Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 7843

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR section of this notice. In the event that from threatened to endangered, we have our Internet connection is not made our determination on whether the Fish and Wildlife Service functional, please submit your petition presents substantial scientific comments by mail, hand-delivery, or and commercial information indicating 50 CFR Part 17 fax. the species is in danger of extinction (3) You may fax your comments to throughout all or a significant portion of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (801) 975–3331. its range. and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petition To Reclassify the Utah Prairie Petition Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah Dog From Threatened to Endangered Ecological Services Field Office (see On February 3, 2003, we received a and Initiation of a 5-Year Review petition submitted by Forest Guardians, ADDRESSES) (telephone 801–975–3330; Center for Native Ecosystems, Escalante AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, facsimile 801–975–3331). Persons who Wilderness Project, Boulder Regional Interior. use a telecommunications device for the Group, Southern Utah Wilderness deaf (TDD) may call the Federal ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition Alliance, and Terry Tempest Williams Information Relay Service (FIRS) at finding and initiation of a 5-year review. (Petitioners) requesting that we 800–877–8339. reclassify the Utah prairie dog from SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Wildlife Service (Service), announce a threatened to endangered. We 90-day finding on a petition to reclassify Background acknowledged receipt of the petition in a letter to Nicole Rosmarino on the Utah prairie dog (Cynomys Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered parvidens) from threatened to November 21, 2003. In that letter we Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 also advised the Petitioners that, due to endangered under the Endangered U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires that Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). prior listing allocations in fiscal years we make a finding on whether a petition 2003 and 2004, we would not be able to We find that the petition does not to list, delist, or reclassify a species begin processing the petition in a timely provide substantial scientific or presents substantial scientific or manner. commercial information indicating that commercial information indicating that On February 2, 2004, we received a reclassification of the Utah prairie dog the petitioned action may be warranted. Notice of Intent to sue from the from threatened to endangered may be We are to base this finding on Petitioners for failure to issue the 90-day warranted. Therefore, we are not information provided in the petition finding. On February 2, 2006, the initiating a further status review in and supporting information available in Petitioners filed a complaint for response to this petition. We are, our files at the time of the petition injunctive and declaratory relief in the however, initiating a 5-year review review. To the maximum extent United States District Court for the under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act for practicable, we are to make this finding District of Columbia. On June 2, 2006, this species because such a review has within 90 days of our receipt of the the parties reached a settlement not been conducted in the last 5 years. petition, and publish our notice of this agreement that requires the Service to We ask the public to submit to us any finding promptly in the Federal make a 90-day finding on the petition new information that becomes available Register. on or before February 17, 2007. This concerning the status of the Utah prairie Our standard for substantial finding constitutes our compliance with dog or threats to the species. information within the Code of Federal the settlement agreement. DATES: The 90-day finding announced Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90- in this document was made on February day petition finding is ‘‘that amount of Species Information 21, 2007. Comments and information for information that would lead a Prairie dogs belong to the Sciuridae the 5-year review must be submitted on reasonable person to believe that the family of rodents, which also includes or before April 23, 2007. measure proposed in the petition may squirrels, chipmunks, and marmots. ADDRESSES: The petition, administrative be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we There are five species of prairie dogs, all finding, supporting data, and comments find that substantial information was of which are native to North America, will be available for public inspection, presented, we are required to promptly and all of which have non-overlapping by appointment, during normal business commence a review of the status of the geographic ranges (Hoogland 2003, p. hours at the Utah Ecological Services species. 232). Taxonomically, prairie dogs Field Office, 2369 West Orton Circle, In making this finding, we relied on (Cynomys spp.) are divided into two Suite 50, West Valley City, UT 84119. information provided by the petitioners subgenera: The white-tail and black-tail. The petition and finding are available and evaluated that information in The Utah prairie dog (C. parvidens) is a on our Web site at http://mountain- accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our member of the white-tail group, prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ 90-day finding process under section subgenus Leucocrossuromys. Other utprairiedog/. 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and § 424.14(b) of members of this group, which also occur If you wish to comment, you may our regulations is limited to a in Utah, are the white-tailed prairie dog submit your comments and materials by determination of whether the (C. leucurus) and the Gunnison prairie any one of the following methods: information in the petition meets the dog (C. gunnisoni). The Utah prairie dog (1) You may mail or hand-deliver ‘‘substantial information’’ threshold. A is distinguished by a relatively short (30 written comments and information to substantial finding should be made to 70 millimeters (mm)/1.2 to 2.8 inches Field Supervisor, Utah Ecological when the Service deems that adequate (in)) white- or gray-tipped tail Services Office, at the address given and reliable information has been (Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 1; above. presented that would lead a reasonable Hoogland 2003, p. 232). The Utah (2) You may submit your comments person to believe that the petitioned prairie dog is most closely related to the by electronic mail (e-mail) to action may be warranted. In making our white-tailed prairie dog, and [email protected]. For directions determination on the petition evaluated chromosomal and biochemical data on how to submit comments by e-mail, in this 90 day finding, which petitions suggest that these two species may once see the ‘‘Public Comments Solicited’’ us to reclassify the Utah prairie dog have belonged to a single interbreeding

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:08 Feb 20, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21FEP1.SGM 21FEP1 rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS 7844 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules

species (Pizzimenti 1975, p. 16). The young regularly cross, although all poisoning, which removed Utah prairie two species are now separated by animals use common feeding grounds. dogs from approximately 8,094 hectares ecological and physiographic barriers. Habitat Requirements (ha) [20,000 acres (ac)] of their range in Both Chesser (1984, p. 4) and Ritchie Sevier, Wayne, Garfield, and Iron and Brown (2005, p. 11) found that Available moisture and prairie dog Counties prior to 1963; drought; habitat genetic variance within Utah prairie dog abundance and density are positively alteration, primarily in the form of populations is very low, less than half correlated (Crocker-Bedford 1976, pp. cultivation to agricultural crops; that commonly observed for black-tailed 71–72). Prairie dogs appear to prefer shooting; and disease (Collier and prairie dogs (C. ludovicianus). This may swale type formations where moist Spillett 1972, pp. 33–35). Major be the result of genetic drift on small herbage is available even during drought predators include coyotes (Canis periods (Collier 1975, p. 43; Crocker- populations (Chesser 1984, p. 5). latrans), badgers (Taxidea taxis), long- Bedford and Spillett 1981, p. 24). Soil tailed weasels (Mustela frenata), various Life History characteristics are also an important raptor species, and prairie rattlesnakes Detailed information on the life factor in the location of Utah prairie dog history of the Utah prairie dog can be colonies. A well-drained area is (Crotalus viridis) (Service 1991a, p. 9; found in our May 29, 1984, final rule to necessary for home burrows. The soil Hoogland 2001, p. 922). In established reclassify the species as threatened (49 should be deep enough to allow colonies, predators probably do not FR 22330), in the recovery plan for the burrowing to depths sufficient to exert a controlling influence on species (Service 1991a), and on our Web provide protection from predators and numbers of prairie dogs (Collier and site at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/ insulation from environmental and Spillett 1972, p. 36). Long-term species/mammals/utprairiedog/. A brief temperature extremes. Prairie dogs must overgrazing, drought, disease (plague), synopsis of information on the species’ be able to inhabit a burrow system 1 and competition with Uinta ground life history that is relevant to this meter (m) [3.3 feet (ft)] underground squirrels (Spermophilus armatus) have finding follows: without becoming wet. Prairie dogs will contributed to larger-scale historic Utah prairie dogs are true hibernators, avoid areas where brushy species declines in prairie dog numbers, ceasing most surface activity during dominate, and will eventually decline including loss of entire colonies harsh winter months. Female Utah or disappear in areas invaded by brush (Service 1991a, pp. 11–12). prairie dogs come into estrus (period of (Collier 1975, pp. 44, 59; Player and Historically, Utah prairie dog colonies greatest female reproductive Urness 1983, p. 522). were found as far west as Pine and responsiveness usually coinciding with Food Habits Buckskin Valleys in Beaver and Iron ovulation) and are sexually receptive for Counties, and may have occurred as far several hours for only 1 day during the Prairie dogs are predominantly north as Nephi, Utah, southeast to Bryce breeding season (generally mid-March herbivores, and they prefer alfalfa and Canyon National Park, east to the through early April). Consequently, only grasses during all seasons (Crocker- foothills of the Aquarius Plateau, and 67 percent of female prairie dogs wean Bedford and Spillett 1981, p. 8). Grasses south to the northern borders of Kane a litter, and they have only one litter per are the staple of their annual diet, with and Washington Counties (Pizzimenti year (Hoogland 2001, pp. 919, 920). forbs being preferred in summer and and Collier 1975, p. 1). Prior to 1920, Litters range between 1 to 7 pups, but fall. Although forbs, other than alfalfa, the species occurred within average between 3.88 and 4.8 pups are not always highly preferred items approximately 713 map sections (Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 2; throughout the year, they may be critical Wright-Smith 1978, p. 10; Hoogland (184,666 ha/456,320 ac) in 10 areas of to a prairie dog colony’s survival during southwestern Utah (Collier 1975, p. 15). 2001, p. 923). The young attain adult drought. Ritchie and Brown (2005, p. 7) In 1971, Collier (1975, p. 15) determined size by October and reach sexual found that plant seeding in Utah prairie the species occurred within 96 sections maturity at the age of 1 year (Wright- dog transplant areas increased plant (24,863 ha/61,440 ac), based on Smith 1978, p. 9). Less than 50 percent diversity and prairie dogs were more landowner questionnaires. The 1920 of Utah prairie dogs survive to breeding likely to use or persist in seeded areas. age (Hoogland 2001, p. 919). Male Utah and 1971 habitat estimates are prairie dogs frequently cannibalize Current Distribution and Numbers misleading because they assume all 640 juveniles, which can eliminate 20 The Utah prairie dog is the acres within a section are occupied if percent up to the entire litter before the westernmost member of the genus the occurrence of Utah prairie dogs was pups first appear aboveground Cynomys. The species’ range, which is reported from that section, regardless of (Hoogland 2003, p. 238). limited to the southwestern quarter of actual numbers or distribution within After the first year, female Utah, is currently the most restricted of the section. We believe the best survivorship is higher than male all prairie dog species in the United information concerning actual Utah survivorship, though still low for both States. As could best be ascertained by prairie dog habitat is from ongoing sexes. Only about 20 percent of females Collier (1975, pp. 15–17), the species’ mapping efforts conducted by the Utah and less than 10 percent of males distribution was much broader prior to Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). survive to age 4 (Hoogland 2001, Figures control programs and at one time UDWR has mapped 17,444 ha (43,106 1 and 2, pp. 919–920). Such low extended across the desert almost to the ac) of habitat throughout the current and survivorship severely limits prairie dog Nevada-Utah State line. Collier and historic Utah prairie dog range; reproduction (Hoogland 2001, p. 921). Spillett (1975, p. 151) estimate a 50 however, current occupancy has not Utah prairie dogs rarely live beyond 5 percent range reduction from 1925 to been verified for this mapped habitat years (Hoogland 2001, p. 919). 1975, with the greatest declines area, or for other areas of historic Utah prairie dogs are organized into occurring in the western and northern habitat. The total number of Utah prairie social groups called clans, consisting of parts of the range. However, due to the dogs was estimated to be 95,000 animals an adult male, several adult females, lack of data from the early to mid 1900s, prior to control programs in the 1920s and their offspring (Wright-Smith 1978, this estimate is speculative. (McDonald 1993, p. 2). However, p. 38). Clans maintain geographic Factors that resulted in the historical estimates of the size of former territorial boundaries, which only the decline of Utah prairie dogs were populations are difficult to make

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:08 Feb 20, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21FEP1.SGM 21FEP1 rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 7845

because no formal censuses were species was reclassified from Loss of Historic Range, Urbanization, conducted prior to 1976. endangered to threatened on May 29, Land Conversion, and Sale of State The Utah prairie dog currently occurs 1984 (49 FR 22330). As part of that May Lands in three areas within southwestern 29, 1984, rule, we promulgated a special The Petitioners state that mapped (or Utah, which are designated as recovery rule under section 4(d) of the Act to estimated) Utah prairie dog habitat has areas: (1) The Awapa Plateau; (2) the allow the regulated take of up to 5,000 declined from 181,299 to 2,824 ha Paunsaugunt region, along the east fork animals annually. On June 14, 1991, we (448,000 to 6,977 ac) as of 1975, and and main stem of the Sevier River; and, published a final rule amending the that at the time the petition was (3) the West Desert region of eastern special rule to allow regulated take of developed, only 31 percent of Utah Iron County, with a few isolated up to 6,000 animals annually prairie dog habitat was on public lands colonies existing in mountain and where recovery efforts are concentrated desert valleys in eastern Iron and Beaver throughout the species’ range (56 FR (Rosmarino 2003, p. 54). The Petitioners Counties (Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, 27438). state that much of the historic, high- p. 1). For more information on these Threats Analysis quality Utah prairie dog habitat was in recovery areas, refer to our recovery valleys, where crop agriculture and plan for the species (Service 1991a). Under section 4(a) of the Act, we may urban activities and expansion have Although the abundance of the species list a species on the basis of five threat historically occurred or are ongoing in the three recovery areas vary factors: (A) Present or threatened (Rosmarino 2003, p. 55). The Petitioners considerably from year to year, the destruction, modification, or identify habitat loss due to urbanization overall species’ population abundance curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) as a concern, particularly in Iron County is considered stable. Below we describe overutilization for commercial, each of the recovery areas. Counts are in the West Desert Recovery Area recreational, scientific, or educational (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 55–56). According conducted in the spring prior to purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) emergence of the pups and represent to the petition, this recovery area has inadequacy of existing regulatory the highest percentage of Utah prairie adults only. Crocker-Bedford (1975 page mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 6) estimate that only 40 to 60% of Utah dogs located on private land and also is manmade factors affecting its continued prairie dogs are above ground at any one undergoing the highest rate of existence. Listing actions may be time. Therefore, these spring counts municipal development when compared represent approximately 50% of the warranted based on any of the above to any other area in Utah prairie dog adult population. threat factors, either singly or in range. Petitioners state that, between The Awapa Plateau Recovery Area combination. 1990 and 2000, the human population encompasses portions of Piute, Garfield, Under the Act, a threatened species is growth rate was 62.5 percent in Iron Wayne, and Sevier Counties. Spring defined as a species which is likely to County, and that Garfield and Beaver counts conducted from 1976 through become an endangered species within County’s populations increased by 19 and 26 percent respectively. The 2005 have varied from 201 to 1,145 the foreseeable future throughout all or petitioners discuss various projects that animals; in 2005, UDWR counted 571 a significant portion of its range. An resulted in translocation of Utah prairie animals on 32 colonies (15 occupied) endangered species is defined as a (UDWR 2005). dogs and loss of their habitat. These species which is in danger of extinction include legal activities performed under The Paunsaugunt Recovery Area throughout all or a significant portion of includes public and private lands the Iron County Habitat Conservation its range. Therefore, we evaluate each of primarily in Garfield County, with a Plan (HCP) section 10(a)(1)(A) permit, the five listing factors to determine small area of Iron County. Spring counts and 11 other actions legally authorized whether the level of threat identified by conducted from 1976 through 2005 have through section 7 consultation. They varied from 652 to 2,205 animals; in information in the petition and in our also cite UDWR records of 7 colonies 2005, UDWR counted a low of 652 files substantiates an increase in threat illegally destroyed during 1995 and animals on 27 colonies (14 occupied) level to the extent that uplisting of the 1996. While the Petitioners are mainly (UDWR 2005). Utah prairie dog from threatened to concerned with increasing development The West Desert Recovery Area is endangered may be warranted. on private lands, they also cite U.S. Forest Service (USFS) concerns primarily in Iron County, but extends A. Present or Threatened Destruction, regarding increased impacts from into southern Beaver County and Modification, or Curtailment of Its northern Washington County. Spring development on private lands adjacent Habitat or Range counts conducted from 1976 through to public lands, including golf course 2005 have varied from 610 to 4,778 The Petitioners state that threats to and cabin site development. The animals; in 2005, UDWR counted 4,158 the species’ habitat included the Petitioners state that there is also animals on 34 colonies (27 occupied) following: (1) Loss of historic range, increased all-terrain vehicle (ATV) (UDWR 2005). urbanization, land conversion, and sale usage from private housing developments resulting in impacts to of State lands; (2) livestock grazing, Previous Federal Actions the species (Reference, p. 57). The resulting in conversion of grasslands to We listed the Utah prairie dog as an Petitioners are concerned that School endangered species on June 4, 1973 (38 shrublands; depletion of forage; and Institutional Trust Lands FR 14678), pursuant to the Endangered degradation of riparian areas; Administration (SITLA) lands Species Conservation Act of 1969. On proliferation of weeds; alteration of fire containing Utah prairie dog habitat are November 5, 1979, the UDWR ecology; and impacts to soils; (3) road being sold to private landowners and, petitioned the Service to remove the construction, off-highway vehicle (OHV) therefore, are not safe from future Utah prairie dog from the List of use, and recreation; (4) oil, gas, and development (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 75– Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. mineral development and seismic 76). The Service found that this petition exploration; and (5) impacts of isolation We believe that the Petitioners’ contained substantial scientific and and fragmentation. assessment of the extent of historic commercial information, and the habitat loss is inaccurate. It is based on

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:08 Feb 20, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21FEP1.SGM 21FEP1 rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS 7846 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules

the statement by Collier (1975, p. 15) SITLA does sell parcels to private 70), and destroying soil crusts, which that Utah prairie dogs at one time landowners, who then may propose result in increased erosion, decreased occurred within 713 sections of land. development projects on these nutrient cycling, reduction in ground However, much of the area within those properties. However, we do not have cover, and soil compaction (Rosmarino sections contains unsuitable habitat and information that historic or occupied 2003, pp. 70–75). was never occupied by prairie dogs. Utah prairie dog habitat has been lost We concur that livestock grazing can Therefore, estimating historic habitat on due to development occurring on SITLA have an effect on various attributes of the total number of acres within those lands that have been sold, and the prairie dog habitat and food supply; 713 sections (184,666 ha/456,320 ac) is Petitioners did not cite any pending however, these effects can be positive as misleading. The majority of Utah prairie sales on lands containing Utah prairie well as negative. While the petitioners dogs still occur on private lands. dog colonies. Recent activities on SITLA cite numerous general references related However, through implementation of lands include the issuance of a to the types of impacts that grazing can the Interim Conservation Strategy (ICS) perpetual conservation easement on 304 have on vegetation and soils, they don’t (see Factor D discussion), the Recovery ha (750 ac) of Utah prairie dog habitat provide any specific references to show Team has made a substantial effort since in the Awapa Plateau Recovery Area that grazing is negatively impacting 1997 to restore and enhance Utah that will serve as a conservation bank. Utah prairie dogs, or that such effects prairie dog habitat on public lands. As are becoming more severe, to the extent Livestock Grazing of 2005, 37 percent of Utah prairie dogs that uplisting may be warranted. occurred on public lands (UDWR 2005). The petition states that livestock Hoogland (2003, p. 239) notes that tall We acknowledge that historic Utah grazing, particularly overgrazing, can vegetation is more common in Gunnison prairie dog habitat has been lost due to degrade Utah prairie dog habitat by and Utah prairie dog colonies than in agricultural conversion, a factor causing shrub encroachment, reducing black-tailed prairie dog colonies, and considered in our May 29, 1984, grass cover and vegetative biomass, that it benefits the species by providing reclassification of the species from degrading riparian areas, facilitating hiding cover. The Utah prairie dog endangered to threatened (49 FR 22330). noxious weed proliferation, altering fire vegetation guidelines have recently been However, the Petitioners do not quantify ecology, damaging cryptobiotic crusts revised to include a higher percentage of areas lost to agriculture historically, and (communities of cyanobacteria, green shrubs based on vegetative they do not provide any information on algae, lichens, mosses, liverworts, and measurements in Utah prairie dog future losses from new agricultural microorganisms that colonize the occupied habitats (Utah Prairie Dog developments. We do not have any surface of bare soil), and degrading soil Recovery Implementation Team information indicating that there have conditions (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 57–75). [UPDRIT] 2006). Other studies suggest been any recent conversions of Utah The Petitioners state that mechanical or that prairie dog density is positively prairie dog habitat to agricultural use. chemical shrub encroachment correlated with heavy grazing, which We also do not have any information treatments may not ultimately result in simulates the shortgrass environment indicating that development of private a decrease in shrub vegetative preferred by prairie dogs (Fagerstone lands is occurring within the Utah production (Rosmarino 2003, p. 60). The and Ramey 1996, pp. 88, 92; Marsh prairie dog range, other than that legally petition states that spring grazing 1994, p. 203; Slobodchikoff et al. 1988, authorized through HCP permits. The regimes may be particularly harmful to p. 406). A recent study of impacts on Iron County HCP permits a limited cool-season grasses preferred by Utah Utah prairie dogs of varying grazing amount of development on private lands prairie dogs (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 61– intensities on the Awapa Plateau found in prairie dog habitat. These losses are 62), and the Petitioners allege that direct that, although heavy grazing did not mitigated through restoration of habitat grazing and trampling of moist swales appear to impact burrow density, it did on Federal lands and the translocation and riparian areas can impact prairie significantly decrease vigilance time of animals from impacted private lands dog persistence in these areas (watchfulness or paying close and to approved translocation sites on (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 63–64). continuous attention), which could be Federal lands. In addition, 97 ha (240 The Petitioners state that grazing can detrimental to Utah prairie dogs (Elmore ac) of privately owned occupied habitat result in the spread of noxious weeds 2006, pp. 90, 93). Furthermore, while in the Parowan Valley have been through direct dispersal of weed seeds we do not disagree that Utah prairie protected in perpetuity through a in cattle fur or dung, and that opening dogs prefer moist swale formations, the conservation easement under the Iron areas to grazing makes them more types of habitats occupied by Utah County HCP and are managed for Utah susceptible to colonization and growth prairie dogs do not contain the prairie dogs (see further HCP discussion of weedy species. The Petitioners also structural complexity typical of riparian under Factor D). assert that grazing reduces competition habitats, including defined channels Although we do not dispute USFS from native species by preferentially and typical riparian vegetation accounts of increased activities on foraging cattle on them (Rosmarino consisting of trees and shrubs. The Federal lands as a result of nearby 2003, pp. 64–69). The petition states swales occupied by Utah prairie dogs private developments, the Petitioners that noxious weeds are a problem tend to be dominated by grasses. The only identify one specific development throughout Utah prairie dog range on Petitioners provided no information in the Powell Ranger District that could both Bureau of Land Management regarding the impacts of grazing to negatively impact Utah prairie dogs, and (BLM) and USFS lands (Rosmarino swales, and we have no additional we have no additional information in 2003, pp. 68–69), and the Petitioners information in our files describing our files that shows impacts claimed by allege that areas dominated by the potential impacts of this activity to the the Petitioner. Therefore, based on the exotic annual cheatgrass (Bromus species. best available date (i.e. only in this tectorum) are 10 to 500 times more McDonald (1993) recommended that case), we believe these impacts are likely to experience wildfire. The studies be undertaken to evaluate small and localized. The Petitioners petition also makes a number of claims livestock impacts and grazing regimes. provided no information to support loss related to grazing leading to a reduction He also recommended that species- on Federal lands due to recreational in fire frequency, facilitating shrub specific vegetation objectives for impacts. We also acknowledge that encroachment (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 69– transplant locations should be

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:08 Feb 20, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21FEP1.SGM 21FEP1 rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 7847

developed, and that grazing rangewide population estimate was total extirpation of the colony (Service management should be implemented 2,522 prairie dogs. The last spring 2005d). However, the Petitioners appropriately to meet these vegetation range-wide count before the petition provided no information to quantify objectives (McDonald 1993, p. 60). was 4,944 adult animals, which impacts from recreational activities, Interim vegetation guidelines were represents 50% of the adult population including roads, and we have no such identified in the Utah Prairie Dog ICS (Crocker-Bedford 1975, p. 6.). This information in our files. Direct mortality (UPDRIT 1997, Appendix 1, pp. 19–21) represented a slight decrease from from roads was not identified as a threat and were updated in January 2006, counts made between 1998 and 2000. in the May 29, 1984, reclassification of based on additional information from As of 2005, 5,381 prairie dogs were the species (49 FR 22330) or the occupied colonies within various counted. We have determined that the recovery plan (Service 1991a). We habitat types (UPDRIT 2006). process set in place with the ICS, believe that impacts of roads are limited Monitoring is occurring on Federal including research, habitat monitoring to localized areas and do not result in lands managed by the BLM Cedar City and manipulation, development of population-level effects. Field Office to determine if Utah prairie vegetation guidelines, and ultimately Oil, Gas, and Mineral Development and dog sites meet the guidelines. Habitat incorporation of realistic management Seismic Exploration management actions are being recommendations into the Recovery undertaken at sites that do not meet Plan, will meet the goal of improving The Petitioners state that oil and gas vegetation objectives (for an example, the persistence of Utah prairie dog exploration and extraction results in the see BLM 2004). colonies. degradation and loss of Utah prairie dog The UPDRIT further developed In conclusion, we have determined habitat through crushing of habitat, recommendations specifically aimed at that the petition did not present introduction of weeds, and increased habitat improvement and research to substantial scientific or commercial soil erosion or soil compaction determine more precise habitat information indicating that livestock (Rosmarino 2003, p. 80). They also state suitability criteria (UPDRIT 1997, pp. 1, grazing that results in conversion of that noise associated with seismic 5–12). Research was initiated in 2002 to grasslands to shrublands, depletion of exploration, particularly in the low identify appropriate grazing and forage, degradation of riparian areas, frequency sound range, could directly vegetation management practices and to proliferation of weeds, alteration of fire impact Utah prairie dogs (Rosmarino evaluate the effects of increasing plant ecology, and impacts to soils may be a 2003, pp. 80–82). They cite a study on diversity on survival of transplanted threat to the Utah prairie dog to the the effects of seismic exploration on Utah prairie dogs. Preliminary results extent that uplisting from threatened to Utah prairie dogs (Young and Sawyer from the drought years of 2002 and 2003 endangered under the Act may be 1981, p. 2), which expressed concerns showed that, under extreme drought warranted. about crushed vegetation, compacted conditions, forage utilization by soil, and the potential for disruption of Roads, Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs), livestock (cattle and sheep) of more than hibernating prairie dogs (Rosmarino and Recreation 33 percent of available forage led to 2003, p. 87). The petition states that oil dramatic declines of Utah prairie dog The Petitioners state that roads have and gas leases are being offered in weight gains, overwinter survivorship, a negative impact on Utah prairie dogs Millard and Sevier Counties within the and reproduction. Conversely, seeding by facilitating direct mortalities through Utah prairie dog’s range (Rosmarino of rangeland to increase total plant and motor vehicle strikes, and through loss 2003, p. 88). Mineral development, forb diversity by 33 to 40 percent almost of habitat due to new road construction, including shalestone and flagstone doubled the density of transplanted paving and reconstruction of existing extraction, and geothermal leasing are prairie dogs in 2004 (Ritchie and Brown roads, and OHV use, which can cause cited as occurring within the range of 2005, p. 2). Ritchie and Brown (2005) direct disturbance to the animals as well the Utah prairie dog (Rosmarino 2003, believe the results suggest that, at least as degradation of vegetation (Rosmarino pp. 88–89). under drought conditions, Utah prairie 2003, pp. 76–78). The Petitioners assert We are aware that oil and gas leasing, dogs are limited by available food, and that recreational use in Utah prairie dog seismic exploration, and other mineral that livestock grazing and range habitat, including camping, hunting and development activities are occurring vegetation management practices may fishing, OHV use, and hiking can lead within the range of the Utah prairie dog. need to be adjusted to minimize impacts to population declines or extirpation of However, there is no scientific or on Utah prairie dogs. Ritchie and Brown colonies through direct disturbance or commercial information either in the (2005, p. 15) also note that livestock habitat loss. The Petitioners cite petition or in our files that quantifies grazing in early spring, fall, and winter increased recreational activities, the extent of these activities, or provides is generally beneficial to Utah prairie including actual and potential information on the actual infrastructure dogs because it reduces horizontal infrastructure development, such as related to oil and gas development in cover, which allows animals to spend parking lots, campgrounds, and road occupied Utah prairie dog habitat. less time looking for predators. When and trail improvements, on three USFS Although Young and Sawyer (1981, p. this research is finalized, results will be Ranger Districts (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 2) expressed concerns (as identified in used to develop final vegetation 78–79). the petition) about seismic exploration, guidelines and other grazing and habitat We acknowledge that direct mortality they concluded that any impact from management recommendations for the of prairie dogs occurs on roads, and seismic testing on Utah prairie dogs is Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Plan. higher mortalities occur in areas where negligible. In a similar study of white- While we agree that habitat paved highways intersect or pass near tailed prairie dogs, Menkens and conditions are compromised in many Utah prairie dog colonies. We also Anderson (1985, p. 13) concluded that areas, particularly on public lands, Utah acknowledge that OHV use and other there were negligible impacts from prairie dog numbers continue to be types of recreational use, including seismic exploration. To further within the range of historic fluctuations recreational infrastructure development, minimize potential impacts of oil and (UDWR 2005), and we have not seen has occurred in Utah prairie dog habitat, gas activities on Utah prairie dogs, the large-scale population decreases. When resulting in habitat loss and possibly, in Service and BLM have developed a set the species was downlisted in 1984, the the instance of the Three Peaks colony, of avoidance and minimization

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:08 Feb 20, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21FEP1.SGM 21FEP1 rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS 7848 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules

measures for Federal oil and gas leases threatened to endangered under the Act substantial scientific or commercial within the range of the Utah prairie dog. may be warranted. information that overutilization is a These include no surface disturbance threat to the Utah prairie dog to the Summary of Factor A within 0.8 kilometer (km) [0.5 mile (mi)] extent that uplisting from threatened to of active Utah prairie dog colonies, and We have determined that the endangered under the Act may be no permanent disturbance within 0.8 information in the petition and available warranted. km (0.5 mi) of potentially suitable, in our files does not constitute C. Disease or Predation unoccupied Utah prairie dog habitat substantial scientific or commercial (Service 2003). These measures information that present or threatened The Petitioners did not state that currently apply to all BLM leasing destruction, modification, or predation is a threat to the Utah prairie activities within the Utah prairie dog’s curtailment of habitat is a threat to the dog. The Petitioners did state that range, and lessees who follow these Utah prairie dog to the extent that sylvatic plague (Yersinia pestis), an guidelines will be provided a uplisting from threatened to endangered exotic bacterial disease, is a significant streamlined section 7 consultation under the Act may be warranted. Many threat to the extent that it might prevent process. We believe that the incidences of the claims cited by the Petitioners recovery of Utah prairie dogs, even if all of mineral development cited in the constitute small, localized impacts on other threat factors were removed. The petition are isolated activities and only specific Utah prairie dog colonies. We petition states that plague is a threat to affect small acreages of Utah prairie dog recognize the potential for future private prairie dogs, given their lack of natural habitat. The petition therefore does not land development due to the large immunity to the bacterium. The cyclical present substantial scientific percentage of private lands within the nature of plague means that it can return information that these activities may be West Desert Recovery Area, and will to affect the same colony; therefore impacting the Utah prairie dog to the continue to monitor the status of Utah recovery from a plague event can be a extent that uplisting from threatened to prairie dog colonies in that area closely. slow process (Rosmarino 2003, p. 98). endangered under the Act may be We also will continue our efforts to The Petitioners cite numerous instances warranted. conserve prairie dog habitat on private of documented and suspected plague lands and to develop new colonies on events occurring throughout Utah Impacts of Isolation and Fragmentation public lands. We acknowledge that it is prairie dog range (Rosmarino 2003, p. The petition states that due to loss likely that some livestock grazing 99). They also cite ongoing research in and degradation of Utah prairie dog regimes, particularly under drought Utah prairie dog habitat on plague habitat, and the effects of extermination conditions, may adversely affect Utah mitigation through the use of campaigns and plague, remaining prairie dogs. We will continue the insecticides to kill the fleas that carry prairie dog colonies tend to be isolated process of research and monitoring of the plague bacterium (Rosmarino 2003, and fragmented. These small, isolated Utah prairie dog habitat suitability and p. 100). The Petitioners take the view colonies are then more susceptible to grazing management practices, and that as long as plague is present in the local extirpation from factors such as ultimately we will revise the Recovery ecosystem, the Utah prairie dog may not sylvatic plague (Rosmarino 2003, p. 90). Plan to incorporate vegetation reach recovery goals even if all other Factors such as low reproductive rate, guidelines and grazing management threat factors are removed (Rosmarino genetic drift, and inbreeding may recommendations to benefit the species. 2003, p. 100). increase the potential for local We acknowledge that plague exists extinctions (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 91– B. Overutilization for Commercial, throughout the Utah prairie dog’s range, 93). The petition also states that Recreational, Scientific, or Educational that individual Utah prairie dog individuals in larger colonies benefit Purposes colonies are known to have been from less time being devoted to predator The petition states that illegal affected by the disease, and that there is detection. shooting of Utah prairie dogs still occurs currently no mechanism available to We concur that the majority of and that shooting can negatively affect prevent periodic plague events from existing Utah prairie dog colonies are prairie dogs through population reoccurring. Plague is an Old World small, numbering fewer than 200 reduction, decreased colony expansion (European origin) disease that was first individuals (UDWR 2005). Plague is rates, and changes in behavior recorded in North America in humans active across the landscape and results (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 94–98). in 1899, and in Utah prairie dogs in in colonies tending to increase in Because the Utah prairie dog is Garfield County in 1936 (Fitzgerald numbers for a period of years, decline already a listed species, shooting, except 1993, p. 50). However, plague antibody to very small numbers following a as provided for by the 4(d) special rule, titers have been found in a few Utah plague event, and then increasing again which is codified at 50 CFR 17.40(g), is prairie dogs (Biggins 2003a, p. 1) and (see further plague discussion under prohibited by the Act. However, we white-tailed prairie dogs (Biggins 2003a, Factor C). However, the current number acknowledge that isolated instances of p. 1; Cully and Williams 2001, p. 896), of active colonies, and the number of shooting likely occur, and that it is not indicating that some individuals survive Utah prairie dogs counted in the spring feasible for UDWR and Federal land after exposure to plague. of 2005 (5,381 animals) (UDWR 2005), management agencies to patrol all Information in our files indicates that continues to be within the range of colony locations on a routine basis. No the literature is inconclusive regarding variation seen since counts began in information is available in the petition whether isolation of a colony or a 1976; therefore, we do not concur that or in our files to indicate that more than colony’s density affects the number and small colony size is endangering the isolated incidences of shooting occur frequency of plague outbreaks. species. In summary, we have within Utah prairie dog colonies, or that Lomolino et al. (2003, p. 118) and others determined that the petition does not shooting may pose a significant threat to (Cully and Williams 2001, p. 901; Miller provide scientific or commercial the species on a range-wide basis. et al. 1993, pp. 89–90) suggest that information to support the assertion that isolation and fragmentation may small colony size and fragmentation Summary of Factor B provide some protection to prairie dogs may be a threat to the Utah prairie dog Neither the petition nor information from sylvatic plague by lessening the to the extent that uplisting from readily available in our files constitute likelihood of disease transmission.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:08 Feb 20, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21FEP1.SGM 21FEP1 rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 7849

White-tailed and Utah prairie dog with wild animals carrying fleas with described under Factor A (Rosmarino colonies are less dense and more widely the plague bacterium) and precipitation, 2003, pp. 119–139). They also cite U.S. dispersed than black-tailed or Gunnison particularly in the winter-spring period. Department of Agriculture (USDA), prairie dog colonies, which may slow They hypothesize that increased winter- Animal and Plant Health Inspection plague transmission rates (Cully 1993, spring precipitation results in an Service (APHIS)—Wildlife Services’ p. 40; Cully and Williams 2001, p. 901). increase in food resources for animal lethal Utah prairie dog control, and Biggins’ (2003b, p. 5) data are consistent species, which subsequently have grasshopper and Mormon cricket with the hypothesis that white-tailed greater reproductive success, leading to control within Utah prairie dog range, as prairie dogs are predisposed to regroup increased numbers of potential plague harmful to the species (Rosmarino 2003, when their numbers become depleted, hosts (Parmenter et al. 1999, p. 818). pp. 140–145), and state that the improving stability in density (at the Summary of Factor C Environmental Protection Agency’s cost of stability in area occupied). labeling for toxicants and fumigants is Biggins (2003b, p. 6) states that if We recognize that plague has been, not fully protective of Utah prairie dogs transmission rates for Yersinia pestis are and will continue to be, a major (Rosmarino 2003, p. 144). The petition at least partly dependent on host mortality factor in specific colonies, and further discusses the lack of recovery density, prairie dog populations on good across the range of Utah prairie dogs. efforts on private lands, including quality sites may undergo both larger The impact that plague has had on the implementation of HCPs pursuant to declines and more rapid recoveries than overall status of the species, or its section 10 of the Act. The Petitioners those on poor sites. Partial or complete potential for recovery, is unclear. It is particularly cite failure to adequately recovery following population impossible to separate the impacts of address cumulative impacts of reductions due to plague have been plague from other factors that affect incidental take on prairie dogs in the reported for both white-tailed and black- Utah prairie dogs across their range, West Desert Recovery Area, and failure tailed prairie dogs (Biggins and Kosoy including drought, habitat conditions, to provide adequate mitigation, which 2001, p. 23). Hibernation by Utah and and disturbance by various human has resulted in considerable take of white-tailed prairie dogs may reduce or activities. We will continue to support Utah prairie dogs (Rosmarino 2003, pp. delay plague transmission among research on the impacts of plague on 147–161). individual animals (Barnes 1993, p. 34). Utah prairie dog persistence, and on Although overall numbers of Utah The Petitioners cite ongoing research ways to reduce these impacts. There prairie dogs have not increased into the efficacy of insecticides to was no information provided in the protect Utah prairie dog colonies from petition, or available in our files, that substantially since downlisting in 1984, plague. Results of this study to date shows that the effects of disease are the species’ population is considered to have been equivocal (Biggins 2003b, p. becoming more severe or widespread, to be stable on a range-wide basis. In 2005, 8). The study was not able to determine the extent that uplisting from threatened the count was 5,381 animals range- a difference in the number of arthropod to endangered under the Act may be wide, and in 1984 it was 2,522 animals; species on plots dusted with warranted. counts ranged from 2,522 to 7,527 deltamethrin verses non-dusted plots. during that 22-year period (UDWR D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 2005). We acknowledge that the However, Biggins (2003b, p. 8) Mechanisms concludes that dusting Utah prairie dog translocation program to move animals burrows once a year with 4 grams (0.14 The Petitioners state that Federal defined as ‘‘surplus’’ under the 4(d) ounce) of Delta Dust (brand name of regulatory mechanisms, including special rule (50 CFR 17.40(g)) and the deltamethrin) does reduce the number efforts undertaken by the Service under recovery goal of developing new Utah of fleas species that are potential plague the Act, and the Bureau of Land prairie dog colonies on public lands, hosts. The recovery team has begun Management, USFS, and National Park have not been as successful as initial efforts to dust what are Service in their land management plans, predicted. The 4(d) special rule allows considered large priority colonies, are inadequate to protect the Utah a maximum of 6,000 Utah prairie dogs including Johnson Bench, East Creek prairie dog. to be taken annually; however, the Canyon, and Tom Best Spring, in an The Petitioners state that even though actual number that are permitted to be effort to prevent plague outbreaks. the Utah prairie dog is currently listed taken varies on an annual basis and These efforts successfully stopped an as threatened under the Act, adequate depends on the population surveys for outbreak on the conservation bank regulatory mechanisms do not exist to that year. During their annual surveys, property in the Awapa Plateau Recovery ensure its survival or recovery. UDWR makes counts of Utah prairie Area known as The Tanks. Specifically, they cite the downlisting of dogs on individual colonies throughout Given the dynamics of the Utah the species in 1984 (Rosmarino 2003, the range of the species. When a private prairie dog’s behavior (such as pp. 100–103); implementation of the landowner requests a control permit for hibernation), migration patterns, and 4(d) rule and faulty assumptions about a particular colony, UDWR issues a geographical patterns of colony the number of prairie dogs that could be permit for take of no more than 10 distribution, we are currently unable to taken annually (Rosmarino 2003, pp. percent of the number of animals determine whether there is an optimum 104–108); a flawed Recovery Plan counted in that colony that year. During size, density, and distribution of (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 108–114), and the period of 1985–2004, the permitted colonies that would make them less lack of adequate personnel and level of take was never higher than susceptible to periodic plague events. resources from the affected agencies to 3,781, and the actual reported take did We also cannot determine whether fully implement it (Rosmarino 2003, p. not exceed 1,760 (UDWR 2003). We are small colony size and isolation provide 147); failure of the ICS to adequately taking steps to improve the success of some measure of protection from consider effects to the species from the translocation program through plague. Climatic factors may feed into threats such as plague and livestock development of vegetation guidelines plague cycling. Parmenter et al. (1999, grazing (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 115–119); (discussed under Factor A) and new p. 816) suggest a general linkage and Federal land management agency guidelines for Utah prairie dog between cases of human plague (USFS and BLM) policies that facilitate translocation (see discussion under (generally contracted by association habitat loss and degradation as Factor E). Utah prairie dogs have not

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:08 Feb 20, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21FEP1.SGM 21FEP1 rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS 7850 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules

experienced significant progress toward APHIS–Wildlife Services received one protects 123 ha (303 ac) of habitat recovery since the 1984 downlisting, but permit to control Utah prairie dogs on (occupied and unoccupied) in exchange current numbers are within the range of private agricultural land adjacent to a for 7 ha (18 ac) of low-quality occupied historical population fluctuations, parcel of land protected under a habitat (Service 2007)). The Garfield which indicates that extinction is not conservation easement. However, the County HCP was never finalized. need for control never materialized, and imminent. Summary of Factor D Efforts to revise the Recovery Plan are control was never carried out. We have currently underway and will completed a programmatic consultation We agree that Utah prairie dog incorporate the best available with APHIS for grasshopper and recovery has been slow, but we information. The revised Recovery Plan Mormon cricket control under section 7 conclude that actions taken since 1994, is expected to be completed in 2007. For of the Act, to ensure that control actions including research, development of new now, the goal of the interim strategy that will not have adverse effects on listed guidance documents, implementation of was developed in 1994 is to advance species, including Utah prairie dogs. the ICS on Federal lands occupied by information and strategies necessary to The consultation contains required prairie dogs, and the revision of the effectively modify recovery goals. conservation measures to benefit the Recovery Plan to include the Research on habitat needs and species, including a 1.6-km (1.0-mi) conservation of prairie dog habitat on successful translocation is ongoing. buffer zone around occupied Utah private lands, will improve the species’ Based on this research, we updated the prairie dog habitat (USDA 2005, p. 12). status over the long-term. Neither the vegetation and translocation guidelines. The State of Utah, through an petition nor the available information in Cooperators in the ICS and Recovery agreement with the Service, manages our files indicates that lack of adequate Plan revision include all of the affected Utah prairie dogs by conducting annual regulatory mechanisms may be a threat to Utah prairie dogs to the extent that Federal land management agencies, surveys, issuing permits to private uplisting from threatened to endangered Natural Resources Conservation Service landowners under the 4(d) special rule, under the Act may be warranted. (NRCS), State and Federal wildlife and trapping and translocation of management agencies, Utah State animals from private to public lands. E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors University, Utah Farm Bureau, and However, the State of Utah does not Affecting the Continued Existence of the Environmental Defense. control the lands occupied by Utah Species prairie dogs and has no authority to All BLM land use plans incorporate implement land management changes. The Petitioners state that rodent the existing Recovery Plan ‘‘and other The State is working cooperatively with control efforts, the Utah prairie dog pertinent documents pertaining to the Service and Federal land translocation program, and drought recovery.’’ BLM’s Cedar City Field management agencies to determine present significant threats to Utah Office is monitoring vegetation on Utah ways to improve habitat conditions on prairie dogs. The petition cites legal take prairie dog sites to determine public lands and to revise the Recovery under the 4(d) special rule (50 CFR compliance with the vegetation Plan. 17.40(g)), and ongoing illegal poisoning guidelines. The National Park Service We have taken steps to conserve and shooting as endangering the species has implemented habitat restoration prairie dogs on private lands, including (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 161–162). In projects through burning and seeding issuance of three Safe Harbor particular, the Petitioners point out that and has hosted Utah prairie dog Agreements (SHAs) covering 97 ha (240 legal take of Utah prairie dogs under the research efforts on its property for the ac) of occupied and unoccupied habitat 4(d) special rule has resulted in control last 10 years. USFS is revising the Dixie within the Paunsaugunt and Awapa of 14,002 prairie dogs (to the date of the National Forest Plan to incorporate the Plateau Recovery Areas (Service 2005a, petition) and suggest that take levels Utah prairie dog Recovery Plan. USFS 2005b, 2006b). These SHAs improve and population fluctuations from year to also has identified and prepared two Utah prairie dog habitat by increasing year may be contributing to population translocation sites, dusted several key plant diversity and providing protection declines (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 162– colonies at risk of plague exposure in for Utah prairie dogs for up to 15 years. 163). The petition alleges that any the Paunsaugant Recovery Area, and is We are currently processing three more illegal poisoning that occurs increases initiating habitat improvement projects SHAs (cite) and one umbrella safe the magnitude of permitted take to benefit Utah prairie dogs in the harbor agreement to be held by NRCS (Rosmarino 2003, p. 165). The petition Awapa Plateau Recovery Area. (cite), with an unlimited potential to calls the translocation program a failure, All agencies are making a concerted enroll private lands within all three stating that translocations have not effort to implement the ICS and use new recovery areas. In 2004, we approved a resulted in an increase of Utah prairie research data to improve the 304-ha (750-ac) conservation bank on dog populations on public lands, and conservation and recovery of Utah private land that is protected in have resulted in a loss of animals on prairie dogs throughout their range. perpetuity within the Awapa Plateau private lands (Rosmarino 2003, p. 166). Species recovery is often a difficult and Recovery Area (Service 2005c). A The petition points out that many long-term process, particularly for a conservation bank in the West Desert translocation sites do not meet ICS species such as the Utah prairie dog that Recovery Area has been initiated and vegetation guidelines, and that Utah had been in decline for nearly a century will protect private land within Iron prairie dogs translocated to the Adams prior to its listing (Pizzimenti and County. The petition discusses several Well site have lost weight, thus making Collier 1975, p. 1) and that is adversely small and large-scale (county-wide) them less likely to survive through affected by numerous interacting HCPs, most of which were issued in the winter (Rosmarino 2003, pp. 170–184). factors. We believe we are moving in a 1990s. Currently, the Iron County HCP The petition states that, although positive direction with implementation (the only county-wide HCP) (Service drought is a naturally occurring of the ICS and revision of the Recovery 1998) is in the process of being revised phenomenon, continuing livestock Plan, but we need to continue to and will include the protection of grazing during drought conditions evaluate the status of the species and private lands with Utah prairie dogs to exacerbates the effects of drought on factors affecting its recovery over the offset impacts from development Utah prairie dogs (Rosmarino 2003, p. long-term. elsewhere. A recently finalized HCP 185).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:08 Feb 20, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21FEP1.SGM 21FEP1 rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 7851

Legal take occurring in compliance Finding 5–Year Review with the 4(d) special rule (50 CFR We have reviewed the petition and Although we will not conduct a status 17.40(g)) was discussed under Factor D. review in response to the petition, we As stated under Factor B, we do not the literature cited in the petition, and evaluated it in relation to other are initiating a 5-year review of the Utah have any information to indicate that prairie dog to comply with section illegal shooting occurs in other than pertinent information in our files. We find that substantial scientific or 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Based on this 5- isolated instances. We believe the same year review, we will determine whether to be true of illegal poisoning, and no commercial information has not been presented by the Petitioners indicating or not the Utah prairie dog should be information exists in our files or in the removed from the list (i.e., delisted) or petition indicating otherwise. The that reclassification of Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens) from threatened to otherwise reclassified. Delisting or relationship of drought and livestock reclassifying a species must be grazing regimes on Utah prairie dog endangered may be warranted. Because the species is already listed as supported by the best scientific and habitat is discussed under Factor A. commercial information available, and threatened under the Act, it is already we will only consider delisting a species We agree that past translocation subject to, and receives protection from, if such information substantiates that efforts have not always been successful. the regulatory mechanisms of the Act. the species is neither endangered nor We have adapted our techniques and The petition did not identify or present threatened for one or more of the vegetation guidelines to address the substantial new information indicating following reasons: (1) The species is likely causes preventing success of past that the level of threats to the species considered extinct; (2) the species is efforts. Thirteen new complexes have has changed significantly since its considered to be recovered; or (3) the been established on Federal lands reclassification to threatened in 1984. within the West Desert Recovery Area original data available when the species through translocation efforts. We are The current number of active was listed, or the interpretation of such improving translocation success through colonies, and the number of Utah prairie data, were in error. Any change in development and use of the ICS dogs counted in the spring of 2005 Federal classification would require a vegetation guidelines, habitat research (5,381) (UDWR 2005), continues to be separate rulemaking process. (as discussed under Factor A), within the range of variation seen since Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 monitoring survival of translocated counts were implemented in 1976, require that we publish a notice in the animals, and incorporating better which further supports the assertion Federal Register announcing those methods to improve survival. We will that threats have not increased species currently under review. This continue to monitor these efforts and significantly. notice announces our intention to update our methods as necessary. Even Since implementation of the ICS in prepare a 5-year review of the Utah under optimum circumstances, survival 1997, the Service and its Federal and prairie dog and opens a 60-day of translocated prairie dogs of various State recovery team partners have taken comment period (see DATES). We species is low (less than 40 percent) substantial steps to improve the survival encourage interested parties to provide (Truett et al. 2001, p. 864). We have of translocated Utah prairie dogs information concerning the Utah prairie developed new recommended through new vegetation guidelines, dog to the Field Supervisor, Utah translocation procedures (Procedures) habitat improvements at translocation Ecological Services Office (see for the Utah Prairie Dog (Service 2006, sites on Federal lands, and new ADDRESSES). 18 pp.). The Procedures emphasize translocation guidelines. New Public Comments Solicited actions to increase success rates and to conservation tools, including SHAs, At this time, we are opening a 60-day provide consistency across recovery mitigation banks, and HCPs with comment period (see DATES) to allow all areas and land management agencies. provisions for protection of private interested parties an opportunity to The Procedures discuss site selection lands, are being implemented. Research provide information on the status of the and preparation, translocation site is being carried out on the efficacy of Utah prairie dog for our 5-year review. preparation, trapping, handling, dusting Utah prairie dog colonies with We will base our 5-year review on a transport, release, and monitoring and dimethrin to control plague. Critical review of the best scientific and management of translocated colonies have been identified and commercial information available, populations. Consistent use of these successfully protected through this including the studies cited in this notice Procedures should increase future methodology. New information gained and information received during the survival of translocated animals. since the implementation of the ICS, public comment period. Information including ongoing research and Summary of Factor E regarding the following topics would be monitoring results from occupied particularly useful: (1) Species biology, We have determined that information colonies on Federal lands, will be used including but not limited to, population in the petition and available in our files in the revision of the Recovery Plan. trends, distribution, abundance, does not indicate that legal and illegal This may include revision of the demographics, genetics, and taxonomy, take, including the translocation recovery goals for the species if the new including any evaluations or reviews of program implemented under the information supports it. the studies cited in this notice; (2) existing Recovery Plan, is a threat to Although we will not be commencing habitat conditions, including but not Utah prairie dogs to the extent that a status review in response to this limited to, amount, distribution, and uplisting from threatened to endangered petition, we encourage interested parties suitability; (3) conservation measures under the Act may be warranted. We to continue to gather data that will assist that have been implemented that benefit will continue to work with all with the conservation of the species. If the species; (4) threat status and trends; landowners to implement the you wish to provide information and (5) other new information or data. Procedures and to monitor their regarding the Utah prairie dog, you may When we complete our 5-year review, effectiveness. The Procedures will submit your information or materials to our practice is to make comments, become part of any future revisions to the Utah Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and including names and home addresses of the Recovery Plan. Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES). respondents, available for public review

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:08 Feb 20, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21FEP1.SGM 21FEP1 rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS 7852 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 34 / Wednesday, February 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules

during regular business hours. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Individual respondents may request that Background we withhold their names and home Fish and Wildlife Service addresses, etc., but if you wish us to On December 19, 2006, the Service consider withholding this information, 50 CFR Part 17 published a proposed rule (71 FR you must state this prominently at the 75924), under the authority of the Act, RIN 1018–AT37 to remove the WVNFS from the Federal beginning of your comments. In List of Endangered and Threatened addition, you must present rationale for Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to Remove Wildlife, due to recovery. The proposed withholding this information. This rule opened a 60-day comment period, rationale must demonstrate that the Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) From the which was to end on February 20, 2007, disclosure would constitute a clearly on that action. We have received unwarranted invasion of privacy. Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife requests to extend the comment period Unsupported assertions will not meet in order to allow additional time for the this burden. In the absence of AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, public to review the data and provide exceptional, documentable Interior. comments. To ensure that the public has circumstances, this information will be ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of sufficient opportunity to review the released. We will always make comment period. available scientific and commercial submissions from organizations or data, we are extending the comment businesses, and from individuals SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and period for an additional 60 days. identifying themselves as Wildlife Service (Service), are extending Comments on the proposed delisting representatives of organizations or the public comment period on the rule will be accepted through April 23, businesses, available for public proposed rule to remove the Virginia 2007. inspection in their entirety. northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys Authority: The authority for this action is sabrinus fuscus), more commonly Please submit electronic comments in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as known as the West Virginia northern amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). an ASCII or Microsoft Word file. Also, flying squirrel, from the Federal List of Public Comments Solicited please include ‘‘Attn: Utah prairie dog’’ Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, along with your name and return due to recovery. Comments previously We intend for any final action address in your e-mail message. If you submitted need not be resubmitted as resulting from the proposal to be as do not receive a confirmation from the they have been incorporated into the accurate as possible. Therefore, we system that we have received your e- public record and will be fully solicit data, comments, or suggestions mail message, please submit your considered in the final determination. from the public, other concerned government agencies, the scientific comments in writing using one of the DATES: The public comment period for alternate methods provided in the the proposed rule published at 71 FR community, industry, Tribes, or any ADDRESSES section. 75924, December 19, 2006, is extended other interested party concerning the proposed rule. We particularly seek from February 20, 2007, to April 23, References Cited comments concerning: (1) Biological, 2007. Any comments received after the commercial, trade, or other relevant data closing date may not be considered in A complete list of all references cited concerning any threat (or lack thereof) the final decision on the proposal. herein is available upon request from to the WVNFS; (2) additional the Utah Ecological Services Field ADDRESSES: You may submit comments information on the range, distribution, Office. on the proposed delisting by any one of and population size of the WVNFS and several methods: Author its habitat; (3) the location of any 1. You may submit written comments additional populations of the WVNFS; The authors of this document are and information to the Assistant Chief, and (4) data on population trends. Susan Linner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Division of Endangered and Threatened Please note that comments merely Service, Colorado Ecological Services Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, stating support or opposition to the Field Office, and Elise Boeke, U.S. Fish Northeast Regional Office, 300 Westgate actions under consideration without Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035. and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological providing supporting information, 2. You may hand-deliver written Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES). although noted, will not be considered comments to our Northeast Regional in making a determination, as section Authority Office, at the above address. 4(b)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species 3. You may fax your comments to Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 The authority for this action is section 413–253–8482. U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), directs that 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 4. You may use the Federal determinations as to whether any 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et eRulemaking Portal: http:// species is a threatened or endangered seq.). www.regulations.gov. Follow the species shall be made ‘‘solely on the Dated: February 9, 2007. instructions for submitting comments. basis of the best scientific and Comments and materials received will H. Dale Hall, commercial data available.’’ be available for public inspection, by Our practice is to make comments, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. appointment, during normal business including names and home addresses of [FR Doc. E7–2834 Filed 2–20–07; 8:45 am] hours at our Northeast Regional Office. respondents, available for public review BILLING CODE 4310–55–P FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: during regular business hours. Diane Lynch at our Northeast Regional Individual respondents may request that Office (telephone: 413–253–8628) or the we withhold their name and/or home Field Office Supervisor, West Virginia address, etc., but if you wish us to Field Office, 694 Beverly Pike, Elkins, consider withholding this information, WV 26241 (telephone: 304–636–6586). you must state this prominently at the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:08 Feb 20, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21FEP1.SGM 21FEP1 rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS