Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64889

threats to the species are minimal to 

low. Public agencies and organizations 

have also implemented actions that 

have eliminated or reduced the threats 

to various populations of C. deserticola

(e.g., elimination of grazing from the 

Pilot Knob grazing allotment and the 

Harper Lake grazing allotment). Of 

particular importance, EAFB, where the 

vast majority of populations 

(approximately 87 percent) are known 

to occur, has included and implemented 

conservation measures for C. deserticola

in the most recent revision to its 

INRMP. Overall, threats to C. deserticola

on EAFB are minimal (Table 1).

TABLE 1.—GENERAL SUMMARY OF THE STATUS OF THE 105 TOTAL KNOWN POPULATIONS OF DESERT CYMOPTERUS

(Cymopterus deserticola) 

Basin General land ownership 

Number of 

known

populations 

Identified threats Status of threats Threat level 

Rogers Dry Lake ............. Edwards Air Force Base 

(EAFB).

91 Cleanup ......................... Not occurring ................. None. 

Military activities ............ Limited activities ............ Minimal. 

Grazing .......................... Fencing installed on 

EAFB.

Minimal. 

Utilities ........................... No new corridors ........... Minimal. 

Inadequacy of management.INRMP modified ............ Minimal. 

Cuddeback Dry Lake ...... BLM ............................... 4 Grazing .......................... None in 49,000 acre 

Pilot Knob allotment.

None to Minimal. 

Off Highway Vehicle 

(OHV) use.

Limited use .................... Minimal to low. 

Energy ........................... Not expected ................. None. 

Harper Dry Lake ............. BLM/private ................... 6 Grazing .......................... Eliminated as mitigation 

for Ft. Irwin expansion.

None to Minimal. 

OHV use ........................ Moderate use ................ Low. 

Energy ........................... Not expected ................. None. 

Utilities ........................... No new corridors ........... Minimal. 

Superior Dry Lake ........... Ft. Irwin ......................... 4 Military activities ............ Protection of large population.

1 None to high. 

1Ft. Irwin has eliminated the threats to one large, 366-plant population. Threats from military training to the other three populations are moderate to high. 

We will continue to monitor the 

status of this species and will accept 

additional information and comments 

from all concerned governmental 

agencies, the scientific community, 

industry, or any other interested party 

concerning this finding. This 

information will help us monitor and 

encourage beneficial measures for this 

species. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available on request from the 

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Author 

The primary author of this document 

is Robert McMorran, Ventura Fish and 

Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (see ADDRESSES section). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: October 29, 2004. 

Marshall P. Jones Jr., 

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 04–24700 Filed 11–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the White-Tailed Prairie 

Dog as Threatened or Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

white-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys 

leucurus) as threatened or endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended. We find the petition 

and other information available do not 

provide substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing this species may be warranted. 

Therefore, we will not be initiating a 

further status review in response to this 

petition. We ask the public to submit to 

us any new information that becomes 

available concerning the status of the 

species or threats to it. This will help us 

monitor and encourage the conservation 

of the species.

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on November 2, 

2004. You may submit new information 

concerning this species for our 

consideration at any time.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this 

finding is available for inspection 

during normal business hours at the 

Utah Ecological Services Field Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2369 

West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West Valley 

City, Utah 84119. Submit new 

information, materials, comments or 

questions concerning this taxon to the 

Service at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Henry Maddux, Field Supervisor, at the 

address given in the ADDRESSES section 

or telephone 801–975–3330 or facsimile 

801–975–3331.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended 

(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 

64890 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

the requested action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

and all other information available to us 

at the time the finding was made. Our 

standard for substantial information 

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)). When a substantial 

determination is made, we are required 

to promptly begin a review of the status 

of the species, if one is not already 

initiated. 

On July 15, 2002, we received a 

formal petition to list the white-tailed 

prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus) as 

threatened or endangered, in accordance 

with provisions in section 4 of the ESA. 

The petition was filed by the Center for 

Native Ecosystems, Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance, Southern Utah 

Wilderness Alliance, American Lands 

Alliance, Forest Guardians, the Ecology 

Center, Sinapu, and Terry Tempest 

Williams. 

On August 27, 2002, we 

acknowledged receipt of the petition 

and advised the petitioners we would 

not be able to process the petition in a 

timely manner. On November 29, 2002, 

we received a notice of intent to sue 

from the petitioners concerning our 

failure to produce a 90-day finding on 

the subject petition in accordance with 

the provisions of section 4 of the ESA. 

We responded on February 11, 2003, 

reiterating that we would not be able to 

begin an evaluation of the white-tailed 

prairie dog petition until work on the 

higher priority activities was completed. 

On February 20, 2003, the petitioners 

filed a complaint to compel the USFWS 

to make a 90-day finding. This 90-day 

petition finding is made in accordance 

with a settlement agreement that 

requires us to complete a finding on the 

petition to list the white-tailed prairie 

dog by October 31, 2004 [Center for 

Native Ecosystems, et al. v. Norton et al. 

(cv–03–31–M (DWM))]. 

The contents of this finding 

summarize that information included in 

the petition (cited as Center for Native 

Ecosystems 2002) and other information 

readily available to us in our files at the 

time of the petition review. Most 

notable of the other information we 

used in our review was the multi-state 

White-Tailed Prairie Dog Conservation 

Assessment (Conservation Assessment) 

(cited as Seglund et al. 2004). Beginning 

in 2003, the White-Tailed Prairie Dog 

Working Group of the State Prairie Dog 

Conservation Team began work on a 

species assessment. The Draft 

Conservation Assessment was released 

May 19, 2004, and the final 

Conservation Assessment was released 

August 31, 2004. While our 

determination is based on the contents 

of the petition submitted we also 

included in our review the information 

in the Conservation Assessment. 

Because it was not practicable to 

respond to the petition for 

approximately 2 years, we considered 

the information in the Conservation 

Assessment in order to ensure that the 

best available information was used in 

our review. Our review for the purposes 

of a so-called ‘‘90-day’’ finding under 

section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA and 

section 424.14(b) of our regulations is 

limited to a determination of whether 

the information in the petition meets the 

‘‘substantial scientific or commercial 

information’’ threshold. In the case of 

the white-tailed prairie dog, had the 

petition not met the ‘‘substantial 

scientific or commercial information’’

standard, but the Conservation 

Assessment had included substantial 

information, we would have used that 

information to make a positive 90-day 

finding. We do not conduct additional 

research at this stage of the process, but 

we do critically review the petition as 

to the scientific validity of the 

information presented therein. As the 

ESA and regulations contemplate, at the 

90-day finding we base our finding on 

the petitioner’s information and on 

other information readily available to us 

in our files at the time of the petition 

review. Our determination is whether 

this information is scientific and 

substantial. 

Biology and Distribution 

Taxonomy 

Prairie dogs are in the squirrel family, 

Sciuridae, and are endemic to North 

America (Hollister 1916; Hoogland 

2003; Seglund et al. 2004). The whitetailed prairie dog is one of five prairie 

dog species that inhabit western North 

America. Prairie dogs belong to the 

genus Cynomys (Hollister 1916). The 

genus has been split into two subgenera 

(Clark et al. 1971, Pizzimenti 1975). 

Utah (Cynomys parvidens), Gunnison 

(Cynomys gunnisoni), and white-tailed 

prairie dogs are the three species that 

make up the subgenus 

Leucocrossuromys (Hollister 1916, Clark 

et al. 1971). Although Burt and 

Grossenheimer (1964 as cited in 

Knowles 2002) considered all members 

of the subgenus Leucocrossuromys to be 

a single species, based on Pizzimenti’s 

(1975) work, it is doubtful that the 

single species concept for the subgenus 

Leucocrossuromys is valid (Knowles 

2002). According to Knowles (2002), 

there is sufficient genetic and 

morphological evidence to conclude 

that there are three separate species 

within the white-tailed prairie dog 

subgenera. The subgenus Cynomys

includes black-tailed (Cynomys 

ludovicianus) and Mexican prairie dogs 

(Cynomys mexicanus). The 

Leucocrossuromys subgenus prairie 

dogs have short tails with white tips and 

have weaker social structures than the 

Cynomys subgenus (Pizzimenti 1975). 

Species Description 

The white-tailed prairie dog is the 

largest member of the subgenera 

Leucocrossuromys, and is only slightly 

smaller than black-tailed and Mexican 

prairie dogs (Clark et al. 1971). They are 

between 315–400 millimeters (mm) 

(12.4–16.7 inches (in)) in length with a 

tail length of 40–65 mm (1.6–2.6 in) and 

weigh between 650–1,700 grams (g) (23–

60 ounces (oz)) (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). 

The tail has a grayish white tip and is 

white on the entire terminal half 

(Merriam 1890, Fitzgerald et al. 1994). 

The coat is generally gray (Hollister 

1916). They have distinctive dark brown 

or black cheek patches that extend 

above the eye with a lighter black stripe 

that extends below the eye onto the 

cheek (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Male 

white-tailed prairie dogs are on average 

larger than females (Fitzgerald et al.

1994). 

Ecology and Life History

Unlike black-tailed prairie dogs that 

live in grass-dominated habitats, whitetailed prairie dogs are found in drier 

landscapes including shrublands, semidesert grasslands, and mountain valleys 

(Tileston and Lechleitner 1966; Clark 

1977; Collins and Lichvar 1986; 

Fitzgerald et al. 1994; Gadd 2000). Like 

other prairie dog species, white-tailed 

prairie dogs rely on good visibility to 

enable them to see predators; however, 

they do not clip taller vegetation like 

black-tailed prairie dogs (Clark 1977). 

White-tailed prairie dogs occur at 

elevations ranging from 1,150 to 3,200 

meters (m) (3,800 to 10,500 feet (ft)) 

(Tileston and Lechleitner 1966). Their 

habitats are generally on low slopes or 

level ground (Forrest et al. 1985, Collins 

and Lichvar 1986). 

All prairie dogs are primarily 

herbivorous, and mainly forage on 

grasses and forbs (Stockard 1929, Kelso 

1939). Although prairie dogs prefer 

forbs, they will consume other plants 

seasonally; for example, prairie dogs 

browse upon sagebrush and saltbush 

during early spring, grasses in summer, 

and seed heads following grass and 

sedge flowering (Kelso 1939, Tileston 

and Lechleitner 1966). Prairie dogs 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64891

obtain most of their water requirements 

through vegetation, and may become 

water-stressed if sufficient succulent 

vegetation is unavailable (Stockard 

1929, Seglund et al. 2004). 

White-tailed prairie dogs breed once a 

year and have a single litter averaging 

four to five pups (Hoogland 2001). They 

can reproduce at 1 year of age (Cooke 

1993). Breeding occurs from late March 

to mid-April (Tileston and Lechleitner 

1966). Pups are born in the burrows 

after a gestation period of approximately 

30 days (Tileston and Lechleitner 1966), 

and emerge for the first time 4 to 6 

weeks after birth (Bakko and Brown 

1967). Reproductive success ranges from 

30 to 60 percent (Tileston and 

Lechleitner 1966, Bakko and Brown 

1967, Menkens and Anderson 1989). 

Animal densities within white-tailed 

prairie dog colonies are significantly 

lower than in black-tailed prairie dog 

colonies (Eskey and Haas 1940; Tileston 

and Lechleitner 1966; Hoogland 1981; 

Clark et al. 1985). In white-tailed prairie 

dog colonies surveyed for black-footed 

ferret (Mustela nigripes) recovery, 

Biggins et al. (1993) reported a density 

range of 5.7–16.1 prairie dogs per 

hectare (ha) (2.3–6.5 prairie dogs per 

acre (ac)). Surveys of other white-tailed 

prairie dog colonies reported densities 

ranging between 0.7 and 7.9 prairie dogs 

per ha (0.3–3.2 prairie dogs per ac) 

(Tileston and Lechleitner 1966, Clark 

1977). In comparison, black-tailed 

prairie dog densities vary depending 

upon the season, region, and climatic 

conditions, but typically are higher and 

range from 5 to 45 individuals per ha (2 

to 18 individuals per ac) (Fagerstone 

and Ramey 1996, Hoogland 1995, King 

1955, Koford 1958, and Miller et al.

1996, as cited in 69 FR 51218). 

Prairie dogs are semi-fossorial (or 

adapted for digging) and construct their 

own burrow systems. Burrow systems 

can be extensive, with numerous 

entrances. The density of burrows varies 

based on the food resources available 

(Clark 1977). All prairie dog species are 

social and rely on a social structure for 

survival. Therefore, burrow systems are 

grouped together (Clark 1977). Burrow 

systems within one male’s territory 

makes up a coterie (Hoogland 1995). A 

concentration of prairie dogs with a 

minimum of 20 burrows per ha (8 

burrows per ac) on at least 5 ha (12 ac) 

comprises a colony (Seglund et al.

2004). Determining what constitutes the 

boundary of a white-tailed prairie dog 

colony is particularly difficult because 

white-tailed prairie dogs are more 

sparsely distributed than black-tailed 

prairie dogs (Seglund et al. 2004). 

The definition of a complex and 

subcomplex has been defined in terms 

of black-footed ferret dispersal 

capabilities. It is unclear if these 

definitions are entirely adequate for 

white-tailed prairie dogs. A complex is 

a group of prairie dog colonies between 

which individual black-footed ferrets 

can migrate between them commonly 

and frequently. Colonies within a 

complex are separated from the nearest 

colony by no more than 7 kilometers 

(km) (4 miles (mi)), with no impassable 

barriers between the colonies (Seglund 

et al. 2004). A subcomplex is defined as 

an aggregation of colonies separated 

from the nearest adjacent group by no 

more than 7 km (4 mi), but due to 

various non-biological factors (e.g., State 

boundaries, land ownership) the whole 

complex is not surveyed and 

management occurs on only a portion of 

the entire complex (Seglund et al. 2004). 

White-tailed prairie dogs are active 

approximately 5 to 7 months per year, 

from early spring to fall (Clark 1977, 

Cooke 1993). Unlike black-tailed prairie 

dogs, white-tailed prairie dogs are 

obligate hibernators (Harlow and 

Menkens 1986, Harlow and Braun 

1995). They hibernate in late fall and 

winter (Cooke 1993). The amount of 

time spent hibernating is determined by 

availability of food resources (Clark 

1977). In warm weather, even in midwinter, if grasses are growing, whitetailed prairie dogs have been observed 

feeding (Hollister 1916, Goodrich and 

Buskirk 1998). 

Distribution, Abundance, and Trends 

White-tailed prairie dogs’ distribution 

ranges across four States—Wyoming, 

Colorado, Utah, and Montana (Knowles 

2002). According to Knowles (2002), the 

range of white-tailed prairie dogs has 

not changed appreciably from the 

historical range. There are indications 

that abundance may have declined as a 

result of past control efforts and plague. 

However, historical abundance and 

distribution are not well documented 

for white-tailed prairie dogs (Seglund et 

al. 2004). In addition, white-tailed 

prairie dog surveys have used varying 

methodologies, have not always clearly 

specified occupied or unoccupied 

habitats, and have been conducted in 

areas of varying size (Seglund et al.

2004). 

Accurate, comprehensive inventories 

of currently occupied white-tailed 

prairie dog habitat in each State are not 

available. The petitioners use a Gap 

Analysis predictive model to estimate 

17,719,220 ha (43,785,146 ac) of 

historically suitable habitat range wide. 

The petition estimates currently 

occupied habitat at 325,526 ha (804,392 

ac). The Conservation Assessment 

estimates the historical range of the 

white-tailed prairie dogs was 20,224,807 

ha (49,974,813 ac). The Conservation 

Assessment estimates there are 340,470 

ha (841,300 ac) of currently occupied 

habitat. 

Neither the petition nor the 

Conservation Assessment provides a 

population estimate for white-tailed 

prairie dogs. Developing a reliable 

population estimate for white-tailed 

prairie dogs is complicated by the lack 

of accurate range-wide estimates of 

occupied acreage and limited density 

data. 

Most of the multi-year white-tailed 

prairie dog data available is for large 

complexes that have been considered 

and monitored for black-footed ferret 

reintroduction. Other data exist 

throughout the range of the species, but 

they are limited to a single data point. 

Data on these larger complexes were 

collected in conjunction with blackfooted ferret reintroduction efforts. The 

large white-tailed prairie dog complexes 

that were considered suitable as blackfooted ferret habitat have been mapped 

and monitored. Because the data were 

collected for the purpose of determining 

habitat suitability for black-footed ferret 

reintroduction, we do not have specific 

population or trend information for 

smaller colonies and complexes across 

the species range. Where population 

estimates are not available, smaller 

colonies or complexes are described 

only by their presence and general 

location. 

Concerns exist regarding the efficacy 

of using black-footed ferret survey data 

to evaluate the status of white-tailed 

prairie dog populations due to the 

questionable correlation between counts 

of active burrows and densities of 

animals (Menkens 1987, Severson and 

Plumb 1998, Powell et al. 1994). 

Estimates of occupied habitat are 

similarly complicated in part due to 

white-tailed prairie dog behavior. 

Burrow densities and activity levels are 

variable throughout a colony and 

mapping efforts have thus often utilized 

topographic features to describe colony 

and complex boundaries (Seglund et al.

2004). 

The Conservation Assessment 

attempted to alleviate sampling and data 

recording deficiencies by (1) presenting 

data state-by-state rather than portraying 

range-wide population trends, (2) only 

providing prairie-dog population 

information on black-footed ferret 

reintroduction sites surveyed for three 

or more years, and (3) only providing 

population information on areas greater 

than 1,500 ha (3,706 ac). Coeffecients of 

variation and standard deviations were 

calculated to evaluate population 

64892 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

estimate variability (Seglund et al.

2004). 

Inventory information on colonies 

and trends (if determinable) are detailed 

here by State. Table 1 lists those 

colonies with at least 3 years of 

monitoring data, consistent with 

information presented by the 

Conservation Assessment. Other, 

smaller colonies are identified and 

described in the text.

TABLE 1.—POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG COMPLEXES MONITORED FOR CONSIDERATION AS

POSSIBLE BLACK-FOOTED FERRET RE-INTRODUCTION SITES

[Data taken from Conservation Assessment, Seglund et al. 2004] 

State and colony 1988 1989 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Wyoming: 

Shirley Basin ........................ ............ ............ 30,389 29,828 14,551 5,916 7,564 19,876 10,343 6,547 7,161 6,669 34,698 ............ ............

Meeteetse ............................ 25,494 17,692 ............ ............ 1,299 ............ ............ ............ 7,095 ............ ............ 1,066 ............ ............ ............

Colorado: 

Coyote Basin ........................ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 3,132 ............ 5,509 6,666 3,545 3,677 1,055 

Wolf Creek—West ............... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 19,719 ............ 7,266 9,214 

Wolf Creek—East ................ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 10,331 8,212 10,754 

Utah: 

Coyote Basin ........................ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 43,205 39,565 38,180 33,438 37,424 54,444 14,031 

Kennedy Wash ..................... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 10,697 6,411 5,725 3,670 10,282 3,313 

Shiner Basin ......................... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 15,065 47,551 5,383 13,707 ............ ............ ............

Snake John .......................... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 49,346 50,437 31,118 

In Wyoming, white-tailed prairie dogs 

are found in Big Horn, Park, Hot 

Springs, Natrona, Fremont, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Lincoln, Uinta, Carbon, and 

Albany Counties (Seglund et al. 2004). 

The Conservation Assessment provides 

population information for three 

complexes: Meeteetse, Shirley Basin, 

and Kinney Rim. There are an 

additional 26 colonies identified by the 

Conservation Assessment and the 

Petition for which population numbers 

or trend information are not provided. 

The Meeteetse Complex, in Park 

County, declined from an estimated 

80,000 ha (200,000 ac) in 1915, to 4,900 

ha (12,000 ac) of prairie dogs in 1981 

when the last known wild black-footed 

ferrets were discovered there, to about 

3,000 ha (7,000 ac) in 1986, to about 200 

ha (500 ac) by 2000 (Knowles 2002). 

Population declines between 1915 and 

1981 were probably, primarily, the 

result of intensive federal control 

efforts. Recent population declines at 

Meeteetse are probably the result of 

plague which first appeared in this 

complex in the mid-1980s (Biggins 

2003, Seglund et al. 2004. Surveys in 

the Shirley Basin Complex, Carbon 

County, indicated large annual 

fluctuations of occupied habitat 

attributed to plague since 1991 (Seglund 

et al. 2004). From a high in 1991, the 

population declined approximately 78 

percent by 1997 and 1999, but recent 

estimates indicate that the population 

has recovered to levels similar to 1991 

numbers and densities. Number of 

colonies has doubled and occupied 

habitat has increased 50 percent since 

1990 (Seglund et al. 2004). Accurate 

population trends and occupied habitat 

data are unavailable for the Kinney Rim 

Complex, in Sweetwater County. Plague 

apparently reduced population densities 

in 1989; prairie dogs still occupied the 

complex by 1993 (Conway 1989 and 

Albee 1993, as cited in Seglund et al.

2004). The petition cites personal 

communications from B. Luce (2001) 

documenting substantial declines at this 

complex by 1995. No more recent 

specific data are reported. For other 

complexes in the State, we only have 

single-year estimates for complex size 

and, thus, no ability to assess trends. 

In Colorado, the range of the whitetailed prairie dog includes Moffat, 

Routt, Rio Blanco, Garfield, Mesa, Delta, 

Montrose, Eagle, Jackson, Ouray, and 

Larimer Counties (Seglund et al. 2004). 

The Conservation Assessment provides 

population information for three 

complexes: Little Snake, Wolf Creek, 

and Coyote Basin. Colonies also occur 

in 11 other counties or Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Resource Areas 

across Colorado for which population 

numbers or trend information are not 

provided. The Little Snake Complex, in 

Moffat County, encompassed 31,700 ha 

(78,300 ac) in 1989 (USFWS et al. 1995). 

In 1994, dramatic declines occurred at 

the same time plague-positive fleas were 

detected in the area (USFWS et al. 1995, 

Seglund et al. 2004). Inventories 

conducted on a portion of the Little 

Snake Complex in 1999 indicated a 90 

percent decline since 1990 surveys 

(Seglund et al. 2004). Surveys in 2002 

and 2003 indicated little if any change 

in prairie dog populations and drought 

conditions resulted in extensive 

vegetation losses which may have 

contributed to slow population recovery 

(Seglund et al. 2004). The Wolf Creek 

Complex, in Moffat and Rio Blanco 

Counties, was first mapped by Gilbert in 

1976. Plague resulted in over 75 percent 

declines in this complex and other areas 

of the White River BLM Resource area 

in the mid-1980’s (CDOW 1986, Seglund 

et al. 2004). Populations across the 

White River Resource area, including 

Wolf Creek, rebounded and approached 

pre-plague numbers by 1994 (Seglund et 

al. 2004). Surveys from 2000 through 

2003 show relatively stable prairie dog 

populations on the east side of Wolf 

Creek and a 50 percent decline on the 

west side of Wolf Creek (Seglund et al.

2004). The Coyote Basin Management 

Area, straddling the Utah-Colorado 

border, fluctuated from 3,132 whitetailed prairie dogs in 1997 to 6,666 

prairie dogs in 2000 to 1,055 prairie 

dogs in 2003 (Seglund et al. 2004); the 

2003 figures represent a 65 percent 

decline from 1997 levels and an 84 

percent decline from the high observed 

in 2000. 

In Utah, white-tailed prairie dogs 

occur in Rich, Summit, Daggett, Uintah, 

Duchesne, Carbon, Emery, and Grand 

Counties (Seglund et al. 2004). The 

Conservation Assessment provides 

population information for five 

complexes: Coyote Basin, Kennedy 

Wash, Shiner Basin, Snake John, and 

Cisco Desert. There are an additional 15 

colonies or areas that are identified as 

containing white-tailed prairie dog 

habitats, however, these areas have not 

been inventoried and there is no 

population trend information (Seglund 

et al. 2004). The Cisco Complex, in 

Grand County, has not been inventoried 

with consistent sampling techniques, 

however declines and low activity 

levels have been consistently reported 

since 1991 (Seglund et al. 2004). The 

Coyote Basin Subcomplex was first 

mapped in 1985 (Seglund et al. 2004). 

Prairie dog populations appeared 

relatively stable from 1997 through 2002 

(Seglund et al. 2004). A high population 

estimate of 54,444 prairie dogs was 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64893

reported in 2002 with a subsequent 75 

percent decline observed in 2003 

(Seglund et al. 2004). Kennedy Wash 

Subcomplex surveys show a similar 

pattern. Prairie dog population 

estimates were reported to be a high of 

10,000 animals in 1998 and again in 

2002 with downward trends of 50 to 60 

percent during interim years (Seglund et 

al. 2004). The Shiner Subcomplex 

declined by 44 percent between 1998 

and 2000 and has continued to support 

only low density prairie dog 

populations (Seglund et al. 2004). The 

Snake John Subcomplex maintained 

highs of approximately 50,000 prairie 

dogs in 2001 and 2002, followed by a 38 

percent decline in 2003; however, only 

3 years of data are available, so long 

term trends are unknown (Seglund et al.

2004). 

In Montana, white-tailed prairie dogs 

currently occur in Carbon County in the 

Clark Fork Valley (Seglund et al. 2004). 

Between 1975 and 1977, Flath (1979) 

identified 15 white-tailed prairie dog 

colonies in the State. In 1997, Flath 

revisited the 15 colonies and found only 

2 remaining, but 4 new colonies were 

also identified (Montana Prairie Dog 

Working Group 2002, as cited in 

Seglund et al. 2004). The petitioners 

listed the following white-tailed prairie 

dog colonies as having been 

extirpated—West Fork, Wolf Creek, 

Chance, Bridger, Warren colonies No. 7 

and No. 8, Bear Canyon colonies No. 9, 

No. 10, and No. 11, Gypsum Creek 

colonies No. 12 and No. 13, Silver Tip 

Creek, and Hunt Creek (D. Flath, 

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, pers. 

comm., as cited in Center for Native 

Ecosystems 2002). The petition asserts 

that these colonies have been extirpated 

for a variety of reasons including: 

plague (Warren colonies No. 7 and No. 

8, Bear Canyon colonies No. 9, No. 10, 

and No. 11, and Gypsum Creek colonies 

No. 12 and No. 13), poisoning (Bridger), 

urban development (West Fork), and 

conversion to agriculture (Wolf Creek, 

Chance, Silver Tip Creek, and Hunt 

Creek) (D. Flath, pers. comm., as cited 

in Center for Native Ecosystems 2002. 

Although Montana represents the 

northern edge of the white-tailed prairie 

dog’s range and totals less than 1 

percent of the predicted range of the 

species (Seglund et al. 2004), colonies in 

Montana provide insights into the 

possible effects of human-caused factors 

and disease on small populations. That 

said, there is no indication that trends 

in Montana are representative of small 

colony trends range-wide. Occupied 

habitat is estimated at 48 ha (119 ac) 

within six colonies, a decline of 85 

percent from the high of 280 ha (692 ac) 

within fifteen colonies in 1979.

TABLE 2.—MONTANA WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG (WTPD) OCCUPIED ACREAGE DATA BY COLONY

State and colony Colony size ha 

(ac) 1975–1977

Colony size ha 

(ac) 1999–2003

Montana: 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 2–4 (5–10) ..............................

2 ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.8 (2.0) ..............................

3 (Chance Bridge) ................................................................................................................................ 30–34 (74–84) 5.1 (12) 

4 ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 (20) ..............................

5 (Robertson Draw) .............................................................................................................................. 100 (250) 16.4 (40.5) 

6 ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 (2) ..............................

7 ............................................................................................................................................................ 28–40 (69–99) ..............................

8 ............................................................................................................................................................ 4–8 (10–20) ..............................

9 ............................................................................................................................................................ 32 (79) ..............................

10 .......................................................................................................................................................... 20–32 (50–79) ..............................

11 .......................................................................................................................................................... 16–24 (40–59) ..............................

12 .......................................................................................................................................................... 8–20 (20–49) ..............................

13 .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 (2) ..............................

14 .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.4–1 (1–2) ..............................

15 .......................................................................................................................................................... 1–4 (2–10) ..............................

Duplex ................................................................................................................................................... .............................. 9.1 (22) 

S. Sage Creek ...................................................................................................................................... .............................. 5.9 (15) 

Warren .................................................................................................................................................. .............................. 7.5 (19) 

Inferno Creek ........................................................................................................................................ .............................. 4.2 (10) 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 1 280 (690) 1 48 (120) 

1 May not add due to rounding. 

Source: Seglund et al. 2004. 

It should be noted that some level of 

natural fluctuation in population size, 

occupied acreage, and density is 

expected. Some white-tailed prairie dog 

populations have been reported to 

fluctuate by more than 50 percent 

between consecutive years (Menkens 

and Anderson 1989, as cited in Seglund 

et al. 2004). Variation in densities 

between years and also among habitats 

is likely driven partly by local ecology 

such as site-specific topography, soil 

type, climate and vegetation quantity 

and quality. The Conservation 

Assessment notes that the reason some 

colonies rebound quickly and others 

never recover completely are poorly 

understood. Disease, especially the 

introduced pathogen responsible for 

sylvatic plague (Yersinia pestis), may 

play a role in ‘‘amplifying population 

fluctuations’’ (Menkens 1987, Forrest et 

al. 1988, Seglund et al. 2004). 

Historically, white-tailed prairie dog 

populations were probably not static, 

but researchers have inferred that it is 

unlikely that populations fluctuated as 

dramatically as they do today (Seglund 

et al. 2004). However neither the 

petition nor the Conservation 

Assessment provide substantial 

scientific information on this inference 

specific to white-tailed prairie dogs. 

Observations of black-tailed prairie dogs 

provide some evidence that prairie dog 

populations may not have fluctuated 

historically to the extent that they do 

today. Biggins and Kosoy (2001) 

analyzed the role of the black-footed 

ferret and its relationship with prairie 

dogs. For example, plague has never 

been detected within black-tailed prairie 

dog colonies at Wind Cave National 

Park, South Dakota, and the population 

exhibits relatively stable yearly 

population levels (Hoogland 1995). This 

differs from a population at the Rocky 

Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife 

64894 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Refuge near Denver, Colorado where 

epizootics of plague are frequent and 

extreme population fluctuations are 

common (Biggins and Kosoy 2001). 

White-tailed prairie dogs lack a 

comparable example because there are 

no plague free portions of their range. 

Conservation Status 

Pursuant to section 4(a) of the ESA, 

we may list a species of any vertebrate 

taxon on the basis of any one of the 

following factors—(A) present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other manmade or 

natural factors affecting its continued 

existence. The petition asserts that the 

range of white-tailed prairie dog 

populations has been negatively affected 

by plague; recreational shooting; 

poisoning; oil, gas, and mineral 

extraction; conversion of habitat to 

agricultural use; urbanization; fire 

suppression; overgrazing; noxious 

weeds; drought; and climate change. 

Oil, gas, and mineral extraction, 

conversion of habitat to agricultural use, 

urbanization, overgrazing, fire 

suppression and the spread of noxious 

weeds are discussed under factor A. 

Recreational shooting is discussed 

under factor B. Plague is discussed 

under factor C. The adequacy or 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms 

for protecting white-tailed prairie dogs 

is discussed under factor D. Poisoning, 

invasive species, drought, and climate 

change impacts are discussed under 

factor E. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range. 

With respect to destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

species’ habitat or range, the petition 

asserts that oil, gas, and mineral 

exploration and extraction processes 

destroy and fragment white-tailed 

prairie dog habitat. The petitioners 

claim that human activities associated 

with oil and gas development, including 

seismic activities and the construction 

and operation of well pads, roads, and 

other equipment and facilities, fragment 

habitat and negatively impact whitetailed prairie dogs. In addition, they 

assert that associated structures create 

raptor perches and increase predation 

risk on prairie dogs in the area. The 

petitioners also assert that associated 

roads and increased access facilitate 

recreational shooting. They also contend 

that the aforementioned activities 

damage native vegetation and introduce 

invasive species that quickly take hold. 

The petitioners claim that this 

vegetation damage and invasive species 

introduction results in further 

permanent loss of habitat. 

The Conservation Assessment 

similarly concludes that oil and gas 

development, especially with decreased 

well spacing, will result in ‘‘large 

amounts of habitat lost due to road 

development and well pad 

construction’’ and states that the habitat 

will remain fragmented and lost. The 

Conservation Assessment also states 

that vibroseis (seismic exploration) may 

affect prairie dogs by collapsing tunnel 

systems, causing auditory impairment, 

and disrupting social structures (Clark 

1986, as cited by Seglund et al. 2004). 

The Conservation Assessment also notes 

that coalbed methane development, 

including well development, pipelines, 

roads, and compressor sites, can 

increase human disturbance and habitat 

fragmentation and loss. Establishment of 

well pads and roads facilitate increased 

vehicular traffic, which may increase 

the risk of direct and indirect mortality 

(Seglund et al. 2004). 

However, neither the petition nor the 

Conservation Assessment provide 

substantial scientific information 

beyond supposition and conjecture that 

oil and gas development results in 

losses of large amounts of habitat. The 

assertion of habitat fragmentation is not 

supported by substantial scientific 

evidence. In fact, the Conservation 

Assessment notes in some areas prairie 

dogs have continued to inhabit space 

where development is occurring. 

Neither the petition nor the Assessment 

provide substantial scientific 

information supporting the assertion 

that predation is increased by oil and 

gas development. No scientific 

information is provided that supports 

the assertion that direct and indirect 

mortality is affected by road 

construction or vehicular traffic. Both 

the petition and the Conservation 

Assessment note that large amounts of 

habitat will be lost to oil and gas 

development, and refer to the fact that 

the primary sites for oil and gas 

development occur within white-tailed 

prairie dog range. However, neither 

document provides substantial scientific 

information supporting the claim that 

large amounts of habitat will be lost to 

these activities. The assertion regarding 

the effects of vibroseis is unsupported 

by substantial scientific information. 

While the assertion that increased 

human disturbance is valid by 

inspection, there is no scientific 

information presented that substantiates 

its effect on prairie dogs. 

The Conservation Assessment 

estimates 55 percent of the total 

occupied white-tailed prairie dog 

habitat is under BLM jurisdiction. 

Analyses of available geographic 

information systems (GIS) data shows 

that 25 percent of white-tailed prairie 

dog gross range in Utah is leased or 

encompassed by active combined oil 

and gas fields.

The petition reports that, in 2001, the 

BLM approved leases for 669 oil and gas 

areas encompassing 293,771 ha (725,925 

ac) in Colorado; 295 oil and gas leases 

on 218,846 ha (540,780 ac) in Montana; 

198 oil and gas leases on 132,386 ha 

(327,133 ac) in Utah; and 1,047 oil and 

gas leases on 457,728 ha (1,131,071 ac) 

in Wyoming. However, these are statewide totals and it is not known what 

percentage of these areas overlap whitetailed prairie dog predicted range or 

occupied habitat. It should also be noted 

that not all leased lands are developed 

depending upon the results of 

exploration activities. Neither the 

petition nor Conservation Assessment 

present substantial scientific 

information on the effect in the species 

in terms of actual habitat affected. 

In Colorado, oil and gas leasing and 

development is ongoing and proposed 

in occupied white-tailed prairie dog 

habitat. For example, the petitioners 

allege that 80 percent of the Little Snake 

Black-footed Ferret Management Area is 

considered of highest potential for oil 

and gas development. According to the 

petition, there are 7 oil and gas fields 

encompassing 355 wells within the 

Management Area, and the BLM Little 

Snake Field Office is evaluating the 

potential for additional coalbed 

methane development. Colorado’s 

largest oil field, the Rangely Oil Field in 

Rio Blanco County, occupies 12,000 ha 

(30,000 ac) and overlaps with 3,000 ha 

(7,000 ac) of suitable white-tailed prairie 

dog habitat (Wolf Creek Work Group 

2001). The overlap of the Rangely Oil 

Field and white-tailed prairie dog 

habitat represents 5 percent of estimated 

white-tailed prairie dog habitat in 

Colorado (Knowles 2002). Impacts on 

this development on population levels 

have not been well studied and neither 

the petition nor the Assessment provide 

substantial scientific information that 

the Rangley Oil Field may result in a 

5% reduction in Colorado white-tailed 

prairie dog habitat nor that the Little 

Snake Black-footed Ferret management 

area maybe threatened with 

development that will harm white-tailed 

prairie dog habitat (for an in-depth 

discussion of this see the discussion on 

regulatory protections). 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64895

Oil, gas, and coalbed methane drilling 

continues in Utah, primarily in the Price 

Field Office area of the BLM, and in the 

Uintah Basin in northeastern Utah. The 

petitioners claim that between 1911 and 

2000, a total of 8,737 wells were drilled 

in the Uintah Basin, Utah, where the 

large Coyote Basin, Kennedy Wash, 

Snake John, and Shiner Basin whitetailed prairie dog complexes occur. The 

petitioners estimate that energy 

exploration in the Uintah Basin 

represents 57 percent of all wells drilled 

in the State of Utah. Over three thimes 

the 10-year average of wells was 

approved in 2001 in the Uintah Basin’s 

BLM Vernal Field Office area. It is not 

known how many of these wells remain 

active. Analyses of GIS data 

demonstrate that oil and gas leases and 

active combined fields overlap with 

approximately 55 percent of occupied 

white-tailed prairie dog habitat. 

However, neither the petition nor the 

Conservation Assessment provide 

substantial information that this 

development may have or may 

contribute to a curtailment of the 

species range. 

The Conservation Assessment 

estimates that approximately 75 percent 

of predicted white-tailed prairie dog 

range occurs in Wyoming, of which 77 

percent of the white-tailed prairie dog 

range in Wyoming has the potential to 

undergo or is undergoing oil and gas 

development to some degree (Seglund et 

al. 2004). The petition describes oil and 

gas development in Wyoming by BLM 

Field Office areas. According to the 

petition, most oil and gas development 

in the Casper Field Office area is 

occurring within white-tailed prairie 

dog range. Over the last 10 years, an 

average of 50 new wells has been drilled 

annually (W. Fitzgerald, BLM Casper 

Field Office, pers. comm., as cited in 

Center for Native Ecosystems 2002). The 

loss of habitat in the Cody Field Office 

area is attributed primarily to oil and 

gas development. Recent estimates of oil 

and gas well activity were not cited by 

the petition. The petitioners describe 

the Moxa Arch natural gas field, with 

approximately 50 to 100 new wells 

being drilled annually, as occupying 

approximately half of the white-tailed 

prairie dog habitat within the Kemmerer 

Field Office area (V. Phinney, BLM 

Kemmerer Field Office, pers. comm., as 

cited in Center for Native Ecosystems 

2002). The petitioners report that as of 

December 2001, oil and gas projects in 

the Pinedale Field Office area 

comprised approximately 266,661 total 

ha (658,933 ac), with 3,111 approved 

well locations and 1,433 wells drilled. 

According to the petition, most of these 

fields (including the Pinedale Anticline 

Natural Gas project and Jonah II field) 

were located in and around prairie dog 

colonies. The petitioners further state 

that in the Rawlins Field Office area, up 

to 3,000 wells may be approved for the 

Continental Divide project (an oil and 

gas field development) which overlaps 

with white-tailed prairie dog habitat. 

This area already has 2,130 existing 

wells. Potential impacts of this future 

development are difficult to predict. 

While the petitioners provide 

substantial information regarding the 

number and location of oil and gas 

development, they do not provide 

substantial scientific information 

indicating that these developments 

affect prairie dog use of habitat. As a 

result, potential impacts of this future 

development are difficult to predict, 

thus we cannot conclude that the 

petitioners have provided substantial 

scientific information that it may result 

in a threatened or current loss of habitat. 

The petition describes possible direct 

impacts from oil and gas development, 

including: clearing and crushing of 

vegetation, reduction of available 

habitat due to pad construction, road 

development and well operation, 

displacement and killing of animals, 

alteration of surface water drainage and 

increased compaction of soils (USFWS 

1990, as cited by Seglund et al. 2004). 

However they do not provide 

substantial scientific information to 

support their assertions and thus we are 

not able to conclude that the adverse 

effects to prairie dogs may occur. For 

example, the Assessment cites one 

study that attempted to demonstrate the 

effects of oil and gas disturbance on 

white-tailed prairie dogs and 

information from that study is 

preliminary (Baroch et al. 2004, as cited 

by Seglund et al. 2004). The study 

observed population declines, but was 

unable to determine if the declines were 

attributed to oil and gas development 

activities or to other factors such as 

plague. In some instances, white-tailed 

prairie dogs continue to inhabit areas 

developed for oil and gas. Within Coal 

Oil Basin’s Rangely Oil Field, where the 

majority of the area was drilled before 

1984 at a spacing of one well every 8 ha 

(20 ac), white-tailed prairie dogs are 

consistently present (E. Hollowed, BLM, 

pers. comm. 2004). However, no formal 

monitoring information exists for the 

Rangely Oil Field; conclusions are based 

on informal observations. With the 

limited amount of information 

provided, it is not possible to determine 

that these oil and gas development 

activities adversely affect white-tailed 

prairie dogs. 

Animal population densities should 

not always be presumed to be a direct 

measure of habitat quality (Van Horne 

1983). Several studies show that whitetailed prairie dogs with higher density 

populations in areas of poor quality 

habitat exhibited lower body mass, 

delayed sexual maturity, and delayed 

dispersal when compared to relatively 

undisturbed, high quality habitats (Van 

Horne 1983, Rayor 1985, Dawson 1991, 

Trevino-Villareal and Grant 1998). 

Furthermore, habitat loss or degradation 

can result in reduction of the area and 

extent of colonies even when densities 

in the remaining areas remain higher 

(Johnson and Collinge 2004). Over the 

long-term, these factors could lead to 

population declines (Johnson and 

Collinge 2004). The petitioners do not 

provide substantial scientific 

information on how oil and gas 

development activities might reduce 

habitat in ways that affect white-tailed 

prairie dog reproduction and survival.

Beyond direct impacts from oil and 

gas activity, the Conservation 

Assessment suggests that indirect effects 

might occur if habitat adjacent to whitetailed prairie dog complexes is not 

maintained to allow complexes to shift 

on a landscape scale in response to 

plague and other factors. However, 

neither the petition nor the 

Conservation Assessment provides 

substantial information as to the need or 

acreage required to ensure conservation 

of local prairie dog populations. 

Neither the petition nor the 

Conservation Assessment provide 

substantial scientific information 

supporting the assertion that predation 

is increased by oil and gas development. 

The assertion regarding the effect of 

vibroseis is unsupported by substantial 

scientific information. There is little 

scientific information to substantiate the 

effect of increased human disturbance 

on prairie dogs. Magle (2003) studied 

effects of human presence on a blacktailed prairie dog colony in Colorado. 

He observed prairie dog avoidance 

behaviors; i.e., prairie dogs retreating to 

their burrows, in response to humans 

walking through a colony. 

The petition and Conservation 

Assessment do not provide specific total 

acreages or distribution of white-tailed 

prairie dogs within leased areas, nor do 

they provide complete details of actual 

oil and gas infrastructure distribution 

relative to prairie dog colonies. Both 

documents identify current or projected 

threats to the species within the 

foreseeable future including mortality 

and habitat loss, fragmentation, and 

degradation, and show that current and 

projected oil and gas development 

extends across the range of the whiteVerDate jul<14>2003 15:20 Nov 08, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1
64896 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

tailed prairie dog. However, while both 

documents identify current or projected 

threats to the species due to oil and gas 

development impacts to habitat, the 

identified threats are speculative and 

neither document provides substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

supporting the speculation. 

The petition cites agricultural land 

conversion and urbanization as causing 

some losses of white-tailed prairie dog 

habitat on a local scale. In Montana, 

historic land conversions for 

agricultural purposes have contributed 

to white-tailed prairie dog range 

contraction (Parks et al. 1999, as cited 

in Knowles 2002). The Conservation 

Assessment states that, in some cases, 

agricultural lands can be beneficial to 

white-tailed prairie dogs by providing 

foraging habitat. However, if the 

agricultural area requires repeated 

tilling during the growing season, 

prairie dogs will not be able to inhabit 

the area. In addition, the Conservation 

Assessment points out that prairie dog 

colonies in or adjacent to agricultural 

areas frequently are subject to control 

efforts. According to the Conservation 

Assessment, agriculture comprises only 

3.7 percent of the species’ gross historic 

range. Seglund (et al. 2004) thus 

concluded, loss of habitat from 

agricultural conversion is significant 

only on a local scale and is not a rangewide concern. 

The petition and Conservation 

Assessment specifically refer to 

urbanization in the areas of Grand 

Junction, Delta, and Montrose, 

Colorado, and in the Uintah Basin, 

Utah. As human populations have 

increased in some of these areas, lands 

have undergone another type of 

conversion, agriculture to urban use. 

Conversion from agricultural lands to 

urban lands eliminates prairie dog 

habitat permanently. According to the 

Conservation Assessment, only 0.2 

percent of the white-tailed prairie dog 

gross historic range is impacted by 

urbanization. Seglund (et al. 2004) thus 

concluded, loss of habitat from 

urbanization is significant only on a 

local scale and is not a range-wide 

concern. 

The petition identifies livestock 

overgrazing and fire suppression as 

factors that have degraded white-tailed 

prairie dog habitat by altering plant 

species composition. Overgrazing is 

continued heavy grazing which goes 

beyond the recovery capacity of the 

forage plants (Vallentine 1990). Fire 

suppression in shrub steppe habitats has 

resulted in areas dominated with latesuccessional, homogenous stands of 

shrubs. With fire, shrublands are mosaic 

of herbaceous and shrub vegetation at 

varied successional stages (Klebenow 

1972, as cited in Fischer et al. 1996). 

Combined overgrazing and fire 

suppression can result in the 

proliferation of shrub species and the 

spread of noxious weeds. Livestock also 

may trample and destroy biological 

(cryptogamic) soil crusts, increasing 

erosion and decreasing nutrient cycling. 

The petition concludes that resultant 

habitat alterations reduce forage 

availability, reduce forage diversity, and 

degrade the overall quality of available 

habitat.

It is unclear how significant a factor 

livestock grazing, fire suppression and 

desertification play in white-tailed 

prairie dog viability. Although the 

Conservation Assessment initially states 

that public rangelands have seen recent 

measurable improvements in range 

conditions, the Conservation 

Assessment and the petition both 

reference BLM’s finding that 68 percent 

of the public rangelands are rated as 

degraded or unsatisfactory (U.S. General 

Accounting Office 1988, 1991). Because 

55 percent of white-tailed prairie dog 

occurs on BLM land, this is an 

important consideration. However, 

neither the petition nor Conservation 

Assessment provide substantial 

scientific information demonstrating 

that livestock grazing or fire suppression 

are threatened or present sources of 

habitat loss. 

Based on the preceding discussion, 

we do not believe that substantial 

information is available indicating that 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range may, either singularly or in 

combination with other factors, rise to 

the level of a threat to the continued 

existence of the species over a 

significant portion of the species range. 

While factors affecting habitat are in 

some cases (e.g., oil and gas 

development, grazing, fire suppression) 

occurring across the range of whitetailed prairie dog no information as to 

the rangewide extent of these activities 

in terms of scale was provided. In 

addition, neither the petition nor the 

Conservation Assessment provided 

substantial scientific information on the 

actual overlap and effects of habitat 

losses and degradation associated with 

these factors relative to the distribution 

of white-tailed prairie dog colonies and 

complexes. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Shooting closures for white-tailed 

prairie dogs have been implemented 

year-round in Coyote Basin, Utah and 

seasonally (April 1–June 15) on all other 

public lands in Utah. Year round 

shooting closures also apply to whitetailed prairie dogs on federal lands 

throughout their range in Montana. 

Wyoming implements a shooting 

closure on a 1,917 ha (4,737 ac) 

conservation easement at Shirley Basin. 

No shooting closures exist for whitetailed prairie dogs in Colorado (Seglund 

et al. 2004). 

The petition cites Knowles (1988) to 

assert that unregulated shooting of 

white-tailed prairie dogs in Colorado 

and Wyoming has had negative impacts. 

In Colorado counties with white-tailed 

prairie dogs, harvest statistics from 

1999–2003 estimate that 28,005 

individual prairie dogs were shot 

annually (CDOW 2002, cited by Center 

for Native Ecosystems 2002). Based on 

research, lactating females spend more 

time above ground during the months of 

April through July (Tileston and 

Lechleitner 1966, Bakko and Brown 

1967). During this time, adult male 

activity decreases (Bakko and Brown 

1967). The petition asserts if shooting 

occurs during these times, the female 

and juvenile prairie dogs are more 

vulnerable than males (Center for Native 

Ecosystems 2002). According to the 

Conservation Assessment, peak shooting 

pressure on white-tailed prairie dog 

colonies occurs in May and June when 

the weather is cooler and juveniles are 

emerging. The CDOW estimates that 

juvenile prairie dogs likely make up a 

disproportionately high percentage of 

prairie dogs shot (Keffer et al. 2000). 

The petitioners note that due to the 

disproportionate vulnerability of adult 

female and juvenile prairie dogs, it is 

reasonable to see how the demographic 

structure of shot colonies may differ 

from that of unshot colonies. The 

petitioners further reason that shooting 

may have further implications on 

behavior, emigration, and population 

density. 

Neither the petition nor the 

Conservation Assessment provides 

substantial scientific information on the 

long-term impacts of recreational 

shooting on white-tailed prairie dogs. 

Shooting has the potential to locally 

reduce population densities and could 

slow or preclude recovery rates of 

colonies reduced by plague or other 

disturbances by being an additive factor 

to mortality. Available studies of 

recreational shooting at black-tailed 

prairie dog colonies have shown shortterm colony population declines and 

behavioral changes (Knowles 1988, 

Vosburgh and Irby 1998). However, 

neither the petition nor the 

Conservation Assessment provides 

substantial scientific information on the 

long-term effects of this threat. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64897

C. Disease or Predation 

White-tailed prairie dogs are prey 

species for many mammalian and avian 

predators. These predators include 

black-footed ferrets, hawks, eagles, 

badgers (Taxidea taxus) and coyotes 

(Canis latrans). Predation does not 

appear to exert a controlling influence 

on prairie dog density (King 1955 as 

cited in Seglund et al. 2004, Tileston 

and Lechleitner 1966, Clark 1977). 

The petition asserts that sylvatic 

plague is the main threat to white-tailed 

prairie dog persistence (Biggins and 

Kosoy 2001, Knowles 2002). Plague is 

caused by a bacterium (Yersinia pestis) 

not native to North America; fleas are 

commonly the vectors (Biggins and 

Kosoy 2001). Plague results in local 

extirpations, reduced colony sizes, 

increased variation in local population 

sizes, and increased distances between 

colonies (Cully and Williams 2001). All 

prairie dog species have shown high 

susceptibility to plague (Williams 1986). 

White-tailed prairie dog population 

declines of 85 to 96 percent within an 

epizootic event have been documented 

(Anderson and Williams 1997, Clark 

1977). 

Plague was probably introduced to the 

United States from Asia circa 1899 

(Barnes 1982). The first record of plague 

in native mammals in North America 

was near Berkeley, California in 1908 

among California ground squirrels 

(Spermophilus beecheye) (McCoy 1908, 

Wherry 1908, as cited by Cully 1993). 

Since then, plague moved eastward. 

According to the Centers for Disease 

Control (2002, as cited by Antolin et al.

2002), sylvatic plague is now distributed 

from the west coast to its eastern extant 

stretching along the 102nd meridian 

from North Dakota south to the 97th 

meridian in Texas. Within those eastwest confines, plague is present from 

the Canadian to the Mexican border. 

The white-tailed prairie dog range falls 

well within these boundaries. 

The first white-tailed prairie dog 

plague case was confirmed in 1936 

(Eskey and Haas 1940). We do not have 

data to indicate that all white-tailed 

prairie dogs were exposed to plague at 

this time or the same time. Systematic 

white-tailed prairie dog surveys did not 

begin until the 1980’s (when there was 

an effort to find black-footed ferret 

recovery or reintroduction sites) 

(Biggins and Kosoy 2001). At that time, 

the first recorded plague outbreaks were 

observed (Fagerstone and Biggins 1986a, 

as cited by Biggins 2003b). For example, 

in Meeteetse, Wyoming, plague was first 

recorded in 1985 when the population 

crashed. This large decline in a short 

amount of time was an epizootic event. 

Plague was again recorded in this 

complex between 1989 and 1990, and 

again in 1993 (Anderson and Williams 

1993, Cully 1993) 

Plague has now been confirmed 

across nearly the entire range of the 

white tailed prairie dog (Centers for 

Disease Control 2002, as cited by 

Antolin et al. 2002), and has had a 

range-wide impact (Knowles 2002). 

Biggins and Kosoy (2001) note that no 

examples can be found of plague-free 

white-tailed prairie dog populations. 

Thus, unlike black-tailed prairie dogs 

which maintain plague-free colonies in 

the eastern portion of their range, whitetailed prairie dogs do not have large 

insulated populations protected from 

the plague organism.

The petition concludes that 

individual white-tailed prairie dogs may 

be more susceptible than black-tailed 

prairie dogs. The petitioners cite 

preliminary research conducted by Dr. 

Tonie Rocke, a U.S. Geological Survey 

researcher, indicating that white-tailed 

prairie dogs may contract sylvatic 

plague with exposure to only a few 

plague bacilli versus the many plague 

bacilli that are required to infect blacktailed prairie dogs with plague. 

Although quite susceptible, plague 

antibody titers have been found in 

white-tailed prairie dogs, indicating 

exposure and survival of some 

individuals when exposed to plague 

(Cully and Williams 2001, Biggins 

2003a). Cully and Williams (2001) and 

Biggins (2003a) research on plague and 

prairie dogs in the laboratory found one 

white-tailed prairie dog with an 

apparent immunity to plague, and 

Biggins (2003a) found 3 out of 154 

white-tailed prairie dogs with plague 

antibody titers. However, Biggins (USGS 

pers. comm. 2004) also states that 

plague antibody titers have been so rare 

in wild white-tailed prairie dogs 

colonies that research efforts were not 

previously directed to the possibility of 

immunity. Populations of white-tailed 

prairie dogs thus far have remained 

highly susceptible to plague even after 

repeated exposure (Biggins and Kosoy 

2001). There is no information on the 

ability of adults to pass a developed 

immunity onto their offspring. 

Pizzimenti (1975) found that of the 

five species of prairie dogs in the North 

America, white-tailed prairie dogs have 

the largest number of flea species. This 

suggests white-tailed prairie dogs may 

be more likely to contract plague from 

other mammalian species because they 

are more likely to host the same flea 

species as other mammalian species 

(Pizzimenti 1975). This susceptibility 

can result in epizootic events in which 

large numbers of animals die within a 

few days (Cully 1993, Lechleitner et al.

1962). Infected fleas have been found to 

exist in burrows for up to 13 months 

following a plague event (Fitzgerald 

1993). The continued presence of the 

disease also can affect low-density 

white-tailed prairie dog colony 

populations enzootically. Enzootic 

plague causes some mortality within the 

colony, but not all individuals become 

affected simultaneously because of low 

density and reduced contact. Therefore, 

low-density populations remain at low 

densities. Plague not only results in the 

loss of large numbers of individual 

animals, it also may alter population 

dynamics, dispersal, and may result in 

secondary impacts to habitat. 

Responses of white-tailed prairie dog 

populations to plague are reportedly 

variable over the long term, because of 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors. 

Superficially, some social and 

behavioral traits of white-tailed prairie 

dogs appear to favor their long-term 

persistence in a plague environment 

(Biggins and Kosoy 2001), in 

comparison to other prairie dog species. 

The rate of spread of a plague epizootic 

is dependent on the density of the host 

population density (Barnes 1982). 

White-tailed prairie dog colonies are 

less dense and more widely dispersed 

than black-tailed or Gunnison’s prairie 

dog colonies, which may slow 

transmission rates (Cully 1993, Cully 

and Williams 2001, Eskey and Haas 

1940). Looser social structures and 

hibernation behavior displayed by 

white-tailed prairie dogs also may 

reduce transmission among individual 

animals (Cully 1993, Cully and 

Williams 2001). However, Barnes (1993) 

suggested hibernation may simply delay 

the onset of symptoms throughout all 

the colonies. Conversely, the 

Conservation Assessment also 

concludes that other environmental and 

human-caused factors could decrease 

the ability of populations to recover 

long-term. 

Consequently, while some behavioral 

traits (e.g., migratory abilities and 

hibernation) of white-tailed prairie dogs 

are often reported to buffer adverse 

effects of plague, the information is 

neither clear nor conclusive. For 

example, migration within complexes 

may promote recolonization of colonies 

previously impacted by plague; 

conversely, intercolony movement also 

may contribute to disease transmission, 

and isolated colonies are less likely to 

support sufficient immigration for longterm persistence of plague-affected 

colonies (Seglund et al. 2004). 

In addition, the Conservation 

Assessment and Knowles (2002) raise 

concerns that white-tailed prairie dog 

64898 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

plague cycles (i.e., epizootic, recovery, 

epizootic) result in successive 

population peaks that are progressively 

lower than the previous peak and that 

with each new epizootic, the loss of 

colonies from plague exceeds the rate of 

new colony establishment. This cycle of 

peaks and crashes is further supported 

by observations of frequent recurrence 

of plague in white-tailed prairie dog 

colonies (Cully 1993, Barnes 1993). The 

Conservation Assessment reports that 

colony recovery rates have been 

reported to occur within as little as 1–

2 years (Anderson and Williams 1997), 

or within as much as 10 years (Cully 

and Williams 2001). Colonies affected 

by plague have shown varying recovery 

responses. The Conservation 

Assessment reports post-plague 

recovery occurring in Wyoming’s 

Shirley Basin, Colorado’s Wolf Creek, 

and Utah’s Kennedy Wash. Conversely, 

some large colonies have continued to 

decline or remained at low numbers 

since the occurrence of plague, such as 

Wyoming’s Meeteetse, Colorado’s Little 

Snake, and Utah’s Cisco. However, for 

most sites, historical data are not 

available to compare apparent colony 

recovery levels with their historical or 

pre-plague densities. In addition, and 

importantly, because white-tailed 

prairie dogs exist in smaller numbers 

than black-tailed prairie dogs, plague 

epizootics could have a more significant 

influence on their viability. 

Regardless of social and behavioral 

factors, some of the largest white-tailed 

prairie dog complexes at Meeteetse, 

Cisco, and Little Snake have declined 

significantly as a result of plague, and 

have not fully recovered to their preplague abundance. In addition, the 

petition identifies the presence of 

plague in low-density and mediumdensity white-tailed prairie dog 

colonies. Other animals also can 

transmit plague between prairie dog 

colonies (Cully and Williams 2001). 

This suggests that many, if not all, 

colonies of white-tailed prairie dogs are 

vulnerable to plague regardless of size, 

degree of isolation, and density. The 

Conservation Assessment concludes 

that ‘‘sylvatic plague has the potential to 

rise to the level of a threat to the 

continued existence of the species, but 

the threat is non-imminent’’ and, 

‘‘concern over the long-term viability of 

white-tailed prairie dog populations is 

warranted.’’ They also state that ‘‘the 

role that plague has played and will 

play in the overall decline of whitetailed prairie dogs is a critical question 

for future management and research.’’

Because of the lack of long-term data 

or a detailed understanding of plague 

and white-tailed prairie dog dynamics, 

both the petition and Conservation 

Assessment conclude that long-term 

monitoring over large areas is essential 

to determine population effects of the 

disease. The petition and Conservation 

Assessment provide the following 

examples of large colonies that declined 

because of confirmed or suspected 

plague with some level of population 

rebound in a couple of cases. Plague 

was suspected when colonies crashed 

within a short timeframe. 

Little Snake Complex, Colorado—

Some decline was suspected in 1983 

(USFWS et al. 1995). Sylvatic plague 

was confirmed in 1994 in flea samples 

and in 1995 in coyote blood samples. 

Between 1994 and 1999, colony size 

declined 90 percent. The Conservation 

Assessment reports likely continued 

declines in 2002, but a possible small 

increase in 2003. However, droughtrelated declines in sagebrush and forbs 

also were noted in 2003; so, it is unclear 

if the noted small increase will 

continue. 

Wolf Creek Complex, Colorado—From 

1985 to 1987, populations west of 

Massadona were reduced to about 10 

percent of their former abundance. 

Although partial recovery occurred 

between 1990 and 1993, declines have 

occurred since then and the population 

has not recovered to its pre-1985 

abundance. In 2001, population 

numbers were estimated to be 40 

percent lower than in 1993–1994 (Wolf 

Creek Work Group 2001). Although no 

reason for the decline is given, the 

petition cites a personal communication 

from E. Hollowed (BLM 2004) reporting 

sylvatic plague in the area since at least 

1997. 

Montrose County, Colorado—Declines 

have been noted in these colonies since 

1978, but the role of plague is unclear. 

The petition reports declines may be a 

cumulative result of plague, shooting, 

and poisoning. 

Colorado National Monument, 

Colorado—The petition sites a personal 

communication reporting that prairie 

dog populations in the area crashed 

after a 1976 plague epizootic. It is not 

known if any prairie dogs still inhabit 

the Monument. 

Montana—The petition identifies 

seven white-tailed prairie dog colonies 

in Montana that were extirpated and 

cites personal communication with D. 

Flath attributing those extirpations to 

plague outbreaks. 

Kennedy Wash Subcomplex, Utah—

The petitioners report the white-tailed 

prairie dog population in this 

subcomplex undergoing major declines 

in 1999 due to plague. Personal 

communication from B. Bibles (Uinta 

Basin USU Extension Branch) was cited 

by the petitioners as stating that plague 

has continued in the area enzootically 

(constantly present in an animal 

community but only occurs in a small 

number of cases). The petition reports 

prairie dog densities declining from 5.4 

dogs per ha (2.1 dogs per ha) in 1999 to 

3.1 dogs per ha (1.2 dogs per ha) in 

2001. The Conservation Assessment 

reports a subsequent population 

increase in 2002, followed by a 

significant decline in 2003. 

Shiner Subcomplex, Utah—Surveys 

in Shiner Basin from 1997 to 2000 

documented a decline from 47,551 

prairie dogs in 1998 to 5,383 prairie 

dogs in 1999 (Seglund et al. 2004). Such 

a decline in a short period of time is 

characteristic of plague epizootic 

impacts on prairie dog populations. The 

petition notes some partial recovery in 

2000. The Conservation Assessment 

describes surveys in 2002 and 2003 that 

show low densities and little, if any, 

population recovery. 

Snake John Subcomplex, Utah—The 

petition documents possible population 

increases between 1989 and 2001, while 

the Conservation Assessment reports a 

significant population decline in 2003. 

The cause of the 2003 decline is not 

reported; however, it is reasonable to 

suspect plague given the colony’s 

proximity to Kennedy Wash and the 

substantial decline in a short amount of 

time. 

Cisco Complex, Utah—Between 1985 

and 1992, transect counts show that 

prairie dog populations increased 

dramatically. Population declines, likely 

due to plague, were observed from 

1998–2002. Complex remapping in 2002 

yielded 1,085 ha (2,682 ac) of occupied 

habitat, apparently low relative to 

historic acreages (Seglund et al. 2004). 

Dinosaur National Monument, Utah—

The petition cites a personal 

communication from S. Petersburg 

estimating that a substantial plaguerelated decline occurred at the 

Monument colony between the late 

1980s and early 1990s, but that this 

population may now be increasing. 

Specific data are not provided. 

Meeteetse Complex, Wyoming—

Plague epizootics swept through this 

complex four times between 1964 and 

1985 (Clark et al. 1985, Ubico et al.

1988, Clark 1989). Between 1988 and 

1997, plague resulted in the loss of 

18,400 white-tailed prairie dogs, an 

estimated 72 percent decline in the 

complex (Biggins 2003b). This complex 

has experienced no significant recovery 

(Knowles 2002). 

Shirley Basin Complex, Wyoming—

The petition reports a 50 percent 

decline in occupied prairie dog habitat 

from 1990 to 2000, and an estimated 78 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64899

percent population decline (B. Oakleaf, 

pers. comm., as cited by Center for 

Native Ecosystems 2002). The WGFD 

conducted surveys of selected prairie 

dog colonies between 1992 and 2001 

which indicated that white-tailed 

prairie dog abundance appeared to have 

decreased (Seglund et al. 2004). 

However, given recent increases, 

Grenier et al. (2003 as cited by Seglund 

et al. 2004) reported a 50 percent 

increase in occupied habitat from 1990 

to 2004 over a different portion of the 

Shirley Basin complex (Seglund et al.

2004). 

Kinney Rim, Wyoming—The Kinney 

Rim complex was first sampled in 1989 

with 7,215 ha (17,828 ac) of occupied 

habitat reported. It was suspected that 

sylvatic plague was impacting the 

complex during the 1989 survey, 

although no attempts were made to 

confirm presence of plague. The area 

was partially inventoried, again, in 1993 

suggesting an increase (Conway 1989 

and Albee 1993, as cited in Seglund et 

al. 2004). The petition cites personal 

communications from B. Luce 

documenting substantial declines at this 

complex by 1995. No more recent 

conclusive data are reported. 

Polecat Bench, Wyoming—Population 

numbers and accurate occupied acreage 

data are unavailable for this complex. A 

personal communication from D. Saville 

(Cody BLM Office) in the petition 

concluded that the complex 

experienced major plague-caused 

declines between 1979 and 1981. 

According to the petition, recovery at 

this site has been slow, similar to the 

post plague population response 

reported at the Meeteetse Complex. 

The petitioners assert that tularemia is 

another pathogen that can cause 

disease-related declines in white-tailed 

prairie dog populations (Davis 1935). 

However, there is little data on its 

prevalence. Long-term impacts of this 

disease on white-tailed prairie dog 

populations are unknown (Barnes 1993). 

West Nile virus is a recent disease 

with unknown ramifications for whitetailed prairie dog populations. A blacktailed prairie dog was reported to have 

died of this disease in Boulder, 

Colorado, in 2003 (Seglund et al. 2004). 

We are unaware of any confirmed 

incidences of West Nile virus in whitetailed prairie dogs.

Because of the lack of long-term data 

or an understanding of plague and 

white-tailed prairie dog dynamics, both 

the petition and Conservation 

Assessment conclude that long-term 

monitoring over large areas is essential 

to determine population effects of the 

disease. On this basis, we believe the 

petition, the Conservation Assessment, 

and other information readily available 

to us do not provide substantial 

scientific information to indicate that 

disease may be a threat to the viability 

of the white-tailed prairie dog. We make 

this finding while recognizing that the 

source materials are primarily from 

white-tailed prairie dog complexes 

inventoried for black-footed ferret 

recovery. Because the black-footed ferret 

recovery work identified only those 

complexes meeting black-footed ferret 

prey needs (i.e., generally large in area, 

and densely occupied by prairie dogs), 

there is a legitimate concern that the 

data may not accurately reflect prairie 

dog trends at all colonies throughout the 

prairie dog’s range. As noted above 

however, the information regarding the 

relationship of prairie dog colony size 

and prairie dog behavior to plague 

susceptibility is not clear. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The petition claims that white-tailed 

prairie dogs have been negatively 

affected by the lack of Federal and State 

regulations, to control poisoning, 

shooting, or habitat destruction. The 

petition also asserts that current State 

and Federal regulations do not 

adequately address the potential 

impacts of oil, gas, and mineral 

extraction on white-tailed prairie dog 

habitat (see factor A), nor do they 

provide adequate mitigation. 

All BLM Field Offices whose 

jurisdictions include black-footed ferret 

reintroduction areas will have 

stipulations related to black-footed 

ferret habitat protection. While these 

stipulations are not intended to address 

white-tailed prairie dog conservation 

per se, they serve to protect some whitetailed prairie dog habitat because the 

white-tailed prairie dog is the primary 

food source available to black-footed 

ferrets. All black-footed ferrets in the 

wild have a designation of 

‘‘experimental, non-essential’’ pursuant 

to section 10(j) of the Act. Experimental, 

non-essential populations are treated as 

proposed species for section 7 

consultation purposes, which means 

that consultation with the Service is 

only required if the project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species although generally federal 

agencies routinely consult with the we 

on species proposed for listing and 10(j) 

populations. 

In addition, black-footed ferret 

reintroductions have occurred in only 

three white-tailed prairie dog complexes 

including Coyote Basin (Utah), Wolf 

Creek (Colorado), and Shirley Basin 

(Wyoming). All other white-tailed 

prairie dog colonies occur outside of 

ferret reintroduction areas and thus 

would see only limited benefit from 

ferret conservation measures such as 

ferret survey requirements in potential 

ferret habitat as defined by prairie dog 

colony size.

In Colorado, the white-tailed prairie 

dog range occurs within the jurisdiction 

of six BLM field offices, with four of 

these field offices having no stipulations 

specific to white-tailed prairie dog for 

oil and gas development in white-tailed 

prairie dog habitat (R. Sell, BLM, pers. 

comm., as cited by Seglund et al. 2004). 

However, a number of general 

stipulations on such development will 

protect white-tailed prairie dog habitat. 

In Utah, the white-tailed prairie dog 

range occurs within the jurisdiction of 

the BLM’s Vernal Field Office, which 

includes Coyote Basin Black-footed 

Ferret Reintroduction Area, which has 

stipulations related to black-footed 

ferret habitat protection but does not 

specifically address white-tailed prairie 

dog conservation (B. Zwetzig, BLM, 

pers. comm., as cited by Seglund et al.

2004). The white-tailed prairie dog 

range also occurs within the jurisdiction 

of the Price and Moab Field Offices, 

which do not have directives with 

regard to white-tailed prairie dog 

management. However, both of these 

field offices are currently revising their 

Land Use Plans and the new plans will 

consider the white-tailed prairie dog in 

special status species alternatives (S. 

Madsen, P. Riddle, BLM, pers. comm., 

as cited by Seglund et al. 2004), which 

would carry with it protections similar 

to those for species protected under the 

ESA. 

The Montana policy regarding whitetailed prairie dogs is related to potential 

black-footed ferret reintroductions (J. 

Parks, BLM, pers. comm., as cited by 

Seglund et al. 2004). ‘‘Prior to surface 

disturbance, prairie dog colonies and 

complexes of 32 ha (80 ac) or greater in 

size will be examined to determine the 

absence or presence of black-footed 

ferrets.’’ Currently Montana has only a 

small amount of active white-tailed 

prairie dog habitat and no overlap with 

oil and gas leasing. 

The BLM in Wyoming has declared 

the white-tailed prairie dog a BLM 

sensitive species. This designation 

carries with it, through regulation, 

habitat and species protections similar 

to those afforded candidate species 

under the Act. There are eight BLM 

resource areas in Wyoming within the 

range of the white-tailed prairie dog, 

and all of these resource areas are 

conducting some form of prairie dog 

management. The Wyoming BLM is 

currently revising its Resource 

Management Plans (RMP) in the whiteVerDate jul<14>2003 15:20 Nov 08, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM 09NOP1
64900 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

tailed prairie dog range. These RMP 

revisions are primarily driven by a 

recent emphasis on oil and gas 

development activity, and are or will be 

addressing white-tailed prairie dogs. 

The BLM also has had nominations 

submitted by several environmental 

groups for the designation of prairie dog 

‘‘areas of critical environmental 

concern.’’ A BLM Statewide, 

programmatic, biological evaluation is 

being prepared for white-tailed prairie 

dogs, the results of which will be 

incorporated into RMPs. 

The Conservation Assessment 

concludes that many State Field Offices 

in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and 

Montana currently do not consider the 

white-tailed prairie dog in oil and gas 

development unless it is associated with 

black-footed ferret reintroduction 

efforts. Because of this, most current 

BLM plans throughout the range of the 

white-tailed prairie dog do not address 

white-tailed prairie dog species-specific 

needs, but addresses white-tailed prairie 

dog as black-footed ferret habitat. In 

addition, they do not address 

maintaining habitat for expansion and 

shifts in occurrence outside of currently 

mapped colonies and they address 

impacts at a colony level rather than a 

complex or landscape level. Finally, 

RMPs do not address the impact of road 

development and the potential for an 

increase in shooting/direct take of 

white-tailed prairie dog as a result of oil 

and gas development. Colorado and 

Wyoming allow yearlong shooting on 

public lands, except for the shooting 

closure on the 1,917 ha (4,737 ac) 

conservation easement at Shirley Basin, 

Wyoming. 

The Petroleum Association of 

Wyoming asserts that a number of lease 

stipulations and conditions designed to 

protect big game species, mountain 

plover (Charadrius montanus), raptors, 

black-footed ferrets, sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus), and other 

threatened, endangered and candidate 

species also benefit white-tailed prairie 

dog (Bower, in litt. 2004). Specifically, 

it noted that oil and gas surface activity 

is banned on designated mountain 

plover habitat from mid-April through 

early July unless surveys show that no 

plovers are present (Bower, in litt. 

2004). Oil and gas surface activity is 

banned within a 0.8 to 1.6 km (0.5 to 1.0 

mi) radius of active raptor nests on 

Federal lands during the raptors 

breeding and young-rearing seasons 

(February through July depending on 

the species) (Bower, in litt. 2004). 

Further, white-tailed prairie dog 

complexes in excess of 81 ha (200 ac) 

are off limits to oil and gas development 

until black-footed ferret surveys have 

been conducted and towns are cleared 

(Bower, in litt. 2004). Other lease 

stipulations prohibit drilling between 

March 1 and June 30 to protect sagegrouse breeding, nesting, and broodrearing. Finally, surface disturbances are 

prohibited from November 15 and April 

30 to protect wintering big game 

animals. These restrictions may benefit 

white-tailed prairie dog populations in 

some instances, if they are co-located. 

The petition asserts that unregulated 

poisoning alone has reduced prairie dog 

abundance in Wyoming by an estimated 

75 percent since 1915 (Campbell and 

Clark 1981). Although large-scale 

poisoning may have occurred in the 

past, toxicant control is not considered 

a significant factor shaping white-tailed 

prairie dog population dynamics. This 

factor is discussed in more detail below 

under factor E. Limited poisoning is still 

permitted on private lands adjacent to 

agricultural lands or to control 

expanding colonies. The Conservation 

Assessment recommends the use of 

incentive programs to encourage land 

owners to minimize the use of toxicants 

to control white-tailed prairie dog 

populations. 

The petitioners and the Conservation 

Assessment assert that recreational 

shooting in April, May, and June may 

have greatest population level impacts 

because pregnant and lactating females 

and young-of-the-year are most 

vulnerable (see Factor B). Shooting has 

the potential to locally reduce 

population density and could slow or 

preclude recovery rates of colonies 

reduced by plague or other disturbances 

by being an additive factor to mortality 

(Seglund et al. 2004). Montana has 

implemented a year-round shooting 

closure on white-tailed prairie dogs, and 

Utah recently implemented an April 1–

June 15 seasonal shooting closure on 

public lands (Seglund et al. 2004). In 

Coyote Basin, Utah, a year-round 

shooting closure was established to 

improve black-footed ferret habitat. In 

Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow 

Management Area in Wyoming, 

permanent shooting closure was 

implemented on a conservation 

easement of 1,917 ha (4,737 ac). No 

shooting closures have been adopted on 

any white-tailed prairie dog habitat in 

Colorado. No shooting is permitted on 

National Wildlife Refuges. The 

Conservation Assessment notes that if 

shooting can be managed to regulate 

populations and maintain them at a 

threshold density, it may be a useful 

management tool for prairie dog 

conservation. 

Current management status varies by 

State. Colorado currently has no 

management or conservation plan for 

white-tailed prairie dogs and they are 

not included on the State Species of 

Concern or State threatened and 

endangered list. 

In January 2002, the Montana Prairie 

Dog Working Group released the 

‘‘Conservation Plan for Black-tailed and 

White-tailed Prairie Dogs in Montana.’’

The stated goal of the plan is to 

‘‘provide for management of prairie dog 

populations and habitats to ensure the 

long-term viability of prairie dogs and 

associated species.’’ Accomplishments 

to date that have benefited white-tailed 

prairie dogs include the reclassification 

of white-tailed prairie dogs as ‘nongame wildlife species in need of 

management,’ the application of a yearround shooting closure on white-tailed 

prairie dogs occupying Federal lands, 

and a draft Environmental Assessment 

anticipating translocation of prairie dogs 

from Montana and Wyoming sites to 

formerly occupied colonies. Whitetailed prairie dogs are also listed on the 

Species of Concern List compiled by the 

Montana Natural Heritage Program and 

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks and 

used to prioritize research and 

management needs among nongame 

wildlife species. 

In 2003, Utah Department of Wildlife 

Resources added the white-tailed prairie 

dog to the agency’s Sensitive Species 

List. The list is intended to stimulate 

development and implementation of 

management actions to precluded 

Federal listing of these species under 

the ESA. However, at this time Utah 

does not have a management or 

conservation plan for the white-tailed 

prairie dog. 

The white-tailed prairie dog is 

classified as a Species of Special 

Concern by the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department. Currently, Wyoming 

does not have a management or 

conservation plan for the white-tailed 

prairie dog but this designation does 

carry certain protections with it. 

In this finding we have addressed the 

regulatory concerns as they relate to a 

number of factors, however, given that 

these issues have not been identified as 

significant threats, there is no 

immediate need to consider whether 

efforts to regulate them are adequate. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence

The petition and Conservation 

Assessment recount a long history of 

rodent and prairie dog poisoning 

campaigns in the United States. Blacktailed prairie dogs were the main focus 

of this eradication. White-tailed prairie 

dogs were impacted directly and 

indirectly. In the 1970s, several 

toxicants used to control prairie dog 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 9, 2004 / Proposed Rules 64901

populations were banned. Large-scale 

chemical control programs also were 

phased out. Prairie dog poisoning still 

occurs on private and State lands range 

wide, but at a much reduced rate and 

with less effective poisons and in 

specialized circumstances. The 

Conservation Assessment states that 

poisoning is banned from BLM lands, 

and 55 percent of white-tailed prairie 

dog habitat is on BLM land. 

Invasive weeds, especially cheatgrass 

(Bromus tectorum), are identified by the 

petitioners as reducing forage quality for 

white-tailed prairie dogs. Cheatgrass 

out-competes other native, plants and 

provides limited seasonal forage for 

white-tailed prairie dogs (Knapp 1996). 

Furthermore, cheatgrass alters fire 

regimes, fostering an environment in 

which frequent fires further proliferate 

and maintain cheatgrass (Young and 

Allen 1997, Hull 1965, as cited in 

Center for Native Ecosystems 2002). 

Cheatgrass establishment depends on 

the level of disturbance in a plant 

community. Consequently, overgrazing 

of an area, dirt roads, activities that are 

associated with natural resource 

extraction and off-highway vehicle use 

can disturb a landscape and introduce 

invasive noxious weeds. 

Drought is another factor mentioned 

by the petition that may negatively 

impact white-tailed prairie dogs. Whitetailed prairie dogs exist in arid 

landscapes. During very dry years, 

vegetation is less abundant for prairie 

dogs. Prairie dogs obtain most of their 

water requirements through vegetation, 

and may become water-stressed if 

sufficient succulent vegetation is 

unavailable (Stockard 1929, Seglund et 

al. 2004). Furthermore, less abundant 

resources result in lower overall body 

mass (Beck 1994). Beck (1994) 

conducted research on comparing 

white-tailed prairie dog use of watered 

and unwatered plots. Beck (1994) found 

that the watered plots were the higher 

quality habitats and consequently 

promoted higher weaning success for 

both adult and yearling females. Since 

prairie dogs have evolved with 

occurrences of drought, they have 

developed means of dealing with the 

shortage of resources such as a lower 

litter size or earlier initiation of 

hibernation to conserve energy. 

However, prolonged drought could 

lower overall body condition for whitetailed prairie dogs potentially affecting 

over-winter survival rates. In addition, 

drought may further exacerbate the 

impacts of other factors, such as nonnative sylvatic plague. 

Both the petition and the 

Conservation Assessment identify 

climate change, environmental 

stochastic events, and other human 

disturbances as other possible impacts, 

but little additional information or 

analysis is provided (Center for Native 

Ecosystems 2002, Seglund et al. 2004). 

Based on the current information, it 

does not appear that there is substantial 

scientific information to indicate that 

natural and manmade factors threaten 

the continued existence of the whitetailed prairie dogs throughout a large 

portion of their range. 

Finding 

We have reviewed the petition, the 

Conservation Assessment, and other 

information available in our files. Based 

on our review of this information, we 

find there is not substantial scientific or 

commercial information to indicate that 

listing the white-tailed prairie dog may 

be warranted at this time. Both the 

petition and the Conservation 

Assessment note that plague is the most 

important factor effecting white-tailed 

prairie dog population dynamics and 

the long-term viability of the species. 

However, the lack of long-term data or 

a detailed understanding of plague and 

white-tailed prairie dog dynamics 

indicate that substantial information is 

not available to determine that plague is 

a threat which may warrant the listing 

of this species. Plague (which occurs 

across the entire range of the species) 

and the conditions under which whitetailed prairie dogs are affected, both 

epizootically and enzootically, 

population responses to plague, and 

ensuing long-term population viability, 

require further evaluation. Likewise, the 

impacts of present and threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat are inadequately 

known to constitute substantial 

information that listing may be 

warranted. 

Although we will not be commencing 

a status review in response to this 

petition, we continue to monitor the 

species’ population status and trends, 

potential threats to the species, and 

ongoing management measures that may 

be important with regard to the 

conservation of the white-tailed prairie 

dog throughout its range. 

References Cited 

A complete list of our references cited 

herein is available upon request from 

the Utah field office (see ADDRESSES). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: November 2, 2004. 

Marshall P. Jones, Jr., 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

[FR Doc. 04–24878 Filed 11–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P