Project Details

The Gunnison's prairie dog (GPD; Cynomys gunnisoni) and the white-tailed prairie dog (WTPD; C. leucurus) play an important role as potential keystone species in maintenance of the sagesteppe and prairie ecosystems. They are also important prey items for other SGCNs including kit foxes, burrowing owls, ferruginous hawks, and black-footed ferrets. Due to a number of reasons, both prairie dog species declined in distribution and abundance throughout their ranges (Seglund et al. 2006a, 2006b).

The objective of state and federal agencies involved in WTPD and GPD management is to conserve and maintain viable prairie dog populations and the sage-steppe and prairie ecosystems they inhabit. The viability of both prairie dog species was brought into question by petitions to list them under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; Center for Native Ecosystems et al. 2002; Forest Guardians 2004). Both petitions cited habitat loss/conversion, shooting, disease, a history of eradication efforts, and inadequate federal and state regulatory mechanisms as threats to long-term viability of these species. After the petitions were submitted, the states took the lead role in establishing a Prairie Dog Conservation Team (PDCT) and completing multi-state Conservation Assessments that evaluated the status of both species throughout their ranges and impacts to both species. Based on the assessments, a Conservation Strategy was written to provide management and administrative guidelines to assist state and tribal agencies in managing prairie dogs and their associated ecosystems, and to allow for continued management by these entities. The Utah Gunnison's Prairie Dog and White-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Plan was written in 2007 to guide management in the state.

A key action in the Conservation Strategy and State Plan was to identify and monitor the distribution and status of both species. Utah began monitoring GPDs and WTPDs following the agreed upon protocols in 2007 and 2008 respectively. We repeated surveys every 3 years and found stable occupancy and distribution (Fig. 3, Table 1).

A 12-month status review completed in 2013 determined that GPD were stable and not declining,"due largely to conservation efforts by State Game and Fish agencies that recognize the crucial role that prairie dogs play in the health of North American prairies". Data gained through the rangewide implementation of the monitoring protocol for WTPDs was used as the best available science in the 2017 Species Status Assessment, which supported a not-warranted finding.  The surveys for white-tailed prairie dogs not only showed stable occupancy and distribution over time, but also showed that oil and gas development was not negative impacting WTPD occupancy in Utah.

All states within the ranges of the GPD and WTPD have committed to continue monitoring efforts. Because of not-warranted findings and the stability in occupancy measures from 2008 -- 2016, it was determined that surveys could switch from a 3-year interval to 6 years.  Given the long period between surveys and the funding already secured by other states, it is very important for Utah to accomplish the surveys in 2022. Continuing collection of the strong dataset will support the states' assertion that the WTPD and GPD continue to not warrant ESA listing.  As we have seen with the threatened Utah prairie dog, the lack of flexibility under federal management can erode public tolerance for the species and consequently make conservation much more difficult and costly. Stable occupancy has supported management that allows private landowners to control prairie dogs on their properties year-round without permits.

Provide evidence about the nature of the problem and the need to address it. Identify the significance of the problem using a variety of data sources. For example, if a habitat restoration project is being proposed to benefit greater sage-grouse, describe the existing plant community characteristics that limit habitat value for greater sage-grouse and identify the changes needed for habitat improvement.

Provide an overall goal for the project and then provide clear, specific and measurable objectives (outcomes) to be accomplished by the proposed actions. If possible, tie to one or more of the public benefits UWRI is providing.

LOCATION: Justify the proposed location of this project over other areas, include publicly scrutinized planning/recovery documents that list this area as a priority, remote sensing modeling that show this area is a good candidate for restoration, wildlife migration information and other data that help justify this project's location.

TIMING: Justify why this project should be implemented at this time. For example, Is the project area at risk of crossing an ecological or other threshold wherein future restoration would become more difficult, cost prohibitive, or even impossible.

List management plans where this project will address an objective or strategy in the plan. Describe how the project area overlaps the objective or strategy in the plan and the relevance of the project to the successful implementation of those plans. It is best to provide this information in a list format with the description immediately following the plan objective or strategy.

If applicable, detail how the proposed project will significantly reduce the risk of fuel loading and/or continuity of hazardous fuels including the use of fire-wise species in re-seeding operations. Describe the value of any features being protected by reducing the risk of fire. Values may include; communities at risk, permanent infrastructure, municipal watersheds, campgrounds, critical wildlife habitat, etc. Include the size of the area where fuels are being reduced and the distance from the feature(s) at risk.

Describe how the project has the potential to improve water quality and/or increase water quantity, both over the short and long term. Address run-off, erosion, soil infiltration, and flooding, if applicable.

Description of efforts, both completed and planned, to bring the proposed action into compliance with any and all cultural resource, NEPA, ESA, etc. requirements. If compliance is not required enter "not applicable" and explain why not it is not required.

At broad spatial scales, species distributions and their dynamics can be quantified using occupancy modeling. Over one season, occupancy modeling allows estimates of occupancy and detection probability. Over multiple sampling seasons robust-design occupancy modeling also provides site level probabilities of local extinction and colonization, which can be linked to specific large-scale, long-term anthropogenic impacts (MacKenzie et al. 2006; Tingley and Beissinger 2009).  Occupancy modeling has been widely and commonly used over the last decade to track populations and their responses to management (Hagen et al. 2016, Tempel et al. 2016).

This study is conducted throughout the ranges of the WTPD and GPD in Utah.  Past colony mapping, soils, and vegetation data was used to model predicted habitat (Figures 1, 2, 4). The modeled habitat was divided into 500X500m sampling plots with 165 selected for WTPD and 115 for GPD.  Plots will be visited twice between April and July.  First and second visits can be made by either 2 observers at the same time (preferred) or 2 visits within a week.  The visit protocol is to spend 5 minutes at each corner of the 500 m X 500 m plot looking with binoculars and listening for prairie dogs.  A visual observation is required to classify a plot as occupied.

We will use program PRESENCE to estimate occupancy  and detectability to compare to past years.  We will also submit data to Colorado for WTPDs and Arizona for GPDs for inclusion in the rangewide analysis.

Describe the actions, activities, tasks to be implemented as part of the proposed project; how these activities will be carried out, equipment to be used, when, and by whom.

Describe plans to monitor for project success and achievement of stated objectives. Include details on type of monitoring (vegetation, wildlife, etc.), schedule, assignments and how the results of these monitoring efforts will be reported and/or uploaded to this project page. If needed, upload detailed plans in the "attachments" section.

List any and all partners (agencies, organizations, NGO's, private landowners) that support the proposal and/or have been contacted and included in the planning and design of the proposed project. Describe efforts to gather input and include these agencies, landowners, permitees, sportsman groups, researchers, etc. that may be interested/affected by the proposed project. Partners do not have to provide funding or in-kind services to a project to be listed.

Detail future methods or techniques (including administrative actions) that will be implemented to help in accomplishing the stated objectives and to insure the long term success/stability of the proposed project. This may include: post-treatment grazing rest and/or management plans/changes, wildlife herd/species management plan changes, ranch plans, conservation easements or other permanent protection plans, resource management plans, forest plans, etc.

Potential for the proposed action to improve quality or quantity of sustainable uses such as grazing, timber harvest, biomass utilization, recreation, etc. Grazing improvements may include actions to improve forage availability and/or distribution of livestock.