Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36053

criteria of our DPS policy have not been DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Background met. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation Status U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to 50 CFR Part 17 As stated previously, we determined list, delist, or reclassify a species that the Utah population of the Gila [Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0037] presents substantial scientific or monster does not meet the discreteness commercial information indicating that criteria or the significance criteria. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife the petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, the Utah population does not and Plants; Revised 90-Day Finding on We are to base this finding on constitute a valid DPS. As such, we do a Petition To Reclassify the Utah information provided in the petition, not need to evaluate whether the Prairie Dog From Threatened to supporting information submitted with information contained in the petition Endangered the petition, and information otherwise regarding the conservation status in available in our files. To the maximum relation to the Act’s standards for listing AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. extent practicable, we are to make this is substantial. finding within 90 days of our receipt of ACTION: Notice of revised 90-day the petition, and publish our notice of Finding petition finding. this finding promptly in the Federal In summary, the petition does not Register. present substantial information SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Our standard for substantial scientific supporting the characterization of the Wildlife Service (Service), announce a or commercial information within the Utah population of the Gila monster as revised 90-day finding on a petition to Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with a DPS, because the discreteness and reclassify the Utah prairie dog (Cynomys regard to a 90-day petition finding is significance criteria were not met. parvidens) from threatened to ‘‘that amount of information that would Therefore, this population is not a valid endangered under the Endangered lead a reasonable person to believe that listable entity under section 3(16) of the Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). the measure proposed in the petition Act. As we concluded in our 90-day finding may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). On the basis of our determination published on February 21, 2007, we find If we find that substantial information under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we that the February 3, 2003, petition does was presented, we are required to conclude that the petition does not not present substantial information promptly conduct a species status present substantial scientific or indicating that reclassifying the Utah review, which we subsequently commercial information to indicate that prairie dog from threatened to summarize in our 12-month finding. listing the Utah population of the Gila endangered may be warranted. In making this finding, we applied the monster as a DPS as threatened or Therefore, we are not initiating a status standards described above for endangered under the Act may be review in response to the February 3, substantial information. Under the Act, warranted at this time. Although we 2003, petition. However, we ask the a threatened species is defined as a will not review the status of the species public to submit to us any new species which is likely to become an at this time, we encourage interested information that becomes available endangered species within the parties to continue to gather data that concerning the status of, or threats to, foreseeable future throughout all or a will assist with conservation of the Gila the Utah prairie dog or its habitat at any significant portion of its range. An monster. If you wish to provide time. endangered species is defined as a information regarding the Gila monster, DATES: The revised 90-day finding species which is in danger of extinction you may submit your information or announced in this document was made throughout all or a significant portion of materials to the Utah Field Supervisor on June 21, 2011. its range. Therefore, in evaluating the (see ADDRESSES) at any time. ADDRESSES: This finding is available on information in this petition to reclassify the Internet at http:// References Cited the Utah prairie dog from threatened to www.regulations.gov at Docket Number endangered, we have based our A complete list of references cited is FWS–R6–ES–2011–0037. Supporting determination on whether the petition available on the Internet at http:// documentation we used in preparing presents substantial scientific and www.regulations.gov and upon request this finding is available for public commercial information indicating that from the Utah Field Office (see FOR inspection, by appointment, during the species may be currently in danger FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). normal business hours at the U.S. Fish of extinction throughout all or a Authors and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological significant portion of its range. Services Field Office, 2369 West Orton The primary authors of this notice are Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT Petition History staff members of the Mountain-Prairie 84119. Please submit any new On February 3, 2003, we received a Regional Office and the Utah Field information, materials, comments, or petition, dated the same day, from Office (see ADDRESSES). questions concerning this finding to the Forest Guardians, Center for Native Authority above address. Ecosystems, Escalante Wilderness FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The authority for this action is the Project, Boulder Regional Group, Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Ecological Services Field Office (see amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Terry Tempest Williams (Petitioners) ADDRESSES), by telephone (801–975– requesting that the Utah prairie dog be Dated: June 8, 2011. 3330), or by facsimile (801–975–3331). reclassified as endangered under the Act Gregory E. Siekaniec, If you use a telecommunications device (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, entire). Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife for the deaf (TDD), please call the The petition clearly identified itself as Service. Federal Information Relay Service such and included the requisite [FR Doc. 2011–15399 Filed 6–20–11; 8:45 am] (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. identification information for the BILLING CODE 4310–55–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: petitioners, as required by 50 CFR

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM 21JNP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 36054 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules

424.14(a). We acknowledged receipt of Previous Federal Actions in the spring and 500 to 1,500 g (1.1 to the petition in a letter to Nicole We listed the Utah prairie dog as an 3.3 lb) in the late summer and early fall Rosmarino on November 21, 2003. In endangered species on June 4, 1973 (38 (Hoogland 1995, p. 8). Utah prairie dogs that letter we also advised the FR 14678), pursuant to the Endangered range in color from cinnamon to clay. Petitioners that, due to prior listing Species Conservation Act of 1969 (the The Utah prairie dog is distinguishable allocations in Fiscal Years 2003 and predecessor to the 1973 Act). On from other prairie dog species by a 2004, we would not be able to begin November 5, 1979, the Utah Division of relatively short (30 to 70 mm (1.2 to 2.8 processing the petition in a timely Wildlife Resources (UDWR) petitioned in.)) white- or gray-tipped tail and a manner. On February 2, 2004, we the Service to remove the Utah prairie black ‘‘eyebrow’’ above each eye received a Notice of Intent to sue from dog from the List of Endangered and (Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 1; the Petitioners for failure to issue the Threatened Wildlife. Based on Hoogland 2003, p. 232). 90-day finding. information provided in the petition, Life History the species was reclassified from On February 2, 2006, the Petitioners Utah prairie dogs hibernate for 4 to 6 endangered to threatened on May 29, filed a complaint for injunctive and months underground each year during 1984 (49 FR 22330). declaratory relief in the United States the harsh winter months, although they District Court for the District of Species Information are occasionally seen above ground Columbia. On June 2, 2006, the parties We have updated this information during mild weather (Hoogland 2001, p. reached a settlement that required the since our February 21, 2007, 90-day 918). Adult males cease surface activity Service to make a 90-day finding on the finding, based on the best information during August and September, and February 3, 2003, petition on or before currently available in our files. We females follow suit several weeks later February 17, 2007. The 90-day finding determined that updating the basic (Hoogland 2003, p. 235). Juvenile prairie published on February 21, 2007 (72 FR biological information for the species dogs remain above ground 1 to 2 months 7843), constituted our compliance with with information contained in our files longer than adults and usually hibernate the settlement agreement. We found that has no effect on our decision as to by late November. Emergence from the petition did not provide substantial whether or not the petition contains hibernation usually occurs in late scientific or commercial information substantial information. February or early March (Hoogland indicating that reclassification may be 2003, p. 235). warranted. This decision was Taxonomy Mating begins 2 to 5 days after challenged by WildEarth Guardians in Prairie dogs belong to the Sciuridae females emerge from hibernation, and litigation. family of rodents, which also includes can continue through early April (Hoogland 2003, p. 236). Approximately On September 28, 2010, the United squirrels, chipmunks, and marmots. 97 percent of female Utah prairie dogs States District Court for the District of There are five species of prairie dogs, all breed in any given year. They come into Columbia vacated and remanded our of which are native to North America, estrus (period of greatest female February 21, 2007, not-substantial 90- and all of which have non-overlapping reproductive responsiveness usually day finding (72 FR 7843) back to us for geographic ranges (Hoogland 2003, p. 232). Taxonomically, prairie dogs coinciding with ovulation) and are further consideration (WildEarth sexually receptive for a few hours for Guardians v. Salazar, Case 1:08–cv– (Cynomys spp.) are divided into two subgenera (Hoogland 1995, p. 8): the only 1 day during the breeding season 01596–CKK (D.D.C. 2010)). We were (Hoogland 2001, p. 919). Females give directed to address cumulative effects white-tail and the black-tail. The Utah prairie dog (C. parvidens) is a member birth to only one litter per year, in April and to consider whether the loss of or May (Hoogland 2001, pp. 919–920; historical range constituted a significant of the white-tailed group, subgenus Leucocrossuromys. Other members of Hoogland 2003, p. 236). Only 67 percent portion of the species’ range. We have this group, which also occur in Utah, of female prairie dogs successfully wean considered both of these remanded are the white-tailed prairie dog (C. a litter, which ranges from one to seven items in our Findings section below. leucurus) and the Gunnison prairie dog pups, with an average of four pups Additionally, because the finding was (C. gunnisoni). (Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 2; remanded by the Court, we considered The Utah prairie dog is recognized as Wright-Smith 1978, p. 10; Hoogland the petition as resubmitted at the time a distinct species (Zeveloff 1988, p. 148; 2001, pp. 919–920, 923). The young of the Court’s order and now evaluate Hoogland 1995, p. 10), but is most emerge from their nursery burrow by the information submitted in the closely related to the white-tailed early to mid-June and primarily forage petition and the information in Service prairie dog. These two species may have on their own (Hoogland 2003, p. 236). files as of the remanded date (September once belonged to a single interbreeding Prairie dog pups attain adult size by 28, 2010). We considered whether this species (Pizzimenti 1975, p. 16), but are October and reach sexual maturity at the current data affect our original 2007 now separated by ecological and age of 1 year (Wright-Smith 1978, p. 9). decision that the petition did not physiographic barriers. We accept the Less than 50 percent of Utah prairie present substantial information characterization of the Utah prairie dog dogs survive to breeding age (Hoogland indicating that reclassification may be as a distinct species because of these 2001, p. 919). Male Utah prairie dogs warranted. Although we supplemented ecological and physiographic barriers frequently cannibalize juveniles, which our revised 90-day finding with new from other prairie dog species (Zeveloff may eliminate 20 percent of the litter information since our 2007 90-day 1988, p. 148). (Hoogland 2003, p. 238). Only about finding, our evaluation continues to 20 percent of females and less than support a ‘‘not substantial’’ Species Description 10 percent of males survive to age 4 determination. This revised 90-day The Utah prairie dog is the smallest (Hoogland 2001, Figures 1 and 2, pp. finding constitutes our compliance with species of prairie dog; individuals are 919–920). Utah prairie dogs rarely live the District Court’s order dated typically 250 to 400 millimeters (mm) beyond 5 years of age (Hoogland 2001, September 28, 2010 (WildEarth (10 to 16 inches (in.)) long (Hoogland p. 919). Guardians v. Salazar, Case 1:08–cv– 1995, p. 8)). Weight ranges from 300 to Natal dispersal (movement of first- 01596–CKK (D.D.C. 2010)). 900 grams (g) (0.66 to 2.0 pounds (lb)) year individuals away from their area of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM 21JNP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36055

birth) and breeding dispersal from surface predators (Collier 1975, Wayne, and Sevier Counties; (2) the (movement of sexually mature p. 53). Paunsaugunt in western Garfield individuals away from the areas where County, extending into small areas of Historical Distribution and Abundance copulation occurred) are comprised Iron and Kane Counties; and (3) the mostly of male prairie dogs. Young male The Utah prairie dog is the West Desert in Iron County, extending Utah prairie dogs disperse in the late westernmost member of the genus into southern Beaver and northern summer, with average dispersal events Cynomys. Historically, the species’ Washington Counties. distribution included portions of Utah of 0.56 kilometers (km) (0.35 mile (mi)) The best available information and long-distance dispersal events of up in Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Juab, concerning Utah prairie dog habitat and to 1.7 km (1.1 mi) (Mackley 1988, p. 10). Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, population trends comes from surveying Most dispersers move to adjacent Washington, and Wayne Counties and mapping efforts conducted by the territories (Hoogland 2003, p. 239). (Collier 1975, Figure 1, p. 16). The Utah Utah prairie dogs are organized into prairie dog may have occurred in UDWR annually since 1976. These social groups called clans, consisting of portions of over 700 different sections (a surveys (hereafter referred to as ‘‘spring an adult male, several adult females, section is a land unit equal to 260 counts’’) count adult Utah prairie dogs and their offspring (Wright-Smith 1978, hectares (ha) (640 acres (ac)) in every year on all known and accessible p. 38; Hoogland 2001, p. 918). Clans southwestern Utah (Collier and Spillett colonies in April and May, after the maintain geographic territorial 1973, Table 1, p. 86); but the actual area adults have emerged, but before the boundaries, which only the young that the species occupied within each of young are above ground in June (see regularly cross, although all animals use these sections is not known. While the ‘‘Life History’’). common feeding grounds. historical abundance was estimated at Prairie dog spring counts typically 95,000 animals (McDonald 1993, p. 2), Habitat Requirements and Food Habits underestimate the actual number of we do not consider this a reliable adult animals, because only 40 to 60 Utah prairie dogs occur in semiarid estimate because it was derived from percent of individual prairie dogs are shrub-steppe and grassland habitats informal interviews with landowners above ground at any one time (Crocker- (McDonald 1993, p. 4; Roberts et al. and not actual survey data. Bedford 1975, p. 6). Therefore, we 2000, p. 2; Bonzo and Day 2003, p. 1). Utah prairie dog populations began to assume that spring counts represent Within these habitats, they prefer swale- decline when control programs were approximately 50 percent of the adult type formations where moist herbaceous initiated in the 1920s, and by the 1960s, population. We calculate total vegetation is available (Collier 1975, p. the species’ distribution was greatly population estimates from the spring 43; Crocker-Bedford and Spillett 1981, reduced as a result of poisoning and counts by taking into account the unregulated shooting (see B. p. 24). Vegetation on prairie dog proportion of animals we expect to see colonies is of short stature and allows Overutilization for Commercial, (roughly 50 percent as just discussed), the prairie dogs to see approaching Recreational, Scientific, or Educational the proportion of successfully breeding predators and to have visual contact Purposes below), sylvatic plague (a adult females (67 percent of the 97 with other members of the colony nonnative disease (see C. Disease or percent), and average litter size (four (Collier 1975, p. 54; Crocker-Bedford Predation below), drought, and habitat pups) (see ‘‘Life History’’ section above). and Spillett 1981, p. 25; Player and alteration from conversion of land to Taking these factors into consideration, Urness 1983, pp. 517, 522). agricultural crops (see A. Present or the total population estimate, Utah prairie dogs are predominantly Threatened Destruction, Modification, accounting for reproduction and herbivores, though they also eat insects or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range juveniles, is the spring count multiplied (primarily cicadas (Cicadidae)) below) (Collier and Spillett 1972, by 7.2. It should be noted that spring (Crocker-Bedford and Spillett 1981, p. 8; pp. 32–35; Service 1991, pp. 3, 6). While count surveys and population estimates Hoogland 2003, p. 238). Grasses are a the actual numeric reductions in are not censuses. Rather, they are staple of their annual diet (Crocker- population and habitat occupancy are designed to monitor population trends Bedford and Spillett 1981, p. 8; not known, it is clear that by the early over time. Hasenyager 1984, pp. 19, 27), but other 1970s, the Utah prairie dog was plants are selected during different eliminated from large portions of its In our 2007 finding, we reported times of the year. Utah prairie dogs only historical range and populations information on the spring counts select shrubs when they are in flower, declined to an estimated 3,300 conducted from 1976 to 2005 in each and then only eat the flowers (Crocker- individuals distributed among 37 Utah recovery unit: Awapa Plateau varied Bedford and Spillett 1981, p. 8). Forbs prairie dog colonies (Collier and Spillett from 201 to 1,145 adult prairie dogs; are consumed in the spring. Forbs also 1972, pp. 33–35). Paunsaugunt varied from 652 to 2,205 may be crucial to prairie dog survival adult prairie dogs; and the West Desert during drought (Collier 1975, p. 43). Current Distribution and Abundance varied from 610 to 4,778 adult Utah Soil characteristics are an important The Utah prairie dog’s current range prairie dogs (see Figure 1 below) factor in the location of Utah prairie dog is limited to the southwestern quarter of (UDWR 2005, entire; 72 FR 7843). As of colonies (Collier 1975, pp. 52–53; Utah in Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, 2010, the Awapa Plateau recovery unit Turner 1979, p. 51; McDonald 1993, Piute, Sevier, and Wayne Counties. The had a spring count of 614 adult prairie p. 9). Well-drained soils are necessary species occurs in three geographically dogs, the Paunsaugunt recovery unit for Utah prairie dogs’ burrows. Soils identifiable areas within southwestern had 835 adult prairie dogs, and the West should be deep enough (at least 1 meter Utah, which are designated as recovery Desert recovery unit had 4,199 adult (m) areas in our 1991 Recovery Plan prairie dogs (see Figure 1 below) (3.3 feet (ft)) to allow burrowing to (Service 1991, pp. 5–6) and in the (UDWR 2010a, entire). Overall, spring depths sufficient to provide protection petition, and as recovery units in our counts from the past 34 years show from predators and insulation from Draft Revised Recovery Plan (Service considerable annual fluctuations, but environmental and temperature 2010, pp. 1.3–3, 3.2–7 to 3.2–8). These stable-to-increasing long-term trends extremes (McDonald 1993, p. 9). Soil three recovery units are: (1) The Awapa (Figure 1) (UDWR 2005, entire; UDWR color may aid in disguising prairie dogs Plateau in portions of Piute, Garfield, 2010a, entire).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM 21JNP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 36056 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules

In addition to population trend species from, the Federal Lists of species may warrant listing as information, the UDWR surveys provide Endangered and Threatened Wildlife threatened or endangered as those terms information on the amount of mapped and Plants. A species may be are defined by the Act. This does not and occupied habitat across the species’ determined to be an endangered or necessarily require empirical proof of a range. We define mapped habitat as all threatened species due to one or more threat. The combination of exposure and areas within the species’ range that were of the five factors described in section some corroborating evidence of how the identified and delineated as being 4(a)(1) of the Act: species is likely impacted could suffice. occupied by Utah prairie dogs at any (A) The present or threatened The mere identification of factors that time since 1976. Occupied habitats are destruction, modification, or could impact a species negatively may defined as areas that currently support curtailment of its habitat or range; not be sufficient to compel a finding Utah prairie dogs (i.e., where prairie (B) Overutilization for commercial, that listing or reclassification may be recreational, scientific, or educational dogs are seen or heard or where active warranted. In our finding for this burrows or other signs are found). The purposes; petition to reclassify a species from UDWR has mapped 24,142 ha (59,656 (C) Disease or predation; threatened to endangered, the ac) of habitat rangewide, of which (D) The inadequacy of existing 13,365 ha (33,025 ac) were occupied in regulatory mechanisms; or information should contain evidence 2009 (UDWR 2010b, entire). All of the (E) Other natural or manmade factors sufficient to suggest that threats that mapped habitat is not occupied by Utah affecting its continued existence. may be acting on the species could prairie dogs, as the species’ distribution In considering what factors might result in the species being currently in is constantly shifting across the constitute threats, we must look beyond danger of extinction versus being likely landscape. Additional information on the mere exposure of the species to the to become so in the foreseeable future. Utah prairie dog distribution, factor to determine whether the species In making this 90-day finding, we abundance, and trends in each recovery responds to the factor in a way that evaluated whether information unit can be found in our Draft Revised causes actual impacts to the species. If regarding the threats to the Utah prairie Recovery Plan (Service 2010, section there is exposure to a factor, but no dog, as presented in the petition and 1.3) response, or only a positive response, other information available in our files, that factor is not a threat. If there is Evaluation of Information for This is substantial, thereby indicating that exposure and the species responds the petitioned action may be warranted. Finding negatively, the factor may be a threat Our evaluation of this information is Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and we then attempt to determine how presented below. and its implementing regulations at 50 significant a threat it is. If the threat is CFR 424 set forth the procedures for significant, it may contribute to the risk adding a species to, or removing a of extinction of the species such that the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM 21JNP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 EP21JN11.024 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36057

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Livestock Grazing exploration and extraction results in the Modification, or Curtailment of Its The petition states that livestock degradation and loss of vegetation and Habitat or Range grazing, particularly overgrazing, can habitats through crushing vegetation, introducing weed species, and Information Provided in the Petition degrade Utah prairie dog habitat by causing shrub encroachment (McDonald increasing soil erosion or soil The Petitioners state that threats to compaction (Forest Guardians et al. 1993, pp. 6, 16). The Petitioners provide the species’ habitat include the 2003, p. 80). The Petitioners rely on two numerous general references that following: (1) Habitat loss from studies (Young and Sawyer 1981, entire; characterize the effects of overgrazing to agricultural and urban land conversions; Menkens and Anderson 1985, entire) grassland habitats, including reducing (2) livestock grazing; (3) road that expressed concerns about the grass cover and vegetative biomass, construction, off-highway vehicle (OHV) impacts of crushed vegetation, degrading riparian areas, damaging use, and recreation; (4) oil, gas, and compacted soil, and the potential for cryptobiotic crusts (communities of mineral development and seismic noise disruption on hibernating prairie cyanobacteria, green algae, lichens, exploration; and (5) impacts of isolation dogs. and fragmentation. mosses, liverworts, and microorganisms The petition states that oil and gas that colonize the surface of bare soil), leases are being offered in Millard and Habitat Loss From Agricultural and degrading soil conditions, and Urban Land Conversion Sevier Counties within the range of the increasing invasive weeds and wildfires Utah prairie dog (Forest Guardians et al. The Petitioners provide two citations (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 57– 2003, p. 88). Mineral development, (McDonald 1996, pp. 1–2; O’Neill et al. 75). including shalestone and flagstone 1999, pp.1–2) that described a decline With respect to livestock grazing extraction, and geothermal leasing are in the species’ rangewide habitat impacts to Utah prairie dogs cited as occurring within the range of occupancy from the 1920s through specifically, the Petitioners cite the 1991 the Utah prairie dog (Forest Guardians 1995. Based on these citations, the Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Plan (Service et al. 2003, pp. 88–89). Petitioners calculate that occupied Utah 1991, p. 11), a 1993 analysis of 20 years prairie dog habitat declined from of Utah prairie dog recovery efforts Impacts of Isolation and Fragmentation 181,299 to 2,824 ha (448,000 to 6,977 (McDonald 1993, pp. 16–17, 55), and The petition states that the remaining ac) as of 1995, a decline of 98.4 percent. the Utah Prairie Dog Interim prairie dog colonies tend to be isolated The Petitioners state that much of the Conservation Strategy (Utah Prairie Dog and fragmented due to loss and historical, high-quality Utah prairie dog Recovery Implementation Team degradation of Utah prairie dog habitat, habitat was in valleys, where crop (UPDRIT) 1997, p. 5) as acknowledging and the effects of extermination agriculture and urban activities and the potential for livestock grazing to campaigns and plague. Factors such as expansion historically occurred and are degrade Utah prairie dog habitat. The low reproductive rate, genetic drift, and ongoing (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, Petitioners conclude that livestock inbreeding may increase the potential p. 55). The Petitioners cite ongoing grazing must be recognized as a threat for local extinctions in small habitat loss due to urbanization as a to Utah prairie dogs and curtailed in a populations (Brussard and Gilpin 1989, threat to the Utah prairie dog, manner that promotes Utah prairie dog p. 37). The Petitioners cite several particularly in the West Desert recovery conservation (Forest Guardians et al. references on black-tailed prairie dogs to unit (Bonzo and Day 2003, p. 23) which 2003, p. 58). conclude that these small, isolated contains the highest percentage of Utah colonies are then more susceptible to Road Construction, Off-Highway prairie dogs on private land and is local extirpation from factors such as Vehicle Use, and Recreation undergoing the highest rate of sylvatic plague (Miller et al. 1994, 1996 urbanization compared to other areas The Petitioners state that roads have in Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 90; across the species’ range (Iron County a negative impact on Utah prairie dogs Mulhern and Knowles 1995, p. 26; 2006, p. 22). by increasing direct mortalities from Wuerthner 1997, pp. 459, 464). The Petitioners discuss various urban motor vehicle strikes, through loss of development projects that resulted in habitat due to new road construction Evaluation of Information Provided in translocation of Utah prairie dogs and and upgrades of existing roads, and the Petition and Available in Service loss of their habitat, both legally (Bonzo through degradation of habitat and Files and Day 2003, pp. 22–23) (i.e., under increased disturbance due to increased The Petitioners conclude that the habitat conservation plan (HCP) section OHV use (Noriega 2000, entire; Forest factors responsible for the loss of Utah 10(a)(1)(B) permits and through section Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 76–79). The prairie dog habitat include habitat loss 7 consultation) and illegally (McDonald Petitioners conclude that recreational from agricultural and urban land 1996, pp. 24–25). The Petitioners also activity in Utah prairie dog habitat, conversions; livestock grazing; road state that increasing development on including camping, hunting and fishing, construction, OHV use, and recreation; private lands can negatively impact OHV use, and hiking, can lead to oil, gas, and mineral development and prairie dogs on adjacent Federal lands population declines or extirpation of seismic exploration; and the impacts of by increasing human activities such as colonies through direct disturbance or isolation and fragmentation (Forest OHV use in previously undisturbed habitat loss (Forest Guardians et al. Guardians et al. 2003, p. 54). We agree habitats (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, 2003, pp. 78–79). The Petitioners with the Petitioners’ assessment that p. 57). Finally, the Petitioners are specifically mention the possible these factors are threats to the Utah concerned that Utah School and extirpation of the Three Peaks Utah prairie dog. These factors are, in part, Institutional Trust Lands prairie dog colony due to intense the reason that the Utah prairie dog is Administration (SITLA) lands recreational use (Service 2005a, p. 5). Federally listed as a threatened species containing Utah prairie dog habitat are (Service 2010, section 1.7; 75 FR 5705, being sold to private landowners and, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Development, and September 17, 2010). However, as therefore, are not safe from future Seismic Exploration described below, the Petitioners do not development (Williams 2002, pp. 91– The Petitioners cite numerous present substantial information 93). references stating that oil and gas indicating that these factors will cause

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM 21JNP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 36058 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules

the Utah prairie dog to be in current However, the Petitioners do not provide given recent stable population trends for danger of extinction such that it may any information on current losses from the species. Using the average annual warrant reclassification from threatened new agricultural developments. We do take, we estimate that an additional 702 to endangered. not have any information in our files prairie dogs and 116.5 ha (288 ac) of indicating that there are any recent habitat may be taken through 2018, for Habitat Loss From Agricultural and conversions of Utah prairie dog habitat a total of 271 ha (669 ac) of occupied Urban Land Conversion to agricultural use. habitat and 1,639 prairie dogs over the We agree with the Petitioners’ We agree that habitat loss due to life of the permit. If the estimated level conclusion that historical Utah prairie urbanization is a threat to the species, of take occurs, approximately 6.5 dog habitat and populations were lost to particularly in the West Desert recovery percent of occupied habitat and 5.6 agricultural conversion and urban unit (primarily Iron County); we percent of the Utah prairie dog development. However, we believe that identified this threat in our May 29, population (see ‘‘Current Distribution the Petitioners’ assessment of the extent 1984, reclassification of the species from and Abundance’’ above) in the West of historical habitat loss and population endangered to threatened (49 FR 22330), Desert recovery unit will be lost to decline is inaccurate. The Petitioners’ the 1991 Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Plan urbanization. While this amount of take assessment is based largely on the (Service 1991, pp. iv, 11), and the 2010 is not to be dismissed, we concluded assumption that Utah prairie dogs Draft Revised Recovery Plan (Service that this level of take over the life of the historically occurred within 713 2010, pp. 1.7–1 to 1.7–2). Loss of habitat 20-year permit was not likely to sections of land (Collier 1975, p. 15), due to urbanization remains one of the jeopardize the continued existence of and that mapped habitat was reduced to primary threats to the species, and is the species (Service 1998, p. 15). Over 2,824 ha (6, 977 ac) by 1995 (McDonald one of the primary reasons that the the last ten years of implementing this 1997, p. 11). However, much of the area species remains listed as threatened. HCP, the Utah prairie dog population within the 713 sections of land contains However, the Petitioners do not present has been stable to increasing (UDWR unsuitable habitat and was never information that indicates that threats 2005, entire; UDWR 2010a, entire). occupied by prairie dogs (see from urbanization may warrant Based on these population trends while ‘‘Historical Distribution and reclassification of the Utah prairie dog implementing the HCP, we anticipate Abundance’’ section above). Therefore, from threatened to endangered. the additional take estimated over the it is inaccurate to calculate historical Since our 2007 finding, and primarily remaining life of the permit does not habitat loss based on the total area during development of our Draft threaten the species to the extent that within those 713 sections (184,666 ha Revised Recovery Plan (Service 2010, reclassification, or ‘‘uplisting,’’ to (456,320 ac)). entire), we assessed the most currently endangered status may be warranted. In Our current data show that there are available information regarding impacts addition, the take authorized under the 24,142 ha (59,656 ac) of mapped habitat to Utah prairie dog habitat from Iron County HCP is mitigated through rangewide, of which 13,365 ha (33,025 urbanization. We summarize this restoration of habitat on Federal lands ac) were occupied in 2009 (UDWR evaluation below to ensure that our and the translocation of animals from 2010b, entire). This is almost five times current information remains consistent impacted private lands to approved the amount of occupied habitat reported with our 2007 finding. translocation sites on Federal lands. by the Petitioners. Furthermore, our The threatened status of the Utah There is no current mechanism (i.e., data show that Utah prairie dog habitat prairie dog results in the need to no approved HCP) to authorize occupancy and population trends (see develop and implement habitat incidental take of Utah prairie dogs on Figure 1) have been stable to increasing conservation plans (HCPs) to minimize non-Federal lands in the Awapa or since 1995 (McDonald 1997, p. 11; and mitigate impacts to the species from Paunsaugunt recovery units; and no Bonzo and Day 2000, p. 13; UDWR urban development on non-Federal current mechanism to authorize 2010b, entire). Overall, we believe that lands. Ongoing development and the incidental take in Iron County beyond the Petitioners overestimated the resulting incidental take of Utah prairie 2018. We are working with the counties amount of occupied historical habitat, dogs in Iron County is authorized to develop a rangewide HCP that would and used outdated information that does through 2018 under a permit issued authorize additional take in Iron, not reflect the current amount of under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act and Garfield, and Wayne Counties. The occupied habitat and more recent the Iron County HCP (Iron County 2006, rangewide HCP will be required to population trends. Given that our data entire). The Iron County HCP process minimize and mitigate impacts to the show larger areas of occupied habitat includes an annual assessment of the extent practicable, and to ensure that than reported by the Petitioners, and amount of incidental take allowed each the action will not appreciably reduce stable-to-increasing long-term year. The allowed annual incidental the likelihood of the survival and population trends, we conclude that we take is calculated as 10 percent of the recovery of the species in the wild. have no substantial scientific or running 5-year average of prairie dogs Similarly, although there is the potential commercial information to indicate that counted on Federal or otherwise- for SITLA to sell lands occupied by threats from habitat loss may warrant protected lands in the West Desert Utah prairie dogs to private developers, reclassification of the Utah prairie dog recovery unit. the development of these lands could from threatened to endangered. We As of 2009, following 11 years of only occur through a permitting process further discuss the consequences of the implementation, the Iron County HCP and development of an HCP. loss of historical habitat in the has permitted a total of 154 ha (381 ac) We do not dispute that human Significant Portion of the Range section of habitat and 937 Utah prairie dogs to activities (i.e., recreation) may increase (see Finding below). be incidentally taken since 1998. This is on Federal lands as a result of nearby We acknowledge that historical Utah an average of 78 prairie dogs and 12.9 private developments. However, the prairie dog habitat was lost in large part ha (32 ac) of habitat taken annually. The Petitioners only identify one specific due to agricultural conversion, a factor Iron County HCP expires in 2018. We development on private land inholdings considered in our May 29, 1984, believe these past levels of take are on the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) reclassification of the species from reflective of the average levels of take Powell Ranger District that could endangered to threatened (49 FR 22330). that are likely to occur in the future, negatively impact prairie dogs. Because

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM 21JNP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36059

the level of development from this one effects on Utah prairie dogs and their managed, grazed habitats, there is project is on a small scale with localized habitat, including decreased habitat higher quality vegetation and a greater impacts, and not indicative of more quality and decreased vegetation amount of nutrient-rich young shoots widespread development, we believe diversity (Collier and Spillett 1973, p. (Cheng and Ritchie 2006, p. 554). that the information does not indicate 86; McDonald 1993, p. 16). Overgrazing Livestock grazing in early spring, fall, that this threat contributes to the risk of can decrease forage availability, and winter is generally beneficial to extinction of the species such that the potentially increase Utah prairie dog Utah prairie dogs because it reduces species may warrant reclassification to foraging time, and consequently horizontal cover, which allows animals endangered. decrease vigilance and survivorship to spend less time looking for predators In summary, we do not have (Ritchie 1998, p. 9; Cheng and Ritchie (Ritchie and Brown 2005, p. 15). information, and the Petitioners do not 2006, pp. 550–551). Improperly grazed Prescribed rotational grazing may help present information, indicating that lands resulting in lowered plant to maintain suitable vegetation height agricultural conversions are still diversity can be vulnerable to greater for Utah prairie dogs, especially in occurring at high levels or that they amounts of invasive plant species. highly productive sites like irrigated threaten the Utah prairie dog to the Invasive plant species, such as pastures or where shrub invasion has extent that it may be in current danger cheatgrass, create an altered fire regime, occurred (Ritchie and Cheng 2001, p. 2). of extinction. Habitat loss due to increasing the amount of fire and further Other studies suggest that prairie dog urbanization is a threat to the species, reducing native grasses and shrubs density is positively correlated with and one of the primary reasons that the (Masters and Sheley 2001, p. 503). The heavy grazing, which simulates the species remains listed as threatened. resultant decreased plant diversity can shortgrass environment preferred by Because of the species’ threatened status impact Utah prairie dog weight gain and prairie dogs (Coppock et al. 1983, p. 7; (see D. Inadequacy of Existing survival, particularly during drought Holland et al. 1992, p. 686; Marsh 1984, Regulatory Mechanisms below), urban conditions (Ritchie 1998, p. 9). Invasive p. 203; Fagerstone and Ramey 1996, pp. development in Utah prairie dog species, cheatgrass in particular, occur 88, 92; Slobodchikoff et al. 1988, p. habitats on non-Federal lands can only throughout the range of the Utah prairie 406). Even so, tall vegetation is more proceed under approved HCPs and dog. However, since our 2007 finding, common in Gunnison and Utah prairie associated 10(a)(1)(B) permits. The only the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) dog colonies than in black-tailed prairie existing countywide HCP for the Utah has released revised Resource dog colonies (Hoogland 2003, p. 239). prairie dog is in Iron County, Utah, and Management Plans concluding Utah prairie dogs use this taller the projected loss of habitat from cheatgrass monocultures are generally vegetation as hiding cover. Because development through 2018 under the localized as a result of habitat Utah prairie dogs use habitats with a Iron County HCP does not rise to a level perturbations (BLM 2008a, pp. 3–34). shrub component, the UPDRIT revised where it places the species in danger of We conclude that while invasive species the Utah prairie dog vegetation extinction. The Iron County HCP was may impact Utah prairie dog habitat on guidelines to include a higher authorized in 1998; since its a site-specific basis, information percentage of shrubs (UPDRIT 2006, p. implementation, the rangewide provided by the Petitioners and in our 1). This supports our conclusion that population of the Utah prairie dog has files does not indicate that invasive there is not substantial information in remained stable to increasing (see species may threaten the Utah prairie the petition and in our files suggesting Figure 1). Therefore, the Petitioners do dog across the species’ range to the that livestock grazing and shrub not provide substantial information— point that uplisting to endangered status encroachment negatively impact the and we do not have information in our may be warranted. Utah prairie dog to the extent that files—that indicates that threats from We further agree that overgrazing in uplisting to endangered status may be urbanization may warrant swale habitats historically led to erosion warranted. reclassification of the Utah prairie dog and reduced the amount of moisture In summary, we agree with the from threatened to endangered. available for grasses and forbs (Crocker- Petitioners that livestock grazing can be Bedford and Spillett 1981, p. 22). a threat to the Utah prairie dog, Livestock Grazing However, the Petitioners provided no particularly in site-specific areas where We concur that improper livestock information regarding the current level improper grazing negatively affects grazing can affect various attributes of of swale and riparian habitat habitat conditions. We have previously prairie dog habitat and food supply. degradation from livestock grazing in acknowledged this threat, most recently However, most of the citations provided Utah prairie dog habitats, and we have in our Draft Revised Recovery Plan by the Petitioners speak generally to the no information in our files showing that (Service 2010, pp. 1.7–3 to 1.7–4). impacts of improper grazing to this is a long-term or rangewide However, neither the Petitioners’ grassland habitats. The citations concern. information nor information in our files provided by the Petitioners that are We agree that soil characteristics are supports the assertion that grazing is specific to Utah prairie dogs indicate an important factor in the location of endangering the Utah prairie dog with that there was historical loss of Utah Utah prairie dog colonies (Collier 1975, extinction, especially given that Utah prairie dog habitats due to improper pp. 52–53; Turner 1979, p. 51; prairie dog populations are stable to grazing, and some site-specific McDonald 1993, p. 9). The petitioners increasing rangewide (see Figure 1 reductions in habitat quality, provided ample information on how above) (UDWR 2005, entire; UDWR particularly at translocation sites livestock grazing reduces soil crusts. 2010a, entire). (McDonald 1993, pp. 16–17). However, However, information provided by the information in the petition and in our Petitioners and in our files does not Road Construction, Off-Highway files fails to indicate that grazing indicate that the loss of soil crusts has Vehicle Use, and Recreation negatively impacts Utah prairie dogs to had any impact on the Utah prairie dog. We acknowledge that direct mortality the extent that uplisting to endangered We have information in our files that of prairie dogs occurs on roads. We also status may be warranted. demonstrates that livestock grazing also acknowledge that OHV use and other We agree that improperly managed can have beneficial effects on Utah types of recreational use, including grazing regimes can have negative prairie dogs. For example, in properly recreational infrastructure development,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM 21JNP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 36060 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules

has occurred in Utah prairie dog habitat, development or production activities habitat. However, given the lack of resulting in habitat loss and possibly, in due to a no-surface-occupancy proven reserves and producing wells the instance of the Three Peaks colony, stipulation (USFS 2010, p. 22). This within any of the recovery units, we extirpation of the colony (Service 2005a, stipulation prohibits occupancy or anticipate low levels of future seismic p. 5). disturbance on the lease parcel ground exploration on BLM lands. Furthermore, In our 90-day finding in 2007, we surface and, therefore, oil and gas although the Petitioners cited studies concluded that the impacts of roads and resources may only be accessed through that identified potential effects of OHV use were limited to localized areas use of directional drilling from sites seismic testing on Utah prairie dogs, and did not result in population-level outside the no-surface-occupancy area. these same studies concluded that any effects (72 FR 7843). Since 2007, we Furthermore, using a geographic impact from seismic testing on Utah have evaluated additional information information system to analyze the prairie dogs is negligible (Young and regarding OHV use across the species’ overlap between Utah prairie dog Sawyer 1981, p. 2; Menkens and range. We find that there is an increased recovery units and energy resources, we Anderson 1985, p. 13). After evaluating planning effort on Federal lands toward found there are very little coal bed the information provided by Petitioners directing OHV use to designated trails methane and geothermal reserves within and in our files, we conclude that or play areas, and consequently away the range of the species (Idaho National threats from seismic exploration are from Utah prairie dog habitats (Service Engineering and Environmental localized and temporary. 2010, p. 1.7–4). Currently, all of the Laboratory 2003, p. 1; Energy In summary, we are aware that oil, USFS districts and two of the three BLM Information Administration 2007, p. 1). gas, and mineral development and field offices within the range of the In addition, there are no producing oil seismic exploration are occurring within species include off-road travel or gas wells within any of the three the range of the Utah prairie dog. We restrictions in their land use plans. For recovery units (Utah Division of Oil, agree that oil, gas, and mineral example, the Dixie and Fishlake Gas, and Mining 2009, p. 1). Based on development can impact the species National Forests prohibit cross-country the location of known reserves and the where it occurs—the Utah prairie dog is vehicle travel forest wide (U.S. lack of producing oil and gas wells, we listed as a threatened species due to Department of Agriculture (USDA) expect direct and indirect impacts from threats from a variety of human land use 2006, p. 16; USDA 2009, p. 2). Almost oil and gas development on Utah prairie activities. However, there has been a the entire Richfield BLM district is dogs will be minor and localized. low level of exploration and either closed to OHV use or limited to Since publishing our 2007 90-day development to date, and projections for designated routes (BLM 2008b, pp. 52– finding, we have completed future exploration and development 55). The Kanab BLM Resource programmatic consultations with the remain low for the majority of the Management Plan includes a BLM and USFS regarding oil and gas species’ range (Service 2010, p. 1.7–6). conservation measure to preclude cross- development on lands they manage In addition, the Federal land country motorized use in occupied or (BLM 2008b, pp. A11–18; USFS 2010, management agencies have committed inactive Utah prairie dog colonies (BLM pp. 10–11). Through the consultation to conservation measures that 2008c, p. 62). process, we worked with both agencies effectively avoid impacts in occupied or In summary, we do not have to develop a set of avoidance and historically occupied Utah prairie dog substantial information suggesting that minimization measures for Federal oil habitats and minimize impacts in the localized impacts of roads and OHV and gas leases within the range of the suitable habitats. Thus, we conclude recreational use result in population- Utah prairie dog (BLM 2005, p. 8; BLM that the Petitioners do not provide level effects. In addition, the majority of 2008b, pp. A11–18; BLM 2008c, pp. A3– substantial information—and we do not existing land use plans across the range 9, A9–13 to A9–14; USFS 2010, pp. 10– have information in our files—that of the Utah prairie dog restrict off-road 11). These measures include indicates that threats from oil, gas, and recreational use in order to avoid or prohibitions against surface disturbance mineral development, and seismic minimize impacts to prairie dog habitat. within 0.8 km (0.5 mi)) of active Utah exploration may threaten the Utah Therefore, we conclude that the prairie dog colonies, and prohibitions prairie dog to the point that uplisting it Petitioners do not provide substantial against permanent disturbance within from threatened to endangered under information—and we do not have 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of potentially suitable, the Act may be warranted. information in our files—that indicates unoccupied Utah prairie dog habitat, as Isolation and Fragmentation that threats from roads and OHV identified by UDWR (BLM 2005, p. 8; recreational use may warrant BLM 2008b, pp. A11–18; BLM 2008c, We concur that the majority of reclassification of the Utah prairie dog pp. A3–9, A0–13 to A9–14; USFS 2010, existing Utah prairie dog colonies are from threatened to endangered. pp. 10–11). These measures are small, numbering fewer than 200 currently attached to all BLM and USFS individuals (UDWR 2005, entire), and Oil, Gas, and Mineral Development and leases within the Utah prairie dog’s that habitat loss from a variety of land Seismic Exploration range. We conclude that these measures use activities can result in increased We are aware that oil and gas leasing avoid and minimize threats to the Utah isolation and fragmentation of prairie is occurring within the range of the Utah prairie dog from oil and gas dog habitats. However, the studies prairie dog. In our 2007 90-day finding, development. presented by the Petitioners for black- we stated that there was no scientific or We are aware that seismic exploration tailed prairie dogs may not be directly commercial information either in the is occurring within the range of the Utah applicable to the small size and petition or in our files that quantified prairie dog. The USFS estimates that up isolation of Utah prairie dog colonies, the extent of these activities in occupied to 48.6 ha (120 ac) of Utah prairie dog particularly with respect to the species’ Utah prairie dog habitat. Since our 2007 habitat on USFS land (less than 1 response to plague (see C. Disease or 90-day finding, the USFS completed a percent of the total available suitable Predation below). Plague is active across biological assessment for their Oil and habitat on USFS lands) may be affected the landscape and, as a result, colonies Gas Leasing Environmental Impact by seismic surveys (USFS 2010, p. 22). tend to increase in numbers for a period Statement and determined that no Utah We do not have similar estimates for of years, decline to very small numbers prairie dog habitat will be impacted by BLM lands within Utah prairie dog following a plague event, and then

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM 21JNP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36061

increase again (see C. Disease or Utah prairie dog colonies or complexes, management agencies to patrol all Predation below). Although not particularly those impacts from colony locations on a routine basis. explicitly discussed in our 2007 90-day livestock grazing; roads; OHV use; and Since the fall of 2007, three poisoning finding, studies show that the lower oil, gas, and mineral development and incidents and one shooting incident density of white-tailed prairie dog seismic exploration. Therefore, we do occurred in the West Desert recovery colonies (compared to black-tailed or not have substantial information unit. These unauthorized killings Gunnison’s prairie dog colonies) may indicating that the threats rise to the resulted in impacts to a few colonies, actually benefit that species by slowing level at which they may put the species but these impacts did not extend to the plague transmission rates (Eskey and in current danger of extinction population level (Bell 2008, pers. Haas 1940, pp. 18–19; Cully 1993, p. 40; throughout all or a significant portion of comm.). Cully and Williams 2001, p. 898). This its range. No information is available in the benefit also may apply to Utah prairie Urbanization is one of the largest of petition or in our files to indicate that dogs, which have similar colony sizes the identified threats to the species illegal shooting occurs on a broad-scale, and densities to white-tailed prairie (Service 2010, p. 1.8–4). For rangewide basis such that it may dogs (Service 2010, p. 1.7–7). Despite development to proceed, a section significantly affect the species at the the fact that Utah prairie dog colonies 10(a)(1)(B) permit and HCP with population level. Therefore, we tend to be small and dispersed across meaningful mitigation and conclude that the information provided the landscape, their overall population compensation are required. In addition, in the petition, as well as other trend is stable to increasing (see Figure the rangewide population of the Utah information in our files, does not 1, above). Therefore, we conclude that prairie dog is stable to increasing, present substantial scientific or the Petitioners do not provide indicating that ongoing threats are not commercial information indicating that substantial information—and we do not having a negative effect on the uplisting from threatened to endangered have information in our files—that recoverability of the species (see Figure under the Act may be warranted due to indicates that isolation and 1 above). Thus, we have determined that overutilization for commercial, fragmentation may threaten the Utah the petition, as well as other recreational, scientific, or educational prairie dog to the point that the species information in our files, does not purposes. may warrant uplisting from threatened present substantial scientific or C. Disease or Predation to endangered. commercial information indicating that Summary of Factor A the present or threatened destruction, Information Provided in the Petition modification, or curtailment of habitat The Petitioners do not specifically In summary, we find that the or range is a threat to the Utah prairie information provided in the petition, as identify predation as a threat to the Utah dog to the extent that uplisting from prairie dog. Predation is briefly well as other information in our files, threatened to endangered under the Act does not constitute substantial scientific mentioned by the petitioners as a may be warranted. or commercial information indicating component of the species ecology that uplisting the Utah prairie dog from B. Overutilization for Commercial, (Service 1991, p. 10); as a factor that threatened to endangered under the Act Recreational, Scientific, or Educational results in mortality of translocated Utah may be warranted due to present or Purposes prairie dogs (Service 1991, p. 13; threatened destruction, modification, or UPDRIT 1997, p. 5); and as a factor that Information Provided in the Petition curtailment of habitat. We agree that may increase due to overgrazing, road there are numerous human land-use The petition states that illegal construction, and energy development threats to the species, including those shooting of Utah prairie dogs still occurs (McDonald 1993, p. 6; Forest Guardians presented in the Petition, such as (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 94–98) et al. 2003, pp. 58, 76, 83). urbanization; agricultural uses; livestock and provides references to show that The Petitioners assert that sylvatic grazing; roads; OHV and other shooting can negatively affect prairie plague (Yersinia pestis), an exotic recreational uses; and oil, gas, and dogs in general through population bacterial disease, is a significant threat mineral development and seismic reduction, decreased colony expansion to prairie dogs. They estimate that exploration. These threats may result in rates, and changes in behavior (Reading plague can result in 95 to 100 percent the loss, fragmentation, and isolation of et al. 1989, p. 19; Miller et al. 1993, p. mortality in Gunnison prairie dog prairie dog populations. These threats 91; Vosburgh and Irby 1998, pp. 366– colonies (Barnes 1993, p. 33; Fitzgerald are the reason the Utah prairie dog 368). 1993, p. 52) and that recovery from remains listed as a threatened species. plague in black-tailed prairie dog Evaluation of Information Provided in As stated in the Background section, a colonies is a slow process (Knowles the Petition and Available in Service threatened species is defined as a 1995, p. 41). In their discussion on Files species which is likely to become an isolation and fragmentation, the endangered species within the Because the Utah prairie dog is Petitioners also indicated that small, foreseeable future throughout all or a already a listed species, shooting is isolated colonies of black-tailed and significant portion of its range, whereas prohibited by the Act, except as Gunnison prairie dogs are more an endangered species is a species provided for by the special 4(d) rule (see susceptible to local extirpation from which is currently in danger of 50 CFR 17.40(g) and D. Inadequacy of factors such as sylvatic plague (Miller et extinction throughout all or a significant Existing Regulatory Mechanisms below). al. 1994, 1996 in Forest Guardians et al. portion of its range. The information on Therefore, we conclude that many of the 2003, p. 90; Mulhern and Knowles 1995, threats discussed in Factor A indicates Petitioners’ citations regarding the p. 26; Wuerthner 1997, pp. 459, 464). that the Utah prairie dog should effects of recreational or otherwise The Petitioners cite numerous continue to be listed as threatened. broad-scale shooting are not directly instances of documented and suspected Many of the claims cited by the applicable to the Utah prairie dog. We plague events occurring throughout the Petitioners, and information in our files, acknowledge that isolated instances of Utah prairie dog range (Service 1991, p. indicate that most of the threats have shooting do occur, and that it is not 12; McDonald 1996, pp. 8–10; Bonzo largely localized impacts on specific feasible for UDWR and Federal land and Day 2000, pp. 11–14). They also cite

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM 21JNP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 36062 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules

ongoing research in Utah prairie dog prairie dog colonies are less dense and the long-term presence of plague in the habitat on plague mitigation through the more widely dispersed than black-tailed environment. Thus, we find that the use of insecticides to kill the fleas that or Gunnison prairie dog colonies. information provided in the petition, as carry the plague bacterium (Forest Studies of Gunnison’s and black-tailed well as other information in our files, Guardians et al. 2003, p. 100). The prairie dogs have shown that the higher does not present substantial scientific or Petitioners take the view that as long as density of their colonies contributes to commercial information indicating that plague is present in the ecosystem, the plague transmission and subsequent uplisting from threatened to endangered Utah prairie dog may not reach its mortality (Cully 1993, p. 40; Cully and under the Act may be warranted due to recovery goals even if all other threat Williams 2001, p. 901). Therefore, the the effects of disease and predation. factors are removed (Forest Guardians et lower density of white-tailed and Utah D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory al. 2003, p. 100). prairie dog colonies may slow plague Mechanisms transmission rates and reduce the Evaluation of Information Provided in overall long-term impact of the disease Information Provided in the Petition the Petition and Available in Service (Cully 1993, p. 40; Cully and Williams Files The Petitioners make several 2001, p. 901). assertions regarding the inadequacy of In the 2007 90-day finding, we Social and behavioral traits of the existing regulatory mechanisms, concluded that the Petitioners did not Utah prairie dogs also may reduce the specifically discussing: (1) Downlisting; identify predation as a threat to the Utah transmission of plague. Utah prairie (2) the special 4(d) rule; (3) the Recovery prairie dog. We agree that predation can dogs are more behaviorally similar to Plan and Interim Conservation Strategy; have adverse impacts on Utah prairie white-tailed prairie dogs than black- (4) Federal land management policies; dogs in unnaturally fragmented colonies tailed prairie dogs. White-tailed prairie and (5) section 10 HCPs. or at new translocation sites (Service dogs (and similarly, Utah prairie dogs) 2010, p. 1.7–9). For example, badgers spend less time socializing than black- Downlisting can disrupt a translocation site by tailed or Gunnison prairie dogs; this The Petitioners state that there was digging up Utah prairie dogs that have characteristic appears to favor their little basis for UDWR to request that the not had a chance to fully develop a long-term persistence in a plague species be delisted in 1984 and little burrow system. However, predation is a environment (Biggins and Kosoy 2001, basis for the Service to partially grant natural component of healthy prairie p. 64; 75 FR 30338). Hibernation by the request by downlisting the Utah dog populations (Collier and Spillett Utah and white-tailed prairie dogs also prairie dog to threatened. The 1972, p. 36; Service 2010, p. 1.7–9). may reduce or delay plague Petitioners base their conclusion largely Thus, we conclude that predation can transmission among individual animals on Utah prairie dog population trend be a localized threat to some Utah (Barnes 1993, p. 34). data from 1976 to 1983. They conclude prairie dog colonies, but we have no Since our 2007 finding, we have that the Service originally downlisted information to indicate that predation learned more about potential methods to the Utah prairie dog in 1984 for political places the species in danger of minimize the impacts of plague. reasons, and that the species has extinction. Deltamethrin and Pyraperm are two suffered since that downlisting (Forest We agree with the petitioners that insecticides (‘‘dust’’) used to Guardians et al. 2003, p. 103). plague is a threat to the Utah prairie successfully control fleas on colonies of dog; this threat is one of the primary different prairie dog species, resulting in Special 4(d) Rule reasons that the species is listed as higher prairie dog survival rates (Seery In those circumstances where the threatened. Plague was identified as a et al. 2003, p. 721; Hoogland et al. 2004, standard regulatory provisions under threat to the species in the 1984 p. 379; Biggins et al. in press 2009). the Act may not be necessary or reclassification (49 FR 22330) rule and Experimental vaccine-laden baits are appropriate for a threatened species, the the 1991 Recovery Plan. In the Draft being studied to determine their Secretary of the Department of the Revised Recovery Plan, plague is in the effectiveness in immunizing prairie Interior has the discretion under section top tier of threats to the species and is dogs against plague; initial lab results 4(d) of the Act to determine in a special considered to be a primary threat to the showed high level of survival of black- rule those measures and prohibitions species’ survival and conservation tailed prairie dogs (Mencher et al. 2004, that are necessary and advisable for the (Service 2010, p. 1.7–7). We discussed p. 5504; Rocke et al. 2008, p. 935). A conservation of that species. The plague in our 2007 finding, and present systemic flea control bait is being tested Petitioners evaluated the 1984 (49 FR updated information to consider in this to reduce flea loads on Utah prairie 22330) and 1991 (56 FR 27438) special finding. dogs, the primary vector in spreading 4(d) rules for the Utah prairie dog. We acknowledge that plague exists plague in prairie dogs (Poche et al. 2008, These special rules, as implemented by within all three Utah prairie dog pp. 11, 31–32; Jachowski 2009, pp. 14– UDWR, authorize take of prairie dogs on recovery units; individual Utah prairie 16, 19–22). Although there are many agricultural lands. The Petitioners claim dog colonies are affected by the disease; ongoing efforts to mediate this threat to that, when considered cumulatively and there is currently no mechanism the Utah prairie dog, we do not yet with threats such as translocation, available to prevent periodic plague know the long-term effectiveness of habitat loss, and plague, the special 4(d) events from reoccurring. However, we these plague-control methods, and thus rule is likely harming the Utah prairie conclude that the Petitioners do not rely on their potential success for dog because of the species’ low rate of mischaracterized how plague spreads our conclusions. reproduction (Hoogland 2001, pp. 918– through Utah prairie dog colonies and, In summary, we acknowledge that 924; Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. therefore, its effects on the species, by plague is a threat to the Utah prairie 107). primarily relying on results from studies dog. In fact, plague is one of the primary of Gunnison’s and black-tailed prairie reasons the Utah prairie dog remains Recovery Plan and Interim Conservation dogs. For example, as discussed under listed as a threatened species. However, Strategy A. Present or Threatened Destruction, as previously noted, Utah prairie dog The Petitioners assert that the Utah Modification, or Curtailment of its population trends remain stable to Prairie Dog Recovery Plan contributes to Habitat or Range, white-tailed and Utah increasing (see Figure 1 above) despite declines of the Utah prairie dog. They

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM 21JNP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36063

believe that the Recovery Plan’s Evaluation of Information Provided in dog populations continue to remain scientific basis is in error, with specific the Petition and Available in Service stable to increasing (see ‘‘Current respect to prairie dog litter sizes; that Files Distribution and Abundance’’ section the recovery goal is too low; that the The inadequacy of existing regulatory above), indicating that the special 4(d) emphasis in the plan on translocations mechanisms was not evaluated as a rule is not placing the species in danger of extinction. is flawed; that there is a lack of adequate threat to the species in the 1973 listing staff and funding resources; and that the (38 FR 14678, June 4, 1973), 1984 Recovery Plan and Interim Conservation Recovery Plan neglects conservation of downlisting (49 FR 22330, May 29, Strategy Utah prairie dogs on private lands 1984), or 1991 Recovery Plan. The Draft (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 108– We agree that the 1991 Recovery Plan Revised Recovery Plan concludes that 114, 147). They further discuss control is in need of an update. In our 2007 90- regulatory mechanisms are adequate to authorized under the special 4(d) rule as day finding we indicated that efforts to address the threats facing the Utah a fundamental concern of the Recovery revise the 1991 Recovery Plan were prairie dog with the species’ threatened Plan (see Special 4(d) Rule above). The underway. Since the 2007 finding, we status under the Act (Service 2010, pp. Petitioners also state that the Interim published a notice of availability for the 1.7–9 to 1.7–12). Conservation Strategy failed in Draft Revised Recovery Plan on adequately addressing threats such as Downlisting September 17, 2010 (75 FR 57055); we plague and livestock grazing (see A. expect to complete the revised Recovery In 1984, following a petition from Present or Threatened Destruction, Plan in 2011. This new plan updates UDWR to delist the Utah prairie dog, we Modification, or Curtailment of Its and replaces both the 1991 Recovery analyzed the best available information Habitat or Range above) (Forest Plan and Interim Conservation Strategy. regarding the species’ population and Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 115–119). With respect to the Petitioners’ threat factors, and determined that the concerns, the Draft Revised Recovery Federal Land Management Policies species should be downlisted to Plan’s population recovery criteria are The Petitioners state that Federal land threatened status (49 FR 22330). In our to achieve counts of 1,000 adult Utah management policies contribute to the 2007 finding, we determined that there prairie dogs in each recovery unit—this imperiled status of the Utah prairie dog was not substantial information is a higher number than envisioned by (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 119– indicating that uplisting the Utah prairie the 1991 Recovery Plan and is based on 139). The Petitioners express concern dog to endangered may be warranted. current biological information regarding regarding Animal and Plant Health Since our 2007 finding, we have Utah prairie dog densities and Inspection Service (APHIS)—Wildlife reevaluated the population status and reproductive rates (Service 2010, p. 3.1– Services’ policies on grasshopper threats to the species. As previously 7). The Draft Revised Recovery Plan still control and control of Utah prairie dogs. described (see ‘‘Current Distribution and envisions the use of translocations, They conclude that livestock allotments Abundance’’ section above), the Utah enhanced by improved techniques, as on the BLM and USFS lands do not prairie dog population is considered to an important component of Utah prairie meet the recommended Interim be stable to increasing on a rangewide dog recovery efforts (Service 2010, p. Conservation Strategy vegetation basis and, therefore, we believe that the 2.3–4). However, the 2010 Draft Revised guidelines (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, current status of the species as Recovery Plan places increased pp. 120–122). They also conclude that threatened, as opposed to being uplisted emphasis on protecting Utah prairie noxious weeds are a significant problem to endangered, is not placing the species dogs on private lands where willing in all BLM management areas (Forest in danger of extinction. Thus, we landowners may be interested (Service Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 123–124). The conclude that information regarding the 2010, pp. 2.3–2 to 2.3–3). Although the Petitioners assert that BLM believes that effects of the species’ regulatory status Petitioners claim there was a lack of Utah prairie dogs will tolerate economic as threatened under the Act does not recovery efforts on private land, we activity such as mineral extraction indicate that uplisting to endangered have taken significant steps to conserve (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 129), may be warranted. prairie dogs on private lands, including the use of the Safe Harbor Agreement citing a 1997 BLM management plan. Special 4(d) Rule Finally, the Petitioners conclude that (SHA) program, conservation easements, translocations of prairie dogs to Federal The special 4(d) rule (56 FR 27438, conservation banks, and the habitat lands are not leading to increased Utah June 14, 1991) for Utah prairie dogs credit and exchange program. We will prairie dog populations and, therefore, allows regulated take of Utah prairie briefly discuss each of these tools in the should be considered a threat to the dogs on private agricultural lands where next several paragraphs. species. damage from prairie dogs is observed The SHA program promotes voluntary (see E. Other Natural or Manmade agreements between the Service and Section 10 Habitat Conservation Plans Factors Affecting the Continued private or other non-Federal property The Petitioners assert that existing Existence of the Species below). owners whose actions contribute to the HCPs undermine Utah prairie dog Although the current 1991 rule exempts recovery of Utah prairie dogs. Prior to conservation efforts. They specifically take of up to 6,000 Utah prairie dogs our 2007 90-day finding, we entered discuss several small and large-scale annually, the actual number of prairie into three SHAs covering 97 ha (240 ac) (countywide) HCPs and associated dogs taken during the period 1985–2009 of occupied and unoccupied habitat permits, most of which were issued in did not exceed 1,760 animals annually within the Paunsaugunt and Awapa the 1990s (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, (UDWR 2010c, entire). Since 1985, an Plateau recovery units (Service 2005b, pp. 150–161). The Petitioners conclude average of 864 animals has been taken entire; Service 2005c, entire; Service that the HCPs are flawed because they annually, representing an average of 2.5 2006, entire). As of 2010, two more do not consider the cumulative impacts percent, and never more than 5.3 SHAs are in place with private of incidental take, they do not include percent, of the total rangewide landowners, covering an additional 400 sufficient discussions of alternative estimated population (UDWR 2010c, ha (990 ac) of Utah prairie dog habitat. actions, and they fail to implement entire). We have implemented the 4(d) In addition, a rangewide programmatic mitigation. rule for over 25 years, and Utah prairie SHA was completed in 2009,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM 21JNP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 36064 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules

administered by Panoramaland monitors for plague; and hosts Utah management plans. Through these Resource Conservation and prairie dog research efforts. revisions and associated section 7 Development Council (2009, entire) Additionally, the Park conducts consultation processes, the agencies are (Service 2010, p. 1.9–4), to help outreach programs with local committed to conservation measures facilitate the completion of additional communities, including hosting the first that protect Utah prairie dogs and their SHAs. The SHA program not only Utah Prairie Dog Day in 2010. In habitat from various land use activities facilitates Utah prairie dog conservation summary, there have been major efforts (USFS 1986, pp. iv–20 to iv–21, iv–33; efforts on private lands, but also made within the Utah prairie dog BLM 2008b, Appendices 10, 11, 14; increases the habitat that is actively recovery program by all of the Federal BLM 2008c, p. 62, Appendices 1, 2, 9). managed for the species while the agencies involved. Similarly, we completed a landowners are enrolled in the program. Overall, the Utah Prairie Dog programmatic consultation with APHIS- Conservation banks, another recovery Recovery Plan, and actions within the Wildlife Services under section 7 of the effort on private lands, are a means to plan, are not contributing to declines of Act, to ensure that grasshopper control collectively provide mitigation in an the Utah prairie dog. If anything, the actions will not have adverse effects on effective manner to offset the impacts of 1991 Recovery Plan, Interim listed species, including Utah prairie habitat loss. In our 2007 90-day finding, Conservation Strategy, and 2010 Draft dogs. The consultation contains we discussed one approved Revised Recovery Plan show a clear required conservation measures to conservation bank: The 2005 SITLA progression in our understanding of protect the species, including a 1.0-mi conservation bank located on Parker Utah prairie dog ecology and our ability (1.6-km) buffer zone around occupied Mountain within the Awapa Plateau to address threats to the species. For Utah prairie dog habitat (USDA 2005, recovery unit and totaling example, we have improved in our p. 12). approximately 307 ha (758 ac). Since understanding and ability to manage While the Petitioners also are then, a second conservation bank was plague outbreaks. We continue to concerned with APHIS-Wildlife approved in 2009 in the West Desert improve translocation techniques and Services’ prairie dog control activities recovery unit: The Little Horse Valley success rates. In addition, we have (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 140– conservation bank is an 89-ha (220-ac) increased our efforts to work with 145), we have received application for parcel owned by Iron County (Service private landowners to conserve Utah and approved only one permit to control 2010, p. 1.9–5). Other conservation prairie dog habitats. The species’ long- Utah prairie dogs on private agricultural banks are in the initial stages of term population trend is stable to land adjacent to a parcel of land development (Service 2010, p. 1.9–5). increasing, indicating that recovery protected under a conservation Our Draft Revised Recovery Plan sets a efforts by all of our partners are working easement. The approval of this permit goal of protecting 2,023 ha (5,000 ac) of to achieve the criteria set forth in the will not endanger the Utah prairie dog occupied habitat in conservation banks recovery plans. because of its limited scope and the fact within each recovery unit (Service 2010, that the permitted take is limited to the Federal Land Management Policies p. 3.1–6). The SITLA and Little Horse number of animals that exceed the Valley conservation banks alone The Petitioners contend that Federal baseline population size. represent 15 percent and 4 percent, land management policies facilitate The Petitioners are concerned that the respectively, of the protected habitat Utah prairie dog habitat loss and Environmental Protection Agency’s acreage goal in the Awapa and West degradation (Forest Guardians et al. labeling for toxicants and fumigants is Desert recovery units. 2003, pp. 119–139). They primarily not adequate for Utah prairie dog The Petitioners assert there is a lack reference 1997 BLM land management protection (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, of agency personnel and resources to plans, but do not provide any evidence p. 144); however, these chemicals are implement the (1991) Recovery Plan that these policies have resulted in the not registered for use on Utah prairie and the Interim Conservation Strategy decline of Utah prairie dogs to the point dogs. We do not currently allow (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 147); where the species should be listed as toxicants or fumigants to be used as however, they do not quantify this endangered. In addition, we concluded lethal control methods for Utah prairie assertion with any examples or in A. Present or Threatened Destruction, dogs and no information exists in our information regarding how lack of Modification, or Curtailment of its files or in the petition indicating that personnel adversely affect the prairie Habitat or Range that the information use of these chemicals is occurring dog. As government agencies, we are provided by the petition and in our files illegally other than in isolated instances. required to work within our allocated does not indicate that threats from land All Federal agencies are obligated by annual budgets. However, despite use activities on these Federal lands rise section 7(a)(1) of the Act to use their funding limitations, the Utah prairie dog to the level at which they may put the authorities to conserve and recover recovery program is moving forward species in current danger of extinction listed species. Because the Utah prairie with several significant actions to throughout all or a significant portion of dog is a threatened species, section further conservation of the species. For its range. 7(a)(1) of the Act is applicable. The example, the BLM implements Utah Because the Utah prairie dog is BLM, USFS, and NPS are part of the prairie dog habitat management already listed as threatened, the Federal Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Team and projects; supports annual plague land management agencies (i.e., BLM, routinely conduct Utah prairie dog treatments; and conducts and funds USFS, National Park Service (NPS)) recovery efforts (see the ‘‘Recovery Plan plague, population, and habitat review all proposed land use actions and Interim Conservation Strategy’’ monitoring and research. The Dixie with the Service through consultation section above). National Forest dusts Utah prairie dog under section 7(a)(2) of the Act to In summary, we agree that the Utah colonies to reduce plague (over 295 ha ensure that actions will not jeopardize prairie dog is impacted by a variety of (730 ac) were treated in 2009); conducts the species, and to minimize effects Federal land use activities, and that habitat improvement projects; and through implementation of conservation these are in part why the species is manages translocation sites (USFS 2009, measures and terms and conditions. For listed as threatened; however, as entire). Bryce Canyon National Park example, the BLM and USFS are in the discussed in A. Present or Threatened implements habitat restoration projects; process of revising their land Destruction, Modification, or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM 21JNP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36065

Curtailment of its Habitat or Range declines (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, paragraphs, including additional above, these activities do not put the pp. 162–163). The petition alleges that information evaluated since our 2007 species in danger of extinction. Thus, any illegal poisoning that occurs 90-day finding. Translocation of Utah we conclude that the information increases the magnitude of permitted prairie dogs is used to increase the regarding the effects of Federal land take (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. numbers of prairie dog colonies in new management policies does not indicate 165). The petition calls the translocation locations across the species’ range. that uplisting to endangered may be program a failure, stating that Translocation of Utah prairie dogs warranted. translocations have not resulted in an occurs within and between recovery increase of Utah prairie dog populations units in part to address the species’ Section 10 Habitat Conservation Plans on public lands, and have resulted in a limited levels of genetic diversity In our 2007 90-day finding, we loss of animals on private lands (Forest (Service 1991, p. 19; Roberts et al. 2000, discussed the Iron County HCP, the Guardians et al. 2003, p. 166). The p. 45). Translocation efforts include Garfield County HCP (never finalized), petition points out that many habitat enhancement at selected and an additional HCP (now called the translocation sites do not meet Interim translocation sites and live trapping of Golf Course HCP) (finalized in 2007). In Conservation Strategy vegetation Utah prairie dogs from existing colonies the section of this finding entitled A. guidelines, and that Utah prairie dogs to move them to the selected Present or Threatened Destruction, translocated to the Adams Well site translocation sites. Modification, or Curtailment of its have lost weight, thus making them less We acknowledge that the Habitat or Range, we again conclude likely to survive through winter (Forest translocation program was historically that the information regarding the Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 170–184). The not as successful as predicted. As effects of urban development and the petition states that, although drought is translocation methodology has associated HCPs does not indicate that a naturally occurring phenomenon, improved (Jacquart et al. 1986, pp. 54– uplisting to endangered may be continuing livestock grazing during 55; Coffeen 1989, p. 7; Truett et al. 2001, warranted. drought conditions exacerbates the pp. 868–869), so has our success rate effects of drought on Utah prairie dogs (Service 2010, pp. 1.9–1 to 1.9–3). For Summary of Factor D (McDonald 1993, pp. 16–17; Forest example, 12 of 15 (80 percent) post-1986 Federal regulatory mechanisms apply Guardians et al. 2003, p. 185). translocation sites still had prairie dogs present in 1992, whereas only 5 of 23 in whole or in part to threats described Evaluation of Information Provided in in the sections discussing Factors A, B, (22 percent) of pre-1986 translocation the Petition and Available in Service sites were still occupied by prairie dogs C, and E. We conclude in this finding Files that we do not have substantial in 1992. Furthermore, by 1992, post- information from the Petitioners or in The threat addressed in the petition 1986 translocation sites had a our files that indicates that those regarding the relationship of drought significantly higher number of prairie threats, as managed under current and livestock grazing regimes on Utah dogs per site (840 animals) versus pre- regulatory mechanisms, rise to the level prairie dog habitat is discussed under A. 1986 translocation sites (157 animals). that places the species in current danger Present or Threatened Destruction, By 2008, 23,359 Utah prairie dogs had of extinction. We have supplemented Modification, or Curtailment of its been translocated from private to public this section with new information since Habitat or Range. We acknowledged that lands (McDonald 1993, p. 39; Table 4, our 2007 90-day finding, and our improper grazing can impact the species p. 42; Bonzo and Day 2003, pp. 14–16; evaluation continues to support our during drought conditions in site- Brown pers. comm. 2009). As of 2009, conclusion. Therefore, we find that the specific areas, but the information 24 translocation sites were occupied: information provided in the petition, as presented by the Petitioners and in our Four of 8 sites in the Awapa Plateau well as other information in our files, files does not indicate that this warrants recovery unit; 6 of 8 sites in the does not present substantial scientific or uplisting to endangered status. Illegal Paunsaugunt recovery unit; and 14 of 20 commercial information indicating that shooting is discussed under B. sites in the West Desert recovery unit uplisting from threatened to endangered Overutilization for Commercial, (Brown pers. comm. 2009) (these are not under the Act may be warranted due to Recreational, Scientific, or Educational necessarily the same sites described in inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Purposes. Legal take occurring in the 1980s and 1990s, as new compliance with the special 4(d) rule translocation sites are sometimes E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors (50 CFR 17.40(g)) is discussed under D. developed while some old sites may no Affecting the Continued Existence of the Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory longer be in use). While translocation Species Mechanisms. We concluded that these success and survival rates were threats are all part of the reason that the Information Provided in the Petition historically low, they have improved species remains listed as threatened; over time and it is noteworthy that The Petitioners state that rodent however, none of these factors rise to translocation has resulted in the control efforts, the Utah prairie dog the level that places the Utah prairie dog establishment of new colonies. translocation program, and drought currently in danger of extinction (see The Service’s 2006 Recommended present significant threats to Utah ‘‘Livestock Grazing’’ under ‘‘A., Present Translocation Procedures define prairie dogs. The petition cites legal take or Threatened Destruction, specific procedures for locating under the special 4(d) rule (50 CFR Modification, or Curtailment of its translocation sites, preparing the sites, 17.40(g)) and ongoing illegal poisoning Habitat or Range’’; see ‘‘Illegal shooting’’ live trapping, handling, transporting, and shooting as endangering the species under ‘‘B., Overutilization for releasing, monitoring, and managing (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 161– Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or animals (Service 2010, Appendix D). 162). In particular, the Petitioners point Educational Purposes’’; and see For example, current translocation out that control of Utah prairie dogs ‘‘Special 4(d) Rule’’ under ‘‘D., procedures include restrictions on the under the special 4(d) rule has resulted Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory timing of movements for certain age and in legal take of 14,002 prairie dogs (as Mechanisms’’). sex categories (i.e., early translocation of of 2003) and suggest that annual take The translocation program is males to aid in establishing burrows for levels may be contributing to population discussed in the next several subsequent females and juveniles

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM 21JNP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 36066 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules

released in late summer) (Jacquart 1986, indicating that the threats, while they the petition, and publish our notice of p. 54). Supplemental food and water are still exist, are not negatively changing this finding promptly in the Federal used at new translocation sites to the population trends. In addition, the Register. increase survival because increased species is already listed as threatened Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires energy expenditures are incurred during under the Act, and is already subject to, that, for any petition that is found to the trapping and transport process; and receives protection from, the contain substantial scientific or increased stimuli of a new environment; regulatory mechanisms of the Act. As commercial information that listing or increased burrowing activity upon stated in the ‘‘Background’’ section, a reclassifying the species may be release; and increased vigilance of threatened species is defined as a warranted, we conduct a status review newly released prairie dogs (Truett et al. species which is likely to become an and make a finding within 12 months of 2001, p. 869). We also use retention endangered species within the the date of receipt of the petition. In the cages to keep the newly translocated foreseeable future throughout all or a 12-month finding, we determine prairie dogs at the intended release significant portion of its range. The level whether the petitioned action is: (1) Not areas and exclude predators (Truett et of threats facing Utah prairie dogs warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) al. 2001, pp. 868–869). Furthermore, in indicates that the species should warranted but precluded by other an effort to minimize the potential for continue to be listed as threatened. This pending proposals to determine whether plague transmission between colonies, decision is consistent with our original species are threatened or endangered, prairie dogs are not translocated into ‘‘not substantial’’ determination when and expeditious progress is being made already-established colonies; animals we first evaluated and presented our to add or remove qualified species from are not captured and moved from any findings in 2007 (72 FR 7843). the Federal Lists of Endangered and colonies where plague is suspected; all Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We Additional Findings in Compliance animals are treated with an insecticide must publish these 12-month findings With Court Order called Deltamethrin (Delta dust) prior to in the Federal Register. release at translocation sites; and On September 28, 2010, the U.S. At the 12-month finding stage, we translocation colonies are provided District Court for the District of consider the five factors in assessing additional treatments of Delta dust as Columbia ordered the 2007 90-day whether a petitioned entity is needed. These safeguards appear to be finding to be vacated and remanded to threatened or endangered throughout all further improving translocation success. the Service for two reasons: of its range. If we determine that the We conclude, based on the long-term (1) The Service failed to explain how petitioned entity does not meet the stable-to-increasing Utah prairie dog the reduction in the Utah prairie dog’s definition of a threatened or endangered rangewide population trends, that there historical range did not indicate that species throughout all of its range, we is no indication that translocations have reclassifying the species as endangered must next consider in the 12-month moved the species’ trajectory toward may be warranted, and failed to explain finding whether there are any endangerment, despite the mortality of how the reduction in the Utah prairie significant portions of the range where individual animals. Overall, dog’s historical range does not the petitioned entity is in danger of translocations have resulted in the constitute a ‘‘significant portion of the extinction or is likely to become establishment of new Utah prairie dog species’ range.’’ endangered in the foreseeable future. colonies on Federal lands. (2) The Service failed to explain A portion of a species’ range is Translocations will continue to play an whether the listing factors’ cumulative significant if it is part of the current important role in recovery of the Utah effect indicates that reclassifying the range of the species and it contributes prairie dog (Service 2010, p. 2.3–4). Utah prairie dog as endangered may be substantially to the representation, Thus, we find that the information warranted. resiliency, or redundancy of the species. provided in the petition, as well as other The following sections are The contribution must be at a level such information in our files, does not incorporated into this 90-day finding in that its loss would result in a decrease present substantial scientific or order to comply with the Court’s order. in the ability to conserve the species. commercial information indicating that Below we explain our listing process, In determining whether a species is uplisting from threatened to endangered outline the information provided in the threatened or endangered in a under the Act may be warranted due to petition, evaluate the information in the significant portion of its range, we first other natural or manmade factors petition and available in our files, identify any portions of the current affecting the species’ continued discuss our interpretation of both range of the species that warrant further existence. ‘‘significant portion of the range’’ and consideration. The range of a species ‘‘cumulative effect,’’ and summarize our can theoretically be divided into Finding findings on these topics. portions an infinite number of ways. In summary, we agree with the However, there is no purpose to Petitioners’ overall identification of Significant Portion of the Range analyzing portions of the range that are threats to the Utah prairie dog. Our 2010 Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 not reasonably likely to be significant Draft Revised Recovery Plan identifies U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we and threatened or endangered. To all of the threats raised by the make a finding on whether a petition to identify only those portions that warrant petitioners, concluding that list, delist, or reclassify a species further consideration, we determine urbanization and plague remain the top- presents substantial scientific or whether there is substantial information tier threats to the species (Service 2010, commercial information indicating that indicating that: (1) The portions may be pp. 2.3–1 to 2.3–2). However, the the petitioned action may be warranted. significant and (2) the species may be petition does not present substantial We are to base this finding on currently in danger of extinction. In information indicating that the level of information provided in the petition, practice, a key part of this analysis is threats to the species may place the supporting information submitted with whether the threats are geographically Utah prairie dog in current danger of the petition, and information otherwise concentrated in some way. If the threats extinction. Long-term population trends available in our files. To the maximum to the species are essentially uniform since the downlisting of Utah prairie extent practicable, we are to make this throughout its range, no portion is likely dog in 1984 remain stable to increasing, finding within 90 days of our receipt of to warrant further consideration.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM 21JNP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36067

Moreover, if any concentration of Evaluation of Information Provided in resiliency (Service 2010, pp. 3.2–7 to threats applies only to portions of the the Petition and Available in Service 3.2–8). These recovery units are species’ range that are not significant, Files individually necessary to conserve the such portions will not warrant further When analyzing whether a portion of genetic, demographic, and ecological consideration. a species’ range is significant, we diversity necessary for the long-term If we identify portions that warrant examine the current status of a species, sustainability of Utah prairie dogs. further consideration, we then which necessitates examining the However, neither the 1991 Recovery determine whether the species is species in its current range. Lost Plan nor the Draft Revised Recovery threatened or endangered in these historical range, by itself, cannot Plan indicates that achieving Utah portions of its range. Depending on the comprise a significant portion of a prairie dog recovery will require their biology of the species, its range, and the species’ range as we define it (above) lost historical range (i.e., areas outside threats it faces, the Service may address based on our current practice, but is of the three designated recovery units) either the significance question or the relevant to the analysis of the current to be repopulated. In addition, because status question first. Thus, if the Service and future viability of the species. widespread Utah prairie dog poisoning Therefore, we cannot list a species considers significance first and campaigns no longer occur in the based merely on the fact that it has lost determines that a portion of the range is species’ habitat, we do not anticipate historical range (however large that loss not significant, the Service need not similar future losses of prairie dog might be). However, the effect of lost populations. Thus, we conclude that the determine whether the species is historical range on the viability of the reduction of the Utah prairie dog’s threatened or endangered there. species could potentially prompt us to historical range has not made the Likewise, if the Service considers status list a species because the loss of species vulnerable to the point that the first and determines that the species is historical range has made the species not threatened or endangered in a vulnerable to the point that the entire entire species may be currently in portion of its range, the Service need not species is at risk of extinction. In this danger of extinction. determine if that portion is significant. case, we are not considering listing (or In summary, the U.S. District Court The above description outlines our reclassifying) a species based on for the District of Columbia asked us to usual process for considering significant whether or not it is ‘‘endangered’’ or explain how the reduction in the Utah portions of the range in 12-month ‘‘threatened’’ in its lost historical range, prairie dog’s historical range does not findings. To comply with the Court’s but based on whether it is ‘‘endangered’’ constitute a ‘‘significant portion of the order to explain both how the reduction or ‘‘threatened’’ throughout its current species’ range,’’ and how the reduction in the Utah prairie dog’s historical range range because that loss of historical in the Utah prairie dog’s historical range does not constitute a ‘‘significant range is so substantial that it does not indicate that reclassifying the portion of the species’’ range, and how undermines the viability of the species species as endangered may be as it exists today. the reduction in the Utah prairie dog’s warranted. As discussed above, for the We acknowledge that historical Utah purpose of giving meaning to historical range does not indicate that prairie dog habitat was lost; this factor reclassifying the species as endangered ‘‘significant portion of the range’’ in the was considered in our May 29, 1984, context of a listing determination, we may be warranted, we include the reclassification of the species from following evaluation. consider a portion of the species range endangered to threatened (49 FR 22330) to be significant if it is part of the Information Provided in the Petition and in the Draft Revised Recovery Plan current range of the species and it (Service 2010, p. 1.3–1). The primary contributes substantially to the The Petitioners assert that the Utah reason for the reduction in historical representation, resiliency, or prairie dog should be reclassified as range was widespread Utah prairie dog redundancy of the species. The Utah endangered within its historical range poisoning and shooting campaigns prairie dog’s lost historical range is not (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 1). As (Service 2010, p. 1.3–1); however, these a portion of the species’ current range, poisoning campaigns are no longer noted in our discussion under A. does not describe the status of the active. Present or Threatened Destruction, species where and as it exists at the time Today, although the species’ range is Modification, or Curtailment of its of our listing determination, and, as Habitat or Range, they cite that the reduced from historical times, the species’ long-term (since 1976) such, does not contribute to the historical area of the species declined representation, resiliency, and 98.4 percent (Forest Guardians et al. population trend is considered stable to increasing (Figure 1) (UDWR 2010a, redundancy of the species that we 2003, p. 2). The Petitioners also state entire). Thus, we conclude that the consider when making a listing that Utah prairie dog populations viability of the remaining population is determination. Therefore, the Utah decreased from 95,000 individuals not compromised to the point that the prairie dog’s lost historical range does historically to a count of 4,217 in 2001. species is currently in danger of not constitute a ‘‘significant portion of The Petitioners note that the species’ extinction. the range.’’ Further, as previously distribution was much larger prior to Both the 1991 Recovery Plan and the explained, we have determined that the the poisoning campaigns in the 1900s Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Utah reduction in the Utah prairie dog’s (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 16), and prairie dog support this justification historical range does not indicate that was then further impacted in the (Service 2010, pp. 3.2–7 to 3.2–8). In the reclassifying the species as endangered 1960s—resulting in the species’ Draft Revised Recovery Plan, we may be warranted, because we believe extirpation from significant portions of considered the species’ historical range, that the effects of the loss of historical their historical range (Forest Guardians current range, and recovery needs. Our range of the species does not place it in et al. 2003, p. 17). They further assert designation of three recovery units danger of extinction such that that these reductions in range continue within the species’ current range is reclassifying the Utah prairie dog from to occur (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, based on the conservation concepts of threatened to endangered may be p. 4). representation, redundancy, and warranted.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM 21JNP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 36068 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Cumulative Effects of Listing Factors p. 1.7–4). Existing and anticipated oil (Cynomys parvidens) under the Act as Information Provided in the Petition and gas development occurs on only a an endangered species may be small percentage of the species habitat, warranted at this time. Although we The Petitioners assert that Utah and even then effects are minimized by will not review the status of the species prairie dog viability is cumulatively Federal minimization and mitigation at this time, we encourage interested impacted by all five of the listing requirements that avoid impacts to parties to continue to gather data that factors. They state that activities such as suitable prairie dog habitats (see ‘‘Oil, will assist with the conservation of the destruction and degradation of private Gas, and Mineral Development’’ under Utah prairie dog. If you wish to provide and public lands, inadequate habitat ‘‘A., Present or Threatened Destruction, information regarding the Utah prairie conservation planning, illegal shooting Modification, or Curtailment of its dog, you may submit your information and poisoning, an ineffective Habitat or Range’’). Illegal shooting or materials to the Field Supervisor, translocation program, and plague occurs in some instances, but we have Utah Ecological Services Field Office cumulatively impact Utah prairie dog only documented isolated incidents. (see ADDRESSES), at any time. persistence and, therefore, necessitate Illegal shooting is not widespread across the reclassification of the species from the species’ range (see ‘‘B., References Cited threatened to endangered (Forest Overutilization for Commercial, A complete list of references cited is Guardians et al. 2003, p. 186). Recreational, Scientific, or Educational available on the Internet at http:// Evaluation of Information Provided in Purposes’’). Similarly, predation is a www.regulations.gov and upon request the Petition and Available in Service natural occurrence in Utah prairie dog from the Utah Ecological Services Field Files colonies. Effects are normally realized Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION in only isolated instances at highly CONTACT). We acknowledge that the Utah prairie fragmented colonies or at new dog is threatened by several factors, translocation sites (see ‘‘C., Disease or Authors most notably habitat loss and Predation’’). The primary authors of this document degradation from urbanization, and We determined that none of these are the staff members of the Utah plague (Service 2010, p. 1.8–3). Ongoing threats, by themselves, act to place the Ecological Services Field Office (see threats, as described in the discussion of species in current danger of extinction. ADDRESSES). The primary authors of the Factors A through E, include livestock Although most of the threats we 90-day finding published on February grazing, road construction, OHV and analyzed have localized distributions, it 21, 2007, were the staff members of both recreational use, habitat loss from is possible that more than one threat the Utah Ecological Services Field agricultural and urban land conversions, may act together to cause the local Office and the Colorado Ecological illegal shooting, and plague. The species reduction or extirpation of a colony. Services Field Office. is listed as threatened because of these However, at a rangewide level, Utah factors. prairie dog population trends are stable Authority Throughout this finding, we clearly to increasing, indicating that the factors The authority for this action is the identified the effects of each of these identified above, both individually and Endangered Species Act of 1973, as factors to the Utah prairie dog. In many cumulatively, have no broad-scale amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). cases, we identified that the effects are effects that threaten the species to the Dated: June 7, 2011. often localized to specific areas within extent that it is currently in danger of the species’ range. For example, the extinction. Rowan W. Gould, threat of urbanization is greatest in the Plague occurs across the species’ Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife West Desert recovery unit (see ‘‘Habitat entire range, and could certainly act Service. Loss from Agricultural and Urban Land cumulatively with other threat factors to [FR Doc. 2011–15283 Filed 6–20–11; 8:45 am] Conversion’’ under ‘‘A., Present or cause individual colonies to be reduced BILLING CODE 4310–55–P Threatened Destruction, Modification, in size or extirpated (see ‘‘C., Disease or or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range’’); Predation’’). For example, if habitat is albeit it is one of the largest overall degraded from overgrazing or wildfire, it DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR threats to the species. Livestock grazing may hinder the ability of prairie dogs to Fish and Wildlife Service can be a threat to the species in site- reestablish a colony that is reduced or specific areas where improper grazing eliminated by plague. negatively affects habitat conditions (see However, despite the fact that plague 50 CFR Part 17 ‘‘Livestock Grazing’’ under ‘‘A., Present and the other threats to the species have [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0044; MO or Threatened Destruction, occurred for decades, and sometimes act 92210–0–0009] Modification, or Curtailment of its cumulatively to affect individual Habitat or Range’’). Road construction, colonies or complexes, the population RIN 1018–AW86 OHV use, and recreation may have trend of the Utah prairie dog remains Endangered and Threatened Wildlife effects to individuals or colonies that stable to increasing across the species’ and Plants; Designation of Critical occur adjacent to the roadways, trails, or range. Therefore, we conclude that the Habitat for the Sonoma County Distinct play areas; however, these are localized cumulative effects of these factors do Population Segment of the California areas and do not result in population- not threaten the species to the extent Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma level effects (see ‘‘Road Construction, that reclassifying the species from californiense) Off-Highway Vehicle Use, and threatened to endangered may be Recreation’’ under ‘‘A., Present or warranted. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Threatened Destruction, Modification, On the basis of our determination Interior. or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range’’). under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we ACTION: Proposed rule; revision and Furthermore, there is an increased conclude that the petition does not reopening of comment period. planning effort on Federal lands toward present substantial scientific or directing these activities away from commercial information to indicate that SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Utah prairie dog habitats (Service 2010, reclassifying the Utah prairie dog Wildlife Service, announce the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:17 Jun 20, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21JNP1.SGM 21JNP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1