WTPD Conservation Assessment - Endangered Species & Wetlands ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

prairie dogs. Because the bulk of the white-tailed prairie dog range is located on public land, poisoning can be controlled by agencies. White-tailed prairie dogs have become a focal species for many State and Federal management agencies over the past few years. Utah and Montana have implemented State-wide seasonal shooting closures on public lands to help conserve this species. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are working on programs to monitor plague, develop methods to help prevent epizootics from impacting colonies and predict areas susceptible to infection. State agencies have started to monitor known colonies/complexes, map additional areas and work cooperatively with other agencies and among States to develop intensive monitoring programs using statistically valid estimation techniques. Elimination of detrimental management activities can be instituted to manage and potentially expand the occupied hectares of this species. By implementing management actions at local, State, and Federal levels, including regulation of shooting, elimination of mandatory control and pest status, incorporating better grazing and fire management practices, adopting incentive programs for private land owners, field research to provide a scientific basis for decisions, long-term monitoring of populations, and public outreach and education, the long-term viability of this species will be assured. At this time the White-tailed Prairie Dog Working Group does not believe listing the white-tailed prairie dog as threatened under the ESA is justified. The information analyzed across the range of the white-tailed prairie dog showed that some individual colonies and complexes are prone to significant declines with little post recovery to pre-decline levels, while other colonies and complexes exhibit rapid recovery to pre-decline levels. With the current data available it is impossible to determine whether populations across the range occur at lower densities and occupy less area than they did historically. It is also impossible to predict a long-term trend due to the short-duration in past monitoring (3-7 years) and the lack of definitive patterns emerging among the populations monitored. The fact remains however, that white-tailed prairie dog populations are continuing to maintain themselves even when faced with disease and human disturbances. The biggest concern is that the ecosystem as a whole is not as productive or stable as it was historically. Colonies and complexes show dramatic oscillations in densities and shifts in occupied habitat. With the possibility that current populations are more dynamic, there is concern over the viability of associated wildlife species that are dependent on white-tailed prairie dog populations. WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE-DOG CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT Introduction Five species of prairie dog inhabit western North America and they differ with regard to current conservation status. The Mexican prairie dog (Cynomys mexicanus) is federally listed as endangered in Mexico (50 C.F.R), the Utah prairie dog (C. parvidens) is listed as threatened (17.11 CFR.) and the black-tailed prairie dog (C. ludovicianus), formerly a candidate species for listing (65 FR 5476-5488) is still of conservation concern. The white-tailed prairie dog was petitioned to be listed as threatened under the ESA on July 11, 2002, by the Center for Native Ecosystems, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, America Lands Alliance, Forest Guardians, Terry Tempest Williams, Ecology Center and Sinapu. The Gunnison’s prairie dog (C. gunnisoni) was petitioned to be listed on February 23, 2004 (Forest 12
Guardians 2004). Both the white-tailed and Gunnison’s prairie dog petitions cited habitat loss, shooting, disease, a history of eradication efforts and inadequate Federal and State regulatory mechanisms as threats to the long-term viability of this prairie dog species. After the petition to list the white-tailed prairie dog was filed, the National Wildlife Federation and Environmental Defense contracted with Dr. Craig Knowles to prepare a status review summarizing current knowledge of white-tailed and Gunnison’s prairie dogs. This contract resulted in the publication, Status of White-tailed and Gunnison’s Prairie Dogs (Knowles 2002). In this document, Dr. Knowles stated, “It is clear that state and federal conservation agencies need to make a range-wide effort to develop credible status reports on these two species.” The 11 States included in the range of the black-tailed prairie dog began a multi-State conservation effort in 1998 with the formation of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Team. This team was responsible for development of a range-wide Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Van Pelt 1999). In addition, the team published an addendum to the Conservation Assessment and Strategy entitled, A Multi-State Conservation Plan for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog in the United States (Luce 2003). In March 2002, the Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Team was expanded to include both white-tailed and Gunnison’s prairie dogs. Expansion of the team was warranted because many of the management issues such as survey protocols, identification and ranking of threats, regulation changes, recreational shooting, management plan frameworks, relocation techniques and long-term monitoring are similar for all prairie dog species. State wildlife agency biologists from the white-tailed and Gunnison’s prairie dog States, all of whom except Utah were already on the Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Team, formed a White-tailed/Gunnison’s Prairie Dog Working Group which agreed to emulate, where possible, methodologies and expertise developed during the black-tailed prairie dog multi-State conservation effort. The Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Team was subsequently renamed the Prairie Dog Conservation Team in September 2002 and the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ Interstate Coordinator’s duties were expanded to include coordination of conservation for all three prairie dog species. The Prairie Dog Conservation Team continues to meet annually to evaluate and discuss range-wide management goals for black-tailed, white-tailed and Gunnison’s prairie dogs. Following the process used to address range-wide conservation of black-tailed prairie dogs, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ agreed at its July 2002 meeting to develop a range-wide Memorandum of Understanding that would implement a similar collaborative effort and result in Conservation Agreements for white-tailed and Gunnison’s prairie dogs. Specific conservation objectives in the draft Memorandum of Understanding were: 1. Quantify current population status and trends of both white-tailed and Gunnison’s prairie dogs by collecting and analyzing population estimates and distribution data throughout their ranges and from this information develop multi-State management planning efforts. 2. Develop partnerships with communities, industries, interested entities, private landowners and government agencies to design and implement conservation strategies to preserve and/or restore suitable habitat as well as maintain and enhance present distribution and abundance of white-tailed and Gunnison’s prairie dogs. 13
Page 1 and 2: WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATI
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS RECOMMENDED CITAT
Page 5 and 6: Predation .........................
Page 7 and 8: Table 19. Landownership within the
Page 9 and 10: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On 11 July 2002,
Page 11: ecovery sites is unknown. It may be
Page 15 and 16: Utah and Gunnison’s prairie dogs
Page 17 and 18: precipitation ranges from 18 to 30
Page 19 and 20: diet was similar to that of the whi
Page 21 and 22: Ecology and Behavior White-tailed p
Page 23 and 24: Clark (1977) found that young of th
Page 25 and 26: material detected within 0.5 m of a
Page 27 and 28: To assess the changes in occupied h
Page 29 and 30: characteristics that were removed f
Page 31 and 32: The approximate range of the white-
Page 33 and 34: esponse to prospective coal leasing
Page 35 and 36: Mapping of the Colorado section of
Page 37 and 38: located in urban areas (Tables 6 an
Page 39 and 40: Currently the BLM, Montana Natural
Page 41 and 42: white-tailed prairie dog occupied h
Page 43 and 44: Changes in Occupied Habitat Mapping
Page 45 and 46: the complex) were evaluated. Only 1
Page 47 and 48: survival and subsequent reproductio
Page 49 and 50: and Anderson 1991). A standard mapp
Page 51 and 52: within colonies mapped in 2004 indi
Page 53 and 54: Wyoming (Biggins 2003c) cannot be c
Page 55 and 56: terminated. In general, results fro
Page 57 and 58: (Highway 212) crosses the Wyoming S
Page 59 and 60: 1) PRESENT OR THREATENED DESTRUCTIO
Page 61 and 62: Coalbed methane wells are a relativ
Page 63 and 64:
field offices are currently revisin
Page 65 and 66:
Alteration of plant species composi
Page 67 and 68:
more than 25% (USDI-BLM 1990) and c
Page 69 and 70:
3. Where appropriate, incorporate t
Page 71 and 72:
• Stockrahm and Seabloom (1988) c
Page 73 and 74:
The effect of shooting on the long-
Page 75 and 76:
in addition to abundant flea vector
Page 77 and 78:
they have been found to survive pla
Page 79 and 80:
Colorado, with a large percentage o
Page 81 and 82:
1915, and by 1919, cooperative pois
Page 83 and 84:
dog. Long-term impacts to white-tai
Page 85 and 86:
Urbanization This impact does not r
Page 87 and 88:
dogs within colonies. Populations a
Page 89 and 90:
The threat posed by plague could al
Page 91 and 92:
_______ 1993. A review of plague an
Page 93 and 94:
Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. 1986.
Page 95 and 96:
Crumpacker, D.W. 1984. Regional rip
Page 97 and 98:
Grant, J.H. IV. 1995. Dispersal, ac
Page 99 and 100:
Knowles, C.J. 1982. Habitat affinit
Page 101 and 102:
_______ and S.H. Anderson. 1989. Te
Page 103 and 104:
_______, A.K. Brody and C. Gilbert.
Page 105 and 106:
Ubico, S.R., G.O. Maupin, K.A. Fage
Page 107 and 108:
Wolf Creek Work Group. 2001. A coop
Page 109 and 110:
Table 1. Estimate of white-tailed p
Page 111 and 112:
Table 3. White-tailed prairie dog p
Page 113 and 114:
Table 5. White-tailed prairie dog p
Page 115 and 116:
Table 7. Urban areas located within
Page 117 and 118:
Table 9. White-tailed prairie dog c
Page 119 and 120:
Table 11. White-tailed prairie dog
Page 121 and 122:
Table 13. Comparison of mapped whit
Page 123 and 124:
Table 15. Annual drilling results f
Page 125 and 126:
Table 17. White-tailed prairie dog
Page 127 and 128:
Table 19. Landownership within the
Page 129 and 130:
Figure 1. White-tailed prairie dog
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Figure 9. Study areas in Utah where
Page 139 and 140:
Figure 11. Study areas in Utah wher
Page 141 and 142:
Figure 13. Distribution of township
Page 143 and 144:
Figure 15. Comparison of white-tail
Page 145 and 146:
Figure 17. Comparison of 1991 and 2
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Good Black-footed Ferret Habitat -
Page 151 and 152:
Appendix II. Summary of Biggins et
Page 153 and 154:
Appendix III. Letter from Wyoming B
Page 155 and 156:
Appendix IV. Letter from Colorado B
Page 157:
Appendix V. Letter from Montana BLM
show all

WTPD Conservation Assessment - Endangered Species & Wetlands ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?