however, current occupancy has not
been verified for this mapped habitat area, or for other areas of
historic habitat. The total number of Utah prairie dogs was estimated
to be 95,000 animals prior to control programs in the 1920s (McDonald
1993, p. 2). However, estimates of the size of former populations are
difficult to make
[[Page 7845]]
because no formal censuses were conducted prior to 1976.
The Utah prairie dog currently occurs in three areas within
southwestern Utah, which are designated as recovery areas: (1) The
Awapa Plateau; (2) the Paunsaugunt region, along the east fork and main
stem of the Sevier River; and, (3) the West Desert region of eastern
Iron County, with a few isolated colonies existing in mountain and
desert valleys in eastern Iron and Beaver Counties (Pizzimenti and
Collier 1975, p. 1). For more information on these recovery areas,
refer to our recovery plan for the species (Service 1991a). Although
the abundance of the species in the three recovery areas vary
considerably from year to year, the overall species' population
abundance is considered stable. Below we describe each of the recovery
areas. Counts are conducted in the spring prior to emergence of the
pups and represent adults only. Crocker-Bedford (1975 page 6) estimate
that only 40 to 60% of Utah prairie dogs are above ground at any one
time. Therefore, these spring counts represent approximately 50% of the
adult population.
The Awapa Plateau Recovery Area encompasses portions of Piute,
Garfield, Wayne, and Sevier Counties. Spring counts conducted from 1976
through 2005 have varied from 201 to 1,145 animals; in 2005, UDWR
counted 571 animals on 32 colonies (15 occupied) (UDWR 2005).
The Paunsaugunt Recovery Area includes public and private lands
primarily in Garfield County, with a small area of Iron County. Spring
counts conducted from 1976 through 2005 have varied from 652 to 2,205
animals; in 2005, UDWR counted a low of 652 animals on 27 colonies (14
occupied) (UDWR 2005).
The West Desert Recovery Area is primarily in Iron County, but
extends into southern Beaver County and northern Washington County.
Spring counts conducted from 1976 through 2005 have varied from 610 to
4,778 animals; in 2005, UDWR counted 4,158 animals on 34 colonies (27
occupied) (UDWR 2005).
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. On November 5, 1979, the UDWR petitioned the Service to remove
the Utah prairie dog from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife. The Service found that this petition contained substantial
scientific and commercial information, and the species was reclassified
from endangered to threatened on May 29, 1984 (49 FR 22330). As part of
that May 29, 1984, rule, we promulgated a special rule under section
4(d) of the Act to allow the regulated take of up to 5,000 animals
annually. On June 14, 1991, we published a final rule amending the
special rule to allow regulated take of up to 6,000 animals annually
throughout the species' range (56 FR 27438).
Threats Analysis
Under section 4(a) of the Act, we may list a species on the basis
of five threat factors: (A) 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) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted
based on any of the above threat factors, either singly or in
combination.
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, we
evaluate each of the five listing factors to determine whether the
level of threat identified by information in the petition and in our
files substantiates an increase in threat level to the extent that
uplisting of the Utah prairie dog from threatened to endangered may be
warranted.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Its Habitat or Range
The Petitioners state that threats to the species' habitat included
the following: (1) Loss of historic range, urbanization, land
conversion, and sale of State lands; (2) livestock grazing, resulting
in conversion of grasslands to shrublands; depletion of forage;
degradation of riparian areas; proliferation of weeds; alteration of
fire ecology; and impacts to soils; (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.
Loss of Historic Range, Urbanization, Land Conversion, and Sale of
State Lands
The Petitioners state that mapped (or estimated) Utah prairie dog
habitat has declined from 181,299 to 2,824 ha (448,000 to 6,977 ac) as
of 1975, and that at the time the petition was developed, only 31
percent of Utah prairie dog habitat was on public lands where recovery
efforts are concentrated (Rosmarino 2003, p. 54). The Petitioners state
that much of the historic, high-quality Utah prairie dog habitat was in
valleys, where crop agriculture and urban activities and expansion have
historically occurred or are ongoing (Rosmarino 2003, p. 55). The
Petitioners identify habitat loss due to urbanization as a concern,
particularly in Iron County in the West Desert Recovery Area (Rosmarino
2003, pp. 55-56). According to the petition, this recovery area has the
highest percentage of Utah prairie dogs located on private land and
also is undergoing the highest rate of municipal development when
compared to any other area in Utah prairie dog range. Petitioners state
that, between 1990 and 2000, the human population growth rate was 62.5
percent in Iron County, and that Garfield and Beaver County's
populations increased by 19 and 26 percent respectively. The
petitioners discuss various projects that resulted in translocation of
Utah prairie dogs and loss of their habitat. These include legal
activities performed under the Iron County Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) section 10(a)(1)(A) permit, and 11 other actions legally
authorized through section 7 consultation. They also cite UDWR records
of 7 colonies illegally destroyed during 1995 and 1996. While the
Petitioners are mainly concerned with increasing development on private
lands, they also cite U.S. Forest Service (USFS) concerns regarding
increased impacts from development on private lands adjacent to public
lands, including golf course and cabin site development. The
Petitioners state that there is also increased all-terrain vehicle
(ATV) usage from private housing developments resulting in impacts to
the species (Reference, p. 57). The Petitioners are concerned that
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
(Rosmarino 2003, pp. 75-76).
We believe that the Petitioners' assessment of the extent of
historic habitat loss is inaccurate. It is based on
[[Page 7846]]
the statement by Collier (1975, p. 15) that Utah prairie dogs at one
time occurred within 713 sections of land. However, much of the area
within those sections contains unsuitable habitat and was never
occupied by prairie dogs. Therefore, estimating historic habitat on the
total number of acres within those 713 sections (184,666 ha/456,320 ac)
is misleading. The majority of Utah prairie dogs still occur on private
lands. However, through implementation of the Interim Conservation
Strategy (ICS) (see Factor D discussion), the Recovery Team has made a
substantial effort since 1997 to restore and enhance Utah prairie dog
habitat on public lands. As of 2005, 37 percent of Utah prairie dogs
occurred on public lands (UDWR 2005).
We acknowledge that historic Utah prairie dog habitat has been lost
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 quantify areas lost to
agriculture historically, and they do not provide any information on
future losses from new agricultural developments. We do not have any
information indicating that there have been any recent conversions of
Utah prairie dog habitat to agricultural use. We also do not have any
information indicating that development of private lands is occurring
within the Utah prairie dog range, other than that legally authorized
through HCP permits. The Iron County HCP permits a limited amount of
development on private lands in prairie dog habitat. These losses are
mitigated through restoration of habitat on Federal lands and the
translocation of animals from impacted private lands to approved
translocation sites on Federal lands. In addition, 97 ha (240 ac) of
privately owned occupied habitat in the Parowan Valley have been
protected in perpetuity through a conservation easement under the Iron
County HCP and are managed for Utah prairie dogs (see further HCP
discussion under Factor D).
Although we do not dispute USFS accounts of increased activities on
Federal lands as a result of nearby private developments, the
Petitioners only identify one specific development in the Powell Ranger
District that could negatively impact Utah prairie dogs, and we have no
additional information in our files that shows impacts claimed by the
Petitioner. Therefore, based on the best available date (i.e. only in
this case), we believe these impacts are small and localized. The
Petitioners provided no information to support loss on Federal lands
due to recreational impacts. We also acknowledge that SITLA does sell
parcels to private landowners, who then may propose development
projects on these properties. However, we do not have information that
historic or occupied Utah prairie dog habitat has been lost due to
development occurring on SITLA lands that have been sold, and the
Petitioners did not cite any pending sales on lands containing Utah
prairie dog colonies. Recent activities on SITLA lands include the
issuance of a perpetual conservation easement on 304 ha (750 ac) of
Utah prairie dog habitat in the Awapa Plateau Recovery Area that will
serve as a conservation bank.
Livestock Grazing
The petition states that livestock grazing, particularly
overgrazing, can degrade Utah prairie dog habitat by causing shrub
encroachment, reducing grass cover and vegetative biomass, degrading
riparian areas, facilitating noxious weed proliferation, altering fire
ecology, damaging cryptobiotic crusts (communities of cyanobacteria,
green algae, lichens, mosses, liverworts, and microorganisms that
colonize the surface of bare soil), and degrading soil conditions
(Rosmarino 2003, pp. 57-75). The Petitioners state that mechanical or
chemical shrub encroachment treatments may not ultimately result in a
decrease in shrub vegetative production (Rosmarino 2003, p. 60). The
petition states that spring grazing regimes may be particularly harmful
to cool-season grasses preferred by Utah prairie dogs (Rosmarino 2003,
pp. 61-62), and the Petitioners allege that direct grazing and
trampling of moist swales and riparian areas can impact prairie dog
persistence in these areas (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 63-64).
The Petitioners state that grazing can result in the spread of
noxious weeds through direct dispersal of weed seeds in cattle fur or
dung, and that opening areas to grazing makes them more susceptible to
colonization and growth of weedy species. The Petitioners also assert
that grazing reduces competition from native species by preferentially
foraging cattle on them (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 64-69). The petition
states that noxious weeds are a problem throughout Utah prairie dog
range on both Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and USFS lands (Rosmarino
2003, pp. 68-69), and the Petitioners allege that areas dominated by
the exotic annual cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) are 10 to 500 times more
likely to experience wildfire. The petition also makes a number of
claims related to grazing leading to a reduction in fire frequency,
facilitating shrub encroachment (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 69-70), and
destroying soil crusts, which result in increased erosion, decreased
nutrient cycling, reduction in ground cover, and soil compaction
(Rosmarino 2003, pp. 70-75).
We concur that livestock grazing can have an effect on various
attributes of prairie dog habitat and food supply; however, these
effects can be positive as well as negative. While the petitioners cite
numerous general references related to the types of impacts that
grazing can have on vegetation and soils, they don't provide any
specific references to show that grazing is negatively impacting Utah
prairie dogs, or that such effects are becoming more severe, to the
extent that uplisting may be warranted. Hoogland (2003, p. 239) notes
that tall vegetation is more common in Gunnison and Utah prairie dog
colonies than in black-tailed prairie dog colonies, and that it
benefits the species by providing hiding cover. The Utah prairie dog
vegetation guidelines have recently been revised to include a higher
percentage of shrubs based on vegetative measurements in Utah prairie
dog occupied habitats (Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Implementation Team
[UPDRIT] 2006). Other studies suggest that prairie dog density is
positively correlated with heavy grazing, which simulates the
shortgrass environment preferred by prairie dogs (Fagerstone and Ramey
1996, pp. 88, 92; Marsh 1994, p. 203; Slobodchikoff et al. 1988, p.
406). A recent study of impacts on Utah prairie dogs of varying grazing
intensities on the Awapa Plateau found that, although heavy grazing did
not appear to impact burrow density, it did significantly decrease
vigilance time (watchfulness or paying close and continuous attention),
which could be detrimental to Utah prairie dogs (Elmore 2006, pp. 90,
93). Furthermore, while we do not disagree that Utah prairie dogs
prefer moist swale formations, the types of habitats occupied by Utah
prairie dogs do not contain the structural complexity typical of
riparian habitats, including defined channels and typical riparian
vegetation consisting of trees and shrubs. The swales occupied by Utah
prairie dogs tend to be dominated by grasses. The Petitioners provided
no information regarding the impacts of grazing to swales, and we have
no additional information in our files describing potential impacts of
this activity to the species.
McDonald (1993) recommended that studies be undertaken to evaluate
livestock impacts and grazing regimes. He also recommended that
species-specific vegetation objectives for transplant locations should
be
[[Page 7847]]
developed, and that grazing management should be implemented
appropriately to meet these vegetation objectives (McDonald 1993, p.
60). Interim vegetation guidelines were identified in the Utah Prairie
Dog ICS (UPDRIT 1997, Appendix 1, pp. 19-21) and were updated in
January 2006, based on additional information from occupied colonies
within various habitat types (UPDRIT 2006). Monitoring is occurring on
Federal lands managed by the BLM Cedar City Field Office to determine
if Utah prairie dog sites meet the guidelines. Habitat management
actions are being undertaken at sites that do not meet vegetation
objectives (for an example, see BLM 2004).
The UPDRIT further developed recommendations specifically aimed at
habitat improvement and research to determine more precise habitat
suitability criteria (UPDRIT 1997, pp. 1, 5-12). Research was initiated
in 2002 to identify appropriate grazing and vegetation management
practices and to evaluate the effects of increasing plant diversity on
survival of transplanted Utah prairie dogs. Preliminary results from
the drought years of 2002 and 2003 showed that, under extreme drought
conditions, forage utilization by livestock (cattle and sheep) of more
than 33 percent of available forage led to dramatic declines of Utah
prairie dog weight gains, overwinter survivorship, and reproduction.
Conversely, seeding of rangeland to increase total plant and forb
diversity by 33 to 40 percent almost doubled the density of
transplanted prairie dogs in 2004 (Ritchie and Brown 2005, p. 2).
Ritchie and Brown (2005) believe the results suggest that, at least
under drought conditions, Utah prairie dogs are limited by available
food, and that livestock grazing and range vegetation management
practices may need to be adjusted to minimize impacts on Utah prairie
dogs. Ritchie and Brown (2005, p. 15) also note that 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. When this research is
finalized, results will be used to develop final vegetation guidelines
and other grazing and habitat management recommendations for the Utah
Prairie Dog Recovery Plan.
While we agree that habitat conditions are compromised in many
areas, particularly on public lands, Utah prairie dog numbers continue
to be within the range of historic fluctuations (UDWR 2005), and we
have not seen large-scale population decreases. When the species was
downlisted in 1984, the rangewide population estimate was 2,522 prairie
dogs. The last spring range-wide count before the petition was 4,944
adult animals, which represents 50% of the adult population (Crocker-
Bedford 1975, p. 6.). This represented a slight decrease from counts
made between 1998 and 2000. As of 2005, 5,381 prairie dogs were
counted. We have determined that the process set in place with the ICS,
including research, habitat monitoring and manipulation, development of
vegetation guidelines, and ultimately incorporation of realistic
management recommendations into the Recovery Plan, will meet the goal
of improving the persistence of Utah prairie dog colonies.
In conclusion, we have determined that the petition did not present
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
livestock grazing that results in conversion of grasslands to
shrublands, depletion of forage, degradation of riparian areas,
proliferation of weeds, alteration of fire ecology, and impacts to
soils may be a threat to the Utah prairie dog to the extent that
uplisting from threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted.
Roads, Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs), and Recreation
The Petitioners state that roads have a negative impact on Utah
prairie dogs by facilitating direct mortalities through motor vehicle
strikes, and through loss of habitat due to new road construction,
paving and reconstruction of existing roads, and OHV use, which can
cause direct disturbance to the animals as well as degradation of
vegetation (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 76-78). The Petitioners assert that
recreational use 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. The Petitioners cite increased recreational activities,
including actual and potential infrastructure development, such as
parking lots, campgrounds, and road and trail improvements, on three
USFS Ranger Districts (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 78-79).
We acknowledge that direct mortality of prairie dogs occurs on
roads, and higher mortalities occur in areas where paved highways
intersect or pass near Utah prairie dog colonies. We also acknowledge
that OHV use and other types of recreational use, including
recreational infrastructure development, has occurred in Utah prairie
dog habitat, resulting in habitat loss and possibly, in the instance of
the Three Peaks colony, total extirpation of the colony (Service
2005d). However, the Petitioners provided no information to quantify
impacts from recreational activities, including roads, and we have no
such information in our files. Direct mortality from roads was not
identified as a threat in the May 29, 1984, reclassification of the
species (49 FR 22330) or the recovery plan (Service 1991a). We believe
that impacts of roads are limited to localized areas and do not result
in population-level effects.
Oil, Gas, and Mineral Development and Seismic Exploration
The Petitioners state that oil and gas exploration and extraction
results in the degradation and loss of Utah prairie dog habitat through
crushing of habitat, introduction of weeds, and increased soil erosion
or soil compaction (Rosmarino 2003, p. 80). They also state that noise
associated with seismic exploration, particularly in the low frequency
sound range, could directly impact Utah prairie dogs (Rosmarino 2003,
pp. 80-82). They cite a study on the effects of seismic exploration on
Utah prairie dogs (Young and Sawyer 1981, p. 2), which expressed
concerns about crushed vegetation, compacted soil, and the potential
for disruption of hibernating prairie dogs (Rosmarino 2003, p. 87). The
petition states that oil and gas leases are being offered in Millard
and Sevier Counties within the Utah prairie dog's range (Rosmarino
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 (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 88-89).
We are aware that oil and gas leasing, seismic exploration, and
other mineral development activities are occurring within the range of
the Utah prairie dog. However, there is no scientific or commercial
information either in the petition or in our files that quantifies the
extent of these activities, or provides information on the actual
infrastructure related to oil and gas development in occupied Utah
prairie dog habitat. Although Young and Sawyer (1981, p. 2) expressed
concerns (as identified in the petition) about seismic exploration,
they concluded that any impact from seismic testing on Utah prairie
dogs is negligible. In a similar study of white-tailed prairie dogs,
Menkens and Anderson (1985, p. 13) concluded that there were negligible
impacts from seismic exploration. To further minimize potential impacts
of oil and gas activities on Utah prairie dogs, the Service and BLM
have developed a set of avoidance and minimization
[[Page 7848]]
measures for Federal oil and gas leases within the range of the Utah
prairie dog. These include no surface disturbance within 0.8 kilometer
(km) [0.5 mile (mi)] of active Utah prairie dog colonies, and no
permanent disturbance within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of potentially suitable,
unoccupied Utah prairie dog habitat (Service 2003). These measures
currently apply to all BLM leasing activities within the Utah prairie
dog's range, and lessees who follow these guidelines will be provided a
streamlined section 7 consultation process. We believe that the
incidences of mineral development cited in the petition are isolated
activities and only affect small acreages of Utah prairie dog habitat.
The petition therefore does not present substantial scientific
information that these activities may be impacting the Utah prairie dog
to the extent that uplisting from threatened to endangered under the
Act may be warranted.
Impacts of Isolation and Fragmentation
The petition states that due to loss and degradation of Utah
prairie dog habitat, and the effects of extermination campaigns and
plague, remaining prairie dog colonies tend to be isolated and
fragmented. These small, isolated colonies are then more susceptible to
local extirpation from factors such as sylvatic plague (Rosmarino 2003,
p. 90). Factors such as low reproductive rate, genetic drift, and
inbreeding may increase the potential for local extinctions (Rosmarino
2003, pp. 91-93). The petition also states that individuals in larger
colonies benefit from less time being devoted to predator detection.
We concur that the majority of existing Utah prairie dog colonies
are small, numbering fewer than 200 individuals (UDWR 2005). Plague is
active across the landscape and results in colonies tending to increase
in numbers for a period of years, decline to very small numbers
following a plague event, and then increasing again (see further plague
discussion under Factor C). However, the current number of active
colonies, and the number of Utah prairie dogs counted in the spring of
2005 (5,381 animals) (UDWR 2005), continues to be within the range of
variation seen since counts began in 1976; therefore, we do not concur
that small colony size is endangering the species. In summary, we have
determined that the petition does not provide scientific or commercial
information to support the assertion that small colony size and
fragmentation may be a threat to the Utah prairie dog to the extent
that uplisting from threatened to endangered under the Act may be
warranted.
Summary of Factor A
We have determined that the information in the petition and
available in our files does not constitute substantial scientific or
commercial information that present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat is a threat to the Utah prairie
dog to the extent that uplisting from threatened to endangered under
the Act may be warranted. Many of the claims cited by the Petitioners
constitute small, localized impacts on specific Utah prairie dog
colonies. We recognize the potential for future private land
development due to the large percentage of private lands within the
West Desert Recovery Area, and will continue to monitor the status of
Utah prairie dog colonies in that area closely. We also will continue
our efforts to conserve prairie dog habitat on private lands and to
develop new colonies on public lands. We acknowledge that it is likely
that some livestock grazing regimes, particularly under drought
conditions, may adversely affect Utah prairie dogs. We will continue
the process of research and monitoring of Utah prairie dog habitat
suitability and grazing management practices, and ultimately we will
revise the Recovery Plan to incorporate vegetation guidelines and
grazing management recommendations to benefit the species.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition states that illegal shooting of Utah prairie dogs
still occurs and that shooting can negatively affect prairie dogs
through population reduction, decreased colony expansion rates, and
changes in behavior (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 94-98).
Because the Utah prairie dog is already a listed species, shooting,
except as provided for by the 4(d) special rule, which is codified at
50 CFR 17.40(g), is prohibited by the Act. However, we acknowledge that
isolated instances of shooting likely occur, and that it is not
feasible for UDWR and Federal land management agencies to patrol all
colony locations on a routine basis. No information is available in the
petition or in our files to indicate that more than isolated incidences
of shooting occur within Utah prairie dog colonies, or that shooting
may pose a significant threat to the species on a range-wide basis.
Summary of Factor B
Neither the petition nor information readily available in our files
constitute substantial scientific or commercial information that
overutilization is a threat to the Utah prairie dog to the extent that
uplisting from threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted.
C. Disease or Predation
The Petitioners did not state that predation is a threat to the
Utah prairie dog. The Petitioners did state that sylvatic plague
(Yersinia pestis), an exotic bacterial disease, is a significant threat
to the extent that it might prevent recovery of Utah prairie dogs, even
if all other threat factors were removed. The petition states that
plague is a threat to prairie dogs, given their lack of natural
immunity to the bacterium. The cyclical nature of plague means that it
can return to affect the same colony; therefore recovery from a plague
event can be a slow process (Rosmarino 2003, p. 98). The Petitioners
cite numerous instances of documented and suspected plague events
occurring throughout Utah prairie dog range (Rosmarino 2003, p. 99).
They also cite ongoing research in Utah prairie dog habitat on plague
mitigation through the use of insecticides to kill the fleas that carry
the plague bacterium (Rosmarino 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 recovery goals even if all other threat
factors are removed (Rosmarino 2003, p. 100).
We acknowledge that plague exists throughout the Utah prairie dog's
range, that individual Utah prairie dog colonies are known to have been
affected by the disease, and that there is currently no mechanism
available to prevent periodic plague events from reoccurring. Plague is
an Old World (European origin) disease that was first recorded in North
America in humans in 1899, and in Utah prairie dogs in Garfield County
in 1936 (Fitzgerald 1993, p. 50). However, plague antibody titers have
been found in a few Utah prairie dogs (Biggins 2003a, p. 1) and white-
tailed prairie dogs (Biggins 2003a, p. 1; Cully and Williams 2001, p.
896), indicating that some individuals survive after exposure to
plague.
Information in our files indicates that the literature is
inconclusive regarding whether isolation of a colony or a colony's
density affects the number and frequency of plague outbreaks. Lomolino
et al. (2003, p. 118) and others (Cully and Williams 2001, p. 901;
Miller et al. 1993, pp. 89-90) suggest that isolation and fragmentation
may provide some protection to prairie dogs from sylvatic plague by
lessening the likelihood of disease transmission.
[[Page 7849]]
White-tailed and Utah prairie dog colonies are less dense and more
widely dispersed than black-tailed or Gunnison prairie dog colonies,
which may slow plague transmission rates (Cully 1993, p. 40; Cully and
Williams 2001, p. 901). Biggins' (2003b, p. 5) data are consistent with
the hypothesis that white-tailed prairie dogs are predisposed to
regroup when their numbers become depleted, improving stability in
density (at the cost of stability in area occupied). Biggins (2003b, p.
6) states that if transmission rates for Yersinia pestis are at least
partly dependent on host density, prairie dog populations on good
quality sites may undergo both larger declines and more rapid
recoveries than those on poor sites. Partial or complete recovery
following population reductions due to plague have been reported for
both white-tailed and black-tailed prairie dogs (Biggins and Kosoy
2001, p. 23). Hibernation by Utah and white-tailed prairie dogs may
reduce or delay plague transmission among individual animals (Barnes
1993, p. 34).
The Petitioners cite ongoing research into the efficacy of
insecticides to protect Utah prairie dog colonies from plague. Results
of this study to date have been equivocal (Biggins 2003b, p. 8). The
study was not able to determine a difference in the number of arthropod
species on plots dusted with deltamethrin verses non-dusted plots.
However, Biggins (2003b, p. 8) concludes that dusting Utah prairie dog
burrows once a year with 4 grams (0.14 ounce) of Delta Dust (brand name
of deltamethrin) does reduce the number of fleas species that are
potential plague hosts. The recovery team has begun initial efforts to
dust what are considered large priority colonies, including Johnson
Bench, East Creek Canyon, and Tom Best Spring, in an effort to prevent
plague outbreaks. These efforts successfully stopped an outbreak on the
conservation bank property in the Awapa Plateau Recovery Area known as
The Tanks.
Given the dynamics of the Utah prairie dog's behavior (such as
hibernation), migration patterns, and geographical patterns of colony
distribution, we are currently unable to determine whether there is an
optimum size, density, and distribution of colonies that would make
them less susceptible to periodic plague events. We also cannot
determine whether small colony size and isolation provide some measure
of protection from plague. Climatic factors may feed into plague
cycling. Parmenter et al. (1999, p. 816) suggest a general linkage
between cases of human plague (generally contracted by association with
wild animals carrying fleas with the plague bacterium) and
precipitation, particularly in the winter-spring period. They
hypothesize that increased winter-spring precipitation results in an
increase in food resources for animal species, which subsequently have
greater reproductive success, leading to increased numbers of potential
plague hosts (Parmenter et al. 1999, p. 818).
Summary of Factor C
We recognize that plague has been, and will continue to be, a major
mortality factor in specific colonies, and across the range of Utah
prairie dogs. The impact that plague has had on the overall status of
the species, or its potential for recovery, is unclear. It is
impossible to separate the impacts of plague from other factors that
affect Utah prairie dogs across their range, including drought, habitat
conditions, and disturbance by various human activities. We will
continue to support research on the impacts of plague on Utah prairie
dog persistence, and on ways to reduce these impacts. There was no
information provided in the petition, or available in our files, that
shows that the effects of disease are becoming more severe or
widespread, to the extent that uplisting from threatened to endangered
under the Act may be warranted.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The Petitioners state that Federal regulatory mechanisms, including
efforts undertaken by the Service under the Act, and the Bureau of Land
Management, USFS, and National Park Service in their land management
plans, are inadequate to protect the Utah prairie dog.
The Petitioners state that even though the Utah prairie dog is
currently listed as threatened under the Act, adequate regulatory
mechanisms do not exist to ensure its survival or recovery.
Specifically, they cite the downlisting of the species in 1984
(Rosmarino 2003, pp. 100-103); implementation of the 4(d) rule and
faulty assumptions about the number of prairie dogs that could be taken
annually (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 104-108); a flawed Recovery Plan
(Rosmarino 2003, pp. 108-114), and lack of adequate personnel and
resources from the affected agencies to fully implement it (Rosmarino
2003, p. 147); failure of the ICS to adequately consider effects to the
species from threats such as plague and livestock grazing (Rosmarino
2003, pp. 115-119); and Federal land management agency (USFS and BLM)
policies that facilitate habitat loss and degradation as described
under Factor A (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 119-139). They also cite U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS)--Wildlife Services' lethal Utah prairie dog control,
and grasshopper and Mormon cricket control within Utah prairie dog
range, as harmful to the species (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 140-145), and
state that the Environmental Protection Agency's labeling for toxicants
and fumigants is not fully protective of Utah prairie dogs (Rosmarino
2003, p. 144). The petition further discusses the lack of recovery
efforts on private lands, including implementation of HCPs pursuant to
section 10 of the Act. The Petitioners particularly cite failure to
adequately address cumulative impacts of incidental take on prairie
dogs in the West Desert Recovery Area, and failure to provide adequate
mitigation, which has resulted in considerable take of Utah prairie
dogs (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 147-161).
Although overall numbers of Utah prairie dogs have not increased
substantially since downlisting in 1984, the species' population is
considered to be stable on a range-wide basis. In 2005, the count was
5,381 animals range-wide, and in 1984 it was 2,522 animals; counts
ranged from 2,522 to 7,527 during that 22-year period (UDWR 2005). We
acknowledge that the translocation program to move animals defined as
``surplus'' under the 4(d) special rule (50 CFR 17.40(g)) and the
recovery goal of developing new Utah prairie dog colonies on public
lands, have not been as successful as predicted. The 4(d) special rule
allows a maximum of 6,000 Utah prairie dogs to be taken annually;
however, the actual number that are permitted to be taken varies on an
annual basis and depends on the population surveys for that year.
During their annual surveys, UDWR makes counts of Utah prairie dogs on
individual colonies throughout the range of the species. When a private
landowner requests a control permit for a particular colony, UDWR
issues a permit for take of no more than 10 percent of the number of
animals counted in that colony that year. During the period of 1985-
2004, the permitted level of take was never higher than 3,781, and the
actual reported take did not exceed 1,760 (UDWR 2003). We are taking
steps to improve the success of the translocation program through
development of vegetation guidelines (discussed under Factor A) and new
guidelines for Utah prairie dog translocation (see discussion under
Factor E). Utah prairie dogs have not
[[Page 7850]]
experienced significant progress toward recovery since the 1984
downlisting, but current numbers are within the range of historical
population fluctuations, which indicates that extinction is not
imminent.
Efforts to revise the Recovery Plan are currently underway and will
incorporate the best available information. The revised Recovery Plan
is expected to be completed in 2007. For now, the goal of the interim
strategy that was developed in 1994 is to advance information and
strategies necessary to effectively modify recovery goals. Research on
habitat needs and successful translocation is ongoing. Based on this
research, we updated the vegetation and translocation guidelines.
Cooperators in the ICS and Recovery Plan revision include all of the
affected Federal land management agencies, Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), State and Federal wildlife management
agencies, Utah State University, Utah Farm Bureau, and Environmental
Defense.
All BLM land use plans incorporate the existing Recovery Plan ``and
other pertinent documents pertaining to recovery.'' BLM's Cedar City
Field Office is monitoring vegetation on Utah prairie dog sites to
determine compliance with the vegetation guidelines. The National Park
Service has implemented habitat restoration projects through burning
and seeding and has hosted Utah prairie dog research efforts on its
property for the last 10 years. USFS is revising the Dixie National
Forest Plan to incorporate the Utah prairie dog Recovery Plan. USFS
also has identified and prepared two translocation sites, dusted
several key colonies at risk of plague exposure in the Paunsaugant
Recovery Area, and is initiating habitat improvement projects to
benefit Utah prairie dogs in the Awapa Plateau Recovery Area.
All agencies are making a concerted effort to implement the ICS and
use new research data to improve the conservation and recovery of Utah
prairie dogs throughout their range. Species recovery is often a
difficult and long-term process, particularly for a species such as the
Utah prairie dog that had been in decline for nearly a century prior to
its listing (Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 1) and that is adversely
affected by numerous interacting factors. We believe we are moving in a
positive direction with implementation of the ICS and revision of the
Recovery Plan, but we need to continue to evaluate the status of the
species and factors affecting its recovery over the long-term.
APHIS-Wildlife Services received one permit to control Utah prairie
dogs on private agricultural land adjacent to a parcel of land
protected under a conservation easement. However, the need for control
never materialized, and control was never carried out. We have
completed a programmatic consultation with APHIS for grasshopper and
Mormon cricket control under section 7 of the Act, to ensure that
control actions will not have adverse effects on listed species,
including Utah prairie dogs. The consultation contains required
conservation measures to benefit the species, including a 1.6-km (1.0-
mi) buffer zone around occupied Utah prairie dog habitat (USDA 2005, p.
12).
The State of Utah, through an agreement with the Service, manages
Utah prairie dogs by conducting annual surveys, issuing permits to
private landowners under the 4(d) special rule, and trapping and
translocation of animals from private to public lands. However, the
State of Utah does not control the lands occupied by Utah prairie dogs
and has no authority to implement land management changes. The State is
working cooperatively with the Service and Federal land management
agencies to determine ways to improve habitat conditions on public
lands and to revise the Recovery Plan.
We have taken steps to conserve prairie dogs on private lands,
including issuance of three Safe Harbor Agreements (SHAs) covering 97
ha (240 ac) of occupied and unoccupied habitat within the Paunsaugunt
and Awapa Plateau Recovery Areas (Service 2005a, 2005b, 2006b). These
SHAs improve Utah prairie dog habitat by increasing plant diversity and
providing protection for Utah prairie dogs for up to 15 years. We are
currently processing three more SHAs (cite) and one umbrella safe
harbor agreement to be held by NRCS (cite), with an unlimited potential
to enroll private lands within all three recovery areas. In 2004, we
approved a 304-ha (750-ac) conservation bank on private land that is
protected in perpetuity within the Awapa Plateau Recovery Area (Service
2005c). A conservation bank in the West Desert Recovery Area has been
initiated and will protect private land within Iron County. The
petition discusses several small and large-scale (county-wide) HCPs,
most of which were issued in the 1990s. Currently, the Iron County HCP
(the only county-wide HCP) (Service 1998) is in the process of being
revised and will include the protection of private lands with Utah
prairie dogs to offset impacts from development elsewhere. A recently
finalized HCP protects 123 ha (303 ac) of habitat (occupied and
unoccupied) in exchange for 7 ha (18 ac) of low-quality occupied
habitat (Service 2007)). The Garfield County HCP was never finalized.
Summary of Factor D
We agree that Utah prairie dog recovery has been slow, but we
conclude that actions taken since 1994, including research, development
of new guidance documents, implementation of the ICS on Federal lands
occupied by prairie dogs, and the revision of the Recovery Plan to
include the conservation of prairie dog habitat on private lands, will
improve the species' status over the long-term. Neither the petition
nor the available information in our files indicates that lack of
adequate regulatory mechanisms may be a threat to Utah prairie dogs to
the extent that uplisting from threatened to endangered under the Act
may be warranted.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of the Species
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 4(d) special
rule (50 CFR 17.40(g)), and ongoing illegal poisoning and shooting as
endangering the species (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 161-162). In particular,
the Petitioners point out that legal take of Utah prairie dogs under
the 4(d) special rule has resulted in control of 14,002 prairie dogs
(to the date of the petition) and suggest that take levels and
population fluctuations from year to year may be contributing to
population declines (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 162-163). The petition alleges
that any illegal poisoning that occurs increases the magnitude of
permitted take (Rosmarino 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
(Rosmarino 2003, p. 166). The petition points out that many
translocation sites do not meet ICS 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 (Rosmarino 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
(Rosmarino 2003, p. 185).
[[Page 7851]]
Legal take occurring in compliance with the 4(d) special rule (50
CFR 17.40(g)) was discussed under Factor D. As stated under Factor B,
we do not have any information to indicate that illegal shooting occurs
in other than isolated instances. We believe the same to be true of
illegal poisoning, and no information exists in our files or in the
petition indicating otherwise. The relationship of drought and
livestock grazing regimes on Utah prairie dog habitat is discussed
under Factor A.
We agree that past translocation efforts have not always been
successful. We have adapted our techniques and vegetation guidelines to
address the likely causes preventing success of past efforts. Thirteen
new complexes have been established on Federal lands within the West
Desert Recovery Area through translocation efforts. We are improving
translocation success through development and use of the ICS vegetation
guidelines, habitat research (as discussed under Factor A), monitoring
survival of translocated animals, and incorporating better methods to
improve survival. We will continue to monitor these efforts and update
our methods as necessary. Even under optimum circumstances, survival of
translocated prairie dogs of various species is low (less than 40
percent) (Truett et al. 2001, p. 864). We have developed new
recommended translocation procedures (Procedures) for the Utah Prairie
Dog (Service 2006, 18 pp.). The Procedures emphasize actions to
increase success rates and to provide consistency across recovery areas
and land management agencies. The Procedures discuss site selection and
preparation, translocation site preparation, trapping, handling,
transport, release, and monitoring and management of translocated
populations. Consistent use of these Procedures should increase future
survival of translocated animals.
Summary of Factor E
We have determined that information in the petition and available
in our files does not indicate that legal and illegal take, including
the translocation program implemented under the existing Recovery Plan,
is a threat to Utah prairie dogs to the extent that uplisting from
threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted. We will
continue to work with all landowners to implement the Procedures and to
monitor their effectiveness. The Procedures will become part of any
future revisions to the Recovery Plan.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition and the literature cited in the
petition, and evaluated it in relation to other pertinent information
in our files. We find that substantial scientific or commercial
information has not been presented by the Petitioners indicating that
reclassification of Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens) from
threatened to endangered may be warranted. Because the species is
already listed as threatened under the Act, it is already subject to,
and receives protection from, the regulatory mechanisms of the Act. The
petition did not identify or present substantial new information
indicating that the level of threats to the species has changed
significantly since its reclassification to threatened in 1984.
The current number of active colonies, and the number of Utah
prairie dogs counted in the spring of 2005 (5,381) (UDWR 2005),
continues to be within the range of variation seen since counts were
implemented in 1976, which further supports the assertion that threats
have not increased significantly.
Since implementation of the ICS in 1997, the Service and its
Federal and State recovery team partners have taken substantial steps
to improve the survival of translocated Utah prairie dogs through new
vegetation guidelines, habitat improvements at translocation sites on
Federal lands, and new translocation guidelines. New conservation
tools, including SHAs, mitigation banks, and HCPs with provisions for
protection of private lands, are being implemented. Research is being
carried out on the efficacy of dusting Utah prairie dog colonies with
dimethrin to control plague. Critical colonies have been identified and
successfully protected through this methodology. New information gained
since the implementation of the ICS, including ongoing research and
monitoring results from occupied colonies on Federal lands, will be
used in the revision of the Recovery Plan. This may include revision of
the recovery goals for the species if the new information supports it.
Although we will not be commencing a status review in response to
this petition, we encourage interested parties to continue to gather
data that will assist with the conservation of the species. If you wish
to provide information regarding the Utah prairie dog, you may submit
your information or materials to the Utah Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES).
5-Year Review
Although we will not conduct a status review in response to the
petition, we are initiating a 5-year review of the Utah prairie dog to
comply with section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Based on this 5-year review,
we will determine whether or not the Utah prairie dog should be removed
from the list (i.e., delisted) or otherwise reclassified. Delisting or
reclassifying a species must be supported by the best scientific and
commercial information available, and we will only consider delisting a
species if such information substantiates that the species is neither
endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1)
The species is considered extinct; (2) the species is considered to be
recovered; or (3) the original data available when the species was
listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error. Any change
in Federal classification would require a separate rulemaking process.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice
in the Federal Register announcing those species currently under
review. This notice announces our intention to prepare a 5-year review
of the Utah prairie dog and opens a 60-day comment period (see DATES).
We encourage interested parties to provide information concerning the
Utah prairie dog to the Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological Services
Office (see ADDRESSES).
Public Comments Solicited
At this time, we are opening a 60-day comment period (see DATES) to
allow all interested parties an opportunity to provide information on
the status of the Utah prairie dog for our 5-year review. We will base
our 5-year review on a review of the best scientific and commercial
information available, including the studies cited in this notice and
information received during the public comment period. Information
regarding the following topics would be particularly useful: (1)
Species biology, including but not limited to, population trends,
distribution, abundance, demographics, genetics, and taxonomy,
including any evaluations or reviews of the studies cited in this
notice; (2) habitat conditions, including but not limited to, amount,
distribution, and suitability; (3) conservation measures that have been
implemented that benefit the species; (4) threat status and trends; and
(5) other new information or data.
When we complete our 5-year review, our practice is to make
comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available
for public review
[[Page 7852]]
during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that
we withhold their names and home addresses, etc., but if you wish us to
consider withholding this information, you must state this prominently
at the beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present
rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must
demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of privacy. Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden.
In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this
information will be released. We will always make submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives of organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII or Microsoft Word
file. Also, please include ``Attn: Utah prairie dog'' along with your
name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a
confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message,
please submit your comments in writing using one of the alternate
methods provided in the ADDRESSES section.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Utah Ecological Services Field Office.
Author
The authors of this document are Susan Linner, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological Services Field Office, and Elise
Boeke, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services Field
Office (see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: February 9, 2007.
H. Dale Hall,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E7-2834 Filed 2-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P