[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36053-36068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15283]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2011-0037]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised 90-Day 
Finding on a Petition To Reclassify the Utah Prairie Dog From 
Threatened to Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of revised 90-day petition finding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
revised 90-day finding on a petition to reclassify the Utah prairie dog 
(Cynomys parvidens) from threatened to endangered under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). As we concluded in our 90-day 
finding published on February 21, 2007, we find that the February 3, 
2003, petition does not present substantial information indicating that 
reclassifying the Utah prairie dog from threatened to endangered may be 
warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a status review in response 
to the February 3, 2003, petition. However, we ask the public to submit 
to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status 
of, or threats to, the Utah prairie dog or its habitat at any time.

DATES: The revised 90-day finding announced in this document was made 
on June 21, 2011.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2011-0037. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological Services Field Office, 2369 
West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT 84119. Please submit 
any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this 
finding to the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah 
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES), by telephone (801-
975-3330), or by facsimile (801-975-3331). If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires 
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or 
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We 
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, 
supporting information submitted with the petition, and information 
otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we 
are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, 
and publish our notice of this finding promptly in the Federal 
Register.
    Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information 
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day 
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a 
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition 
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial 
information was presented, we are required to promptly conduct a 
species status review, which we subsequently summarize in our 12-month 
finding.
    In making this finding, we applied the standards described above 
for substantial information. Under the Act, a threatened species is 
defined as a species which is likely to become an endangered species 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range. An endangered species is defined as a species which is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Therefore, in evaluating the information in this petition to 
reclassify the Utah prairie dog from threatened to endangered, we have 
based our determination on whether the petition presents substantial 
scientific and commercial information indicating that the species may 
be currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range.

Petition History

    On February 3, 2003, we received a petition, dated the same day, 
from Forest Guardians, Center for Native Ecosystems, Escalante 
Wilderness Project, Boulder Regional Group, Southern Utah Wilderness 
Alliance, and Terry Tempest Williams (Petitioners) requesting that the 
Utah prairie dog be reclassified as endangered under the Act (Forest 
Guardians et al. 2003, entire). The petition clearly identified itself 
as such and included the requisite identification information for the 
petitioners, as required by 50 CFR

[[Page 36054]]

424.14(a). We acknowledged receipt of the petition in a letter to 
Nicole Rosmarino on November 21, 2003. In that letter we also advised 
the Petitioners that, due to prior listing allocations in Fiscal Years 
2003 and 2004, we would not be able to begin processing the petition in 
a timely manner. On February 2, 2004, we received a Notice of Intent to 
sue from the Petitioners for failure to issue the 90-day finding.
    On February 2, 2006, the Petitioners filed a complaint for 
injunctive and declaratory relief in the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia. On June 2, 2006, the parties reached a 
settlement that required the Service to make a 90-day finding on the 
February 3, 2003, petition on or before February 17, 2007. The 90-day 
finding published on February 21, 2007 (72 FR 7843), constituted our 
compliance with the settlement agreement. We found that the petition 
did not provide substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that reclassification may be warranted. This decision was 
challenged by WildEarth Guardians in litigation.
    On September 28, 2010, the United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia vacated and remanded our February 21, 2007, not-
substantial 90-day finding (72 FR 7843) back to us for further 
consideration (WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, Case 1:08-cv-01596-CKK 
(D.D.C. 2010)). We were directed to address cumulative effects and to 
consider whether the loss of historical range constituted a significant 
portion of the species' range. We have considered both of these 
remanded items in our Findings section below. Additionally, because the 
finding was remanded by the Court, we considered the petition as 
resubmitted at the time of the Court's order and now evaluate the 
information submitted in the petition and the information in Service 
files as of the remanded date (September 28, 2010). We considered 
whether this current data affect our original 2007 decision that the 
petition did not present substantial information indicating that 
reclassification may be warranted. Although we supplemented our revised 
90-day finding with new information since our 2007 90-day finding, our 
evaluation continues to support a ``not substantial'' determination. 
This revised 90-day finding constitutes our compliance with the 
District Court's order dated September 28, 2010 (WildEarth Guardians v. 
Salazar, Case 1:08-cv-01596-CKK (D.D.C. 2010)).

Previous Federal Actions

    We listed the Utah prairie dog as an endangered species on June 4, 
1973 (38 FR 14678), pursuant to the Endangered Species Conservation Act 
of 1969 (the predecessor to the 1973 Act). On November 5, 1979, the 
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) petitioned the Service to 
remove the Utah prairie dog from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife. Based on information provided in the petition, the species 
was reclassified from endangered to threatened on May 29, 1984 (49 FR 
22330).

Species Information

    We have updated this information since our February 21, 2007, 90-
day finding, based on the best information currently available in our 
files. We determined that updating the basic biological information for 
the species with information contained in our files has no effect on 
our decision as to whether or not the petition contains substantial 
information.
Taxonomy
    Prairie dogs belong to the Sciuridae family of rodents, which also 
includes squirrels, chipmunks, and marmots. There are five species of 
prairie dogs, all of which are native to North America, and all of 
which have non-overlapping geographic ranges (Hoogland 2003, p. 232). 
Taxonomically, prairie dogs (Cynomys spp.) are divided into two 
subgenera (Hoogland 1995, p. 8): the white-tail and the black-tail. The 
Utah prairie dog (C. parvidens) is a member of the white-tailed group, 
subgenus Leucocrossuromys. Other members of this group, which also 
occur in Utah, are the white-tailed prairie dog (C. leucurus) and the 
Gunnison prairie dog (C. gunnisoni).
    The Utah prairie dog is recognized as a distinct species (Zeveloff 
1988, p. 148; Hoogland 1995, p. 10), but is most closely related to the 
white-tailed prairie dog. These two species may have once belonged to a 
single interbreeding species (Pizzimenti 1975, p. 16), but are now 
separated by ecological and physiographic barriers. We accept the 
characterization of the Utah prairie dog as a distinct species because 
of these ecological and physiographic barriers from other prairie dog 
species (Zeveloff 1988, p. 148).
Species Description
    The Utah prairie dog is the smallest species of prairie dog; 
individuals are typically 250 to 400 millimeters (mm) (10 to 16 inches 
(in.)) long (Hoogland 1995, p. 8)). Weight ranges from 300 to 900 grams 
(g) (0.66 to 2.0 pounds (lb)) in the spring and 500 to 1,500 g (1.1 to 
3.3 lb) in the late summer and early fall (Hoogland 1995, p. 8). Utah 
prairie dogs range in color from cinnamon to clay. The Utah prairie dog 
is distinguishable from other prairie dog species by a relatively short 
(30 to 70 mm (1.2 to 2.8 in.)) white- or gray-tipped tail and a black 
``eyebrow'' above each eye (Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 1; Hoogland 
2003, p. 232).
Life History
    Utah prairie dogs hibernate for 4 to 6 months underground each year 
during the harsh winter months, although they are occasionally seen 
above ground during mild weather (Hoogland 2001, p. 918). Adult males 
cease surface activity during August and September, and females follow 
suit several weeks later (Hoogland 2003, p. 235). Juvenile prairie dogs 
remain above ground 1 to 2 months longer than adults and usually 
hibernate by late November. Emergence from hibernation usually occurs 
in late February or early March (Hoogland 2003, p. 235).
    Mating begins 2 to 5 days after females emerge from hibernation, 
and can continue through early April (Hoogland 2003, p. 236). 
Approximately 97 percent of female Utah prairie dogs breed in any given 
year. They come into estrus (period of greatest female reproductive 
responsiveness usually coinciding with ovulation) and are sexually 
receptive for a few hours for only 1 day during the breeding season 
(Hoogland 2001, p. 919). Females give birth to only one litter per 
year, in April or May (Hoogland 2001, pp. 919-920; Hoogland 2003, p. 
236). Only 67 percent of female prairie dogs successfully wean a 
litter, which ranges from one to seven pups, with an average of four 
pups (Pizzimenti and Collier 1975, p. 2; Wright-Smith 1978, p. 10; 
Hoogland 2001, pp. 919-920, 923). The young emerge from their nursery 
burrow by early to mid-June and primarily forage on their own (Hoogland 
2003, p. 236).
    Prairie dog pups attain adult size by October and reach sexual 
maturity at the age of 1 year (Wright-Smith 1978, p. 9). Less than 50 
percent of Utah prairie dogs survive to breeding age (Hoogland 2001, p. 
919). Male Utah prairie dogs frequently cannibalize juveniles, which 
may eliminate 20 percent of the litter (Hoogland 2003, p. 238). Only 
about 20 percent of females and less than 10 percent of males survive 
to age 4 (Hoogland 2001, Figures 1 and 2, pp. 919-920). Utah prairie 
dogs rarely live beyond 5 years of age (Hoogland 2001, p. 919).
    Natal dispersal (movement of first-year individuals away from their 
area of

[[Page 36055]]

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

[[Page 36056]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21JN11.024

    In addition to population trend information, the UDWR surveys 
provide information on the amount of mapped and occupied habitat across 
the species' range. We define mapped habitat as all areas within the 
species' range that were identified and delineated as being occupied by 
Utah prairie dogs at any time since 1976. Occupied habitats are defined 
as areas that currently support Utah prairie dogs (i.e., where prairie 
dogs are seen or heard or where active burrows or other signs are 
found). The UDWR has mapped 24,142 ha (59,656 ac) of habitat rangewide, 
of which 13,365 ha (33,025 ac) were occupied in 2009 (UDWR 2010b, 
entire). All of the mapped habitat is not occupied by Utah prairie 
dogs, as the species' distribution is constantly shifting across the 
landscape. Additional information on Utah prairie dog distribution, 
abundance, and trends in each recovery unit can be found in our Draft 
Revised Recovery Plan (Service 2010, section 1.3)

Evaluation of Information for This Finding

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species 
to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an 
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors 
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine 
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual 
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no 
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If 
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may 
be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat 
it is. If the threat is significant, it may contribute to the risk of 
extinction of the species such that the species may warrant listing as 
threatened or endangered as those terms are defined by the Act. This 
does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The 
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the 
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of 
factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to 
compel a finding that listing or reclassification may be warranted. In 
our finding for this petition to reclassify a species from threatened 
to endangered, the information should contain evidence sufficient to 
suggest that threats that may be acting on the species could result in 
the species being currently in danger of extinction versus being likely 
to become so in the foreseeable future.
    In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information 
regarding the threats to the Utah prairie dog, as presented in the 
petition and other information available in our files, is substantial, 
thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our 
evaluation of this information is presented below.

[[Page 36057]]

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
Its Habitat or Range

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

[[Page 36058]]

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

[[Page 36059]]

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

[[Page 36060]]

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

[[Page 36061]]

increase again (see C. Disease or Predation below). Although not 
explicitly discussed in our 2007 90-day finding, studies show that the 
lower density of white-tailed prairie dog colonies (compared to black-
tailed or Gunnison's prairie dog colonies) may actually benefit that 
species by slowing plague transmission rates (Eskey and Haas 1940, pp. 
18-19; Cully 1993, p. 40; Cully and Williams 2001, p. 898). This 
benefit also may apply to Utah prairie dogs, which have similar colony 
sizes and densities to white-tailed prairie dogs (Service 2010, p. 1.7-
7). Despite the fact that Utah prairie dog colonies tend to be small 
and dispersed across the landscape, their overall population trend is 
stable to increasing (see Figure 1, above). Therefore, we conclude that 
the Petitioners do not provide substantial information--and we do not 
have information in our files--that indicates that isolation and 
fragmentation may threaten the Utah prairie dog to the point that the 
species may warrant uplisting from threatened to endangered.
Summary of Factor A
    In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition, 
as well as other information in our files, does not constitute 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that 
uplisting the Utah prairie dog from threatened to endangered under the 
Act may be warranted due to present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of habitat. We agree that there are 
numerous human land-use threats to the species, including those 
presented in the Petition, such as urbanization; agricultural uses; 
livestock grazing; roads; OHV and other recreational uses; and oil, 
gas, and mineral development and seismic exploration. These threats may 
result in the loss, fragmentation, and isolation of prairie dog 
populations. These threats are the reason the Utah prairie dog remains 
listed as a threatened species. As stated in the Background section, a 
threatened species is defined as a species which is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range, whereas an endangered species is a 
species which is currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The information on threats discussed 
in Factor A indicates that the Utah prairie dog should continue to be 
listed as threatened. Many of the claims cited by the Petitioners, and 
information in our files, indicate that most of the threats have 
largely localized impacts on specific Utah prairie dog colonies or 
complexes, particularly those impacts from livestock grazing; roads; 
OHV use; and oil, gas, and mineral development and seismic exploration. 
Therefore, we do not have substantial information indicating that the 
threats rise to the level at which they may put the species in current 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.
    Urbanization is one of the largest of the identified threats to the 
species (Service 2010, p. 1.8-4). For development to proceed, a section 
10(a)(1)(B) permit and HCP with meaningful mitigation and compensation 
are required. In addition, the rangewide population of the Utah prairie 
dog is stable to increasing, indicating that ongoing threats are not 
having a negative effect on the recoverability of the species (see 
Figure 1 above). Thus, we have determined that the petition, as well as 
other information in our files, does not present substantial scientific 
or commercial information indicating that the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a 
threat to the Utah prairie dog to the extent that uplisting from 
threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

Information Provided in the Petition
    The petition states that illegal shooting of Utah prairie dogs 
still occurs (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 94-98) and provides 
references to show that shooting can negatively affect prairie dogs in 
general through population reduction, decreased colony expansion rates, 
and changes in behavior (Reading et al. 1989, p. 19; Miller et al. 
1993, p. 91; Vosburgh and Irby 1998, pp. 366-368).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    Because the Utah prairie dog is already a listed species, shooting 
is prohibited by the Act, except as provided for by the special 4(d) 
rule (see 50 CFR 17.40(g) and D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 
Mechanisms below). Therefore, we conclude that many of the Petitioners' 
citations regarding the effects of recreational or otherwise broad-
scale shooting are not directly applicable to the Utah prairie dog. We 
acknowledge that isolated instances of shooting do occur, and that it 
is not feasible for UDWR and Federal land management agencies to patrol 
all colony locations on a routine basis. Since the fall of 2007, three 
poisoning incidents and one shooting incident occurred in the West 
Desert recovery unit. These unauthorized killings resulted in impacts 
to a few colonies, but these impacts did not extend to the population 
level (Bell 2008, pers. comm.).
    No information is available in the petition or in our files to 
indicate that illegal shooting occurs on a broad-scale, rangewide basis 
such that it may significantly affect the species at the population 
level. Therefore, we conclude that the information provided in the 
petition, as well as other information in our files, does not present 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that 
uplisting from threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted 
due to overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes.

C. Disease or Predation

Information Provided in the Petition
    The Petitioners do not specifically identify predation as a threat 
to the Utah prairie dog. Predation is briefly mentioned by the 
petitioners as a component of the species ecology (Service 1991, p. 
10); as a factor that results in mortality of translocated Utah prairie 
dogs (Service 1991, p. 13; UPDRIT 1997, p. 5); and as a factor that may 
increase due to overgrazing, road construction, and energy development 
(McDonald 1993, p. 6; Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 58, 76, 83).
    The Petitioners assert that sylvatic plague (Yersinia pestis), an 
exotic bacterial disease, is a significant threat to prairie dogs. They 
estimate that plague can result in 95 to 100 percent mortality in 
Gunnison prairie dog colonies (Barnes 1993, p. 33; Fitzgerald 1993, p. 
52) and that recovery from plague in black-tailed prairie dog colonies 
is a slow process (Knowles 1995, p. 41). In their discussion on 
isolation and fragmentation, the Petitioners also indicated that small, 
isolated colonies of black-tailed and Gunnison prairie dogs are more 
susceptible to local extirpation from factors such as sylvatic plague 
(Miller et al. 1994, 1996 in Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 90; 
Mulhern and Knowles 1995, p. 26; Wuerthner 1997, pp. 459, 464).
    The Petitioners cite numerous instances of documented and suspected 
plague events occurring throughout the Utah prairie dog range (Service 
1991, p. 12; McDonald 1996, pp. 8-10; Bonzo and Day 2000, pp. 11-14). 
They also cite

[[Page 36062]]

ongoing research in Utah prairie dog habitat on plague mitigation 
through the use of insecticides to kill the fleas that carry the plague 
bacterium (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 100). The Petitioners take 
the view that as long as plague is present in the ecosystem, the Utah 
prairie dog may not reach its recovery goals even if all other threat 
factors are removed (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 100).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    In the 2007 90-day finding, we concluded that the Petitioners did 
not identify predation as a threat to the Utah prairie dog. We agree 
that predation can have adverse impacts on Utah prairie dogs in 
unnaturally fragmented colonies or at new translocation sites (Service 
2010, p. 1.7-9). For example, badgers can disrupt a translocation site 
by digging up Utah prairie dogs that have not had a chance to fully 
develop a burrow system. However, predation is a natural component of 
healthy prairie dog populations (Collier and Spillett 1972, p. 36; 
Service 2010, p. 1.7-9). Thus, we conclude that predation can be a 
localized threat to some Utah prairie dog colonies, but we have no 
information to indicate that predation places the species in danger of 
extinction.
    We agree with the petitioners that plague is a threat to the Utah 
prairie dog; this threat is one of the primary reasons that the species 
is listed as threatened. Plague was identified as a threat to the 
species in the 1984 reclassification (49 FR 22330) rule and the 1991 
Recovery Plan. In the Draft Revised Recovery Plan, plague is in the top 
tier of threats to the species and is considered to be a primary threat 
to the species' survival and conservation (Service 2010, p. 1.7-7). We 
discussed plague in our 2007 finding, and present updated information 
to consider in this finding.
    We acknowledge that plague exists within all three Utah prairie dog 
recovery units; individual Utah prairie dog colonies are affected by 
the disease; and there is currently no mechanism available to prevent 
periodic plague events from reoccurring. However, we conclude that the 
Petitioners mischaracterized how plague spreads through Utah prairie 
dog colonies and, therefore, its effects on the species, by primarily 
relying on results from studies of Gunnison's and black-tailed prairie 
dogs. For example, as discussed under A. Present or Threatened 
Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range, 
white-tailed and Utah prairie dog colonies are less dense and more 
widely dispersed than black-tailed or Gunnison prairie dog colonies. 
Studies of Gunnison's and black-tailed prairie dogs have shown that the 
higher density of their colonies contributes to plague transmission and 
subsequent mortality (Cully 1993, p. 40; Cully and Williams 2001, p. 
901). Therefore, the lower density of white-tailed and Utah prairie dog 
colonies may slow plague transmission rates and reduce the overall 
long-term impact of the disease (Cully 1993, p. 40; Cully and Williams 
2001, p. 901).
    Social and behavioral traits of the Utah prairie dogs also may 
reduce the transmission of plague. Utah prairie dogs are more 
behaviorally similar to white-tailed prairie dogs than black-tailed 
prairie dogs. White-tailed prairie dogs (and similarly, Utah prairie 
dogs) spend less time socializing than black-tailed or Gunnison prairie 
dogs; this characteristic appears to favor their long-term persistence 
in a plague environment (Biggins and Kosoy 2001, p. 64; 75 FR 30338). 
Hibernation by Utah and white-tailed prairie dogs also may reduce or 
delay plague transmission among individual animals (Barnes 1993, p. 
34).
    Since our 2007 finding, we have learned more about potential 
methods to minimize the impacts of plague. Deltamethrin and Pyraperm 
are two insecticides (``dust'') used to successfully control fleas on 
colonies of different prairie dog species, resulting in higher prairie 
dog survival rates (Seery et al. 2003, p. 721; Hoogland et al. 2004, p. 
379; Biggins et al. in press 2009). Experimental vaccine-laden baits 
are being studied to determine their effectiveness in immunizing 
prairie dogs against plague; initial lab results showed high level of 
survival of black-tailed prairie dogs (Mencher et al. 2004, p. 5504; 
Rocke et al. 2008, p. 935). A systemic flea control bait is being 
tested to reduce flea loads on Utah prairie dogs, the primary vector in 
spreading plague in prairie dogs (Poche et al. 2008, pp. 11, 31-32; 
Jachowski 2009, pp. 14-16, 19-22). Although there are many ongoing 
efforts to mediate this threat to the Utah prairie dog, we do not yet 
know the long-term effectiveness of these plague-control methods, and 
thus do not rely on their potential success for our conclusions.
    In summary, we acknowledge that plague is a threat to the Utah 
prairie dog. In fact, plague is one of the primary reasons the Utah 
prairie dog remains listed as a threatened species. However, as 
previously noted, Utah prairie dog population trends remain stable to 
increasing (see Figure 1 above) despite the long-term presence of 
plague in the environment. Thus, we find that the information provided 
in the petition, as well as other information in our files, does not 
present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that uplisting from threatened to endangered under the Act may be 
warranted due to the effects of disease and predation.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Information Provided in the Petition
    The Petitioners make several assertions regarding the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms, specifically discussing: (1) 
Downlisting; (2) the special 4(d) rule; (3) the Recovery Plan and 
Interim Conservation Strategy; (4) Federal land management policies; 
and (5) section 10 HCPs.
Downlisting
    The Petitioners state that there was little basis for UDWR to 
request that the species be delisted in 1984 and little basis for the 
Service to partially grant the request by downlisting the Utah prairie 
dog to threatened. The Petitioners base their conclusion largely on 
Utah prairie dog population trend data from 1976 to 1983. They conclude 
that the Service originally downlisted the Utah prairie dog in 1984 for 
political reasons, and that the species has suffered since that 
downlisting (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 103).
Special 4(d) Rule
    In those circumstances where the standard regulatory provisions 
under the Act may not be necessary or appropriate for a threatened 
species, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior has the 
discretion under section 4(d) of the Act to determine in a special rule 
those measures and prohibitions that are necessary and advisable for 
the conservation of that species. The Petitioners evaluated the 1984 
(49 FR 22330) and 1991 (56 FR 27438) special 4(d) rules for the Utah 
prairie dog. These special rules, as implemented by UDWR, authorize 
take of prairie dogs on agricultural lands. The Petitioners claim that, 
when considered cumulatively with threats such as translocation, 
habitat loss, and plague, the special 4(d) rule is likely harming the 
Utah prairie dog because of the species' low rate of reproduction 
(Hoogland 2001, pp. 918-924; Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 107).
Recovery Plan and Interim Conservation Strategy
    The Petitioners assert that the Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Plan 
contributes to declines of the Utah prairie dog. They

[[Page 36063]]

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

[[Page 36064]]

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

[[Page 36065]]

Curtailment of its Habitat or Range above, these activities do not put 
the species in danger of extinction. Thus, we conclude that the 
information regarding the effects of Federal land management policies 
does not indicate that uplisting to endangered may be warranted.
Section 10 Habitat Conservation Plans
    In our 2007 90-day finding, we discussed the Iron County HCP, the 
Garfield County HCP (never finalized), and an additional HCP (now 
called the Golf Course HCP) (finalized in 2007). In the section of this 
finding entitled A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range, we again conclude that the 
information regarding the effects of urban development and the 
associated HCPs does not indicate that uplisting to endangered may be 
warranted.
Summary of Factor D
    Federal regulatory mechanisms apply in whole or in part to threats 
described in the sections discussing Factors A, B, C, and E. We 
conclude in this finding that we do not have substantial information 
from the Petitioners or in our files that indicates that those threats, 
as managed under current regulatory mechanisms, rise to the level that 
places the species in current danger of extinction. We have 
supplemented this section with new information since our 2007 90-day 
finding, and our evaluation continues to support our conclusion. 
Therefore, we find that the information provided in the petition, as 
well as other information in our files, does not present substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that uplisting from 
threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted due to 
inadequate regulatory mechanisms.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued Existence 
of the Species

Information Provided in the Petition
    The Petitioners state that rodent control efforts, the Utah prairie 
dog translocation program, and drought present significant threats to 
Utah prairie dogs. The petition cites legal take under the special 4(d) 
rule (50 CFR 17.40(g)) and ongoing illegal poisoning and shooting as 
endangering the species (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 161-162). In 
particular, the Petitioners point out that control of Utah prairie dogs 
under the special 4(d) rule has resulted in legal take of 14,002 
prairie dogs (as of 2003) and suggest that annual take levels may be 
contributing to population declines (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, pp. 
162-163). The petition alleges that any illegal poisoning that occurs 
increases the magnitude of permitted take (Forest Guardians et al. 
2003, p. 165). The petition calls the translocation program a failure, 
stating that translocations have not resulted in an increase of Utah 
prairie dog populations on public lands, and have resulted in a loss of 
animals on private lands (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 166). The 
petition points out that many translocation sites do not meet Interim 
Conservation Strategy vegetation guidelines, and that Utah prairie dogs 
translocated to the Adams Well site have lost weight, thus making them 
less likely to survive through winter (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, 
pp. 170-184). The petition states that, although drought is a naturally 
occurring phenomenon, continuing livestock grazing during drought 
conditions exacerbates the effects of drought on Utah prairie dogs 
(McDonald 1993, pp. 16-17; Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 185).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    The threat addressed in the petition regarding the relationship of 
drought and livestock grazing regimes on Utah prairie dog habitat is 
discussed under A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of its Habitat or Range. We acknowledged that improper 
grazing can impact the species during drought conditions in site-
specific areas, but the information presented by the Petitioners and in 
our files does not indicate that this warrants uplisting to endangered 
status. Illegal shooting is discussed under B. Overutilization for 
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes. Legal 
take occurring in compliance with the special 4(d) rule (50 CFR 
17.40(g)) is discussed under D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 
Mechanisms. We concluded that these threats are all part of the reason 
that the species remains listed as threatened; however, none of these 
factors rise to the level that places the Utah prairie dog currently in 
danger of extinction (see ``Livestock Grazing'' under ``A., Present or 
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or 
Range''; see ``Illegal shooting'' under ``B., Overutilization for 
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes''; and 
see ``Special 4(d) Rule'' under ``D., Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 
Mechanisms'').
    The translocation program is discussed in the next several 
paragraphs, including additional information evaluated since our 2007 
90-day finding. Translocation of Utah prairie dogs is used to increase 
the numbers of prairie dog colonies in new locations across the 
species' range. Translocation of Utah prairie dogs occurs within and 
between recovery units in part to address the species' limited levels 
of genetic diversity (Service 1991, p. 19; Roberts et al. 2000, p. 45). 
Translocation efforts include habitat enhancement at selected 
translocation sites and live trapping of Utah prairie dogs from 
existing colonies to move them to the selected translocation sites.
    We acknowledge that the translocation program was historically not 
as successful as predicted. As translocation methodology has improved 
(Jacquart et al. 1986, pp. 54-55; Coffeen 1989, p. 7; Truett et al. 
2001, pp. 868-869), so has our success rate (Service 2010, pp. 1.9-1 to 
1.9-3). For example, 12 of 15 (80 percent) post-1986 translocation 
sites still had prairie dogs present in 1992, whereas only 5 of 23 (22 
percent) of pre-1986 translocation sites were still occupied by prairie 
dogs in 1992. Furthermore, by 1992, post-1986 translocation sites had a 
significantly higher number of prairie dogs per site (840 animals) 
versus pre-1986 translocation sites (157 animals). By 2008, 23,359 Utah 
prairie dogs had been translocated from private to public lands 
(McDonald 1993, p. 39; Table 4, p. 42; Bonzo and Day 2003, pp. 14-16; 
Brown pers. comm. 2009). As of 2009, 24 translocation sites were 
occupied: Four of 8 sites in the Awapa Plateau recovery unit; 6 of 8 
sites in the Paunsaugunt recovery unit; and 14 of 20 sites in the West 
Desert recovery unit (Brown pers. comm. 2009) (these are not 
necessarily the same sites described in the 1980s and 1990s, as new 
translocation sites are sometimes developed while some old sites may no 
longer be in use). While translocation success and survival rates were 
historically low, they have improved over time and it is noteworthy 
that translocation has resulted in the establishment of new colonies.
    The Service's 2006 Recommended Translocation Procedures define 
specific procedures for locating translocation sites, preparing the 
sites, live trapping, handling, transporting, releasing, monitoring, 
and managing animals (Service 2010, Appendix D). For example, current 
translocation procedures include restrictions on the timing of 
movements for certain age and sex categories (i.e., early translocation 
of males to aid in establishing burrows for subsequent females and 
juveniles

[[Page 36066]]

released in late summer) (Jacquart 1986, p. 54). Supplemental food and 
water are used at new translocation sites to increase survival because 
increased energy expenditures are incurred during the trapping and 
transport process; increased stimuli of a new environment; increased 
burrowing activity upon release; and increased vigilance of newly 
released prairie dogs (Truett et al. 2001, p. 869). We also use 
retention cages to keep the newly translocated prairie dogs at the 
intended release areas and exclude predators (Truett et al. 2001, pp. 
868-869). Furthermore, in an effort to minimize the potential for 
plague transmission between colonies, prairie dogs are not translocated 
into already-established colonies; animals are not captured and moved 
from any colonies where plague is suspected; all animals are treated 
with an insecticide called Deltamethrin (Delta dust) prior to release 
at translocation sites; and translocation colonies are provided 
additional treatments of Delta dust as needed. These safeguards appear 
to be further improving translocation success.
    We conclude, based on the long-term stable-to-increasing Utah 
prairie dog rangewide population trends, that there is no indication 
that translocations have moved the species' trajectory toward 
endangerment, despite the mortality of individual animals. Overall, 
translocations have resulted in the establishment of new Utah prairie 
dog colonies on Federal lands. Translocations will continue to play an 
important role in recovery of the Utah prairie dog (Service 2010, p. 
2.3-4). Thus, we find that the information provided in the petition, as 
well as other information in our files, does not present substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that uplisting from 
threatened to endangered under the Act may be warranted due to other 
natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence.

Finding

    In summary, we agree with the Petitioners' overall identification 
of threats to the Utah prairie dog. Our 2010 Draft Revised Recovery 
Plan identifies all of the threats raised by the petitioners, 
concluding that urbanization and plague remain the top-tier threats to 
the species (Service 2010, pp. 2.3-1 to 2.3-2). However, the petition 
does not present substantial information indicating that the level of 
threats to the species may place the Utah prairie dog in current danger 
of extinction. Long-term population trends since the downlisting of 
Utah prairie dog in 1984 remain stable to increasing, indicating that 
the threats, while they still exist, are not negatively changing the 
population trends. In addition, the species is already listed as 
threatened under the Act, and is already subject to, and receives 
protection from, the regulatory mechanisms of the Act. As stated in the 
``Background'' section, a threatened species is defined as a species 
which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The level 
of threats facing Utah prairie dogs indicates that the species should 
continue to be listed as threatened. This decision is consistent with 
our original ``not substantial'' determination when we first evaluated 
and presented our findings in 2007 (72 FR 7843).

Additional Findings in Compliance With Court Order

    On September 28, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia ordered the 2007 90-day finding to be vacated and remanded to 
the Service for two reasons:
    (1) The Service failed to explain how the reduction in the Utah 
prairie dog's historical range did not indicate that reclassifying the 
species as endangered may be warranted, and failed to explain how the 
reduction in the Utah prairie dog's historical range does not 
constitute a ``significant portion of the species' range.''
    (2) The Service failed to explain whether the listing factors' 
cumulative effect indicates that reclassifying the Utah prairie dog as 
endangered may be warranted.
    The following sections are incorporated into this 90-day finding in 
order to comply with the Court's order. Below we explain our listing 
process, outline the information provided in the petition, evaluate the 
information in the petition and available in our files, discuss our 
interpretation of both ``significant portion of the range'' and 
``cumulative effect,'' and summarize our findings on these topics.
Significant Portion of the Range
    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires 
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or 
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We 
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, 
supporting information submitted with the petition, and information 
otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we 
are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition, 
and publish our notice of this finding promptly in the Federal 
Register.
    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that, for any petition that 
is found to contain substantial scientific or commercial information 
that listing or reclassifying the species may be warranted, we conduct 
a status review and make a finding within 12 months of the date of 
receipt of the petition. In the 12-month finding, we determine whether 
the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) 
warranted but precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether 
species are threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress is being 
made to add or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We must publish these 
12-month findings in the Federal Register.
    At the 12-month finding stage, we consider the five factors in 
assessing whether a petitioned entity is threatened or endangered 
throughout all of its range. If we determine that the petitioned entity 
does not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species 
throughout all of its range, we must next consider in the 12-month 
finding whether there are any significant portions of the range where 
the petitioned entity is in danger of extinction or is likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future.
    A portion of a species' range is significant if it is part of the 
current range of the species and it contributes substantially to the 
representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. The 
contribution must be at a level such that its loss would result in a 
decrease in the ability to conserve the species.
    In determining whether a species is threatened or endangered in a 
significant portion of its range, we first identify any portions of the 
current range of the species that warrant further consideration. The 
range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions an 
infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing 
portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant 
and threatened or endangered. To identify only those portions that 
warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is 
substantial information indicating that: (1) The portions may be 
significant and (2) the species may be currently in danger of 
extinction. In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the 
threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to 
the species are essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion is 
likely to warrant further consideration.

[[Page 36067]]

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

[[Page 36068]]

Cumulative Effects of Listing Factors
Information Provided in the Petition
    The Petitioners assert that Utah prairie dog viability is 
cumulatively impacted by all five of the listing factors. They state 
that activities such as destruction and degradation of private and 
public lands, inadequate habitat conservation planning, illegal 
shooting and poisoning, an ineffective translocation program, and 
plague cumulatively impact Utah prairie dog persistence and, therefore, 
necessitate the reclassification of the species from threatened to 
endangered (Forest Guardians et al. 2003, p. 186).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in 
Service Files
    We acknowledge that the Utah prairie dog is threatened by several 
factors, most notably habitat loss and degradation from urbanization, 
and plague (Service 2010, p. 1.8-3). Ongoing threats, as described in 
the discussion of Factors A through E, include livestock grazing, road 
construction, OHV and recreational use, habitat loss from agricultural 
and urban land conversions, illegal shooting, and plague. The species 
is listed as threatened because of these factors.
    Throughout this finding, we clearly identified the effects of each 
of these factors to the Utah prairie dog. In many cases, we identified 
that the effects are often localized to specific areas within the 
species' range. For example, the threat of urbanization is greatest in 
the West Desert recovery unit (see ``Habitat Loss from Agricultural and 
Urban Land Conversion'' under ``A., Present or Threatened Destruction, 
Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range''); albeit it is 
one of the largest overall threats to the species. Livestock grazing 
can be a threat to the species in site-specific areas where improper 
grazing negatively affects habitat conditions (see ``Livestock 
Grazing'' under ``A., Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, 
or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range''). Road construction, OHV use, 
and recreation may have effects to individuals or colonies that occur 
adjacent to the roadways, trails, or play areas; however, these are 
localized areas and do not result in population-level effects (see 
``Road Construction, Off-Highway Vehicle Use, and Recreation'' under 
``A., Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of its Habitat or Range''). Furthermore, there is an increased planning 
effort on Federal lands toward directing these activities away from 
Utah prairie dog habitats (Service 2010, p. 1.7-4). Existing and 
anticipated oil and gas development occurs on only a small percentage 
of the species habitat, and even then effects are minimized by Federal 
minimization and mitigation requirements that avoid impacts to suitable 
prairie dog habitats (see ``Oil, Gas, and Mineral Development'' under 
``A., Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of its Habitat or Range''). Illegal shooting occurs in some instances, 
but we have only documented isolated incidents. Illegal shooting is not 
widespread across the species' range (see ``B., Overutilization for 
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes''). 
Similarly, predation is a natural occurrence in Utah prairie dog 
colonies. Effects are normally realized in only isolated instances at 
highly fragmented colonies or at new translocation sites (see ``C., 
Disease or Predation'').
    We determined that none of these threats, by themselves, act to 
place the species in current danger of extinction. Although most of the 
threats we analyzed have localized distributions, it is possible that 
more than one threat may act together to cause the local reduction or 
extirpation of a colony. However, at a rangewide level, Utah prairie 
dog population trends are stable to increasing, indicating that the 
factors identified above, both individually and cumulatively, have no 
broad-scale effects that threaten the species to the extent that it is 
currently in danger of extinction.
    Plague occurs across the species' entire range, and could certainly 
act cumulatively with other threat factors to cause individual colonies 
to be reduced in size or extirpated (see ``C., Disease or Predation''). 
For example, if habitat is degraded from overgrazing or wildfire, it 
may hinder the ability of prairie dogs to reestablish a colony that is 
reduced or eliminated by plague.
    However, despite the fact that plague and the other threats to the 
species have occurred for decades, and sometimes act cumulatively to 
affect individual colonies or complexes, the population trend of the 
Utah prairie dog remains stable to increasing across the species' 
range. Therefore, we conclude that the cumulative effects of these 
factors do not threaten the species to the extent that reclassifying 
the species from threatened to endangered may be warranted.
    On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 
Act, we conclude that the petition does not present substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that reclassifying the 
Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens) under the Act as an endangered 
species may be warranted at this time. Although we will not review the 
status of the species at this time, we encourage interested parties to 
continue to gather data that will assist with the conservation of the 
Utah prairie dog. If you wish to provide information regarding the Utah 
prairie dog, you may submit your information or materials to the Field 
Supervisor, Utah Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES), at 
any time.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Utah Ecological 
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
Utah Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES). The primary 
authors of the 90-day finding published on February 21, 2007, were the 
staff members of both the Utah Ecological Services Field Office and the 
Colorado Ecological Services Field Office.

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: June 7, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-15283 Filed 6-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P