The Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens) (prairie dog) was listed as an endangered species in 1973 and reclassified as a threatened species in 1984. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits "take" of listed species unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Specifically, section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA allows the USFWS to permit take if such taking is incidental to the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity, and a conservation plan is developed to offset impacts. Demand for incidental take of Utah prairie dogs from residential and commercial development continues to increase as human populations in UPD range continue to expand. Authorization for incidental take was previously authorized through Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP)(e.g., 1998 Iron County HCP, 2007 Cedar City Golf Course and Paiute Tribal Lands HCP, 2013 Iron County Low Effect HCP, 2014 Garfield County Low Effect HCP) or state management (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Utah Prairie Dog Management Plan for Non-federal Lands). However, these management options have expired and range-wide incidental take is now governed by the GCP. Without the GCP, individuals proposing projects resulting in take would have to create their own HCP - a costly and time consuming process. The GCP provides private landowners and developers streamlined options for incidental take authorization for future activities while ensuring conservation of the species. The minimization and mitigation measures in the GCP contribute to the recovery efforts for the Utah prairie dog. Trapping and translocation reduce take of animals by moving prairie dogs from development sites to suitable habitats on federal lands to establish and augment colonies thereon. Habitat and plague management are implemented at translocation sites to bolster prairie dog survival. Mitigation fees are used to protect and manage habitat in ways (conservation banks, land acquisitions, conservation easements, or on-site mitigation) that will contribute to recovery. UDWR commitments and actions toward recovery are credited as mitigation/minimization to reduce costs to project proponents.

The UDWR's goal is to provide consistent, sound and professional implementation and administration of all aspects of UPD management in accordance with the GCP. Successful accomplishment of this proposal will allow for the continued growth in Southern Utah while increasing the population of UPDs on federal lands and protecting Utah prairie dogs from demise. The GCP was developed with the intent to support continued economic viability in the permitting area while compensating for impacts to Utah prairie dogs as a result of commercial and residential development. The minimization and mitigation measures of this GCP include prairie dog translocations, habitat and plague management at translocation sites, and the protection of occupied Utah prairie dog habitats, all of which are consistent with our recovery objectives for this species. Community Goal: To facilitate residential and commercial development projects by providing a process to comply with the ESA when incidental take of Utah prairie dogs may occur on private or other non-federal lands. Objectives: * Provide a streamlined mechanism for project proponents to receive incidental take authorization for Utah prairie dogs. * Provide planning certainty for project proponents by reducing time and costs with an umbrella approach (i.e., GCP) for authorizing incidental take of Utah prairie dogs. * Use mechanisms, such as such as state funded conservation actions to offset and minimize individual mitigation costs, thereby easing regulatory burdens. Biological Goals: Overall, the biological goals of this GCP are intended to assist with the recovery of Utah prairie dogs by implementing minimization and mitigation strategies that are consistent with the biological goals and objectives of the species' recovery plan (USFWS 2012). Goal 1 Contribute to recovery by establishing or augmenting Utah prairie dog colonies on federal or other protected lands. Objective: * Prairie dogs in built-out residential and commercial areas may be unable to sustain long-term population connectivity or viability. Therefore, the objective for this goal is to move prairie dogs away from developed or developing areas (i.e., out of harm's way) to establish new colonies in locations on federal or other protected lands across the species' range where they can contribute toward long-term recovery objectives. * Use federal and state partnerships that provide funding, staffing, and other resource support for increased habitat and plague management efforts to prepare and manage new and existing translocation sites on federal or other protected lands. Goal 2 Contribute to recovery by protecting existing prairie dog colonies that occur on private or other non-federal lands where they can contribute to habitat connectivity and metapopulation viability. Objectives: * Protect sufficient habitat of appropriate quality to offset impacts from habitat loss through purchase of conservation bank credits or land acquisitions or conservation easements from willing landowners. In general, permanent impacts would be offset with permanent protection of prairie dog habitats.

If the Division was not proactively managing Utah prairie dogs and addressing recovery goals, actions, and threats, there would be a threat of extinction for the species. The Division needs to play a role in actively managing and monitoring the species to prevent both a decline for Utah prairie dogs and public support for Utah prairie dogs. Threats for Utah prairie dogs include plague, urban expansion, over-grazing, cultivated agriculture, vegetation community changes, invasive plants, OHV and recreational uses, climate change, energy resource exploration and development, fire management, poaching, and predation. The Division has helped manage Utah prairie dogs from when they were first listed in 1973. Without the Division's participation, Utah prairie dog recovery would not be where it is today.

Utah Prairie dogs are listed as a threatened species and are subject to the provision of ESA. The Utah Prairie Dog Final Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2012) directs management of the species and outlines management actions to assist in reaching the recovery goals. Urban expansion and plague are considered high-level threats to the Utah prairie dog in the species' recovery plan, (USFWS 2012). Therefore, the overall conservation strategy for recovery of the Utah prairie dog focuses on the need to address habitat loss and fragmentation and disease through a program that encompasses threats abatement, population management, research, and monitoring. The goal of the recovery plan for the Utah prairie dog is to recover the species so it no longer needs the protections of the ESA. In addition to numerical criteria of protecting at least 2,000 adult animals (i.e., 1,000 adult prairie dogs spring count) on at least 5,000 acres of protected habitat in each recovery unit, the recovery objectives for the Utah prairie dog in the Recovery Plan include: 1) Protection of suitable habitat that is of sufficient size to support a viable Utah prairie dog population that is spatially distributed to provide connectivity in each recovery unit, and 2) Establishment and maintenance of viable Utah prairie dog populations in each recovery unit. Because of the high percentage of Utah prairie dogs on non-federal lands and potential habitat loss from development, the species' recovery plan (USFWS 2012) recommends a two-tier approach for recovery--1) protection of some of the existing Utah prairie dog colonies on non-Federal lands through land acquisitions, conservation easements, and conservation banks, and 2) continued translocations, habitat restoration, and management of prairie dogs on Federal lands. The minimization and mitigation strategies for this GCP were developed to be consistent with the species' recovery needs to ensure their biological relevance. Utah prairie dog is a SGCN in the Utah Wildlife Action Plan. Threats identified therein include: housing and urban expansion, ecosystem modification, invasive organisms (i. e. plague), drought, and recreational activities. The GCP is designed specifically to address the first two of these threats and the others ancillary to those. Federal land management agencies, Dixie National Forest and BLM field offices, manage Utah prairie dogs under their existing resource management plans. GCP actions, specifically trapping and translocation, are coordinated and accomplished under the authority of those plans.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Take of listed species is prohibited under the ESA, unless otherwise permitted by USFWS. Specifically, section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA allows the USFWS to permit take if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity, and a conservation plan is developed to offset impacts. Conservation plans under section 10(a)(1)(B) are referred to as habitat conservation plans (HCP). HCPs are required as part of an application for an incidental take permit for species listed under the ESA. The GCP fulfills the section 10(a)(1)(B) conservation obligations under the ESA. As we fulfill our responsibilities and obligations under the ESA and applicable laws and regulations, we will ensure that the action will result in sustainable conservation of the covered species. Therefore, this GCP would provide private landowners and developers streamlined options for incidental take authorization for future activities while ensuring conservation of the species.

All tasks that will be implemented to properly administer the GCP can be categorized into Administrative Effort and Field Effort. Administrative Effort: 1) Create and maintain a database of: survey requests; survey results; minimization and mitigation measures; Habitat Quality assessment results; Number of animals translocated for development and sites animals were moved to and the number, location and amount of acres UPDs were trapped from for translocations independent of development. 2) Assess survey needs 3) Coordinate with project proponents to implement minimization and mitigation measures 4) Assist, advise, inform and educate the public on the provisions of the GCP 5) Conduct annual UPD education and training seminars in coordination with Southern Utah counties. 6) Coordinate with the various local building permitting offices to assist them in proper adherence of the GCP Field Effort: 7) Perform Utah prairie dog occupancy surveys for proposed development projects 8) Trap and translocate for development projects when feasible 9) Identify translocation sites with our federal partners and Recovery Team 10) Monitor Translocation sites for predators and supplemental food and water needs

The GCP has both compliance and effectiveness monitoring as follows: Compliance Monitoring: Annual reports will be prepared by UDWR and submitted to USFWS annually by March 31 To monitor compliance with the permit conditions, the USFWS would review annual reporting forms for each project proponent that has a Certificate of Inclusion or incidental take permit and prepare a summary report for the files. Effectiveness Monitoring: Prairie dog translocations, habitat treatments, and plague management efforts have always been conducted and monitored by UDWR and federal land management agencies. State funding provided through this GCP will be used for continued Utah prairie dog habitat and plague management. Therefore, biological monitoring of the translocation programs under this GCP rely on reporting from the state and federal agencies for the duration of the GCP.

Participants in the GCP include the following parties: United States Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Department of Natural Resources Utah Division of Wildlife Resources United States Forest Service Bureau of Land Management Iron County, Utah Garfield County, Utah Beaver County, Utah Wayne County, Utah

The GCP is evaluated every 3 years to determine if adjustments to minimzation and mitigation measures are needed. Management of Utah prairie dogs in development areas will continue to be accomplished under the GCP as and when amended, if at all. Overall Utah prairie dog management is still directed by the Recovery Plan and that will continue to be the practice until and unless it is amended or recinded. A 30-year retrospective of Utah prairie dog management has been completed by BYU with the assistance of Utah prairie dog cooperators. The results of this process are "in press" and are being used by the Division to develop a Conservation Strategy for implementation when the species is delisted.

The GCP can help aid the development of recreation opportunities.

07/01/2022

06/30/2023

2023

The Division performed 248 Utah prairie dog occupancy surveys in Iron (n=223) and Garfield (n=25) counties to assess the impacts of development activities on Utah prairie dogs and their habitat. An additional 8 Utah prairie dog occupancy surveys were conducted in Garfield County by the county. Results of surveys were recorded and prairie dog letters were sent to the parties requesting a survey. The Division frequently assisted the public in understanding the provisions and workings of the Range-wide General Conservation Plan for the Utah Prairie Dog in Residential and Commercial Development Areas (GCP). Databases necessary to track operations under the GCP were updated and maintained with the following information: survey requests; survey results; minimization and mitigation measures; Habitat Quality assessment results; number of animals translocated for development and sites animals were moved to and the number, location and number of acres UPDs were trapped from for translocations independent of development. The Division performed GIS analysis for projects that occurred within occupied Utah prairie dog habitat and advised project proponents on the GCP process and how to obtain a Certificate of Inclusion to proceed with their projects. The Division provided the Master Permit Holders with the necessary information for them to issue Certificates of Inclusion to project proponents. The Division hired two technicians to assist with trapping operations from July through October 2022. Technicians were trained in trapping protocols and supervised by the Division to accomplish management obligations. The following spring (2023), two technicians were hired to accomplish spring counts and UPD occupancy surveys; these technicians were trained and supervised by the Division. The Division implemented the GCP's translocation plan independent of development while also performing trapping operations under the 4(d) agricultural and safety rule and for development projects authorized under the GCP. One thousand three hundred and two (1,302) UPDs were translocated (829 by UDWR, 270 by USFS, and 203 by BLM) to approved sites in Iron County and Garfield County in July, August, and September 2022. The Clearance Area map for the GCP was updated and distributed to the relevant Counties and Health Departments. UDWR performed the following outreach efforts in FY 23: (1) Cedar City news for UPD trapping and translocation, (2) assisted a child with collecting data for their science fair project, (3) helped with UPD Day at Bryce Canyon National Park, (4) interviewed on TV for KUTV 2 News about UPDs, and (5) created a UPD website with helpful information for the public. When requested, data was provided to partner agencies including Bureau of Land Management, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Forest Service and local government in Southern Utah. At least 13 GRAMA requests were fulfilled between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023, as well as several impromptu requests for UPD information. One man-made translocation site and one vacant colony received translocated UPDs in Iron County. Sites were monitored during the translocation season for presence of predators and predator removal was conducted at one site by a technician hired by the Division and a United States Department of Agriculture Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service employee. In Garfield County, one man-made translocation site and one vacant colony received translocated animals; USFS and UDWR performed trapping and translocation of UPDs in Garfield County. Supplemental food and water were provided at the man-made translocation sites. All Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Implementation Team (UPDRIT) and Conservation Strategy meetings were attended throughout FY 23. The UPD Recovery and General Conservation Plan annual meeting took place on February 1, 2023, and was attended by UDWR and partner agencies. The Division continued work with partner agencies on a Conservation Strategy for UPDs and passed R657-19 amendments through the RAC process. The Conservation Strategy would replace the GCP if prairie dogs were delisted.

The GCP became effective April 2018 and coincided with the 1998 HCP until the July 1, 2018, expiration. The GCP allows continued development and economic growth in all counties found within the three Utah prairie dog recovery units (West Desert, Awapa Plateau and Paunsaugunt). The GCP provides a streamlined process for Counties/or project proponents to apply for incidental take permits and guides minimization and mitigation strategies for development projects that impact Utah prairie dogs and their habitat. The Division performed occupancy surveys in proposed project areas, assessed project impacts to UPDs and their habitat, conducted GIS analysis, determined conservation strategies, performed translocations, partnered with federal partners to identify translocation sites, and maintained a database of survey results and impacts to Utah prairie dogs. These obligations were fulfilled in conjunction with the Division's continued implementation of Utah prairie dog recovery plan responsibilities and work towards the Conservation Strategy.

The Division's participation in the GCP is critical to provide the local communities with a streamlined process for receiving authorization to take Utah prairie dogs due to construction activities but has also increased the administrative effort and field workload on the Division. The Division's ability to work closely with the local communities has eased frustrations working through "complicated" federal regulations and process. Experience has shown that other programs suffer when GCP administration must be shared by the UPD Recovery Biologist and Sensitive Species Biologist. Maintaining annual funding to support this program, therefore, is a high priority for the Southern Region wildlife program.