HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/20/2007 - RESOLUTION 2007-019 RESCINDING RESOLUTION 1998-037 ITEM NUMBER: 33
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: February 20, 2007
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: John Stokes
Rick Bachand
Jennifer Shanahan
SUBJECT
Resolution 2007-019 Rescinding Resolution 1998-037,Which Adopted a Prairie Dog Policy for City
Natural Areas.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. Staff also supports the related administrative
adoption of the Wildlife Management Guidelines.
The Natural Resources Advisory Board, at its January 17th meeting,recommended that the Prairie
Dog Policy be rescinded and that the Wildlife Management Guidelines be administratively adopted.
The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board will take action at its February 15th meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Rescinding the Prairie Dog Policy and administratively adopting the proposed Guidelines does not
have any direct financial impact. The Guidelines could influence management actions that incur
costs to the Natural Areas fund. Any particular management action would be balanced against the
program's other needs and its overall ability to fund an action.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff is recommending that the Prairie Dog Policy adopted by Council in 1998 be rescinded. To
improve its operations with respect to all wildlife on City-owned natural areas, the Natural Areas
Program has developed Wildlife Management Guidelines which, like other Natural Area
management plans, are proposed to be administratively adopted. The Guidelines will help shape
system-wide and site-specific wildlife management strategies that support ecosystem health, that
reflect community values, and that are pragmatic and fiscally responsible.
Purpose:
Rescinding the Prairie Dog Policy and administratively adopting the Guidelines will:
• Provide a framework to guide wildlife management decisions on City natural areas.
• Provide a framework for the overarching goal of managing wildlife and wildlife habitat for
February 20, 2007 -2- Item No. 33
the objective of promoting and enhancing ecosystem health and sustainability.
• Replace the City's 1998 Prairie Dog Policy for City Natural Areas, adopted by Council
resolution, with new, administratively adopted guidelines for prairie dog and prairie dog
habitat management(requires Council action to drop the 1998 plan).
• Maintain consistency in management direction between natural areas while also providing
flexibility for site-based decision making.
• Provide guidance on the management of human—wildlife conflicts.
• Explore long-term conservation issues related to species recovery efforts at Soapstone
Prairie Natural Area.
• Articulate clear management guidelines for native wildlife species.
• Provide direction for the control of invasive species.
BACKGROUND
The Natural Areas Program currently manages approximately 33,000 acres. Almost all of this land
provides habitat to a variety of native animals. Because the City's natural areas system is home to
so many wildlife species,staff concluded that a set of guidelines would be helpful in developing site
specific management strategies.
Unlike the existing Prairie Dog Policy, the Guidelines that staff has developed are intended to
provide a framework for managing wildlife and wildlife habitat for the objective of promoting and
enhancing ecosystem health and sustainability. Furthermore, they are intended to be adaptive and
not prescriptive. Thus,over time, as various site-specific management efforts are undertaken based
on the Guidelines, results will be monitored and adaptations designed to improve outcomes. This
approach will be particularly useful with respect to prairie dogs.
At its January 9th work session,Council asked staff to explain why it was proposing administrative
adoption of the Guidelines. Staff is recommending administrative adoption for several reasons. The
document is intended to be a set of guidelines, or a framework, for managing wildlife. As noted
above, it is adaptive in nature. Wildlife management is an iterative, dynamic process of applied
research, management, and learning. Therefore, in recognition of the adaptive nature of the
Guidelines, staff is recommending an administrative approach to its day-to-day operations, rather
than a regulatory approach. This administrative approach is consistent with nearly all of the
program's management planning, with the exception of the existing Prairie Dog Policy and the
Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan(the Council-adopted policy document that guides
the actions of the program). Further, as the Guidelines indicate, there already is a substantial body
of state and federal regulation and law that prescribes how wildlife may be managed.
Council also asked staff to consider various changes to the document and to provide an overview
of final edits and as well as information about public participation in the process of developing the
Guidelines. The Guidelines were reviewed by the Natural Resources Advisory Board and it has
February 20, 2007 -3- Item No. 33
recommended administrative adoption of the Guidelines and rescinding the existing Prairie Dog
Policy. The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board will take action at its February 15th
meeting. Its recommendation will be included in the read-before packet. In addition to the Boards
and Council, the Guidelines were reviewed by natural resource management agencies, research
specialists, and the general public. Comments, including Council comments, are noted in the
attached table with associated responses.
Council asked for a side-by-side comparison of the Prairie Dog Policy with the proposed
Guidelines. The comparison is attached.
Finally, Council asked about debris cleaning activities on the Poudre River that are conducted by
the stormwater utility each year. A memo has been provided.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Wildlife Management Guidelines -Final Draft.
2. Wildlife Management Guidelines, Summary of Key Comments
3. Comparison Table, Wildlife Management Guidelines/Prairie Dog Policy
4. Memorandum from the Natural Resources Advisory Board
S. Memorandum: Poudre River Removal of Downed Trees
6. Powerpoint Slides of February 20th Presentation to Council
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program
Natural Areas Wildlife
Management Guidelines (Draft)
February 2007
City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program
Natural Areas Wildlife Management Guidelines
DRAFT
February 12, 2007
Timeline & Review Process
15t draft complete.............................November 29, 2006
Staff & Peer Review..................... December 106 — January `07
LCSB ..........................................December 13th, 2006
Council Worksession........................January 91h, 2007
Beginning Public Comment Period (web posting) January 12,
2007
Public Open House .........................February 5th , 2007
End of Public comment period...........February 91h , 2007
Final Draft ...................................February 12th 2007
Council Meeting.............................February 201h, 2007
Natural Areas Participating Staff:
Rick Bachand (Project Lead)
Karen Manci(Senior Environmental Planner)
Daylan Figgs (Senior Environmental Planner)
Matt Parker(Natural Areas Crew Chief)
Rachel Steeves (Environmental Planner)
Donna Dees (Natural Areas Technician) ® Natu
Jennifer Shanahan (Research Assistant) Areas
City of FoR Collins Pry
2
Executive Summary
Over the past decade, the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program has begun to manage a
growing number of local and regional natural areas. In 2006 that acreage grew to more than
31,000 acres. These lands include relatively small, isolated natural areas within the urban
setting, a collection of foothills sites just to the west of town, a series of natural areas along the
Poudre River, and two large regional natural areas: Bobcat Ridge and Soapstone Prairie.
As the natural areas system has grown, so has the complexity of management issues. In turn,
increasingly sophisticated management approaches are needed. Therefore, these wildlife
management guidelines are intended to guide natural areas staff in the development and
implementation of system-wide and site-specific wildlife management strategies that advance
ecosystem health, reflect community values, and that are pragmatic and fiscally responsible.
This document provides wildlife management guidelines for City-managed natural areas in both
the urban and rural setting, however, certain topics apply primarily to urban natural areas (ie.
prairie dog management) while other issues are more relevant to the regional natural areas (ie.
native species recovery). These guidelines apply only to lands managed by the Natural Areas
Program. They do not apply to private lands, other City of Fort Collins managed lands, or
conservation easements held by the Natural Areas Program. They also are superseded by federal
and state wildlife law, as well as the Fort Collins Municipal and Land Use Code.
These guidelines are intended to:
➢ Provide a framework to guide wildlife management decisions on City natural areas.
➢ Provide a framework for managing wildlife and wildlife habitat within the context of the
overarching goal of promoting and enhancing ecosystem health and sustainability.
➢ Replace the City's 1998 Prairie Dog Policy for City Natural Areas with new, administratively
adopted guidelines for urban prairie dog and prairie dog habitat management.
➢ Maintain consistency in management direction between natural areas while also providing
flexibility for site-based decision making.
➢ Provide guidance on the management of human—wildlife conflicts.
➢ Explore long-term conservation issues related to the species recovery efforts at Soapstone
Prairie Natural Area.
➢ Articulate clear management guidelines for native wildlife species.
➢ Provide direction for the control of invasive species.
Chapters 2 and 3 provide a regulatory and legal framework for wildlife management and
management of protected species. Chapter 4 describes the overarching program objective of
managing wildlife and wildlife habitat to promote and enhance ecosystem health and
3
sustainability. This critical objective is woven throughout the remainder of the management
guidelines in chapters that address native species management (chapter 5), urban prairie dog
management (chapter 6), native species recovery in regional natural areas (chapter 7), non-native
species management(chapter 9), and habitat protection and enhancement in chapter eleven.
One consequence of an ecosystem health framework for wildlife management will be the
designation of suitable habitat (primarily for prairie dogs) in an effort to balance overall
ecosystem health (in a fragmented urban area) with health and sustainability of individual
wildlife species. To achieve this balance, critical ecosystem thresholds or trigger points specific
to urban natural areas that will act as a feedback mechanism to drive management decisions will
be identified to determine whether or not resource objectives are being met. When they are not
being met, management intervention will be warranted in order to prevent loss of ecosystem
health, sustainability, and diversity.
Chapters 8 (Wildlife and Human Conflicts) and 10 (Management and Control of Wildlife
Diseases) address issues that potentially affect natural area visitors or homeowners adjacent to
natural areas. The guidelines are intended to first ensure public safety and wellness while also
promoting wildlife conservation.
The final sections of these wildlife management guidelines address issues related to wildlife
inventory, monitoring and research needs. As the level of wildlife management becomes
increasingly sophisticated, additional information will be required to best steward both wildlife
and wildlife habitat.
a
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction—Why wildlife management guidelines? ...............................6
Chapter 2: Regulatory Environment& Framework..................................................9
Chapter 3: Protected Wildlife Species Management................................................14
Chapter 4: Ecosystem Health: An Ecological Framework for Wildlife Management .......25
Chapter 5: Native Wildlife Species Management ...................................................32
Chapter 6: Urban Prairie Dog Management........................................................ 44
Chapter 7: Native Species Recovery& Reintroduction Goals....................................66
Chapter 8: Wildlife and Human Conflicts............................................................69
Chapter 9: Non-Native Species Management........................................................73
Chapter 10: Management and Control of Wildlife Diseases......................................77
Chapter 11: Habitat Protection and Enhancement ................................................85
Chapter 12: Wildlife Inventory& Monitoring......................................................89
Chapter 13: Future Research and Information Needs.............................................92
Appendix A: Responding to wildlife emergencies ..................................................96
Appendix B: Key to Wildlife Species of Concern in City of Fort Collins Natural Areas...98
Appendix C: Amphibians and Reptiles of Larimer County.....................................100
AppendixD: Summary of Comments................................................................102
5
Chapter 1: Scope & Purpose
Why wildlife management guidelines?
The city of Fort Collins, Colorado, is situated at the base of the Rocky Mountain foothills where
the short-grass prairies of the Great Plains rise to meet the shrublands and forests of the Rocky
Mountains. By virtue of geography the area has a naturally diverse ecosystem including features
such as short and mixed-grass prairies, wetlands, and riparian forests associated with the Cache
La Poudre River, as well as the shrublands and forests of the foothills and beyond. The blend of
these ecosystems in this transition area between the plains and the Rocky Mountains support an
abundance and diversity of native wildlife that are enjoyed throughout the community.
Superimposed on the landforms of the Fort Collins area is the geography of the built
environment that grades from a dense urban core to rural and ex-urban development to the north
and west, with a small areas of rural landscape between neighboring communities to the south
and east (Loveland, Windsor, and Wellington). The presence of humans in this landscape for
approximately 11,000 years has strongly influenced, and continues to influence, the type,
abundance, and diversity of wildlife in any given area of the greater Fort Collins. In addition to
the enjoyment of wildlife by the citizens of Fort Collins, the close proximity of people and
wildlife periodically results in situations that cause land managers to consider or take
management action.
These wildlife management guidelines are an effort to help guide City of Fort Collins Natural
Areas staff develop and implement system-wide and site-specific wildlife management strategies
that support ecosystem health, that reflect community values, and that are pragmatic and fiscally
responsible.
Therefore, this document is intended to:
➢ provide a framework to guide wildlife management decisions on City natural areas.
➢ help maintain consistency in management direction among natural areas while also
providing flexibility for site-based decision making.
➢ provide guidance on the management of human—wildlife conflicts.
➢ articulate clear wildlife management guidelines for City natural areas.
➢ guide both short and long-term management actions for the conservation of wildlife
species and their habitats on City natural areas.
➢ provide new management direction for the management of prairie dogs and prairie dog
habitat.
➢ describe the ecosystem management model and overall objective of promoting and
enhancing ecosystem health.
Geographic Scope
These guidelines apply only to lands managed by the Natural Areas Program. They do not apply
to other City of Fort Collins managed lands or conservation easements held by the Natural Areas
Program. The City's natural area system is comprised of 31,000 acres of protected open space
and undeveloped lands within the city limit and beyond. Natural Areas range from small
undeveloped acreages of land in a highly urbanized setting to regional natural areas outside city
6
limits that are several thousands of acres and more. This document provides wildlife
management guidelines for City-managed Natural Areas in both the urban and rural setting.
The urban and rural setting differ vastly in some aspects that affect wildlife and their habitat.
The city owns two regional properties; Bobcat Ridge and Soapstone Prairie Natural Areas. Both
of these properties are considerably larger than most of the urban natural areas (they are 2,604
and 18,721 acres respectively) and the adjacent lands are not urbanized. As will be discussed in
chapter 4, fragmented ecosystems have reduced resilience and resistance to disturbances.
Wildlife are also affected greatly by fragmentation as the mosaic of habitat types, cover types,
food resources decrease and the human interface increases. Consequently, wildlife management
decisions may vary depending on the setting.
This document provides a set of guidelines for managing wildlife in both the rural and urban
setting; however, because these are guidelines and not policies, each situation will be assessed
individually to determine the most appropriate management action given local constraints or
opportunities. Furthermore, a few topics addressed herein refer specifically to only the urban or
regional setting. Chapter 6 describes past, current and future management of prairie dogs.
Unless specifically stated, this chapter is providing a management approach exclusively for
prairie dogs inhabiting the urban properties. Prairie dog management in regional properties will
be determined by each respective management plan. Finally,chapter 7 addresses opportunities
for native species reintroductions. These opportunities exist primarily at Soapstone Prairie
Natural Area.
Application of Wildlife Management Guidelines
These wildlife management guidelines are intended to direct management of habitat and wildlife
on city-owned, publicly managed lands only. These guidelines do not:
➢ Serve as policy or management direction for privately-owned lands, lands held in
conservation easement by the Natural Areas Program, or other City of Fort Collins
managed lands.
➢ Supersede or conflict with current City of Fort Collins Land Use Code or wildlife
regulations promulgated by the Fort Collins Municipal Code.
➢ Supersede or conflict in any way with federal or state law related to wildlife or any policy
direction set forth by the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
➢ Supersede site management plans that deal with specific wildlife issues. Instead, these
guidelines help inform those management plans.
Natural Areas Program Mission Statement
The mission of the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program is to protect and enhance lands
with existing or potential natural areas values, lands that serve as community separators,
agricultural lands, and lands with scenic values. Protection of natural habitats and features is the
highest priority, while providing opportunities for education and appropriate recreation for the
Fort Collins' community.
7
Wildlife Management Vision Statement
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program will strive to conserve a diversity of self-
sustaining native wildlife populations on City natural areas that are harmonious with the
surrounding environment and compatible with ecological resources.
Principles of Wildlife Management on City Natural Areas
The generalized principles listed below provide a framework upon which specific wildlife
management activities will be based:
1. The Natural Areas Program will use the best available science in understanding and
managing wildlife and their habitats.
2. The Natural Areas Program will consider and balance environmental, economic, and
social sustainability principles in managing wildlife and wildlife`habitat.
3. The Natural Areas Program will clearly articulate the standards and protocols for
managing situations where conflicts arise between wildlife and the public when the
situation lies beyond the jurisdiction of the State of Colorado.
4. The Natural Areas Program will establish wildlife management guidelines that
proactively reduce human/wildlife conflicts,reflect overall community values, and
sustain ecological integrity. The program will manage wildlife for overall habitat health
(including vegetative communities and their associated wildlife)rather than management
at a single species level.
5. The Natural Areas Program will strive to conduct long-term management practices that
emphasize alternatives to lethal control of native wildlife.
6. The Natural Areas Program will rank strategies based on their contribution to ecological
viability, sustainability, and biological diversity, as well as their relative costs.
7. The Natural Areas Program will inventory natural areas in the City with the greatest
potential for conservation success of various species.
8. The Natural Areas Program will have the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
review these Wildlife Management Guidelines every five to seven years.
The following chapters include a review of the existing regulatory framework as well as
management guidelines specific to wildlife groupings. Goals for species reintroduction and
monitoring also are provided.
8
Chapter 2: Regulatory Environment & Framework
Wildlife management occurs within a larger context of local state and federal laws. The
Colorado Statute 33-1-101(2) states `wildlife within this state not lawfully acquired and held by
private ownership is declared to be the property of the state." Thus, management of wildlife in
the state of Colorado is the jurisdiction of the Wildlife commission and the Colorado Division of
Wildlife. Furthermore, certain federal laws passed in conjunction with the Endangered Species
Act and the Migratory Birds Act governs management of specific wildlife and their habitat.
The guidelines recommended herein are subordinate not only to state and federal laws,but also
to City and County jurisdiction. Within the Program, specific site management plans guide the
wildlife management for each site; however, this document provides greater details than those
provided in the management plans. Therefore this document will frequently serve as the primary
set of guidelines for many decisions regarding wildlife management.
Existing Policies, Guidelines and Plans in the City of Fort Collins
Wildlife on City of Fort Collins natural areas are primarily managed through policies, guidelines,
and management plans established by the Natural Areas Program since its inception in 1992.
This document greatly expands and updates the wildlife components of the 2001 General
Management Guidelines. In addition this document replaces the 1998 Prairie Dog Policy.
Current City Document Adopted Year
B
Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan (Replaced 1992 City 2004
Natural Areas Policy Plan) Council
General Management Guidelines for Natural Areas and NR 2001
Agricultural Lands Managed by the City of Fort Collins Natural Director
Resources Department(Replaced 1994 Guidelines)
Fossil Creek Natural Areas Management Plan (II sites) NR 2005
Director
Bobcat Ridge Natural Area Management Plan NR 2005
Director
Cache la Poudre River Natural Areas Management Plan (17 NR 2002
sites) Director
Foothills Natural Areas Management Plan (4 sites; currently NR 1997
being updated) Director
Prairie Dog Policy for City Natural Areas City 1998
Council
Fort Collins City Municipal Code
The Natural Areas Program must adhere to City Code when managing wildlife on city property,
whether or not the property is within city limits. Chapter 4 of the City Code, Animals and
Insects, primarily addresses domestic animals and bees, and is not particularly relevant to
wildlife management on city natural areas. However, four sections of Chapter 4 dealing with
poison, trapping, and wild birds are relevant.
9
Section 4-119 Use of poison restricted.
Prohibits the poisoning of any animal, with the exception of pest rodents, such as mice,
rats, and voles with poisons approved for such use by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Only fumigants can be used to destroy prairie dogs and other burrowing
rodents, and only by persons licensed by the State of Colorado.
Section 4-120. Tranoing restricted.
Restricts trapping of wild animals to live trapping in a manner required by the Humane
Society and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), with the exception that rodent
snap traps can be used on private property and emergency trapping (lethal or non-lethal)
can be used under the direction of CDOW for animals of imminent threat to persons or
causing serious damage to property.
Section 4-156 Wild bird refuge created.
Established Fort Collins as a wild bird sanctuary in 1986; urges all persons to protect
wild birds and encourages their propagation and refuge within the City Limits.
Section 4-157 Killing or capturing wild birds restricted.
Makes it unlawful to kill, injure, or capture any wild bird or injure the nest, eggs, or
young of any bird. The Chief of Police and CDOW can authorize permits for birds that
are a nuisance or health hazard. Permits can also be obtained to capture birds for
research purposes.
City of Fort Collins Land Use Code& Buffer Zones(Article 3, Section 3.4.1)
The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code,which regulates private land development, also governs
major construction and improvement projects (parking lots, building or other facility) on natural
areas within the city limits. Article 3, Section 3.4.1, of the Land Use Code applies to Natural
Habitats and Features. Projects are required to follow standards that preserve or enhance the
ecological character, function, and wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature. The Code also
requires projects to minimize or adequately mitigate foreseeable impacts of the development.
Buffer zone standards within the Land Use Code provide guidance for not only site development
on natural areas, but also management activities (e.g., prairie burning) that could potentially
disturb wildlife at a critical time (e.g., denning, nesting). Although trails can be constructed
within buffer zones of streams, prairie dog colonies, and wildlife concentration areas, trails are
required to be compatible with the ecological character and wildlife use of the habitat, with
mitigation measures utilized to minimize foreseeable impacts whenever possible. Below is a list
of natural habitats and features with established(regulated)buffer zones.
Natural Habitat or Feature Buffer Zone Standard
Isolated Areas:
o Irrigation ditches that serve as wildlife corridors 50 feet
10
o Isolated patches of native grassland or shrubland 50 feet
o Isolated patches of native upland or riparian forest 50 feet
o Woodlots/farmstead windbreaks 25 feet
o Naturalized irrigation ponds 50 feet
o Naturalized storm drainage channels/detention ponds 50 feet
o Lakes or reservoirs 100 feet
o Wetlands< 1/3 acre in size 50 feet
o Wetlands > 1/3 acre in size, without significant use by
waterfowl and/or shorebirds 100 feet
o Wetlands> 1/3 acre in size with significant use by
waterfowl and/or shorebirds 300 feet
Stream Corridors (buffer distance from the top the bank):
o Boxelder Creek 100 feet
o Cache la Poudre River in downtown(College to Lincoln Avenue) 200 feet
o Cache la Poudre River outside downtown 300 feet
o Cooper Slough 300 feet
o Dry Creek 100 feet
o Fossil Creek and Tributaries 100 feet
o Spring Creek 100 feet
Special Habitat Features/Resources of Special Concern:
o Bald eagle communal feeding sites 660 feet
o Bald eagle communal roost sites 1,320 feet
o Bald eagle nest sites 2,640 feet
o Winter raptor concentration areas 300 feet
o Great blue heron colonial nest sites 825 feet
o Migratory waterfowl concentration areas 300 feet
o Nesting waterfowl concentration areas 300 feet
o Migratory shorebird concentration areas 300 feet
o Nesting shorebird concentration areas 300 feet
o Migratory songbird concentration areas 300 feet
o Locations of Preble's meadow jumping mouse 300 feet
o Locations of fox, coyote and badger dens 50 feet
o Locations of rare butterfly species Site analysis
o Locations of rare, threatened or endangered plant species Site analysis
o Locations of geological or paleontological sites
of special interest Site analysis
Larimer County
Any development of a major public improvement on a natural area outside of the city limits
requires review by the Larimer County Planning Department, including their environmental
planner who may require an ecological study and/or mitigation for impacts. The County uses
the Wildlife and Plant Communities of State and National Importance data base established by
the Colorado Natural Heritage Program as the initial indication of the existence of a protected
11
species on a site. All new development projects with potential impacts to critical wildlife species
or habitat are referred to the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Larimer County plans to develop specific standards for habitat and species protection in the
fixture, based on the priorities established in a more detailed habitat mapping project. Four
criteria have been selected as the basis for determining habitat priorities: (1) rare vegetation
types; (2) areas known to contain rare and threatened species; (3) areas supporting an unusually
large number of species; and (4) areas providing habitat for species of importance to the people
of Larimer County, including areas that are moderately to highly impacted by development,
known migration corridors,pronghorn concentration areas, mule deer winter concentration areas,
elk severe winter range, duck winter range, bighorn sheep lambing areas, mule deer migration
corridors, and elk migration corridors. These standards would apply only to new development,
but like the City's buffer standards, may be useful also for guiding wildlife management
activities on natural areas outside of the city limits.
State of Colorado
Native terrestrial wildlife in Colorado is classified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife as big
game, small game, waterfowl, furbearers, or non-game. Fish are likewise classified as game or
non-game species.
Currently, the City of Fort Collins does not allow recreational hunting on any of its properties,
but this may be allowed in the future on regional natural areas (i.e., Bobcat Ridge, Soapstone
Prairie). The City currently does have the ability to use hunting as a management tool on any
natural area in the form of a controlled hunt by CDOW staff if mandated by the State and
approved by the Chief of Police. This could occur for situations of disease control (e.g., chronic
wasting disease in ungulates) or overpopulation (e.g., large deer populations seriously over
browsing habitat). Since the inception of the Natural Areas Program in 1992, no controlled
hunts have been used to manage wildlife; however, the CDOW did trap and euthanize some deer
along the Poudre River in 2002 that tested positive for chronic wasting disease. Any use of
hunting for management or recreation would comply with Colorado Division of Wildlife hunting
regulations and City of Fort Collins Municipal Code.
Fishing on any City-owned land also must comply with Colorado Division of Wildlife fishing
regulations. Fishing can be prohibited from a lake or pond owned by the City. Currently, fishing
is allowed on 22 lakes and ponds, totaling 250 surface water acres on 9 City natural areas.
Harvesting non-native carp (Cyprinus carpio) by bow hunting for either management or
recreation is prohibited and would require a special use permit by the Chief of Police and the
Colorado Division of Wildlife. Although use of this technique has been deliberated, to date, it
has not been used as a management tool to control carp populations.
The Natural Areas Program is required to obtain a Colorado Division of Wildlife permit
whenever there is a need to capture or kill any species of wildlife on any of its properties for any
purpose, including management or research. By CDOW definition, wildlife includes all
vertebrates, mollusks, and crayfish. No permit is necessary for the capture or killing of other
types of invertebrates, such as insects. A CDOW permit is also necessary if a wildlife den, nest,
or a nest's eggs are destroyed or if wildlife is harassed. However, a permit is not required in the
instance where wildlife dens or nests are removed to prevent damage to property (such as the
removal of a beaver den to prevent flooding of structures).
12
Federal
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act provides protection to species in imminent danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range or likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable fixture. Regulations under the Endangered Species Act prohibit direct physical harm
to a listed species, including harassing, wounding, or killing. These regulations also prohibit
actions that result in indirect harm by impairing essential functions such as breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (denning, roosting, etc.).
City of Fort Collins natural areas currently support two animal species that fall under the
Endangered Species Regulations: bald eagle and Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Extra care
must be taken to not impact these two species by any wildlife management actions taken by the
City. Another three species have been observed on rare occasion during migration over the last
20 years, requiring special consideration in management actions only if their numbers and
occurrence would greatly increase: brown pelican,piping plover, and least tern.
Mig ax tory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects all native birds and their active nests. The Act prohibits
harming a native bird or destroying an active nest, including eggs or young. Nest destruction
includes activities that cause abandonment of a nest that leads to mortality of eggs or young.
However, it does not prohibit destroying an inactive nest. From apractical standpoint, the law is
generally enforced for species of special interest (e.g., hawks, eagles, owls, wading birds,
colonial nesting birds, declining populations of songbirds), but technically the statute applies to
all native species. To the extent practicable, care must be taken in all wildlife management
actions to not disturb or destroy active nests of any native bird species.
13
Chapter 3: Protected Wildlife Species Management
Located on the boundary between the Rocky Mountains and the Great Plains, Fort Collins has a
semi-arid climate with an average precipitation of less than 15 inches. Prior to settlement, the
Fort Collins area was characterized by shortgrass prairies with scattered trees and shrubs along
watercourses, and sparse ponderosa pine forests in the foothills. Wetlands were primarily
confined to the Cache la Poudre River and other stream corridors.
A greater variety of wildlife habitats are present today than before European settlement due to
land changes from farming and urbanization, including water transportation, reservoir
construction, gravel mining, and urban forest plantings. This greater diversity of habitat has
resulted in an increased diversity of wildlife species. In addition, the development of a riparian
forest along the Platte River through the Great Plains has provided a corridor for the movement
of forest birds and other wildlife across grasslands that have historically served as an ecological
barrier to dispersal
Located where two major ecological regions merge--the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains--
the Fort Collins area continues to be an important migratory corridor for raptors, songbirds, and
butterflies. As wetlands have increased along the Front Range, so has the value of Fort Collins
for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other wetland bird species. Riparian forests along the
Poudre River and other stream corridors in Colorado are recognized by many as one of the more
diverse ecosystems in the United States. -
As of January 2006, 347 species of birds have been recorded in the Fort Collins area(Table 3.1).
The Fort Collins City Limits and Growth Management Area (GMA) encompass approximately
48,000 acres within its geographic range. By comparison, our city's bird species diversity is
higher than much larger protected areas within Colorado and elsewhere.
Location #Acres #Bird Species
Fort Collins City Limits and GMA —48,000 347
Yellowstone National Park 2.2 million 311
Everglades National Park 1.5 million 310
Pawnee National Grassland 193,060 301
Rocky Mountain National Park 265,726 280
Acadia National Park 35,000 273
Mesa Verde National Park 52,122 186
Bryce Canyon National Park 35,835 171
Isle Royale National Park 571,790 168
Denali National Park 6 million 163
Table 3.1. Comparison of bird diversity in the Fort Collin's region with that in national parks
and grasslands. Sourced from National Park websites.
14
The City of Fort Collins has a more than 30-year history of protecting local wildlife. In 1986,
City Code established limitations on the possession and feeding of various wildlife species, use
of poisons, trapping, and hunting. That same year, Fort Collins was declared a "Wild Bird
Sanctuary." City Code stated: "All persons are urged to protect the wild birds and encourage
their propagation and refuge within such sanctuary."
In 1974, the City first recognized the value of natural areas with the adoption of the "Open Space
Plan." Protection of fish and wildlife habitat was among the criteria used to identify priority
areas. A number of plans and policies followed further providing measures to protect significant
natural areas, both on City and privately-owned lands. In 1992, the City of Fort Collins adopted
the "Natural Areas Policy Plan." Important wildlife habitat areas, animal species of special
concern, and important use areas or concentration sites were identified. The goal of 12 policies
established in the plan was to "preserve and protect natural areas within Fort Collins and the
Urban Growth Area [now known as Growth Management Area] to provide habitat essential to
the conservation of plants, animals, and their associated ecosystems..."
Protection of community separator lands, outside of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area,
began in 1995, with adoption of the "Plan for the Region between Fort Collins & Loveland,"
followed by the "Northern Colorado Community Separator Study" in 1999 and "The Fort-
Collins Timnath-Windsor Community Separator Study" in 2003. In 2004, the City of Fort
Collins adopted the "Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan,"which expanded the goal
of natural areas protection to regional sites beyond the community separators. Sixteen
Conservation Focus Areas were identified, which included five local focus areas (all but one
addressed in the 1992 Natural Areas Policy Plan), four community separator focus areas (all
addressed in previous plans), and seven new regional focus areas.
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program currently manages 41 natural areas within local
and community separator focus areas, totaling approximately 10,000 acres, as well as 2 regional
natural areas, totaling over 21,000 acres. The Program continues to put a high priority on the
protection and management of important wildlife habitat for groups of species (e.g., raptors,
migratory songbirds, wetland birds, short-grass prairie species, cavity nesting birds, migratory
butterflies, shorebirds, migratory waterfowl and other wetland birds).
The Natural Areas Program maintains a list of wildlife species of concern, identified by State and
Federal agencies that are known to occur on City natural areas, or have the potential to be re-
introduced to a City-owned site. The list includes those identified by the Colorado Natural
Heritage Program, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
U.S. Forest Service. The latter is included because one of the City's regional natural areas,
Bobcat Ridge, has 160 acres of in holdings and is adjacent to Forest Service property(Roosevelt
National Forest). While a few species occur only rarely and are not in need of any special
management action, protection of most of the species of concern can be enhanced through
various potential management actions.
15
Wildlife Species of Concern in City of Fort Coffins Natural Areas (*See Appendix B for Key to CNHP Ranking and Status)
Birds
Species CNHP State/Federal Known Natural Areas Potential Management Action
Ranking* Status* Occurrence
Barrow's goldeneye G5; S2B Rare visitor to local natural areas None needed.
(Bucephela islandica) in winter.
Plains sharp-tailed grouse G4T4; S I SE Currently not known to occur, Protect and enhance potential
(Tympanuchus phasianellus but potential to re-introduce to nesting sites on Soapstone Prairie
jamesii) regional natural area(Soapstone Natural Area;potentially work
Prairie). with Colorado Division of
Wildlife to re-introduce.
American white pelican G3; SIB Very common on local natural Protect important feeding and
(Pelicanus areas during migration;non- resting areas.
erythrorhynchos) breeding individuals common in
summer;no colonial nest sites in
vicinity.
Brown pelican(Pelicanus FLE Very rare occurrence in state; None needed.
occidentalis) one recorded at Fossil Creek
Reservoir in 2005.
Snowy egret(Egretta thula) G5; S2B Occasional visitor to local Protect seasonal, shallow
natural areas during migration wetlands(feeding,resting areas).
and in summer.
White-faced ibis (Plegadis G5; S2B Occasional visitor to local Protect seasonal, shallow
chihi) natural areas during migration wetlands(feeding,resting areas).
and in summer.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus G5; SIB, S3N ST/FLT Common on local areas, Protect important feeding,
leucocephalus) (uncommon on regional natural roosting, and nesting sites.
areas) in winter, feeding on
prairie dogs,waterfowl, and fish;
one nest site in vicinity,but not
on City property.
16
Birds
Species CNHP State/Federal Known Natural Areas Potential Management Action
Ranking* Status* Occurrence
Northern goshawk G5; S313 FSS Occasional visitor to local and None needed.
(Accipeter gentilis) regional natural areas during
migration and in winter.
Ferruginous hawk(Buteo G4; S3B, S4N SSC/FSS Common on local natural areas Protect important feeding,
regalis) in winter, feeding on prairie roosting, and nesting sites.
dogs,rabbits, and hares; nests at
regional natural area(Soapstone
Prairie).
American peregrine falcon G4T3; S2B SSC/FSS Occasional visitor to local Identify and protect existing and
(Falco peregrinus anatum) natural areas during migration; potential nest sites (cliffs) at
probable nest site at regional regional natural areas.
natural areas (Soapstone Prairie).
Prairie falcon (Falco G5; S4B, S4N Common visitor to local natural Identify and protect existing and
mexicanus) areas during migration and potential nest sites(cliff ledges)
winter; nests at regional natural at regional natural areas.
area(Soapstone Prairie).
Greater sandhill crane G5T4; S2B, SC Possible very uncommon visitor None needed.
(Grus canadensis tabida) S4N to local natural areas; records do
not indicate subspecies.
Western snowy plover G4T3; SIB SC Rare visitor to local natural areas Protect seasonal, shallow
(Charadrius alexandrinus during migration and summer. wetlands and alkali flats
nivosus) (feeding, resting areas).
Piping plover(Charadrius G3; SIB ST/FLT Rare visitor to local natural areas Protect seasonal, shallow
melodius) during migration and summer. wetlands and alkali flats
(feeding,resting areas).
Mountain plover G2; S213, SSC/FSS Known to nest at regional natural Protect shortgrass prairie nest
(Charadrius montanus) SZN area(Soapstone Prairie; known sites on Soapstone Prairie
to nest at adjacent Meadow Natural Area.
Springs Ranch owned by the
City of Fort Collins Utilities).
17
Birds
Species CNHP State/Federal Known Natural Areas Potential Management Action
Ranking* Status* Occurrence
Black-necked stilt G5; S3B Occasional visitor to a few local Protect feeding areas (shallow
(Himantopus mexicanus) natural areas during migration; marshes and lake shorelines) and
known to have nested at site of potential nesting(mudflats)
current Fossil Creek Park in the areas.
late 1980's.
Willet(Catoptrophorus G5; SIB Occasional visitor to a few local Protect seasonal, shallow
semipalmatus) natural areas. wetlands (feeding, resting areas).
Long-billed curlew G5; S2B SSC/FSS Occasional visitor to a few local Protect large,dry grasslands
Numenius americanus) natural areas. (feeding, resting areas).
Wilson's phalarope G5; S4B, S4N Fairly common in several local Protect seasonal, shallow
(Phalaropus tricolor) natural areas during migration, wetlands and pond/lake shallow
sometimes in summer. shorelines (feeding,resting
areas).
Forester's tern(Sterna 75; S2B, S4N Fairly common in several local Protect larger cattail marshes
forsteri) natural areas during migration, with open water(feeding,resting
sometimes in summer. areas;potential nest sites).
Least tern(Sterna G4; S 1B SE/FLE Rare visitor to local natural areas Protect wetlands and pond/lake
antillarum) during migration. shallow shorelines(feeding,
resting areas).
Northern pygmy-owl G5; S3B Rare visitor to local natural areas Protect known nest sites from
(Glaucidium gnoma) during winter; known to occur at disturbance.
regional natural area(Bobcat
Ride) and may nest on the site.
Burrowing owl (Athene G4; S4B ST/FSS Usually, several pairs Protect local and regional prairie
cunicularia) successfully nest annually at dogs colonies, and limit human
prairie dog colonies on local disturbance.
natural areas;potential for
nesting on regional natural areas
in active or abandoned prairie
dog colonies.
18
Birds
Species CNHP state/Federal Known Natural Areas Potential Management Action
Ranking* Status* Occurrence
Short-eared owl(Asio G5; S213 FSS Occasional visitor during winter Determine nesting status at
flammeus) at local natural areas; could Soapstone Prairie Natural Area
potentially nest at regional and protect potential nest sites.
natural area(Soapstone Prairie).
Lewis's woodpecker G5; S4 FSS Rare nesting in local natural Identify and protect nest sites
(Melanerpes lewis) areas, likely also rare nesting in (groves of tall trees in open
regional natural areas. country).
Willow flycatcher G5; S4 Common during migration. Protect important migratory
(Empidonax trailln) songbird habitat(wooded
ri arian areas).
Veery(Catharus G5; S31 Uncommon during migration. None needed unless local nesting
uscescens) would occur.
Curve-billed thrasher G5; S3 Very rare occurrence in Fort None needed.
(Toxostoma curvirostre) Collins; first recorded in 2005.
Ovenbird(Seiurus G5; S213 Common,but often overlooked, None needed.
aurocapillus) during migration; not known to
nest locally.
Cassin's sparrow G5; S413 Uncommon during migration and Protect large, brushy grasslands
(Aimophila cassinii) in summer in local natural areas; (feeding and nesting sites).
rather nomadic, occurrence
highly variable; not known to
nest in local natural areas.
McCown's longspur G4; S213 FSS Known to nest at regional natural Protect nest sites(shorter grass or
(Calcarius mccownii) area(Soapstone Prairie); not no grass).
recorded from local natural areas
during migration.
White-winged crossbill G5; S1B Uncommon in local and regional None needed.
(Loxia leucoptera) natural areas in winter.
19
Mammals
Species CNHP State/Federal Known Natural Areas Potential Management Action
Ranking Status Occurrence
Fringed myotis(Myotis G4G5; S3 Known to occur in local natural Protect any known maternity
thysanodes) areas; likely also in regional colonies (usually caves, rock
natural areas(especially,Bobcat crevices) and winter roosts;
Ridge). highly negatively impacted by
human disturbance, especially in
the nursery and hibemaculum.
Townsend's big-eared bat G4T4 SS2 SSC/FSS Known to occur on Bobcat Protect any known maternity
(Crynorhinus townsendii Ridge,possibly forages in colonies (usually caves,rock
pallescens)
foothill natural areas. crevices, tunnels)and winter
roosts;highly negatively
impacted by human disturbance,
especially in the nursery and
hibemaculum.
Black-tailed prairie dog G3G4; S4 SSC/FSS Common in local and regional Protect large colonies of 50 acres
(Cynomys ludovicianus) natural areas. or more; restore shortgrass
prairie on suitable old pasture or
cropland sites of at least 50 acres.
Northern pocket gopher G5T3; S3 Not recorded yet,but could occur Protect habitat(various riparian
(Thomomys talpoides on local or regional natural area; types) should mammal be
agreslis) small mammal surveys are trapped on a natural area in the
limited on natural areas. future.
Subspecies macrotis, a Colorado
Species of Concern not likely to
occur.
Preble's meadow jumping G5T2; Sl ST/FLT Known to occur on one regional Protect area where mouse
mouse(Zapus hudsonius natural area;doubtful that mouse trapped at regional natural area
preblei) is present in any local natural (Bobcat Ridge) and any future
area. known sites.
20
Mammals
Species CNHP State/Federal Known Natural Areas Potential Management Action
Ranking Status Occurrence
Gray wolf(Canis lupus) SE/FLE, FSS Could potentially establish at Protect individuals and den sites
regional natural area(Soapstone from disturbance if found to
Prairie)in the future; wolves re- occur in the future on Soapstone
introduced to Yellowstone have Prairie Natural Area.
been found in Colorado and in
Wyoming at Colorado border.
Swift fox (Vulpes velox) G3; S3 5SC/FSS Occurs on regional natural area Protect den sites from human
(Soapstone Prairie). disturbance.
Black-footed ferret Gl; S1 (re- SE/FLE Currently not known to occur, Determine target acreage for
(Mustela nigripes) introduced but potential to re-introduce to prairie dog colonies at Soapstone
populations) regional natural area(Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. Work with
Prairie) in the future if prairie U.S. Fish&Wildlife Ferret
dog colonies are sufficiently Reintroduction Program.
large to support ferrets.
River otter(Lontra ST Rare visitor to local natural areas None needed unless pair would
canadensis) over the last 30 years--only a few establish a den site.
observations (most recent in mid-
1990's); 2 sited at Cottonwood
Hollow in 2006; Colorado
Division of Wildlife was active
in re-introducing the animal in
1970's.
21
Am hibians and Reptiles
Species CNHP State/Federal Known Natural Areas Potential Management Action
Ranking Status Occurrence
Northern leopard frog G5; S3 SSC/FSS Known to occur in several local Protect any populations
(Rana pipiens) natural areas in the 1980's,but discovered in local or regional
not reported in last 15 years. natural areas.
Painted turtle(Chrysemys G5; S5 Common in local natural areas. Protect ponds used by painted
picta) turtles;provide turtle resting logs
for habitat.
Short-horned lizard G5; S5 Common in local(foothills, Protect native shortgrass prairie
(Phrynosoma hernandesi) Fossil Creek drainage) and and foothills habitat with
regional natural areas. abundant ant colonies (primary
food source).
Fishes
Species CNHP State/Federal Known Natural Areas Potential Management Action
Rankin Status Occurrence
Brassy minnow (Hybognathus ST Rare in local (Poudre River)and Protect habitat(cooler flowing
hankinsoni) regional (Soapstone Prairie) water or ponds with sand or
natural areas. gravel bottoms).
E Common shiner(Luxilus ST Rare in local(Poudre River) Protect habitat(cool, clear water
cornutus) natural areas. with gravel substrates and over-
hanging riparian shrubs and
trees); species is very intolerant
of siltation.
Mountain whitefish G5; S3 Introduced to local natural areas None needed.
(Prosopium williamsoni) for sport fishing; not native to
area.
22
Fishes
Species CNHP State/Federal Known Natural Areas Potential Management Action
Ranking Status Occurrence
Iowa darter(Etheostoma SSC Rare in local natural areas Protect habitat(Clear, sluggishly
exile) (Poudre drainage); Colorado is vegetated streams and weedy
on the southwestern edge of this portions of glacial lakes,
species ran e. marshes, and ponds).
Invertebrates
Species CNHP State/Federal Known Natural Areas Potential Management Action
Ranking Status Occurrence
Backswimmer(Notonecta GNR; S 1 Known to occur on a local Protect shallow ponds and
unifasciata) natural area(Cathy Fromme streams from impacts.
Prairie).
Arogos skipper(Atrytone G3G4; S2 Known to occur in local Protect habitat(relatively
arogos) (foothills)natural areas. undisturbed prairies; larval host
plant,usually big bluestem;
variety of nectar plants—native
and non-native).
Moss's elfin(Callophrys G4T3; S2S3 Known to occur on a regional Protect habitat(lower foothills
mossii schryveri) natural area(Bobcat Ridge). canyons containing larval host
lant--stonecro [Sedum sp .]).
Hops blue (Celastrina G2G3; S2 Occurs in local(foothills)natural Protect habitat(foothill canyons
humulus) areas. and ravines, usually associated
with atches of hops).
Martial duskywing or G3G4; S2S3 Occurs in local (Poudre River) Protect habitat(open woodland
Mottled dusky wing natural areas. or brushy fields and prairie hills
(Erynnis martialis) with New Jersey tea populations
—larval host plants).
23
Invertebrates
Species CNHP State/Federal Known Natural Areas Potential Management Action
Ranking Status Occurrence
Two-spotted skipper G4; S2 Occurs in local (Poudre River Protect habitat(marshes,wet
(Euphyes bimacula) and Fossil Creek drainages) streamsides,wet sedge meadows;
natural areas. larval host plants are sedges
[Carex spp.];nectar plants
include blue flag and milkweed).
Ottoe skipper(Hesperia G3G4; S2 FSS Occurs in local (Poudre River Protect habitat(native tallgrass
ottoe) and foothills)natural areas. prairie remnants; larval host
plants include little bluestem;
nectar plants include a variety of
native and non-nativespecies).
Crossline skipper(Polites G5; S3 Occurs in local(Poudre River Protect habitat(open grassy areas
origines) and foothills)natural areas. including prairies hills,old fields,
forest openings; larval host plants
include little bluestem and other
native grasses;wide variety of
nectar flowers).
Rhesus skipper(Polites G4; S2S3 Occurs in local(foothills)natural Protect habitat(native shortgrass
rhesus) areas. and mixed-grass prairie; larval
host plant is blue grama; nectar
flowers include milkvetch .
Smokey-eyed brown G5T3T4; Sl Occurs in local (Poudre River) Protect habitat(open sedge
(Satyrodes eurydice) natural areas. meadows, freshwater marshes,
slow-moving streams; larval host
plants are various sedges [Carex
spp.]; sap,bird droppings, and
occasionally flower nectar are
adult foods).
24
Invertebrates
Species CNHP State/Federal Known Natural Areas Potential Management Action
Ranking Status Occurrence
Regal fritillary(Speyeria G3; Sl FSS Occurs in local (foothills)natural Protect habitat(remnant tallgrass
idalia) areas. prairie and other open sites
including damp meadows,
marshes, and wet fields; larval
host plants are violets; a variety
of native and non-native nectar
plants).
25
Chapter 4: Ecosystem Health: An Ecological Framework for
Wildlife Management
Introduction
The mission of the Natural Areas Program is "to protect and enhance lands with existing or
potential natural areas values". The Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan (2004)
guides the program with a long-range vision, policy and specific goals and states that efforts will
"emphasize managing for sustainability of native plant and animal communities" and strive to
"maintain a dynamic equilibrium".
The sustainability of native plant and animal communities is the overarching framework that
describes the objectives of promoting the health of the ecosystem's components (plant and
animal communities, soil,water, etc.) and ensures the sustainability and interaction of each of the
components. Formal recognition of this concept largely led to the paradigm of "ecosystem
management" which emerged more than two decades ago as a holistic approach to land, water,
vegetation, and wildlife management.
As the management of wildlife habitat is guided by the model of ecosystem management,we use
this chapter to provide a foundation upon which guidelines (spelled out in this wildlife
management document) are synchronous with advancing the objective of promoting and
enhancing ecosystem health. To do this, it will be necessary to monitor ecosystem indicators
over time to understand change, variability within the ecosystem, and to establish ecological
thresholds that cannot be exceeded. Finally, this approach must take into consideration the
parameters and stresses unique to natural areas in an urban setting, such that the influences of
local contemporary stresses are incorporated into decision making.
Science
Decision
Making
Local Urban
Ecosystems Stresses
Figure 4.1 A graphical depiction of the ecosystem management model applied to the urban
natural area to guide wildlife management.
This framework will serve as a model to evaluate the effects of wildlife use and management on
habitats in both urban and regional natural areas. It is believed this model can apply to the
monitoring of a variety of issues common to land management agencies. These include the
effects of prairie dog grazing, cattle grazing, ungulate browsing, wildlife species reintroduction,
noxious weed infestations, rare plant conservation and habitat modification through weed control
26
or other manipulations. Management of recreational opportunities and the effects on wildlife, or
potential ensuing conflicts may also be the subject of monitoring programs.
Ecosystem Health
Ecosystem health is the degree to which the integrity of processes, functions, and interactions
between soil, vegetation, wildlife, water, and air quality are balanced or sustained. Three
attributes or criteria are suggested (Bestelmeyer et al., 2005) in order to assess ecosystem health
and include:
1. Soil or site stability
2. Hydrologic function
3. Integrity of the biotic community
The Natural Areas program will conduct a combination of formal and informal habitat health
monitoring of key attributes to understand current conditions, system variability, and how those
factors measure against established thresholds. Thresholds that are in some way threatened to be
exceeded will trigger management action in order maintain or improve ecosystem health. In the
following paragraphs we will define this terminology.
Natural Range of Variability(System Variability)
All wildlife habitat exhibits a natural range of variability due to environmental factors. Climatic
factors in turn modify seasonal and regional climate that affect hydrology, drought, nutrient
cycling, disturbance events (such as fire, flood, etc.). The response to these climatic factors is
expressed through vegetation production, pattern and composition of plant communities, as well
as surface and subsurface water availability. On-going monitoring of habitat resources,
especially vegetation, is critical to understand the range of variability in the ecosystem and to
identify when natural variability is exceeded due to environmental disturbance or a combination
of disturbances.
One concept unique to urban natural areas and the natural range of variability for those habitats
is the idea that certain ecosystem stressors in the urban environment compromise a habitat's
resistance and resilience to disturbance factors. Those urban stressors include:
➢ Unique species composition
Urban natural areas are exposed to a large number of non-native flora and fauna species. Of
greatest concern is the presence of non-native plant species that can rapidly establish on bare soil
and out-compete native species. Following a disturbance, the establishment of non-native plants
can drastically change plant community composition and over time reduce the species richness
of native plants.
➢ Alternate water use and distribution
Human occupation of the Front Range has altered natural flows of water through irrigation,
municipal use, storage and impervious cover. As a result, natural areas may be drier or wetter
than average. An example of a system that may be drier than average is the riparian zone of a
river situated below a dam. The control of flows by dam managers causes a reduction in peak
spring flows. Wetter than normal conditions often exist adjacent to non-porous surfaces (like
27
asphalt) where higher levels of precipitation runoff is carried onto narrow bands of soil along the
non-porous area.
➢ Fragmentation; loss of spatial variability and resilience
An ecosystem is said to be "fragmented" when it exists as a relatively small piece of native
habitat and is surrounded by barriers to ecosystem function (migration, dispersal, etc.) such as
urban development or agricultural land. Native wildlife are believed to be most affected by
fragmentation when the ratio of habitat perimeter to habitat area is high (this increases the
wildlife's exposure to human disturbance which by virtue reduces habitat size). Notably, it is
often the predatory species that are most sensitive and consequently the natural population
checks for some prey species are missing.
To reiterate, each of these urban stressors can compromise resilience and resistance to habitat
disturbance. Therefore, a large contiguous habitat may recover from a certain disturbance, while
a small, isolated piece of land will not recover from the same disturbance because of a
combination of factors that pushes the system across a threshold into a degraded state.
Thresholds and Management Action
As discussed above, under normal conditions wildlife habitats will exist within a natural range of
variability in a single vegetation state. However, if there are significant modifications to the
habitat through environmental disturbance (drought, overgrazing, fire, flood, etc.) or human
manipulation, the system may be modified to a condition from which it cannot recover without
human intervention. When this change occurs it may be referred to as crossing a threshold.
Recovery of the system without significant inputs of either time (geologic rime) or energy
(human intervention) may not be possible. Specifically to wildlife habitat, system thresholds are
crossed when:
➢ The system undergoes significant and persistent changes to plant community and soil
processes in response to particular management or natural factors (definition #1) (after
Bestelmeyer et. al., 2004), or;
➢ The system undergoes irreversible changes in one or more primary ecological processes such
that the system must be actively (human intervention) restored before a return to a previous
state is possible (definition#2) (after Westoby et. al., 1989).
Disturbance may be due to natural environmental influences or the result of management action.
Often it may be a catalyst for positive change such as a new (or preferred) wildlife habitat type
characterized by native species and/or species diversity. Of greater concern is an event where a
threshold is crossed and the system moves toward an irreversible, unacceptable, or degraded
state. One of the most common transitions modern land managers are faced with is loss of plant
cover due to weed infestations, overgrazing,surface disturbance, incompatible use and drought.
A critical and irreversible threshold will be crossed when the decrease in plant cover results in a
loss of soil integrity(Figure 4.2).
28
Healthy ecosystems are often considered as having resistance and resilience to a disturbance.
However, if two factors coincidentally affect the system (such as high intensity fire followed by
heavy and persistent rains) this can cause the system to cross a threshold. Furthermore, when
ecosystem health is compromised either resistance or resilience may be low and consequently the
system will transition across an irreversible threshold into a degraded or unacceptable state.
°o plant cover
R
Loss of soil
nutrients
Soil erosion
Threshold is crossed.After this
Time point significant intervention is
required to regain ecosystem
functionality (Threshold#2)
Figure 4.2 Showing the theoretical relationship between decreasing plant cover and increasing
soil erosion,based on the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation(U.S.D.A., 2004).
When applying this model of habitat thresholds and management triggers it will be necessary to
identify which indicators will be monitored for change and ecosystem health. A combination of
qualitative and quantitative measures may be used to determine if wildlife influences on the
habitat are not exceeding thresholds of ecosystem health. Evidence may come from;
1. measuring components of the system such as plant cover, species diversity or water
depth;
2. monitoring attributes such as biotic integrity population dynamics, soil quality and
stability, and hydrologic function, or;
3. soliciting expertise from scientists, land owners, and other natural resource managers.
When indicator data suggests site conditions are approaching a threshold beyond natural system
variability, wildlife and habitat management will then be addressed to determine what
management actions are necessary. Thus, further degradation can be halted and the timely
intervention may be made to minimize the level of management action.
29
Adaptive Management
Adaptive management is the concept that the effectiveness of habitat management actions is
routinely evaluated through monitoring or experimentation to determine if resource objectives
are being met. It is an on-going iterative process by which management actions are evaluated
and "adaptations" made to better ensure resource objectives are met. Thus, adaptive
management fosters effective decision making, efficient resource allocation, and provides a
framework for achieving resource objectives.
Conclusion
In conclusion, to the extent practicable, natural area managers will strive to retain the types and
ranges of natural variation in ecosystems and habitats, within ecological, social, and economic
constraints imposed in part by virtue of managing public land (after Meffe et. al., 2002).
Likewise, all wildlife management decisions are guided by the principal of maintaining and
improving the health of the ecosystem on natural area properties.
One consequence of this ecosystem health framework for wildlife management will be the
necessity to designate suitable habitat to balance overall conservation of ecosystem health with
individual wildlife species. In practice, habitat management can be guided by the following
system:
1) habitat managed specifically for a certain wildlife species;
2) habitat managed specifically as a buffer zone for that species, or;
3) habitat managed specifically for a healthy ecosystem (which may require keeping the
focus species completely off those acres).
Identification of critical thresholds or trigger points will drive decisions on whether or not
resource objectives have been met, and when management action is warranted in order to prevent
loss of ecosystem integrity.
Chapter References
Bestelmeyer, B.T., Brown, J.R., Haystad, K.M., and S.L. Tartowski, 2004. Managing land using
ecological processes. 3rd Annual Conference of the Quivira Coalition, January 15-17, 2004,
Albuquerque,NM.p. 18-19.
Bestelmeyer, B.T.,Melgoza, A.C., Pellant,M., Pyke, D.A.,Remmenga, M.D., Shaver,P., de
Soyza, A.G., Tugel,A.J. and R.S.Unnasch, 2005. Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland
and Savanna Ecosystems. Vol I: Quick Start. USDA-Jornada Experimental Range, Las Cruces
NM.
Herrick, J.E.,Van Zee, J.E.,Haystad,K.M., Burkett, L.M., and Whitford, W.G., 2005.
Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems. Vol Il: Design,
supplementary methods and interpretation. USDA- Jomada Experimental Range, Las Cruces
NM.
Meffe, G.K., L. A. Nielsen, R. L. Knight, and D. A. Schenborn, 2002. Ecosystem Management:
Adaptive, Community-Based Conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
30
United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A)-Agriculture Research Service(2004).
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation. Accessed on 1-5-2007 on the world-wide web at
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=5971
Westoby, M., B. Walker, and 1.Noy-heir, 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not
at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42:266-274.
31
Chapter 5: Native Wildlife Species Management
The City of Fort Collins primarily manages native wildlife on natural areas through the
protection of natural habitats and features, and enhancing habitat for targeted groups of wildlife.
The Natural Areas Program tries to maintain a diversity of habitat within the urban environment,
while protecting key habitats that may be limited, or otherwise in need of protection, on the Front
Range of Colorado.
Over the last 20 years, various groups of wildlife have been recognized as important or of special
concern at the local, regional, State, or Federal level. These include animals listed as
endangered, threatened, or species of concern by the Colorado Division of Wildlife(CDOW) and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as groups of wildlife that have key concentration or
breeding areas in Fort Collins, as identified by the CDOW and other local wildlife professionals.
Site management plans for natural areas contain specific goals and strategies for managing
various groups of wildlife species when sufficient habitat occurs, or can be restored, on a
particular natural area. The following is a summary of the groups of wildlife given special
consideration in management plans, and general management strategies that have been, or will
be, used to protect and enhance native wildlife.
Mammals
The diversity of Fort Collins' natural areas supports several species of mammals. While many
use city natural areas for the entirety of their life history, other mammalian species may only
utilize these lands as a portion of the normal home range of activities. Management of
mammalian species is largely accomplished by providing a structurally diverse habitat of
sufficiently large scale. These large scale habitat mosaics are necessary to provide for a diverse
mammalian species assemblage representing all trophic levels including top predators. In areas
where habitat consists of smaller, fragmented blocks, efforts will focus on providing movement
and habitat corridors to re-connect blocks of habitat.
Large Predators
Mountain lion and black bear occasionally use urban natural areas and are common on regional
natural areas. These animals generally utilize home ranges that vary in size within and between
years, but overall tend to be several square miles in size (Currier, 1983; Lariviere, 2001). Most
natural areas are smaller than typical home ranges of these species;however,management efforts
can provide safe and effective movement corridors that connect smaller habitat blocks or connect
a natural area to a larger contiguous block on the edge of Fort Collins. These connections can be
linear habitats or the modification of a barrier that prohibits safe movement between habitat
blocks.
Mesopredators
Several mid-size predators utilize natural areas, for example coyote, raccoon, badger, skunk, and
red fox. As with larger predators, natural areas may only play a small role in the life history of
these animals. Most common management activities will focus on den site protection and on
providing safe movement corridors.
- 32
General Strategies for Management of Mammalian Predators on Natural Areas
➢ Create habitat mosaics to attract a diverse assemblage of species representing all trophic
levels.
➢ Identify movement corridors connecting habitats and conserve through easement,
acquisition, or by structural modification (i.e. culvert placement, fence removal, habitat
plantings).
➢ Identify and protect den sites.
➢ Minimize interaction with domestic animals by prohibiting dogs off leash; in areas of
highest conservation value or where a species of conservation concern occurs, prohibit
dogs.
➢ Install wildlife proof trash receptacles.
➢ On an as-needed basis install signs notifying the public of the possible presence of larger
predators (bears, mountain lion).
➢ Possibility of seasonal closures in known critical habitat.
Bats
Bats are a group of species that have received a large amount of interest in recent years from the
conservation community due to population declines in many of these species. Declines can be
attributed to habitat loss, pesticide exposure, and direct mortality. A second factor that
contributes to declines are basic life history traits such as many bats give birth once annually,
have low birth rates, do not reproduce until one year of age, and are long lived. Given these
traits, bats require high adult survival rates to offset low reproduction rates (O'Shea and Bogan,
2003).
Also, large regional populations may be found at relatively.few locations such as a roost site or
hibernacula. Impacts to regionally important locations that increase adult mortality can
contribute to population declines.
Several species of bats are known to occur within and around the Fort Collins area (see Table
below). Efforts will be made to conserve habitat supporting roosts or other concentration points
for bats. Also, when applicable, artificial bat houses will be used to provide alternative roost
locations.
Common Name Scientific Name
Long-eared m otis M otis evotis
Little brown m otis M otis lucifugus
Fringed m otis M otis th sanodes
Long-legged m otis M otis volans
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus
Silver-haired bat Lasion cteris noctiva ans
-Big brown bat Eptesicusfitscus
Townsend's big-cared bat Corynorhinus townsendii
Eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis
33
General Strategies for Management of Bats on Natural Areas
➢ Preserve and protect trees, cliffs, and other locations known to support bat roosts.
➢ Create habitat mosaics to attract a diverse assemblage of species.
➢ Maintain buffer distances between active roosts and management activities.
➢ Install and maintain bat houses when applicable to attract bats to natural areas.
Big Game(Elk, Mule deer, Pronghorn)
Elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, or pronghorn are known to occur on most of our natural areas.
As discussed elsewhere, movement patterns generally include habitat outside of the natural areas
and little can be done to influence the abundance of this species. However, movement corridors
can be established and maintained for these species. In some cases, important habitat areas will
remain free of development and interaction with people. Overall, the goal of the Natural Areas
Program is to conserve habitat for these species and to provide safe and effective movement
corridors between habitat patches.
Huntin It is illegal to discharge a firearm within the Fort Collins' City limits and therefore no
hunting will be allowed on any of the local natural areas. Hunting as a management strategy and
as a recreational opportunity in the regional natural areas will be determined on a site-by-site,
case-by-case basis and will be evaluated based on wildlife population objectives, the
maintenance of public safety, and the opportunity to provide a sustainable high-quality
experience in nature. Site specific management plans for Bobcat Ridge Natural Area and
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area will address this issue.
General Strategies for Management of Big Game on Natural Areas
➢ Identify movement corridors connecting habitats and conserve through easement,
acquisition, or by structural modification(i.e. culvert placement, fence removal).
➢ Modify existing fences as needed to allow for passage of elk, deer, and pronghorn.
➢ Remove fence that is no longer needed to manage the property.
➢ Provide hunting opportunities when necessary to manage population densities and/or for
recreation and when hunting can be conducted in a safe and effective manner. Hunting
opportunities will be developed in consultation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
➢ Conserve critical habitat areas by limiting public use spatially or temporally.
➢ Minimize interactions with domestic dogs by prohibiting dogs from areas of highest
conservation value for these species. In other areas, maintain dogs on leash regulations.
34
Birds
The Fort Collins community has been committed to the protection of birds since 1986 when the
city was declared a "Wild Bird Sanctuary." Located where two major ecological regions merge
and containing a wide variety of habitats, Fort Collins supports a diverse assemblage of resident,
migrant, and wintering bird species. Some areas, now protected as natural areas, have been
known as "birding hot spots" at the state level for decades. It is the goal of the Natural Areas
Program to continue to protect these sensitive areas to ensure that they provide critical habitat for
generations to come.
Raptors
In addition to prairie dog colonies, large raptors within Fort Collins inhabit larger expanses of
lake shores, grasslands, wetland areas, riparian woods, and foothills forests where birds can feed
with the least amount of disturbance. Northern harriers rely heavily on wetland areas, but feed
on a variety of prey, including upland rodents. Several raptor species are only in Fort Collins
during spring through late summer, including ospreys that rely exclusively on open water
habitats for their food base of fish and Swainson's hawks who feed primarily in larger grasslands
on small rodents. Smaller raptors such as the American kestrel and sharp-shinned hawk are more
adapted to the urban environment and can inhabit smaller natural areas.
Protection of active raptor nests from human disturbance is critical for most species of raptors.
Protection of trees that support large raptor nests is necessary throughout the year. Large raptors
will return to the same tree to nest year after year. The presence of mature trees also enhances
areas used as feeding sites by raptors. Whether feeding on field mice or waterfowl, birds of prey
use perch sites to scan areas for small rodents or birds, and often return to these same perches to
consume captured prey. Several of the smaller raptors, including American kestrel and eastern
screech owl, are cavity-nesters. On regional natural areas, cliffs are important nest sites for a
variety of species, including prairie falcon, red-tailed hawk, golden eagle, and great horned owl.
Although barbed wire fencing is a hazard to numerous species of wildlife, raptors are particularly
vulnerable to injury or death caused by impacting barbed wire fencing as they come down on
prey in taller grasses near fence lines. Each year, the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program receives
birds that have been injured by barbed wire fencing--some to the extent that they must be
euthanized.
General Strategies for Management of Raptors on Natural Areas
➢ Focus on maintaining prairie dog colonies of at least 50 contiguous acres for large raptor
feeding areas and burrowing owl nest sites.
➢ Restore large areas of abandoned cropland along the Fossil Creek drainage to native prairie to
provide future sites for prairie dog establishment.
➢ Maintain buffer distances between active nests and management activities.
➢ Retain dead snags in old cottonwoods in riparian areas for cavity-nesting birds unless snags
create a human or property safety hazard.
➢ Preserve and protect all trees and cliffs known to support raptor nests.
➢ Actively plant recruitment cottonwoods along reservoirs and waterways where stands are
becoming decadent in order to provide future nest and perch sites.
➢ Plant replacement trees in areas on grassland sites if nesting trees are becoming decadent due
to change in water regime (e.g., loss of irrigation water).
➢ Remove barbed wire fencing or replace with wood fencing wherever possible.
➢ Where fencing is completely removed, retain some wooden posts for raptor perch sites.
➢ Permit release of rehabilitated raptors on suitable sites as appropriate.
Waterbirds
Many waterbird species are highly visible and are a favorite of local birders. Similar to raptors,
Fort Collins is within a major migratory and wintering corridor for ducks, shorebirds, and other
wetland birds (grouped together here as "Waterbirds'). Certain waterbird species can also be
indicators of the health of a particular wetland.
Waterbirds can be found in nearly any habitat containing open water within Fort Collins.
However, individual species use varies highly among habitat types. Important features to
consider when rating habitat quality for waterbirds include (1) amount, quality, and seasonal
duration of open water; (2) shoreline vegetation and shoreline configuration; (3) availability of
invertebrate and vertebrate food base; (4) amount and quality of habitat for nesting or cover; and
(5) proximity to human disturbances. Although many resident, year-round populations of
waterbirds, such as mallard, Canada goose, and red-winged blackbird, are extremely tolerant to
human disturbance, most migratory and wintering populations are extremely sensitive to
disturbance.
Key production areas for ducks, according to the CDOW, include most of the lakes, the Poudre
River, and wetlands adjacent to the river. The Poudre River south of Mulberry is considered the
main concentration area for wintering ducks.
During spring migration, ducks and shorebirds frequently use local wetlands that only have open
water for a few weeks. Populations of aquatic insects and other invertebrates within these areas
can be extremely high, providing a rich source of protein necessary for subsequent egg
production.
One of the best examples of high quality waterbird habitat in Fort Collins is Riverbend Ponds
Natural Area. This natural area consists of a variety of habitats including open water ponds and
lakes, extensive cattail areas, and woody riparian forests and shrublands.
The Fossil Creek Wetlands/Reservoir area is another key wetland area, particularly for migratory
species and wintering waterfowl. Over 90 waterbird species have been recorded from that
complex of wetlands over the last 15 years,some of which have been extremely rare sightings
for Colorado. The complex was designated as a statewide Important Bird Area(IBA) in 2001 by
the National Audubon Society.
Protection of colonial nest sites for waterbirds has been of prime concern for decades. Fort
Collins has had several heronries occupied by great blue herons that have been lost due to die-off
of cottonwood stands and human disturbance. Heron nesting is traditional and the birds will not
easily occupy a new site should the old site be destroyed, even if destruction is of natural causes,
such as the advancing age of cottonwoods. Green heron nesting has been of interest for local
birders as well. Green herons are on the eastern edge of their range in Colorado. Fort Collins is
one of the few places in the state where the birds are known to nest. The American white
pelican, formerly a Colorado Species of Concern, does not nest in the Fort Collins area, but is
now common from spring through early fall. Ponds and lakes provide key habitat for adults
during migration and non-breeding individuals throughout the summer.
36
Siberian elm, Russian olive, and saltcedar are exotic wetland pest trees and tree-size shrubs that
threaten the integrity of wetland habitats throughout the Fort Collins area. All are well
established along the Poudre River and other stream courses, impacting waterbird habitats on
many sites. Purple loosestrife, a perennial flower native to Europe and Asia, has decimated
wetlands in the eastern U.S. and was beginning to spread to Colorado wetlands in the 1980's.
Fortunately, the City took a very aggressive stand on purple loosestrife eradication in the 1990's
so it has not become a problem locally by impacting habitat for waterbirds.
Trash and other man-made debris in natural areas can potentially impact and injure many
wildlife species, although waterbirds are particularly vulnerable because trash is carried down
waterways and accumulates where birds feed, nest, and raise their young. Injury or death of
adults and young can result from ingesting or becoming entangled in debris.
General Strategies for Management of Waterbirds on Natural Areas
➢ Where possible, reshape banks of man-made ponds, lakes, and ditches to restore more
natural contours and promote the establishment of wetland plants.
➢ When designing new trails and if feasible when relocating or improving existing trails,
provide a buffer between critical wetland habitats for migratory, wintering, and nesting
waterbirds to human disturbance areas.
➢ Protect colonial nesting sites from human disturbance (including maintenance and
management activities) during the nesting season.
➢ Control Siberian elm, Russian olive, Chinese Elm and saltcedar in key wetlands used by
waterbirds. Also prevent establishment of purple loosestrife.
➢ Remove trash and debris from stream courses; keep culverts under roadways and trails free
of debris to maintain water flow.
Grassland Birds
City natural areas provide highly variable grassland habitat from weedy fields left over from past
agricultural uses, to shortgrass prairie mixed with exotic grasses, to large expanses of native
shortgrass prairie and native foothills grasslands. In the immediate Fort Collins area, most
grasslands have been severely impacted by man's activities, including overgrazing by domestic
animals and crop cultivation. There are some natural areas along Fossil Creek and the foothills
that do have grasslands with a more diverse assemblage of native grasses and forbs among the
exotic grasses and weeds (e.g., Colina Mariposa, Cathy Fromme Prairie, Coyote Ridge, and
Pineridge), but, in general, grasslands on local natural areas are dominated by exotic plant
species and are not very diverse in terms of bird populations. The further from the center of Fort
Collins, the more likely that grassland habitats are composed of a higher diversity of native plant
species and, thus, support more diverse populations of grassland birds throughout the year.
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area contains the largest native grassland acreage and most diverse
populations of grassland bird species in the City's natural areas system.
Plains and foothills grasslands along the Front Range of Colorado are two of the most severely
altered ecosystems in the region due to conversion of lands to agriculture uses, and are difficult
to restore due to the prevalence of non-native grasses and weeds that have been a part of the
37
landscape for over a 100 years. Remnant native grassland patches occur in areas that have been
difficult to plow and not attractive for livestock grazing. Seasonal grazing, periodic fire, and
drought are natural processes that sustain native grasslands.
General Strategies for Management of Grassland Birds on Natural Areas
➢ Use prescribed bums, grazing, and other tools to mimic the natural disturbance regime
needed to maintain a natural diversity of grasses and reduce weed infestations through
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)methods including herbicide, hand pulling,mowing,
and possibly biological control.
➢ Work with Poudre Fire Authority to control wildfire in a manner that minimizes impacts
related to fire suppression(e.g., digging firelines, excessive vehicle travel, etc.).
➢ Remove barbed wire fencing or replace with wood fencing where possible.
Marian Songbirds
Riparian songbirds include a variety of migrant, nesting,resident, and wintering species. Along
with wetland habitats, riparian areas are known for their high wildlife values, particularly in the
semi-arid West where water is not abundant. Over 70% of the riparian habitat in the U.S. has
been altered; natural riparian communities now make up less than 2% of the land in the U.S.
Historically, the largest and most extensive riparian forests in the Fort Collins area were found
along the Poudre River. Although still true today, man-made aquatic habitats such as ditches,
lakes, and ponds also provide conditions for establishment of riparian vegetation throughout the
City.
Important features to consider when rating habitat quality for riparian songbirds include (1)
vertical structural diversity in forest habitats; (2) patchiness, or the clumped nature of vegetation
(particularly in shrub and forest habitats); (3)biomass, as well as vegetation richness; (4) variety
of major vegetation types; (5)proximity to open water; and (6) amount and quality of habitat for
nesting or cover.
Perhaps the most important challenge in enhancing habitat for riparian songbirds is the long-term
maintenance of the riparian forest community along the Poudre River. The river's natural flow
patterns have been greatly altered by diversions for irrigation and upstream reservoirs since the
early 1900's. Establishment of native riparian forests is dependent on periodic high flood events
that create sand and gravel bars. Seedlings of cottonwoods and willows will not grow with the
low-light conditions of established stands. As the cottonwood forest along the Poudre River
ages, it will not be replaced without these flood events, or without efforts to plant sapling
cottonwoods.
Even on smaller drainages within the City, restoration of natural hydrology is likely to be limited
due to concerns over flooding of private property. However, on larger, regional natural areas
there may be opportunities to restore natural, smaller drainages such as those that have been
altered to create ponded areas for livestock grazing.
38
Establishment of exotic trees and shrubs (e.g., Siberian elm, Russian olive, saltcedar, crack
willow) along the river and in other riparian areas prevent the establishment of native, beneficial
plant species. Non-native and invasive species such as Canada thistle, spurge, and smooth
brome, further impact the plant community and food value for the riparian songbirds. Most
riparian songbirds rely heavily on insects during all or part of the year. Native cottonwoods and
willows carry a much higher insect load than non-native trees and shrubs.
General Strategies for Management of Riparian Songbirds on Natural Areas
➢ Maintain and enhance habitat quality of riparian woodlands along small drainages
through restoration of natural hydrology.
➢ Continue to protect large cottonwoods from beaver damage.
➢ Repair bank erosion.
➢ Re-contour gravel pond edges where appropriate to improve riparian habitat.
➢ Control Siberian elm, Russian olive, saltcedar, and noxious weeds in riparian areas to
enhance the value of the habitat for songbirds.
➢ Maintain dead snags in old cottonwoods in riparian areas for cavity-nesting species (e.g.,
chickadees, house wrens) unless they create a human or property safety hazard.
➢ Leave downed wood in place to provide feeding areas and habitat.
➢ Minimize human disturbance to migratory and nesting songbirds by leaving a buffer area
between trails and key riparian areas.
Foothills Forest and Shrubland Birds
The City of Fort Collins currently manages six natural areas that contain foothills ponderosa pine
forests: four local natural areas (Coyote Ridge, Pineridge, Maxwell, and Reservoir Ridge) and
two regional natural areas (Bobcat Ridge and Soapstone Prairie). These sites and two sites on
Fossil Creek with high ridges (Cathy Fromme Prairie and Colina Mariposa) also contain foothills
shrub habitat.
Local foothills forest and shrubland habitat support unique bird species, such as the spotted
towhee and yellow-breasted chat, greatly increasing the diversity of wildlife that can be seen in
the immediate Fort Collins area. Foothills sites have been extremely popular birding areas for
decades, as well as heavily-used biking and hiking sites. Efforts over the last 10 years to
improve the foothills trail system by closing off and revegetating social trails have also helped to
improve the habitat for birds by reducing the areas of disturbance and increasing the habitat
value.
On regional sites, bird monitoring on Bobcat Ridge Natural Area has also indicated a high
diversity of foothills bird species is present, including some species considered rare or unusual
for this location near Masonville. Special care must be taken to limit human disturbance of
canyons and draws where bird concentration is particularly high.
Forest and shrubland bird populations can be severely impacted by catastrophic forest fire, such
as occurred on Bobcat Ridge in 2000. Most of the trees were killed by the severe crown fire of
the Bobcat Gulch Fire, even those in usually protected steep drainages and north-facing slopes.
Much of the understory was consumed by the fire, or lost to erosion following denudation.
39
Regeneration may also have been suppressed by emergence of early successional weeds. Future
fire management (prescribed fire) needs to be included in an overall restoration plan for the site
to prevent future catastrophic fires.
General Guidelines for the Conservation of Foothills Forest and Shrubland Birds on
Natural Areas
➢ Design and maintain trail systems to limit development of social trails. Close and restore
social trails that develop.
➢ Enhance habitat value and native character of forests through restoration efforts designed
to eradicate weeds and maintain the system through periodic natural disturbance.
➢ hi areas previously impacted by severe fires (e.g., Bobcat Ridge), stabilize eroding soils,
prevent the introduction and spread of invasive weeds, and prevent further catastrophic
fire from post-fire fuel buildups.
➢ Leave downed wood in place to provide feeding areas and habitat. In some cases,
removal may be needed to open up areas for establishment of new trees, understory
shrubs and grasses, or pursue weed control.
➢ Encourage research to determine utilization of burned areas by flickers and other
woodpeckers,nuthatch, and similar species for cavity nesting, feeding, etc.
➢ Enhance habitat value and native character of foothills shrublands by restoring the native
grass and forbs component through aggressive weed control or active grassland
restoration.
Amphibians and Reptiles
The diversity of Fort Collins'Natural Areas supports several species of amphibians and reptiles,
collectively termed herptiles (See Appendix Q. Management of this group of species is largely
accomplished by providing structurally diverse terrestrial and aquatic habitats of sufficient scale
and juxtaposition. Specific actions that can occur include conservation and management of
wetlands and ponds that serve as breeding pools, identification and conservation of dispersal
corridors, ensuring good water quality by maintaining protective vegetative buffers around water
bodies when possible, and providing interpretive material to educate the public on the value and
importance of this segment of our native fauna. Also, large regional populations may be found at
relatively few locations such as a breeding sites or hibernacula. Impacts to regionally important
locations that increase mortality rates can contribute to population declines. Efforts will be made
to identify and conserve these important habitat features.
40
General Management Strategies for Amphibians on Natural Areas
➢ Create habitat mosaics to attract a diverse assemblage of species representing all
trophic levels.
➢ Identify movement and dispersal corridors connecting habitats and conserve through
easement, acquisition, or by structural modification (i.e. culvert placement, fence
removal).
➢ Identification and conservation of breeding sites and hibernacula.
➢ Manage for permanent and temporary water pools within terrestrial environments.
Consider providing supplemental water during breeding season.
➢ Avoid mowing or use of pesticides near water sources. If mowing cannot be avoided,
blades will be set at a height of 8" or greater.
➢ When possible, establish a grass buffer(minimum of 100') surrounding water bodies.
➢ Identify and protect small pools and ponds that serve as breeding sites.
➢ Remove trash and debris from stream courses.
➢ Close eroded banks from use by fisherman or install fishing steps.
➢ Stabilize eroding stream banks with native plantings or seedings.
➢ Reshape and recontour stream banks and pond banks to restore natural conditions that
will promote the establishment of wetland plants.
➢ Create broad, shallow littoral zones or back waters when ponds are developed or
recontoured.
➢ Minimize stocking of introduced predatory fish into natural areas ponds and lakes.
➢ Create fishless ponds and wetlands when possible.
➢ Prevent or limit cattle grazing near streams on regional natural areas.
Fish
About half the species of fishes on City natural areas are non-native species, primarily
introduced to local waters for sport fishing. The majority of the native fish species are non-
game, small fishes (e.g., darters, minnows, shiners, and topminnows). Of these, species that
need clear water and are intolerant of siltation are rare in the Fort Collins area.
Distribution of Colorado fishes have been severely altered by humans since the mid-1800's from
mining, industrial, agricultural, and urbanization activities. Surface water flows entering streams
that flow through City natural areas are altered from an array of impacts that occur off the site
and not under the control of the Natural Areas Program, including accumulation of nutrients
from treated sewage and fertilizers, spilled oil and gas, mud, silt, pesticides, etc. Thus,
opportunities to enhance habitat for native fishes are limited on local natural areas to bank
improvements and adding artificial structures that primarily benefit non-native game fishes. On
regional sites, there are more opportunities to improve watersheds and, thus, water quality for
native fishes (e.g.,by eliminating cattle grazing, or protecting stream banks from compaction and
overgrazing by cattle).
41
General Guidelines for Management of Native Fishes on Natural Areas
➢ Evaluate fish habitat enhancements as appropriate (e.g., sinking Christmas trees).
➢ Remove trash and debris from stream courses.
➢ Work with CDOW to stock native small fishes,where appropriate.
➢ Close eroded banks from use by anglers and/or install fishing steps.
➢ Stabilize eroding stream banks with native plantings or seedings.
➢ Reshape and recontour ditch banks to restore natural conditions that will promote the
establishment of wetland plants.
➢ Prevent or limit cattle grazing near streams on regional natural areas.
Insects and Other Invertebrates
Unfortunately, little is known about most insect and other invertebrate communities of our
natural areas. Thus, little attention has been given to protecting or enhancing habitat for this
group of animals. We are fortunate in the Fort Collins community, to have several
entomologists, Dr. Paul Opler and Dr. Boris Kondratieff, who have provided some information
on butterflies and aquatic insects, and a few observations of rare terrestrial insects. Notably,
local scientists have concluded that this region is the fourth richest butterfly region in North
America(north of Mexico) (Opler, 1994).
Insects and other small invertebrates, near the bottom of the food chain, comprise the main food
source for numerous species of fish and smaller terrestrial birds, as well as many ducks and other
waterbirds during at least the breeding through brood rearing season. Invertebrate populations
are often used as key indicator species in the assessment of the general health of wetland and
upland communities, but have not been well studied, to date, on City natural areas. Many
species are extremely sensitive to small environmental changes and are useful in determining
impacts to a system.
Several sites that support high insect diversity or rare insect populations have been identified in
Fort Collins along the Poudre River, Fossil Creek, and in the foothills. For example, Pineridge
Natural Area contains rare foothills and prairie butterflies. According to Dr. Kondratieff at CSU,
at least 10 other species of insects are found at Pineridge that have not been documented
elsewhere in Colorado. At Bobcat Ridge Natural Area, a globally vulnerable subspecies of
butterfly, the Moss's elfin,was documented on the site in 2004.
Due to their visibility and colors, the general public has an interest in maintaining and enhancing
butterfly populations. Often, specific types of flowers and flower colors are more attractive to
butterflies and most butterflies have specific host plants on which they deposit their eggs.
Most insects and other invertebrates are highly sensitive to even small amounts of insecticides.
Although the City rarely uses insecticides in natural areas management, they have been used
several times over the last few years for West Nile virus disease prevention during outbreaks of
human cases. Another occasion in the use of insecticides is for flea control related plague
disease prevention in prairie dog towns.
42
General Management Guidelines for Insects and Other Invertebrates on Natural
Areas
➢ Explore ways to obtain more information about insect and other invertebrate
populations on City Natural Areas.
➢ Protect and enhance populations of native flowering plants of importance for both
migrant and resident butterfly populations for nectar and larval host plants.
➢ Protect habitat of rare butterfly populations from disturbance.
➢ Where possible,reshape ditch banks to restore more natural contours and allow
establishment of wetland plants that serve as larval host sites for butterflies and provide
habitat for numerous aquatic species.
➢ Limit disturbance to, and pesticide use on, known areas of high diversity and/or rare
populations of insects.
➢ Ensure that mosquito control in Fort Collins for West Nile virus disease prevention uses
the least detrimental form of insect control (e.g., bacterial larval control in wetlands,
reduction of backyard breeding sites) coupled with surveillance data to limit impact to
non-target insect populations, except in the case of human outbreak that would likely
require spraying non-target insecticides.
Chapter references
Currier, M.J.P., 1983. Mammalian species No. 200. Felis concolor. The American Society of
Mammalogists:I —7.
Lariviere, S., 2001. Mammalian species No. 647. Ursus americanus. The American Society of
Mammalogists:1 — 11.
Opler, P.A., 1994. Conservation and management of butterfly diversity in the United States.
Office of Information Transfer. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
43
Chapter 6: Prairie Dog Management
I. Background
II. History of the Natural Areas Program conservation of prairie dog habitat
111. Current management practices
IV. Results and evaluation of 2004-2006 data collection
V. Prairie dog management and guidelines for urban colonies
a. Management approach
i. Defining suitable habitat using filters
ii. Managing for spatial variability using zones
b. General guidelines
VI. Timeline of prairie dog management in Fort Collins 1990—2006
The black-tailed prairie dog is an important and, at times, controversial species. Prairie dogs
historically occupied over 100 million acres of shortgrass and mixed-grass prairie in 11 western
states. They are considered a"keystone" species because the habitat they create provides habitat
for a wide diversity of grassland wildlife. Currently, only 1 to 2% of this historic habitat remains
occupied by prairie dogs. This decline in prairie dog habitat and abundance was the result of
changing land use patterns (conversion of native prairie to agriculture), habitat fragmentation,
disease (sylvatic plague), and extermination. From 2001 to 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, considered the black-tailed prairie
dog to be warranted for listing as a federally threatened species, but was ultimately precluded
from listing due to other priorities.
The development of the future management approach for prairie dogs (as described in the latter
half of the chapter) was strongly guided by all of the "Principles of Wildlife Management" (also
in chapter 1). However, there are unique challenges to managing prairie dogs, especially in an
urban setting. It is the aim of the Natural Areas Program to manage primarily for overall
ecosystem health while also maximizing prairie dog conservation efforts. As stated in chapter 4,
stresses unique to the urban environment can drastically alter the resilience and resistance of an
ecosystem. In its historic condition, the localized and sustained grazing exerted on the system
by prairie dogs is balanced by the presence of off colony vegetation. Also, in a larger contiguous
ecosystem,prairie dog colonies add to the mosaic of the overall ecosystem.
In a fragmented urbanized habitat,prairie dog colonies serve a different role and the localized yet
severe disturbance can have uniquely detrimental effects on ecosystem health. On a small patch
of land, it is common for a prairie dog colony to expand out to the perimeters of that land, and
the mosaic pattern disappears. Furthermore, due to decreased predator abundance, and reduced
ability of the animals to disperse, densities may escalate and the severity of impact to the land
and vegetation increases (Johnson and Collinge, 2004). Finally, in the urban environment, there
is often not an increase of plant or animal species diversity and therefore prairie dogs do not
necessarily serve as keystone species. Due to the lack of native seeds on the perimeter of
colonies, and the presence of weed seeds, we have observed very low diversity of vegetation and
high dominance by non-native forbs. Furthermore, many of the species documented as
44
obligately dependent on the prairie dog colonies, are infrequent or absent in the City of Fort
Collins.
Consequently, while prairie dogs were a key component to the functioning of pre-settlement
prairie ecosystems, it is the conclusion of the Natural Areas staff that due to land-use
fragmentation and urbanization, the scale of prairie dog interactions with its habitat is
incompatible with the small isolated patch natural areas within the Fort Collins-Larimer County
area. As such, it is necessary to actively manage the location and density of prairie dogs.
Finally, we recognize that by promoting ecosystem health as our primary objective, due to the
ubiquitous effects of fragmentation on our ecosystem, we are applying a narrower and unique
definition of ecosystem health where soil stability, plant cover, and native species diversity are
the top priorities. This definition will drive our ensuing monitoring program for prairie dog
colonies and help us identify thresholds appropriate to the urban setting.
I. Background
Management of prairie dogs in Fort Collins is guided by state regulations administered through
the Colorado Division of Wildlife as well as local city land use and municipal code in Fort
Collins. Since March of 1998, management of prairie dogs on City natural areas has also been
guided by a series of polices outlined in the 1998 document "Prairie Dog Policy for City Natural
Areas." This policy was born out of a collaborative effort made up of citizen advocates, wildlife
professionals, city managers, and politicians. The 1998 Policy established 33 policies that
addressed various prairie dog issues, including land protection, education, research, natural
control, barriers, relocation, disease control, and fumigation. These policies mainly served to
formalize practices and techniques used by the City since 1992 when the Natural Areas Program
was established.
Today, the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program manages more than 1,000 acres of urban
prairie dog colonies on approximately 9,000 local acres of natural areas within and adjacent to
Fort Collins (11% of local natural area acreage). Many of these natural areas are located in or
near the city's urban landscape adjoining private lands and properties, subsequently fragmenting
sustainable prairie dog habitat. In addition to local populations, the City's Soapstone Prairie
Natural Area currently supports 534 acres of occupied prairie dog habitat (2006).
Since biennial monitoring began in 2004, the inhabited colony acreage on natural areas has seen
a system-wide doubling (>100%) both in terms of acreage and population size. This expansion
of prairie dogs on natural areas, coupled with their setting in the urban landscape, has become
problematic. For example, data collected in 2006 suggest that the overall health of the grassland
vegetation is declining. As a result of prairie dog grazing pressure, bare soil is becoming
exposed, subjecting many sites to wind erosion (see chapter 4 regarding "habitat thresholds and
management triggers").
Because the Natural Areas Program is managing for overall ecosystem health, and for the
viability of multiple species and plant communities (i.e., not just prairie dogs and associated
plant and animal communities); and, because the Program needs to develop a more sophisticated
45
approach to prairie dog management, this chapter revises and updates current policies and
management approaches. These changes are intended to ensure the most responsible
stewardship of both prairie dog populations and other conservation values as stated in the
Program's mission and management goals outlined in pages 6 and 7 of this document.
II. History of Natural Area Program's prairie dog habitat conservation
The Natural Areas Program through the support of the citizens of Fort Collins has demonstrated
a commitment to the conservation and stewardship of prairie dog habitat and the habitat of all
native wildlife since 1992. This commitment has taken many forms through the years and
includes:
o acquisition of lands with(or with potential)prairie dog habitats(see Table 6.1)
o participation in, and creation of,professional forums related to prairie dog management
o extensive public education and outreach on the value of the prairie dog ecosystem
o self-directed efforts to research new non-lethal forms of management and control
o public participation through open and honest dialogue with concerned citizens
A detailed timeline (1990 2006) is presented at the end of this chapter that highlights the
Natural Areas Program's spectrum of efforts to ensure the long-term conservation of prairie dogs
and their habitat. During this period, the Natural Areas Program has acquired numerous existing
prairie dog colonies as well as additional lands that may serve as prairie dog habitat in the future.
In addition to habitat conservation, the program has used fumigation, relocation, barriers, and
predator enhancements to manage prairie dog populations inurban areas.
Most importantly, the Natural Areas Program recognizes the importance of the role of prairie
dogs in the ecosystem and has actively pursued acquisition of local lands that include occupied
or suitable prairie dog habitat. To that end, a total of 4,788 local acres (not including Bobcat
Ridge or Soapstone Prairie Natural Areas) of potential grassland and prairie dog habitat has been
acquired by the program and its partners:
LRFrornm
Areas Site Acrea e* When Acquired
Cathy Prairie 1,079 1993—2002
Csa 207 1998—2000
C 1,095 1994—2000
E 86 2002
Fetlands 220 1995
Fossil Creek Reservoir
Regional Open Space 470 2001-2003
Hazaleus 163 1999
McKee Farm 995 1997
Pelican Marsh 159 2002
Pinerid a additions 230 1992-1998
Prairie Dog Meadow 84 1994-2003
Summary: 4,788 local acres* purchased from 1992 through 2003
Table 6.1. Summary of local acres acquired in fee purchase between 1992 and 2003 containing
either occupied or potential prairie dog habitat.
46
*Note not all acreage within a site is occupied or suitable prairie dog habitat.
III. Current Management Practices
In 2006, urban prairie dog colonies were scattered across 14 local natural areas within Fort
Collins. hi this largely urban context, prairie dogs are unable to naturally expand their home
ranges, and as a result, graze vegetation at a level that cannot be sustained by the grassland
(especially in drought conditions). The Natural Areas Program currently employs a suite of
techniques to manage prairie dogs and their habitat.
Inventory and Monitoring
hiformation is perhaps the most powerful management tool and provides data on the population
status, vegetation condition, and other factors that drive science-based decision making.
Fumigation
Fumigation is the only legal method of extermination that complies with EPA requirements and
Fort Collins City Code. Fumitoxin (and other brands) comes in the form of a tablet that is
dropped into prairie dog burrows (the hole is then plugged) and in contact with soil moisture
emits a gas that forms toxic fumes. Care is taken by trained applicators to avoid extermination of
a burrow where other wildlife species may be present. For example, if a burrowing owl pair
occupies a site, the area will not be fumigated as long as the owl inhabits the burrows.
Relocation
The relocation of prairie dogs is more art than science. The Natural Areas Program and other
Front Range communities have used relocation with some success. At this time, the number of
relocation `receiving sites"ranges is extremely limited on public lands and especially on private
lands. Private landowners are reluctant to accept prairie dogs as they pose unique management
issues. On public lands, potential receiving sites are frequently in need of vegetative restoration
thus severely limiting the opportunity.to use relocation as a prairie dog management tool. Other
concerns with relocations include disruption of social structures of tightly knit prairie dog family
groups (i.e., coteries) and the high cost per animal. The appropriate permit is acquired from the
Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Trapping and Donation
Both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Black-footed Ferret Conservation Center in
Carr, Colorado, and the Rocky Mountain Raptor Rehabilitation Center in Fort Collins accept the
donation of both live and dead prairie dogs for feed or conditioning activities. Although
donations are more often taken for feed rather than conditioning, the Natural Areas Program
views this use of prairie dogs as a positive contribution to other on-going wildlife conservation
efforts. The appropriate permit is acquired from the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Barriers
The City has used a number of techniques to reduce the level of prairie dog movement onto
adjacent private property. These include the installation of solid vinyl barrier fence, earthen
berms, shrub plantings, straw bales, and raptor perches (to enhance predation). While these
methods are helpful, they cannot provide a complete deterrent to prairie dog movement into
adjacent areas.
47
Plague Management
Sylvatic plague was introduced from Asia and first identified in prairie dog populations in the
mid-1930's. Because most prairie dogs and some wildlife and domestic pets have no natural
immunity, plague is capable of causing massive die-offs in prairie dog populations. In the event
of a plague outbreak on City natural areas, City officials consult with the Latimer County
Department of Health and Environment to determine the extent to which human protective
measures such as postings and closures should be enacted. If deemed prudent by County health
officials, City staff will dust prairie dog burrows with an insecticide to kill the fleas and help
prevent their spread.
Reproductive Controls
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program is currently pursuing an experimental trial with
the National Wildlife Research Center on two methods of reproductive controls that could
become another tool for managing prairie dog populations. The first method involves a single
injection of a Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)registered as GonaCon. Male and female
prairie dogs are trapped prior to the sexual active season and injected with the substance that
inhibits cholesterol production necessary for sexual hormone formation. Prairie dogs are then
ear-tagged to ensure that they are not re-injected. Effective contraception is expected to last a
minimum of 2 years for prairie dogs (prairie dogs may only breed 2 or 3 times during a lifetime).
Anticipated cost of each injection is expected to cost $ 1.00 plus the staff time necessary to
conduct the procedure.
A second method in testing is the use of DiazaconTM a cholesterol mimic that inhibits cholesterol
production and blocks sexual hormone formation. DiazaconTM is administered by feeding treated
rolled oats to prairie dogs. For prairie dogs, this application would take place by the end of
November and would comprise of ten feedings over a 2-week period to result in effective serum
levels. This technique would require feedings each year to maintain sterilization. Costs for this
operation are unknown at this time.
Testing on both of these techniques began in fall of 2006. If the trial runs are successful, full
product licensing and registration with the EPA and FDA could take an additional 2 years. Thus,
the earliest this tool could be available would be 2009 or 2010.
Education and Outreach
As part of the Natural Areas Program, a formal education and outreach program was begun in
1994. Education efforts have emphasized informing the citizenry about the values of the
grassland ecosystem including the vital role of prairie dogs.
Prairie Education&Outreach Programs The Natural Areas education program has coordinated
Year Number of People 261 volunteer naturalist programs about the prairie
2002 516 including slide shows, classroom presentations, and
2003 639 field trips to more than 5,700 people since 1994. This
2004 921 averages to about one prairie program every other
zoos 1,250 week, for over 10 years.
48
The Natural Areas Program educational outreach is comprised of several components: volunteer
Master Naturalists, interpretive features, printed materials, teacher trainings, public
presentations, the City's website, and community events. The Master Naturalist Program reaches
schoolchildren, scouts, seniors, families, teachers, and recreationists. Over 200 volunteer
naturalists and 100 teachers have been trained with 20%(naturalists) and 50% (teachers) of their
training time spent on prairie dogs and prairie ecosystems. Other volunteer projects that have
instilled community involvement are prairie dog population surveys, installing vinyl barriers,
planting shrub barriers, predator enhancements, and relocation efforts. Over the past 10 years the
program has delivered 30+projects each with 5-30 volunteers.
The main outdoor classroom for prairie dogs and the prairie ecosystems is Cathy Fromme
Prairie, which opened in 1997. The raptor observation building, trail pull-offs, and interpretive
panels along the trail all have a common theme: educating visitors about the importance of
prairie dogs to the ecosystem.
The Natural Areas Program education staff develops original materials specific to City natural
areas, but also extensively uses other materials from US Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado
Division of Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, University of Nebraska, Rocky Mountain
Bird Observatory, National Wildlife Federation, and the University of Northern Colorado. The
educational programs include specific topics and activities such as:
➢ prairie dog behavior
➢ plant and animal adaptations to the prairie ecosystem
➢ food web learning activities
➢ relationships between prairie dogs and predators
➢ effects of prairie dog burrowing activity on other wildlife
➢ soils and plants
➢ challenges of managing prairie dogs in urban environments
➢ public attitudes about prairie dogs
Conclusion of Current Management Practices
To date, the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program has implemented a variety of
sophisticated prairie dog management practices. A constant reinvention of these techniques and
development of new tools will be critical to the future conservation of prairie dogs in urban
settings.
IV. Results and Evaluation of 2004-2006 Data Collection
Objectives and Methods
In 2004, the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program initiated a biennial effort to survey all
prairie dog towns on natural areas land and evaluate the status of vegetation conditions. The
specific objectives of this survey were threefold:
1. Map size and location of all prairie dog colonies. A hand-held GPS unit is used to
circumnavigate the boundary of each prairie dog colony.
49
2. Estimate the total prairie dog population on each property. This is accomplished
through a numeric procedure that extrapolates population size based on population
density. The method divides burrow density data with an "animal factor" that
influences the number of burrows per prairie dog.
3. Measure vegetation characteristics in each prairie dog colony with permanent
vegetation transects. This is accomplished through established methods (line-point)
for assessing vegetation cover by species. From this it was possible to calculate
several vegetation parameters.
The goal of the biennial survey is to develop sound, un-biased data on prairie dog population
dynamics and habitat condition to help inform and drive management and conservation strategies
for the long-term health and sustainability of prairie dogs and their habitat.
Trends
Overall, from 2004-2006 the total inhabited acreage by prairie dogs more than doubled.
Estimates of the population indicate the total population has increased 2.3 fold from
approximately 6,000 in 2004 to more than 14,000 in 2006 (see Figures 6.1 and 6.2). The
estimated density of prairie dogs on the colonies ranges from 4-62 animals per acre and averages
16 animals per acre. The vegetation data indicate that average habitat conditions in areas
inhabited by prairie dogs consist of very low percent live plant cover, species richness, and
percent of native species versus non-native species.
50
Prairie Dopy Maps
IRA _
-
rd
IN
904
AL
r " r
--
�- Prairie Dogs 2004
r - -- — Prairie Dogs 2006
City of Fort Collins Natural Area
fd F1
Figure 6.1. The expansion areas of two representative natural areas (Cathy Fromme Prairie on the left and Fossil
Creek Wetlands on the right) 2004 — 2006. System-wide there was an overall doubling in net prairie dog acreage
and population between 2004 and 2006.
51
Prairie dog population increases by site
4500
00
0 4000
w
M 3500
'a
a 3000 _.
0
� 2500
E 2000
e
9 1500
E 1000
a 500
x
0
ro�ca eQc2�e � G�eC@`gq,AA°�0�s 0�cay��g�5 `Qo�� y�m� �0° �y m OA
a
Ace
a'�� R1, •Z. t,�yr° � 41\mac
e
Gard G \G� �G
Q Q
Natural Areas with prairie dogs colonies
la Estimated 2004 population ■Estimated 2006 population
Figure 6.2. Estimated number of prairie dogs by site during a 2-year period from 2004 to 2006. Areas with only
2006 data indicate new colonies since 2004. The estimated population size of urban prairie dogs has more than
doubled, rising from an estimated 6,000 animals in 2004 to>14,000 in 2006.
Vegetation Data
Information on current vegetation (habitat) conditions was gathered in September of 2006 in an
effort to better understand and quantify differences in vegetation attributes between prairie dog
colonies. A total of 38 transects in 14 colonies were used to gather a variety of cover parameters
such as percent plant cover by species, percent bare ground, and percent litter. A small number
of transects were measured in off colony habitat, however due to the tremendous variation in
historical land-use, and the low number of these controls sites, they were ultimately not
appropriate control measures.
Due to the overall sample size and number of sites, rigorous statistical analysis is not possible at
this time. However, important observations revealed in the data are provided below. Future
sampling efforts may be expanded in an effort to better evaluate the importance of these
observations.
➢ The average area covered by live vegetation was 29% (Figure 6.3).
➢ The average number of plant species observed was 3.
➢ A weed species (non-native)was the dominant plant on 60% of the transects.
52
➢ As the ratio of weeds to native species increased, the number of total species detected
decreased.
➢ By sorting the data into plant functional groups the dominance by non-native perennial
forbs becomes evident (Figure 6.3). This group consists of 99% bindweed (a Colorado
state listed noxious weed).
Percent vegetation cover by native and non-native
species and by functional group
14
12
d
10 —
8 8 _- — B Native
6 ®Introduced
a4 _ ■%bare ground and litter
®%non-native vegetation
2 _ ■%native vegetation
0
Perennial Annual Perennial Annual Shrubs
Caasses Caasses Forbs Forbs
Plant functional group
Figure 6.3.The pie chart(right)represents the total percent cover detected on the vegetation malsects located within
prairie dog colonies. The bar graph (left) summarizes the average percent vegetation cover by plant functional
group. The dominance by the perennial forbs is due to dominance by the noxious weed Convovulus arvensis
(bindweed). This graph summarizes the data from 38 transects on 14 colonies.
*Pineridge Natural Area has greater plant diversity,and greater cover by perennial grasses when compared to other
areas. If the sampling data from the Pineridge vegetation transects were omitted from the graphs above,the graphs
would portray a greater dominance by the non-native perennial forb component and even lower contribution by the
native perennial grasses(only 4% .Also, the overall plant cover would be reduced to 24%.
In summary, the vegetation data can be used to understand the condition of land affected by
year-long, high-intensity grazing by prairie dogs after several years with lower than average
precipitation. It should be emphasized that vegetation transects were located primarily in the
flatter topography immediately east of the foothills, however, about one third of the transects
were located in the foothills. These areas were originally composed of a mosaic of short and
mixed grass ecosystems. Given the natural range of variability across these habitats, along with
extreme differences in annual precipitation it is difficult and inappropriate to apply an average
for live vegetation cover from either the short or mixed grass habitat as a reference value. The
range for such extremes might be from 45 to 80% cover by live vegetation.
Prairie dog grazing and burrow construction is expected to reduce total vegetative cover whether
they are grazing in an unfragmented healthy grassland or in urban natural areas. However,
53
several stresses unique to the urban environment affect the ecosystem's resistance to this
reduction in plant cover which increases the likelihood that soil erosion will occur. One stress in
the urban setting is the presence of many barriers to prairie dog movement. Consequently, they
are unable to travel when necessary for better food resources, which increase the grazing
intensity and frequency on the surviving plant community within the burrow system. Similarly,
on some natural areas they are unable to disperse and create new burrow systems as the
population increases.
Therefore, there is extreme grazing pressure exerted on the vegetation. Regardless of density,
prairie dogs will purposely reduce vegetation immediately around their burrows for visual
benefits , such as predator detection. Another factor is the change that occurs to the composition
of the vegetation because the reduced cover, provides opportunities for invasive species to
establish. As witnessed on Cathy Fromme Prairie, a diverse native plant community was quickly
turned into a mono-culture of bindweed when prairie dogs moved into an area. There is
consequently a significant decrease in the ecosystems resistance to soil erosion due to loss of
species diversity, lower diversity of rooting structures within the soil profile, and changes in the
composition of plant functional groups (and specifically a reduction in the perennial grass
component). In some natural areas, soil erosion is evident through rills, pedestalled plants, soil
accumulation along fence lines and soil accumulation in adjacent residential yards, porches and
gutters.
Conclusions from the 2004-2006 Data
The results indicate that the prairie dog populations are growing resulting in a 2.3 fold increase
from approximately 6,000 in 2004 to more than 14,000 in 2006. Vegetation within the prairie
dog colonies is dominated by non-native species (predominantly bindweed) and is providing
such little cover that resistance to soil erosion is low. Soil loss is potentially imminent on some
sites, and already occurring on others.
In conclusion,there are two major concerns regarding current prairie dog populations.
1. Instead of trending towards increased resistance and resilience to disturbance and for high
native species diversity, (see Chapter 4) the City's urban prairie dog colonies are instead
trending towards and arriving at the margins of ecological sustainability and diversity.
2. The ecological degradation of sites with prairie dog colonies in the urban setting across
the critical and irreversible threshold of soil and nutrient loss is alarming. Not only is
recovery expected to be prohibitively costly, but it is not guaranteed because success of
ecological restoration is dependent on factors (mainly precipitation)beyond our control.
This situation can be graphically depicted using the following model of change over time given
different management and site conditions:
54
I.Annnals rm disperse Large
2 Perennials grasses survive.
2 larger syataa with spatial contiguous
High m[ensiry Nommagemmt ecosystem
varubitiry is resistance
grazing
3.Recovery with tune
airi by pre dogs 1 f
Natural sear with various 1.Sherry deaeon / pneot wiW
plant communities(short in Imt rover B I.Pravides prairie dog habitat
or raised grass prairie p zmes 2.Select areas denuded.
&Chmge m plant
or old agriculture field ♦ 3.Imge prapwtiw mauged
fis
mopo®lion
ecorystem health.
Small
I.Want cove as low as %,my
fragmented
renaming wgetatiw dominated by urban area
No mmagemwt bindweed
2.Expansion allowed to boundaries
ofnamal areas
3.Sewn soft ermim an many
sera of natural area
Time `
Figure 6.4 Modeling change over time in natural areas affected by prairie dog grazing.
V. Prairie Dog Management and Guidelines for Urban Colonies
The following set of guidelines are intended to update and replace the 1998 "Prairie Doe Policy
for City Natural Areas" adopted by council resolution in March of 1998.
The broader aspects of this plan provide firm and clear direction for managing prairie dogs
relative to grassland health. However, the details of the plan continue to allow considerable
flexibility for prairie dog management and ecological monitoring methods. Management of
prairie dogs will always be controversial especially when lethal forms of control are necessary.
This plan aims, over time, to maximize grassland health while minimizing the necessity to use
reactive lethal methods. However, it is important to note that over the short term (3— 5 years),
considerable population management (lethal control) may be necessary to achieve the desired
baseline condition.
A. Manaeement Approach
The long-term (15 year) plan for prairie dog management was developed using principles from
the model of ecosystem management, the overarching objective of promoting grassland health
(see chapter 4), as well as fundamentals from prairie dog ecology (Hoogland, 2006). The first
step is to identify suitable prairie dog habitat (acres and location) within the urban natural area
55
system by using a series of"filters". The second step is to manage for spatial variability within
the suitable habitat by mapping out 3 management"zones".
i. Identifying suitable habitat using filters
Filter 1 -Determine Available Prairie Dog Habitat
Available prairie dog habitat is defined as areas greater than 50 acres that:
✓ Do not have hydric (wet or saturated) soils.
✓ Are dominated by grass or herbaceous plants (excludes forests, shrublands, etc.).
✓ Lands with slopes less than 10%.
Filter 2 —Areas that represent other high priority conservation targets. These represent areas
where prairie dogs will be excluded.
✓ Areas with rare plants such as Physaria bellii(Bell's twinpod).
✓ Sites with unique flora or fauna that would be adversely affected by the high-intensity
grazing.
✓ Active ecological restoration areas, because prairie dogs disturb the soil and graze upon
germinating vegetation.
✓ High quality grasslands with substantial native vegetation deserving protection. The
definition of high quality grasslands in a larger context would inherently include prairie
dog colonies. However, in this context, we are referring to areas with high percentage of
native vegetation species that would be vulnerable to invasion by non-native species
when bare ground is exposed(due to grazing by prairie dogs).
Filter 3—Minimum prairie dog complex size of 50 acres
✓ Does the land remaining after filters #1, and #2, still consist of 50 or more contiguous
acres? (The raptor surveys of the 1990's indicated a much greater likelihood that raptors
will use a prairie dog colony as a food source if it is greater than 50 acres in size.)
✓ The entire 50 acres must also be without habitat barriers. For example, a four-lane road,
or the Poudre River will act as a barrier to prairie dog movement.
Filter 4—Zonation (described in detail below)
ii. Managing for spatial variability using zones
The land remaining after the first three filters will be considered as suitable prairie dog habitat.
Management zones (described below) will be used to identify and differentiate the level and
intensity of prairie dog management relative to conservation of intact grassland communities.
After applying the filters, each natural area with suitable habitat will then be analyzed
independently and designated into management zones A, B, and C. Designation will be based on
the following:
■ Relevant site conditions,
■ Short and long term historical land-use,
• Current prairie dog populations and existing burrow systems,
• Minimizing the edge to interior ratio for the shape of each zone,
__ 56
■ Minimizing fragmentation of Zones "C,"
■ Asa general guideline,the ratio of acres for the zones A,B and C will be 40:20:40.
Management Objectives and Methods for the Zones A,B, and C
Once the suitable acreage of prairie dog habitat is defined through the filter approach described
above, that acreage will be subdivided into three management zones where the percentage of the
acreage will be 40% for zone A, 20% for zone B, and 40% for zone C.
Zone A: Core prairie dog habitat: Areas where prairie dogs will be allowed to live with little to
no population management or human intervention. Consequently, the vegetation community in
zone A will be reflective of the localized and sustained grazing. Because of urban parameters,
the locations designated as Zone "A" is expected to become severely denuded and be dominated
by non-natives. The only regular management expected will be management of noxious weeds.
Management of the prairie dog population will not occur regularly but they may be managed to
effect a change in the density and to relieve grazing pressure in Zone B.
Zone B: Density reduction zone: Prairie dogs will be allowed to inhabit Zone B but the density
and colony boundary will be intensively managed in order to prevent degradation of any of the
three ecosystem attributes (soil stability, hydrologic functioning, biotic integrity). A specific
definition of ecosystem integrity (and related attributes) will be developed for the urban setting.
A multi-tiered monitoring approach utilizing a rapid assessment or short-term monitoring
approach will facilitate the collection of data over many natural areas in a cost-effective manner.
If data begins to indicate that vegetation parameters are approaching unacceptable levels (based
on change from a reference site, see zone C), then more intensive monitoring will be applied so
that management intervention can occur before the site crosses an irreversible threshold. Any
given "B" zone may be managed as a prairie dog exclusion zone under the short term, if
conditions are degraded to such an extent that natural recovery will be unlikely with year-long
high-intensity grazing.
Zone C: Grassland Reserve Area/Prairie dog exclusion zone: Zone C will be managed for
ecosystem health and for the restoration or maintenance of the optimal vegetation community
consistent with ecological site potential and within limits of historical land-use. Prairie dogs will
not be allowed to occupy (create burrows in) this zone. This zone will also serve as a grassland
health reference site for monitoring the adjacent Zone B. Initially, the condition of the plant
community in Zone C will be assessed. If restoration (at any level) is required, then another off-
site area will be located to serve as a reference site for monitoring
57
Filters and Zones Applied to a Fictitious Natural Area
Hydric Soils
<50 Acres \
Rare Plants
Present
Forest �\
High Quality
Grassland OR
C=40% Restoration Area
B=20% Ridge
(Steep Slopes)
A=40%
300 ft. Buffer to HOA
Suitable prairie dog habitat
NOT suitable prairie dog habitat
58
Table 6.2. Summary of management implications for prairie dog management zones:
A: Core 40% a B: Density Reduction 20% a C: Buffer, No Prairie Dogs
40% a
Purpose Manage to allow prairie Management zone: Manage to Manage for optimal
dogs to live with no to protect soil stability, ecosystem health.
minimal human hydrologic functioning, biotic
intervention integrity
Site Reduced plant cover with less Plant cover variable; increased cover Plant cover representative of
conditions b desirable plant community; by perennial grasses and dominance natural conditions,plant
some soil movement from wind by native species, less soil community native perennial grasses
and water both on and off site movement compared to zone A and forbs. Soil movement mimics
natural condition.
Biotic Monitor to reference with Some percent change Reference site; mgt will be
communityb zone B acceptable from zone C aimed at having optimal
conditions for site
Weed control Yes Yes Yes
Relocation` Yes, if applicable Yes, if applicable Yes, if applicable—
Birth control d Ok Ok No
Fumi ation Less referred Ok Prim tool
Trap and Yes Yes Yes
donate
Restoration No Ok Aggressive
a These percentages will serve as general guidelines. Each site will be analyzed independently allowing the site
conditions, shape of polygon of potential habitat to also affect the 40:20:40 ratio.
"Methods for monitoring and acceptable departure of conditions from the reference site are TED. A tiered set of
monitoring options will be proposed and applied as appropriate given site conditions and yearly resource limitations
(budget,seasonal staffing,etc.).
'Only when suitable relocation sites exist.
May be an option in several years.
There will be three stages for implementing this plan:
o January 2007 to June 2007: Develop 15-year suitability and zoning map and details of
monitoring plan.
o June 2007-> onwards: Implement plans as resources permit.
o 2011: Evaluate success of plan and present to Council.
B. General Guidelines:
(1) The prairie dog management approach and guidelines apply only to designated natural areas
managed by the Natural Areas Program. These guidelines have been developed specifically for
urban natural areas. If deemed appropriate they will also be applied to the regional sites.
However, they are subordinate to the management plans of the regional sites. They do not apply
to sites managed by other City departments, agencies or private lands. Prairie dog control on
these sites will be determined by the managing department and will be conducted in accordance
with the City Code.
59
(2) The Land Conservation and Stewardship Advisory Board will be responsible for reviewing
the prairie dog management approach and guidelines on a periodic basis (not to exceed 5-7
years). They will advise the Natural Resources Director if a more extensive review or changes in
the guidelines are warranted.
➢ Relocation Guidelines
(1) Prairie dogs may be relocated only if(a) suitable recipient sites are available; and; (b) plague
is not known to be present in the capture and release sites; and; (c) expertise is available to
relocate the animals; and; (d) the appropriate CDOW and FDA permits are issued; and; (e) donor
and recipient sites have been dusted with an insecticide by a licensed applicator.
(2) Relocation may be used to reduce the density of prairie dogs in a natural area or in an effort
to reintroduce them to a suitable City-owned natural area. Factors that will be considered prior
to any relocation or reintroduction will include but are not limited to:
o the ecological condition and carrying capacity of donor and recipient sites
o prairie dog population trends at donor and recipient sites
o status and consideration of site management plans for recipient sites
o proximity to adjacent landowners
o funding and staffing considerations
o disease concerns if relevant
o presence of other wildlife species
(3) Prairie dogs relocated to an unoccupied site shall be released at a number less than the
anticipated carrying capacity of the site in order to allow for natural population recruitment and
expansion, yet it may also be necessary to establish a minimum number to improve survival rates
following relocations
(4) To ensure that dependent young prairie dogs are not left in burrows, relocation should be
avoided from March 1-May 31st. The Colorado Division of Wildlife does allow prairie dog
relocation during these months but only if the burrows are fumigated immediately after
relocation activities cease. Thus, to minimize the need for lethal control measures, relocation
activities should not occur during March, April, and May. Preferred months for relocation are
June through September, however, could continue through December, conditions permitting.
(5) Prairie dogs relocated to sites that do not contain recently (within 1 year) active prairie dog
burrows must be prepared prior to relocation by production of artificial burrows through
augering or some other method acceptable to the CDOW.
➢ Trapping and Donation Guideline
(1) When population density reduction is necessary and when resources permit the Natural Areas
Program will trap and donate animals to either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National
Black-footed Ferret Conservation Center in Carr, Colorado, or to the Rocky Mountain Raptor
Rehabilitation Center in Fort Collins.
60
➢ Fumigation Guidelines
(1) The Natural Areas Program will use fiunigation (as one tool) to manage prairie dog colony
size, shape, density and distribution on city-managed natural area sites. Prior to lethal control,
consideration will be given to (in no order of priority):
o possible non-lethal alternatives
o the ecological condition and carrying capacity of the site
o population trends for the site and other natural areas
o adjacent landowner concerns
o funding and staffing considerations
o disease concerns if relevant.
(2) Fumigation will be conducted under the guidance of a Colorado Department of Agriculture
licensed Qualified Supervisor and in a manner consistent with product labeling.
➢ Disease Control Guidelines
(1) In the case of suspected plague, the Natural Areas Program will work cooperatively with the
Larimer County Department of Health and Environment and the Center for Disease Control.
Neighbors and visitors to the natural area in the vicinity of plague-positive prairie dogs or flea
tests will be notified via sign postings and notices distributed via the news media.
(2) Natural areas known to contain prairie dogs that have died from, or are known to be infected
with plague may be posted as closed to recreational use. If the trails are permitted to remain
open, signs shall be posted and specific restrictions may be implemented. Dusting with
insecticide as a control method to slow the spread of fleas hosting the plague bacteria will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the Larimer County Department of Health
and Environment.
➢ Barrier Guidelines
(1) The Natural Areas Program will continue to maintain and improve existine prairie dog
barriers on City natural areas. Local volunteer groups may be recruited to assist in these
endeavors.
(2) The Natural Areas Program will continue to investigate new artificial and vegetative barrier
designs. Experiments will be conducted on a limited basis in order to evaluate new designs.
Construction of new barriers will be very limited due to high costs of installation and
maintenance.
(3) In choosing new barrier designs, maintain sensitivity to human visual aesthetics and natural
functions of the site (e.g., drainage) and movement of other wildlife species.
(4) The Natural Areas Program will continue to encourage existing developments adjacent to
existing city natural areas occupied by prairie dog colonies to construct and maintain prairie dog
barriers on private land.
61
➢ Land Protection Guidelines
(1) The Natural Areas Program will continue to acquire and manage large grassland or cropland
parcels in the Fort Collins area that can be restored to native short-grass prairie and are able to
support large (>50 acres)prairie dog colonies.
(2) The Natural Areas Program will continue to acquire or otherwise protect lands for the
purpose of maintaining undeveloped corridors between prairie dog colonies to encourage the
movement of mammalian predators and possibly also to allow migration of prairie dogs to allow
for genetic mixing.
➢ Education Guideline
(1) The Natural Areas Program will continue to provide educational opportunities for the public
on the ecology and management of prairie dogs in an urban setting. Topics will include the
natural history and importance of prairie dog colonies and urban management issues such as
population control,balance in the ecosystem,plague, and human interactions. As in line with this
plan, education will also emphasize the larger ecological and community management goals of
the City's natural areas as well as other grassland wildlife species found in the natural areas
system.
➢ Monitoring, Research and Experimentation Guidelines
(1) The Natural Areas Program will continue to work independently and in partnership with
other public and private organizations in prairie dog management, research, and experimentation.
Research areas will focus on population controls through sterilization and in-situ restoration
methods that do not require prairie dog removal.
(2) As resources permit, the Natural Areas Program will continue to conduct a comprehensive
inventory of prairie dog populations and vegetative conditions at least once every other year.
Data collected will provide information on the colony location, size, configuration, and trends
related to population size and grassland health. Frequency and intensity of monitoring may be
adjusted based on need and availability of resources(staff, funding, etc.).
(3) The Natural Areas Program will continue an on-going effort to monitor the presence/absence
of both prairie dog dependent species and prairie dog associated species.
(4) The focus of future grassland health monitoring efforts will be on the conditions of the
vegetation communities within prairie dog management zones (see management approach,
above). Efforts will be concentrated in zones B and C to ensure ecosystem attributes such as soil
stability, native plant cover and abundance are consistent within established thresholds.
Monitoring efforts may vary in intensity depending on site issues and program.
Conclusion
The conservation of prairie dogs and the ecosystem they support is best viewed in the long-term.
Barring unpredictable plague epizootics or other major natural disturbances, urban populations
will continue to serve as disconnected population "reservoirs." In large, regional areas like
Soapstone Prairie, existing populations may exhibit more natural expansion and recession cycles.
One future goal for Soapstone could be to allow the present prairie dog colonies to expand and
62
disperse to a size large enough to support the reintroduction of the federally endangered black-
footed ferret, a natural prairie dog predator(see Chapter 7).
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program will continue to promote the conservation of
grasslands and prairie dogs. More than a decade of effort has considerably advanced the art and
science of prairie dog management in urban environments. The management plan and guidelines
in this chapter represent a further advancement and refinement of the City's efforts.
VI . Timeline of Prairie Dog Management in Fort Collins 1990-2006
1990:
o Initiation of 10-year research project Winter Raptor Survey to determine raptor utilization on prairie dog
colonies and support additional acquisition of more prairie dog inhabited lands.
1992:
o Adoption of Natural Areas Policy Plan identifies prairie dog habitat (and potential habitat) for areas of
conservation and acquisition.
o Staff begins to provide advice to other City departments on the management of prairie dogs on City lands.
1993:
o Installed first artificial barriers at the Coterie and Pineridge to prevent movement to the Light and Power
Substation and adjacent county residences,respectively.
o Conducted fumigation to control buffer areas adjacent to new developments.
1994:
o Acquired habitat and potential habitat at Maxwell and Fossil Creek Wetlands.
o Added additional barriers and initiated native shrub and grass plantings to prevent movement to adjacent
properties at the Coterie(Prospect Rd.and Timberline Light and Power Substation),Maxwell(Spruce Dr.),
Prairie Dog Meadow(Brittany Knolls),and Pineridge to enhance and beautify artificial barriers.
o Conducted fumigation to establish buffer areas at Cathy Fromme Prairie,Pineridge,and Maxwell.
1996:
o Conducted fumigation on 30 acres of Cathy Fromme Prairie for site restoration.
1997:
o Acquired potential habitat at McKee Farm(973 acres).
o Installed artificial barriers at Pelican Marsh to prevent movement onto Victoria Estates.
o First citizen protest opposing the use of fumigation by the City of Fort Collins.
o Plague outbreaks at Cathy Fromme Prairie,Coyote Ridge and Pineridge.
0 470 burrows fumigated at Pmeridge,.Prairie Dog Meadow,Pelican Marsh,and Maxwell for density control.
1998:
o City Council adopted Prairie Dog Policy for City Natural Areas listing 33 directives to guide management
of prairie dogs on city natural areas.
o Natural Areas Program relocates 209 prairie dogs from Fossil Creek Wetland(overpopulated and moving
onto Paragon Estates)to Cathy Fromme Prairie(site was plagued out in 1997).
o Natural Areas Program acquired remaining parcels at Pineridge.
o Plague outbreaks at Cathy Fromme Prairie and Colina Mariposa.
o Fumigation conducted on 1,600 total burrows for density control on five natural areas.
1999:
o Acquired 168-acre Hazeleus Natural Area.
o Relocated 61 prairie dogs from Maxwell to Cathy Fromme Prairie(a 1998 plague site).
o Installed"raptor-perches"at Prairie Dog Meadow,Fossil Creek Wetlands,and Cathy Fromme Prairie.
63
o Published Winter Raptor Survey Results.
o Plague outbreaks at Hazaleus and Pelican Marsh.
o Fumigation conducted on 674 burrows for the purpose of buffer control on six natural areas.
2000
o City's Master Naturalist Program begins formal training on prairie dog issues to trainees.
o Forty-two prairie dogs relocated from Prairie Dog Meadow (overpopulated) to Pineridge (plagued out in
1997).
o Acquired 192 acres at Colina Mariposa Natural Area and 1,118 acres at Coyote Ridge Natural Area, and 3
acres at the Coterie.
o First research project to study prairie dog population genetics in urban environment.
o Fumigation conducted on 60 burrows on three natural areas.
2001
o Natural Areas Program co-hosted and sponsored fast "Colorado Front Range Prairie Dog Technical
Workshop." Staff provided poster session information and led field trips in Fort Collins.
o Relocated 68 prairie dogs from Two Creeks to Meadow Springs Ranch to establish Black-footed Ferret
Conservation Center colony.
o Relocated 165 prairie dogs from several natural areas to Maxwell.
o Fumigation conducted on nearly 1,000 burrows for site restoration at Two Creeks Natural Area.
2002
o Acquired 156 acres at Pelican Marsh.
o Acquired final parcels at Cathy Fromme Prairie,now totaling 1,088 acres.
o Fumigation conducted on 960 burrows at 3 separate natural areas.
2003
o Co-hosted the second"Colorado Prairie Dog Technical Workshop."
o First effort made to comprehensively map occupied prairie dog colonies.
o Acquired final parcels at Prairie Dog Meadow,now totaling 84 acres. -
o Began initial research efforts of grassland restoration with prairie dogs on site at Prairie Dog Meadow.
o Fumigation conducted on 155 burrows at Pelican Marsh for restoration.
2004
o Established Front Range Working Group comprised of land mangers from city, county, state, and federal
agencies.
o Acquired approximately 18,000 acres of land including 400 acres of prairie dog colonies at Soapstone
Prairie.
o Fumigation conducted on 208 burrows on three natural areas for barrier control.
2005
o Co-hosted the"Great Plains Grassland Species Conservation Conference."
o Initiated additional research to examine the use of non-palatable, un-edible plants for grassland restoration
at Prairie Dog Meadow.
o Initiated dialog with Natural Resources Advisory Board to amend language of prairie dog policy to allow
for donation to raptor program
o Removed 248 prairie dogs from Pineridge to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services Black-Footed Ferret
Conservation Center and another 120 prairie dogs for the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program for the purpose
of reducing densities adjacent to Drake Substation.
o Attempted site stabilization through the use of cover crops at a 50-acre site at Pineridge.
o Reviewed citizen proposal to sterilize prairie dogs at the Coterie.
o Fumigation conducted on 423 burrows at Prairie Dog Meadow for restoration and 40 burrows at Fossil
Creek Wetland for buffer control.
2006
o Initiated the rehabilitation effort at Pineridge Natural Area through soil conservation practices,planting of
native grasses,and fumigation of prairie dogs on 50 acres.
64
o Held a series of meetings with citizen advocacy group to provide awareness on prairie dog management
needs and considered a proposal for in-situ sterilization experiment.
o Plague outbreak at Maxwell Natural Area.
o Completed draft work on Wildlife Management Guidelines including an update of the Natural Areas
Program's prairie dog policy. Reviewed by Land Conservation and Stewardship Board on December 13.
o Developed cooperative effort with the National Wildlife Research Center on experimental effort to use
reproductive controls to manage prairie dog populations.
o Conducted extensive educational outreach to concerned citizens regarding prairie dog management.
Chapter references
Johnson, W.C. and S.K. Collinge, 2004. Landscape effects on black-tailed prairie dog colonies.
Biological Conservation 115: 487-497.
Hoogland, J.L., 2006. Conservation of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog- Saving North America's
Western Grasslands. Island Press, Washington, DC.
65
Chapter 7: Native Species Recovery & Reintroduction:
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area
In this chapter we explore opportunities to father advance the wildlife conservation mission of
the Natural Areas Program. Because of the size, diversity of habitat, and landscape context of
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area, there may be opportunities to re-establish imperiled,native
wildlife to this grassland and shrub ecosystem. Three species are of conservation interest for
Soapstone: the black-footed ferret, sharp-tailed grouse, and American bison. While we only
focus these three species, additional species may be of interest for possible reintroductions into
the Soapstone Prairie Natural as information is gathered. As an example, northern leopard frog
(Rana pipiens) and brassy minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni) are species of conservation
concern and are known to occur in the vicinity of Soapstone Prairie. Surveys will be conducted
in the near future to determine the status of these species and their habitat on Soapstone Prairie.
Reintroduction efforts may move forward depending on survey results.
The opportunities explored in this chapter are not intended to be prescriptive, instead they
describe possibilities that may or may not be pursued by the City. Decisions to pursue these
alternatives will be based on many factors, including probability of success, funding,
relationships with neighbors, agency approvals, community support, and the overall management
objectives of the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan (due to be completed in late
2007).
Black footed Ferret
The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) is the only ferret species endemic to North America's
grassland ecosystems. Historically, the black-footed ferret ranged throughout the Great Plains
occupying areas in 12 states and two Canadian provinces (Black Footed Ferret Recovery Plan,
1988). Today, the black-footed ferret is considered the most endangered mammal in North
America and has been listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a federally endangered
species since March, 1967. (Note: The Endangered Species of Act of 1973 afforded federal
protection status to species that were listed [but not protected] by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.) Loss of habitat, widespread prairie dog eradication programs (the ferret's primary food
source), and the introduction of bubonic plague are cited as the primary causes for the ferrets'
decline in the 20th century.
The Opportunity
There are nearly 19,000 acres of Soapstone Prairie that are held in direct public ownership with
an additional 55,000 acres of other public and privately protected lands surrounding this
landscape. Given the landscape context, only a fraction of the public land constitutes the
minimum area necessary to support a ferret reintroduction. In spring of 2006, there were an
estimated 534 acres of occupied prairie dog towns (and growing) within Soapstone Prairie
Natural Area. As a rule of thumb, a minimum of 5,000 acres of healthy prairie dog acreage in a
protected landscape is the most important parameter required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to be considered for reintroduction.
66
Plains Sharp-tailed grouse
The plains sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus jamesii) is a native Colorado
grassland bird that once nested over much of the northern two-thirds of Colorado's eastern
prairie including the area that is now Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. Due to the conversion of
grassland to cropland and land development, the grouse has declined to a present population
consisting of only a few hundred birds in Douglas and possibly Weld County. For this reason
the bird is listed as endangered by the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
The Opportunity
Portions of Soapstone Prairie may provide suitable reintroduction sites. Discussions have been
held with the Colorado Division of Wildlife regarding the possibility of pursuing a sharp-tailed
grouse reintroduction.
American Bison
The American, bison more commonly known as buffalo, once dominated the North American
grassland landscape. As an ecological force, bison were responsible for creating a mosaic of
grassland conditions through the process of grazing, soil disturbance and subsequent re-growth
of vegetation. While historic populations across North America once numbered in the tens of
millions, by the early 1900's the entire wild population had been reduced to 23 individuals.
Today, wild populations are estimated at 200,000 and limited to places like Yellowstone
National Park and the Henry Mountains of Utah. More relevant to Soapstone Prairie, publicly
managed herds are kept at Wind Cave National Park, Custer State Park (SD), the National Bison
Range (MT), Turner Properties (NM), and Mendano Zapata Ranch operated by the Nature
Conservancy in Colorado.
The Opportunity
There are nearly 19,000 acres of Soapstone Prairie that are held in direct public ownership with
an additional 55,000 acres of other public and private protected lands surrounding this landscape.
Within this landscape context, Soapstone Prairie could in the interest of wildlife conservation
and restoration, serve as a generic reservoir of reintroduced wild bison.
In the table below, a few of the im ortant pros and cons are described:
Pros Cons
Native Grazer More difficult to mana a than cattle
Innovative approach to grassland Visitor safety issues and concerns
management
Aesthetics Possible Fencing requirements
Progressive Vision Higher mana ement and maintenance costs
Additional considerations:
Bison are very appealing "charismatic mega-fauna"that many wildlife enthusiast enjoy watching
in the natural prairie landscape. Reintroduction of bison at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area
would be a significant initial step in restoring native wildlife to this natural area. Bison also have
lesser water requirements than cattle which would reduce the overall need to maintain water
supply infrastructure.
67
While all these factors are appealing at first glance, decisions will be required to move forward
with this effort. First, the safety of staff and visitors would need consideration as would the level
of fencing and herding that may be necessary. Also, as the site cannot support an infinite
number of bison, limits on population size would need to be determined and decisions made on
how to handle excess animals. This necessity would manifest a need to develop a
comprehensive Bison grazing plan to address infrastructure issues, population management,
ecosystem health, and herd culling.
➢ Plan to address issues such as infrastructure,population management, ecosystem
health, and herd culling.
Chapter Citations
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1988. Black Footed Ferret Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service,Denver, Colorado. 154pp.
68
Chapter 8: Wildlife and Human Conflicts
In general, the citizens of Fort Collins highly value local wildlife. Seeing animals in the wild
contributes to human enjoyment of nature and adds aesthetic value in the urban environment.
However, some native wildlife species can be considered "pest" species by some when they
come into conflict with humans. Conflicts can occur when people visit a natural area and
encounter wildlife, but most often when species that inhabit natural areas move onto adjoining,
private property.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has management and protection jurisdiction over
wildlife species in the State of Colorado, including those within the City of Fort Collins. With
the exception of small rodents, trapping or killing of pest wildlife that represent a threat to
human health, safety, or property within the city limits requires approval by the CDOW. In
general, Fort Collins residents seek to solve wildlife problems humanely, without killing
animals. The Latimer Humane Society provides educational information through their
"Wildkind"program on how to reduce conflict with animals in your backyard (See Appendix A).
Overall, during the last 15 years, the City's Natural Areas Program has received very few
complaints about wildlife on or adjacent to natural areas, with the exception of the black-tailed
prairie dog, thoroughly discussed in Chapter 6. Prairie dogs also have been the species most
managed by the Natural Areas Program to limit wildlife conflicts with neighbors.
Although any species of native wildlife could fall into the category of a"pest" at some time for a
resident of Fort Collins, the Natural Areas Program (NAP) has received inquiries or complaints
about less than a dozen species (or groups of species) over the last 15 years (Table 8.1). Usually,
it is the Natural Areas Program's role to provide information and/or direct the resident to another
agency, and not to take management action. Agencies with local offices that provide helpful
information on managing problem wildlife include the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado
State University Cooperative Extension, U. S. Department of Agriculture (Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services Program), and the Latimer County Humane
Society.
To date, the Natural Areas Program has taken some wildlife management actions beyond
providing information to the public, in the management of four native wildlife species.
Black-tailed Prairie Dog
By far, the prairie dog has been the most controversial species that the Natural Areas Program
has dealt with in its 15-year history, prompting research, policies, restoration, and intense
management actions (see Chapter 6). Prairie dogs primarily become an issue when they move
onto neighboring, private property. Concern is not only for the destruction of landscaped areas,
but also for the spread of plague, a potentially fatal disease for humans, their pets, and other
wildlife species.
Beaver
The beaver is the largest rodent found in North America and has made a come back in many
areas of the U.S. since it was nearly driven to extinction due to over-trapping for the fur trade.
69
When beavers modify streams by building dams and impounding flows, they do have the
potential to flood private property and destroy structures. The City's Stormwater Utility is
responsible for maintaining flows in drainages throughout Fort Collins and, generally, is
responsible for the removal of hazardous beaver dams. If beavers continue to rebuild in the same
location, they are relocated to another area.
Beavers can impact natural areas by gnawing on larger cottonwoods. In areas of heavy beaver
use, the Natural Areas Program has painted larger tree trunks with a sand/paint mix to discourage
gnawing (a previous method was to wrap trees with chicken wire, which can be hazardous to
other wildlife). Although beavers "harvest" cottonwoods and do not kill the trees, they can
produce a lot of localized changes--short, stubby cottonwoods rather than mature, tall
cottonwoods valued as nesting and feeding sites by songbirds.
hi most of the city,beaver co-exist well with humans and other wildlife species. Beavers in Fort
Collins have been found to carry tularemia, a potentially fatal disease for humans, their pets, and
other wildlife species (see chapter 10, Management and Control of Wildlife Diseases).
In recent years the beaver population along the Poudre-River corridor has seemingly increased.
Along with this increase in abundance comes a potential increase in problems associated with the
beaver's ability to construct dam structures that prevent the free flow of water. Once a dam or
blockage is constructed, a common response is to remove the beavers from the area and remove
the dam. However, alternatives exist that allow for beaver dams to remain yet allow for the
management of water levels and flow. Many devices have been shown to be successful in
correcting water level and flow (examples include flexible pond leveler, Clemson pond leveler,
beaver deceiver). However, no one device is appropriate for all situations. Site dependent
variables of topography, water volume, vegetation, flooding potential, and others dictate what
type of structure or flow device is necessary to alleviate the problem. Not all cases of beaver
damming can be corrected with a flow device and dam removal will remain a viable response. In
some cases, the natural areas program may elect to manage for beaver presence in non-critical
stormwater areas.
General Guidelines for Beaver Management on Natural Areas
➢ Staff will evaluate each beaver dam on a case by case basis to determine the
potential for flooding, impacts to property if flooding occurs, and any impacts to
public safety. Control devices will not be installed if public safety is an issue or if
damage to private property will occur. In these cases, dams will be removed and
beaver removed from the area if possible. Note: this guideline applies to
management of cottonwoods only in Natural Areas.
Canada Geese
Canada geese are year-round residents of Fort Collins, but numbers of geese increase
substantially during winter when the city and other urban areas along the Front Range become
popular winter refuges for migrant geese because of the ample supply of food and water and lack
of hunting. Canada geese are primarily considered a "pest" species on golf courses and in parks
70
. ........._-.- .... .
because of their droppings. Geese can also overgraze and damage golf courses and turf grass on
parks and private open space areas. Fortunately, the Canada goose is not much of problem on
natural areas--taller, unmowed grasses are not as appealing to the geese for grazing. When geese
are feeding in larger numbers on a natural area, they are almost always in large fields and not
where people travel or"play."
The Natural Areas Program has had some problems with Canada geese eating newly planted
upland or wetland plants. In one case, wire fencing was temporarily installed to prevent geese
from pulling up new wetland seedlings at a natural area during the first growing season to help
establish the plantings. The Natural Areas Program has also worked with CDOW to provide
research sites for trapping and neckbanding young geese to study their movements as part of a
larger U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service project. This study is expected to continue until 2009.
Northern Flicker
Northern flickers can be annoying to humans when they"hammer" or"drum" on their residence
or nearby structures, especially in early morning. Most drumming occurs in late winter and early
spring when males are territorial. Damage of siding and eaves can occur at anytime of the year,
as a result of territorial displays, attempts to build a nest cavity, or feeding activities if the wood
supports insects that flickers feed on.
Although the Natural Areas Program has rarely received complaints about flickers in our natural
areas, the program has received numerous calls requesting information on how to prevent the
drumming or destruction of siding. As part of our efforts to educate the public on the value of
wildlife and to help lessen the negative impact of flickers on structures, the Natural Areas
Program provides free flicker boxes built primarily by volunteers with the Program.
Other Species
Several other native wildlife species may, on occasion, be considered pests. Although not
treated in detail here, Table 8.1 describes management considerations for deer, raccoon, skunk,
coyote, garter snakes, and prairie rattlesnakes when human conflict arises in relation to natural
areas management.
71
Table 8.1. Potential Problems Posed by Native Wildlife Species in Urban Natural Areas
Local
Species Potential Problems Conflict Management Action
Level
Black-tailed prairie Private property damage. High Population management(see
dog(Cynomys Can carry plague infected fleas Chapter 6).
ludovicianus) that may be picked up by humans,
pets, and other wildlife.
Beaver Flooding structures or private Moderate The City of Fort Collins'
(Castor property. Stormwater Utility removes
canadensis) Flooding structures on natural dams with potential to flood
areas. structures or private property
Cutting of large cottonwoods. and, occasionally, relocates
Can carry tularemia, rarely beavers. City Natural Areas
transmitted to humans. Program (NAP)paints
(sand/paint mix) cottonwoods to
prevent gnawing and preserve
large trees for wildlife.
Canada goose Droppings are unsightly, Moderate NAP rarely receives complaints
(Branta unsanitary. regarding geese on natural areas.
canadensis) Aggressive towards children and NAP occasionally uses wire
pets. fencing to protect newly planted
Overcrowding can cause avian wetland seedlings from being
diseases(e.g.,botulism, avian destroyed by geese. CDOW
cholera, and duck plague). conducts goose research on
Droppings add nutrients to lakes natural areas.
and ponds, adding to algae build
up; algae die off depletes oxygen
supply of water,possibly killing
fish and other aquatic organisms
and releasing hydrogen sulfide
(foul odor).
Northern flicker Hammers or"drums" on houses Moderate NAP rarely receives complaints
(Colaptes auratus) and other structures. regarding flickers on natural
Drills holes into siding and eaves. areas. NAP provides free nest
Loud calling early in morning boxes to businesses and
during late winter and early residences experiencing damage
spring. from flickers excavating holes in
their buildings.
Deer Damage to ornamental and garden Low NAP rarely receives complaints
(Odocoileus spp.) plants. regarding deer on natural areas;
Host for ticks and associated tick- no management action is
borne diseases, which can be planned at this time.
transmitted to humans see ch 10).
72
Raccoon Damage to gardens and crops. Low NAP rarely receives complaints
(Procyon lotor) Denning in residential or regarding raccoons on natural
commercial buildings. areas; no management action is
Transmit rabies and other diseases planned at this time.
to humans, pets, and other
wildlife.
Striped skunk Denning in residential or Low NAP rarely receives complaints
(Mephitis mephitis) commercial buildings. regarding skunks on natural
Strong odor. areas; no management action is
Transmit rabies and other diseases planned at this time.
to humans, pets, and other
wildlife.
Coyote Prey on domestic cats or small Low NAP rarely receives complaints
(Canis latrans) dogs. regarding coyotes on natural
Transmit rabies and other diseases areas; no management action is
to humans,pets, and other planned at this time. May need
wildlife. to control at Soapstone Prairie if
found to be impacting swift fox
population.
Garter snakes Fear of being bitten(not Low NAP rarely receives complaints
(Thamnophis spp.) venomous). regarding garter snakes on
natural areas; no management
action is planned at this time.
Prairie rattlesnake Could cause death to child or pet Low NAP rarely receives complaints
(Crotalus viridus if bitten. regarding rattlesnakes on natural
viridus) areas; no management action is
planned at this time.
73
Chapter 9: Non-Native Wildlife Species Management
Non-native species are those plant or animal species that were not present to this region at the
time of European settlement. Due to aggressive habits and lack of natural predators many non-
native species become abundant and have the ability to out-compete native species. This
negative interaction impacts native species through competition for food, displacement from
areas of suitable habitat, or loss due to increased predation rates.
Many non-native species are found within Fort Collins natural areas. In many cases, non-native
species are common and efforts to remove them from a natural area may be of limited value due
to ease of in-migration from the surrounding landscape. However, if removal is necessary due to
concern related to public safety or environmental impact, Natural Areas Program staff will work
with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), City of Fort Collins Animal Control officers
(Animal Control), and other groups as needed to safely and humanely remove the animal(s).
A second option to limit non-native species is to modify existing habitat conditions. If this
approach is feasible, habitat modification through management or restoration practices can be
implemented. However, given most invasive non-native species are considered "generalists" as
habitat users this option will have limited potential.
A summary of certain non-native species along with management options are provided below.
Specific management guidelines are suggested only when management action by the Natural
Areas Program could result in a desired outcome.
Feral/Free Ranging Dogs
Feral dogs may be difficult to distinguish between a domestic dog found off leash or free ranging
in a natural area. They look like domestic dogs but generally are more haggard in appearance
and are often found in small packs. Feral dogs are considered a threat to humans because of their
lack of fear of humans and because they have been known to attack without provocation. Also,
feral dogs are predators and can have negative impacts on native wildlife on a natural area. If
feral or free ranging dogs are sighted on a natural area, staff will contact Animal Control officers
to capture and remove the animal. Ranger staff may post photos of the dog in the event that it is
an escaped pet.
Domestic dogs can also have a significant impact on the surrounding wildlife. A recent study
conducted in Boulder County Open Space trails examined wildlife activity on trails with dogs
(off leash) as compared to trails where dogs were prohibited (Lenth et. al., 2006). The presence
of off-leash dogs "correlated with altered patterns of habitat utilization by several wildlife
species where activity was significantly lower in proximity to trails. The effect extended out to
100 m for mule deer and 50 m for several rodents species. The Program aims to minimize the
impact dogs have on wildlife through regulations and enforcement of leash laws. All of the
City's natural areas have leash laws and most are patrolled by rangers on daily basis. A recent
visitor use survey conducted in Fort Collins natural areas indicated that compliance with the
leash law is very high(up to 92%).
74
Feral/Free Ranging Cats
Feral and free roaming house cats predate upon birds,rodents, and small mammals.
Urbanization and the related increased presence of free roaming house cats has a tremendous
influence on survival of small birds and mammals. Scientific studies conclude that hundreds of
millions of birds and three times as many small mammals are killed every year by feral or free
roaming cats
The Natural Areas Program aims to educate the public about the significant impact that cats have
on these wildlife guilds. The Program will continue to make informational pamphlets on this
topic available to the public and will also look into additional ways to improve our efforts at
educating the public on this issue. Currently, if feral or free ranging cats are sighted on a natural
area, staff will contact Animal Control officers to remove the animal. Information and photos of
the cat may be posted by Ranger staff in the event it is a free roaming pet.
Bullfrogs(Rana catesbeiana)
North American bullfrogs are native to eastern U.S.; Nova Scotia to central Florida, from the
East coast to Wisconsin, they now occur in the Great Plains and Rockies. Introduction into
Colorado dates to the early 1900's.
North American bullfrogs live in or near warm, still, shallow waters found in lakes, ponds,
rivers, or wetlands and predate upon snakes, worms, insects, crustaceans, frogs, tadpoles, and
aquatic eggs of fish, frogs, insects, or salamanders. Predation on other frog species is a major
impact and is in part a contributing factor to population declines of some species.
Bullfrog control is difficult so complete removal is unlikely in any natural area. Staff will
continue to promote harvest opportunities on natural areas following rules and regulations set by
the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Staff will encourage research on bullfrog management and
reduction techniques and stay abreast of emerging management
techniques.
General Management Guidelines for Bullfrogs in Natural Areas
➢ In consultation with CDOW, will determine and implement,when appropriate,
management options available to control bullfrog populations.
➢ Will determine the best course of action to promote the legal harvest of bullfrogs.
Carp (Cyprinus carpio)
Carp are large bottom-feeding fish found throughout the United States. This species occurs
naturally in Asia and Europe, but was introduced to many North American locations during the
early 1800's.
Carp displace emergent and submergent vegetation through feeding and to some extent spawning
activities. Their diet consists of mollusks, insects, worms, crustaceans, algae, aquatic plants
(dead or living), and seeds. During foraging activities, carp suck in and expel water, mud, and
debris. This activity results in the uprooting of aquatic plants, the release of nutrients, and an
75
increase in suspended sediments that increase water turbidity and limit light penetration (thus,
limiting aquatic plant growth).
The removal or control of carp is difficult but can occur with the use of aquatic pesticides
(rotenone). However, use of these pesticides removes all fish, both native and non-native within
the system. As such,Natural Areas Program staff will continue to promote harvest opportunities
on natural areas, following rules and regulations set by the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Further, staff will consult with CDOW if management opportunities are made available or if any
pesticide use or fishery management technique (introduce predatory fish) to remove or reduce
carp is desired.
General Management Guidelines for Carp within Natural Areas waterways
➢ In consultation with CDOW,will determine and implement,when appropriate,
management options available to reduce carp populations.
Mosquito fish (Gambusia spp.).
Mosquito fish refers to either the western or eastern species of Gambusia. This guppy-like fish is
one to two inches in length, silver to gray in color, and resembles the common minnow. It is very
adaptable, tolerant of a wide range of water qualities, and its expansion is only limited by severe
climates.
As its name suggests, this fish has been widely released to help in the control of mosquitoes.
Females of the species have been reported to eat several hundred mosquito larvae per day.
However, research suggests that Gambusia is no more effective at controlling mosquitoes than
many other native predators. Further, mosquito fish have been shown to have negative
ecological impacts anywhere they are introduced. This species is highly predaceous on native
fish larva and readily out-competes native species of minnow for available forage or harassing
those competitors until death. The decline of up to 20 species of native minnows has been linked
to the introduction of mosquito fish outside of its native range.
Mosquito fish are difficult to eliminate once established, so the best way to reduce their effects is
to control their further spread. Staff will not permit the release of mosquito fish into any waters
found within a natural area. A permit is required for the release of fish and wildlife onto City
natural areas.
Chapter references
Lenth,B., Brennan, M.,Knight, R., 2006. Effects of dogs on wildlife communities. Final
research report submitted to Boulder County Open Space and Mountain Parks.
76
Chapter 10: Management and Control of Wildlife Diseases
The Natural Areas Program considers wildlife disease an important component of wildlife
management. Wildlife diseases are often only noticed when the disease can be transferred to
humans, pets, or livestock. Wildlife management must also consider the impacts to wildlife
populations and efforts to conserve them. As this is a relatively new area of study for the typical
disease research agencies, the Natural Areas Program will continue to participate in forums to
learn more about how management actions can help promote the health of wildlife in our natural
areas.
Currently, the Natural Areas. Program's role in wildlife disease management is centered on
providing public and visitor notification about the presence of a disease and any public health
risk the disease may pose to the public. Detailed information regarding diseases that cause
public health risk is available through the website for the National Center for Disease Control
(CDC) (See Appendix A).
This chapter provides general information about seven diseases that are commonly found in the
Fort Collins area and defines the management role of the Natural Areas Program related to
diseases found in the city's natural areas.
Plague
Plague is a widespread disease affecting many rodent species in western North America and
around the world. The word sylvatic is used to describe plague affecting animals. When humans
get plague it is usually in the form of bubonic plague. It is believed that plague was introduced to
North America in the early 1900 through ship rats. Plague is now commonly found in rock
squirrels, prairie dogs, wood rats, and other species of ground squirrels and chipmunks. Other
animals in the plague cycle include fox squirrels, tree squirrels, swift fox, wild rabbits, and
domestic pets.
Plague is caused by a bacterium (Yersinia pestis) transferred by flea bites or through direct
contact with an infected animal (including transmission to humans). The most common form of
plague is bubonic, where symptoms include swollen lymph glands (buboes). Other forms of
plague are septicemic (when the blood stream is infected) and pneumonic (when the lungs are
infected). In the cases of bubonic and septicemic plague, the disease cannot be transmitted from
human to human. However, pneumonic plague can be transmitted through breathing infected
respiratory droplets from an infected person or animal. In humans, symptoms may be seen 2 — 6
days after exposure and include sudden fever and chills, severe headache, muscle aches, nausea,
vomiting, and a general feeling of illness. If detected early, antibiotics can be effective;
otherwise, life-threatening complications may follow. A doctor should be consulted as soon as
symptoms appear.
Plague has had a significant impact on wildlife populations, especially prairie dogs, in Fort
Collins natural areas. Since 1997, plague has been recorded in prairie dog populations in the
foothills and Fossil Creek drainage. Sites include Coyote Ridge, Pineridge, Maxwell, Cathy
Fromme Prairie, Colina Mariposa, Hazaleus, and Pelican Marsh. While in most cases the prairie
77
dog populations were significantly impacted or even eliminated, colonies generally re-
established within several years.
Plague in our Natural Areas
The City of Fort Collins does not regularly control for fleas to prevent plague on city natural
areas. Individual precautions for natural area visitors and staff are always encouraged. These
include minimizing direct human contact with animals and their burrows/nests/dens; not feeding
or enticing rodents; using insecticide on clothing, arms, and legs when hiking or camping;
keeping pets restrained from roaming(leash); and using insecticide powders or shampoos on pets
every few days while in possible plague areas.
General Management Strategies Related to Plague in Natural Areas:
➢ Prairie dog populations on natural areas will be monitored on a routine basis. A
drastic decrease in a population will indicate the need to investigate further and bring
dead animals in for testing.
➢ Appropriate protective equipment and procedures (such as dusting burrows)will be
used during relocations to protect staff or volunteers from potential exposure.
➢ Dead animals should be reported to the Natural Areas Program and, if deemed
appropriate, they will be tested by the Center for Disease Control.
In the case of a plague epizootic in one of the natural areas:
➢ The Natural Areas Program will notify and work cooperatively with the Larimer
County Department of Health and Environment.
➢ Signs will be posted at all entrances to the Natural Area warning the visitor of the
presence of plague and necessary precautions.
➢ Public notification will be made via local media contacts.
➢ Permitted group activities in affected areas may temporarily cease
➢ Dusting of prairie dog burrows with insecticide to kill the host fleas may be done to
reduce the spread of the disease.
➢ Natural Area or trail closures maybe necessary.
Tick-borne disease
While there are eight diseases transmitted by ticks in the United States, four might occur in
Colorado and the other four are unlikely to be found in this region. The four potential tick-borne
diseases are Colorado Tick Fever,Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever,Relapsing Fever and
Tularemia. Tularemia is the only tick-bome disease that has been documented on the natural
areas.
Tularemia
Tularemia is a disease caused by the bacteria Francisella tularensis, and affects both humans and
wildlife. Like plague, it can be transferred through direct contact with an infected animal or
through the bite of an infected insect,primarily deerflies and ticks.
78
Persons at highest risk are those handling infected animals, particularly hunters. Less common
means of spreading the disease include drinking contaminated water, inhaling contaminated dust
or soil, or being bit by a wild animal, cat, or dog that has been in contact with an infected animal.
Most human cases of tularemia are a result of dressing or skinning infected rabbits; hence, it is
commonly referred to as "rabbit fever." It is not spread from human to human.
Symptoms usually occur in 2— 10 days after exposure. Tularemia may be first recognized by the
presence of an ulcer-type of lesion at the insect bite site and enlarged, swollen, painful glands
near the bite. A sore throat, intestinal pain, vomiting, and diarrhea may result from ingesting the
organism in water or meat. Inhaling the organism may produce a fever and pneumonia. This
disease can be treated with antibiotics and your doctor should be consulted as soon as symptoms
appear.
Tularemia in our Natural Areas
Individual precautions are encouraged for natural area visitors and staff. Preventive measures
include wearing protective clothing, searching for and removing ticks, and wearing insect
repellant containing DEET. Gloves must always be worn when handling sick or dead animals.
Children should not handle sick or dead animals, especially rabbits.
Tularemia has been a rare occurrence in Fort Collins. When present, it is usually detected in local
beaver populations. In the spring of 2002 tularemia was found in a dead weasel at CSU's
Environmental Learning Center. Several other animals in the area appeared to be affected,
including beaver and possibly raccoons. Public notification took place in conjunction with the
Larimer County Department of Health and Environment through press releases and sign postings
at surrounding natural areas.
General Management Strategies Related to Tularemia in Natural Areas:
➢ Dead animals should be reported to the Natural Areas Program and, if deemed
appropriate, they will be tested by the Center for Disease Control.
In case of a tularemia epizootic in or near by one of the natural areas:
➢ The Natural Areas Program shall notify and work cooperatively with the Latimer
County Department of Health and Environment.
➢ Signs will be posted at all entrances to the natural area warning the visitor of the
presence of tularemia.
➢ Public notification will be made via local media contacts.
➢ Permitted group activities in affected areas may temporarily cease.
➢ Natural Area or trail closures may be necessary.
➢ Soil and water samples may be tested for the presence of the causative bacterium.
Rabies
Rabies is a viral disease transmitted through the bite of an infected animal. It has existed in this
country for more than a century. In Colorado, rabies mostly affects bats and rarely affects other
79
wild and domestic animals. Rodents in Colorado have not been infected with rabies. Animals
most commonly infected are bats, raccoons, skunks, foxes and coyotes and to a much lesser
extent cats, dogs, and cattle.
The rabies virus causes a disease of the brain called encephalopathy (a disease of the brain
altering brain function or structure) and eventually death. Symptoms in humans include fever,
headache, and general malaise. As the disease progresses symptoms become more specific and
may include insomnia, anxiety, confusion, slight or partial paralysis, excitation, hallucinations,
agitation, hyper-salivation, difficulty swallowing, and hydrophobia (fear of water), eventually
leading to death. Once symptoms appear, it is too late for treatment;however a post exposure
vaccine is extremely effective. One should seek medical attention immediately after possible
exposure to the rabies virus and definitely if bitten by a wild or domestic animal.
Rabies in our Natural Areas
Most recent cases of human rabies have been from bats that were trapped in houses. To prevent
this incident, homes should be inspected and possible entry points sealed. To help prevent the
spread of rabies certain precautions to be practiced include: keeping domestic cats, dogs and
ferret vaccinations current, and teaching children never to handle unfamiliar or wild animals.
General Management Strategies Related to Rabies in Natural Areas:
➢ Animals displaying unusual behavior or dead animals should be reported to the Natural
Areas Program and if deemed appropriate,they will be tested by the Center for Disease
Control.
➢ The Natural Areas Program will work cooperatively with the Larimer County Department
of Health and Environment should there be any indicators of a rabies epizootic.
Distemper
Canine distemper is a viral disease causing illness in domestic dogs and wild carnivores such as
raccoons, coyotes, skunks, foxes, and mink. It is different from,but related to the human measles
virus. Feline distemper is an entirely different virus. The signs of distemper in wildlife are often
confused with rabies and include: mucous secretions around the eyes and nose, coughing,
paralysis, open sores, twitching, shaking or other abnormal behaviors. The virus is transmitted
through infected animal's secretions and excretions, especially respiratory excretions. Food and
water can become contaminated by airborne secretions. Distemper cannot be transmitted to
humans.
Distemper in our Natural Areas:
The occurrence of distemper in domestic animals has been greatly reduced by vaccination
programs. Another precaution to protect dogs is to keep them on leash and do not allow dogs to
investigate or eat dead wildlife. Distemper seems to be cyclical in nature and at times has had a
significant impact on local raccoon populations. In years with increased deaths due to distemper,
signs have been posted and dead animals have been collected and cremated to help reduce the
spread of the disease to the remaining populations.
80
General Management Strategies Related to Distemper in Natural Areas:
➢ Animals displaying unusual behavior or dead animals should be reported to the
Natural Areas Program and, if deemed appropriate, they will be tested by the Center
for Disease Control.
➢ Signs will be posted in natural areas during times of increased incidence of distemper
in wild animals.
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD)
CWD is a relatively new disease first found in captive mule deer in Colorado in the 1960's. It is
a form of spongiform encephalopathy, a neurological disease that affects the brain of infected
animals. CAM affects cervids (hoofed, ruminant animals,males typically having antlers) such as
mule deer, white-tailed deer, elk, and moose. It is in the same family of diseases that causes
"mad cow disease."
Transmissable spongiform encephalopathy is caused by a prion (which is an infectious,
abnormally structured protein that causes abnormal protein cell production in the brain) leading
to rapidly progressive brain damage which is always fatal. An emaciated animal with a lack of
coordination or other abnormal behaviors are signs that an animal may have chronic wasting
disease. This disease is not yet known to be transmitted to humans;however, hunters should take
certain precautions when handling deer, elk, or moose carcasses in hunting units where CWD is
known to occur.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife is the agency spearheading the effort to prevent the spread of
chronic wasting disease beyond historically infected areas. They are also working to reduce its
prevalence within infected geographic areas by removing infected deer and elk from diseased
herds, enforcing illegal feeding regulations and transport laws from infected areas or into the
state, and continuing research in conjunction with other agencies.
Chronic Wasting Disease in Natural Areas
Chronic wasting disease can be found in Larimer County and is probably present on many of the
City natural areas inhabited by deer. In the spring of 2002, two deer testing positive for CWD
were found along the Poudre River. The Colorado Division of Wildlife was given a permit to test
and euthanize deer in natural areas along the river. With the acquisition of regional natural areas,
the Natural Areas Program anticipates increased involvement with the Colorado Division of
Wildlife's efforts to manage the spread of this disease.
General Management Strategies Related to Chronic Wasting Disease in Natural Areas:
➢ Monitor deer and elk populations for any symptoms of chronic wasting disease in
conjunction with the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
➢ Work cooperatively with the Colorado Division of Wildlife in the event that chronic
wasting disease is found at one of the natural areas.
81
West Nile Virus
West Nile is a virus transmitted via infected mosquitoes. It was first found in Colorado in 2002.
Birds are carriers of this disease. A mosquito becomes infected after biting an infected bird and
transmits the virus to another animal or human with subsequent bites. A mosquito does not
become infected by biting an infected mammal (person-to-person transmission does not occur).
There are dozens of species of mosquitoes in Colorado and not all carry the West Nile Virus. On
the Front Range,the virus is primarily transmitted by Culex tarsalis and Culex pipiens.
Some people who become infected with West Nile Virus do not have symptoms. For those who
do, symptoms appear 5-15 days after a mosquito bite. Typically the symptoms include fever,
headache, and a general feeling of illness. These last for 2-7 days. In rare instances, the virus can
cause encephalitis, an inflammation of the brain. This will include the above symptoms plus stiff
neck, disorientation, and tremors or coma. Severe infections can result in permanent brain
damage or death. There are no treatments for this infection besides supportive care. However, a
doctor should still be consulted.
West Nile in our Natural Areas
Individual precautions for natural area visitors, citizens at home, and staff are always
encouraged. Precautions to avoid mosquito bites include limiting outdoor activity at dawn and
dusk, wearing protective clothing and insect repellant — especially repellant with DEET, and
making sure screens on windows and doors function properly. Another precaution is to eliminate
areas of standing water around your house where mosquitoes breed. Remove or change water
twice weekly in anything that collects water. Examples include birdbaths, pet dishes, toys, tires,
flower-pots,pools, wheelbarrows, and clogged gutters.
In 2003, Colorado had the nation's largest number of reported cases of West Nile Virus (WNV).
Almost 3,000 people were infected; 62 Coloradans died of West Nile Virus (9 in Larimer
County) and 622 people required hospitalization statewide. While 2005 and 2006 were far less
serious,public health professionals recommend continued vigilance.
The City of Fort Collins contracts with Colorado Mosquito Control to continue to gather data,
educate the public, and mitigate spread of the virus through mosquito larviciding. The Natural
Areas Program supports this contract financially and with staff expertise on the West Nile Virus
Team. The Natural Areas Program also helps distribute educational information as well as
educating and training employees on precautions to stay safe at work, and proper reporting and
handling of dead animals found on natural areas.
The effects of West Nile Virus on bird populations are not yet fully understood; however,
preliminary data indicate some species mortality rates have the potential to disrupt population
dynamics. The extent of mortality in the wild is unknown and so is the ability of each population
to rebound to pre-West Nile Virus numbers. However, while some populations will likely be
unaffected, others may dwindle to numbers too low to survive or rebound. Species and
populations already at threat are particularly vulnerable (i.e. rare, threatened, or endangered
species; species in captive breeding programs; and species with lower reproductive rates).
82
General Management Strategies Related to West Nile in Natural Areas:
➢ The Natural Areas Program will continue to support the West Nile Team and city
contractor to monitor mosquito populations on natural areas.
➢ The Natural Areas Program will continue to distribute educational information
(pamphlets) and train staff.
Hantavirus
There are several different Hantaviruses that exist around the world. The Hantaviruses in the
Americas typically affect the pulmonary system and hence the disease is called Hantavirus
Pulmonary Syndrome (HPS). Each rodent host species supports a different virus; all cause the
same or very similar disease. HPS was recognized as a disease after the outbreak in the Four
Corners area of the U.S. in 1993, although it probably has existed for centuries, as Navajo legend
suggests. The 1993 outbreak was caused by the Sin Nombre virus, which is carried by deer mice
(Peromyscus maniculatus) and is the cause of the majority of BPS cases in humans.
Typical symptoms of HPS are fever and deep muscle aches, and can include headache, dizziness,
nausea, and stomach problems. As the disease progresses, symptoms may include breathing
difficulty and shortness of breathe due to the lungs filling with fluid. Although no vaccine or
cure exists for this disease, early medical attention and intensive care will increase the chances
for survival.
HPS is a rare, yet deadly disease that is contracted through contact with rodent excrement and
saliva, generally when it is breathed in from contaminated air. When mice or rat droppings,
urine, or nesting material is stirred up, small particles become suspended in the air and dust
(called aerosolization). To reduce the potential to breathe contaminated dust, certain precautions
should be used when cleaning an area with potential mouse habitation. These precautions include
wearing rubber gloves, wetting down the area with mouse droppings/nesting materials with a
bleach solution or household disinfectant, bagging and discarding contaminated materials, and
thoroughly washing hands.
Hantavirus in our Natural Areas
Hantavirus poses a concern for staff who may enter deserted buildings in our natural areas.
Appropriate protective equipment should be worn including rubber gloves and respirators. The
Natural Areas Program has hired professional clean up crews to clean out buildings on natural
areas, such as Bobcat Ridge, with high amounts of rodent excrement.
General Management Strategies Related to Hantavirus in Natural Areas:
➢ The Natural Areas Program will work cooperatively with the Latimer County
Department of Health and Environment should there be any indicators of an
epizootic.
➢ Appropriate personal protective equipment and procedures will be used by staff
cleaning out any buildings with potential mouse habitation.
83
Who to Contact Regarding Wildlife Disease Emergencies and Inquires
Potential Disease: Animal often does not appear to be injured,however displays behavior that
is not consistant with the species or out of charater e.g.,wandering aimlessly and exposing itself
to dangers it would normally avoid.
o Do Not Attempt to Approach or Handle the Animal!
o If You Feel Threatened or In Danger call 911
o Document Observations and Location
Contact Information:
o Larimer County Department of Health and Enivronment 970-498-6775
o If in a Natural Area also contact a Natural Areas Ranger 970-416-2147
84
Chapter II : Habitat Protection and Enhancement
Wildlife Friendly Fencing
The Natural Areas Program seeks to construct and alter fencing to allow a variety of wildlife
species safe passage. Fence design plays a major role in the protection of wildlife travel
corridors . Fence design that lacks consideration of wildlife (i . e. standard five-strand barbed wire,
picket fence, etc.) can fragment habitat, sever access to or from breeding grounds, and in extreme
cases cause death via entanglement. Typical five-strand barbed wire fencing is known to cause
entanglement of ungulates . The accepted design for wildlife friendly fencing is set forth by a set
of guidelines prepared by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
The Natural Areas Program works to alter barbed wire fencing to reduce impacts to wildlife. The
majority of fencing on local Natural Areas consists of a buck-and-rail style that allows passage
for wildlife of all kinds . Future fencing designs will continue to allow for wildlife movement.
Fencing at our larger sites may include three-strand smooth wire fence to accommodate effective
barriers to livestock. Other fencing styles may include a single-rail fence in parking areas to
establish the limits of a parking area.
Habitat Protection Guideline
➢ The Natural Areas Program will continue construct and alter fencing to allow a
variety of wildlife species safe passage .
Stock Tank Escape Ladders
Stock tank escape ladders are designed to provide escape for "moms*
avian and terrestrial wildlife from stock watering tanks. For years -
ranchers have used wood planks set across the tank to allow for
birds and mammals to climb out of the water. However, as water
levels decrease so do the efficacy of the wood planks . A newly
developed design that uses expanded metal secured to the side of
the tank, allows for wildlife to escape at all levels of water. The
Natural Areas Program has installed ladders employing this new
design at all permanent stock tank locations . More information
regarding this new design can be found by contacting the Rocky
Mountain Bird Observatory or the Colorado Division of
Wildlife .
Stock tank escape ladder, installed
winter 2006, at Soapstone Prairie
Natural Area.
Habitat Protection Guideline
➢ The Natural Areas Program will continue to install and maintain stock tank
escape ladders for the protection of avian and terrestrial wildlife.
Beaver Trees
In 2004 the Natural Areas Program began an innovative program to manage beaver and non-
native tree species along the Poudre River. Rather than the traditional method of wrapping
desired trees in chicken wire (which needs to be replaced periodically to avoid tree
strangulation) , the Natural Areas Program applied a mixture of sand and latex paint to the base of
cottonwood and various other native riparian trees species . The grit provided by the sand in this
mixture deters beaver from felling native trees as a source of food and lodge material. Although
the beaver prefer the softer wood of the cottonwood, ample supply of non-native crack willow
provide both sustenance and building materials .
The sand paint mixture can be applied either by way of pneumatic paint sprayer or by brush. The
paint color is carefully chosen to mimic the natural color of the target species (in this case native
cottonwood) and applied to a height roughly of 4 feet. Anecdotal observations indicate this
method has been very successful at reducing beaver herbivory and is generally more
aesthetically pleasing than chicken wire.
Habitat Protection Guideline
➢ The Natural Areas Program will continue to protect cottonwood trees along
major waterways from beaver herbivory.
If
1 ' a 1
1
h v! 1! 3
. + P k '
� .
to _
74
y.
644
LL
r l`
f, r�` � • t�y.` " 'Y : . 1 `. - ✓! LA ' 4.
S 1 e
IN
4 Y
� { r , o SMIALL} •'; 'SKr \y 3
Foreground; cottonwood treated with sand/latex pain mixture.
Raptor Poles, Osprey Platforms
The Natural Areas Program constructs raptor poles to enhance raptor predation in and around
prairie dog colonies . Sites such as Prairie Dog Meadow and Fossil Creek Wetlands natural areas
support large prairie dog populations yet lack natural raptor perches . Typically non-native crack
willows are removed from an off-site location, limbed, and then transported to the receiving site .
Natural Areas staff has observed frequent use of the raptor poles by raptors including red-tailed
hawks, and ferruginous hawks . As always, more data on effectiveness is desired.
Osprey platforms have long been used to provide a safe nesting site for osprey around man-made
86
and natural ponds. In recent years, ospreys have used artificial nesting platforms at Riverbend
Ponds and Cottonwood Hollow natural areas. Nesting platforms consist of a single pole 40-60
feet tall with a circular platform fixed atop, and perpendicular to the pole.
Turtle Trees
Strategically placed dead tree limbs provide excellent perching habitat for turtles in natural area
ponds. Trees of sufficient bole size to both anchor in the pond silt and breach the water surface
provide desirable sunning locations for turtles. Currently, the Natural Areas Program has
installed turtle tree habitat improvements at the following Natural Areas: Riverbend Ponds,
Redwing Marsh,North Shields Pond, and Kingfisher Point.
Artificial Nesting Boxes
Since 2003, the Natural Areas program has facilitated the building, distribution and use of
artificial nesting boxes for both bats and northern flickers. Currently the Natural Areas Program
provides wood and supplies to volunteers who then cut and assemble the boxes. The artificial
nesting boxes are then made available to the public at no cost. A tracking sheet is also distributed
to record successful use of mounted boxes. Providing nesting habitat for bats and northern
flickers (both species have demonstrated a propensity to utilize artificial habitat) plays a major
role in reducing wildlife/public conflict at a low cost to the Natural Areas Program.
As West Nile Virus continues its march across the western United States, public agencies are
increasingly called to mitigate mosquito/public interactions. As bats feed largely on mosquitoes,
promoting bat habitat by providing bat boxes is a toxin free "biocontrol" that the Natural Areas
Program supports.
The northern flicker is an insectivorous native bird found throughout the northern Colorado
region. This is a species that presents both positive and negative interactions with the public.
While primarily predating upon ants, northern flickers are also notorious for creating a
disturbance for homeowners by hammering on exterior walls and roofs of homes. This is often
an act of declaration, establishing presence and readiness for mates, as well as searching for
suitable nesting sites. However, for homeowners, it becomes a nuisance. Flicker boxes provided
by the Natural Areas Program to the public at no cost offer a solution that may resolve the
homeowner's frustration while still providing the flicker with a nesting site.
Habitat Enhancement Guideline
➢ The Natural Areas Program will continue to provide resources for volunteers
to construct artificial nesting boxes and distribute the boxes to the citizens of
Fort Collins upon request.
Fish Habitat—Recycled Christmas Trees
Providing a high-quality fishing experience to the recreating public through improved fish
habitat is important to the Natural Areas Program. To this end, the Natural Areas Program has
worked cooperatively with the Colorado Division of Wildlife to recycle discarded Christmas
trees create aquatic habitat and underwater shelter in ponds at Arapaho Bend Natural Area. Six to
eight trees are banded together using wire and connected to recycled tires, which serve as
87
anchors. The trees are then distributed to areas of appropriate depth and location for fish shelter
and allowed to sink. This is a practice widely used by Colorado State Parks and other land
management agencies.
Habitat Enhancement Guideline
➢ The Natural Areas Program will continue to work collaboratively with the Colorado
Division of Wildlife to improve both the fishery in our ponds and diversity of native fish.
Standing "Non-hazard"Dead Trees
Standing dead trees that pose no hazard are typically allowed to stand and serve as perching sites
for all birds and foraging sites for insectivorous birds like flickers, woodpeckers, and other
species.
Habitat Enhancement Guideline
➢ The Natural Areas Program will continue to allow standing,non-hazard dead trees to
stand when possible. From time to time, exceptions may be made for safety, aesthetics,
and viewsheds, or other similar reasons.
Promote Backyard Wildlife Habitat
The concept of promoting backyard wildlife is referring specifically to smaller wildlife species
such as butterflies and songbirds. In contrast,we do not want to habituate larger species such
bear or deer to humans due to the conflicts that can ensue.
The basic elements of backyard wildlife habitat consist of a source for food,water, cover, and a
safe location to reproduce and raise young. Habitats can be designed to encourage specific types
of wildlife, (i.e.butterflies, songbirds,insects,etc.) or a combination of wildlife. Careful design
planning is important and should consider proximity of habitat elements and a diverse structure.
The Natural Areas Program, as well as the National Wildlife Federation have developed
educational web pages on how to promote backyard wildlife habitats (See Appendix A).
Habitat Enhancement Guideline
➢ The Natural Areas Program will continue to promote backyard wildlife habitat as time
and resources permit:
88
Chapter 12: Wildlife Inventory and Monitoring
Habitat management, assessment, and wildlife population inventory and monitoring are
important tools that direct and enable managers to enhance the conservation values of our natural
areas. Every natural area from the smallest to the largest has some capability to contribute to the
conservation of native wildlife. The type of habitat, its size,juxtaposition, and connectivity to
other habitats, as well as how the property is managed in large part determines what type of
wildlife will occupy the area. As such, wildlife management goals for natural areas are based on
an assessment of existing and potential habitat conditions, current and potential species richness
and diversity, and species of management interest. Consequently, a monitoring program for any
given wildlife management objective may involve collecting information on the wildlife itself or
a variety of habitat components.
Inventory and Monitoring Wildlife
Monitoring species richness, diversity, and local abundance provides information necessary for
managers to critically evaluate habitat management efforts and actions taken to minimize
wildlife disturbance (trail placement, seasonal closures etc.). Also, since natural areas range in
size from less than 10 acres to nearly 20,000 acres and range from shortgrass prairie to riparian
forests to mid-elevation pine forests, no one inventory and monitoring technique will be suitable
for all properties, habitat types, and wildlife species.
A second factor to consider is that while all natural area properties play important roles in the life
histories of some wildlife species, many areas are too small and/or isolated to strongly influence
local population size. In these cases, monitoring efforts will focus on changes in relative
abundance and measures of species richness. Conversely, large properties may have an
influence on local population size and in some cases direct estimates of abundance are
appropriate for monitoring of some wildlife species.
Population indices are techniques that measure abundance relative to an identified standard or to
another property. These techniques typically measure species density and/or the number of
different species relative to a standardized unit of effort such as time searched or miles walked.
Generally, sampling protocol is developed to minimize variability caused by climatic events,
observers, and habitat conditions. These techniques are relatively easy and inexpensive to
conduct but results are only comparable to results gathered using the exact same technique.
These techniques are based only on the number of animals observed and cannot account for, or
measure, what is not observed. Relative abundance estimates or indices will be the most common
category of data collected for inventory and monitoring on natural areas.
Population estimates generally are conducted by trained staff and have strict sampling
assumptions that must be met. These techniques measure both the animals observed and
estimate the animals not observed during the sampling period. Examples include using distance
sampling techniques and mark recapture techniques. Since actual population estimates are
made, data are comparable to any technique that produces population estimates. Population
estimates will rarely be used and likely to be applicable only to regional properties and some
clusters of natural areas such as the foothills region.
89
Prior to the start of any monitoring program, efforts will be made to determine if an existing
protocol is in use by other conservation groups. Examples include Colorado Division of Wildlife
monitoring efforts, Partners in Flight monitoring, Christmas bird counts, and North American
Amphibian Monitoring Protocol. If so, protocol will be followed thereby allowing for data
collected on a natural area to be compared to existing data sets collected over several years and
within a larger landscape. If no protocol exists, consultation with other agencies or conservation
organizations will occur and a protocol developed based on species of interest, habitat type, and
type of estimate desired(indices vs. direct estimate).
Most inventory and monitoring protocol are based on visual and/or auditory survey techniques.
However, certain wildlife species are difficult to detect using these types of surveys. Examples
include animals that are nocturnal, species widely distributed in low densities (large predators),
are secretive in nature, or when disturbance needs to be minimized (i.e. den sites). Monitoring
techniques will be tailored to the situation and based on consultation with other conservation
groups. Examples of techniques to avoid disturbance or to help increase observations include
remote cameras,mist nets, scent posts, track plates, fur snags, and when possible radio telemetry.
Inventory and Monitoring wildlife habitat and wildlife influences
It is often useful to collect data on potential wildlife habitat or on the influence wildlife has on
the environment. Designing a program for either objective must be very specific to the focal
species or issue. Implementing such a program will be highly dependent on available budget,
staffing, and other resources. Similarly, as discussed in chapter four, assessment of ecosystem
health is essential to managing for sustainable habitat. Thus, efforts will be made to monitor soil
stability, hydrologic function, biotic integrity and other ecosystem components to ensure the
long-term health of urban habitats within Fort Collins. Implementation of this monitoring will
be dependant upon specific information needs and will vary in intensity both in terms of cost and
scientific rigor. The list below details an example of monitoring intensity from least to most
intensive:
1. Anectdotal observation by field staff.
2. Rapid assessment techniques intended to gather limited data.
3. Short-term monitoring efforts designed to assess ecosystem health.
4. Long-term monitoring efforts designed to assess ecosystem health.
5. Implementation of statistically rigorous science experiment or observational study.
Research
Many natural areas provide unique research opportunities especially to local university students
and faculty. The Natural Areas Program staff will encourage the use of natural area properties
for research directly related to wildlife conservation issues. A Natural Area Program permit is
required for these types of activities.
General guideline for wildlife conservation research::inNatural AreasNatural Areas Program staff will encourage the useral area properties forresearch directly related to wildlife conservation iss
90
Natural areas serve many purposes that include wildlife conservation and public participation in
activities such as nature viewing and wildlife observation. In many cases, wildlife inventory and
monitoring efforts can be combined with public participation and provide an opportunity for the
public to gather wildlife related information. Natural Areas will, through outreach and
education, encourage members of the public to participate in monitoring efforts.
Conclusion
Monitoring wildlife, their habitat and their influences can be extremely valuable for making
sound management decisions. It must be emphasized, however, that extensive inventory,
monitoring or research it is not the primary objective of the Natural Areas program and
consequently may often be beyond the program's resources. The high costs and time required to
gain useful information on any species prohibits the program from monitoring all species and
habitats. As such, monitoring will be used when possible in situations when it is likely to have a
considerable impact on management decisions.
91
Chapter 13: Future research and information needs
The following chapter reviews future research and information needs. This research may be
conducted by the Natural Areas Program, but it is more likely to be conducted by partners with
cooperation from the Natural Areas Program.
Research: Contraceptive Techniques for Prairie Dog Control
As referred to in Chapter 7, the Natural Areas Program is working in collaboration with
researchers from the U.S.D.A. National Wildlife Research Center to explore two different types
of contraceptive techniques for prairie dogs. Initial laboratory research on these methods began
in August 2006 and was followed by in-situ field trials during the fall of 2006, to be continued
through 2007. If the experimental trials are successful, product registration the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency could take up to two years. Thus,
these new tools could be available as soon as late 2009 or early 2010. A description of each of
the methods is found below.
GnRH- Gonadotropin-releasing hormone
The first method involved the single injection of a Gonadotropin-releasing hormone called
(GnRH) registered as GonaCon. GnRH is a hormone produced by the hypothalamus section of
the brain that signals the body to produce sex hormones such as estrogen, progesterone, and
testosterone. These hormones in turn stimulate sexual activity in animals by triggering estrus in
females and sperm production in males
The aim of added GnRH vaccine is to bind to or"tie up" the GnRH produced within an animal's
body so that it does not trigger the release of sexual hormones. The vaccine induces the body to
make antibodies against its own GnRH. To do this, GnRH is chemically synthesized by attaching
a foreign protein to the normal chemical structure. As a result, when the GnRH vaccine is
injected into the animal's body, the body's immune response neutralizes the hormone's function,
resulting in infertility in both males and females. Effective contraception in females reduces
hormone level to the point that females do not ovulate or come into estrus. In males, reduced
testosterone levels results in a size reduction in the testicles and the lack of interest in females
that are in estrus.
GonaCon is administered via a single injection (no follow up booster is necessary). Male and
female prairie dogs would need to be trapped and ear-tagged (to prevent a second injection) in
late September or early October as sexual activity in prairie dogs can begin as early as
December. It is thought that effective contraception period would last a minimum of two years
for prairie dogs.
Diazacon
A second method is an orally ingested product Diazacon, a cholesterol mimic that inhibits
cholesterol production and blocks sexual hormone formation.
Cholesterol is necessary for sexual hormone formation. By blocking cholesterol production you
block the production of hormones necessary for reproduction such as estrogen,progesterone, and
testosterone. A small study was undertaken by the National Wildlife Research Center to test
92
whether diazacon might be effective in prairie dogs. Due to delays in obtaining the proper
permits, treatment began later into the breeding season than planned. Despite this, the average
number of young as a proportion of treated adults was reduced by 59% when compared to a
control population. One shortcoming of this method is that diazacon wears off after a couple of
months, thus requiring repeated yearly applications prior to reproductive cycles.
Diazacon is administered orally by treated rolled oats. For prairie dogs, this application would
take place by the end of November and would comprise of ten feedings over a two week period
to result in effective serum levels. Currently, scientists conclude that indirect effects on non-
target species (such as accumulation in the food chain) appear to be minimal. According the
researchers at the NWRC, a large quantity of bait (more than a typical raptor or other wildlife
could eat in a given time period)would need to be consumed to inhibit reproductive capacity.
Research: Wildlife Movement Patterns and Corridor Protection
The Natural Areas Program has an extensive network of natural areas located throughout the city
of Fort Collins and surrounding areas. In several cases, natural area properties are directly
adjacent to one another. However, properties are not frequently in direct contact with another
natural area and at times may be isolated by urban development.
Research is needed to better understand movement patterns between Natural Area properties that
exhibit differing types of connectivity. Effort can then focus on conserving lands that contribute
to wildlife movement such as adjacent habitats on private lands. Second, management practices
can be employed that correct movement barriers.
General Guidelines for Future Research Related to Wildlife Movement& Corridor
Protection
➢ Participate as a partner in the Colorado Division of Wildlife's Front Range radio
telemetry studies on mountain lion movement.
➢ Partner with Colorado State University to design and conduct urban wildlife studies
using radio telemetry.
E[ le
ntify high use movement corridors through telemetry, remote cameras, or other
hniques. Develop conservation plans to conserve important connections.
ntify potential movement barriers and identify possible solutions (additional land
nservation, habitat modification, employ wildlife passage techniques such as drift
ce/culverts).
Biological Inventory
Several inventory techniques were discussed in Chapter 12. Wildlife inventory and monitoring
programs have been employed on several natural areas in past years. Staff will compile
inventory/monitoring techniques by species by natural areas to develop a complete list of
ongoing efforts. From this inventory/monitoring programs will be evaluated and standardized
techniques established. This will ensure the collection of data that will be comparable across
natural areas and between years. Because of the small size of many of the urban natural areas,
some inventories are not possible. Therefore the City will consider information from biological
93
inventories that are conducted at the regional scale (by agencies like the Colorado Division of
Wildlife)to augment our understanding of local populations.
Management efforts often are triggered by high or low densities of target species. For example,
some urban natural areas have a recent history of prairie dog abundance at densities higher than
the capability of the habitat to sustain them. This lead to relatively large areas becoming
extremely over grazed and prone to wind erosion. Staff responded by reducing prairie dog
densities and replanting native vegetation.
Population and habitat management challenges are not limited to urban natural areas or prairie
dogs. For example, Bobcat Ridge and Soapstone Prairie natural areas have elk, mule deer, and
pronghorn, all species that are known to increase in abundance under some circumstances. Staff
will work to develop current density estimates of target species using techniques outlined in
Chapter 12. From this estimate, as necessary, management goals will be established and a
management plan developed to achieve the goals developed.
General Guidelines for Biological Inventory in Natural Areas
➢ Establish monitoring protocols as described in Chapter 12.
➢ Partner with Colorado State University to conduct habitat use studies for select wildlife
species of interest.
➢ Continue to build partnerships with Audubon Society and other conservation groups to
gather wildlife use information.
➢ Work to identify critical breeding,migration, or other habitats of relatively high use.
➢ Dedicate seasonal staff to monitoring program.
➢ Identify species of interest and determine current estimates of species density.
➢ As necessary establish management objectives and a monitoring program to measure
progress toward objectives.
➢ Partner with CDOW,Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation,Mule Deer Foundation and others
to develop and implement management plans.
➢ Large regional properties may provide the opportunity to participate in reintroduction of
species. Natural Areas staff will work with CDOW,USFWS and others to identify these
opportunities.
➢ Develop a list of species reintroduction opportunities for all natural areas.
➢ Contact the appropriate agencies to discuss possible options and management actions to
consider in the interim period(disease control,habitat improvement, etc).
Inventory: Aquatic Wildife
Aquatic resources found on natural areas consist of both natural water courses such as the Cache
La Poudre River; Boxelder, Spring, and Fossil Creeks; as well as man-made water bodies
(primarily gravel ponds and ditches). As with terrestrial habitats, species inventories, species
monitoring, species management goals, and habitat management plans can help guide the Natural
Areas Program management activities. Many species associated with aquatic habitats can be
inventoried and monitored by Natural Areas Program staff; however, some species such as fish
need specialized equipment not owned by the City of Fort Collins. The Colorado Division of
Wildlife currently monitors fisheries and the Natural Areas Program will work them to obtain
94
any needed inventory or monitoring data. Other inventory and monitoring will fall into those
activities staff can undertake, and those activities that will require outside assistance from the
Colorado Division of Wildlife and other agencies.
Potential Staff Activities (depends on budget and staffing resources)
➢ Conduct breeding amphibian inventories following the North American Amphibian
Monitoring Protocol and/or the Colorado Division of Wildlife protocol.
➢ Evaluate shallow water habitat for management and/or restoration.
➢ Create/enhance access for non motorized recreation.
➢ Evaluate, identify need for, and develop management plans for upland buffers for runoff
control.
➢ Continue to manage riparian areas as habitat and stream buffers.
Partnered Activities
➢ Inventory fish species.
➢ Develop non-motorized fishing opportunities (fishing docks, etc.).
➢ Within natural river and creek corridors,work to restore backwater areas, side channels, and
wetlands within the floodplain corridors in and near Fort Collins.
➢ Work with Stonnwater staff to identify trees that create scour sites,habitat etc. Work within
existing policies to keep trees that pose no flood threats.
95
Appendix A: Responding to wildlife emergencies (and other
wildlife contacts)
Requests for release of rehabilitated animals (WUdkind Program) etc.)
There is informal,verbal agreement that the Natural Areas Program will find natural areas on
which rehabilitated animals from the local Wildkind program can be released. The process for
this is for Wildkind to submit a Natural Areas permit request stating the number and species of
animals. The Natural Areas Program will then select the most appropriate release site(s)in an
effort to accommodate the request even in cases when the expected carrying capacity for those
species may been exceeded. All releases conducted by the Natural Areas Program must comply
with Colorado Division of Wildlife requirements and regulations regarding animal releases..
For dead animals:
Road Kill is most often observed in or near paved and dirt roads and the animal appears to have
died from a tramatic event.
o Move the Animal Off of the Road, "If Possible",using a shovel or stick...Do Not Handle the
Animal With Your Bare Hands!
o Moving the animal away from traffic will potentially reduce possible injury to wildlife
scavengers
Who to Contact:
o Larimer Humane Society 498-6775
SuMious Circumstance are most often associated with trama caused from an unnatural event,
like malious human behavior e.g., abuse or poaching.
o Do Not Handle the Animal!
o Document Observations and Photograph"If Possible"
Who to Contact:
o Larimer Humane Society 498-6775
o Colorado Division of Wildlife 472-4300
o After Hours Contact: Colorado State Patrol 1- 888-477-4328
o If in Natural Area also Contact a Natural Areas Ranger 416-2147
For Injured Animals
Injured Animals will display signs of trama associated with conflict from humans or other
animals and is not always easy to determine.
o Do Not Attempt to Approach or Handle the Animal!
o If You Feel Threatened or In Danger call 911
o Document Observations and Location
Who to Contact:
o Larimer Humane Society 226-3647
o If in Natural Area also Contact a Natural Areas Ranger 416-2147
o After Hours Contact: Colorado State Patrol 1-888-477-4328
o If raptor then contact Rocky Mountain Raptor Center 484-5889
96
Potential Disease animal often does not appear to be injured; however, displays behavior that is
not consistant with the species or out of character(e.g.,wandering aimlessly and exposed to
things it would normally avoid.)
o Do Not Attempt to Approach or Handle the Animal!
o If You Feel Threatened or In Danger call 911
o Document Observations and Location
Who to contact:
o Larimer County Department of Health and Environment 498-6775
o If in a Natural Area also Contact a Natural Areas Ranger 416-2147
Information on potential diseases to humans
o Center for Disease Control (CDC)phone 1-800-232-4636
■ Website: http://www.cdc.gov.
■ Web link regarding insect bome diseases:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/insects/diseases.htm
Backyard Wildlife web links
o City of Fort Collins Backyard Wildlife:
■ www.ci.fort-collins.co.us/naturalareas/habitat.php.
o National Wildlife Federation backyard wildlife program
• www.nwforg/backyard.
97
Appendix B: Key to Wildlife Species of Concern in City of Fort
Collins Natural Areas
tbiolo
do Natural Herita a Pro ram CNHP Rankin not a legal designation)
Leve Descri tion
G/S1cally imperiled globally/state because of rarity(5 or few occurrences in the
d/state; or very few remaining individuals),or because of some factor of its
makin i ill vulnerable to extinction.
G/S2eriled globally/state because of rarity(6-20 occurrences), or because of other
factors demonstrably makin&jLyery vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
G/S3 Vulnerable through its range or found locally in a restricted range(21-100
occurrences).
G/S4 Apparently secure globally/state,though it might be quite rare in parts of its range,
especially at the periphery.
G/S5 Demonstrably secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range,
especially at the periphery.
GNR Not yet ranked globally.
G#T# Trinomial rank(T) is used for subspecies ranked on the same criteria as GI-G5.
S#B Refers to the breeding season imperilment of elements that are not permanent
residents.
S#N Refers to the non-breeding season imperilment of elements that are not permanent
residents. Where no consistent location can be discerned for migrants or non-breeding
o ulations, a rank of SZN is used.
SZ Migrant whose occurrences are too irregular,transitory, and/or dispersed to be reliably
identified,mapped, and protected.
Notes: #represents rank(1-5). Where two numbers appear in a state or global rank(e.g.,
S2S3), the actual rank of the element falls between the two numbers.
State/Federal Status (legal designation)
Level Description
SE State Endangered--those species or subspecies of native wildlife whose prospects for
survival or recruitment within Colorado are in jeopardy, as determined by the Wildlife
Commission for the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
ST State Threatened--those species or subspecies of native wildlife which, as deternned
by the Commission, are not in immediate jeopardy of extinction but are vulnerable
because they exist in such small numbers, are so extremely restricted in their range, or
are experiencinE such low recruitment or survival that they may become extinct.
SSC State Special Concem--species or subspecies of native wildlife which have been
removed from the State threatened or endangered list within the last 5 years; are
proposed for Federal listing(or are Federal listed"candidate species") and are not
already State listed; have experienced,based on available data, a downward trend in
numbers or distribution lasting at least 5 years which may lead to a threatened or
endangered status; or are otherwise determined to be vulnerable in Colorado, as
determined by the Commission.
98
FLE Federal Listed Endangered--defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a
species, subspecies, or variety in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
FLT Federal Listed Threatened--defined as a species, subspecies, or variety likely to
become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.
FC Federal Candidate--taxa for which substantial biological information exists on file to
support a proposal to list as Endangered or Threatened,but no proposal has yet been
accepted and published in the Federal Register.
FSS Forest Service Sensitive--species identified by the Regional Forester for which
population viability is a concern as evidenced by(1) significant current or predicted
downward trends in population numbers or density and(2) significant current or
predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing
distribution. Forest Service Sensitive species are noted due to the proximity of one
regional natural area to Forest Service Properties.
99
Appendix C: Amphibians and Reptiles of Larimer County
Amphibians and Reptiles of Larimer County
Colorado Herpetological Society's Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Colorado.
http://coloherp.org/geo/counties/coulari.php
Common Name Scientific Name Reference
Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum H
Western toad Bufo boreas H
Great Plains toad _ ,Bufo cognatus_
Woodhouse's toad IBufo woodhousii H
Western chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata H
Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana RMI
Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens H
Wood frog Rana sylvatica H
Plains spadefoot Spea bombifrons —H
Turtles
Common Name Scientific Name Reference
Spiny softshell Apalone spinifera
Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina H
Painted turtle Chrysemys picta H _
Ornate box turtle Terrapene ornata
Lizards
Common Name Scientific Name Reference
Six-lined racerunner Cnemidophorus sexlineatus H
Many-lined skink Eumeces multivirgatus H
Lesser earless lizard Holbrookia maculata H
Short-horned lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi H
Prairie lizard/Plateau lizard Sceloporus undulatus H
Snakes
Common Name I Scientific Name I Reference
IRacer Coluber constrictor H
Western rattlesnake Crotalus viridis H
100
Western hognose snake Heterodon nasicus H
Milk snake ILampropeltis triangulum H
Smooth green snake Liochlorophis vernalis
Northern water snake Nerodia sipedon H
Gopher snake lPituophis catenifer H
Plains blackhead snake Tantilla nigriceps g
Western terrestrial garter snake IThamnaphiselegans IH
Plains garter snake Thamnophis radix —H
Common garter snake IThamnophis sirtalis F H
Lined snake Tropidoclonotn lineatum
* Indicates that, while the species has not been documented for the county, it may
occur there (Reichard et al. 1996).
# Indicates that, while at least one of the subspecies has not been documented for the
county, two possible subspecies of the same species may occur in the county.
H Hammerson, G. A. 1986. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. Colorado Division
of Wildlife, Publ. No. DOW-M-1-3-86 131 pp.
RJW Wiese, R. J. 1990. Survey of the bullfrog along the Front Range and in eastern
1 Colorado, 1989. Unpubl. rept., Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver.
101
Appendix D: Summary of Comments
The following tables include comments from 5 distinct groups:
1.Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
2.City Council
3.Natural Resources Advisory Board
4.Colorado Division of Wildlife
5.Other Peer Review
6.Public
In addition to the comments presented in the following tables there were many minor suggestions.The
majority of the minor detailed editorial and scientific comments(not included below)were readily
incorporated into the document as they improved the accuracy or clarity of the document.
1.Land Conservation Stewardship Board(12-13-06)
# Comments/Issues Response
1 Application: Concern over nebulous application hiserted new paragraphs in Ch I to further
of these guidelines and specific topics to local as clarify intent and application of specific sections
compared versus regional Natural Areas. =- -of the document. Also,extra wording inserted
into the executive summary and throughout
document to reduce confusion.
2 Concern the guidelines might bind us to certain Sentences added in Ch 1 to clarify that these are
management practices in inappropriate guidelines and that each situation will be
situations in the future responded to based on specific conditions.
3 Request to add more info on backyard wildlife Added references in text and web links in
Ativendix.
4 Can we create seasonal fishing restrictions to This idea will be considered for site specific
protect bird habitat? management.
5 Request for improvement on discussion from Edited into Ch 10 (Management and Control of
Lyme disease to all tick-bome diseases and Wildlife Diseases)
related human interface.
6 Various opinions on the approval process for This issue was omitted because emergency
emergency lethal control of prairie dogs. fumigation almost never occurs.
7 Request for improved discussion over the threat Additional paragraph inserted.
of free ranging house cats to songbirds.
102
2. City Council Work Session(1-9-06)
# Comments/Issues Response
8 Concern about resources and reality of ➢ We have kept the system of filters and zones
implementing prairie dog management. as originally described.
➢ We have added annual (biannual)review by
LCSB board on progress of the
implementation.
➢ We plan to continue to consult with experts
in prairie dog and grassland management
throughout 2007.
➢ This document is written as a set of
Guidelines and is not meant to be
prescriptive.
➢ Staff will determine exact methods for
implementing this plan beginning in the
spring of 2007 and will carefully evaluate
the allocation of resources over time as well
as the success or failure of the applied
methods
9 Expressed their wish that the Guidelines be No changes to document
utilized, when appropriate,by other City
de artments.
10 Request for a side-by-side comparison of the Comparison table provided in packet.
existing Prairie Dog Plan and the proposed
language of the Guidelines that pertains to
prairie dog management.
11 Why is administrative adoption preferred cover See Agenda Item Summary
Council adoption?
12 Concern about dead and down tree See memo from Utilities
and snag habitat on the Poudre River and
coordination between Utilities and
Natural Resources.
13 Additional language regarding house and feral Additional paragraph inserted.
cats in natural areas.
14 Request for list of outside reviewers List provided in packet
3.Natural Resources Advisory Board(1-17-07)
# Comments/Issues Response
15 Positive feedback on adopting new proactive Thanks for your support.
management approach(ecosystem health)as
opposed to former more reactionary approach.
16 Interest from this board in seeing these No changes to document
Guidelines be applied by other City departments.
17 Interest in seeing City Code adopt principles and No changes to document
ideas from WMG.
18 Why don't we do more to control foxes? This is CDOW's domain. Also, according to
CDOW they are a native species.
19 Do s off leash are a lar aproblem-request that Additional paragraph inserted.
103
this topic receives more emphasis in document
4.Colorado Division of Wildlife (1-07)
Many detailed technical suggestions based on CDOW expertise was provided throughout the document.
These were readily incorporated.
# Comments/Issues Response
20 Language about the role of hunting on regional A new paragraph written into ch 5 (Native
properties should be strengthened. species management)
21 A limited and closely managed Big Game The Soapstone and Red Mountain Management
hunting program should be implemented on Plans(and public input process) are still in
Soapstone and other large parcels as they are process.
acquired.
22 All issues of regulatory authority over wildlife Added new introductory paragraph in Ch 2 to
management should be placed at the beginning clarify legal framework.
of the document to eliminate confusion.
23 Many details were requested regarding proper This document is written as a set of Guidelines
implementation and monitoring of prairie dog and is not meant to be prescriptive. Some of the
plan. details requested by CDOW will be added to this
document,however,many of these details will
be determined and implemented at the site plan
level. CDOW did not have any new/alternative
recommendation for management of prairie
dogs. CDOW will be included in future
consultations as we develop prairie dog
monitoring methods.
5. Other Peer Review (1-07) -
Much of the peer review included detailed,scientifically oriented comments for chapter 6(prairie dog
management). In most cases,these details were accepted and incorporated because the input came from
experts on the subject.
# Comments/Issues Response
24 These guidelines will allow for a 1 acre of prairie Great!
dog for every 9 acres of suitable land. This is
probably the about the same ratio(or higher)of
occupancy that existed in the region prior to
European settlement.
25 "It's obvious you have drawn from the benefit of Thank you.
past experiences. Realizing you will be fine
tuning as more information is gained,this
appears as a very workableplan."
26 Clearly define which chapters apply to urban Inserted new paragraphs in Ch 1 to further
sites and which to regional. clarify intent and application of specific sections
of the document. Also,extra wording inserted
into the executive summary and throughout
document to reduce confusion.
104
27 Ch. 6 (prairie dog management): See Response#8
We repeatedly received positive feedback and
reference to sound science and management on
the proposed prairie dog management system.
There was regular concern about reality of
implementation and feasibility with limited
resources for success.
28 Ch. 6: Various comments about the size We have maintained this guideline of 40:20:40.
relationship between the three zones(40:20:40) However, this is only a guideline, each colony
will be individual] anal zed.
29 Ch. 6: Critique that we aremaking causal Added new paragraphs in the beginning of the
relationship between prairie dogs and ecosystem chapter explaining relationship between
health yet they are an integral part of a healthy urbanization,prairie dogs,and ecosystem health.
ecos stem
30 Ch. 6: Define "high quality grasslands"(in Definition added.
filters)because it is serving as a filter for
excluding prairie dogs yet they are an integral
art of the healk short-grass prairie.
31 Ch. 6: Several requests for full description of Made minor changes to enhance clarity;
the methods to explain the origin of the 2006 however,a full-blown description is outside the
o ulation data. sco a of the guidelines document.
32 Ch. 6: Skeptical that you will have the time, Have acknowledged all these concerns. Program
resources, and manpower to constantly will use adaptive management in the process to
prevent prairie dogs from migrating from zone A maximize resources and effectiveness. This
into B and C. Not only that, plan aims to reduce weed control by reducing
but invasive plants will likely be moving possible expansion by prairie dogs. Program
between those borders as well. will continue to control noxious weeds. This
- commenter had no new/alternative suggestions
for pEarie dog management.
33 Ch 7 (native species reintroductions): This Have kept this chapter,yet the wording has
chapter does not belong in document and only changed slightly to emphasize that these are
belon s in Soapstone Management Plan. ideas, etc not actual plans for reintroductions.
6.Public(From 1-12-07 to 2-9-07)
Public Notification Process: Thedocument was posted online for 1 month and an open house was held on
Feb 5 . The open house and website(with document,video presentation and comment form available)
were publicized through a press release sent Jan. 22nd. A postcard mailing was sent to 211 neighboring
residents, all natural area volunteers, and the prairie dog advocate group. In addition,the flyer was posted
at natural area trailheads.An article was published in the Coloradoan on Jan. 12d'after the City Council
study session on Jan. 9 b.
We received 3 comments online and 18 comments the evening of the open house.
=in
ssues Response
s and support for the entire Thank you for the support.
ank you's"and"Good luck".
s active in terms of attaining oals and assive in that it su orts
105
habitat enhancement with limited disturbances to
the ecosystem.
3.Managing such small areas seems challenging.
Good luck balancing interests,values,and
mana ement ob'ectives.
35 Overall support for the new prairie dog Thank you for the support and input.
management approach.
1.You are taking the right approach in terms of
prairie dog management-you address the main
points and back them up well.
2.Fumigation seems necessary.
3.Prairie dog population this past season was -
terrible. I would like to co-exist with wildlife
but not at the expense of my property...Would
like to see management at Fossil Creek a high
priority.
4.Three-zone plan considers potential problems
5.Creating a buffer is important. Do not want to
see natural areas further degraded.
Ithezones?
sition to lethal control. ➢ Prairie dog management will require some
position to all lethal control,volunteer to population control.
with relocation. ➢ The proposed approach is intended to
is plan calls for more lethal control than balance overall ecosystem health and
ous plan. sustainability of prairie dogs and other
pe you continue to talk to the prairie dog natural values.
cates. ➢ Assessments will use most recent population
hy are you proceeding with this policy data.
out investigating the effects of the blizzard ➢ Political and ecological limitations to finding
e populations? — relocation sites make it only very rarely
ithout 6-week notification,no accountability available as a management tool.
blic or government bodies. ➢ Periodic review by Land Conservation
ill you be building barriers on the edge of Stewardship Board is our proposed
ones? The animals won't know where these accountability.
zones are and will be killed when they move into ➢ We will not be building barriers at the edge
them of zones, Will use adaptive management to
9.Keep in mind the black-tailed prairie dog is a apply these guidelines in the most sensible
threatened species.You have the mentality that if way. The first year will be an opportunity to
you fumigate them"they will always grow Team how animal density and dispersal will
back." respond to the plan and adjust accordingly.
10.I used to enjoy the natural areas because they ➢ Other comments noted.
were a wildlife sanctuary. This has ruined my
joy in visiting the natural areas. Why can't you
wait 2.5 years for birth control to be ready and
rather than fumigating now. Birth control is the
most humane and long-lasting control.
11.Prairie dogs are an asset to the urban setting
and serve as a ke stonespecies.
37 Concern about resources and reality of See Response#8
implementing rairie dog mane ement.
106
38 Concern about the side effects of lethal ➢ Applicators are trained to assess the site
control. prior to fumigation to minimize lethal affect
1. Fumigation will kill other wildlife. on non-target wildlife.
2. Observe and record side effects of fumigation ➢ Because of the relatively small size of prairie
on ecosystem. dogs, effective dosage of birth control will
3. Birth control chemicals ending up in water. have inconsequential impacts on other parts
4. Bioaccumulation of birth control? of the ecosystem.
5. Trap and poison off-site to reduce side affects
to ecosystem.
39 Suggestions for alternative prairie dog ➢ We are developing comprehensive methods
management methods. for monitoring both prairie dogs.
1.Re-evaluate population monitoring methods ➢ Local wildlife and grassland ecologists will
and consult with prairie dog specialists. be consulted to help develop methods that
2. Consider using non-lethal technique"Reverse maximize effectiveness and achieve
Dispersal Translocation." objectives.
j 40 "You are managing a Wildlife Sanctuary and Primary mission of the program is conservation
should be managing for multiple use,RV use, while providing recreation opportunities. Recent
hunting etc..." study indicated that local natural areas are well
used,a total of 3.7 million visits annually and
47,000 users.
107
ATTACHMENT
Wildlife Management Guidelines
Summary of Key Comments
The following tables include comments from 5 distinct groups:
1.Land Conservation and Stewardship Board
2. City Council
3.Natural Resources Advisory Board
4. Colorado Division of Wildlife
5. Other Peer Review
6. Public
In addition to the comments presented in the following tables there were many minor suggestions.The
majority of the minor detailed editorial and scientific comments (not included below)were readily
incorporated into the document as they improved the accuracy or clarity of the document.
1. Land Conservation Stewardship Board (12-13-06)
# Comments/Issues Response
1 Application: Concern over nebulous application Inserted new paragraphs in Ch 1 to further
of these guidelines and specific topics to local as clarify intent and application of specific sections
compared versus regional Natural Areas. of the document. Also, extra wording inserted
into the executive summary and throughout
document to reduce confusion.
2 Concern the guidelines might bind us to certain Sentences added in Ch 1 to clarify that these are
management practices in inappropriate guidelines and that each situation will be
situations in the future responded to based on specific conditions.
3 Request to add more info on backyard wildlife Added references in text and web links in
Appendix.
4 Can we create seasonal fishing restrictions to This idea will be considered for site specific
protect bird habitat? manage ent.
5 Request for improvement on discussion from Edited into Ch 10 (Management and Control of
Lyme disease to all tick-bome diseases and Wildlife Diseases)
related human interface.
6 Various opinions on the approval process for This issue was omitted because emergency
emergency lethal control of prairie dogs. fumigation almost never occurs.
7 Request for improved discussion over the threat Additional paragraph inserted.
of free ranging house cats to songbirds.
2. City Council Work Session (1-9-06)
# Comments/Issues Response
8 Concern about resources and reality of ➢ We have kept the system of filters and zones
implementing prairie dog management. as originally described.
➢ We have added annual (biannual)review by
LCSB board on progress of the
implementation.
➢ We plan to continue to consult with experts
in prairie dog and grassland management
throughout 2007.
➢ This document is written as a set of
Guidelines and is not meant to be
prescriptive.
➢ Staff will determine exact methods for
implementing this plan beginning in the
spring of 2007 and will carefully evaluate
the allocation of resources over time as well
as the success or failure of the applied
methods
9 Expressed their wish that the Guidelines be No changes to document
utilized,when appropriate,by other City
departments.
10 Request for a side-by-side comparison of the Comparison table provided in packet.
existing Prairie Dog Plan and the proposed
language of the Guidelines that pertains to
prairie dog management.
11 Why is administrative adoption preferred over See Agenda Item Summary
Council adoption?
12 Concern about dead and down tree See memo from Utilities
and snag habitat on the Poudre River and
coordination between Utilities and
Natural Resources.
13 Additional language regarding house and feral Additional paragraph inserted.
cats in natural areas.
14 1 Request for list of outside reviewers List provided in packet
3.Natural Resources Advisory Board (1-17-07)
# Comments/Issues Response
15 Positive feedback on adopting new proactive Thanks for your support.
management approach(ecosystem health) as
opposed to former more reactionary approach.
16 Interest from this board in seeing these No changes to document
Guidelines be applied by other City departments.
17 Interest in seeing City Code adopt principles and No changes to document
ideas from WMG.
18 Why don't we do more to control foxes? This is CDOW's domain. Also, according to
CDOW they are a nativespecies.
19 1 Dogs off leash are a largeproblem-request that Additional paragraph inserted.
this topic receives more emphasis in document
4. Colorado Division of Wildlife (1-07)
Many detailed technical suggestions based on CDOW expertise was provided throughout the document.
These were readily incorporated.
# Comments/Issues Response
20 Language about the role of hunting on regional A new paragraph written into ch 5 (Native
properties should be strengthened. species management)
21 A limited and closely managed Big Game The Soapstone and Red Mountain Management
hunting program should be implemented on Plans(and public input process)are still in
Soapstone and other large parcels as they are process.
acquired.
22 All issues of regulatory authority over wildlife Added new introductory paragraph in Ch 2 to
management should be placed at the beginning clarify legal framework.
of the document to eliminate confusion.
23 Many details were requested regarding proper This document is written as a set of Guidelines
implementation and monitoring of prairie dog and is not meant to be prescriptive. Some of the
plan. details requested by CDOW will be added to this
document,however, many of these details will
be determined and implemented at the site plan
level. CDOW did not have any new/alternative
recommendation for management of prairie
dogs. CDOW will be included in future
consultations as we develop prairie dog
monitoring methods.
5. Other Peer Review (1-07)
Much of the peer review included detailed, scientifically oriented comments for chapter 6(prairie dog
management). In most cases, these details were accepted and incorporated because the input came from
experts on the subject.
# Comments/Issues Response
24 These guidelines will allow for a 1 acre of prairie Great!
dog for every 9 acres of suitable land. This is
probably the about the same ratio(or higher)of
occupancy that existed in the region prior to
European settlement.
25 "It's obvious you have drawn from the benefit of Thank you.
past experiences. Realizing you will be fine
tuning as more information is gained, this
appears as a very workableplan."
26 Clearly define which chapters apply to urban Inserted new paragraphs in Ch 1 to further
sites and which to regional. clarify intent and application of specific sections
of the document. Also,extra wording inserted
into the executive summary and throughout
document to reduce confusion.
27 Ch. 6(prairie dog management): See Response#8
We repeatedly received positive feedback and
reference to sound science and management on
the proposed prairie dog management system.
There was regular concern about reality of
implementation and feasibility with limited
resources for success.
28 Ch. 6: Various comments about the size We have maintained this guideline of 40:20:40.
relationship between the three zones (40:20:40) However, this is only a guideline, each colony
will be individually analyzed.
29 Ch. 6: Critique that we are making causal Added new paragraphs in the beginning of the
relationship between prairie dogs and ecosystem chapter explaining relationship between
health yet they are an integral part of a healthy urbanization,prairie dogs,and ecosystem health.
ecosystem
30 Ch. 6: Define "high quality grasslands"(in Definition added.
filters)because it is serving as a filter for
excluding prairie dogs yet they are an integral
art of the health short-grass prairie.
31 Ch. 6: Several requests for full description of Made minor changes to enhance clarity;
the methods to explain the origin of the 2006 however, a full-blown description is outside the
population data. scope of the guidelines document.
32 Ch. 6: Skeptical that you will have the time, Have acknowledged all these concerns. Program
resources, and manpower to constantly will use adaptive management in the process to
prevent prairie dogs from migrating from zone A maximize resources and effectiveness. This
into B and C. Not only that, plan aims to reduce weed control by reducing
but invasive plants will likely be moving possible expansion by prairie dogs. Program
between those borders as well. will continue to control noxious weeds. This
commenter had no new/alternative suggestions
for prairie dog management.
33 Ch 7 (native species reintroductions): This Have kept this chapter,yet the wording has
chapter does not belong in document and only changed slightly to emphasize that these are
belongs in Soapstone Management Plan. ideas, etc not actual plans for reintroductions.
6. Public(From 1-12-07 to 2-9-07)
Public Notification Process: The document was posted online for 1 month and an open house was held on
Feb 5t". The open house and website(with document, video presentation and comment form available)
were publicized through a press release sent Jan. 22nd. A postcard mailing was sent to 211 neighboring
residents, all natural area volunteers, and the prairie dog advocate group. In addition,the flyer was posted
at natural area trailheads. An article was published in the Coloradoan on Jan. 12t''after the City Council
study session on Jan. 9'".
We received 3 comments online and 18 comments the evening of the open house.
# Comments/Issues Response
34 Compliments and support for the entire Thank you for the support.
document
1. Many"Thank you's"and"Good luck".
2. Plan seems active in terms of attaining
management goals and passive in that it supports
habitat enhancement with limited disturbances to
the ecosystem.
3. Managing such small areas seems challenging.
Good luck balancing interests,values, and
management objectives.
35 Overall support for the new prairie dog Thank you for the support and input.
management approach.
1. You are taking the right approach in terms of
prairie dog management-you address the main
points and back them up well.
2. Fumigation seems necessary.
3. Prairie dog population this past season was
terrible. I would like to co-exist with wildlife
but not at the expense of my property...Would
like to see management at Fossil Creek a high
priority.
4. Three-zone plan considers potential problems
5. Creating a buffer is important. Do not want to
see natural areas further degraded.
36 Opposition to lethal control. ➢ Prairie dog management will require some
1. Opposition to all lethal control,volunteer to population control.
help with relocation. ➢ The proposed approach is intended to
2. This plan calls for more lethal control than balance overall ecosystem health and
previous plan. sustainability of prairie dogs and other
3. Hope you continue to talk to the prairie dog natural values.
advocates. ➢ Assessments will use most recent population
6. Why are you proceeding with this policy data.
without investigating the effects of the blizzard ➢ Political and ecological limitations to finding
on the populations? relocation sites make it only very rarely
7. Without 6-week notification,no accountability available as a management tool.
to public or government bodies. ➢ Periodic review by Land Conservation
8. Will you be building barriers on the edge of Stewardship Board is our proposed
the zones? The animals won't know where these accountability.
zones are and will be killed when they move into ➢ We will not be building barriers at the edge
them. of zones. Will use adaptive management to
9. Keep in mind the black-tailed prairie dog is a apply these guidelines in the most sensible
threatened species. You have the mentality that if way. The first year will be an opportunity to
you fumigate them"they will always grow learn how animal density and dispersal will
back." respond to the plan and adjust accordingly.
10. I used to enjoy the natural areas because they ➢ Other comments noted.
were a wildlife sanctuary. This has ruined my
joy in visiting the natural areas. Why can't you
wait 2.5 years for birth control to be ready and
rather than fumigating now. Birth control is the
most humane and long-lasting control.
11. Prairie dogs are an asset to the urban setting
and serve as a keystone s ecies.
37 Concern about resources and reality of See Response#8
implementing rairie dog management.
38 Concern about the side effects of lethal ➢ Applicators are trained to assess the site
control. prior to fumigation to minimize lethal affect
1. Fumigation will kill other wildlife. on non-target wildlife.
2. Observe and record side effects of fumigation ➢ Because of the relatively small size of prairie
on ecosystem. dogs, effective dosage of birth control will
3. Birth control chemicals ending up in water. have inconsequential impacts on other parts
4. Bioaccumulation of birth control? of the ecosystem.
5. Trap and poison off-site to reduce side affects
to ecosystem.
39 Suggestions for alternative prairie dog ➢ We are developing comprehensive methods
management methods. for monitoring both prairie dogs.
1. Re-evaluate population monitoring methods ➢ Local wildlife and grassland ecologists will
and consult with prairie dog specialists. be consulted to help develop methods that
2. Consider using non-lethal technique"Reverse maximize effectiveness and achieve
Dispersal Translocation." objectives.
40 "You are managing a Wildlife Sanctuary and Primary mission of the program is conservation
should be managing for multiple use,RV use, while providing recreation opportunities. Recent
hunting etc..." study indicated that local natural areas are well
used, a total of 3.7 million visits annually and
47,000 users.
Comparison of 1998 Prairie Dog Policy and 2007 Wildlife Management Guidelines
1998 Prairie Dog Policy Wildlife Management Guidelines(2007)
Document initiated because... Initiated because of citizen concern regarding Initiated by staff because of detrimental impacts of
exterminations. expanding populations on grasslands and citizen
concern.
Long-term overall plan Plan focuses on land acquisition,maintaining and Provide a framework for managing wildlife and
managing existing large(>50 acres)colonies. Plan wildlife habitat within the context of the overarching
allows for fumigation of prairie dogs on unsuitable goal of promoting and enhancing ecosystem health
small sites. and sustainability.
Provides long-term guideline for determining and
managing prairie dogs in suitable and appropriate
habitat based on system of filters and zones.
Primary management methods Land acquisition, use of barriers,education, Ep
ers and zonation,fumigation,trapping and
fumigation,relocation,disease control (plagueating,disease control,contraception possible,
cation. Land acquisition within city limits
(Best management practices research and experimentation. ited. Barrier construction limited due to low cost
applied in both cases)
ctiveness.Maintenance of existing barriers will
tinue.
Cause for active population When movement into adjacent properties cauen animals exist or move into unsuitable areas as
management damage,for restoration of degraded habitat, fded by the process of applying ecologicallyremoval in unsuitable habitat. ed filters and zones.Education Through a variety of interpretive strategies, ntinues to recognize the critical role of educationdisseminate information on natural history(lo interpretation. Information about prairie dogand regionally)of prairie dogs, as well astural history and management will continue to be
management issues and methods. vided to the community through a variety of
ate ies.blic notification process for 6 week public notification to provide public public notification. Since the 1998 plan, the
prairie dog removal opportunity to identify suitable relocation sites. public has been unable to find suitable relocation
sites outside of the City-owned properties. Current
state law now limits relocation to other counties.
Monitoring No directive for monitoring. Monitoring was Will establish a formal monitoring program for y
initiated in 2003 and continued through 2006. rairie do o ulations and vegetation etation conditions.
Review and management Partner with other land manager,research and Progress,results of management will be reviewed
guidance experimentation. Periodic review,(not to exceed 5 by LCSB every 6 months.Reviewed by Council in 5
years)by Natural Resource Advisory Board was years Z
required. "1
w
ATTACHMENT 4
Date: 30 January 2007
To: Mayor and Council Members
From: Linda Knowlton on behalf of the Natural Resources Advisory Board
Subject: Natural Areas Wildlife Management Guidelines
The Natural Resources Advisory Board unanimously recommends that City
Council deactivate the 1998 Natural Areas Wildlife Management Plan so that the
Natural Resources Department can administratively adopt the 2007 Guidelines.
The NRAB reviewed the draft guidelines at its January 17 meeting because,
while the natural areas are no longer the purview of this board, wildlife does not
observe jurisdictional boundaries and management practices on natural areas
will have an effect on wildlife throughout the city.
We recognize that the changes to the prairie dog management policy will be
opposed by a small segment of the population. But we feel that the focus on the
overall health of the ecosystem is appropriate, especially in an urban setting.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached at
223-9328 or IlknowltonCa.iuno.com.
ATTACHMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 8, 2007
To: Mayor and Council Members
Thru: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Michael B. Smith, Fort Collins Utilities General Manager
Marty Heffernan, Director, CLRS
From: Jim Hibbard, Water Engineering and Field Services Manager
John Stokes, Director, Natural Resources Department
Re: Poudre River Removal of Downed Trees
On January 9, 2007 at a work session Council discussed the Natural Areas Management
Guidelines for natural areas owned and managed by the Natural Resources Department.
During that discussion questions were raised concerning the Utilities removal of downed
trees along the Poudre River corridor. On January 31, 2007, Utilities and Natural
Resources staff met to discuss the issue. The following is a summary of that discussion.
Historical Perspective of Vegetation along the River:
There is much scientific discussion surrounding the historic condition along the Poudre
River prior to settlement of the region in the mid-1800's. One theory is that the river
corridor today is much more vegetated than historically in the absence of wildfires and
widespread beaver activity. The river might have had sparser cottonwood gallery with
the understory dominated by grasses and only a small shrub component. In this scenario,
removal of woody debris would mimic merely a fraction of the function historically
provided by fire and beaver herbivory.
A second line of scientific thinking postulates that the river corridor was more vegetated
than the present but with willows and other shrub-like growth forms. This scenario
includes beaver activity but assumes that fire was not as commonplace as in the first
scenario. The present-day removal of large woody debris by the Utilities Department
under this scenario is inconsequential from a historic perspective.
ATTACHMENT 5
Lastly, one major way the Poudre river system is different today than in the past is the
lack of regular flooding events that scoured the banks, and created sandy"bars"perfect
substrate for the germination of cottonwoods.
Poudre River Clean-up of Downed Trees:
The annual removal of downed trees in the river corridor attempts to achieve a balance
between public safety and infrastructure protection while still recognizing the natural
habitat values of those trees. Annually crews from the Utilities Department inspect the
river corridor and identify areas where large downed trees could create a problem of
plugging of bridges or canal structures in the event of high water conditions within the
river corridor. This plugging has the potential to dam the river, causing a washout of
structures and possible redirecting of the flood flows out of the river corridor.
During a flooding event, bridges and canal structures are inspected continuously to
monitor the amount of debris collecting on the structure. Once a structure becomes
plugged, crews are then required to unplug the structure during the flood event creating a
risk to crews and their equipment.
Smaller trees are usually left in place and only large trees that would pose this plugging
problem are removed. Large trees that are anchored in the stream bank are not removed.
Depending on the past years weather patterns, some years may be more labor intensive
than other years. For example, if high winds or snow on trees that are leafed out break off
a large number of trees, then that year might include more removal than other years. And
visa versa, some year's very minimal removal has taken place. In areas where removal
takes place, that area is not clear cut, some downed trees will be left behind. If necessary,
consultation with representatives of the City's Natural Resources Department and
Forestry Departments takes place where questions arise about the viability or importance
of certain trees. For example, if a downed tree is providing bank stabilization and is
unlikely to be become dislodged, then that tree would be left in place. Areas where the
plugging of crossings is not a concern, then downed tree removal is not performed, such
as below the Environmental Learning Center on the end of Drake Street.
Future Monitoring:
Considering the ecological importance of the Poudre River corridor and in light of the
recent council discussion, the Natural Resources Department (possibly in conjunction
with the Utilities Department) will explore the possibility of establishing a baseline
ecological monitoring study of the river corridor through town in 2007. The goals of this
monitoring study would be to establish the existing baseline conditions, evaluate the
health of the river corridor for wildlife use, and evaluate any long-term effects from
activities such as the proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project. Specific details of
that study would be determined this spring and would be shared with the Land
Conservation and Stewardship Board.
too
Natural Areas Wildlife
Management Guidelines
February 20 , 2007
Fort Collins City Council
(Of6o Natura
City of Fort Collins Areas
Progra
Wildlife Management Vision Statement :
The City of Fo rt Collins Natural Areas
Program will strive to conserve a diversity of
self-sustaining native wildlife populations on
City natural areas that are harmonious with
the surrounding environment and compatible
with ecological resources .
0 ow
IF
. �
Natu
A
tyefFeno= p,006
Overarching Themes
These wildlife management guidelines :
➢ Identify ecosystem health as a desired endpoint and
adaptive management as a functional approach .
➢ Balance environmental , economic and social
concerns in managing wildlife .
➢ Articulate protocols when wildlife conflicts arise .
➢ Emphasize tools that reduce conflicts , reflect
community value , and sustain ecological integrity .
➢ Provide for public accountability by requiring semi -
annual report to Land Conservation and Stewardship
Board on wildlife management activities .
Context of Wildlife Guidelines
Wildlife Management Guidelines are suggested best
management practices subordinate to . .
➢ Federal Wildlife Law
➢ State Law and Policies of Colorado Division of Wildlife
➢ City of Fort Collins Municipal and Land Use Codes
➢ Natural Areas Program Site Management Plans (where site
specific management objectives are established)
_ r - �) R \ ,
ti
WILDLIFE
Natu`=\1111
arveeeon coum PY g5
i
1W _WV
i
Prairie Dog Guidel ines
➢ Works to achieve multiple goals of prairie dog
conservation and grassland health .
➢ Outlines new adaptive management approach by
identifying suitable habitat and managing for spatial
variability within a natural area (zoning) .
➢ Proposes continued cooperative work with USDA on
contraceptive techniques .
➢ Commit to semi - annual reporting on management
activities to Land Conservation & Stewardship Board .
Summary of Review Process
➢ Public Review
• City website from ( 1 / 12 — 2/9)
• Open House (2/5 )
➢ Board & Council Oversight
• Land Conservation & Stewardship Board ( 12/ 13 & 2/ 14 )
• City Council Worksession ( 1 /9)
• Natural Resource Advisory Board ( 1 / 17 )
➢ Peer (Technical) Review (Dec ' 06 — Feb ' 07 )
including CDOW , USFWS , CSU , USDA , LC Open
Lands , City Utilities
Requested Council Action
Staff recommendation with Board support to
rescind Resolution 199 &3 7 the 1998 Prairie
Dog Policy for City Natural Areas
RESOLUTION 2007-019
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
RESCINDING RESOLUTION 1998-037, WHICH ADOPTED
A PRAIRIE DOG POLICY FOR CITY NATURAL AREAS
WHEREAS,in 1997,the Council established a Prairie Dog Policy Review Committee(the
"Review Committee"), consisting of City staff and various members of the community,in order to
examine and consider possible modification of the City's existing policies with regard to the
management of prairie dogs; and
WHEREAS, the Review Committee developed a number of policy statements in the form
of a Prairie Dog Policy for City Natural Areas,which was presented to the City Council for adoption
(the"Prairie Dog Policy"); and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 1998, the City Council approved Resolution 1998-037, adopting
the Prairie Dog Policy; and
WHEREAS, as the Natural Areas program has grown and evolved, both the needs of the
program and the expertise of Natural Areas staff have also evolved; and
WHEREAS, Natural Areas staff has developed Wildlife Management Guidelines to guide
Natural Areas system-wide and site-specific management to support ecosystem health and address
all wildlife species on City natural areas; and
WHEREAS, the Wildlife Management Guidelines will be adopted administratively and
updated administratively as program needs and resources continue to evolve over time, and will
contain provisions to address the management of prairie dogs; and
WHEREAS, to avoid conflicting and overlapping provisions regarding prairie dog
management,and to allow staffto administratively adopt policies regarding prairie dogs as necessary
for the management ofNatural Areas,staff has requested that Council rescind Resolution 1998-037,
and thereby rescind the previously approved Prairie Dog Policy; and
WHEREAS,the City Council reviewed the proposed Wildlife Management Guidelines and
the concept of those Guidelines replacing the Prairie Dog Policy at its Work Session on January 9,
2007; and
WHEREAS, staff presented the Wildlife Management Guidelines to the Natural Resources
Advisory Board at the Board's meeting on January 17,2007,and the Board also recommended that
the Council rescind Resolution 1998-037 and allow for the adoption of the Wildlife Management
Guidelines; and
WHEREAS,staff presented the Wildlife Management Guidelines to the Land Conservation
and Stewardship Board at the Board's meeting on February 15,2007, and the Board recommended
that the Council rescind Resolution 1998-037 and allow for the adoption of the Wildlife
Management Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, that Resolution 1998-037, Adopting a Prairie Dog Policy for City Natural Areas, is
hereby rescinded and shall have no further force or effect.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 20th day of February,
A.D. 2007.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk