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.

Our goal is to conserve white-tailed prairie dog and Gunnison's prairie dog populations sufficiently to ensure long-term viability and to preclude the need for protection under the Endangered Species Act. A key objective is to Identify and monitor the distribution and status of both species. Tasks include: 1.) Prepare maps, landowner contact lists, data forms, and make other preparations for survey. 2.) Contact landowners for permission to do surveys on private property where necessary. 3). Conduct field surveys. 4.) Analyze data and prepare reports. 5.) Submit data to Prairie Dog Conservation Team for range-wide analysis.

Utah Wildlife Action Plan - both species are SGCNs Utah Gunnison's Prairie Dog (GPD) and White-tailed Prairie Dog (WTPD) Conservation Plan - lays out management recommendations for both species in Utah. Management actions are triggered by a 40% decline in occupancy. White-tailed Prairie Dog and Gunnison's Prairie Dog Conservation Strategy- This Strategy identifies both short and long-term objectives, and sets various time frames for completing activities. It incorporates a rangewide view for long-term species persistence and an ecosystem management approach for habitat conservation. A key objective is to Identify and monitor the distribution and status of both species.

UDWR has the authority to carry out this project. We will make necessary contacts to access private lands.

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.

Members of the PDCT have committed to completing GPD and WTPD surveys every six years to assess occupancy trends.

WAFWA Prairie Dog Conservation Team including: Colorado Division of Wildlife, Arizona Game and Fish Department, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. We are also in discussions with biologist from the Navajo Nation. Salt Lake, Vernal, Moab, and Monticello Field Offices of the BLM.

Members of the PDCT have committed to completing GPD and WTPD surveys every six years to assess occupancy trends. The team meets yearly to management needs across the range. Management in Utah is guided by the The Utah Gunnison's Prairie Dog (GPD) and White-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Plan, which is due for updating.

04/01/2022

06/30/2022

2022

Past colony mapping, soils, and vegetation data was used to model predicted habitat for Gunnison's prairie dog (GPD; Cynomys gunnisoni) and the white-tailed prairie dog (WTPD; C. leucurus) The modeled habitat was divided into 500X500m sampling plots with 165 selected for WTPD and 115 for GPD. Visits were made by either 2 observers at the same time (preferred) or 2 visits within a week. Plots were visited twice between April and July. Observers spent 5 minutes at each corner of the 500 m X 500 m plot looking with binoculars and listening for prairie dogs as well as searching while walking between plot corners. A visual observation was required to classify a plot as occupied.

We conducted WTPD surveys from April through June 2022 in the Northeastern (NER), Northern (NR), and Southeastern (SER) UDWR regions. In total, we surveyed 155 of 165 selected plots (NER: 9, NR: 83, SER: 65). Several plots were not surveyed due to lack of permission on private land, or due to inaccessibility because of terrain or safety concerns. Overall, WTPD were detected on 72 of the 157 surveyed plots (46%). Regionally, results broke down as follows: NER - 6 of 9 (67%), NR - 43 of 83 (52%), SER - 23 of 65 (35%). Although formal analysis is pending, the number of plots occupied is similar to past years. GPD surveys were started later in the season (end of May) and were subsequently focused on plots that fell on public land. As of the end of FY22, we had completed 49 of 115 plots (i.e. two surveys per plot), and all but three were at least partially on public land. We detected GPD on only 5 of 49 surveyed plots (10%), but it should be noted that in previous years, the vast majority of GPDs were detected on plots that fall on private land. We continue to survey GPD plots in FY23 and should be wrapped up with those surveys soon. Once all data are compiled 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

Members of the PDCT have committed to completing GPD and WTPD surveys every six years to assess occupancy trends. The team meets yearly to management needs across the range. Management in Utah is guided by the The Utah Gunnison's Prairie Dog (GPD) and White-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Plan, which is due for updating.