Draft Range-Wide General Conservation Plan for Utah Prairie Dogs (Docket No. FWS-R6-ES )

January 18, 2018 VIA Regulations.gov Public Comments Processing Attn: Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2017-0073 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC 5275 Leesburg Pike Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 Re: Draft Range-Wide General Conservation Plan for Utah Prairie Dogs (Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2017-0073) Dear Ms. Romin: Friends of Animals 1 submits these comments in response to the Incidental Take Permit Application; Draft Range-Wide General Conservation Plan for Utah Prairie Dogs and Environmental Assessment (Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2017-0073). Friends of Animals has several concerns with the Draft Range-Wide General Habitat Conservation Plan ( GHCP ) and associated Environmental Assessment (EA). Utah prairie dogs are highly social, intelligent species, organizing themselves into social groups called clans. They are also a keystone species critical to maintaining ecological balance. Utah prairie dogs were listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) after unbridled commercial interest and untempered eradication efforts drove them to the brink of extinction. Although, the population has slowly started to rebound, the proposed GHCP seriously impedes the recovery of Utah prairie dogs and puts their continued survival at risk. The GHCP contains no limits on the amount of Utah prairie dogs that can be taken or the amount of habitat that can be permanently destroyed. Instead the GHCP provides broad 1 Friends of Animals is a non-profit international advocacy organization incorporated in the state of New York since 1957. Friends of Animals has nearly 200,000 members worldwide. Friends of Animals and its members seek to free animals from cruelty and exploitation around the world, and to promote a respectful view of nonhuman, free-living and domestic animals. 1

authority to Iron, Beaver, and Garfield Counties ( Applicants ) to authorize the take of threatened Utah prairie dogs for over ten years. Moreover, the GHCP does not provide any measures that are adequate to offset the negative impacts it causes. The main minimization and mitigation measure identified in the GHCP is translocating (moving) prairie dogs. Not only is this measure not mandatory and not adequately funded by the GHCP, it is also indisputably ineffective at conserving prairie dogs. Ninety percent of prairie dogs will not survive past the first year after they have been translocated. Moreover, two-thirds of all translocation sites fail completely. Overall, the GHCP significantly reduces the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Utah prairie dog in the wild. Finally, there are significant legal deficiencies with the GHCP and EA. The GHCP falls far short of the requirements set out in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Also, given the major environmental impacts of the GHCP, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is required to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to look at the impacts of, and alternatives to, the GHCP. Failure to Meet Endangered Species Act Requirements. The Applicants seeks an incidental take permit under the ESA to implement the GHCP. Under 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA, an applicant must submit certain information before FWS can issue an incidental take permit. The Applicants and GHCP fail to include the information required for an incidental take permit application, including: (1) the impact of the taking; (2) what steps the applicant will take to adequately minimize and mitigate impacts, and the funding that will be available to implement such steps; and (3) what alternatives to the taking the applicant considered and reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized. 16 U.S.C. 1539. Additionally, before FWS can issue a permit it must find, among other things, that: (1) the expected taking will be incidental; (2) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking; (3) the applicant has assured adequate funding for its habitat conservation plan; and (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of listed species in the wild. 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B). There is not sufficient information in the GHCP or the EA to make any of the required findings. 1. Failure to identify enforceable limit on take allowed under the Range-Wide General Habitat Conservation Plan. Incidental take must be expressed in terms that are measurable and enforceable in a habitat conservation plan and in an incidental take permit. The unit of take must be 2

practicable, which means it can be monitored and the results of monitoring can be applied to adaptive management decisions. Here, the Applicants and FWS failed to express how much take would be authorized by the GHCP, and did not set a clear standard for determining when the levels of anticipated take have been exceeded. Not only does this failure violate the agency s own guidelines, it also makes it impossible to determine the impact of the take and whether or not there are adequate measures to minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking. Additionally, FWS cannot determine that the GHCP will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of Utah prairie dogs without this information. 2. Failure to identify the impact that will result from taking Utah prairie dogs. As noted previously, the GHCP does not identify the number of prairie dogs that may be taken under the GHCP, or specific habitat that could be taken. The GHCP and EA also fail to consider the impact that the taking will have on the connectivity of prairie dog habitat. The GHCP admits that [w]e do not know what the maximum amount of development would be over the 10-year term of this GCP. GHCP at 55. Identifying the number Utah prairie dogs and locations of prairie dog habitat is critical to determining the impact of the take because the persistence of prairie dog colonies is related to the size of those colonies, with larger colonies generally realizing greater persistence over time. Additionally, identifying the location of prairie dog is important because the long-term recovery of the Utah prairie dog depends on the connection and location of prairie dog colonies. 2 Without detailed information on where and what take will occur, one cannot determine whether there is a large enough population and area to maintain genetic diversity and a viable population. Because the GHCP failed to identify the specific amount of prairie dogs and habitat that can be taken under the GHCP, it failed to meet the requirement that it specify the impact that will result from taking under the GHCP. Rather than provide information required to determine the impact, the GHCP and EA erroneously base their analysis of the proposed impact on the average historical take associated with loss of habitat, and a stepped up approach based on increasing historical take. There are several problems with this approach. First, they have provided no evidence that proposed future development and take will follow past averages. They have not provided proposed population or development growth rates to estimate future impact, or examined past growth rates to project future growth rates. Second, historical take was subject to additional restrictions under past permitting schemes. Thus, historical take is not 2 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens) revised recovery plan. 3

a good indicator of future take under the GHCP. Third, without a measurable limit on proposed take, no one can reliably predict the impact of proposed take. Finally, the take estimates in the GHCP are based on the assumption that minimization and mitigation measures will effectively retain a percent of prairie dogs on translocation sites. However, the GHCP does not mandate translocations. Instead it provides that project proponents will allow translocations when feasible. The GHCP fails to provide information on when translocations will be feasible. Again, without this information one cannot determine the impact of takes under the GHCP. 3. Failure to minimize and mitigate impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The ESA requires applicants to minimize and mitigate the impact of the take to the maximum extent practicable. Here, Applicants fail to do so. Rather, the GHCP abandons minimization and mitigation measures identified in current and past HCPs. The fact that counties have implemented these measures in the past demonstrates that they are practicable. For example, under the Iron County HCP approved in 1998, in addition to translocations and mitigation banks, minimization and mitigation measures included: habitat protection, education and training, measures to discourage unnecessary take, discouraging take outside of the translocation window, penalties for unnecessary take, habitat development, protection of existing habitat, and research on prairie dog conservation. Additionally, previous HCP s limited the total amount of prairie dogs that could be taken and translocated. The GHCP at issue here gets rid of these protections. In fact, the only obligation for those that seek to take prairie dog colonies in major development areas is that they allow others to translocate prairie dogs when feasible. The GHCP indicates that developers can avoid this mitigation and minimization measure if they want to develop outside prairie dog translocation season, if no translocation sites are available, or if the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources does not have funding to perform translocations. Project proponents would not be required to fund or carry out this minimization measure, and there are no incentives for them to develop in accordance with a schedule that would promote successful prairie dog translocations. Under the GHCP, if project proponents seek to take medium and large colonies in minor development areas, they would only be required to pay a standard fee per acre of habitat impacted 3 regardless of whether they sought to take medium or high-quality habitat. Notably, project proponents do not even have to pay the fee if Applicants determine that that the project would take a small colony or low-quality habitat. Developers also do not 3 The standard fee is erroneously based on historical averages even though there is no support that these numbers would remain the same going forward. 4

have to pay a fee for any take in major development areas, even if the developers seek to destroy a large prairie dog colony on high quality habitat. Not only does the GHCP fail to implement practicable measures identified in previous HCPs, it also fails to include additional practicable measures to minimize and mitigate the impact of takes. Additional practicable measures that should be incorporated into the GHCP include: limits on the areas and amounts of prairie dogs that could be taken; preservation of high quality habitat, important colonies and connective corridors; and seasonal restrictions on take to prevent takings during the breeding and young-rearing season. a. The proposed minimization and mitigation steps are not adequate to offset take or protect Utah prairie dogs. There are several problems with GHCP s minimization and mitigation plan: (1) the proposed translocation and standard fees do not adequately minimize or mitigate the impacts of take; (2) the GHCP fails to identify appropriate and sufficient translocation and conservation sites; (3) the GHCP s definition of success for translocations is unreasonable, and (4) the high number of likely translocations are not feasible. First, as explained in FWS Recovery Plan, there is a low observed survival rate after translocation, with less than ten percent of prairie dogs surviving after the first year of translocation. 4 Additionally, new translocation sites have a low success rate. In fact, translocations fail at two-thirds of all new translocation sites. Second, there is no indication that there are appropriate, available sites on private or public land to translocate prairie dogs. The GHCP fails to identify sufficient translocation sites to meet the needs of the GHCP. There are many competing uses on public lands, and there is no indication that sufficient suitable prairie dog habitat is available, nor is there any indication that private land is available. Moreover, most federal lands occur on more arid landscapes and cannot provide high quality habitat for prairie dog translocations. 5 Prairie dogs on federal lands are also more likely to get plague compared to prairie dogs on some private lands, particularly agricultural lands. This may be because prairie dogs are healthier in their current colonies due to the presence of more moisture and food resources as compared to more arid landscapes on most federal lands. 6 Additionally, because of the low success rate of translocations, significant land would need to be set aside to meet the needs of the GHCP. According to the GHCP, take under the plan would result in the loss of 73% of occupied habitat from the West Desert recovery unit, 14% from the Paunsaugunt recovery unit, and 13% in the Awapa Plateau recovery unit. GCP at 149. In order to mitigate this loss, at minimum there would need to three times as much habitat, of equal or higher quality, 4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens) revised recovery plan. 5 Id. 6 Id. 5

available because three translocation sites are needed in order to provide one successful translocation site. Third, the GHCP s measure for success of the translocation plan is unreasonable. According to the GHCP, if all prairie dogs on two-thirds of the translocation sites die, and the remaining one-third of the sites have one prairie dog for three out of five years, it is considered a success. GCP at 37. Under GHCP, people could essentially eradicate prairie dogs. First, two-thirds can just die off. Moreover, for the remaining one-third, at least one prairie dog present at the site for three out of five years (not necessarily consecutive) is not a good measure of success. To the contrary, successful prairie dog colonies should have a spring count of at least twenty prairie dogs and should be connected to other colonies. 7 Finally, the GHCP fails to reasonably identify the number of proposed translocations that would take place under the plan. It estimates an average of 1,500 prairie dogs will be translocated annually. GHCP at 58. However, it is not clear how it reached this number. The annual average of prairie dogs translocated from 2012-2016 was 1,924. The GHCP emphasizes and relies on translocations as the primary mitigation and minimization measure, thus it is unclear why translocation numbers would be projected to go down under the GHCP. The only explanation is that Applicants do not have the resources to conduct the translocations. This illuminates a critical flaw in the GHCP, that it cannot support the actual number of translocations that may occur under the GHCP. In fact, the GHCP admits it cannot sustain high levels of translocation. According to the GHCP this high level of translocation in 2015 of 2,663 would be difficult to sustain over time for several reasons, including lack of adequate funding and staffing, availability of large source populations, and the availability of a high number of translocation sites year to year. GHCP at 58 (emphasis added). 4. Applicants have not ensured adequate funding to implement the GHCP. Applicants have not provided sufficient information for FWS to make a finding that they have assured adequate funding for the GHCP as required by the ESA. In fact, the implementing agreement demonstrates that Applicants have not assured adequate funding. It admits that Applicants will only provide funding as available. Neither Federal or State funds have been appropriated to carry out the measures identified in the GHCP. Additionally, the analysis of the funding necessary to implement the GHCP is based on the flawed assumption that funding necessary to carry out translocations and establish new 7 In addition, there is no clear guidance for monitoring long term success of translocation sites or conservation banks. The GHCP claims applicants will evaluate whether conservation easements are: (1) cumulatively located in areas that promote prairie dog population and habitat connectivity, and (2) managed to the benefit of Utah prairie dogs. However, there are no clear criteria for these evaluations and no standards do determine if the conservation easements are not meeting these standards. 6

colonies will not exceed $157,434 per year. GHCP at 73. Evidence in the GHCP directly contradicts this number. For example, the GHCP states that an estimated 1,500 prairie dogs will be translocated every year. Assuming this number is correct, the GHCP calculated that the annual cost for Utah prairie dog translocations and translocation site establishment for 1,500 Utah prairie dogs is $408,596. See GHCP at 148. 8 Importantly, the GHCP admits that project proponents would not be required to fund or carry out this minimization measure. GHCP at 29. The GHCP also fails to specify how it will fund the administrative costs associated with monitoring the permits and issuing individual permits under the master permit. Moreover, additional funding would also be required to implement mitigation measures for the take of prairie dogs in medium and large colonies and medium and high-quality habitat in the minor development areas. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that this funding would be available. To the contrary, under the GHCP the standard fee would be paid by all approved project proponents, regardless of location of impact in order to keep the fee as low as possible for all project proponents. This means that the fee may not cover the take of Utah prairie dogs. This is especially true if the take involves high quality habitat and/or medium to large colonies. Notably, the GHCP failed to identify any land acquisitions or conservation easements necessary to mitigate the impacts of the permit. Thus, it is unknown what funding would be required for those, or if they are even available. The GHCP admits that in most cases it would take multiple years to accrue sufficient monies in the conservation fund to complete priority recovery actions. This violates the requirements of the ESA. There is no evidence to indicate that Applicants can ensure the funding required to implement the GHCP. In fact, there is no indication they can even ensure the minimum $408,596 required to support the translocations under the GHCP, let alone additional administrative costs and costs for other mitigation measures. There is no evidence in the GHCP that this amount of funding has ever been available for Utah prairie dog conservation in the past. The Applicants should be required to secure adequate funding before FWS can issue a 10- year permit to take threatened Utah prairie dogs, and they have failed to do so here. 5. Failure to identify alternatives to taking, and why alternatives are not being utilized. The GHCP fails to identify any alternatives to taking. Instead, the GHCP offer alternatives that include taking such as individual permits that would allow take and county-wide HCPs 8 In the GHCP, the calculation of cost proceeds with several steps to reduce the final estimate of funding needed to carry out the mitigation requirements. However, there is no reasonable explanation for manipulating the original amount. Nor is there any explanation why it would not cost, at minimum $408,596 to translocate 1,500 prairie dogs as contemplated by the GHCP. 7

that would authorize take. The failure to consider an alternative that does not involve taking violates the ESA requirements. The GHCP should consider an alternative to taking Utah prairie dogs. Such an alternative could include restrictions or modifications on development to protect Utah prairie dogs. 6. Take under the GHCP will appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild. The largely unrestricted take, and inadequate minimization and mitigation measures will severely impede the survival and recovery of Utah prairie dogs in the wild. The GHCP does not contain any limits to adequately protect Utah prairie dogs. To the contrary, the permit area covers habitat that is critical to the survival of Utah prairie dogs. Approximately 40% of Utah prairie dogs occur in the major development areas, and many of these properties are likely to be developed under the 10-year term of the GHCP. Without additional restrictions, FWS cannot make a finding that the GHCP will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the Utah prairie dog in the wild. The GHCP claims that the majority of take would occur in major development areas and thus should not affect the long-term recovery of the species. GHCP at 63. However, there are several critical flaws with this conclusion. First, there are no restrictions to limit take of important Utah prairie dog habitat areas. Second, prairie dog colonies and habitat in the major development areas contribute to the long-term recovery of the species, and thus taking that habitat could significantly impede recovery and survival of Utah prairie dogs. For example, there are 46 medium and large colonies on non-federal lands in the major development areas. Larger prairie dog colonies contribute more toward the persistence of populations than smaller ones. 9 FWS s recommended strategy for achieving recovery includes ensuring the persistence of larger colonies distributed across the Utah prairie dog range in all recovery units. 10 The loss of colonies in major development area could negatively affect the ability of the species to recover by reducing the species resiliency and redundancy, and eliminating an important source of prairie dogs. In fact, the GHCP provides no limits on take of Utah prairie dogs to ensure there is adequate habitat, population, and connective corridors. Nor does the GHCP provide sufficient protections to meet the goals and objectives set out in FWS s Recovery Plan for Utah prairie dogs. Moreover, a population viability analysis concluded that the long-term species survival in the three recovery units is not assured given current abundance, geographic distribution, 9 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Utah prairie dog (Cynomys parvidens) revised recovery plan. 10 Id. 8

and threats. 11 Additional take would only further diminish the species change of survival and recovery. 12 Finally, before issuing an incidental take permit FWS must also initiate and complete consultation under ESA section 7. 13 However, the results from this consultation have not been provided for public comment. For the public to make informed and meaningful comments, additional details concerning the consultation need to be released. Without this information, the public is not being given the opportunity to meaningfully comment on this major federal action. Translocation Programs Independent of Development Undermine the Recovery of Utah Prairie Dogs. The GHCP also discusses translocation of Utah prairie dogs independent of development. Authorization for this program cannot be included in an incidental take permit because it is not incidental to any lawful activity. Moreover, it is severely detrimental to Utah prairie dogs. As discussed above, translocations are not an effective means to conserve Utah prairie dogs and are harmful to their continued survival and recovery. There is no justification or funding for this program, and FWS must consider the negative impact that it would have on Utah prairie dogs. It would further diminish the Utah prairie dog population, destroy habitat and colonies, and diminish the connectivity of the population. The GHCP Improperly Delegates ESA Permitting Authority to Iron, Garfield, and Beaver County. The GHCP proposes offering master permits to the Applicants and thus impermissibly delegates statutory responsibility from FWS to the Applicants. Under the GHCP, the Applicants could issue certificates of inclusions to those wishing to take Utah prairie dogs. 11 Roberts, M.R., J.P. Rodriguez, T.C. Good, and A.P. Dobson. 2000. Population viability analysis of the Utah prairie dog. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Princeton University. Prepared for Environmental Defense. 13 July 2000. 12 The EA noted that new population viability analysis for the Utah prairie dog is being prepared by the UDWR in coordination with State and Federal partners, and is expected to be completed in 2017. This study could shed light on the impacts of the proposed actions. Thus, FWS should wait until this information is completed and provided to the public for an opportunity to comment before proceeding with the proposed action. 13 Section 7 of the requires federal agencies to evaluate expected impacts to listed species and designated critical habitat before authorizing, funding, or taking any discretionary action. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). When a proposed agency action is likely to adversely affect a listed species, the agency must prepare a biological opinion. Biological opinions must be based on the best available science and must analyze whether the proposed agency action is likely to jeopardize any listed species or adversely modify any designated critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). If a proposed agency action will jeopardize a listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat, the agency must suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives that will avoid jeopardy and adverse modification of designated critical habitat. 16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(3)(A). 9

The Applicants would determine the impact of the taking and determine the steps, if any, necessary to minimize or mitigate the impact of such taking. This procedure violates the requirements of the ESA, and deprives members of the public, such as Friends of Animals, from commenting on proposed permits. Importantly, Friends of Animals and it members would like to evaluate and comment on proposed takes to ensure that requirements of the ESA are met, and Utah prairie dogs are protected. This process deprives them of the ability to do so. Additionally, the ESA requires that FWS make the following findings prior to issuing an incidental take permit: (1) the expected taking will be incidental; (2) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking; (3) the applicant has assured adequate funding for its habitat conservation plan; and (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of listed species in the wild. 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(B). The ESA does not provide authority to delegate permitting decisions to third parties, such as the three counties applying for a master permit. The GHCP bypasses the ESA s requirements by giving the Applicants authority to issue permits independent of the required ESA process. FWS Must Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an acting agency to prepare a detailed environmental impact statement (EIS) for federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Whether an agency action is significant enough to require preparation of an EIS requires considerations of both context and intensity. 40 C.F.R. 1508.27. The context of the action includes factors such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(a). The intensity of an action refers to the severity of the impact and requires consideration of several factors, including the degree to which the effects may be controversial; unique characteristics of the geographic area; the degree to which the effects are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks; the precedential effect of the action; whether the action is related to other actions with cumulative significant impacts; the degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species; the degree to which the action may adversely affect scientific, cultural, or historical resources; and whether the action threatens a violation of other laws intended to protect the environment. 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(b). Here, both the context and intensity of the proposed action indicate that preparation of an EIS is necessary. First, the conservation of Utah prairie dogs is a highly controversial issue and has been the subject of litigation between property owners/developers and ESA proponents since 2015. The impacts from the proposed GHCP would not only extend to property owners in all three counties, but also to members of the public across the nation that are interested in Utah prairie dogs. It would also impact prairie dogs across their 10

entire range and could drastically alter the environment in which Utah prairie dogs play a key role. The long ten-year term of the GHCP will only exacerbate these impacts. The intensity of the proposed GHCP also indicates that preparation of an EIS is warranted. It is undisputed that the impacts are controversial and the effects are highly uncertain and involve unique and unknown risks. For example, the EA admits that overall effects to the prairie dog population are difficult to determine, and that it is not known how much of the estimated take associated with development under the GHCP is additive or compensatory. EA at 24, 44. The fact that the amount of take and specific location of take is not disclosed presents unique and unknown risks. The proposed GHCP also occurs across the majority of the Utah prairie dog range, and thus will adversely affect at least one threatened species: Utah prairie dogs. The proposed GHCP will also likely impact several other species that rely on Utah prairie dogs. THE GHCP covers important cultural and historical resources, including tribal, cultural, and spiritual sites. The EA admits that activities could disturb archaeological sites and historic resources and would be evaluated on a project-specific and site-specific basis by the Federal land management agencies that will carry out these activities. EA at 33. However, such information should be disclosed an EIS and the public should have an opportunity to comment on it. In addition to the direct impacts that the GHCP will have on Utah prairie dogs, it will also impact the broader environment and ecosystems where prairie dogs currently live. Utah prairie dog populations provide several ecological benefits. They are prey to critical species such as hawks, owls, foxes, and the endangered black-footed ferret. Additionally, Utah prairie dogs dig underground burrows that enrich soil and improve vegetation quality. Further, Utah prairie dogs feed on vegetation, which reduces noxious weeds and promotes more nutrient-rich grass, which is beneficial to larger herbivores. Thus, the GHCP will impact the entire environment across the Utah prairie dog s range. 1. FWS should thoroughly analyze the impacts of the proposed action and consider a reasonable range of alternatives. As discussed above, the proposed action warrants an EIS. However, regardless of whether FWS prepares an EA or an EIS, it must take a hard look at the impacts of an action prior to making an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97-98 (1983). NEPA requires FWS to adequately evaluate all potential environmental impacts of proposed actions. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). To meet this obligation, FWS must identify and disclose to the public all foreseeable impacts of the proposed action, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. See 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). FWS failed to take a hard look at the impacts of the proposed action. First, FWS failed to include a detailed analysis of how non-target species would be impacted by the GHCP, and the vast amount of habitat destruction that it could 11

authorize. It also failed to take a hard look at the impact on Utah prairie dogs, the available habitat that would remain for prairie dogs, and whether there would be adequate connective corridors between prairie dog colonies. FWS also failed to take a hard look at reasonable alternatives including alternatives that would: (1) place a seasonal restriction on take to prevent takings during the breeding and young-rearing season; (2) implement practicable measures identified in previous HCPs; (3) place limits on the areas and amounts of prairie dogs that could be taken; and (4) preserve high-quality habitat, important colonies, and connective corridors. Conclusion. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Friends of Animals hopes that you will deny the Applicants request for an incidental take permit, or at the least correct the deficiencies in the current GHCP and associated EA, and circulate an additional EIS for further public comments. Please contact me if you have any question or concerns. Sincerely, Jennifer Best Assistant Legal Director Friends of Animals Wildlife Law Program Western Region Office 7500 E. Arapahoe Rd., Suite 385 Centennial, CO 80112 jennifer@friendsofanimals.org 12