Regular rulemaking procedures would place the agency in violation of federal or state law.

Justification:The Utah prairie dog is listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, and its management has been the subject of ongoing litigation in the case of People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, et al. and Friends of Animals (Case No. 2:13-cv-00278).In November 2014, Judge Dee Benson issued a decision declaring that the species could not be listed under the Endangered Species Act on non-federal lands, and as such the state of Utah held management authority in those circumstances.This prompted the development of a specific rule for management of the Utah prairie dog (Rule R657-70) and modification of the Division of Wildlife Resources' (DWR) nongame rule (Rule R657-19).The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned the District Court's decision, returning full management authority to the federal government.As some provisions of Rule R657-70 may violate terms of the Endangered Species Act, repealing that rule is necessary.Rule R657-19 will largely be restored to the format it was in prior to the issuance of the District Court's decision, with two substantive changes:one in Subsection R657-19-7(5) and one in Subsection R657-19-7(6).These changes are necessary to be consistent with the federal rules regulating the take of Utah prairie dogs.The first specifies the dates of allowable take for Utah prairie dogs, and the second specifies the totals for range-wide take of Utah prairie dogs.The remaining differences between this version of Rule R657-19 and its format prior to the issuance of the District Court's decision are nonsubstantive, i.e. changes in zip codes, but are necessary to ensure proper administration of the rule and associated permits.