HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddenda - RFP - P982 BOBCAT RIDGE TRAIL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTON (7)Appendix I
City of Fort Collins
City Council Approved Natural Areas Acquisition Considerations
Pulliam Ranch, Masonville, CO
On April 1, 2003, City of Fort Collins City Council adopted resolution 2003-051 that
established a set of seven considerations (in no priority order) as a general guide for the
Natural Areas Program in land conservation and acquisition efforts. Briefly respond to the
following questions and provide additional information if necessary.
1. Is the current landowner a willing seller/donor? (choose one)
a. Yes, owner is making partial / whole donation
b. Yes, seller is highly motivated
c. Yes, seller is willing to negotiate
d. No, not willing to sell or negotiate
2. Describe the potential recreation opportunities for this property. (choose one)
a. High appropriate recreation opportunity with extensive public access
b. Moderate appropriate recreation opportunity with limited public access
c. No recreation opportunity (explain) __________________________
3. Describe the ecological value of this property.
a. High - the property is large or native or hosts rare species/communities
or is a critical wildlife corridor
b. Moderate - the property has important but not unusual ecological values
c. Moderate – the property has some values and needs some restoration
d. Low – the property requires significant ecological restoration
4. What is the anticipated acquisition cost for this property? (state the amount)
$5.5 Million
5. Estimate the long-term stewardship costs for this property?
a. General Operations: $___________annually
b. Public Improvements:$___________one-time cost
c. Restoration: $___________annually
d. Other Liabilities: $___________one-time cost
e. Education: $___________one-time/annual cost
6. Describe the property’s geographic proximity to Fort Collins.
a. Within City Limits
b. Less than 30 minutes from the City
c. 30 – 60 minutes from the City
7. Describe the threat to the integrity of the property’s natural resource values (choose
one).
a. Development is imminent (includes subdivision to 35-acre parcels)
b. Development is anticipated to occur within 3 years
c. Development is anticipated to occur within 5 – 10 years
d. Property is non-growth/low threat area
Based on questions 1 – 7, in your opinion would conservation of this property be of
significant public benefit to the citizens of Fort Collins? (Yes or no and please explain)
Yes, because of the extensive natural resources, abundant wildlife, close proximity to
Fort Collins this property would be of significant public benefit for natural, scenic and
recreational resources.
Appendix I
As part of the public outreach process the Natural Areas Program conducted twelve tours of
Bobcat Ridge, eight of which were specifically for the public, to introduce people to the site.
The tours occurred from June through October, 2004. In addition to the natural area tours,
three open houses, two of which were specifically for the public, were held to provide
information on staff-recommended management actions for Bobcat Ridge. The open houses
took place on November 3, November 17 and December 8, 2004.
The following tables summarize the feedback collected from tour and open house attendees.
The first set of tables shows the percentage of respondents who gave that answer for the
stated question listed in the field trip brochure. The last table provides all additional
comments that did not fit into a specific category from the questionnaire.
Bobcat Ridge Tour Brochure – outside cover
Bobcat Ridge Tour Brochure – inside cover
Appendix I
All comments from all feedback forms (181) & open house cards
What types of recreational uses would you like to see here?
Recreation Types
Backcountry Camping 7 2%
Biking 54 13%
Birdwatching 21 5%
Camping (Other) 25 6%
Education 7 2%
Hiking 136 33%
Horseback 57 14%
Hunting 7 2%
Picnicking 22 5%
Tours/Nature Walks 16 4%
Other: (see below) 56 14%
No dogs: 14 (including extra comments below):
No Dogs (some owners turn loose, not all safe - even on dog leash on narrow trails, little motivation to "pick
up"),
Thanks for NO DOGS! Too disturbing to wildlife
Dogs-NO. I see too many off leash in leash areas & I've been 'nipped' by a leashed dog. Seems to be plenty of
other areas for dog walking.
Dogs would be the last allowed to use the area.
Allow dogs on leash 7: (including comment below):
I would like to see the property open to dogs on leash with a one strike rule. If a ranger contacts an animal
owner with the animal off leash, the dog is prohibited from the park.
No mountain bikers 10: (including comments below):
No bikes (no appreciation of aesthetics eyes only on trail ahead, go too fast downhill, Lots of other places to
take dogs, horses and bikes).
I support some areas (this one?) for "non-bike use". I am a biker, however
We need at least one nice place like this which keeps trail bikes out.
Other comments on mountain bike use:
I would like to see bicycling minimized or carefully controlled. I love to bicycle on the road and I know other
love the trails, but I know that mountain bikes can really tear up a trail, especially steeper ones. Thus, I would
recommend creating trails that have an easy grade. I would recommend against visible switchbacks whenever
possible to minimize shortcutting.
I'd like to see a lot of attention given to trail design in regards to mountain biking.
Biking on service roads only
If Mtn bikes allowed - enforce trail use & etiquette
I'd like to see bicycle access limited due to trail erosion and need for two trail systems
Mountain bikers do not follow regulations. They endanger hikers' lives by speeding and refusing to yield. I
support separate trails for hikers and cyclists!
The City should move away from their anti-mountain bike stance.
No Horses: 4
Horses tear up turf. Horse trailers take up too much parking space. Seems to be plenty of other areas for horseback
riding.
Trailers rob parking space, "road apples"
Other horse comments:
Make horses wear the horse diapers.
Control weeds by making horses wear horse diapers - people carry out their horses droppings.
No motorized vehicles: 9
Patrol on Horseback (2)
No ATVs.
No motorized activity, except maintenance and enforcement.
Motorized vehicles: 2 (including comments below)
some 4-wheel drive area
1-2 roads with vehicle access for wildlife viewing areas, picnicking area near the cabin with car access
Since I don't hike it would be great if I could drive (or use a shuttle) to scenic areas or wildlife viewing areas.
Rock Climbing 1
No rock climbing: 4 (including comments below):
Rock Climbing in not appropriate here - find other places not as sensitive.
Don't like idea of rock climbing - users too noisy and ruin natural area experience. Also too damaging to
resources (wildlife disturbances, habitat, plant community destruction)
No Camping: 3
Limited camping: 4 (including comments below)
If camping considered - only below teepee rings and away from trails and only boy scouts and the like
Allow individual backcountry camping as well as group camping. Provide latrine at backcountry camping areas
so the sites won't be damaged.
Camp area for hunters
Hunting: 2 (including comments below)
Hunting could be properly managed, as a culling tool.
Would like to suggest that hunting be considered but only open for youth hunters accompanied by a mentor
(Father, Uncle, Etc).
How are you guys planning on managing the wildlife? What about letting the Colorado Division of Wildlife
manage it and have some sort of lottery?
Hunting is traditional on this property. Keep it up - even if on permit only basis
No hunting: 6 (including comments below)
I would be concerned to have hunting co-existing with hiking, biking and other recreational activities here. In
addition to concerns for safety, it would certainly lessen my natural experience to hear gun shots or see animals
being killed.
I'm opposed to hunting. Too dangerous!
NO recreational hunting. This is not the visitor experience I want.
I'm not against hunting in general, but hunting where people are simultaneously hiking is worrisome.
I strongly prefer that there be no hunting allowed. We avoid Lory State Park during hunting season - it's just
not safe.
No hunting until time and real studies indicates that hunting would be beneficial to the area.
Other recreational uses/comments:
Llama hiking (4)
Cross country skiing (5)
Snowshoe (2)
Running
Running trails - include canal pond!
Wildlife Tracking
Nature interpretation
Passive Activities
Orienteering
Picnic areas accessible to elderly
No Picnicking
Wildflower admirers, geology studies, riparian studies….
Regional trail connections
Geology of area
Good to offer family-oriented activities up there to bring the younger families out that far away
Eliminate noise pollution or keep all noise out.
Human foot traffic only
Foot trails only. The loop to the cabin was good. You could see up close the valley and rocks and see west Mtns.
Then while at teepee rings you could see to the east
Let people hike anywhere they want.
Eliminate on-trail on designations for hikers only. I.e. Mtn biking and horses should be on-trail only everywhere.
Have trails, but let people walking (only) go off trail at will.
NO RVs!!
Will be a very popular place - don't open it to everything.
During the course of a year, how many times are you likely to visit Bobcat Ridge?
Average: 6-7
Depends on management plan
For hunting only
Once trails are established I plan to frequent the area.
Am willing to let wildlife alone
Are you likely to bring children under the age of 10?
Children<10
Yes 29%
No 71%
Start teaching outdoors habits while they are young.
If educational purposes
Would you prefer multi-use trails or separate trails for biking, hiking and horseback riding?
Multi-Use/ Separated
Multi-Use 23%
Separated 77%
Both:
Separated for the main one; others combined
Separated except on service roads
I like the idea of setting it up like Horsetooth Park trails.
Probably prefer different trails, but multi-use is OK
Separate if possible, Multi-use OK
Primarily separated, but some trails (such as roads) could serve as both
Variety of single use/multi-use trails
Separate:
If separate it would be for ecological purpose
Separated, depending on terrain, etc
Separate, unless you don't have the funding
Separated, especially in the lower half of the property
Single use trails resolve conflicts between hikers, bikers and equestrians yet limit what each trail offers visibility to.
Austin, TX offers parallel single use trails. That seemed a good resolution.
Hiking only trail:
Some multi-use, a few specific for hiking
Separated, Don’t want biking or horses
Separate, biking and horseback can be one trail, have hiking trail for hiking only
Separate, but combining bike & horse okay
Separate, but prefer hiking only
Separate hiking, combine bike & horses
Hiking-separate, biking & horseback-together
Maintain separate use classes for trails, bikes & horses separate from hiking. Destination hike only to Mahoney
Park, no loop.
Horse only trail:
Separated for horses
Separate the horses
Multi, except for horses
Separated for horseback
Biking & Hiking-OK, Horseback-separate
Separate trails for biking and hiking OK, horseback riding separate
Bike only trail:
Separate off bikes; horses and foot trails OK together
I don't like hiking where there are bikes
Biking separate, hiking & horseback OK combined
Good to keep biking separate from hikers, allow llamas on regular hiking trails.
We urge you to separate bike and hiking trails
Separate mountain bikers from others. It's disturbing to always have to move out of their way. All of BR should be
on-trail only. Great on the accessible trail idea. I know people who would love this!
Separate bike from hiking except when it doesn't make sense
Keep mountain biking on valley loop trail ONLY. Keep "grand" loop for horses, people on foot, llamas only. Do
not separate trail used on "grand" loop. Site should be on-trail only to protect wildlife.
Multi-use:
Great Project! Hope mountain biking could be integrated into all trails
Multi-use or separate parallel trails
Depends - if shared, trails need to be built so bikes do minimum damage
Other comments concerning the trails:
A loop trail would be great.
A foot trail south and then east from Mahoney Park back to the parking lot would be nice
Property Comments: Build & design the trails correctly and user conflicts will not be existent. Loop outer trail
immediately - out & backs cause conflicts.
I'm strongly in favor of a hikers-only trail. As someone who hikes on the Foothills trail in the Maxwell Natural
Area four to five times per week, I see a lot of mountain bikers violating the yield rules (most don't yield to hikers
nor do they give a verbal warning) and dog owners violating the leash law (even if they have their dog on a leash,
they often don't have it under control - too much slack, so the dogs lunge at us and try to bite us. My partner was
bitten by a dog on the Foothills Trail recently. Thanks for the opportunity to comment!
Mountain High Trail Assoc. is very interested in being involved in planning consultation and construction n trails
and educating riders about multi-use ethics on these new trails.
It's a beautiful site and great asset to the City. I'd love to see the trail have a overlook of the spot just past Mahoney
Park looking out to Longs Peak.
Minimal trail improvement to retain natural look. Variety of trails (short, med or long loops, bird watching - good
viewing points, riparian areas, woods, scenic, degree of difficulty). Wooded Area (part unrestored after fire, part
restored/planted after fire). A prime and varied area close to urban areas - be watchful to prevent overuse
destroying it naturalness (NO Starbucks at trailhead :) ) Strive for simplicity to preserve a "wilderness and natural"
area.
I think off trail hiking should be allowed but not encouraged. I think Horsetooth Mtn Park and Lory State Park are
good models of what the public expects and how ex-ranches can be made public.
One or several main trails done as loops with cutoffs for length/degree of difficulty variance. Dedicated trail to
avoid County road is good.
I would like to see trail routes before answering
Why do humans have to be in there?
Don't pave any trails
Are limited, permit only, designated backcountry campsites an appropriate use here?
Backcountry Camping
Yes 72%
No 28%
Yes comments:
Very limited (3)
I'd want to know how "in-demand" sites @ Lory are - only do this if other sites are overcrowded
On the western side
Experimental
As long as there is no negative impact
Some cabins would be good
I would like to see the park have backcountry camping but not to have developed campsites for vehicles. Permits
should also be used.
Like permit backcountry camp sites, but not group site.
No comments:
Foot travel only and day use only. It already burned.
If it is possible to manage, preferably NO
Don't believe the area is rugged enough to interest backpackers
I would prefer day use only. There are many campsites available nearby
Maybe: (6)
But why?
Would have to assess impact
Stoves only
In more "fire resistant" sites
Are there certain biological or historical features you think should be protected?
Bio/Historical Protection
Brooks Canyon 4%
Cabin 25%
Cliffs 4%
Fire Area 2%
Native Plants 6%
Plum Tree 1%
Ranch Features 4%
Sensitive Bird/Wildlife Areas 9%
Streams 6%
Teepee 22%
Other 15%
Cultural Resources:
Historical Protection - Yes if features are identified by surveys and found to be worthy
The old cabin should be preserved as it might have looked at the turn of the century
The historic building should all be retained. The cabin ruins should be interpreted (as should all the buildings and
structures); the second cabin could be restored! Most of the corrals and animal sheds can be used for the public
and/or the rangers horses
All historical sites/features should be protected otherwise they'll be gone forever
Farm houses as museums??
No matter what the age it can have something to say about the homesteading history of the area
Yes and no, depends on the age and importance to time
Old Stoves
Yes, the buildings and corrals at the entrance and nesting areas during nesting season
Don't spend much on these old buildings, corrals. It's just not worth it. Maybe restore just the cabin near NE corner
- get rid of chicken house, barn.
The Born site
Natural Resources:
All listed cultural and biological with emphasis on birds and flowers
Water Features should be protected for wildlife. Can the cabin really be protected?
Geology (4): Need geological feature of interest markers
As well as all natural features
Natural Areas
A management plan that attempts to restore native fauna & flora
No climbing on east rims, do not extend vehicle travel to public, only for Nix crew to work. Who ranched it and up
to how the City purchased.
Property should be managed with the best interests of the land and wildlife in mind. I trust the archeological
assessment with regards to history.
I don't know enough about what is there, but am all for preservation & protecting wildlife habitat
Keep natural as natural as possible
All of the biological plants and animals
I feel all the resources mentioned on the yellow board should be protected, to some extent - not off limits, maybe
w/interpretive signs. The least important to me is the fire b/c it is so small and fast fire that didn't seem to do
extensive damage to the soil (I guess I'm just referring to the grass fire last summer), I would like some more info
on the Bobcat Ridge Fire area.
Remove all dams that pond water for cattle!
Keep cows out of the creek and riparian areas. Add prairie dogs - see article in Fall 04 issue of
Nature...Conservancy magazine on prairie ecology and management
Buck and Rail fence along irrigation to deter wildlife. Provide watering tanks near the ditch to deter wildlife from
jumping the fence to get water.
Please do not allow public access east of the irrigation ditch
Remove existing fences to restore natural wildlife habitat.
Other/everything:
Yes, I think the project sounds well researched and areas needing that protection will receive it.
I think the area should be "open" but with good management so use does not 'spoil' the features
All available to save
All mentioned on this
Anything rare
Not sure, if something unique needs protection
Encourage trail use
Leave no trace and take nothing should be highlighted
Is grazing by domesticated cattle an appropriate use at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area…
…when used for vegetation management goals?
Grazing - Veg
Yes 74%
No 26%
Yes comments/ Maybe: (9)
Goats would be better
Needs more study
Bison would be better
Try goats :)
No Cattle, perhaps some other animal
Only if staff agrees, limited
Preferably no, but some limited use if appropriate
Limited to low lands only
Don't overgraze
Questionable
No comments:
No. If vet manage goals require cattle you should rethink your goals
No! Definitely not! No! Cattle are very destructive
I like the use/introduction of natural disturbances to manage for species. I wasn't sure if grazing by cattle is
considered "natural". I do agree that if done properly, grazing is a very useful management tool.
…to maintain ranching tradition?
Grazing - Ranch
Yes 51%
No 49%
Yes comments/ Maybe:
Partially, and if you add educational info on best management practices and sustainability you could have a nice
demonstration project to show ranchers (with CSU)
Yes, more! w/story of history, over grazing by the west in the past to proper management of today
But not as much
Only if compatible w/vet management
If doesn't interfere with other activities
Only if grazing is limited and kept away from drainages/riparian areas
Maybe
Limited (2)
As long as it does not expand
Not important, however it would generate funds for use in maintenance of the site
No comments:
No! not Nat Res job
No. ranching tradition my ass! Like this needs to be "preserved" in CO?
No, I don't know much about this issue, but I don't think that cows are particularly good for the ecosystem. Again, I
think it will be well researched to protect the natural area.
There are other sites for this
No, unless it conflicts with someone's livelihood
I think it is a risk to have livestock roaming with the public, especially if the public needs to be responsible for
opening and closing gates
No, return to natural-native grasses
No! not to allow cattle to graze for free. Cattle prevent native plants (e.g. grasses) to reproduce. Non-native plants
then take over.
I strongly feel cattle grazing just to keep ranching tradition is STUPID! and should only be allowed for vegetation
control (or whatever would be a sound ecological reason).
NO - It's not a ranch anymore, it's public land
Other grazing comments in general:
If not too many
Both - when done properly (sustainably) ranching can be a valuable part of the ecology
Yes part of Western Heritage but limit to prevent overgrazing
On partial areas
Yes, and horses, goats, llamas, alpaca
Yes and valuable to user experience
Except for bad drainage on road
But fenced away from trail
Keep them out of riparian and hiking trail areas
We see enough cows - don't keep them here too
Please do not allow cattle to graze at this natural are! I went on a hike to climb a mountain in Moab, UT and there
were smelly cows and cow droppings everywhere in which I stepped in later coming back from the hike. I cannot
stress enough how inconvenient and frustrating it is to have to dodge cow manure. If cows were allowed to graze
then I might as well be hiking and camping in a cow field, YUCK!
No, they can be too destructive
No livestock at or above teepee rings.
Serves no sustainable purpose here
I favor eliminating grazing by phasing it out over a period years using grazing as a vegetation management tool.
What topics would you like to see on education and interpretation signs?
Education Topics
Birds/Wildlife 21%
Cultural Heritage 10%
Fire Area 6%
Flora/Vegetation 23%
Geology 14%
Historical Features 15%
Other (see below) 12%
Comments on signage/method of education/interpretation:
Interpretive signs
Not too many signs!
Keep signage "natural" in keeping w/surroundings
Signs lined up and what you can see - like at Coyote Ridge has
Same as Coyote Ridge
Good interpretation please, include appropriate signs - good trailhead signs with interpretive, cultural, natural
history. Have outreach program w/kid groups and school. Get kids there
Guides, posted stations, available literature or brochures for events
Ecology:
Flora medicinal uses, look-out maps signs and names
Ecosystem - how all elements interrelate
Transition zone info, general ecology of the area
Forest Ecology
Signs about birds, mammals and plants, warning signs about rattlesnakes
Restoration Progress
Maps:
Maps, altitude info
A good map
Miles exactly spelled out
Mileage & Maps
Trail maps
I hope they'll provide trail maps when area is open.
Fairly detailed maps to show routes to areas of special interest (show mileage, degree of difficulty, elevation)
Trail Maps (Mileage, points of interest, elevation).
Explanation of things to observe and respect; maps of trails (length and altitude) and info on Hansen Canal
Human Impact/ Cultural Resources / Other:
The ridge shows what damage & to what extent a careless campfire can do
Importance of keeping the area clean
The impact of humans on "so-called" natural areas.
Inter-connectedness; ranching
Multi-use trail etiquette (3)
History of the families associated with the site; history of ranching and related contexts i.e. stone industry;
geological and natural resources identified and described; native American history & the fire in 2000
Great presentation, eventually, some more recreation planning maps (i.e. trails, etc). Settlement and pre-settlement
historical education plans - what are the plans for native - information/education of? I'm sure the Native peoples'
decedents of the original teepee ring-makers would love to visit those sites.
As a student of Natural Resources and with a love of nature I totally support Natural Areas. I am especially pleased
with the plan to develop the cultural history - A project I would love to do an internship with:
Names of nearby rocks
Boundaries need to be marked
What did you find most interesting on this field trip?
Most Interesting
Birds/Wildlife 13%
Brooks Canyon 6%
Cabin 7%
Cattle/Ranch/Cowpies 1%
Fire Area 5%
Flora/Vegetation 7%
Geology 6%
Landscape 24%
Mahoney Park 3%
Teepee 11%
Other (see below) 17%
Diversity of ecosystems and topography:
The whole place (2)
Just overall general trip - beautiful area!
Diversity
Vast, much to explore, varied terrain
Diversity of terrain and ecosystems
Topography
The ability to see changes as we gained elevation
Range of ecosystems
Variety of eco systems
The variety of eco-systems
The transition from lowlands to mountains, and the hawks nest
Wildlife:
Enjoyed being in pines saw a western tanager
Sighting Wildlife - 1 elk, 2 deer, 3 hawks
Seeing the fledglings
Cultural Resources:
Historical sites
That there is great history of Indian passage and future with its new owners.
History of area
Homestead
The ranch house and building and yard, thrasher & combine & Hansen Canal
Quiet/other:
Unspoiled quiet
Quiet & Peacefulness
To hear & see the creek
Riparian area
Ecology, history
Openness
The hillside
Mahoney Park Preservation
Just being out on the land, enjoyed the walking
The closeness and similarity to Horsetooth Mt. Park
View of Long's Peak
Seeing that we are taking steps to preserve land.
Connections to other public areas
What part of the field trip was the least interesting?
Least Interesting
Cabin 4%
Cattle/Ranch/Cowpies 33%
Fire Area 2%
Flora/Vegetation 2%
Man-made (fence/roads/etc) 20%
Other (see below) 39%
Low area hiking in road
Bottom part from the start
The hill
The hike to Mahoney Park
Open fields, farmhouse
Pond (Yucky!-overgrown)
Would have liked to see some animals
Watching cattle impact the open space.
Preservation of old, rickety buildings (demolish them)
Better area mapping
Didn't get to burn area.
Didn't get to top of hill
Van ride/ drive (3)
Pre-hike
Doing this!
Rock in my shoe
Rain
Horses
Sometimes too much talking about non-related things
Is reconstruction or preservation of historic and prehistoric features an appropriate use of
Natural Areas funds?
Preservation
Yes 88%
No 12%
Yes comments:
We don't have much of this kind of preservation. We have it. Let's preserve it.
Up to 30% total funds
Yes, disturb as little as possible
Make it a tourist attraction
Preservation only (2)
Preservation only, limited to bare essentials if at all. Original is best
I believe that the preservation of historic and prehistoric features is appropriate use of natural area funds but not
reconstruction. Leave it as it and just provide a barrier and sign with important information if necessary that does
not allow humans to trample and damage what is valuable
Preservation of prehistoric features
But maybe not reconstruction
Yes, but to much less extent than trails & trail maintenance
But invest in the trails first
Yes, as part of the maintenance
Perhaps not restoration, but more "dilapidation arrest"
Not too much, let some of it just decay away
Maybe: (3)
If there are any significant natural features
If features are worth it
If it complements the public's use of the site
If significant
Limited (3)
Sometimes expensive
Maybe-not if impacting other acquisitions significantly
Good Question - what does legislation say? Maybe not.
No comments:
No, but NA could seek other funding
No, let historical society
Use historic preservation funds
That seems like a stretch
Maintenance of forest and range should be done by forest and range management professionals.
Should there be designated “wilderness areas” of the natural area that would have no or very
limited public access?
Limited Public
Access
Yes 68%
No 32%
Yes comments:
I'm a strong believer in wilderness areas as sanctuaries that should be allowed to exist on their own and not
necessarily for use by humans. Not all areas should be set aside, of course, but maybe some of the landscape that
has seen little use via recreation and/or extraction, grazing, etc could see very limited use
Only if important for wildlife habitat and limited access
Yes - for hunters only
Yes, for sensitive wildlife
To protect fragile areas, yes
Yes, especially is needed for the ecosystem health.
Yes - private tours
Yes, but chosen carefully for specific reasons
Only during nesting of offspring time or migratory times
In sensitive areas
Yes, if there was an area sensitive to wildlife
For wildlife only
If appropriate for preservation
To prevent erosion and damage
Low usage but open to the public
Yes if adjoins other habitat - pretty small for real wilderness, could have seasonal habitat closures
Yes. The foothill from the creek in brooks canyon and to the south of it has been a haven for many wild animals and
birds for over 114 years and has not been and should not be disrupted by people. Cattle are fine as they have been
there too over the years. I'm sure there are other areas I can find out about.
There should be at least 2,000 acres of the 2,700 designated as wilderness areas that would have limited public
access. I think this natural area needs to provide some sanctuary or wildlife refuge to animals, vegetation, and
birds. The world has access to everything it seems and we tend to abuse natural entities
Yes! ALL of it.
That might be wise
Sensitive vegetation
Yes, but minimal
Do what you need to in order to make it last.
If necessary
Limited (3)
Maybe
No comments:
No - manage like HT Mtn Park and Lory SP - except no hunting
When trails are fully developed, travel should be on them only
BRNA should be "trail only" this site has no "wilderness" characteristics
Limited to foot traffic
Having areas w/limited trail access is fine but off trail foot access should be allowed
This is the wrong definition of wilderness. Foot traffic only should always be allowed.
What is point of a park w/o public access?
Taxpayer bought
No, full use with discretion
Additional Comments
Good rest room up higher would be good.
Don't lump llama's with other livestock!
No smoking much appreciated
Keep it no smoking!
Keep as much natural as possible.
Leave nature alone
Humans cannot and too often won't follow legal and ethical rules and regulation. Putting aside open space should
not be for human use & benefit. We are not the only creatures with the right to life.
I hope development of this area will be accomplished in a reasonable time frame and that the City will provide
opportunities for volunteers
I call our FC Natural Areas whole program "quick, before it's gone". Strongly support the selected use of
"wilderness" classification.
Too much "management" by the City is bad - ex: Pineridge Natural Area
It's close to town - put more resources here rather than distant areas
We are residents of Masonville, very happy to see this land protected. Keep the area natural.
Thanks for the opportunity to explore - it's a fine area and location, will be a valuable open lands area. Keep up the
good work - looking forward to using it.
The City of Fort Collins made a wise decision to purchase and preserve this site. Within a few years it would not
have been available and home development would have claimed it. I am anxious to see what you plan to do with
Soapstone.
Need larger map of trails, need vicinity map in relation to County Open Spaces, Parks, and Lory State Park.
Wonderful tour, great hiking, this is a beautiful place and I would like to see it maintained in its natural state
I think it's terrific to have places like this preserved
Pleased that Fort Collins is owner
Very enjoyable and convenient location. Beautiful planning with lots of prospects for trails development. Good luck
planning!
A great addition to the City.
Great Place! Can't wait to come back.
Very interesting walk in a great place. So glad it has been set aside for the future enjoyment of Fort Collins
citizens.
Thanks for the opportunity, scheduled naturalist trips would be great
Can't wait for it to open! Have birding trips to canyon!
Please keep canyon open for guided birding trips
Great purchase, keep brooks canyon open thanks!
We have a treasure for Fort Collins and Larimer County
Natural Resources is to be commended for their foresight in acquiring this and other natural areas and open space
land. What a site!
Great tour, excited for it to be opened to the public. I think for preserved sites, teepee, burial, cabin, etc... we should
have a guided tour weekly, monthly.
Great name Bobcat Ridge. Good variety of terrain. Close to town.
Would like to be a part of this - I've been over all of it on horse
It was a fun day and enjoyed the company with the other people. I'm glad that Fort Collins is preserving the Bobcat
Ridge
Appendix IV
Significant Mammalian Species Likely to be Present
Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat
Types*
Elevation
Range (ft)
CDOW
Status
American Elk Cervus elaphus
nelsoni
Cervidae 2 – 6 6,000 – 13,000 Big-Game
Mule Deer Hemionus hemionus Cervidae 2 – 6 3,000 – 13,000 Big-Game
Coyote Canis latrans Canidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 14,500 Furbearer
Red Fox Vulpes macroura Canidae 1 – 2
4 – 6
3,000 – 14,500 Non-Native
Furbearer
Black Bear Americanus
amblyceps
Ursidae 2
4 – 7
4,500 – 11,500 Big-Game
Raccoon Procyon lotor Procyonidae 1, 2, 5 3,000 – 10,000 Furbearer
Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Mustelidae 1 3,000 – 10,000 Furbearer
Mountain Lion Puma concolor Felidae 2 – 6 3,000 – 12,500 Big-Game
Bobcat Lynx rufus Felidae 2 – 7 3,000 – 14,500 Furbearer
Black-tailed Prairie
Dog
Cynomys
ludovicianus
Sciuridae 1, 3, 4 3,000 – 6,500 State
Species of
Concern
Abert’s Squirrel Sciurus aberti Sciuridae 2, 4, 5 5,000 – 9,000 Small-
Game
Common
Porcupine
Erethizon dorsatum Erethizontidae 2 – 7 3,000 – 14,500 Not-Listed
Rock Squirrel Variegatus
grammurus
Sciuridae 1 – 7 3,000 – 8,300 Not-Listed
Bat spp. Chiroptera Federal or
State
Species of
Concern
*Habitat Types:
1. Urban and Croplands
2. Riparian/ Wetlands
3. Grasslands
4. Shrublands
5. Forestlands
6. Tundra
7. Unvegetated, Exposed-Rock
Significant Mammalian Species of Possible Occurrence
Common Name Scientific Name Family Habitat
Types*
Elevation
Range (ft)
CDOW
Status
Gray Fox Cinffeoargenteus
scottii
Canidae 2 – 5
7
5,500 – 13,000 Not-Listed
Western Spotted
Skunk
Gracilis gracilis Mustelidae 4, 5, 7 4,000 – 8,000 Not-Listed
Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis Bovidae 2 – 7 4,500 – 14,500 Big-Game
White-tailed Deer Odocoileus
virginianus
Cervidae 2 – 5 3,000 – 12,000 Big-Game
Yellow-Bellied
Marmot
Marmota flaviventris Sciuridae 2
4 – 7
5,400 – 14,500 Small-
Game
American Badger Taxus berlandier Mustelidae 2 – 6 4,500 – 14,500 Furbearer
Preble’s meadow
jumping mouse
Zapus hudsonius
preblei
Zapodidae 1 – 3 4,000 – 8,500 Federally
threatened
and State
Species of
Special
Concern
* Habitat Types: see footnote for Table 1
Big Thompson River
Potential Conservation Area
Biodiversity Rank: B2 (Very high biodiversity significance)
The Big Thompson River site supports a good (B-ranked), an average (C-ranked) and
four poor (D-ranked) occurrence of the globally- and state-imperiled (G5T2 S1) Preble's
meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei), a subspecies designated as sensitive
(Forest Service), as federally threatened, and as a species of special concern (State of
Colorado).
Protection Urgency Rank: P2 (High urgency)
It is estimated that stresses may reduce the viability of the Preble's meadow jumping mice
in the potential conservation area if protection action is not taken.
Management Urgency Rank: M3 (Moderate urgency)
New management actions may be needed within five years to maintain the current quality
of the jumping mouse occurrences.
Location: This potential conservation area eastern boundary is at the confluence of
Buckhorn Creek and the Big Thompson River west of Loveland, Colorado. The western
boundary extends to Glen Haven and Glen Comfort, Colorado. This conservation area can
be accessed by taking Colorado Highway 34 west along the Big Thompson River Canyon
and along the Devils Gulch Road through Glen Haven, Colorado.
Legal Description:
U.S.G.S. 7.5-minute quadrangles: Horsetooth Reservoir, Masonville, Buckhorn Mountain,
Drake, Crystal Mountain, Glen Haven.
T005N R069W 6,7
T005N R070W 1-12, 16-20
T005N R071W 1-3,7-9, 12, 15-19
T005N R072W 12-14, 23-24
T006N R070W 3-10, 14-20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30-32, 35, 36
T006N R071W 1-3, 10-14, 23-27, 29-35
T006N R072W 23-27
T007N R070W 19, 30, 31-33
T007N R071W 3, 4 , 7-10, 13-18 , 23-26
Size: 17,820 acres (7,210 hectares)
Elevation: 5,085 – 7,400 feet (1,550 - 2,250 meters)
General Description: The Big Thompson River flows west to east in southern Larimer
County. This conservation area includes much of the Big Thompson River and Buckhorn
Creek, plus the following major tributaries: Bear Gulch, North Fork of the Big Thompson
River, and Dry Creek.
The riparian vegetation is dominated by willow (Salix spp.) with scattered stands of
cottonwood (Populus spp.). Also found in these mesic habitats are snowberry
(Symphoricarpos occidentalis), wild rose (Rosa woodsii), and mountain mahogany
(Cercocarpus montanus). Stream banks retain native graminoid vegetation in the form of
sedges (Carex spp.) and rushes (Juncus spp.). Surrounding uplands are generally midgrass
prairie with pine stands (Pinus ponderosa).
Biodiversity Rank Comments: This potential conservation area is of high global
significance because it is probably one of the best-known occurrences of a globally-rare
subspecies. This may be one of the most extensive populations of Preble’s meadow jumping
mice within the South Platte River drainage. This potential conservation area that
incorporates the Big Thompson River and the associated tributaries provides protection from
stochastic events that may affect portions of the Big Thompson River population or segments
of the population within tributaries. This complex of mainstem waterway and tributaries
lends a degree of protection from such stochastic events that might jeopardize a more
homogenous population that is susceptible to site-specific catastrophic events. This potential
conservation area includes the habitat parameters that are likely critical to Prebles’ jumping
mouse persistence: dense herbaceous and shrub riparian communities and upland grassland
communities free from urban impacts.
Boundary Justification: The boundaries of this conservation area were defined based on
the presence of Preble’s meadow jumping mice throughout the system. The boundary
includes 300 meters on either side of the associated creek. This is designed to include the
riparian vegetation and associated upland grass communities that have been documented as
part of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat. The distance of 300 meters was intended to
be conservative, likely including a greater amount of upland community than most mice will
utilize, but sufficient in all circumstances to ensure persistence of jumping mice. A better
approximation of this potential conservation area would be the area that includes the 100-
year floodplain and an additional 100 meters of adjacent upland habitat. Until these data
layers are available for all areas within the conservation area, this conservation boundary
should provide the persistence of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse in this area.
Table . Natural Heritage element occurrences at the Big Thompson River PCA.
Element Common
Name
Global
Rank
State
Rank
Federal
Status
State
Status
Federal
Sensitive
EO*
Rank
Last
Observed
Mammals
Zapus
hudsonius
preblei
Preble's
meadow
jumping
mouse
G5T2 S1 T SC FS B 1998-08
Zapus
hudsonius
preblei
Preble's
meadow
jumping
mouse
G5T2 S1 T SC FS C 1998-08
Zapus
hudsonius
preblei
Preble's
meadow
jumping
mouse
G5T2 S1 T SC FS D 1998-08
Zapus
hudsonius
preblei
Preble's
meadow
jumping
mouse
G5T2 S1 T SC FS D 1998-08
Zapus
hudsonius
preblei
Preble's
meadow
jumping
mouse
G5T2 S1 T SC FS D 1998-08
Zapus
hudsonius
flows or increasing the water table in such areas can restore the riparian vegetation and
maintain jumping mouse abundances.
Management Rank Comments: Of the utmost importance to ensuring the persistence of
the jumping mouse populations within this conservation area is the continued management of
habitats within the Big Thompson River drainage. It is essential to ensure that development
in and around riparian corridors provide both riparian and upland habitat for jumping mice.
Jumping mice have been documented using upland habitats and it is possible that habitats
that only include riparian communities will not be sufficient for jumping mouse persistence.
Minimizing the extent to which riparian corridors are impacted by recreational use will
ensure that jumping mice can utilize the riparian cover and vegetation. Although intensive
recreational use can reduce available habitat, well-mitigated impacts can provide sufficient
habitat for jumping mice.
Current management strategies on ranches may be sufficient to maintain jumping mouse
populations at their current level; however, restricting impacts such as excessive grazing and
compaction of soils near riparian systems will likely increase jumping mouse populations.
Grazing can restrict the expanse of riparian shrub communities and thus, restrict the ability
for Preble’s meadow jumping mice to utilize the area. However, mild grazing pressure may
not affect the population.
PREBLE’S MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE SURVEY REPORT
FOR THE BOBCAT NATURAL AREA PROJECT SITE
IN LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
Submitted To:
Robert Zakely
City of Fort Collins
P. O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Submitted By:
Jan Peterson, Ph.D.
39234 Scenic View Court
Ault, CO 80610
September 10, 2004
I. INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes results from a trapping survey conducted to determine the presence
or absence of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) at the Bobcat
Natural Area project site in Larimer County, Colorado. Z. h. preblei was officially listed as a
threatened species by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service on May 13, 1998. This species has a
limited range, occurring only along the Rocky Mountain Front Range in Colorado and in the
southern part of Wyoming (Armstrong 1972).
The area surveyed is situated approximately 0.4 mile west of the Masonville Post Office (see
topographic and aerial maps in Appendices 1 and 2). The City of Fort Collins plans to
construct a parking area and trailhead near the survey site. Photographs of the site are
included in Appendix 3 and specific UTM coordinates for the survey site are provided in
Appendix 4.
All aspects of this trapping survey, including the habitat assessment, were conducted in
compliance with the Revised Interim Survey Guidelines of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (2004). The survey was restricted to the immediate vicinity of the project site, and
results contained herein are not applicable to any other area.
Site Description and History
The survey site is located along an unnamed drainage near Buffman Canyon, southwest of
Masonville, Colorado. Red sandstone cliffs run along both sides of the drainage, and in
some places appear to be over 30 m high. County Road 32C parallels the drainage and in
spots is within 2 m or so from the water. Overstory vegetation here is dominated by
narrowleaf and Plains cottonwood (Populus angustifolia and P. deltoides), although boxelder
(Acer negundo) also occurs. Smooth brome (Bromopsis inermis) is the dominant grass in the
understory, although orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa
pratensis L.) are also present, but uncommon. Shrubs in the area include gray rabbitbrush
(Chrysothamnus nauseosus), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus L.), skunkbrush (Rhus
trilobata), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), and wild currant (Ribes cereum).
Other plant species observed at this site include flixweed (Descurainia sophia L.), stinging
nettles (Urtica gracilis), several species of thistle (Cirsium spp.), common burdock (Arctium
minus), marshelder (Iva xanthifolia), great mullein (Verbascum thapsus L.), silver sage
(Artemisia frigida), yucca (Yucca glauca), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), curly dock
(Rumex crispus), watercress (Nasturtium officinale), mint (Mentha arvensis L.), hound’s
tongue (Cynoglossum officinale L), and virgin’s bower (Clematis ligusticifolia).
II. METHODS
This survey was conducted in accordance with the Interim Survey Guidelines for Preble’s
Meadow Jumping Mouse (USFWS 2004). Photographs were taken to describe and
document the habitat and dominant/common plant species were recorded. Daily weather
conditions, as well as those preceding the surveys were also noted.
Non-folding Sherman live traps were baited with sweet feed and set each afternoon after
1700 hours and then checked each morning from 0700-0830 hours. Traps remained closed
throughout the day. Precautions were taken as outlined by the Center for Disease Control for
hantavirus protection, and traps were emptied and disinfected after the survey with a 10%
bleach solution. All animals caught were released at point of capture.
The survey began on the evening of August 24, 2004, when 175 traps were laid out and set in
two transects beginning just across the road from the entrance to the natural area and running
east along the south bank of the creek for approximately 0.1 mile. Transects ran along both
sides of the stream and in some cases were less than 5 m apart due to the narrow drainage.
Several traps were within 1 m of CR 32C. Individual traps were often placed less than 5 m
of one another. The survey concluded on August 28, 2004, when traps were picked up,
emptied, and subsequently disinfected. Four nights of trapping resulted in a total of 700 trap
nights.
Weather on the day preceding the survey was partly cloudy and mild with high temperatures
in the high 70's to low 80's and lows in the 50's. Thunderstorms occurred in the afternoon.
During the survey, high temperatures varied from the mid 50's to mid 70's with lows in the
upper 30's and low 40's and afternoon thunderstorms each day.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
During a total of 700 trap nights, 10 long-tailed voles (Microtus longicaudus), 18 Mexican
woodrats (Neotoma mexicana), 97 deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), and 10 Northern
rock mice (P. nasutus) were captured. The trapping success rate here was relatively high,
19.2 %, possibly the result of abundant food resources and a paucity of urban predators.
IV. SUMMARY
A trapping survey was conducted to determine the presence or absence of Preble’s meadow
jumping mice along an unnamed drainage near Masonville in Larimer County, Colorado.
During a total of 700 trapnights, 135 rodents were captured and no Preble’s meadow jumping
mice were detected. Therefore, it is my recommendation that the Bobcat Natural Area
project proposed for this site by the City of Fort Collins not be delayed based solely on
concerns regarding this threatened species.
V. LITERATURE CITED
Armstrong, D. A. 1972. Distribution of mammals in Colorado. Monograph of the Museum
of Natural History, University of Kansas. No. 3. 415 pp.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Interim Survey Guidelines for Preble’s Meadow
Jumping Mouse. Ecological Services, Colorado Field Office. Denver, CO. 15 pp.
Avian species recorded as of September 18, 2004
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Family Habitat
Types*
Elevation
(ft)/ Range
Nesting
Preference
Swans, Geese, Ducks
Mallard Anas
platyrhynchos
Anatidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 11,000
Year-round
Ground
American Vultures
Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Cathartidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 9,000
Breeding
Cliff Ledge
Kites, Eagles, Harriers
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Accipitridae 1 – 7 3,000 – 14,000
Year-round
Cliffs and
Trees
Accipiters
Sharp-shinned
Hawk
Accipiter striatus Accipitridae 1 – 6 3,000 – 11,500
Year-round
Forest
Cooper’s Hawk Accipitercooperii Accipitridae 1 – 6 3,000 – 11,500
Year-round
Forest
Buteos
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Accipitridae 1 – 7 3,000 – 13,500
Year-round
Cliff
Falcons, Caracara
American Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Falconidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 10,000
Year-round
Cavity
Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Falconidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 14,000
Year-round
Cliff
Sandpipers
Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicate Scolopacidae 1 – 3,
5 – 7
3,000 – 10,500
Winter/
Migration
Ground
Pigeons, Doves
Rock Dove Columba livia Columbidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 10,000
Year-round
Artificial
Structures
Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Columbidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 11,500
Year-round
Goatsuckers
Common
Nighthawk
Chordeiles minor Caprimulgidae 1 – 7 5,500 – 10,000
Breeding
Bare Ground
Swifts
White-throated
Swift
Aeronautes
saxatalis
Apodidae 1 – 7 5,500 – 10,000
Breeding
Cliff
Hummingbirds
Black-chinned
Hummingbird
Archilochus
alexandri
Trochilidae 1 – 5, 7 5,500 – 7,000
Rare/
Migration
Trees
Broad-tailed
Hummingbird
Selasphorus
platycercus
Trochilidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 11,500
Breeding
Trees
Rufous
Hummingbird
Selasphorus rufus Trochilidae 1 – 6 5,500 – 12,000
Rare
Trees
Woodpeckers
Northern Flicker Colaptes auralus Picidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 11,500
Year-round
Cavity
Lewis’s
Woodpecker
Melanerpes lewis Picidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 8,000
Breeding
Cavity
Downy
Woodpecker
Picides pubescens Picidae 1 – 6 3,000 – 11,000
Year-round
Cavity
Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Picidae 1, 2, 4 – 6 3,000 – 11,500
Year-round
Cavity
Tyrant Flycatchers
Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Tyrannidae 1 – 7 3,000 -10,000
Breeding
Trees
Western Wood-
Pewee
Contopus
sordidulus
Jays, Crows, Magpies
Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Corvidae 1, 2, 4, 5,
7
3,000 – 6,000
Year-round
Trees
Western Scrub-Jay Aphelocoma
californica
Corvidae 1 – 5 5,000 – 7,000
Year-round/
Rare
Shrubs/ Trees
Steller’s Jay Cyanocitta stelleri Corvidae 1 – 6 5,000 – 12,000
Year-round
Trees
Black-billed
Magpie
Pica pica Corvidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 13,000
Year-round
Trees
Common Raven Corvus corax Corvidae 1 – 7 5,000 – 14,000
Year-round
Trees/ Cliff
American Crow Corvus
brachyrhynchos
Corvidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 10,000
Year-round
Trees
Swallows
Violet-green
Swallow
Tachycineta
thalassina
Hirundinidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 13,000
Breeding
Hollow trees
and Rock
crevices
Barn Swallow Riparia riparia Hirundinidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 10,000
Breeding
Mud Nest
Cliff Swallow Hirundo
pyrrhonota
Hirundinidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 10,000
Breeding
Mud Nest
Chickadees, Titmice
Black-capped
Chickadee
Parus atricapilus Paridae 1 – 6 3,000 – 9,000
Year-round
Secondary
Cavity
Mountain
Chickadee
Parus gambeil Paridae 1, 2, 4 – 7 5,000 – 11,500
Year-round
Secondary
Cavity
Bushtits
Dipper
American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus Cinclidae 1 – 3,
5 – 7
5,000 – 11,500
Year-round
Ground/
Streambank
Kinglets, Old World Warblers, Gnatcatchers, Thrushes
Blue-gray
Gnatcatcher
Polioptila caerulea Sylviidae 1, 2, 4, 5,
7
5,000 – 7,000
Rare/ Breeding
Trees or
Shrubs
Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides Turdidae 1 – 7 3,000 -13,500
Breeding
Secondary
Cavity
Townsend’s
Solitaire
Myadesies
townsendi
Turdidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 12,000
Year-round
Trees or
Shrubs
American Robin Turdus migratorius Turdidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 11,500
Year-round
Trees or
Shrubs
Golden-crowned
Kinglet
Regulus satrapa Regulidae 1, 2, 4, 5 3,000 – 11,500
Winter
Trees
Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana Turdidae 1 – 6 3,000 – 8,000
Summer
Secondary
Cavity
Mockingbirds, Thrashers
Sage Thrasher Oreoscoooptes
montanus
Mimidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 14,000
Rare/
Migration
Shrubs or
Ground
Starlings
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Sturnidae 1 – 7 Year-round Secondary
Cavity
Wood-Warblers
Virginia’s
Warbler
Vermivora
virginiae
Parulidae 1 – 6 3,000 – 10,000
Breeding
Dense Moist
Tanagers, Cardinals
Western Tanager Piranga
ludoviciana
Thraupidae 1 – 6 3,000 – 10,500
Breeding
Trees
Black-headed
Grosbeak
Pheucticus
melanocephalus
Cardinalidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 11,500
Breeding
Dense
Thickets
Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea Cardinalidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 9,000
Breeding
Dense
Thickets
Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena Cardinalidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 9,500
Breeding
Dense
Thickets
Sparrows, Towhees, Juncos, Old World Buntings
Green-tailed
Towhee
Pipilo chlorurus Emberizidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 11,500
Migration
Ground or
Low Shrubs
Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Emberizidae 1 – 6 3,000 – 12,000
Migration
Trees or
Shrubs
White-crowned
Sparrow
Zonotrichia
leucophrys
Emberizidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 13,000
Winter/
Migration
Ground or
Low Shrubs
Spotted Towhee Pipilo
erythrophthalmus
Emberizidae 1 – 6 3,000 – 8,000
Year-round
Ground
Grasshopper
Sparrow
Ammodramus
savannarum
Emberizidae 1 – 4, 6, 7 3,000 – 6,000
Breeding
Ground
Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes
gramineus
Emberizidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 13,000
Breeding
Ground
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Emberizidae 1 – 7 3,000 -10,500
Finches, Old World Sparrows
Pine Siskin Carduellis pinus Fringillidae 1 – 6 3,000 – 11,500
Year-round
Conifer
American
Goldfinch
Carduelis tristis Fringillidae 1 – 6 3,000 – 9,000
Year-round
Trees or
Shrubs
Lesser Goldfinch Carduelis psaltria Fringillidae 1 – 6 5,000 – 8,000
Breeding
Trees or
Shrubs
House Finch Carpodacus
cassinii
Fringillidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 10,000
Year-round
Trees or
Shrubs
House Sparrow Passer domesticus Passeridae 1 – 7 3,000 – 10,000
Year-round
Secondary
Cavity
*Habitat Types: see foot note for Table 1
Avian Species of Possible Occurrence and of Concern
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Family Habitat
Types*
Elevation
(ft) Range
Nesting
Preference
Kites, Hawks, Eagles
Bald Eagle Haliaeelus
leucocephalus
Accipitridae 1 - 6 3,000 – 8,000
Winter
Cliffs and
Trees
Buteos
Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Accipitridae 1 - 7 3,000 – 10,000
Breeding
Trees
Rough-legged
Hawk
Bueto lagopus Accipitridae 1 - 6 3,000 – 9,500
Winter
Trees
Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Accipitridae 1 – 7 3,000 – 9,000
Year-round
Trees
*Habitat Types: see foot note for Table 1
Characterization Abstract for Schryver’s (Moss’s) elfin
Callophrys mossii schryveri
Schryver's elfin
Taxonomy:
Class: Insecta
Order: Lepidoptera
Family: Lycaenidae
Genus: Callophrys
Taxonomic Comments: Formerly in the genus
Incisalia. The mossii complex is separated from the
fotis complex due to its preference for stonecrop
(Sedum spp.) as a hostplant. Subspecies schryveri
occurs in Colorado (Ferris and Brown 1981). C.
mossii schryveri range is restricted to the Rocky
Mountain region. Callophrys mossii schryveri
contrasts with species C. mossii in that it is smaller,
has a lighter dorsal color in the male; and more
contrasting ventral hindwing markings (Scott 1986).
CNHP Rank: G4T3S2S3
Distribution: Global range: The mossii
complex is confined to the northwestern
portion of the United States and southwestern
Canada extending south to central California
and to east-central Colorado (Stanford and
Opler 1993, Ferris and Brown 1981). State
range: Foothills and lower montane canyons
between 1828 and 2438m (6000 to 8000 ft)
(Ferris and Brown 1981). Known from nine
counties in the Colorado Rocky Mountain
region (Stanford and Opler 1993): Boulder,
Clear Creek, Douglas, El Paso, Fremont,
Gilpin, Jefferson, Larimer, and Pueblo.
Habitat Comments: Elevational range is
between 1828 and 2438m (6000 to 8000 ft). Occupies suitable habitat in Transition to lower
Canadian Zone wooded canyons containing the hostplant (Scott 1986). Canyons with steep
rocky slopes, mossy bare summits and ridges, brushy foothill ravines, sagebrush hillsides and
flats (Pyle 1981).
Phenology: One brood. Flies from February to June depending on locality (Pyle 1981). It is
one of the first non-hibernating butterflies to appear in the spring (Ferris and Brown 1981).
Photo by Paul Opler
Statewide distribution of Callophrys mossii schryveri
Source: Stanford and Opler 1993
Stays close to the hostplant, flying erratically and close to the ground, often in inaccessible
areas. Males come to damp earth, perching on low shrubs or ground, females are more
reclusive and remain higher up on slopes (Pyle 1981). Adults are local, moving an average
of only 50m for males and 52m for females over a lifetime (Scott 1986). Males perch all day
on shrubs in gulches and on slopes to await females (Scott 1986).
Larval Hostplant: Stonecrop (Sedum lanceolatum).
Known Threats and Management Issues: The greatest current threats are extensive
urbanization and alteration of habitat. Noxious exotic plants, recreational development and
water development continue to threaten lower foothill canyons (even on public lands). The
absence of fire and increased tree density may negatively impact hostplant.
Year-round
Trees or
Shrubs
Lark Sparrow Chondestes
grammacus
Emberizidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 9,000
Breeding
Ground
Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Emberizidae 1 – 6 3,000 – 11,000
Breeding
Conifer
Brewer’s Sparrow Spizella breweri Emberizidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 10,000
Breeding
Low in Shrubs
Lark Bunting Calamospiza
melanocorys
Emberizidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 9,000
Breeding
Ground/
Sagebrush
Orioles, Meadowlarks, Blackbirds
Western
Meadowlark
Sturnelia magna Emberizidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 12,000
Year-round
Ground
Red-winged
Blackbird
Agelaius
phoeniceus
Emberizidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 10,000
Year-round
Wetland
Vegetation
Brown-headed
Cowbird
Molthrus ater Emberizidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 12,000
Breeding
Parasite
Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Emberizidae 1 – 6 3,000 -9,500
Breeding
Trees or
Shrubs
Bullock’s Oriole Icterus galbula Emberizidae 1 – 5, 7 3,000 – 8,000
Breeding
Mature Tree
Thickets/
Tangles
Yellow-rumped
Warbler
Dendroica
coronata
Parulidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 11,000
Breeding
Dense Moist
Thickets/
Tangles
Yellow Warbler Dendroica
petechia
Parulidae 1 – 6 3,000 – 10,000
Breeding
Dense Moist
Thickets/
Tangles
MacGillivray’s
Warbler
Oporornis toimiel Parulidae 1 – 6 3,000 – 11,000
Breeding
Dense Moist
Thickets/
Tangles
Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla Parulidae 1 – 6 3,000 – 13,500
Breeding
Dense Moist
Thickets/
Tangles
Yellow-breasted
Chat
Icteria virens Parulidae 1, 2, 4 – 6 3,000 – 8,000
Breeding
Dense
Thickets
Orange-crowned
Warbler
Vermivora celata Parulidae 1 – 6 3,000 – 9,000
Migration
Ground
Bushtit Psaltiparus
minimus
Aegitalidae 1 – 7 5,000 – 8,500
Rare
Trees or
Shrubs
Nuthatches
White-breasted
Nuthatch
Sitta carolinensis Sittidae 1, 2, 4 – 6 3,000 – 11,500
Year-round
Secondary
Cavity
Red-breasted
Nuthatch
Sitta canadensis Sittidae 1, 2, 4 – 6 3,000 – 11,500
Winter
Secondary
Cavity
Pygmy Nuthatch Sitta Pygmaea Sittidae 1, 2, 4 – 6 5,500 – 10,000
Year-round
Secondary
Cavity
Wrens
House Wren Troglodytes aedon Troglodytidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 11,000
Breeding
Cavity
Canyon Wren Catherpes
mexicanus
Troglodytidae 1 – 7 5,000 – 8,500
Rare/ Year-
round
Cliff
Rock Wren Salpinctes
obsoletus
Troglodytidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 12,000
Breeding
Rock Crevices
Tyrannidae 1 – 6 3,000 – 10,000
Breeding
Secondary
Cavity
Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii Tyrannidae 1, 2, 4, 5 3,000 – 10,000
Rare/ Breeding
Dense Moist
Thickets
Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya Tyrannidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 9,000
Rare/ Breeding
Platform
Gray Flycatcher Empidonax
wrightii
Tyrannidae 2, 4, 5 5,000 – 7,000
Rare
Trees
Cordilleran
Flycatcher
Empidonax
occidentalis
Tyrannidae 1, 2, 4 – 7 3,000 – 11,500
Migration
Variable
Vireos
Warbling Vireo Vireo giluvs Vireonidae 1 – 6 3,000 – 10,500
Breeding
Trees or
Shrubs
Shurbs and
Trees
Owls
Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Strigidae 1 – 7 3,000 – 11,500
Year-round
Mature Trees
preblei
Preble's
meadow
jumping
mouse
G5T2 S1 T SC FS D 1998-08
Protection Rank Comments: Likely the biggest threats to this conservation area are
development impacts, recreational use and management of water resources. Although this
area currently has relatively little urbanization residential development continues to grow. It
is important to understand the impact residential development may have on reducing the
amount of riparian and upland habitat available to Preble’s meadow jumping mice. In areas
of Colorado that have intensive urban development Preble’s meadow jumping mice are no
longer found.
Recreational use is heavy throughout the Big Thompson River conservation area, and such
impacts to riparian and upland grassland habitats could reduce jumping mouse abundance.
The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse has been shown to tolerate low levels of recreational
use (hiking trails) in riparian communities, but such impacts should be mitigated to improve
riparian shrubland and herbaceous cover.
In areas where creeks and streams no longer flow at historic levels the riparian habitat has
reduced in size and density. Such water flow impacts can jeopardize the persistence of
jumping mice by decreasing the amount of available riparian habitat. Maintaining historic