30338 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and the Department of 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. We 

have determined that there are no tribal 

lands affected by this proposal. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rule is available on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov, or upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, Ohio 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Ohio Field 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as follows: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99- 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

2. Amend §17.11 (h) by removing the 

entry ‘‘Snake, Lake Erie water’’ under 

‘‘REPTILES’’ from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife. 

Dated: May 17, 2010 

Gregory E. Siekaniec 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FR Doc. 2010–12910 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2008-0053] 

[MO 92210-0-0008-B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12–month Finding on a 

Petition to List the White-tailed Prairie 

Dog as Endangered or Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of a 12–month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service announce a 12–month 

finding on a petition to list the whitetailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus) as 

endangered or threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. After a review of all available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we find that listing the white-tailed 

prairie dog is not warranted at this time. 

However, we ask the public to submit to 

us any new information that becomes 

available concerning the threats to the 

white-tailed prairie dog or its habitat at 

any time. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on June 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS-R6-ES-2008-0053. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office, 

2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50, West 

Valley City, UT 84119. Please submit 

any new information, materials, 

comments, or questions concerning this 

finding to the above street address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, Utah Field 

Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 

801-975-3330; or by facsimile at 801- 

975-3331. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800- 

877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, 

for any petition to revise the Federal 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants that contains 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information that listing the species may 

be warranted, we make a finding within 

12 months of the date of receipt of the 

petition. In this finding, we will 

determine that the petitioned action is: 

(1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) 

warranted, but the immediate proposal 

of a regulation implementing the 

petitioned action is precluded by other 

pending proposals to determine whether 

species are endangered or threatened, 

and expeditious progress is being made 

to add or remove qualified species from 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 

4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 

treat a petition for which the requested 

action is found to be warranted but 

precluded as though resubmitted on the 

date of such finding, that is, requiring a 

subsequent finding to be made within 

12 months. We must publish these 12– 

month findings in the Federal Register. 

Previous Federal Action 

On July 15, 2002, we received a 

petition dated July 11, 2002, from the 

Center for Native Ecosystems, Forest 

Guardians, Biodiversity Conservation 

Alliance, and Terry Tempest Williams, 

requesting that the white-tailed prairie 

dog (Cynomys leucurus) be listed as 

endangered or threatened across its 

entire range. We acknowledged the 

receipt of the petition in a letter to the 

petitioners, dated August 27, 2002. In 

that letter we also stated that higher 

priority actions precluded addressing 

the petition immediately, but it would 

be addressed when funding allowed. 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires 

that for any petition to revise the Lists 

of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

and Plants, to the maximum extent 

practicable, within 90 days after 

receiving the petition, we make a 

finding as to whether the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

On November 9, 2004, we announced 

our 90–day finding (69 FR 64889) that 

the petition did not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing may be warranted. 

On July 12, 2007, in a Director’s 

memorandum, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) announced 

that we would review the November 9, 

2004, finding after questions were raised 

about the integrity of scientific 

information used and whether the 

decision was consistent with the 

appropriate legal standards. We 

received notice of a lawsuit from the 

Center for Native Ecosystems, and three 

other entities, on November 27, 2007, 

regarding our not-substantial 90–day 

finding. We agreed in a stipulated 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30339 

settlement agreement on February 22, 

2008, to submit a notice initiating a 12– 

month finding for the white-tailed 

prairie dog to the Federal Register on or 

before May 1, 2008, and to submit a 12– 

month finding for the white-tailed 

prairie dog to the Federal Register on or 

before June 1, 2010. Due to the 

stipulated settlement agreement, the 

petitioners dismissed the lawsuit on 

February 26, 2008. This notice 

constitutes the 12–month finding under 

the stipulated settlement agreement on 

the petition to list the white-tailed 

prairie dog as endangered or threatened. 

Species Information 

Species Description 

White-tailed prairie dogs are between 

340 to 370 millimeters (mm) (13.4 to 

14.6 inches (in)) in length with a 40- to 

65-mm (1.6- to 2.6-in) long tail (Clark et 

al. 1971, p. 1). The tail has a grayish 

white tip and is white on the terminal 

half. The coat is generally yellow-tan 

with 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 (Clark et 

al. 1971, p. 1). 

Taxonomy 

The white-tailed prairie dog is one of 

five prairie dog species that inhabit 

western North America (Clark et al. 

1971, p. 1; Pizzimenti 1975, pp. 62-63). 

Prairie dogs are in the squirrel family, 

Sciuridae, and belong to the genus 

Cynomys (Hollister 1916, p. 5). The 

genus is split into two subgenera; 

Leucocrossuromys includes prairie dogs 

with white tails and Cynomys includes 

prairie dogs with black tails. Whitetailed prairie dogs are included in the 

subgenus Leucocrossuromys along with 

Utah and Gunnison prairie dogs (Clark 

et al. 1971, p. 1; Pizzimenti 1975, pp. 

15-16). Due to this consensus, we 

determined that the white-tailed prairie 

dog is a valid taxonomic species and a 

listable entity under the Act. 

Ecology and Life History 

White-tailed prairie dogs occur at 

elevations ranging from 1,150 meters 

(m) (3,773 feet (ft)) (Flath 1979, p. 63) 

to 3,200 m (10,500 ft) (Tileston and 

Lechleitner 1966, p. 295). Unlike the 

grass-dominated habitats of black-tailed 

prairie dogs, white-tailed prairie dogs 

inhabit drier landscapes with shrubland 

vegetation (Tileston and Lechleitner 

1966, p. 295; Clark 1977, pp. 3-5; 

Collins and Lichvar 1986, pp. 88-91; 

Gadd 2000, pp. 15-16). Their habitats 

are generally flat (Collins and Lichvar 

1986, p. 92). 

Prairie dogs are primarily herbivorous 

and mainly eat grasses and forbs (Kelso 

1939, pp. 7-11). However, they consume 

other plants seasonally. Prairie dog 

selection of plants is somewhat 

dependent on site-specific conditions 

and seasonality. For example, whitetailed prairie dogs eat sagebrush and 

saltbush during early spring, grasses in 

the summer, and seed heads and 

rabbitbrush flowers in the fall (Kelso 

1939, p. 10; Tileston and Lechleitner 

1966, p. 302). White-tailed prairie dogs 

eat the least amount of grass of any 

prairie dog species and the most 

saltbush (Kelso 1939, p. 11). Whitetailed prairie dogs also eat insects 

(Stockard 1929, p. 476). Prairie dogs 

obtain most of their water by eating 

vegetation and can become waterstressed if sufficient succulent 

vegetation is unavailable (Seglund et al. 

2006, p. 7). 

White-tailed prairie dogs prefer areas 

with lower vegetation heights (Collins 

and Lichvar 1986, p. 92), but they may 

use dense sagebrush adjacent to grassier 

areas (Tileston and Lechleitner 1966, p. 

314). White-tailed prairie dogs use the 

dense vegetation within sagebrush 

habitat to hide from predators 

(Hoogland 1981, pp. 266-268; Gadd 

2000, pp. 24-26), reducing their need to 

visually search for predators and 

consequently reducing their need for 

dense colonies and cohesive social 

structures. This habitat use differs from 

black-tailed prairie dogs, who actively 

work to maintain the grassland 

vegetation surrounding their burrows 

for visibility. 

White-tailed prairie dogs dig their 

own burrows. Burrow construction 

requires deep, well-drained soils. 

Preferred soils are derived from 

sandstone or shale and may be clayloam, silty clay, or sandy loam (Lupis et 

al. 2007, p. 6). Burrows are used 

throughout the year for hibernation, 

cover from temperature extremes, 

predator avoidance, and birthing and 

raising young (Clark 1977, p. 9; 

Hoogland 1981, pp. 258-264). Burrow 

complexes are usually widespread with 

numerous entrances, tunnels, and 

chambers. The number of burrows in an 

area varies greatly from location to 

location, ranging from 0.12 to 47.75 per 

hectare (ha) (0.3 to 118 per acre (ac)) 

with a mean of 0.32 to 6.79 per ha (0.8 

to 16.8 per ac) (Tileston and Lechleitner 

1966, p. 314; Menkens and Anderson 

1989, p. 84; Seglund and Schnurr 2009, 

p. 94). 

For purposes of this finding, a group 

of burrows is referred to as a colony. A 

complex is a collection of colonies 

grouped on the landscape. There is 

usually a high degree of connectivity 

between colonies in the same complex. 

White-tailed prairie dog colonies have 

fewer animals per unit area with less 

obvious borders than black-tailed prairie 

dog colonies (Tileston and Lechleitner 

1966, pp. 297, 314; Hoogland 1981, p. 

252). Home range sizes range from 0.2 

to 1.9 ha (0.5 to 4.7 ac) (Clark 1977, p. 

65; Cooke 1993, p. 23), which are 

generally larger than black-tailed prairie 

dog home ranges (Clark 1977, p. 65). 

White-tailed prairie dogs can live up 

to 8 years in captivity but may not live 

past 4 years in the wild (Pauli et al. 

2006, p. 18). Prairie dog annual 

mortality rates average 30 to 60 percent, 

largely due to disease and predation 

(Tileston and Lechleitner 1966, p. 305; 

Clark 1977, pp. 80-81). 

Adult sex ratios are approximately 

one male to two females (Clark 1977, p. 

76; Hoogland 2010, pers. comm.). 

White-tailed prairie dogs can reproduce 

at 1 year of age, and they have a single 

litter once a year averaging four to five 

pups (Bakko and Brown 1967, pp. 110- 

111). Breeding occurs from late March 

to mid-April (Tileston and Lechleitner 

1966, p. 303). Pups are born in the 

burrows after a gestation period of 

approximately 30 days (Tileston and 

Lechleitner 1966, p. 304), and emerge 

from the burrow for the first time 4 to 

6 weeks after birth (Bakko and Brown 

1967, p. 103). They begin to disperse 

from the colony in June and July when 

population densities are the highest 

(Clark 1977, p. 72). Migration is 

recognized as an important factor to 

white-tailed prairie dog population 

dynamics (Clark 1977, p. 80). Plague in 

this species often results in near 

extirpation of colonies. Rapid 

recolonization of some areas post-plague 

with few or no surviving reproductive 

adults suggests the species is highly 

mobile (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 10). 

Dispersal distances of up to 8 kilometers 

(km) (4.8 miles (mi)) have been observed 

(Cooke 1993 in Seglund et al. 2006, p. 

10) 

White-tailed prairie dogs have the 

least cohesive social structure of any 

prairie dog species. Their social system 

is organized around family groups or 

‘‘clans,’’ comprised of several 

reproductive females, one or two males 

of reproductive age, and dependent 

young (Clark 1977, p. 62; Cooke 1993, 

p. 22). Adult white-tailed prairie dogs 

spend little time displaying social 

behavior, and most of their time feeding 

or in alert postures (Clark 1977, p. 44). 

Pups spend a large amount of time 

playing during their first few weeks 

(Tileston and Lechleitner 1966, p. 300). 

White-tailed prairie dog populations 

exhibit large fluctuations of more than 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
30340 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

50 percent from year to year (Menkens 

and Anderson 1989, p. 345). Population 

fluctuations are likely due to disease 

cycles, vegetation quantity and quality, 

and drought (Seglund and Schnurr 

2009, p. 16) (see Factor A. Climate 

Change; Factor C. Disease). We do not 

know the level at which population 

fluctuations are a natural part of whitetailed prairie dog ecology, or the result 

of environmental or human-caused 

threat factors. In many cases, prairie dog 

colonies persist despite large population 

fluctuations (see Factor C. Disease). We 

define ‘‘persistence’’ as the long-term 

continuance of white-tailed prairie dog 

colonies, at a high enough level to exist 

in the long-term with minimal 

management assistance. 

White-tailed prairie dogs are diurnal 

(active during the day) (Tileston and 

Lechleitner 1966, p. 200). They are 

active approximately 5 to 7 months per 

year from early spring to fall and 

hibernate during late fall and winter 

(Clark 1977, pp. 59-60; Cooke 1993, p. 

11). Time spent hibernating is 

determined by available food resources 

(Clark 1977, p. 60). In warm weather, 

even in mid-winter, white-tailed prairie 

dogs will feed if grasses are growing 

(Hollister 1916, p. 6; Goodrich and 

Buskirk 1998, p. 177). If resources are 

not sufficient, prairie dogs become 

inactive and spend more time in their 

burrows (Harlow and Menkens 1986, p. 

795). During periods of high summer 

temperatures, white-tailed prairie dogs 

avoid the highest temperatures of 

midday by foraging in the cooler 

morning and evening hours (Clark 1977, 

p. 58). 

Distribution and Abundance 

The overall species’ distribution is 

mapped as ‘‘gross range.’’ The available 

white-tailed prairie dog literature uses 

the term ‘‘gross range’’ to describe the 

outer boundary identifying the overall 

rangewide distribution of the whitetailed prairie dog (Figure 1). However, 

not all lands within the species’ gross 

range are occupied or have the potential 

to be occupied by white-tailed prairie 

dogs (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 100). The 

predicted range is a subset of the gross 

range and thus represents a more 

accurate spatial representation of the 

potential range of the white-tailed 

prairie dog (Seglund et al. 2006, pp. 16, 

110; Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 23). 

Predicted range is defined using habitat 

characteristics of vegetation, land use, 

slope, and elevation (Seglund et al. 

2006, pp. 14-39). Depending on 

available data, we use gross range, 

predicted range, or mapped occupied 

habitat throughout this document to 

evaluate status and threats to the 

species. For example, gross range 

mapping data was available for our use 

for all States across the species’ range. 

However, the data for the predicted 

range map (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 110; 

Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 23) was 

only available for the State of Colorado. 

Information regarding mapped occupied 

habitat (all areas mapped on Federal 

lands as occupied by white-tailed 

prairie dogs since 1985) was available 

for the State of Utah, but not for any 

other States. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30341 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1EP01JN10.000</GPH>
30342 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

The white-tailed prairie dog occurs 

from a small area in south-central 

Montana, throughout much of 

Wyoming, into western Colorado, and 

northeastern Utah. There are 20,224,801 

ha (49,976,572 ac) within the gross 

range of the white-tailed prairie dog and 

13,066,887 ha (32,288,981 ac) within the 

species’ predicted range (Seglund et al. 

2006, p. 91). Therefore, approximately 

65 percent of the gross range has the 

characteristics necessary to support the 

white-tailed prairie dog. Wyoming 

contains the largest amount of whitetailed prairie dog predicted range (75 

percent) (Knowles 2002, p. 4). Less than 

1 percent of predicted range occurs in 

Montana (Table 1). The majority of 

white-tailed prairie dog predicted range 

(56 percent) occurs on land managed by 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

A significant portion of the predicted 

range occurs on private land (37 

percent). Very little of the predicted 

range is managed by the Service (0.4 

percent), U.S. Forest Service (USFS) (0.5 

percent), or National Park Service (NPS) 

(0.9 percent) (Table 1). 

TABLE 1. PERCENT PREDICTED RANGE BY STATE AND LAND MANAGEMENT ENTITY (SEGLUND et al. 2006, PP. 91, 98, 

100, 104, 109). 

Total Range Private BLM USFS NPS USFWS State Other 

Colorado 11 37 56 < 1 1 < 1 5 < 1 

Montana < * 1 49 44 2 0 0 5 < 1 

Utah 13 20 60 < 1 < 1 < 1 11 7 

Wyoming 75 33 54 < 1 < 1 < 1 6 6 

Total 37 56 < 1 < 1 < 1 5 < 1 

* < less than 

Historical abundance and distribution 

are not well documented for whitetailed prairie dogs prior to the 1980s 

(Pauli et al. 2006, p. 13; Seglund et al. 

2006, p. 11). The distribution of whitetailed prairie dogs has not changed 

appreciably since historic times 

(Knowles 2002, pp. 5-6). The only 

recorded change in distribution is in 

Montana, where white-tailed prairie 

dogs were previously captured 40 miles 

north of currently occupied habitat 

(Knowles 2002, p. 5). However, 

abundance declined as a result of past 

control efforts and plague (Cully 1993, 

p. 38; Knowles 2002, pp. 1-2) (see 

Factor B. Overutilization and Factor C. 

Disease). We are not able to quantify 

changes in occupied habitat for the 

species because mapping did not use 

standardized methods, and we do not 

have accurate estimates of historical 

occupied habitat (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 

13). 

We do not have rangewide population 

trend information due to a lack of 

historical population information and 

inconsistencies in survey methodologies 

(Seglund et al. 2006, pp. 4, 13). Surveys 

for white-tailed prairie dog distribution 

and occupancy rates were recently 

conducted across portions of the 

species’ gross range (Grenier and Filipi 

2009, entire; Seglund and Schnurr 2009, 

p. 27; Wright 2009, entire). While 

occupancy surveys are intended to 

determine population trends (Seglund 

and Schnurr 2009, p. 10), the data are 

not yet available to provide trend 

information. In addition, each State 

used different methods to conduct 

ground surveys and determine 

occupancy rates; thus, the results are 

not comparable. We present State-byState information below with the caveat 

that comparing colony occupancy rates 

across the gross range of the species is 

not possible. 

Colorado 

White-tailed prairie dog predicted 

range includes Moffat, Routt, Rio 

Blanco, Garfield, Mesa, Delta, Montrose, 

Eagle, Jackson, Ouray, and Larimer 

Counties in northwestern Colorado 

(Seglund et al. 2004, p. 133). 

Approximately 1,246,441 ha (3,104,733 

ac) of predicted white-tailed prairie dog 

habitat occurs in three Individual 

Population Areas (IPAs): Grand ValleyUncompahgre IPA, North IPA, and 

Northwest IPA (Hotze 2010, pp. 9-10). 

An IPA is an area physically separated 

from other populations that may face a 

unique subset of threats (Seglund and 

Schnurr 2009, p. 1). These population 

areas are geographically separated from 

each other but connected to population 

areas in Utah and Wyoming (Seglund 

and Schnurr 2009, p. E-5). 

Colorado completed Statewide whitetailed prairie dog surveys in 2004 and 

2008; occupancy rates were 24.1 and 

23.1 percent, respectively, a statistically 

insignificant difference (Seglund and 

Schnurr 2009, pp. 27-28). Occupancy 

rate is the number of randomly selected 

plots in predicted habitat with prairie 

dogs, and is not a measure of 

abundance. We do not have population 

trend information across the entire 

predicted range of the species in 

Colorado. Localized declines and 

habitat degradation were reported in the 

Grand Valley-Uncompahgre IPA due 

largely to urbanization (Seglund and 

Schnurr 2009, p. 54). Information in the 

North IPA is restricted to colonies 

associated with black-footed ferret 

reintroduction; a historical record of 

ferrets in this area suggests it once 

supported abundant populations of 

prairie dogs (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, 

p. 58). Only two colonies remain, 

although they have remained stable for 

the past 20 years (Seglund and Schnurr 

2009, p. 58). Population densities and 

distribution in the Northwest IPA 

appear to fluctuate greatly in large part 

due to the prevalence of plague 

(Seglund and Schnurr 2009, pp. 63-76). 

Montana 

White-tailed prairie dogs occur in one 

population area in Carbon County, along 

the Montana-Wyoming border (Seglund 

et al. 2006, p. 25). Fifteen colonies were 

mapped in the 1970s across 312.8 ha 

(773 ac) (Flath 1979, p. 63). White-tailed 

prairie dogs were previously reported in 

north Sage Creek in Carbon County 

(Hollister 1916, p. 27), and in 

Yellowstone County just northeast of 

Carbon County (Kelso 1939, p. 7), but no 

animals were found in these locations in 

later surveys (Flath 1979, entire). 

Current occupied area of white-tailed 

prairie dogs in Montana includes 112 ha 

(277 ac) across 11 colonies; 8 colonies 

were considered active in 2009 (MFWP 

2009a, p. 1). The apparent loss in 

occupied habitat is likely due to plague 

and agricultural land conversion (Parks 

et al. 1999 in Knowles 2002, p. 15). We 

do not have population trend data for 

the white-tailed prairie dog in Montana. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30343 

Utah 

White-tailed prairie dogs occur in 

Rich, Summit, Daggett, Uintah, 

Duchesne, Carbon, Emery, and Grand 

Counties (Seglund et al. 2004, p. 140) in 

northern and eastern Utah. In 2002 and 

2003, 57,463 ha (141,808 ac) of 

occupied white-tailed prairie dog 

habitat were documented, mostly within 

Uintah and Duchesne Counties (Lupis et 

al. 2007, p. 17). Smaller population 

areas are found in the Cisco Desert in 

Emery and Grand Counties (10,869 ha 

(26,856 ac)), and in Rich County (73 ha 

(180 ac)) (Lupis et al. 2007, p. 15). 

Surveys did not include private lands; 

therefore, the amount of occupied 

habitat is an underestimate. These 

population areas are mostly 

disconnected from each other, but 

connect to population areas in Wyoming 

and Colorado. Based on surveys 

conducted in 2008, the white-tailed 

prairie dog occupancy rate was 46 

percent of sampled plots (Wright 2009, 

p. 5). 

We do not have information on longterm population status or trends for 

white-tailed prairie dogs in Utah. 

Surveys in black-footed ferret 

management areas in the Uintah basin 

recorded fluctuating population levels: 

increasing densities since the early 

1990s, declines in 1999 and 2003, and 

population recoveries in 2004-2008 

(Seglund et al. 2006, p. 28; Maxfield 

2009, pers. comm.) (see Factor A. 

Climate Change). 

Wyoming 

White-tailed prairie dogs are found in 

the Counties of Big Horn, Park, Hot 

Springs, Natrona, Fremont, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Lincoln, Uinta, Carbon, and 

Albany in northern and southern central 

Wyoming (Seglund et al. 2004, p. 130). 

Wyoming Fish and Game documented 

11,511,356 ha (27,822,847 ac) of 

potential habitat and 1,170,952 ha 

(2,893,487 ac) of occupied habitat in 

2008 by aerial survey (Grenier and Filipi 

2009, p. 5). The majority of these acres 

are in Albany and Carbon Counties. 

Habitat in Wyoming is mostly 

continuous and not split into discrete 

population areas. Approximately 68 

percent of the surveyed areas were 

estimated to be occupied (Grenier and 

Filipi 2009, p. 5). This estimate is not 

a statistically determined ‘‘occupancy 

rate.’’ Occupancy from these aerial 

surveys cannot be compared with 

ground surveys from Colorado and 

Utah, because the observed location of 

colony boundaries varies between 

methods, presumably due to the 

difficulty in measuring colony 

boundaries from the air (Andelt et al. 

2005, p. 3). We do not have long-term 

status or trend information for whitetailed prairie dogs in Wyoming. 

Summary of White-Tailed Prairie Dog 

Population Status 

We do not have reliable long-term 

historical or current white-tailed prairie 

dog status, trend, or distribution data. 

White-tailed prairie dog populations are 

likely below historical levels, though 

their overall distribution has not 

substantially changed (Knowles 2002, p. 

6). Large acreages of occupied habitat 

exist across the species’ range, 

particularly in Wyoming. Each State 

plans to continue occupancy surveying, 

so more information may be available in 

the future. 

Evaluation of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Threat Factors 

Section 4 of the Act and 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) 

set forth procedures for adding species 

to, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on the Federal 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. Under section 

4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be 

determined to be endangered or 

threatened based on any of the 

following five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

In making this 12–month finding, 

information pertaining to the whitetailed prairie dog in relation to the five 

factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act is discussed below. In making our 

12–month finding on the petition we 

considered and evaluated the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information. 

Factor A. The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the species’ habitat or 

range. 

The following potential factors that 

may affect the habitat or range of the 

white-tailed prairie dog are discussed in 

this section, including: (1) Oil and gas 

exploration and development, (2) oil 

shale and tar sands development, (3) 

mineral development, (4) renewable 

energy development—wind and solar, 

(5) urbanization, (6) agricultural land 

conversion, (7) grazing, (8) fire 

occurrence and suppression, (9) 

invasive plant species and (10) climate 

change. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development 

Exploration and development of oil 

and gas resources is widespread 

throughout the gross range of the whitetailed prairie dog (Hotze 2010, pp. 11- 

26). Between 2004 and 2008, 

exploration of oil and gas in the 

intermountain west increased 

substantially because of political and 

economic incentives (National 

Petroleum Council 2007, pp. 5-7). The 

2005 Energy Policy Act expedited the 

leasing and permitting process on 

Federal lands (42 U.S.C. 15801). The 

global recession of 2008 resulted in 

decreased energy demand resulting in a 

reduced rate of energy development. 

Fossil fuel production is expected to 

regain and surpass the early 2008 levels 

in 2010-2030 (Copeland et al. 2009, p. 

1; Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) 2009, p. 109). 

Energy development includes 

exploration, drilling, production, and 

reclamation phases (Tribal Energy and 

Environmental Information 

Clearinghouse (TEEIC) 2009, entire), 

each of which may potentially impact 

the white-tailed prairie dog or its 

habitat. During the exploration phase, 

oil and gas resources are delineated 

using a variety of technologies, 

including seismic shot-hole surveys 

(planting and detonation of 

underground explosives to produce 

vibrations that reveal locations of 

mineral resources) and vibroseis trucks 

(vehicle with a vibration plate used to 

survey mineral resources) (TEEIC 2009, 

p. 6). These activities may result in 

mortality and the crushing of vegetation 

along the seismic route, but there are no 

permanent structures established during 

the exploration phase. If oil and gas 

resources are proven, the lessee moves 

into the drilling phase. During the 

drilling phase, access roads and well 

pads are constructed, pipelines are 

installed, and the infrastructure 

necessary for the production phase 

(such as compressor stations) is 

developed and constructed (TEEIC 

2009, p. 9). This phase typically results 

in longer-term disturbance to whitetailed prairie dog habitat. The 

production phase includes maintaining 

the wells and infrastructure as well as 

continuing the extraction of the oil and 

gas resources. Wells may be in the 

production phase for up to 20 to 30 

years for gas wells (TEEIC 2009, p. 5) 

and up to 100 years for oil wells 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7:41). The final 

phase begins when a well is no longer 

producing oil or gas because the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
30344 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

resource is depleted. The lessee is 

responsible for reclaiming the land back 

to its original condition, or as close to 

the original condition as possible (BLM 

2007a, p. 2; TEEIC 2009, p. 15). 

Oil and gas developments are 

typically configured as point (e.g., well 

pads, compressors) and line (e.g., roads, 

pipelines) disturbances across broad 

areas. The amount of direct habitat loss 

may encompass 5 to 10 percent of 

leased areas. However, the extent of 

disturbance to white-tailed prairie dogs 

may reach far beyond the direct habitat 

loss, due to the loss and fragmentation 

of habitats; the alteration of vegetation 

resources, which often promotes 

nonnative invasive plant species; 

increased noise levels; increased vehicle 

traffic; and increased human access to 

previously remote areas (Pauli et al. 

2006, p. 27; Seglund et al. 2006, p. 46; 

Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 126; 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

(WGFD) 2009, p. 10). The amount of 

direct habitat loss and total 

fragmentation varies greatly depending 

on well density (number of acres per 

well) and spacing (distance between 

individual well pads). Increasing wells 

per unit area decreases the amount of 

habitat available for wildlife. Well 

densities and spacing are typically 

designed to maximize recovery of the 

resource and are administered by State 

oil and gas agencies and the BLM on 

Federal mineral estate. Each geologic 

basin has a standard spacing, but 

exemptions are granted (Connelly et al. 

2004, pp. 7-39 to 7-40). Within the range 

of the white-tailed prairie dog, well 

spacing can vary from 5 to 160 acres per 

well. Larger well spacing is often 

characterized by more wells drilled per 

pad. Increasing the number of wells per 

pad increases the size of the individual 

pad but decreases the amount of habitat 

fragmented. The variation in well and 

well pad spacing results in a variation 

in the intensity of effects across the 

species’ range. However, we are unable 

to determine how the ultimate effects to 

the species vary with well density. The 

threshold levels of oil and gas 

development that result in reduced 

populations or eliminated colonies are 

unknown. 

Resulting impacts to white-tailed 

prairie dogs from oil and gas 

development may include direct 

mortality from vehicles; direct mortality 

associated with increased access by 

recreational shooters who utilize the 

new access routes (Gordon et al. 2003, 

p. 12); increased disturbance responses 

from increased human activity; direct 

loss of habitat and forage resources 

during exploration, drilling, and 

production; and indirect loss of forage 

resources from invasive, nonnative 

plant species (Seglund and Schnurr 

2009, p. 126). 

No studies have been done regarding 

the short-term or long-term impact of oil 

and gas development on individual 

white-tailed prairie dogs or their 

colonies. White-tailed prairie dogs can 

be negatively impacted by the direct 

loss of habitat that occurs as a result of 

development. For example, white-tailed 

prairie dog burrow densities were lower 

at well locations compared to areas 

further from the well pads (Biggins et al. 

1984, p. 12). Dead prairie dogs were 

found in oil and gas reserve pits (Esmoil 

1995 in Peterson 2008, p. 5), although 

the extent of population level impact is 

not known. The use of vibroseis trucks 

in prairie dog colonies appears to 

impact vegetation, but preliminary 

results did not document prairie dog 

mortality or burrow collapse (Young 

and Sawyer 1981, pp. 1-2; Menkens and 

Anderson 1985, p. 7). 

However, as described above, 

exposure to a factor does not necessarily 

indicate that the factor is a threat. We 

know that white-tailed prairie dog 

colonies exist in areas with long-term 

oil and gas development. Some of the 

largest and most robust colonies are 

located near areas of intense oil and gas 

development (see Distribition and 

Abundance, above, and our discussion 

under Factor C, below). For example, 

the Coyote Basin, Kennedy Wash, and 

Snake John colonies in Uintah County, 

Utah, occur within a landscape 

fragmented by oil and gas infrastructure, 

although their immediate occupied 

habitats have not sustained significant 

energy development. Fifty percent of the 

mapped occupied habitat in this region 

has been leased with 17 percent 

currently producing (See Utah, below). 

Populations in this area have fluctuated; 

although this has been attributed to 

drought (See Climate Change, below). 

Despite the high amount of leasing in 

this area, populations have recovered to 

their 20 year recorded peak. Similarly, 

Coyote Basin and Wolf Creek are 

historically Colorado’s most robust 

colonies and occur within the 

Northwest IPA where oil and gas 

development is high. Forty one percent 

of this IPA has already been leased, with 

7 percent currently producing (Hotze 

2010, p. 20). Prairie dogs continue to 

occupy a moderately sized complex 

within the Coal Oil Basin (Colorado’s 

largest oil field) despite an active 

drilling history that extends back to 

1944 (Wolf Creek Work Group 2001, p. 

15). 

Available information does not 

indicate that white-tailed prairie dogs 

are currently reacting to oil and gas 

activities on a local landscape scale or 

at the population or species level. We 

also do not know if there is a level of 

oil and gas development at which the 

status of prairie dogs at the population 

or species level would be negatively 

impacted. As described above, whitetailed prairie dogs persist in several 

areas with oil and gas activity. 

To evaluate the extent to which oil 

and gas development may affect whitetailed prairie dogs in the foreseeable 

future, we overlaid BLM-authorized oil 

and gas leases with the species’ gross 

range. More specific information was 

available for Utah and Colorado, so we 

overlaid oil and gas development with 

white-tailed prairie dog predicted range 

(Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 24) in 

Colorado and mapped occupied habitat 

in Utah (Hotze 2010, p. 7). We also 

reviewed information on State-specific 

potential oil and gas reserves where that 

information was available. The results 

are presented below and in the State-byState analysis sections. 

In additional to managing lands in 

Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, the BLM 

manages the Federal mineral estate, 

including authorizing oil and gas leases. 

Leases may be producing or nonproducing. Producing leases are those 

being actively developed. Nonproducing leases are leased; however, 

the resources for which they were 

leased are not currently being extracted. 

Non-producing leases may become 

developed in the future, but 

development is not guaranteed 

(Thompson 2010, pers. comm.). We 

consider these leases to be indicative of 

potential development. However, we do 

not know the percent of non-producing 

leases that will become developed in the 

future because the variables governing 

development are complex and include 

the price of gas, the number of other 

leases the company holds, the actual 

amount of resource the lease contains 

(often unknown at the time of lease), 

and other complex economic and social 

factors. 

In addition to the producing and nonproducing leases, BLM has authorized a 

significant amount of the Federal 

mineral estate that may be leased in the 

future. Each BLM field office developed 

a resource management plan that 

delineates areas available for leasing 

and depicts surface access constraints 

(e.g., BLM 2008a, p. 7). The areas that 

are available for leasing are larger than 

those that have already been authorized, 

and include areas that may be 

developed in the future should proven 

reserves be located. Development of the 

entire area available for leasing is 

unlikely due to BLM’s multi-use 

mandate, but the area available for 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30345 

leasing represents a potential maximum 

of oil and gas development. Non-Federal 

mineral estates are managed by State, 

tribal, and private mineral rights owners 

under different programs and using 

different processes. 

We were unable to specifically 

quantify the impacts of development on 

non-Federal mineral rights. Total active 

and plugged wells are available as GIS 

layers from each State’s oil and gas 

development commission. However, 

number of wells is not a biologically 

meaningful measure to the white-tailed 

prairie dog because the effects depend 

on the amount of land leased and well 

density and spacing. As previously 

stated, the impacts to the species at 

different well spacing densities are not 

well understood. Approximately twothirds of wells within the species range 

are located on Federal versus nonFederal estate (BLM 2009; Colorado Oil 

and Gas Conservation Commission 

2010; Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission 2010; Utah 

Division of Oil and Mining 2010; 

unpublished data). Similarly, 

approximately two-thirds of the species 

range is in Federal vs. non-Federal 

ownership. We assume that a similar 

ratio of development of non-Federal 

minerals is likely to occur in the future 

as is occurring for Federal minerals. 

Because leasing does not guarantee 

development, and the fact that we are 

unable to estimate leasing rates on nonFederal estate, we consider the numbers 

presented below (in the State-by-State 

analysis) as an approximate 

measurement of Federal and nonFederal development that could occur 

in the foreseeable future. 

The BLM has authorized 5,687,259 ha 

(14,053,523 ac) of producing and nonproducing leases for oil and gas 

development, representing 

approximately 28 percent of the whitetailed prairie dog’s gross range (Hotze 

2010, p. 18). Producing leases occur 

across 1,435,580 ha (3,547,395 ac), or 7 

percent, of the species’ gross range 

(Hotze 2010, p. 18). Future exploration 

and development of fossil fuels is likely 

to focus in areas of highest potential 

return. Highest potential return is 

defined by several geological 

characteristics including permeability 

and porosity of the underlying rock 

(BLM 2005a, p. 41). For example, in the 

BLM Little Snake field office of 

northwest Colorado, approximately 96 

percent of new wells will be drilled in 

areas with high oil and gas potential 

(BLM 2007b, p. 3:100). In high and 

moderate potential areas in Wyoming, a 

single well can produce 4 to 30 times as 

much as a well in low potential areas 

(BLM 2008b, p. A20:6). Therefore, we 

assume these areas will be the focus of 

future leasing. 

Colorado 

In Colorado, the BLM authorized oil 

and gas leases on 30 percent of the 

white-tailed prairie dog’s predicted 

range in the State (Hotze 2010, p. 20) 

across the Northwest, North, and Grand 

Valley-Uncompahgre IPAs. Of the 

authorized oil and gas leases within the 

predicted range in Colorado, there are 

61,334 ha (151,560 ac) of producing 

leases, which comprise approximately 5 

percent of the predicted State range 

(Hotze 2010, p. 14). Non-producing 

leases encompass 311,650 ha (770,104 

ac), or approximately 25 percent of the 

predicted State range (Hotze 2010, p. 

14). 

Northwest Individual Population Area 

(IPA) 

The Northwest IPA in Moffat and Rio 

Blanco Counties is within the Greater 

Green River Basin (DOI et al. 2006, p. 

20) and has the highest potential for oil 

and gas development (Seglund and 

Schnurr 2009, p. 61). This IPA 

comprises approximately 54 percent of 

white-tailed prairie dog predicted 

habitat in Colorado (Hotze 2010, p. 10). 

Authorized lease areas in 2009 

encompassed approximately 41 percent 

of the Northwest IPA (Hotze 2010, p. 

20), and oil and gas development is 

projected to significantly increase over 

the next 20 years (Seglund and Schnurr 

2009, p. 128). For example, the BLM 

anticipates authorizing the drilling of 

3,031 oil and gas wells over the next 20 

years in Routt and southwestern Moffat 

Counties (BLM 2007b, p. 3:100), 

whereas the previous 20 years resulted 

in 594 drilled wells (BLM 2007b, p. 

3:99). Similarly, the BLM anticipates 

between 17,800 and 21,200 new wells 

will be drilled over the next 20 years in 

Rio Blanco and central and northern 

Moffat Counties, whereas there were 

5,800 wells drilled previously (Seglund 

and Schnurr 2009, p. 129). However, the 

majority of these wells will occur 

outside of the white-tailed prairie dog’s 

predicted range (Seglund and Schnurr 

2009, p. 129). Approximately 96 percent 

of new wells will be drilled in areas 

with high oil and gas potential as 

defined by the BLM (2007b, p. 3:100); 

we believe this localizes the 

development to some extent and thus 

limits the amount of prairie dog habitat 

impacted. 

Three potential coal bed methane 

areas partially overlap white-tailed 

prairie dog habitat in the Northwest 

IPA: eastern Sand Wash Basin, Lower 

White River, and Danforth Hill (BLM 

2007b, p. 3:102). However, the majority 

of the coal bed methane areas occur 

outside the predicted range for the 

species within Colorado (BLM 2007b, 

Figure 3-16; Seglund and Schnurr 2009, 

p. 119). 

Grand Valley-Uncompahgre IPA 

There is potential for energy 

development to occur in a corridor of 

the Grand Valley-Uncompahgre IPA in 

Mesa, Montrose, and Ouray Counties 

(Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 54). 

Approximately 14 percent of the whitetailed prairie dog’s predicted range in 

this IPA is authorized for lease or 

contains pending leases from the BLM 

(Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 131; 

Hotze 2010, p. 20). The BLM estimates 

authorizing 3,600 wells on 1,519 pads 

over the next 20 years in this IPA 

(Ewing 2009, pers. comm.). The total 

area disturbed is estimated at 13,200 ac 

(5,342 ha) of short-term disturbance and 

4,100 ac (1,659 ha) of long-term 

disturbance (Ewing 2009, pers. comm.). 

We do not know where this 

development will occur with respect to 

known prairie dog colonies. However, 

85 percent of this IPA remains unleased, 

and future wells represent a relatively 

small (less than 2 percent of this IPA) 

amount of additional disturbance. 

North IPA 

Crude oil was historically produced 

in the North IPA to a limited degree. 

However, EOG Resources discovered a 

large reservoir of crude oil in this area 

in 2008, and subsequently acquired a 

lease for 100,000 ac (40,469 ha) of land 

in the area (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, 

p. 129). Approximately 25 percent of the 

white-tailed prairie dog’s predicted 

range in the North IPA has authorized 

or pending leases (Seglund and Schnurr 

2009, p. 131; Hotze 2010, p. 20). 

In summary, BLM has authorized and 

has pending leases on approximately 30 

percent of the predicted range of the 

species within Colorado for oil and gas 

development (Seglund and Schnurr 

2009, p. 131; Hotze 2010, p. 20). The 

largest potential for overlap and impacts 

to white-tailed prairie dogs occurs in the 

Northwest IPA; oil and gas development 

is projected to increase substantially in 

this IPA over the next 20 years (Seglund 

and Schnurr 2009, p. 129). We expect 

the majority of future oil and gas 

development to occur in this IPA. We 

do not know the exact locations of 

energy development facilities with 

respect to locations of white-tailed 

prairie dog colonies. Oil and gas 

development will likely impact whitetailed prairie dogs, causing individual 

mortalities and habitat loss and 

fragmentation. However, the majority of 

oil and gas development will occur in 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
30346 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

areas of high potential energy reserves, 

and particularly in the Northwest IPA, 

so impacts to the species are likely to be 

more localized, and are not expected to 

occur at high levels across the species’ 

predicted range in Colorado. Based on 

the available information, we do not 

believe oil and gas development in 

Colorado is a threat to the species now 

or in the foreseeable future. 

Montana 

White-tailed prairie dog habitat in 

Montana represents less than 1 percent 

of the gross range of the species 

(Seglund et al. 2006, p. 91), and is 

contained entirely within Carbon 

County. Therefore we did not calculate 

the area impacted by oil and gas leasing. 

The area containing the South Sage 

Creek white-tailed prairie dog colony 

was leased in January 2002, but is not 

yet developed (Begley 2010a, pers. 

comm.). The South Sage Creek colony 

occupies less than 6 ha (15 ac), or 5 

percent of the occupied habitat in 

Montana (MFWP 2009b, p. 3). The area 

containing the Robertson Draw colony is 

available for leasing but has not yet been 

leased (Begley 2010a, pers. comm.). Oil 

and gas development is not impacting 

the remaining six colonies in Montana 

(Seglund et al. 2006, p. 26). Because of 

the small amount of habitat impacted, 

oil and gas development is not a 

significant threat in this State, now or in 

the foreseeable future. 

Utah 

The BLM has authorized oil and gas 

leases on 31 percent of the white-tailed 

prairie dog’s gross range in Utah (Hotze 

2010, p. 18). The highest overlap 

between the gross range of the whitetailed prairie dog and oil and gas 

development potential occurs in Uintah, 

Duchesne, Grand, and Carbon Counties 

(Hotze 2010, pp. 21-22; Utah 

Department of Natural Resources 2004 

in Seglund et al. 2006, p. 33). 

The Uinta and Piceance Basin areas of 

Utah have significant oil and gas 

resources (BLM 2008a, p. 3:38). 

Approximately 82 percent of 18,982 

existing well locations in Utah occur in 

the Uinta Basin in Duchesne and Uintah 

Counties (Hotze 2010, pp. 15-16). There 

are 97,266 ha (240,350 ac) of mapped 

occupied white-tailed prairie dog 

habitat in Uinta and Duchesne Counties 

(Hotze 2010, pp. 7-8). The BLM has 

authorized oil and gas leasing on 

approximately 51 percent of this 

mapped occupied habitat (Hotze 2010, 

p. 22). The BLM estimates that 

approximately 2,055 new oil wells, 

4,345 new gas wells, and 130 new coal 

bed methane wells will be drilled 

within the Uinta Basin during the 15- to 

20–year planning period (BLM 2008a, p. 

3:36). Approximately 73 percent of the 

Federal mineral rights open to leasing in 

the Uinta Basin area have already been 

authorized (Hotze 2010, p. 24). 

Therefore, the authorized leases 

represent a fair assessment of the 

potential impact to white-tailed prairie 

dogs. These leases have a 201-meter 

(660-ft) no surface occupancy 

stipulation adjacent to occupied prairie 

dog colonies, which will minimize 

direct mortality of prairie dogs and the 

loss of habitat from future development 

(see Factor D. Inadequacy of Regulatory 

Mechanisms, below, for a discussion of 

these stipulations). 

There are 14627 ha (36,144 ac) of 

mapped white-tailed prairie dog habitat 

in Carbon and Emery Counties (Hotze 

2010, p. 8). The BLM has authorized oil 

and gas leasing on approximately 52 

percent of this occupied mapped habitat 

(Hotze 2010, p. 22). About 2300 ha 

(5,600 ac) (15 percent) of this habitat is 

located within areas considered to have 

high potential for oil and gas resources 

(BLM 2004, p. 4:119). These leases also 

have a no surface occupancy stipulation 

for prairie dog colonies (see Factor D). 

In summary, oil and gas leasing and 

development is authorized by BLM 

across 31 percent of the species’ gross 

range in Utah. The majority of current 

and future project development occurs 

in the Uinta Basin in northeastern Utah, 

and thus potential impacts to the 

species could be greatest in this area, 

particularly because 52 percent of the 

species’ mapped occupied habitat is 

leased. We consider the Uinta Basin to 

be the highest potential development 

area in Utah. Exploration and drilling, 

as previously discussed, can result in 

mortality of individual prairie dogs and 

the loss and fragmentation of habitats. 

However, robust white-tailed prairie dog 

colonies continue to persist in the Uinta 

Basin, in areas associated with existing 

oil and gas development. The BLM 

imposes a no surface occupancy 

stipulation that prohibits activity within 

201 meters (660 ft) of white-tailed 

prairie dog colonies in the Uinta Basin 

(see Factor D), which will minimize 

direct mortality of prairie dogs and the 

loss of habitat from future development. 

The likely concentration of oil and gas 

development in high potential resource 

areas should also minimize the amount 

of white-tailed prairie dog habitat 

directly lost to development. Due to 

these factors, we do not believe oil and 

gas development in Utah is a threat to 

the species now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

Wyoming 

Seventy-seven percent of the species’ 

gross range in Wyoming overlaps 

potential energy resources in Wyoming 

(Seglund et al. 2006, p. 39). However, 

not all potential energy resources will 

be developed. Therefore, we further 

reviewed leases and potential energy 

resources to determine the extent of 

development in the foreseeable future 

(the next 20 years). 

Approximately 3,443,269 ha 

(88,508,503 ac) of land, or 27 percent of 

the species’ gross range in Wyoming, is 

authorized for leasing by BLM (Hotze 

2010, p. 18). These leases are either 

producing or are non-producing. 

However, we expect the majority of new 

wells will be drilled in areas with high 

oil and gas potential. In high and 

moderate potential areas in Wyoming, a 

single well can produce 4 to 30 times as 

much as a well in low potential areas 

(BLM 2008b, p. A20:6). Most wells will 

be drilled in areas of high potential oil 

and gas resources (Copeland et al. 2009). 

Only 415,649 ha (1,027,057 ac), or 4.2 

percent of the species’ predicted range 

in Wyoming, occurs in high potential oil 

and gas resource in areas as defined by 

Seglund et al. (2006, p. 39). Low and 

medium potential oil and gas resources 

overlap 73 percent of the gross range of 

white-tailed prairie dog (Seglund et al. 

2006, p. 39). Twenty-three percent of 

the gross range has no oil or gas 

resources. Given the existing 

development, we consider the area in 

southern Wyoming between Rawlins 

and Rock Springs to be a high potential 

area (Hotze 2010, p. 11). 

Oil and gas development and reserves 

occur throughout the gross range in 

Wyoming. We do not know the exact 

locations of future energy development 

facilities with respect to locations of 

white-tailed prairie dog colonies. Oil 

and gas development will likely impact 

white-tailed prairie dogs, causing 

individual mortalities and habitat loss 

and fragmentation. However, as 

previously discussed, only a small 

portion (4.2 percent) of the species’ 

gross range overlaps areas of high 

potential energy reserves. Energy 

development is most likely to be 

concentrated in areas of high potential 

reserves, so impacts to the white-tailed 

prairie dog will not occur at high levels 

across the species’ entire gross range in 

Wyoming. Based on the available 

information, we do not believe oil and 

gas development in Wyoming is a threat 

to the species now or in the foreseeable 

future. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30347 

Summary of Oil and Gas Development 

Table 2 (below) gives a summary of 

the percentage of BLM-leased area for 

oil and gas in gross, predicted, and 

mapped occupied range, by State. 

Generally, the area attributed to 

producing leases makes up a small 

portion of the species’ range, although 

up to 28 percent of the species’ gross 

range has been leased for potential 

development. 

TABLE 2. PERCENTAGE OF LEASED AREA FOR OIL AND GAS IN GROSS, PREDICTED, AND MAPPED OCCUPIED RANGE OF THE

WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG. 

(Totals include a small amount of land authorized for leasing but not yet leased; and therefore not included in the other two categories.) 

State 

Percent 

Producing 

Leases 

Percent 

NonProducing 

Leases 

Total 

Percent 

Leased* 

Colorado (Gross) 9 20 30 

Northwest IPA (Predicted) 7 34 41 

North IPA (Predicted) 2 22 25 

Grand Valley/Uncompahgre IPA (Predicted) 3 11 14 

Total, Predicted range 5 25 30 

Utah (Gross) 10 19 31 

Uintah Basin (mapped occupied) 17 32 51 

Carbon and Emery Counties (mapped occupied) 4 48 52 

Wyoming (Gross) 6 21 27 

Total (Gross) 7 20 28 

Oil and gas development is a major 

cause of development in the gross range 

of the species and is likely to continue 

into the foreseeable future at similar 

rates of development. Twenty-eight 

percent of the species’ gross range is 

authorized for leasing. Leasing does not 

guarantee development, and therefore 

we consider the area leased Federally to 

be an estimate of the rangewide 

development, including non-Federal 

estate. A minimum of 13,000 additional 

wells will be authorized in the 

foreseeable future. However, energy 

development will not occur uniformly 

across the landscape. Most development 

will occur in areas of high resource 

potential. Development is also mediated 

by variations in well density and 

spacing. There are localized regions 

across the white-tailed prairie dog’s 

gross range where development is most 

prevalent, including the Uinta Basin in 

Utah, the Northwest IPA in 

northwestern Colorado, and the 

southwestern region of Wyoming. The 

impacts to white-tailed prairie dogs 

would thus be greater in these locations 

than in other parts of the species’ gross 

range. 

In areas where energy development 

overlaps occupied white-tailed prairie 

dog habitats, the resulting habitat loss 

and fragmentation likely has negative 

effects on individuals and populations, 

including mortality, noise disturbance, 

and habitat loss and fragmentation. 

Presumably, there is a threshold level 

wherein habitat loss and fragmentation 

may threaten the white-tailed prairie 

dog, at least in localized regions. 

However, our available information 

indicates energy development does not 

currently significantly threaten the 

species; for example, large prairie dog 

complexes continue to persist in areas 

of high energy development (see 

Colorado and Utah, above). Based on 

the information available to us, we have 

determined that oil and gas 

development does not significantly 

threaten the white-tailed prairie dog 

now or in the foreseeable future. 

Development of Oil Shale, Tar Sands, 

and Other Minerals 

Extraction of oil shale and tar sands 

results in the removal of wide swaths of 

habitat. Oil shale and tar sands 

development results in a loss of habitat 

of the entire lease, although only 

portions of the lease would be impacted 

at a given time. Impact footprints for oil 

shale leases for strip mines are 

approximately 2,331 ha (5,760 ac) in 

size (BLM 2008c, p. 4:4), and each 

surface retort mine (an underground 

mine with processing of the material 

above ground) is approximately 668 ha 

(1,650 ac) (BLM 2008c, p. 4:8). When an 

area is processed, the impact footprint 

shifts to another portion of the lease, 

and mined areas are reclaimed. The 

success of reclamation varies dependent 

on site conditions (BLM 2008c, p. 4:71). 

Oil shale and tar sand development 

activities can result in long- term or 

permanent habitat loss and 

fragmentation of white-tailed prairie dog 

habitats (BLM 2008c, p. 4:109) 

depending on the quality and success of 

habitat reclamation. 

Oil shale and tar sands resources 

occur across 8 percent of the gross range 

of the species (Hotze, 2010, p. 34). 

Approximately 1,228,100 ha (3,034,696 

ac) of potentially productive land for oil 

shale and tar sands occurs in Wyoming 

and Utah (BLM 2008c, p. 2:113), and the 

BLM made available 660,215 ha 

(1,631,424 ac) of Federal land for leasing 

in this area (BLM 2008c, p. ES:7). A very 

small portion of the white-tailed prairie 

dog’s gross range is identified for leasing 

in Colorado (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, 

p. 121). 

Oil shale and tar sands development 

has failed to materialize due largely to 

technological problems and unfavorable 

economics. Significant economic 

questions remain regarding the 

development of the Green River 

formation oil shale and tar sands 

resources (Bartis et al. 2005, pp. 15, 53; 

BLM 2006, pp. 7, 15-19, 31, 34-36). The 

cost associated with an essentially new 

industry using new and innovative 

technologies is likely to be great. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
30348 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Economic success of oil shale- and tar 

sands-derived petroleum will depend 

on continuing high and stable 

petroleum prices. Due to past 

fluctuation of petroleum prices, private 

industry has exhibited a reluctance to 

proceed with research, development, 

and subsequent commercial production 

of oil shale. This situation will likely 

continue unless the petroleum industry 

is convinced that petroleum prices will 

remain high well into the future (Bartis 

et al. 2005, pp. 59-61; Bunger et al. 

2004, pp. 7-9). 

Oil shale and tar sands extraction and 

development remains a speculative 

industry. At this time, we believe it is 

unlikely that the BLM will begin leasing 

the identified properties for 

development within the foreseeable 

future, which we define as 

approximately 10-15 years. In addition, 

while oil shale and tar sands resources 

overlap 8 percent of the species’ gross 

range, actual oil shale and tar sands 

development facilities overlap with only 

a small portion (less than 0.1 percent) of 

the species’ gross range. We do not 

believe development of oil shale and tar 

sands is a significant threat to the 

species now or in the foreseeable future. 

Mineral Development 

Coal, uranium, sand, and gravel 

mining can result in the removal of 

habitat (BLM 2004, p. 4:12). These 

activities have the potential to result in 

long-term or permanent habitat loss and 

fragmentation, depending on the quality 

and success of habitat reclamation. 

These activities are not common land 

uses on BLM holdings in the gross range 

of the species. The BLM solid mineral 

leases total 108,170 ha (445,209 ac), less 

than 1 percent of the species’ gross 

range (Hotze 2010, p. 30). The BLM coal 

leases total 88,167 ha (217,866 ac), also 

less than 1 percent of the species’ gross 

range (Hotze 2010, p. 32). Available 

evidence does not suggest solid mineral 

leases are more common on private 

lands. Available information does not 

suggest they will become more 

widespread within the species’ gross 

range in the future. Given the small 

percentage of the gross range impacted 

by these activities, we do not believe 

mineral development is a significant 

threat to the species now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Renewable Energy Development—Wind 

and Solar 

The BLM has accessed areas of 

renewable resource potential with the 

objective of allowing the industries to 

focus development in the areas of 

highest potential (BLM and DOE 2003, 

p. 2). The majority of the species’ gross 

range (Federal and non-Federal lands) 

has a low (~ 5kWh/m2/day) amount of 

direct solar resources (BLM and DOE 

2003, p. A2). Currently, less than 1 

percent of the species’ range has been 

leased by BLM for development of solar 

resources (BLM 2009, unpublished 

data). We are unaware of solar 

developments on private land within 

the gross range of the species. The 

majority of the land containing the 

species’ range is federally owned, and 

therefore we consider potential solar 

developments on non-Federal land to be 

insufficient to threaten the species. 

Given the limited solar resources and 

lack of development to date in the 

species’ range, we do not consider solar 

energy to be a significant threat to the 

species now or in the foreseeable future. 

Wind energy could impact the species 

by creating habitat loss, disturbance, or 

fragmentation; increasing the amount of 

invasive vegetation; increasing direct 

mortality; and increasing disturbance 

from noise and human presence (BLM 

2005b, p. 5:42). Wind power has 

experienced a rate of expansion greater 

than any other renewable energy 

resource, and continued increases are 

predicted through 2030 (EIA 2009, pp. 

47, 74). Depending on costs, wind 

power production could increase 

nationwide by as much as 38 percent by 

2030 (EIA 2009, p. 74). 

The BLM manages more land areas of 

high wind resource potential than any 

other land management agency. In 2005, 

the BLM completed the Wind Energy 

Final Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) that provides an 

overarching guidance for wind project 

development on BLM-administered 

lands (BLM 2005b, entire). Best 

management practices are prescribed to 

minimize impacts of all phases of 

construction and operation of a wind 

production facility. We do not have 

information on how or where the EIS 

guidance was applied since 2005 and, 

therefore, cannot evaluate its 

effectiveness. 

Wind energy developments leased by 

the BLM total 823,358 ha (2,034,562 ac), 

or approximately 4 percent of the 

species’ gross range (Hotze 2010, p. 28). 

Only 5 to 10 percent of a development 

will have long-term surface disturbances 

(i.e., roads, foundations, substation, 

fencing) (BLM 2005b, p. 5:2). 

To evaluate the potential of future 

wind energy developments to impact 

the species, we examined the potential 

locations for development. Within the 

species’ gross range in Colorado and 

Utah, only poor and marginal wind 

power resources exist (NREL 2003, 

entire; NREL 2004, entire). In Wyoming, 

there are pockets of good, excellent, and 

outstanding wind power within the 

species’ gross range in Fremont, 

Natrona, and Carbon Counties (NREL 

2002, entire). The majority (more than 

75 percent) of these counties are 

federally owned land. However, better 

wind power resources (rated as 

outstanding and superb, based on wind 

speeds) are available east of the species’ 

gross range (NREL 2002, entire). We 

expect areas with the best wind 

resources will be developed first and 

receive more total development. 

We are unable to quantify the wind 

development scenario for private lands 

in the species’ gross range. No central 

organization currently tracks wind 

development on private lands. Given 

the small amount of private land that 

coincides with an economically 

developable wind resource, we assume 

a maximum development of less than 10 

percent of the species’ gross range in 

Wyoming. 

The BLM maximum potential 

development scenario for wind energy 

in the entire State of Wyoming is an 

estimated total of 3,197,937 ha 

(7,902,000 ac) of potentially developable 

lands, but a much smaller amount is 

likely to be developed on BLMadministered lands (1,497 ha (3,700 ac)) 

(BLM 2005b, p. 5:2). The BLM estimates 

that only 5 to 10 percent of BLM area, 

or 150 ha (370 ac) of lands, will have 

long-term surface disturbance (BLM 

2005b, p. 5:2). We expect that much of 

the economically developable land 

exists outside the species’ gross range, 

and given the small size of the total area 

on Federal lands likely to be developed 

in Wyoming (1,497 ha (3,700 ac)), and 

that the majority of the species’ range 

occurs on Federal lands, we do not 

expect wind energy development to 

have a significant impact on the species. 

Because only small portions of the 

species’ gross range are currently 

impacted by wind development and 

expected to be impacted in the future, 

we do not believe wind energy 

development represents a significant 

threat to the species. Given that 

projected development is small in 

regard to the size of the species’ gross 

range, and that the majority of 

development will take place where 

better resources exist, we expect the 

overall impact of wind development on 

the white-tailed prairie dog to be low. 

Urbanization 

Conversion of land for urban 

development results in a permanent loss 

of habitat and fragmentation for many 

species, including the white-tailed 

prairie dog. Increases in major 

population centers result in increased 

infrastructure, such as roads and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30349 

transmission lines. These infrastructure 

features may impact habitats beyond the 

immediate urban area. Increased 

urbanization can introduce domestic 

animals, such as dogs and cats, that may 

prey on some prairie dogs (Magle and 

Crooks 2009, p. 198). Human population 

growth may result in an increased use 

of surrounding public lands for 

recreation (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, 

p. 54). 

The effects of urban fragmentation on 

the white-tailed prairie dog have not 

been studied. Some information exists 

for the black-tailed prairie dog. Weights 

and sex ratios of black-tailed prairie 

dogs in urban environments were 

within normal ranges for the species 

(Magle 2008, p. 116). However, blacktailed prairie dogs were more likely to 

occur on larger, contiguous habitats 

within the urban environments rather 

than smaller, highly fragmented parcels 

(Magle and Crooks 2009, p. 197). 

Collapses of existing colonies were 

observed within highly fragmented 

urban environments (Magle and Crooks 

2009, pp. 197, 199). This information 

suggests that some prairie dogs can 

survive in fragmented habitat, but 

population loss increases with degree of 

fragmentation and amount of time since 

fragmentation occurred (Magle and 

Crooks 2009, p. 200). 

The rate of urbanization within the 

Rocky Mountain region is below the 

national average (White et al. 2009, pp. 

41-42). As of 2004, urbanization affected 

0.2 percent of the white-tailed prairie 

dog’s gross range (Seglund et al. 2006, 

p. 45). Much of the existing and future 

predicted urbanization is localized to 

specific population centers, as further 

described below. 

Colorado 

Twenty-eight percent of the overall 

white-tailed prairie dog’s predicted 

range is expected to be impacted by 

high density urban development (i.e., 

less than 16 ha (40 ac) per housing unit), 

5 percent by moderate density urban 

development (16 to 32 ha (40 to 80 ac) 

per housing unit), and 8 percent by low 

density urban development (greater than 

32 ha (80 ac) per housing unit) by 2020 

in Colorado (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, 

p. 171). Public land comprises 59 

percent of the species’ predicted range 

in Colorado and is not expected to be 

impacted by urbanization (Seglund and 

Schnurr 2009, p. 171). We expect that 

only moderate and high density urban 

development will negatively impact the 

species, because low density 

developments still provide large 

expanses of area for colonies to exist 

and allow for connectivity between 

colonies. 

The majority of urban development is 

predicted to occur in the Grand ValleyUncompahgre IPA (Seglund and 

Schnurr 2009, pp. 52, 54). Urbanization 

has already fragmented white-tailed 

prairie dog habitats in this IPA (Seglund 

and Schnurr 2009, p. 54). By 2020, 37 

percent of the IPA is expected to be 

impacted by high or moderate density 

urban development (Seglund and 

Schnurr 2009, p. 174). However, 

urbanization will be localized largely to 

the Grand Junction and Montrose urban 

areas. High or moderate density urban 

development will occur across much 

less of the North IPA (0.9 percent) and 

Northwest IPA (0.4 percent) (Seglund 

and Schnurr 2009, p. 174). 

Urbanization has the potential to 

impact the species in Colorado, 

particularly in portions of the Grand 

Valley/Uncompahgre IPA. However, as 

noted above, high-density urbanization 

will be localized primarily to the human 

population centers of Grand Junction 

and Montrose. Because of its localized 

impact and the availability of large 

acreages of Federal, non-urbanized 

lands in the species’ predicted range, we 

do not consider urbanization to be a 

significant threat to the species in 

Colorado now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

Montana 

In Montana, 49 percent of the species’ 

predicted range is privately owned 

(Table 1, above). Private land uses 

include grazing, agriculture, and 

housing; a metropolitan area is located 

in nearby Carbon County. At one time, 

31 distinct white-tailed prairie dog 

colonies occurred in Montana. 

Urbanization resulted in the loss of 3 

colonies to road construction and 

development (Begley 2010b, pers. 

comm.). An additional 20 colonies were 

lost to impacts associated with mining, 

agriculture, or other unknown causes 

not directly attributable to urban 

development (Begley 2010b, pers. 

comm.). 

Of the eight remaining colonies in 

Montana, four occur on privately owned 

land (Begley 2010b, pers. comm.). Three 

of these colonies are in areas that 

support livestock grazing (Begley 2010b, 

pers. comm.). We are unaware of any 

plans to develop these properties in the 

foreseeable future. The remaining four 

colonies occur on Federal lands and are 

thus not threatened by urbanization. 

Therefore, we do not consider 

urbanization in Montana to significantly 

threaten the species now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Utah 

Urban development is expected to 

expand by 188,600 ha (466,041 ac) 

across the State of Utah by the year 2030 

(White et al. 2009, p. 44). However, 

development is localized to 

metropolitan areas along the Wasatch 

front in Weber, Morgan, Summit, Davis, 

Salt Lake, Toole, Utah, and Juab 

Counties (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) 2008, p. 2; U.S. 

Census Bureau (USCB) 2005a, p. 1). 

These areas do not overlap the species’ 

gross range. 

The majority of white-tailed prairie 

dogs in Utah occur in the Uinta basin 

(Lupis et al. 2007, p. 17). The potential 

for future urban development in the 

Uinta Basin is associated largely with 

the city of Vernal (USCB 2005a, p. 1). 

Vernal is a support and staging area for 

the oil and gas development (see Factor 

A. Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development) of the Uinta basin; 

increased urbanized development is 

primarily the result of increased oil and 

gas expansion. However, much of the 

required urban infrastructure is already 

in place, and the majority of gross range 

in Utah is managed by Federal agencies 

(Table 1, above). The gross range and 

mapped occupied habitat of the whitetailed prairie dog in the Uinta basin 

does not overlap the developing areas 

associated with the city of Vernal; thus 

we expect that most of the predicted 

development through 2030 will occur 

outside of the species’ gross range. 

We evaluated the likely centers for 

urbanization in Utah through 2030 and 

compared these to the gross range and 

mapped occupied habitat of the whitetailed prairie dog. Based on our 

evaluation, we do not consider 

urbanization to be a significant threat to 

the species in Utah now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Wyoming 

Wyoming has the largest amount of 

white-tailed prairie dog habitat and the 

smallest amount of predicted 

development. Over 46 percent of the 

species’ gross range occurs in counties 

with no urban development: Park, Big 

Horn, Washakie, Hot Springs, Sublette, 

and Carbon Counties (USCB 2005b, p. 

1). Only localized, small portions of the 

remaining counties will be impacted in 

the metropolitan area of Casper and the 

micropolitan areas of Riverton, 

Evanston, Rock Springs, and Laramie 

(USCB 2005b, p. 1). Given these factors, 

we do not believe urbanization is a 

significant threat to the species in this 

State now or in the foreseeable future. 

In summary, habitat loss and 

fragmentation due to urbanization may 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
30350 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

impact the white-tailed prairie dog, but 

only in localized areas. There is no 

indication that there will be significant 

increases in urbanization across the 

species’ gross range in the future. 

Therefore, we do not believe 

urbanization to be a threat to the species 

now or in the foreseeable future. 

Agricultural Land Conversion 

Agricultural land conversion is the 

change in land use from any use to an 

agricultural use, including crops and 

pastures. Agricultural crops can benefit 

prairie dogs by providing highly 

nutritious forage (Crocker-Bedford 1976, 

pp. 73-74; Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 

95). However, these colonies also are 

subject to additional mortality factors 

including higher lethal control efforts 

(see Factor B. Shooting and Factor E. 

Poisoning) to protect crops (Knowles 

2002, p. 12), increased habitat 

fragmentation from fences and roads, 

and increased urban predators (Seglund 

and Schnurr 2009, p. 95). 

The impact of past agricultural 

conversion is difficult to determine 

given how little we know about the 

historical range of white-tailed prairie 

dogs. Historical population declines 

occurred for all prairie dog species, and 

range contractions were documented for 

white-tailed prairie dogs in localized 

areas in Colorado and Montana 

(Knowles 2002, p. 12). However, we do 

not know if these losses were the result 

of agricultural conversion or other 

factors; it is likely that historical 

population losses were the result of a 

combination of impacts across the range 

of the species. Agricultural land 

conversion probably displaced some 

white-tailed prairie dogs in areas of 

Colorado and the Big Horn Basin in 

Wyoming (Knowles 2002, p. 12). 

Today, agriculture occurs across 3.7 

percent of the gross range of the whitetailed prairie dog (Seglund et al. 2006, 

p. 50). Many of the areas currently 

inhabited by white-tailed prairie dogs 

are arid and semi-arid with short 

growing seasons (Seglund et al. 2006 

pp. 4-5) and therefore have limited 

potential for crops. In Colorado, the 

counties containing white-tailed prairie 

dogs saw a decrease in the amount of 

agricultural land by an average of 37 

percent between 1954 and 2002 

(calculated from data in Seglund and 

Schnurr 2009, p. 96). Farm land (e.g., 

crops, pasture, grazing (not including 

Federal grazing permits), USDA 2009, p. 

B:14) acreages have continued to 

decline across all States and counties 

that occur within the gross range of the 

white-tailed prairie dog (see Table 3, 

below). There is not a direct correlation 

between the decline in farm lands and 

increases in other land uses, although it 

is likely that the farmland has been reconverted to other rural uses, such as 

grazing, or has become urbanized (see 

Factor A. Urbanization). 

TABLE 3. PERCENTAGE DECREASE OF

FARM LAND, STATEWIDE AND IN

COUNTIES PARTLY OR WHOLLY CONTAINED WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE

WHITE TAILED PRAIRIE DOG, BETWEEN 2002 AND 2007 (USDA 

2009, PP. CO 316, UT 249, WY 

268, 316). 

State Statewide 

Counties 

Within 

White-tailed 

Prairie Dog 

Range 

Wyoming 12.1 14.0 

Colorado 7.6 9.5 

Utah 2.3 13.1 

Average 7.3 12.2 

In summary, agricultural land 

conversion was likely a major historical 

impact on the species. However, many 

of the areas currently inhabited are not 

suitable for crop lands, and appear to be 

supporting sufficient populations of the 

species. The effects of land conversion 

on the species are mixed, and currently 

very limited land is being converted to 

agricultural uses. Therefore, we do not 

consider agricultural land conversion to 

be a significant threat to the species now 

or in the foreseeable future. 

Grazing 

Native herbivores, such as pronghorn 

antelope (Antilocarpo americana), mule 

deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and bison 

(Bison bison), occurred in the 

sagebrush-steppe region prior to 

European settlement of western States 

(Osborne 1953, p. 267; Miller et al. 

1994, p. 111), and prairie dogs coevolved with these grazers. Domestic 

livestock grazing in the intermountain 

west began with the arrival of European 

settlers in the 1800s. The numbers of 

livestock were unregulated, and peaked 

in the early 1900s (Oliphant 1968, p. vii; 

Young et al. 1976, pp. 194-195, 

Carpenter 1981, p. 106; Donahue 1999, 

p. 15; Seglund et al. 2006, pp. 49, 51), 

with an estimated 19.6 million cattle 

and 25 million sheep in the West (BLM, 

2009, pp. 1-2). 

Excessive grazing by domestic 

livestock during the late 1800s and early 

1900s, along with severe drought, 

significantly impacted sagebrush 

ecosystems (Knick et al. 2003, p. 616). 

Livestock grazing continues to be the 

most widespread type of land use across 

the sagebrush biome (Knick et al. 2003, 

p. 616; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-29; 

Knick et al., in press, p. 27). However, 

the intensity of grazing on all Federal 

lands has declined since the early 1900s 

(Laycock et al. 1996, p. 3). 

Livestock grazing can affect ecosystem 

functions and structures, including a 

general decrease in grass and shrub 

cover, total plant biomass, and rodent 

species diversity and richness 

(Fleischner 1994, pp. 633-635; Jones 

2000, pp. 160-161). Fencing and roads 

associated with grazing may cause 

habitat fragmentation and may directly 

or indirectly cause increased mortality 

of prairie dogs by increasing prairie dogvehicle collisions, creating perch sites 

for raptors, and providing access 

corridors for predators (Call and Maser 

1985, p. 3; Connelly et al. 2000, p. 974; 

Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 1-2). 

‘‘Overgrazing’’ refers to continued 

heavy grazing beyond the recovery 

capacity of the forage plants (Vallentine 

1990, p. 329). Overgrazing causes the 

palatable and preferred herbaceous 

vegetation of prairie dogs to be 

preferentially removed, allowing shrubs 

and unpalatable plants to flourish. 

Overgrazing can facilitate the 

establishment of invasive species such 

as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) 

(Masters and Sheley 2001, p. 503) (see 

below for more information). The 

intensity, duration, and distribution of 

livestock grazing are more influential on 

rangeland condition than livestock 

density (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 990). 

Grazing impacts to rangeland are 

determined by the type of animal, 

stocking rate, duration of grazing, 

season of use, and current habitat 

conditions (Vallentine 1990, entire). 

Impacts of livestock grazing on whitetailed prairie dogs are not known largely 

because of our lack of historical species 

distribution information and the lack of 

ungrazed habitats as a baseline (Seglund 

et al. 2006, p. 49). Overgrazing may 

impact prairie dogs by degrading the 

quality and quantity of forage; 

decreasing forage availability during 

important breeding, rearing, and prehibernation periods; and decreasing 

white-tailed prairie dog reproductive 

success and over-wintering survival 

(Seglund et al. 2006, p. 49). However, 

the potential for impacts is likely to be 

site-specific. For example, removing 

livestock from shrub-steppe habitat can 

result in either an increase of species 

richness (Anderson and Inouye 2001, 

pp. 538, 544-545, 549-550), or a 

decrease in species richness (Manier 

and Hobbs 2007, p. 743), depending on 

site variables. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30351 

Grazing effects to other prairie dog 

species are known to some degree. 

Livestock grazing can have positive 

effects on black-tailed prairie dog 

colonies because of grazing’s effect of 

converting mid-height and tall grasses to 

short grasses improves predator 

surveillance visibility (Uresk et al. 1981, 

p. 200; Cable and Timm 1987, p. 46). 

Overgrazing was shown to negatively 

affect Utah prairie dog growth rates, 

foraging ability, and survivorship 

(Cheng and Ritchie 2006, p. 550). Utah 

prairie dog colony extinction rates 

increased as plant species richness 

declined due to overgrazing (Ritchie 

1999, p. 12). Heavy grazing also can 

contribute to an increase in shrubs in 

Utah prairie dog habitat (CrockerBedford 1976, p. 88). However, over 

time, Utah prairie dogs prefer areas with 

moderate grazing intensities over 

ungrazed areas, because sufficient forage 

remained available in the grazed plots 

(Cheng and Ritchie 2006, p. 554); cattle 

cannot eat plants below 2 centimeters 

(0.879 in), limiting the impacts of 

moderate grazing on prairie dogs. 

Results from the Utah prairie dog 

studies are most applicable to whitetailed prairie dogs due to similarities in 

habitat preferences. Both species use 

arid shrub-steppe habitats, and whitetailed prairie dogs can utilize shrub 

cover for hiding (Gadd 2000, pp. 24-26). 

Therefore, we assume that white-tailed 

prairie dogs react to grazing in a similar 

manner to Utah prairie dogs. However, 

reactions to overgrazing may not be as 

extreme in the white-tailed species due 

to their higher shrub tolerance. 

We do not have information regarding 

site-specific range conditions on Federal 

or non-Federal allotments that overlap 

white-tailed prairie dog habitats. Range 

condition data is not collected in a 

manner that is biologically meaningful 

for small mammals. White-tailed prairie 

dogs, being a diet generalist living in 

arid environments, can persist with 

limited forage. It is unknown how far 

range condition must deteriorate before 

a habitat becomes incapable of 

supporting a colony. Therefore, we do 

not know how much of the habitat is 

overgrazed versus moderately grazed. It 

is likely that overgrazing impacts whitetailed prairie dog colonies in localized 

portions across the species’ range. 

However, the available literature 

indicates that prairie dogs can coexist 

with some level of grazing, and in some 

cases, benefit from grazing. White-tailed 

prairie dogs have persisted during 

higher historical grazing pressures and 

livestock stocking rates have declined 

substantially. Therefore, we do not 

consider grazing to be a significant 

threat to the species now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Fire Occurrence and Suppression 

The shrub-steppe habitat occupied by 

the white-tailed prairie dog evolved 

with infrequent fire frequency intervals 

of 100 to 450 years depending on the 

dominant species of sagebrush (Baker 

2006, pp. 180-181). Fire suppression 

activities also were infrequent (Baker 

2006, p. 182) and probably had little 

effect on sagebrush landscapes (Baker in 

press, p. 22). 

Fire ecology of sagebrush habitats has 

changed since European settlement of 

the West. In general, fire frequencies 

have increased in lower elevation 

sagebrush habitats due to (and resulting 

in further) invasion of nonnative annual 

grasses, such as cheatgrass (Baker 2006, 

p. 178; Crawford et al. 2004, p. 8). Fire 

frequencies also have increased due in 

part to human activities and presence 

(Miller et al. in press p. 38). Fire 

frequencies have declined in higher 

elevation sagebrush habitats, resulting 

in the expansion of shrubs and trees 

(Miller and Rose 1999, p. 557; Baker 

2006, p. 178; Crawford et al. 2004, p. 8). 

The number of fires and total area 

burned increased from 1980-2007 in 

sage-grouse habitat (Miller et al. in 

press, p. 39); this overlaps much of the 

white-tailed prairie dog’s gross range in 

Wyoming and Colorado. However, the 

habitat mosaics and effects to wildlife 

resulting from fires are not well 

understood and vary across the 

landscape (Baker 2006, pp. 178, 183). 

We do not have information specific 

to the effects of fire or fire suppression 

on white-tailed prairie dogs. Whitetailed prairie dogs are adapted to a 

shrub-steppe grass mosaic. They use 

shrubs as forage and cover from 

predators (Tileston and Lechleitner 

1966, pp. 31, 302; Hoogland 1981, pp. 

266-268; Gadd 2000, pp. 24-26). They 

feed on forbs and grasses, and these can 

be increased by fire in shrubland habitat 

(Pyle and Crawford 1996, p. 323; Davies 

et al. 2007, p. 518). 

We anticipate that the impacts of fire 

to white-tailed prairie dogs will vary 

locally across the species’ gross range. 

In some places where fire has occurred, 

shrub or pinyon-juniper invasions are 

likely to occur and may reduce available 

sagebrush communities for the species 

(Miller and Rose 1999, p. 557). In other 

cases, cheatgrass may become the 

dominant plant species (Baker 2006, p. 

178; Crawford et al., p. 8), reducing 

preferred forage quantity and quality for 

the white-tailed prairie dog. However, 

the white-tailed prairie dog is able to 

use the mosaic of habitats created by fire 

and fire suppression activities, and thus 

we do not believe that fire occurrence or 

suppression is a significant threat to the 

white-tailed prairie dog now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Invasive Plant Species 

Invasive plant species are promoted 

by intense levels of disturbance to the 

environment (Masters and Shelley 2001, 

p. 504), such as oil and gas 

development, agriculture, and 

urbanization. Invasive plant species 

alter ecological processes by displacing 

native species, increasing the 

vulnerability of communities to more 

invaders, and reducing wildlife habitat 

quality (Masters and Sheley 2001, p. 

503). They can be particularly damaging 

in areas of low moisture, including 

shrub-steppe habitats, because they 

reduce water infiltration of the soil and 

possess deeper roots than native 

species, allowing them to use more 

water and reduce nutrient availability 

over time (DiTomaso 2000, p. 257). The 

proliferation of exotic annual weeds 

over native perennial grasses and forbs 

may impact the ability of white-tailed 

prairie dogs to meet their dietary needs, 

especially during drought years. Utah 

prairie dog colony extinction rates were 

found to increase as the number of 

locally occurring plant species declined 

(Ritchie 1999, p. 12). Cheatgrass in 

particular is widely distributed across 

the gross range of the white-tailed 

prairie dog. Cheatgrass creates an 

altered fire regime, increasing the 

amount of fire and reducing native 

grasses and shrubs (Masters and Sheley 

2001, p. 503). Juniper species have 

invaded sagebrush habitat beginning 

with European settlement (Miller and 

Rose 1999, pp. 551, 555), and may result 

in decreased habitat if forestation 

progresses. 

The main effect of invasive species is 

the decrease in habitat quality and 

forage. Some habitat may be lost due to 

pine-juniper invasion. It is likely that 

invasive species will have localized 

impacts to individual white-tailed 

prairie dog habitat. Presumably, a 

certain amount of invasive species is 

tolerable. Despite localized impacts, no 

data indicate that invasive species are 

threatening the species on a rangewide 

scale. At this point, the available 

information does not indicate that 

invasive species, although present 

within the gross range, are a significant 

threat to the white-tailed prairie dog 

now or in the foreseeable future. 

Climate Change 

Global surface temperatures rose 

(with regional variations) during the 

past 157 years, with the largest increases 

occurring since the 1970s (Trenberth et 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
30352 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

al. 2007, p. 252). Globally, average 

surface temperatures rose by 0.074 

degrees Celsius (°C) plus or minus 0.018 

°C (0.13 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) plus or 

minus 0.03 °F) per decade during the 

past century (1906 through 2005) and by 

0.177 °C plus or minus 0.052 °C (0.32 

°F plus or minus 0.09 °F) per decade 

during the past quarter-century (1981 

through 2005) (Trenberth et al. 2007, p. 

253). 

Similar surface temperature increases 

occurred across the gross range of the 

white-tailed prairie dog. The Southwest 

region, including the Colorado and Utah 

portion of the species’ gross range, 

observed a 0.83 °C (1.5 °F) increase in 

average temperatures when compared to 

a 1960 to 1979 baseline (Karl et al. 2009, 

p. 129). The Great Plains region 

(including the Wyoming and Montana 

portion of the gross range) experienced 

a 0.83 °C (1.5 °F) increase over average 

temperatures, compared to the same 

baseline (Karl et al. 2009, p. 123). 

Drought conditions across the species’ 

gross range were moderate to extreme 

(Marshall et al. 2008, p. 274). 

The timeframe over which the best 

available scientific information allows 

us to reliably assess the effects of 

climate change is an important 

consideration. Until about 2050, 

greenhouse gas emissions scenarios 

(reviewed in the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change Special Report 

on Emission Scenarios in 2000, as cited 

in Ray et al. 2009, p. 8), which are an 

essential component of any climate 

change assessment, result in a similar 

range of projections of global and 

regional climate change (Ray et al. 2009, 

p. 8). Temperature increases over the 

next 30 to 50 years are relatively 

insensitive to the emissions scenarios 

used to model the projected change. 

Some warming, as projected in the 

greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, is 

anticipated as a result of greenhouse 

gases already in the atmosphere that 

will influence future climate, more so 

for mid-century versus late century 

(Meehl et al. 2007, p. 749; Mote and 

Salathe ́ 2009, p. 30). The range in the 

spread of the models is due both to 

details in the formulation (which 

includes emission scenarios) of each 

individual model, and natural 

variability in climate. Because increases 

of greenhouse gas emissions have lag 

effects on climate, and because 

projections of greenhouse gas emissions 

can be interpreted with greater 

confidence until approximately midcentury, model projections for the next 

30 to 50 years (centered on 2050) have 

greater credibility than results projected 

further into future. On the basis of 

available information, we have 

determined that predicted climate 

changes for 2025 and 2050 are more 

reliable than projections for the second 

half (up until 2100) of the 21st century 

and as such, we consider 2050 to 

represent the foreseeable future. 

One scenario predicts an average 

increase in annual temperature in 

western North America (covering the 

entire gross range of the species) of 

between 1.1 to 3.4 °C (2 to 4 °F) by 2050, 

compared to a 1961 to 1979 baseline in 

the western United States (Smith et al. 

2000, p. 29). Other predictions range 

from an annual mean warming of about 

1.4 to 3 °C (2.5 to 5.5 °F) by 2050 as part 

of a continent-wide pattern of warming 

(Ray et al. 2009 p. 15). The projections 

show summers warming more (1.7 to 3.9 

°C (3 to 7°F)) than winters (1.1 to 2.7 °C 

(2 to 5 °F)) (Ray et al. 2009 p. 15) 

Climate change will affect 

precipitation. Generally, a reduction of 

depth, duration, and distribution of 

snowpack is expected (Solomon et al. 

2007, pp. 770-772; Marshall et al. 2008, 

p. 276). Precipitation is predicted to 

decrease in the Southwest region (Karl 

et al. 2009, p. 129), and increase in the 

Great Plains region (Karl et al. 2009, p. 

123). Climate change also will affect 

plague ecology (please see Factor C. 

Disease and Predation, below). 

Recent climatic changes, including 

increased temperatures and freeze-free 

periods, and changes in precipitation, 

are important driving forces on 

ecosystems and have affected a wide 

variety of organisms with diverse 

geographic distributions (Walther et al. 

2002, pp. 391-392; Parmesan and Yohe 

2003, p. 41). Many plant and animal 

species have advanced the timing of 

spring events (e.g., plant flowering or 

bird migration) to occur earlier in the 

year and experienced a shift in 

latitudinal and altitudinal range (i.e., 

movement to higher latitudes or higher 

altitude) (Walther et al. 2002, pp. 391- 

392). 

The white-tailed prairie dog and its 

habitat will likely be affected in some 

manner by climate change. Climate 

change could impact habitat quality, 

which may in turn affect prairie dog 

productivity. For example, higher 

quality habitats promote higher weaning 

success of adult and yearling female 

white-tailed prairie dogs (Cooke 1993, 

in Seglund et al. 2006, p. 7). We would 

expect higher quality habitats to occur 

in areas where rainfall is predicted to 

increase. Alternatively, increased 

drought in the southwestern portion of 

the gross range could reduce vegetation 

quality and quantity, resulting in 

lowered nutrition for the white-tailed 

prairie dog (Collier and Spillet 1975, p. 

153; Seglund et al. 2006, p. 64). Drought 

may result in more time spent in 

burrows and less time spent foraging, as 

well as water-stress from lack of 

succulent forage (Collier and Spillet 

1975, p. 153). 

Population fluctuations of whitetailed prairie dog colonies at the Coyote 

Basin Subcomplex, Kennedy Wash 

Subcomplex, and Snake John 

Subcomplex in Uintah County, Utah, 

were likely the result of drought 

(Maxfield 2009, pers. comm.). The 2002 

drought resulted in a decrease in 

available forage for white-tailed prairie 

dogs at a time when populations had 

peaked. This resulted in little or no 

reproduction in 2003, and a population 

crash in 2004 (Maxfield 2010, pers. 

comm.). Habitat conditions improved 

and the colonies rebounded to predrought population levels by 2008-2009 

(Seglund et al. 2006, p. 101; Maxfield 

2010, pers. comm.), indicating a level of 

resiliency of this species to withstand at 

least short-term climatic variations. 

Life-history characteristics of the 

white-tailed prairie dog may be 

responsible for its resiliency and may 

provide protection from effects of 

climate change. The burrowing and 

hibernating behaviors of prairie dogs 

provide protection in times of low 

resource availability and unfavorable 

conditions, including those associated 

with climate change (Liow et al. 2009, 

pp. 264, 270). Overwinter survival and 

reproductive success is linked to habitat 

quality (Rayor 1985, p. 2839), so lack of 

adequate food resources during drought 

leads to a decrease in reproductive 

output as seen above. Individual 

animals also may adapt by becoming 

mostly inactive during times of drought 

(Liow et al. 2009, p. 270). 

Shifts in the geographic ranges of 

wildlife have occurred as an effect of 

climate change (Walther et al. 2002, pp. 

390-391), and may thus be anticipated 

for the white-tailed prairie dog. Due to 

the large gross range of the species (from 

the Southwest to the Great Plains, 

which are projected to have much 

different impacts from climate change, 

as discussed above), we expect the 

effects of climate change to vary 

throughout the species’ gross range, 

both in nature of the impact and the 

timing of these effects. In addition, the 

species’ gross range is contained within 

a region that already witnesses climatic 

variability as climate varies 

considerably between years (Smith et al. 

2000, p. 224). Therefore we expect the 

effects of climate change to vary 

temporally (year-to-year) as well. This 

variation in effects will buffer the 

cumulative effects of climate change on 

the species as a whole because only a 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30353 

portion of the gross range will be 

impacted at a given time. 

Although the white-tailed prairie dog 

will likely be affected by climate 

change, it is not apparent that a net loss 

in occupied habitat will result. 

Variation in conditions across the gross 

range and a possible gross range shift 

could maintain sufficient habitat for the 

species. The species is adaptable to a 

wide array of climes, as evidenced by a 

geographic range that includes four 

States, as well as a wide elevational 

distribution (see Ecology and Life 

History, above). Unlike more vulnerable 

species in polar, coastal, and alpine 

ecosystems, habitat space exists to 

accommodate shifts in range. Therefore, 

we do not believe that climate change 

poses a threat to the species now or in 

the foreseeable future. The relationship 

between climate change and plague is 

discussed in more detail below (see 

Factor C. Disease or Predation). 

Summary of Factor A 

Energy development, urbanization, 

agricultural conversion, grazing, fire 

suppression, introduction of invasive 

plant species, and climate change 

within the gross range of the whitetailed prairie dog have occurred and 

will continue to occur in the future. We 

do not expect oil shale, tar sands, coal, 

and other mineral extraction activities 

to impact a large portion of the species’ 

gross range. Urbanization will have an 

effect on some local populations, 

particularly in Colorado, but is not 

considered a rangewide threat. Grazing 

is likely impacting some areas of 

habitat, but no evidence indicates it is 

a significant threat. A net loss of habitat 

is not expected to result from climate 

change. Oil and gas development has 

the most potential to impact the species 

due to its widespread distribution and 

magnitude, yet the intensity of these 

activities varies greatly across the range 

due to differences in well density and 

spacing. Robust colonies and complexes 

exist even in the most developed areas. 

The majority of the gross range has not 

been subject to the intensity of 

development witnessed around robust 

colonies of Coyote Basin and Wolf 

Creek. While further development will 

occur, we expect the majority to occur 

in areas with high potential for 

productivity. Therefore, we do not 

consider oil and gas to be a significant 

threat to the species. We have no 

indication that invasive plant species 

are a significant threat to the whitetailed prairie dog now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

We conclude that the best scientific 

and commercial information available 

indicates that the white-tailed prairie 

dog is not now, or in the foreseeable 

future, threatened by the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range to the 

extent that listing under the Act as an 

endangered or threatened species is 

warranted at this time. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes. 

White-tailed prairie dogs were 

historically subjected to recreational 

hunting and shooting as a form of pest 

management on ranch and agricultural 

land; these practices continue under 

State regulations (see Factor D. 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms). 

The effects of recreational shooting on 

white-tailed prairie dogs have not been 

examined. We do have limited 

information on how shooting affects 

black-tailed prairie dog populations. 

Black-tailed prairie dogs in colonies 

subject to hunting spent more time in 

alert behaviors and less time foraging, 

although this effect decreased a year 

after shooting (Pauli and Buskirk 2007, 

p. 1223). Recreational shooting reduced 

black-tailed prairie dog density at 

specific sites (Vosburgh and Irby 1998, 

pp. 366–367; Knowles 2002, p. 14) and 

may negatively affect reproductive rates 

(Pauli and Buskirk 2007, p. 1228). 

However, recovery of black-tailed 

prairie dog populations following 

shooting occurs (Knowles 1988, p. 54). 

No research has evaluated long-term 

impacts from recreational shooting, 

although population viability 

monitoring suggests it is unlikely to lead 

to extinctions of even small populations 

(Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 167). 

Life-history traits and species 

distribution are likely to mediate the 

effects of shooting on white-tailed 

prairie dogs. The majority of blacktailed prairie dogs do not reproduce 

until 2 years of age (Hoogland 2001, p. 

920). White-tailed prairie dogs, as 

previously stated, reach maturity at 1 

year of age. Thus, we believe that whitetailed prairie dog populations may be 

able to recover from the effects of 

shooting more quickly than black-tailed 

prairie dogs. 

Human recreationists may prefer 

targeting black-tailed prairie dogs 

because they live in larger, denser, more 

identifiable colonies and their mounds 

are more conspicuous (Seglund et al. 

2006. p. 55). White-tailed prairie dogs 

are more dispersed on the landscape 

and use shrubland habitat for cover 

from predators. As a consequence, they 

may be more difficult to find and 

successfully shoot (Grenier 2009, pers. 

comm.), limiting the number of 

recreationists targeting white-tailed 

prairie dog colonies. 

Recreational hunting is permitted 

rangewide, but it is unlikely that all 

colonies are exposed to equal risk. 

Recreational hunting is concentrated on 

colonies with reasonably easy access 

(Gordon et al. 2003, p. 12). Colonies at 

higher elevations or in remote areas may 

never receive hunting pressure due to 

the difficulty in gaining access. Colonies 

in close proximity to urban areas and 

agricultural fields likely receive the 

greatest shooting pressure (Gordon et al. 

2003, p. 12; Seglund et al. 2006, p. 33). 

Urban and agricultural land uses affect 

a small part of the species’ gross range 

(see Factor A). 

The reproductive cycle of prairie dogs 

may influence impacts of recreational 

shooting. Lactating females spend the 

most time above ground, and lactation 

occurs during the months of April 

through July (Tileston and Lechleitner 

1966, p. 301). During this time, adult 

male activity decreases. Recreational 

hunting in April, May, and June may 

have the greatest population level 

impacts because pregnant and lactating 

females and young of the year are the 

most vulnerable (Vosburgh and Irby 

1998, p. 369; Keffer et al. 2000, p. 7). 

Recreational shooting could remove 

more offspring than adults or artificially 

skew the population sex ratio. Thus, 

seasonal restrictions may be important 

to reduce the effects of shooting at 

localized sites. 

Seasonal white-tailed prairie dog 

hunting regulations are implemented in 

Utah and Colorado. In Utah, shooting is 

not permitted on white-tailed prairie 

dog towns between April 1 and June 15 

(Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

(UDWR) 2007, p. 4). In Colorado, 

shooting is not permitted on public land 

between March 1 and June 15 (Colorado 

Division of Wildlife (CDOW) 2009, p. 

10). These closures may reduce impacts 

to the demographic structure and are 

expected to provide protection to whitetailed prairie dog populations (Seglund 

and Schnurr 2009, p. 165). 

Recreational and pest removal 

shooting of white-tailed prairie dogs is 

allowed without a permit across much 

of the species’ gross range; only 

Colorado requires a license. Because 

permits are not required, quantifying the 

number of prairie dogs killed by 

shooting is difficult. The only data 

available are from Colorado’s Harvest 

Information Program (CDOW 2001- 

2005). In this program, a random survey 

of registered hunters was performed and 

an estimated take extrapolated from the 

survey results. This program does not 

differentiate between species of prairie 

dog, so estimates include Gunnison’s, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
30354 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

black-tailed, and white-tailed prairie 

dogs. 

According to the data in Colorado’s 

2000-2005 Small Game Harvest Reports, 

prairie dogs are not a common target 

among hunters. Only 4.6 to 7.4 percent 

of hunters reported shooting prairie 

dogs (CDOW 2001-2005). In addition, as 

previously discussed, the majority of 

hunted prairie dogs are likely to be 

black-tailed and Gunnison’s prairie 

dogs, not white-tailed prairie dogs. 

Therefore, we do not believe this 

represents high hunting pressure on 

white-tailed prairie dogs. 

Summary of Factor B 

White-tailed prairie dogs, due to their 

distribution and life-history 

characteristics, are likely less affected 

by shooting than other species of prairie 

dogs. Effects of recreational shooting 

may be high on specific, easily 

accessible, localized colonies. However 

we do not expect that these effects will 

occur equally across the species’ gross 

range or significantly threaten the 

species as a whole. 

There are no other known threats due 

to commercial, scientific, or educational 

uses of this species. We conclude that 

the best scientific and commercial 

information available indicates that the 

white-tailed prairie dog is not now, or 

in the foreseeable future, significantly 

threatened by the overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes. 

Factor C. Disease or predation. 

Sylvatic Plague 

Sylvatic plague (plague) is an exotic 

disease foreign to the evolutionary 

history of North American prairie dogs. 

Plague was first observed in wild 

rodents in North America near San 

Francisco, California, in 1903 (Eskey 

and Haas 1940, p. 1), and was first 

confirmed in white-tailed prairie dogs 

in 1936 (Eskey and Haas 1940, p. 14). 

It now occurs throughout the entire 

species’ gross range (Biggins and Kosoy 

2001, p. 906; Pauli et al. 2006, p. 3). 

Plague is caused by a bacterium 

(Yersinia pestis), which fleas acquire by 

biting infected animals and 

subsequently transmit via a bite to other 

animals (Gage and Kosoy 2005, pp. 516- 

517). The disease also can be 

transmitted through pneumonic 

(airborne) or septicemic (blood) 

pathways from infected to disease-free 

animals (Barnes 1993, p. 28; Ray and 

Collinge 2005, p. 203; Cully et al. 2006, 

p. 158; Rocke et al. 2006, p. 243; Webb 

et al. 2006, p. 6236). 

Plague occurs in prairie dog colonies 

as enzootic and epizootic events. 

Enzootic plague is an infection 

maintained in the population over time 

and causes a low rate of mortality 

within the colony. Not all individuals 

are affected because the low density 

within a colony results in less contact 

between individuals and a reduced 

transmission rate. Epizootic plague 

occurs when the disease spreads from 

enzootic hosts to more susceptible 

animals, resulting in a rapidly spreading 

die-off cycle (Barnes 1993, p. 29; Biggins 

and Kosoy 2001, p. 909; Cully and 

Williams 2001, p. 900; Gage and Kosoy 

2005, pp. 506-508). Large numbers of 

animals can die within a few days 

(Lechleitner et al. 1962, pp. 190-192; 

Cully 1993, pp. 40-42). 

The factors that cause a change from 

an enzootic to epizootic cycle are still 

being researched, but may include host 

density, flea density, and climatic 

conditions (Cully 1989, p. 49; Parmenter 

et al. 1999, p. 814; Cully and Williams 

2001, pp. 899–903; Enscore et al. 2002, 

p. 186; Lomolino et al. 2003, pp. 118– 

119; Stapp et al. 2004, p. 237; Gage and 

Kosoy 2005, p. 509; Ray and Collinge 

2005, p. 204; Stenseth et al. 2006, p. 

13110; Adjemian et al. 2007, p. 372; 

Sna ̈ll et al. 2008, p. 246). Plague cycles 

(e.g., epizootic, recovery, enzootic) may 

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 will exceed the rate of 

establishment of new colonies (Knowles 

2002, p. 13). However, this pattern of 

progressively lower peaks has not been 

consistently observed throughout 

significant portions of the species’ gross 

range. 

White-tailed prairie dogs are 

extremely susceptible to plague 

(Williams 1986, p. 4). Individual colony 

population declines of 85 to 96 percent 

were reported throughout the species’ 

gross range following epizootic plague 

events (Anderson and Williams 1997, 

pp. 702, 729). Recovery of white-tailed 

prairie dog colonies post-plague has 

occurred within as little as 1 to 2 years 

(Anderson and Williams 1997, p. 728; 

Menkens and Anderson 1991, p. 330; 

Anderson and Williams 1997, p. 728; 

Seglund et al. 2006, p. 69), or can take 

greater than 10 years (see site 

discussions below, particularly Little 

Snake). Epizootic plague frequently 

recurs in colonies (Barnes 1993, p. 29; 

Cully 1993, p. 39). 

Plague likely persists in prairie dog 

colonies as an enzootic even when an 

epizootic outbreak subsides. In the 

absence of epizootic events, plague was 

found in fleas, plague antibodies were 

found in prairie dog and carnivore 

blood serum samples, and dead plaguepositive prairie dogs were found 

(Biggins et al. in press, p. 7). More 

evidence of enzootic plague acting in 

populations of prairie dogs and of blackfooted ferrets is an increase in 

survivorship when treated with 

experimental vaccines and flea control, 

even in the absence of epizootic plague 

outbreaks (Matchett et al. 2009 in 

Biggins et al. in press, p. 7). Increased 

survival with these treatments 

compared with untreated areas is 

indicative that enzootic plague is 

frequently present and suppressing 

population levels in untreated areas. 

Possible reasons for maintenance of 

plague as an enzootic in the 

environment include survival of the 

bacterium in the soil, persistence of the 

bacterium in fleas, and the continued 

slow transmission of the bacterium 

within the prairie dog community (Gage 

and Kosoy 2006 in Biggins et al. in 

press, p. 2). Infected fleas exist in 

burrows for up to 13 months following 

a plague event (Fitzgerald 1993, p. 57). 

Impacts of long-term enzootic plague 

infection may include local extirpation 

of colonies, extreme fluctuations in 

densities and occupied habitat, and 

inbreeding (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 58). 

Enzootic plague also may alter 

ecological processes (Biggins 2003, p. 7), 

such as population dynamics and 

dispersal. For example, if plague results 

in higher mortality of adults than 

juveniles, the remaining juveniles 

would be less likely to disperse away 

from their native colonies; they would 

instead replace the adults in the native 

colony, resulting in a younger 

population (Biggins et al. in press, pp. 

2, 7). 

We lack an understanding of how 

plague is impacting the white-tailed 

prairie dog on a rangewide basis. Plague 

monitoring is not performed rangewide. 

To assess the effects of plague, we 

evaluated available population and 

trend data on colonies and complexes 

known or suspected to be affected by 

plague. Sharp declines in abundance are 

generally attributed to epizootic plague 

outbreaks in the absence of testing. No 

data was available before the 1980s; all 

available data were collected after 

introduction of plague, in what we 

consider to be a post-plague 

environment. Therefore, recovery is 

defined as a return to observed 

population highs and not a return to 

pre-plague (prior to 1936 when it was 

first observed) abundance. We 

previously defined persistence as the 

long-term continuance of white-tailed 

prairie dog colonies, at a high enough 

level to exist in the long-term with 

minimal management assistance (i.e., 

dusting, the application of insecticides 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30355 

to control flea populations, to reduce 

the spread of plague), in a variety of 

locations across the species’ gross range. 

We recognize that different 

methodologies were used at different 

times and in different locales to derive 

the various historical estimates we 

obtained for review. These estimates 

contribute to the best available 

information, and we consider them 

comparable for determining long-term 

population trends, while acknowledging 

potential error margins. 

Evaluating the data is difficult due to 

differences in survey methodologies. 

Information available for various 

colonies is alternately presented as 

surveys of active burrows, occupied 

habitat, population estimates, or prairie 

dog counts. For this reason, comparison 

between colonies is not appropriate, and 

we review each colony individually to 

derive a general understanding of 

plague effects. Available data for several 

colonies includes estimated prairie dog 

populations and prairie dog counts for 

different years; these figures are not 

directly comparable but still describe 

general trends. 

Much of the available data is for sites 

that were considered for black-footed 

ferret management areas, which often, 

but not always, represent the most 

robust of the known white-tailed prairie 

dog colonies. Data collected at many of 

these sites was intended to determine 

suitability for black-footed ferret 

reintroduction, and not specifically 

designed to measure prairie dog 

abundance. The following is a 

discussion of some examples of whitetailed prairie dog complexes that have 

been impacted by plague. Some have 

declined and maintain lower numbers 

(appear to still be in a period of 

decline), while other complexes have 

declined but either partially or fully 

recovered. We believe population 

numbers in colonies or portions of 

colonies will continue to fluctuate 

widely, but retain the capacity to return 

to pre-epizootic numbers. 

Little Snake Complex, Moffat County, 

Colorado 

Plague was documented at this 

complex in 1994 and 1995, following 

notable declines in populations in 1983- 

1987 and again in 1993 (USFWS 1995, 

p. 11). In 1995, white-tailed prairie dog 

populations were estimated to equal 60 

percent of levels prior to the 1983 

epizootic (USFWS 1995, p. 11). Mapped 

occupied habitat declined by 92 percent 

between 1994 and 1999 (Seglund et al. 

2006, p. iii). A portion of the complex 

representing 20 percent of the total area 

was remapped in 2009. Occupied 

habitat in that area was 11 percent of the 

area mapped in 1989 (Ausmus 2010, 

pers. comm.). Population trends in the 

remaining 80 percent of the complex 

were not yet assessed. No dusting (for 

flea control) is performed at this site. In 

summary, dramatic declines have 

occurred at the Little Snake Complex. 

We cannot document any recovery of 

the colony to date based on this limited 

information. The amount of occupied 

habitat has declined since the detection 

of plague in the mid-1990s. 

Wolf Creek Complex, Moffat and Rio 

Blanco Counties, Colorado 

Plague was suspected in 1985, due to 

white-tailed prairie dog declines. By 

1994, the prairie dog population 

rebounded to pre-1985 levels (Seglund 

et al. 2006, p. 20). In 2001, population 

numbers at the Wolf Creek ferret 

management area were 52 percent lower 

than in 1993-1994. Populations 

remained stable through 2002 and 2003 

(Seglund et al. 2006, p. 93), and 

densities increased from 2004 to 2006 

(Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 72). 

Wolf Creek was again heavily affected 

by plague in 2008, and the colony was 

treated with an insecticide for flea 

control in fall of 2008 and 2009 (Holmes 

2010a, pers. comm.). Active colonies 

remain in the complex. Quantitative 

population estimates will not be 

available until fall 2010 (Rustand 2010, 

pers. comm.). In summary, white-tailed 

prairie dog populations at the Wolf 

Creek Complex have shown dramatic 

declines followed by recoveries. 

Fluctuations are likely related to 

climatic conditions, disease, or a 

combination of both (Holmes 2008 in 

Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 72). 

Dinosaur National Monument, Moffat 

County, Colorado 

A large white-tailed prairie dog 

colony occurred at the National 

Monument. No prairie dogs were 

observed on the colony in 2009. The 

colony is near Wolf Creek and may be 

affected by the same epizootic plague 

outbreak (Holmes 2010a, pers. comm.; 

Holmes 2010b, pers. comm.) 

Montana 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

(MFWP) has records of 31 white-tailed 

prairie dog colonies historically 

occurring in the State (Begley 2010b, 

pers. comm.). In 1997, only two colonies 

remained (FaunaWest 1998 in Knowles 

2002, p. 15). Three of these colonies 

were permanently lost to urbanization 

(Begley 2010b, pers. comm.). The cause 

behind the loss of the remaining 26 is 

unknown, although poisoning and 

plague are potential causes (Begley 

2010c, pers. comm.). In 2006, the total 

number of colonies had increased to 10. 

In 2009, there were eight known active 

colonies (MFWP 2009a, p. 1; Hanebury 

2009, pers. comm.). Plague was 

suspected by State biologists in the 

disappearance of one colony from 2006- 

2009. We do not have population 

numbers or trend information for any of 

the Montana colonies. 

Shiner Subcomplex, Uintah County, 

Utah 

White-tailed prairie dog population 

estimates in Shiner Basin were 15,065 

in 1997; 47,551 in 1998; 5,383 in 1999, 

and 13,707 in 2000 (Seglund et al. 2006, 

p. 101). Total animals were counted on 

transects (not extrapolated for the area) 

between 2002 and 2007, and estimates 

were 5,475 animals in 2002; 4,284 in 

2004; and 6,124 in 2007 (Maxfield 2009, 

pers. comm.). In summary, white-tailed 

prairie dog populations in this area have 

fluctuated since 1997. The population 

appears to be lower than occurred in 

1998, but has stabilized since 2002. 

Plague was suspected in this decline 

(Maxfield 2010, pers. comm.). 

Cisco Desert, Southeastern Utah 

Mapping and burrow density 

estimates were conducted for whitetailed prairie dogs from 1985 to 1986. 

The area was resurveyed using counts of 

individuals in 1991 and 1992, because 

of concerns that prairie dog colonies 

may be declining (Seglund et al. 2006, 

p. 30). Substantially more prairie dogs 

were counted during 1992 than in 1991 

(Seglund et al. 2006, p. 30). The 

population was estimated to be 50,000 

animals in 1997 followed by apparent 

declines in burrow activity in 2001 

(Wright 2006, p. 3). Between 1985 and 

2006, burrows detected on transects 

dropped from 48.8 per ha (120.6 per ac) 

to 37.1 per ha (91.8 per ac). Of the 

individual complexes, 14 increased in 

density while 31 decreased (Wright 

2006, p. 7). 

We interpret this to represent an 

overall decline in this area between 

1985-2006, with marked fluctuations 

during this period. Plague is suspected 

in these declines, although drought also 

contributed (Wright 2006, p. 3). The 

white-tailed prairie dog is still 

considered widespread and abundant in 

this area (Wright 2006, p. 3). 

Meeteetsee Complex, Park County, 

Wyoming 

Plague was first documented at 

Meeteetsee in 1985 (Biggins 2003, p. 7). 

Large fluctuations in population 

estimates and active burrows occur at 

this complex. For example, total active 

burrows counted were 12,481 in 1985; 

7,644 in 1989; 6,782 in 1997; 12,428 in 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
30356 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1990; and 16,736 in 1998 (Biggins 2003, 

p. 11). This complex was resampled in 

2008, and numbers were higher than 

1997, but still below 1980s values 

(Biggins 2010, pers. comm.). In 

summary, individual colonies within 

the complex appear to suffer local, large 

population collapses followed by 

subsequent recoveries (Biggins et al. in 

press, p. 2). White-tailed prairie dogs 

continue to occupy the Meeteetsee 

Complex. 

Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow Complex, 

Wyoming 

Population estimates for the complex 

are available, based on partial surveys. 

Therefore, numbers presented represent 

trends but are not directly comparable. 

Numbers in parenthesis are the percent 

of complex transected during that year. 

Population estimates were 30,389 (31) 

in 1991; 14,551 (22) in 1993; 5,916 (6) 

in 1994; 19,876 (19) in 1996; 6,547 (16) 

in 1998; 6,669 (16) in 2000; and 34,698 

(8) in 2001 (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 107). 

An additional 38,756 white-tailed 

prairie dogs also were recorded in 2001, 

in an area of the complex not surveyed 

in the previous years (Grenier et al. 

2002, p. 23). Mapped occupied habitat 

increased 25 percent between 1991 and 

2006 (Grenier et al. 2007, p. 133). 

Similar to other complexes, white-tailed 

prairie dog populations at Shirley Basin 

fluctuate dramatically, although direct 

comparisons are not appropriate due to 

yearly variation in transect sites. Plague 

was first documented at Shirley Basin in 

1987 (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 36). In 

summary, plague likely impacted 

populations at Shirley Basin (Seglund et 

al. 2006, p. 36) and may be responsible 

for the fluctuating populations. 

The examples above clearly show that 

plague is present within white-tailed 

prairie dog colonies across the species’ 

gross range, and is likely responsible for 

large population fluctuations and 

significant declines in complexes or 

portions of complexes. However, the 

colonies and complexes also show a 

capacity to recover after plague events. 

Some colonies decline and maintain 

lower numbers, perhaps due to enzootic 

plague (Little Snake, Montrose County, 

and Shiner Basin). Other complexes 

decline but either partially recover 

(Montana colonies, Wolf Creek, Cisco 

Desert) or fully recover (Shirley Basin/ 

Medicine Bow). 

We do not know if the colonies and 

complexes recovered to population 

numbers that existed before plague was 

introduced because we do not have 

historical population information. We 

also do not know if the colonies and 

complexes exhibit pre-plague lifehistory patterns of mortality, 

reproduction, dispersal, and 

colonization. The available data 

indicates that white-tailed prairie dogs 

can continue to persist in the presence 

of plague. Population numbers in 

colonies or portions of colonies will 

continue to fluctuate widely, but retain 

the capacity to return to pre-epizootic 

numbers. Plague is demonstrated to 

cause this pattern in rodent species in 

Asia, where plague is native (Biggins 

and Kosoy 2001, p. 64). 

Continued persistence of colonies 

rangewide is impacted by many factors. 

The separation of colonies within 

complexes and distance between 

colonies may mediate the spread of 

plague. For example, the slow 

population decline witnessed at 

Meeteetsee between 1989 and 1997 is 

likely the impact of plague affecting 

only a portion of the complex at a time 

(Biggins et al. in press, p. 2). Similarly, 

only a portion of Wolf Creek was 

affected by plague while the nearby 

Crooked Wash did not experience a 

concurrent decline (Holmes 2010b, pers. 

comm.). Finally, a population at the 

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge in 

north-central Colorado did not decline 

concurrent with the decline at Wolf 

Creek (Hoogland 2010, pers. comm.). 

The ability for white-tailed prairie 

dogs to migrate may promote 

recolonization of colonies impacted by 

plague (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 10). The 

ability to repopulate colonies depends 

on a mosaic of interconnected colonies; 

isolated colonies are less likely to 

support sufficient immigration for longterm persistence of plague-affected 

colonies (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 60). 

The complexes of Little Snake, Wolf 

Creek, Coyote Basin, Kennedy Wash, 

Snake John, and Shiner are considered 

separate but are all located in adjacent 

Uintah and Moffat Counties, and a 

reasonable amount of connectivity 

exists between them. 

Size also may be an important factor 

regulating persistence of individual 

colonies. Most of the sites discussed 

above are considered large complexes. 

In black-tailed prairie dogs, introduction 

of plague has resulted in colonies being 

consistently smaller than before first 

exposure to plague (Cully and Johnson 

2008, p. 12). White-tailed prairie dog 

colonies may overall be smaller now 

when compared to pre-plague levels. 

Small colonies not part of a large 

complex may be affected by plague at a 

higher intensity and may not have 

enough source individuals to recover. 

Smaller populations are generally 

accepted to be more vulnerable than 

larger populations (Shaffer 1981, p. 

131). Larger groups of black-tailed 

prairie dogs had a higher survival 

probability after translocation than 

small groups (Robinette et al. 1995, p. 

872). We do not have data to assess 

specifically how plague operates in 

smaller, more isolated colonies. 

However, population viability modeling 

in black-tailed prairie dogs 

demonstrated continued persistence in 

small, fragmented colonies, assuming 

connectivity between populations 

(George et al. 2008, p. 1). 

The temporal nature of plague is an 

important factor when considering 

rangewide impacts (Seglund et al. 2006, 

p. 59). Plague does not impact all 

populations rangewide at the same time, 

with a predictable reoccurrence rate, or 

to the same intensity. Large plaguerelated population declines were 

witnessed across the gross range, but in 

different years: Montana in 1997; 

Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow, Wyoming, 

in 1994 and 1998; Wolf Creek, Colorado, 

in 2001/2002 and 2008; and Uintah 

Basin in 1999 and 2003/2004. 

Some social and behavioral traits of 

white-tailed prairie dogs appear to favor 

their long-term persistence in a plague 

environment. 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, pp. 40-41; Cully and Williams 

2001, pp. 898-899). White-tailed prairie 

dogs are less social when compared to 

other species; this trait may reduce 

transmission among individual animals 

(Hoogland 1981, pp. 252-253; Cully 

1993, p. 40). Hibernation also 

contributes to slower transmission rates, 

although this may simply delay the 

onset of symptoms throughout all the 

colonies (Barnes 1993, p. 35). 

Some tools are available to control 

plague. Deltamethrin and pyraperm are 

two insecticides used to successfully 

control fleas on colonies of different 

prairie dog species (Seery et al. 2003, 

entire; Hoogland et al. 2004, entire). Use 

of these insecticides has increased the 

number of juvenile Utah prairie dogs 

weaned (Hoogland et al. 2004, p. 379) 

and resulted in higher survival rates for 

black-tailed, white-tailed, and Utah 

prairie dogs (Biggins et al. in press, p. 

5). Currently, insecticide use on whitetailed prairie dog colonies is limited to 

experimental use and when plague 

appears to be impacting colonies that 

support black-footed ferret 

reintroduction sites. Wolf Creek was 

treated in the summer and fall of 2009, 

in conjunction with that outbreak, and 

likely will be treated again in 2010. 

Other sites with black-footed ferrets 

include Coyote Basin, Snake John, 

Shirley Basin/ Medicine Bow, and 

Meeteetsee. Due to the expense of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30357 

applying insecticide and the effects to 

non-target species, this method is only 

used when plague has already been 

detected. 

Experimental vaccine-laden baits are 

in development to immunize prairie 

dogs against plague. Black-tailed prairie 

dogs exposed to plague in a lab setting 

and fed vaccine baits experienced a high 

rate of survival (Mencher et al. 2004, pp. 

5503-5504, Rocke et al. 2008, pp. 933, 

936). The effectiveness of the vaccine is 

scheduled for field testing over the next 

year. A systemic flea control bait also is 

under development (Poche et al. 2008, 

entire). The flea control bait reduces flea 

loads on animals, the primary vector in 

spreading plague in prairie dogs 

(Jachowski 2009, entire). While use of 

any of the above techniques, or 

combinations thereof, to manage plague 

has not been tested at the landscape 

level, these techniques show promise in 

the ability to manage plague. 

The occurrence of plague may be 

affected by climate change. As 

discussed in Factor A, Wyoming and 

Montana’s yearly precipitation will 

become more variable while 

temperatures are expected to increase 

rangewide over the next 40 years. 

Plague outbreaks are significantly 

correlated with increased rainfall, 

particularly spring rainfall (Stapp et al. 

2004, p. 237; Sna ̈ll et al. 2008, pp. 245- 

246). However, plague outbreaks are 

negatively correlated with the yearly 

total number of hot days and overall 

increased temperatures (Stapp et al. 

2004, p. 238; Sna ̈ll et al. 2008, p. 245). 

Because climate change will likely 

produce variation in annual rainfall 

(Stapp et al. 2004, pp. 504-505), plague 

outbreaks may oscillate as these factors 

interact. Warmer winters in particular 

can result in increased plague 

transmission (Stapp et al. 2004, p. 236; 

Salkeld and Stapp 2008, p. 620). This 

effect is probably due to a range of 

factors including reduced hibernation 

(Rayor 1985, p. 195), better over-winter 

flea survival, and increased habitat 

productivity (Stapp et al. 2004, pp. 237- 

238). In the Colorado and Utah portions 

of the gross range, winter precipitation 

is expected to vary greatly from year to 

year, with some winters being very dry 

while others experience intense 

precipitation and flooding (Karl et al. 

2009, p. 130). This variation may result 

in pulses of winter or early spring 

plague outbreaks during wetter years 

that are reduced in intensity over 

several years as hotter summer 

temperatures reduce plague in the 

environment. Plague occurrences are 

likely to decrease in black-tailed prairie 

dogs due to climate change effects (Sna ̈

ll et al. 2009, p. 505). Because it is 

believed that changing environmental 

conditions resulting from climate 

change is directly impacting plague 

transmission, we also may expect that 

plague will eventually decrease in 

white-tailed prairie dog habitats, 

concurrent with rising temperatures. 

Climate change may have less of an 

impact on plague levels if white-tailed 

prairie dogs exhibit a range shift as 

witnessed in some other species. 

Tularemia and Monkeypox 

Tularemia (Francisella tularensis) and 

monkeypox (Orthopoxvirus spp.) are 

diseases that have had impacts on 

captive black-tailed prairie dogs 

associated with the pet trade, and a wild 

black-tailed prairie dog was reported as 

having fallen victim to West Nile virus 

(Seglund et al. 2006, p. 58). We have no 

information to indicate that any of these 

diseases are a concern for white-tailed 

prairie dogs at the population or species 

level. 

Predation 

Many species prey upon the whitetailed prairie dog including black-footed 

ferrets (Mustela nigripes), hawks 

(Accipiter, Micronisus, Melierax, 

Urotriorchis and Megatriorchis spp.), 

eagles (Haliaeetus spp.), badgers 

(Taxidea taxus), and coyotes (Canus 

lupis) (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 58). 

However, predation is a natural 

occurrence for white-tailed prairie dogs, 

and we have no information to indicate 

that predation is a threat to the species. 

Summary of Factor C 

Plague occurs throughout the gross 

range of the white-tailed prairie dog. 

The rangewide and long-term effects of 

plague on prairie dog populations are 

not well understood. There is evidence 

of epizootic outbreaks of the disease and 

enzootic maintenance of the disease in 

prairie dog colonies. We acknowledge 

that populations are probably reduced 

from historic levels, and some colony 

behavioral functions, including 

migration and social interactions, may 

be impaired by plague. However, we 

have no evidence that demonstrates that 

plague has eliminated white-tailed 

prairie dogs from large portions of its 

gross range after over 70 years of 

exposure to the disease. Affected 

colonies have shown partial or complete 

recovery after plague events, and 

complexes continue to persist at the 

landscape level. Available information 

indicates that plague events are to some 

extent localized temporally and 

spatially, which may help mediate the 

species-level effects. Management 

actions are underway to research and 

implement plague control mechanisms, 

such as dusting, vaccines, and flea 

control, which should help alleviate 

colony population fluctuations and 

declines due to plague in the foreseeable 

future. As a result, we have determined 

that while plague is affecting the whitetailed prairie dog, it is not a significant 

threat that is now causing or projected 

to cause the species to be at risk of 

extinction. 

The available evidence does not 

indicate that other diseases or predation 

are sufficiently acting on the species to 

threaten the species with possible 

extinction now or in the foreseeable 

future. We conclude that the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available indicates that the white-tailed 

prairie dog is not now, or in the 

foreseeable future, threatened by disease 

or predation to the extent that listing 

under the Act as an endangered or 

threatened species is warranted at this 

time. Continued plague monitoring and 

research will be important for us to 

continue to assess the level of impact 

this disease plays in the long-term 

conservation of white-tailed prairie 

dogs. The development of a vaccine to 

protect prairie dog populations may 

help decrease future effects of plague. 

Factor D. The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms. 

State Regulations and Private Land 

Management 

Rangewide 

State laws and regulations may 

impact white-tailed prairie dog 

conservation by providing specific 

authority for white-tailed prairie dog 

conservation over lands which are 

directly owned by the State; providing 

broad authority to regulate and protect 

wildlife on all lands within their 

borders; and providing a mechanism for 

indirect conservation through regulation 

of threats to the species (e.g., noxious 

weeds). In general, States have broad 

authority to regulate and protect 

wildlife within their borders. All of the 

States within the range of the whitetailed prairie dog have State school trust 

lands that they manage for income to 

support their schools. We are unaware 

of any specific regulations to ensure that 

the management of the State trust lands 

is consistent with the needs of whitetailed prairie dog. Thus there are 

currently no regulatory mechanisms on 

State trust lands to ensure conservation 

of the species. 

Environmental planning regulations 

establish environmental quality as an 

essential component of land use and 

project planning and provide a 

structured, analytical frame work to 

make decisions that balance 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
30358 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

environmental and economic factors 

(Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) 1997, p.11). The implementation 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) has 

improved the quality of projects and 

reduced impacts to the environment in 

the Federal planning process (CEQ 

1997, p. 17). Within the range of the 

white-tailed prairie dog, only Montana 

has NEPA-like environmental planning 

regulations (CEQ 2009, entire). Because 

activities on private and State lands in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are not 

subject to environmental review, they 

may have a greater impact to whitetailed prairie dogs than similar activities 

on Federal lands. 

Potential impacts to the species that 

can be managed by State or private 

entities include recreational shooting, 

shooting to protect agricultural interests, 

and oil and gas development on nonFederal mineral estates. In addition, the 

State wildlife agencies can contribute to 

species conservation by supporting 

research and monitoring efforts, 

including plague management. 

The Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) 

coordinates management efforts of the 

white-tailed prairie dog and other 

species among the western States. The 

WAFWA prepared a Rangewide 

Conservation Agreement for the WhiteTailed Prairie Dog in 2006 (Seglund et 

al. 2006, entire). The objectives of the 

conservation agreement include 

identification and monitoring of the 

species’ status and distribution, public 

education, identification and 

implementation of priority research 

needs, and creation of State 

management plans (Seglund et al. 2006, 

p. 3). The conservation agreement 

provides expertise, recommendations, 

and coordination of funding for the 

conservation of the species, but does not 

provide regulatory protection. 

Private lands comprise a large portion 

of the predicted range of the species. 

Private landowners can control prairie 

dogs on their land as necessary in all 

States. However, general public access 

and hunting on private lands 

throughout the gross range are limited 

by trespass laws. We have no evidence 

that the control activities or policies of 

individual private landowners are 

threatening the species. 

Oil and gas development occurs 

across the gross range of the species, 

including on lands managed by the 

States. We are unaware of any 

regulations or protection measures for 

white-tailed prairie dogs on these lands. 

However, based on available 

information, we do not consider oil and 

gas development a factor that 

significantly threatens the white-tailed 

prairie dog (see Factor A. Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development, above). 

Colorado 

The Colorado Department of Wildlife 

(CDOW) released a Statewide 

Conservation Strategy outlining the 

management of white-tailed and 

Gunnison’s prairie dogs in fall 2009 

(Seglund and Schnurr 2009, entire). 

This document guides the development 

of conservation strategies for the three 

white-tailed prairie dog Individual 

Population Areas (IPAs) (see 

Distribution and Abundance). Local 

action plans with individual goals and 

objectives are under development for 

each IPA. The Statewide Conservation 

Strategy provides management priorities 

and guidance for the species, but does 

not provide regulatory protection. 

All prairie dog species are classified 

as small game in Colorado. A small 

game license is required for shooting 

prairie dogs, with the exception of 

private landowners and their immediate 

family members or designees, who may 

kill prairie dogs causing damage on 

their lands (CDOW 2009, p. 10). 

Shooting of prairie dog species is not 

permitted on public land between 

March 1 and June 15 (CDOW 2009, p. 

10), providing protection during the 

sensitive breeding and rearing time 

periods. 

The Colorado Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission (COGCC) had 

a policy encouraging voluntary 

cooperation among oil and gas operators 

in preventing and mitigating potential 

impacts to wildlife (COGCC 1996, 

entire). In 2009 the state legislature 

passed rules requiring oil and gas 

companies to consult with state wildlife 

officials regarding the impacts of their 

proposed development to wildlife. The 

rules promote best management 

practices and allow the state to set 

reasonable conditions of development 

in sensitive wildlife areas (COGCC 2009, 

entire). Application of these rules to 

white-tailed prairie dogs in particular is 

then up to state wildlife officials. Given 

the recent passing of these rules, it is 

unknown if they will be applied to 

prairie dog species. 

Montana 

White-tailed prairie dogs are 

identified as a Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need (Tier 1) in Montana’s 

Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy (MFWP 2009a, p. 

1). The State defines this as a species 

whose needs must be specifically 

addressed, whether through focus areas, 

community types, or individually 

(MFWP 2005, p. 188). This designation 

gives the State statutory authority to 

manage the species. For example, under 

this authority, MFWP translocates 

white-tailed prairie dogs in an effort to 

establish new colonies. Translocations 

began in 2007, and are expected to 

continue until at least 2011. 

White-tailed prairie dogs in Montana 

were once protected from all shooting, 

but the regulation protecting them has 

lapsed, and they are currently 

unprotected. A license is not required to 

hunt prairie dogs in Montana. 

Utah 

The white-tailed prairie dog is listed 

as a Species of Concern in Utah, defined 

by the State as a wildlife species for 

which there is credible scientific 

evidence to suggest a threat to 

continued population viability within 

the State (UDWR 2007, p. 1). Species are 

provided this designation in order to 

encourage management actions and 

prevent the species from declining to 

the point where listing is necessary. 

Utah completed a conservation 

agreement and Strategy for white-tailed 

and Gunnison’s prairie dogs in 2007. 

Under the conservation agreement, the 

State committed to conduct occupancy 

surveys in an effort to detect population 

declines and respond with appropriate 

management actions (Lupis et al. 2007, 

pp. 22-23). The Statewide conservation 

strategy provides management priorities 

and guidance for the species, but does 

not provide regulatory protection. 

No license is required to hunt prairie 

dogs in Utah (UDWR 2009, p. 1). 

However, prairie dog shooting is not 

allowed between April 1 and June 15 

(UDWR 2009, p. 4), providing the 

species with protection during sensitive 

breeding and rearing periods. In 

addition, a year-round shooting closure 

is implemented in the Coyote Basin 

black-footed ferret reintroduction area 

(7,604 ha (18,789 ac)). 

Wyoming 

White-tailed prairie dogs are 

considered a Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need: Native Species 

Status 4 in Wyoming. Species are given 

this designation when habitat is 

restricted or threatened, or population 

numbers are declining and unknown. 

The species was given a status level of 

4 due to unknown population trends 

and restricted or vulnerable but not 

declining habitat (Wyoming Game and 

Fish Commission 1998, p. 238). No 

conservation agreement is in place for 

the species in Wyoming. State biologists 

participate in prairie dog surveys and 

management under the guidance of 

WAFWA. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30359 

Shooting of white-tailed prairie dogs 

is permitted in Wyoming without a 

license (WGFC 1998, pp. 52-54), and 

there are no seasonal closures. State 

biologists have witnessed no negative 

effects from removing a seasonal closure 

on the Shirley Basin population 

(Grenier 2009, pers. comm.); therefore, it 

seems unlikely that lack of closures is 

having a population-level effect. 

In summary, the States are actively 

involved in prairie dog research and 

monitoring efforts under direction of the 

WAFWA Conservation Agreement and 

State-specific species management 

plans. The information obtained 

through these efforts will be valuable for 

future efforts to conserve the species 

and avoid threats. Recreational shooting 

of prairie dogs is not considered a threat 

to the species (see Factor B. 

Overutilization, above). However, 

seasonal shooting closures are 

implemented on a site-specific basis in 

Colorado and Utah. The lack of 

environmental planning and protection 

for the species from all land use 

activities on non-Federal land, 

including non-Federal oil and gas 

leases, may impact the species in the 

future. However, at this time the 

information we do have does not 

indicate that threats from land use 

activities are sufficient to require 

regulatory mechanisms now or in the 

foreseeable future (see Factor A., above). 

Federal Management Authority 

Potential impacts to the species that 

could be managed by the Federal land 

management agencies include oil and 

gas development, grazing, fire 

suppression, poisoning, and recreational 

shooting. 

Bureau of Land Management 

The Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) is the primary 

Federal law governing most land uses 

on BLM lands. Section 102(a)(8) of 

FLPMA specifically recognizes wildlife 

and fish resources as being among the 

uses for which these lands are to be 

managed. The BLM considers the needs 

of wildlife, including the white-tailed 

prairie dog, when conducting activities 

in their habitat. Typically, this means 

the impacts to these species are 

considered during project planning 

stages and conservation measures may 

be included at the discretion of the 

agency biologists. In addition, the BLM 

is required to meet environmental 

planning requirements under NEPA (73 

FR 61292), which requires reviewing the 

effects of actions on the environment 

(including wildlife) before 

implementation. 

The BLM’s resource management 

plans (RMPs) are the basis for all of its 

actions and authorizations involving 

BLM-administered lands and resources. 

The RMPs establish allowable resource 

uses, general management practices, 

program constraints and other 

parameters of project design (43 CFR 

1601.0–5(k)). These plans provide a 

framework and programmatic guidance 

for site-specific activity plans. In 

addition, BLM management plans may 

include conservation measures to 

protect the species. These measures vary 

between State and field offices. 

Site-specific plans likely to affect 

white-tailed prairie dogs typically 

include livestock grazing, oil and gas 

field development, wildlife habitat 

management, and other land use 

activities. The potential effects of these 

activities on the species’ habitat are 

addressed under Factor A, above. 

In Colorado’s Grand Valley/ 

Uncompahgre IPA, BLM lands have 

special designations offering 

protections, such as a yearly closure to 

motorized and non-motorized travel 

restrictions to designated routes only, 

and withdrawal from all forms of 

mineral entry, including oil and gas 

leasing (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 

55). The BLM-owned portion of the 

Northwest IPA’s white-tailed prairie 

dog’s gross range is considered high or 

medium potential for oil and gas 

development. The RMPs stipulating 

activities in this IPA are undergoing 

revisions to address oil and gas 

development and associated impacts 

(Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 61). We 

do not know if the RMP revisions will 

include conservation measures to 

minimize the effects of oil and gas 

development to white-tailed prairie 

dogs. At this time, we do not believe oil 

and gas development to be a significant 

threat to the species (see Factor A. Oil 

and Gas Exploration and Development, 

above). However, the ability to 

adequately monitor the species in 

energy development areas will be 

important for our long-term ability to 

minimize impacts. 

In Utah, the BLM updated several 

field office RMPs in 2007. These 

updated RMPs included a stipulation to 

avoid surface-disturbing activities 

within 201 m (660 ft) of white-tailed 

prairie dog colonies in known prairie 

dog habitat (BLM 2008a, p. K:13). An 

exception may be granted if impacts can 

be mitigated or if there is no other 

reasonable location to develop the lease. 

This stipulation is included in the 

management plans that apply to whitetailed prairie dog colonies near Vernal, 

Richfield, Price, and Moab. No 

exceptions to this stipulation have yet 

been made in the Moab or Price field 

offices. Vernal field office staff report 

four exceptions to this stipulation. In all 

examples, disturbance was limited to 

the edge of a colony because no other 

alternatives were available (McDonald 

2010, pers. comm.). The RMP governing 

activities in Rich County has not been 

amended to include a stipulation to 

protect white-tailed prairie dog habitat 

(Madsen 2009, pers. comm.). However, 

this area comprises a very small amount 

of occupied habitat in Utah, and any 

impacts to this area are unlikely to 

produce population-level effects. 

In Wyoming, no extra protections are 

extended to white-tailed prairie dogs on 

BLM land, although control efforts 

(described below in Factor E) are not 

permitted except in the case of 

extensive resource damage or a threat to 

human health and safety (Keefe 2009, 

pers. comm.). Given the extent of oil 

and gas development in this State, lack 

of regulations on BLM land could be 

detrimental to the species, but the 

available evidence does not suggest that 

impacts are rising to a significant 

population-level threat (see Factor A. 

Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development, above). 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 

The USFS considers the white-tailed 

prairie dog to be a Region 2 sensitive 

species, which requires USFS to 

consider the presence of the species and 

recommend mitigation when planning 

projects that may affect the species 

(Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 55). 

Controlling prairie dogs with toxicants 

is banned or closely controlled on USFS 

lands (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 62). The 

USFS manages less than 1 percent of the 

total species’ gross range, so their 

management strategies are unlikely to 

impact the species rangewide 

significantly. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The Service manages over 500 

National Wildlife Refuges and their 

satellites, but only about 7,975 ha 

(19,706 ac) fall within the white-tailed 

prairie dog’s predicted range (Seglund et 

al. 2006 pp. 98, 104, 109). Management 

of this species is not addressed on these 

lands (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 62). 

Control of prairie dogs through toxicants 

on these lands is banned or closely 

controlled (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 62). 

Given the small amount (less than 1 

percent) of predicted habitat managed 

by us, the available information does 

not suggest that our management 

practices are having a significant impact 

on the species. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
30360 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

National Park Service 

The NPS preserves unimpaired the 

natural and cultural resources and 

values of the national park system for 

the enjoyment, education, and 

inspiration of this and future 

generations. This agency manages 

13,393 ha (33,096 ac) of the white-tailed 

prairie dog’s predicted range (Seglund et 

al. 2006, pp. 98, 104, 109). Management 

of this species is not addressed on these 

lands (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 62). 

Control of prairie dogs through toxicants 

on these lands is banned or closely 

controlled (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 62). 

Given the small amount (less than 1 

percent) of predicted habitat managed 

by this agency, the available information 

does not suggest that NPS management 

practices are having a significant impact 

on the species. 

Tribal Lands 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

administers 135,376 ha (334,523 ac) of 

land within the white-tailed prairie 

dog’s predicted range (Seglund et al. 

2006, pp. 98, 104, 109). Additional land 

owned by Tribes or Tribal members may 

have been included under the 

calculations for private land. We are 

unaware of any official policies from the 

BIA or Tribal councils regarding 

protection of white-tailed prairie dogs 

on BIA-administered or Tribally owned 

lands. Given the small amount (less 

than 1 percent) of predicted habitat 

managed by Tribes, the available 

informationdoes not suggest that BIA 

management practices are having a 

significant impact on the species. 

In summary, Federal agencies have 

very few regulations for the protection 

of this species. The oil and gas surface 

use restrictions in the State of Utah 

likely help minimize the impacts of oil 

and gas development to white-tailed 

prairie dogs. The lack of protection 

measures for the species elsewhere may 

impact the species in the future; 

however, at this time the available 

information does not indicate that factor 

significantly threatens the species in the 

foreseeable future (see Factor A. Oil and 

Gas Exploration and Development, 

above). Poisoning also is banned or 

closely controlled on Federal lands (see 

Factor E. Poisoning, below, for further 

discussion). 

Summary of Factor D 

All States are involved in active 

management of the species. The States’ 

conservation agreements and strategies, 

while not regulatory documents, contain 

direction to help mitigate threats to the 

species. 

Potential threats for which regulatory 

mechanisms may play a role include oil 

and gas development, grazing, fire 

suppression, poisoning, and recreational 

shooting. We have determined that 

these factors do not rise to the level of 

a significant threat to the white-tailed 

prairie dog or its habitat rangewide. 

Our evaluation determined that these 

land uses may impact white-tailed 

prairie dogs on a localized basis. 

Existing regulatory mechanisms are 

adequate to reduce impacts at these 

localized levels. For example, seasonal 

shooting closures in Colorado and Utah 

are protecting white-tailed prairie dog 

populations in some areas during 

sensitive breeding and rearing time 

periods. The BLM’s RMPs in Utah 

contain recommendations to avoid 

surface disturbance during oil and gas 

development, although this does not 

mediate the impact of habitat 

fragmentation from this threat. In 

addition, the historical threat of 

poisoning was curtailed when Federal 

regulation of pesticides was enacted, 

and is generally not permitted on 

Federal lands. 

Further coordination between State 

and Federal agencies would be of 

benefit to this species, particularly in 

managing habitat fragmentation. More 

management would be of benefit to the 

species, but the available evidence does 

not indicate that limited management 

strategies are a significant threat to the 

species. 

We conclude that the best scientific 

and commercial information available 

indicates that the white-tailed prairie 

dog is not now, or in the foreseeable 

future, threatened by inadequate 

regulatory mechanisms to the extent 

that listing under the Act as an 

endangered or threatened species is 

warranted at this time. 

Factor E. Other natural or manmade 

factors affecting its continued existence. 

The following potential natural or 

manmade factors may affect the whitetailed prairie dog: (1) Poisoning, and (2) 

competition with Wyoming ground 

squirrels. These factors are further 

discussed below. 

Poisoning 

Poisoning of white-tailed prairie dogs 

has historically occurred throughout the 

species’ gross range (Seglund et. al 2006, 

p. 63). The USDA Biological Survey and 

the Agriculture Appropriations Act of 

1915 (38 Stat. 1111) planned and 

authorized a Westside Plan to eliminate 

prairie dogs across western rangelands 

(Oakes 2000 in Seglund and Schnurr 

2009, p. 140). Prairie dog poisoning 

campaigns began in all States across the 

gross range of the white-tailed prairie 

dogs by 1919 (Seglund and Schnurr 

2009, p. 140). 

The population-level impact of this 

practice is difficult to quantify due to 

our lack of knowledge of the species’ 

historical distribution and our lack of 

information on the exact locations of 

poisoning efforts (Seglund and Schnurr 

2009, p. 140). However, the extent of 

poisoning for all prairie dog species was 

extensive. For example, from 1915 to 

1964, Colorado poisoned an area of 

9,380,191 ha (23,178,959 ac), which was 

occupied by the Gunnison, black-tailed, 

and white-tailed species of prairie dogs 

(Forrest 2002 in Seglund and Schnurr 

2009, p. 141). Black-tailed prairie dogs 

were the main target of eradication 

campaigns due to their visibility on the 

landscape, but Gunnison and whitetailed prairie dogs also were poisoned 

(Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 140). 

Poisoning in all States became less 

common after Federal regulation of 

pesticides was enacted (Seglund et al. 

2006, p. iv). State and Federal agencies 

are rarely involved in control efforts 

unless human health and safety are at 

risk. The BLM, in particular, has a 

restriction against poisoning prairie 

dogs unless required for human health 

and safety or if resource damage meets 

specified requirements. Control of 

white-tailed prairie dogs in this manner 

is rare, with the agency only reporting 

one small area currently under control 

(Keefe 2009, pers. comm.). Individual 

landowners may still control prairie 

dogs on their private property. 

Poison applications can be an 

effective means to control prairie dog 

population size. Baited poisons can 

result in 75 to 85 percent mortality, and 

fumigants can result in 95-percent 

mortality of prairie dog populations 

when properly applied (Seglund and 

Schnurr 2009, p.141). Although 

poisoning was historically widespread, 

there is no information available to 

indicate that poisoning occurs at more 

than a localized scale today. We were 

unable to quantify amount of toxicants 

sold for white-tailed prairie dog control. 

The States within the gross range of the 

white-tailed prairie dog do not compile 

records of pesticide sales. There are 103 

licensed dealers of restricted use 

toxicants in Utah and 288 licensed 

dealers in Colorado. The WGFD staff 

surveyed Wyoming dealers in 2003, and 

determined that toxicant sales were too 

small to warrant tracking, with a total 

less than would be required to treat 400 

ha (1,000 ac) per year (Grenier 2009, 

pers. comm.). 

White-tailed prairie dog biology may 

provide some protection from 

poisoning. Because they inhabit less 

dense, widely distributed colonies, they 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30361 

do not attract the amount of negative 

attention associated with black-tailed 

prairie dogs (Knowles 2002, p. 2; 

Grenier 2009, pers. comm.). In addition, 

the widespread nature of white-tailed 

prairie dog colonies makes control 

through the use of toxicants very labor 

intensive and unsuitable for widespread 

control. Black-tailed prairie dogs are 

known to rebound rapidly after control 

efforts (Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 

140). White-tailed prairie dogs may have 

this capability as well (Seglund and 

Schnurr 2009, p. 140), particularly 

because they reproduce at a younger age 

than black-tailed prairie dogs. 

In summary, today, poisoning 

generally occurs only on private land for 

site-specific control purposes rather 

than wide-spread population 

eliminations (Seglund et al. 2006, p. 65). 

White-tailed prairie dogs may have the 

capability to rebound from control 

efforts. Their scattered distribution and 

behavioral mechanisms may provide 

them with some protection from 

poisoning efforts. Therefore, we do not 

believe poisoning to be a significant 

threat to the species now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Competition 

Competition may occur between 

Wyoming ground squirrels and whitetailed prairie dogs (Seglund and 

Schnurr 2009, p. 100). Their diets 

overlap and their burrows are often 

interspersed. Wyoming ground squirrels 

are found in some areas where plague 

has decimated Gunnison’s prairie dogs 

(Seglund and Schnurr 2009, p. 100). 

However, white-tailed prairie dogs were 

observed to chase and kill Wyoming 

ground squirrels (Cooke 1990, p. 275). 

Given their size advantage and 

aggression, it seems unlikely that prairie 

dogs would be excluded by Wyoming 

ground squirrels (Hoogland 2009, pers. 

comm.). In addition, ground squirrels 

are vulnerable to plague, and epidemics 

reduce their numbers alongside prairie 

dogs. At this time there is no evidence 

to suggest that there may be other 

competitors or that competition is a 

threat to the white-tailed prairie dog. 

Summary of Factor E 

Available evidence does not suggest 

that control of prairie dogs through 

poisoning is a major or increasing threat 

to the while-tailed prairie dog. It seems 

unlikely that competition with 

Wyoming ground squirrels would 

threaten the species’ persistence. 

We conclude that the best scientific 

and commercial information available 

indicates that the white-tailed prairie 

dog is not now, or in the foreseeable 

future, threatened by other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence, to the extent that listing 

under the Act as an endangered or 

threatened species is warranted at this 

time. 

Finding 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five factors in assessing whether the 

white-tailed prairie dog is endangered 

or threatened throughout all of its range. 

We have carefully examined the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats faced by the whitetailed prairie dog. We reviewed the 

petition, information available in our 

files, and other available published and 

unpublished information, and we 

consulted with recognized white-tailed 

prairie dog experts and other Federal, 

State, and tribal agencies. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the mere exposure of the species to the 

factor to determine whether the species 

responds to the factor in a way that 

causes actual impacts to the species. If 

there is exposure to a factor, but no 

response, or only a positive response, 

that factor is not a threat. If there is 

exposure and the species responds 

negatively, the factor may be a threat 

and we then attempt to determine how 

significant a threat it is. If the threat is 

significant, it may drive or contribute to 

the risk of extinction of the species such 

that the species warrants listing as 

endangered or threatened as those terms 

are defined by the Act. This does not 

necessarily require empirical proof of a 

threat. The combination of exposure and 

some corroborating evidence of how the 

species is likely impacted could suffice. 

The mere identification of factors that 

could impact a species negatively is not 

sufficient to compel a finding that 

listing is appropriate; we require 

evidence that these factors are operative 

threats that act on the species to the 

point that the species meets the 

definition of endangered or threatened 

under the Act. 

We identified and evaluated the risks 

of the present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

habitat or range of the white-tailed 

prairie dog: (1) Oil and gas exploration 

and development; (2) oil shale, tar 

sands, and other minerals, (3) renewable 

energy development—wind and solar; 

(4) urbanization; (5) agricultural land 

conversion; (6) grazing; (7) fire 

occurrence and suppression; (8) 

invasive plant species; and (9) climate 

change. While oil and gas development 

is impacting the species, we have no 

evidence that it will significantly 

threaten the species in the foreseeable 

future. We concluded that oil shale, tar 

sands, and other minerals; renewable 

energy development; urbanization; 

agricultural land conversion; grazing; 

fire suppression; invasive plant species; 

and climate change are not significant 

threats to the species now or in the 

foreseeable future. Based on our review 

of the best available information, we 

find that the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the white-tailed prairie 

dog habitat or range is not a significant 

threat now or in the foreseeable future. 

We identified and evaluated the risks 

from overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes. While shooting results in 

some individual mortality and may 

affect easily accessible colonies, 

available evidence does not indicate 

that the magnitude or intensity is 

enough to significantly threaten the 

species rangewide. Therefore, we 

conclude that the white-tailed prairie 

dog is not significantly threatened by 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

We found that plague impacts 

populations throughout the species’ 

range. We determined that colonies and 

complexes persist in the post-plague 

environment, which demonstrates a 

rangewide resiliency to the disease. We 

determined that the species’ life-history 

characteristics provide some protection 

from the spread of plague and that 

epizootic plague only affects a small 

portion of the range at one time. The 

threat of plague may decrease across the 

range with the impacts of management 

and climate change. Tularemia, 

monkey-pox, and West Nile virus are 

not considered threats to the species. 

Additionally, we note that while whitetailed prairie dogs are prey for 

numerous species, available information 

does not indicate that predation has an 

overall adverse effect on the species. 

Therefore, we find that neither disease 

nor predation is a significant threat to 

the species now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

Based on our analysis of the existing 

regulatory mechanisms, we determined 

the States are actively involved in 

managing the species through 

conservation agreements and strategies. 

Although these agreements are not 

regulatory, they provide an important 

mechanism for conservation, 

monitoring, and research efforts. The 

existing regulatory mechanisms in place 

on State and Federal lands are limited. 

However, we determined in the 

evaluation that other threats would not 

adversely affect the white-tailed prairie 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
30362 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

dog now or within the foreseeable 

future. Additionally, the white-tailed 

prairie dog receives some protection 

from shooting under State laws in 

Colorado and Utah, and from oil and gas 

development in Utah. Therefore, based 

on our review of the best available 

scientific information, we conclude that 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms is not a significant threat to 

the species now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

We also assessed the potential risks to 

white-tailed prairie dogs from poisoning 

and interspecific competition, and we 

find that there is no evidence that 

indicates these factors significantly 

threaten the continued existence of 

white-tailed prairie dog now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

We determined that energy 

development, urbanization, grazing, fire 

suppression, agricultural conversion, 

recreational shooting, poisoning, 

invasive plant species, and plague may 

impact the species in at least localized 

areas. White-tailed prairie dogs were 

impacted throughout history by each of 

these factors. We believe that, 

collectively, these activities have 

resulted in the presumed reduced 

abundance of white-tailed prairie dog 

from historical levels. We also believe 

that the ecological function of this 

species within western landscapes has 

been altered from its historical function. 

Many of these factors (grazing, 

urbanization, fire suppression, 

agricultural land use conversion, and 

poisoning) were at much greater 

magnitude in the past and are not 

currently impacting species with the 

same intensity. Other threats (oil and 

gas development, climate change, 

shooting, plague, and invasive plant 

species) can be expected to continue 

into the future. Of these, we consider 

plague and oil and gas development to 

have the greatest potential for 

cumulative impacts. Yet some of the 

most robust and resilient colonies exist 

in areas where both of these potential 

threats occur. Therefore, we do not 

believe these factors will cumulatively 

threaten the continued existence of 

white-tailed prairie dog now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Our review of the information 

pertaining to the five threat factors does 

not support a conclusion that there are 

independent or cumulative threats of 

sufficient imminence, intensity, or 

magnitude that would cause substantial 

losses of population distribution or 

viability of the white-tailed prairie dog 

that would result in the species being at 

risk of extinction. Therefore, we do not 

find that the white-tailed prairie dog is 

currently in danger of extinction 

(endangered), nor do we find it is likely 

to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future (threatened), 

throughout its range. Therefore, listing 

the species as endangered or threatened 

under the Act is not warranted at this 

time. 

Distinct Vertebrate Population 

Segments 

After assessing whether the species is 

endangered or threatened throughout its 

range, we next consider whether any 

distinct vertebrate population segment 

(DPS) exists and meets the definition of 

endangered or is likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future 

(threatened). 

Under the Service’s Policy Regarding 

the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments Under the 

Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722, 

February 7, 1996), three elements are 

considered in the decision concerning 

the establishment and classification of a 

possible DPS. These are applied 

similarly for additions to or removal 

from the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. These elements 

include: 

(1) The discreteness of a population in 

relation to the remainder of the taxon to 

which it belongs; 

(2) The significance of the population 

segment to the taxon to which it 

belongs; and 

(3) The population segment’s 

conservation status in relation to the 

Act’s standards for listing, delisting 

(removal from the list), or 

reclassification (i.e., is the population 

segment endangered or threatened). 

Discreteness 

Under the DPS policy, a population 

segment of a vertebrate taxon may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

one of the following conditions: 

(1) It is markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors. 

Quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation. 

(2) It is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. 

The predicted range of the whitetailed prairie dog encompasses 

13,066,887 ha (32,288,981 ac) (Seglund 

et al. 2006, p. 91). We do not consider 

any population segment of white-tailed 

prairie dog to be markedly separated 

from other populations of the same 

taxon as a consequence of physical, 

physiological, ecological, or behavioral 

factors. As a colonial species, whitetailed prairie dogs are naturally 

distributed across the landscape in a 

discontinuous fashion. Occupied habitat 

changes rapidly, shifting on a landscape 

scale (Seglund et al. 2006, p. iii). The 

species spans Colorado, Utah, 

Wyoming, and Montana. Available 

information suggests while population 

areas within Colorado and Utah are not 

continuous with other populations areas 

within the same State, they are 

continuous between these States and 

with populations in Wyoming. 

Therefore, we do not consider any of 

these areas to be physically discrete. 

Because discontinuous distribution is 

the ‘‘baseline’’ condition for the species, 

for us to consider any geographic 

discontinuity as being evidence of 

marked separation (i.e., discreteness) 

under the DPS policy, we would need 

the best available information to 

indicate that the amount of 

discontinuity is over and above what is 

considered to be normal for the species. 

We do not have detailed mapping of 

occupied habitat throughout the range 

of the species. We recognize the likely 

occurrence of some small, isolated 

white-tailed prairie dog colonies, but 

have very limited information available 

that identifies their locations. Therefore, 

we looked for other measures of 

discontinuity, such as measures of 

genetic or morphological differences as 

guided by the DPS policy, to determine 

whether any populations showed 

evidence of marked separation. The 

information available does not indicate 

that any ecological or physical factors 

have produced population segments 

that express any genetic or 

morphological discontinuity due to 

separation from other prairie dog 

populations. Gene flow via dispersal 

and migration may maintain genetic 

diversity in prairie dog species or help 

restore genetic diversity in prairie dog 

populations following plague epizootics 

(Trudeau et al. 2004, p. 206). The 

available information does not suggest 

that populations differ genetically or 

morphologically. 

We determine, based on a review of 

the best available information, that no 

population segment of the white-tailed 

prairie dog meets the discreteness 

conditions of the 1996 DPS policy. 

Therefore, no population segment 

qualifies as a DPS under our policy and 

is not a listable entity under the Act. 

The DPS policy is clear that 

significance is analyzed only when a 

population segment has been identified 

as discrete. Since we found that no 

population segment met the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30363 

discreteness element and, therefore, no 

population segments qualify as a DPS 

under the Service’s DPS policy, we will 

not conduct an evaluation of 

significance. 

Significant Portion of the Range 

Analysis 

We evaluated the white-tailed prairie 

dog’s predicted range in the context of 

whether any potential threats are 

concentrated in one or more areas of the 

projected range, such that if there were 

concentrated impacts, those white-tailed 

prairie dog populations might be 

threatened, and further, whether any 

such population or complex might 

constitute a significant portion of the 

range. The potential threat factors we 

evaluated for possible geographic 

concentration were the most substantial 

factor(s) affecting the species (in this 

case, plague and habitat fragmentation 

due to oil and gas development). 

Plague 

We regard sylvatic plague as the most 

substantial factor affecting the whitetailed prairie dog. The disease is present 

throughout the species’ range. We 

consider the entire range of the species 

to be operating in a post-plague 

environment. We documented variation 

between colonies and complexes in 

their ability to maintain observed peaks 

of abundance. However, this variation 

occurred in every portion of the range, 

and was not concentrated in any 

geographic location. At this time, there 

is no evidence to suggest that plague 

affects portions of the range differently, 

or will in the foreseeable future. 

Oil and Gas Development 

Oil and gas development is a 

widespread land use within the species’ 

range. Our analysis indicated a 

concentration of oil and gas activity in 

Uintah County, Utah, and the Northwest 

IPA, located in adjacent Moffat, Mesa, 

and Rio Blanco Counties in Colorado. A 

similar concentration can be visually 

observed in Sweetwater County, 

Wyoming (Hotze 2010, p. 11). However, 

some of the most robust and resilient 

colonies are found within these areas of 

concentrated development. The 

available evidence does not indicate 

that oil and gas development activities 

are negatively impacting the species (see 

Factor A. Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development). Given these factors, we 

do not believe the regional 

concentration of oil and gas 

development is threatening the species 

in these portions of its range. 

On the basis of this review, we have 

determined that the magnitude and 

imminence of threats do not indicate 

that the white-tailed prairie dog is in 

danger of extinction, or likely to become 

endangered, throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, within 

the foreseeable future. The species also 

does not meet the elements of our 1996 

DPS Policy that would result in a DPS 

designation for any segment of the 

population. We conclude that no 

Significant Portion of the Range (SPR) 

exists for the white-tailed prairie dog. 

We do not find that the species is in 

danger of extinction now, nor is it likely 

to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future, throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

Therefore, listing the white-tailed 

prairie dog as endangered or threatened 

under the Act is not warranted at this 

time. 

We request that you submit any new 

information concerning the status of, or 

threats to, the white-tailed prairie dog to 

our Utah Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes 

available. New information will help us 

monitor the white-tailed prairie dog and 

encourage its conservation. If an 

emergency situation develops for the 

white-tailed prairie dog or any other 

species, we will act to provide 

immediate protection. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Utah Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Utah Field 

Office, West Valley City, Utah. 

Authority 

The authority for this section is 

section 4 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: May 14, 2010 

Daniel M. Ashe, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12599 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1