Public Hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on the prairie dog componenet o
C I T Y O F B O U L D E R
JOINT BOARD MEETING: OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD, AND PARKS AND RECREATION
ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE:August 23, 2006
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration of a recommendation to City Council on acceptance of the
Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Component of the Urban Wildlife Management Plan.
PRESENTERS:
Bev Johnson, Environmental Planner, Planning and Development Services, presenter
Mark Gershman, Environmental Planner and Acting Resource Conservation Supervisor, Open
Space and Mountain Parks
Bryan Pritchett, Conservation Education and Outreach Supervisor, Open Space and Mountain
Parks
Jeanne Scholl, Conservation Manager and Acting Planning Manager, Parks and Recreation
Department
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff has completed the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Component of the Urban Wildlife
Management Plan (UWMP) and would like feedback from the boards and a recommendation to
City Council on acceptance of the plan (Attachment B). The purpose of the UWMP is to: 1)
establish policies and procedures for managing wildlife within the city on both public and private
land, and 2) outline a set of actions for long-term management of wildlife in the city.
Staff from the Planning, Parks and Recreation, and Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)
departments and the City Manager’s Office (CMO) are developing the UWMP in two phases:
the first phase involved the development of overall goals, vision statement and guiding principles
for the management of urban wildlife. This was approved by Council on January 16, 2006. The
second phase involves the development of individual species components – beginning with the
Black-tailed Prairie Dog Component.
Individual site plans have been developed for 17 colony complexes in the urban area. This
component provides future management direction for 606 acres of public and private land with
prairie dogs in Areas I and II of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) by designating
sites in the urban area either for the protection or removal of prairie dogs. (The plan does not
include management plans for five acres of occupied land on federal and state property in the
service area.) Included in the plan are:
149 acres designated for long-term protection of prairie dogs.
361 acres designated for interim protection (and long-term removal).
AGENDA ITEM#________PAGE
1
96 acres designated for near-term removal (these areas are those where prairie dogs are
most in conflict with regulations and public services and facilities).
5 acres of federal and state-owned land that are not designated in the UWMP.
The UWMP does not specify which methods will be used to remove prairie dogs from
designated sites. Instead, the plan emphasizes the application of the “Six-step” process that was
developed through the adoption of the city’s Wildlife Protection Ordinance in early 2005. This
process is outlined in theAnalysis section of this memo. The Six-step process recommends
lethal control as a last resort.
The UWMP reinforces and continues the city’s emphasis on the use of relocation as the primary
means of removing prairie dogs. However, the plan recognizes that relocation receiving sites are
not often available (especially as the city and surrounding communities continue to develop) and
lethal control will be needed in some circumstances. In these cases, donation to a wildlife
recovery program and/or trapping and asphyxiating through the use of CO chambers will be the
2
preferred method of lethal control.
The UWMP identifies best management practices for activities in prairie dog habitat and also
evaluates methods to remove, contain and exclude prairie dogs. These management tools will
usually need to be used in combination or “packages.” For example, the use of lethal control at
specific sites where the area is surrounded by active prairie dog colonies is not a sustainable
method of removal. In these situations, the use of barriers or other methods will be needed as
well to prevent prairie dogs from recolonizing sites after use of lethal control.
Because the city is surrounded by thousands of acres of open space, management of urban
wildlife and especially prairie dog conflicts will be an on-going activity for the city. The UWMP
includes several short and long term actions to implement the plan (see page 53 of the plan) and
to be more pro-active in addressing urban wildlife conflicts while maintaining an acceptable
balance between the presence of wildlife in the city and human land uses. Specific short-term
action items that staff recommends be undertaken during 2006 and 2007 to implement the
UWMP include the following:
1.Develop amendments to Resolution #842 for Council consideration. (See page 44 of the
UWMP.)
2.Review the Wildlife Protection Ordinance and make recommendations to City Council
on possible amendments. (See page 45 of the UWMP.)
3.Work with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) and develop recommendations to
address inconsistencies in the state’s relocation policies and permitting. (See page 52 of
the UWMP.)
4.Complete the OSMP Grassland Plan.
As part of the UWMP, options are being evaluated on the most effective and efficient way to
staff and resource wildlife management. These options will be presented to City Council for
consideration prior to the submission of the 2008 budget. One option being evaluated is a
potential “merge” of the city’s wildlife management staff and resources from the various
departments dealing with natural resource management. In the interim, it is recommended that
AGENDA ITEM#________PAGE
2
the staff team participating in the development of the UWMP continue on and begin
implementation of the short-term action items.
Although urban prairie dog management may be less of a priority and less costly in some years
than in others, it will continue to cost the city of Boulder time and resources. These include the
costs of both administering the Wildlife Protection Ordinance and managing prairie dogs on city-
owned land. Although the use of burrow fumigants is by far the least costly tool, staff believes it
is also the least humane and should be used sparingly and in limited situations as a technique for
managing prairie dogs.
QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARDS:
Open Space Board of Trustees
1.Does the Open Space Board of Trustees have any questions or comments regarding the
impact of the UWMP on the acquisition and management of OSMP lands?
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
2.Does the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board have any questions or comments
regarding the impact of the UWMP on management and maintenance of Parks and
Recreation Departmentsites and facilities?
Environmental Advisory Board:
3.Does the Environmental Advisory Board have any questions or comments regarding the
environmental impacts of the UWMP?
General (for all boards)
4.Do the boards recommend that City Council accept the UWMP as shown in Attachment
B?
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Staff has been monitoring the costs associated with the management of prairie dogs on city lands.
The on-going costs associated with prairie dog management have been significant –
approximately $200,000 year-to-date for 2006. This figure includes personnel and non-personnel
costs from the City Attorney’s Office, Public Works, Planning and Development Services, Parks
and Recreation, and OSMP. It does not include staff time expenses in the CMO. $152,000 of the
total cost was for personnel expenses. (The majority of the personnel expenses, $100,000, has
been in the Parks and Recreation Department.Staff activities this year have included mapping
and monitoring park sites and recreation facilities, installation oftemporary barriers, planning for
refurbishment of Tom Watson ball fields, protection of the multi-use fields at Valmont Parks,
and development of the prairie dog component of the UWMP.)
There are ongoing staffing and city resource implications of implementing this plan. The costs
and resource needs will vary depending on the types of actions taken. Even with the use of lethal
control as a method of removal for prairie dogs, these costs will be substantial. Without pro-
active action and a better balance in the application of all the available management tools for
prairie dog mitigation and removal, these costs will continue to increase.
AGENDA ITEM#________PAGE
3
Anticipated costs for near-term removal (next 2 years):
The UWMP outlines specific land management actions for each colony complex in the urban
area. Approximately 96 acres are identified as near-term removal sites. The following is a rough
range of potential costs (depending upon the removal method) to implement the removal and
mitigation plans for the following sites over the next two years: Tom Watson Park, the Boulder
Reservoir dams, the Valmont multi-use field, the East Boulder Community Center, and the
Foothills Community Park. (These costs do not include removal of prairie dogs at Valmont
Butte.)
Removalthroughrelocation $20,000 to$98,000
Removal through trapping/flushing/CO2 gas $30,000 to $42,000
Other capital costs (barriers and other exclusion methods)$100,000 to $125,000
Total range of costs for next 2 years $150,000 to $265,000
(notincludingstafftime)
Longer term organizational changes are needed to implement the plan and to address urban
wildlife issues on an on-going and pro-active manner. In the meantime, staff is proposing an
interim solution to implement some of the high priority actions in the plan that continue to use
the time and resources of various departments and staff members. This interim staffing solution,
however, will impact the work program of some staff members and departments (Parks and
Recreation, Planning and Development Services, OSMP, and the City Attorney’s Office). (For
more information, see discussion of Plan Implementation in the Analysis section of this memo.)
Long-term staffing and resource strategies for implementing the plan and for managing wildlife
and natural resources within the city will continue to be developed as part of the UWMP (as well
as the Parks & Recreation Master Plan) and will be brought to City Council for discussion and
consideration prior to the 2008 budget submission.
OTHER IMPACTS:
Environmental:
The UWMP is intended to provide greater clarity and efficiency to those facing wildlife-related
conflicts in the urban area. The plan should improve understanding and expectations, and
provide clear recommendations on the implementation of city standards for managing wildlife.
The plan is intended to ultimately reduce the amount of time spent by members of the
community and city staff responding to wildlife-related standards and regulations.
The plan also moves the city closer to implementing several of the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) environmental policies. The prairie dog component of the UWMP
identifies and prioritizes specific actions to protect native biodiversity and to manage
wildlife-human conflicts.
Economic:
There are economic impacts and costs from the prairie dogs on both public and private lands.
These include direct impacts to landscaping,infrastructure, and land uses, as well as the on-
going mitigation and management of prairie dogs.Staff has heard from private property owners
AGENDA ITEM#________PAGE
4
that the lethal control process is too lengthy and that, because of the length of the process, there
are often significant economic costs (Attachment A). On the other hand, having open space and
wildlife and places for our residents, tourists, andvisitors to enjoy helps generate revenue to the
city.
Social:
The Black-tailed Prairie Dog Component of the UWMP outlines a strategy for balancing two
important social needs of the community: 1) protecting prairie dogs in the urban area and
reinforcing the community aesthetic, spiritual, and educational values of having wildlife in our
daily lives and; 2) removing prairie dogs from public parks and recreation facilities which
support the social and physical well-being of the community.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK:
Staff held a public meeting on May 3, 2006 to present preliminary staff recommendations for the
prairie dog component of the plan to the public for comment. Approximately 25 members of the
public attended the meeting. A summary of the written comments from that meeting were
provided to Council in the May 23, 2006 study session packet. At that study session, Council
indicated preliminary support for most of the plan recommendations and gave further guidance
to staff for completing the plan.
Council received approximately 319 e-mail comments from the public between May 17 and July
12, 2006. The overwhelming majority of those commenting (309) urged the city to find non-
lethal solutions to managing prairie dogs. However, of the 309 correspondents opposing the use
of lethal control only 11% identified themselves as Boulder residents; 11% live either in Boulder
County or somewhere else in the state of Colorado; 28% live in another state; 9% live in another
country; and 36% did not identify a place of residence.
Letters were sent to affected private property owners in May prior to the public meeting. A few
private property owners attended the public meeting on May 3, 2006. A second letter was sent to
property owners in early August asking for their comments on the draft plan recommendations
for their property area. The comments received by staff are in Attachment A.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the boards recommend City Council acceptance of the UWMP-Black-
tailed Prairie Dog Component as shown in Attachment B.
BACKGROUND:
The black-tailed prairie dog is an important part of the prairie grassland ecosystem that surrounds
Boulder. Where they occur, prairie dogs have far-reaching ecological effects upon the
landscapes. Prairie dog towns provide habitat for several species and an abundant prey base for
predators such as ferruginous hawks, golden eagles, coyotes, bobcats, badgers and, historically,
the black-footed ferret. Their burrowing activities affect many plants and animals. Prairie dog
colonies are one part of the grassland mosaic that supports a great deal of biological diversity.
The city of Boulder has been protecting and managing prairie dogs and grassland habitat through
its OSMP program since 1977. Today, over 20,000 acres of grassland habitat are permanently
protected from development and 5,000 of those acres are permanentlydedicated as habitat
AGENDA ITEM#________PAGE
5
conservation areas (HCAs) for the conservation of prairie dogs.For the past 100 years, Boulder
has been a national leader in both the protection of open space and in creating urban growth
boundaries. The city owns and manages over 40,000 acres of land outside the city dedicated to
open space and "greenbelt" protection. The BVCP established strict growth and development
boundaries through its Area I, II, and III designations. While Area III is designated specifically
for rural and open space preservation, Areas I andII are the areas designated for human land use
and development.
It is largely due to the protection of open space and the proximity of the greenbelt that certain
species of wildlife come into the city and inhabit the urban area. Wildlife management issues in
the urban area and surrounding natural lands are also affected by Boulder’s geographic setting
near hundreds of thousands of acres of county, state, and federally protected natural lands.
Prairie dogs occur within the city primarilyalong the edges of protected open space and on
small, fragmented parcels. As colonies grow and deplete the resources on one site, they disperse
to other sites and establish new colonies. Prairie dogs will readily move from one site to adjacent
properties and forage on lawns and established landscaping. Prairie dogs can both cause damage
to landscaping and building infrastructure in the urban area and also be a safety hazard where
they occur on public park lands.
ANALYSIS:
On May 17, 2005, City Council directed staff to begin work on the UWMP. Council approved
the funding and public process for the plan on July 5, 2005. The initial public process involved a
public meeting in August of 2005 (on Phase I of the UWMP), a series of departmental staff
meetings in September of 2005, and a meeting with technical experts in November of 2005.
Phase I (the overall goals, vision statement and guiding principles for the UWMP) was approved
by Council on January 16, 2006. Subsequently, a public meeting was held on the prairie dog
component on May 3, 2006. Staff returned to Council for direction on the prairie dog component
at a May 15, 2006 study session.
Purpose and Scope of the UWMP: Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Component
The purpose of the prairie dog management component is to identify prairie dog protection
opportunities and outline strategies for resolving short and long-term conflicts in the urban
service area. There are five primary questions that the plan addresses:
Where in the city should prairie dogs be protected?
Where should they be removed?
How can we protect them (in place) and minimize conflicts?
How should we remove them if necessary?
How do we balance costs and humane treatment?
The above questions guided development of the following objectives of the component:
Develop an inventory and assessment of prairie dogs in the urban area.
Develop a framework for understanding the conflicts and compatibilities between
prairie dogs and human land uses.
Develop recommended management goals for each colony in the city.
AGENDA ITEM#________PAGE
6
Review techniques and strategies for meeting management goals and develop a
decision-making framework for either protection or removal of prairie dogs.
Identify costs and prioritize actions for plan implementation.
The geographic scope of the UWMP is private and public land in the city’s urban service area or
Area I and Area II as defined in the BVCP. The study area for the UWMP also includes some
city-owned sites outside the urban service area where planned or existing human uses may
conflict with the presence of prairie dogs (e.g. the regional park site in the Planning Reserve, the
th
dams at the Boulder Reservoir, Valmont Butte, and the 75 St. Wastewater Treatment Plant).
Relationship to the OSMP Grassland Management Plan
The OSMP Grassland Management Plan (Grassland Plan) will focus on all of the grassland
ecosystems managed by OSMP, not just those inhabited by prairie dogs. The plan will also
address agricultural uses of OSMP’s grasslands, including irrigation, hay production and grazing.
OSMP has 5,000 acres of HCAs. In order to maintain grassland health, decrease the potential
threat and extent of plague, and maintain the greatest ecosystem function, the Grassland Plan will
establish occupancy rates for prairie dog HCAs. For example, Boulder County Parks and Open
Space’s plan sets an optimal level when 20% occupancy. Most HCAs on OSMP lands have been
at or above this level. Therefore, it is unlikely that the development of the Grassland Plan will
result in immediate availability of receiving sites.
Furthermore, based on 2005 year-end mapping, (notwithstanding recent plague events) there are
approximately 2,500 acres occupied by prairie dogs outside of HCAs. This situation creates
tension with OSMP neighbors, degrades resource conditions, jeopardizes the OSMP water rights
portfolio and reduces lease revenue from lost crop production.Ironically, maintaining prairie
dogs outside of HCAs is leading to more lethal control. In many areas where prairie dogs on
OSMP lands are immediately adjacent to private lands outside of the city, private landowners are
fumigating burrows regularly to maintain their agricultural lands and residential landscaping.
The Grassland Plan will need to address the prairie dogs on OSMP lands outside of the HCAs.
The potential for the OSMP to provide receiving sites for urban prairie dogs is both
unpredictable and inconsistent. The UWMP must be adaptive to circumstances when no
relocation sites are available, as well as when sites may be available. The Grassland Plan will
provide neither a short- or long-term solution to how prairie dogs should be removed from urban
sites.
Given current practices, prairie dog HCAs only become vacant due to plague outbreaks which
are very unpredictable. Plague, which has been absent or active only locally or at low levels in
the county for the past decade, has increased overthe past year. Plague has killed off some of
the colonies in HCAs. However, those areas are not immediately available as receiving sites.
Moving prairie dogs into an area of recent plague activity potentially exposes those prairie dogs
to residual fleas carrying the disease. Dusting the holes with insecticide could kill any remaining
fleas. However, ensuring that all the holes are treated would be difficult and expensive. There
would also be the added drawback of killing non-target insect species.
AGENDA ITEM#________PAGE
7
A decade of uninterrupted prairie dog grazing canhave significant effects upon a grassland. In
many of the grasslands affected by plague, continual occupation by prairie dogs over the last ten
or more years shifted composition, depleted root reserves of the grasses and other native
vegetation. The prairie dog HCAs should be periodically rested from these grazing effects to
allow vegetation to recover its vigor. Without such rest, the former prairie dog colonies can
become infested by invasive species or in cases where vegetation has been removed, wind
erosion can lead to soil loss. Grassland restoration projects necessitated by weed infestations and
soil loss are expensive, take a long time, and are not always successful.
The Grassland Plan will provide standards to evaluate the readiness of a grassland for the
(re)introduction of prairie dogs. These standards will not only consider the latest scientific
information related to plague, but will factor in grassland conditions such as percent of bare
ground, ratio of native plants to non-native plants, grass cover, and prairie dog habitat quality. If
grasslands are to be sustainable, natural land managers must manage for ecological health of the
system, rather than providing habitat for a single species.
There has been some confusion about the designation of HCAs since the OSMP Black-tailed
Prairie Dog Habitat Conservation Plan was adopted in 1996. The 1996 plan designated 4,635
acres of HCAs. Thirty more acres of HCAs were added when the North Boulder Valley Area
Management Plan was approved in 1997, and 238 acres of HCAs were added with the
development of the South Boulder Creek Area Management Plan in 1998. One of the outcomes
of the Grassland Plan will be a review of property purchased since 1996 that may be suitable for
HCA designation.
Individual Site Evaluations and Colony Plans
This plan provides future management direction for 606 acres of prairie dogs in the urban area
only by designating sites within the urban area either for the protection or removal of prairie
dogs. Included in the plan are:
149 acres are designated for long-term protection of prairie dogs
361 acres are designated for interimprotection (and long-term removal)
96 acres are designated for near-term removal (these areas are those where prairie dogs
are most in conflict with regulationsand public services and facilities.)
The plan does not specify which methods will be used to remove prairie dogs from designated
sites. Instead, the plan emphasizes the application of the “Six-step” process that was reinforced
through the adoption of the city’s wildlife protection ordinance in early 2005. The “Six-step
process involves the following decision-making steps for managing prairie dog conflicts: (1)
Minimize conflicts through non-removal methods; (2) Remove prairie dogs on only a portion of
a site; (3) Evaluate the potential for relocation; (4) Evaluate the potential for donation to animal
recovery programs (which can mean trapping andlethal control or live transfer); (5) Evaluate
the use of trapping and lethal control through carbon dioxide chambers;and (6) If the above
steps are not feasible, applypesticides to the burrows.
The city will emphasize the use of relocation as the primary means of removing prairie dogs
from sites designated for removal in the plan. However, the plan and the “Six-step process” also
recognize that relocation receiving sites will not always be available and lethal control will
sometimes be required to remove prairie dogs and reduce conflicts with human land uses. In
AGENDA ITEM#________PAGE
8
these cases, trapping and asphyxiation through the use of CO chambers will be the preferred
2
method of lethal control.
Management Tools and Best Management Practices
The UWMP identifies a set of management tools to manage prairie dogs. These will usually
need to be used in combination or “packages.” For example, the use of lethal control at specific
sites where the area is surrounded by active prairie dog colonies is not a sustainable method of
removal. In these situations, staff will recommend the use of visual or hard barriers in
combination with lethal control. At Tom Watson or Valmont City parks, for instance, if the
prairie dogs are removed by relocation or use of lethal control, there will need to be another
method to prevent new prairie dogs from encroaching into these areas.
There are a range of costs associated with all tools available for prairie dog management. Even
with the use of lethal control as a method of removal for prairie dogs management costs for the
next two years will be in the range of $160,000 to $275,000 (not including staff time). Without a
better balance and use of all methods available for prairie dog mitigation and removal, these
costs will continue to be significant.
Appendix C of the UWMP includes a relocation policy for city projects. The city manager
approved a relocation rule and interdepartmentalpolicy on relocation in 2000 to set standards for
the timing and procedures of relocation. The policies in Appendix C of the plan are an update to
the previous rule and policy and reflect lessons learned over the past several years.
Plan Implementation
For the past five to six years, staff members from several departments have teamed up to address
on-going policy and land management issues related to prairie dogs in the urban area. Beginning
in 1999, staff from the Planning Department, the Office of Environmental Affairs, the Open
Space and Mountain Parks Department (OSMP), the Parks and Recreation Department, the CMO
and the City Attorney’s Office has spent numerous hours on developing and revising city policy
and the municipal code related to the protection of prairie dogs and birds (the Wildlife Protection
Ordinance). In addition, a considerable amount of city resources and staff time was spent from
1999 to 2003 on the relocation of hundreds of prairie dogs from private and public land within
the city to OSMP land.
As the availability of relocation sites diminished over the past few years, city staff time and
resources have been redirected to the construction and maintenance of mitigation measures
including soft and hard of barriers to protect city lands from further prairie dog colonization; and
to providing other city departments with prairie dog management consultation and support. Staff
from various departments is also involved in other on-going urban wildlife issues such as bear
and mountain lion management, and mosquito control.
The Wildlife Protection Ordinance and the UWMP were completed by a team of staff members
from Planning, Environmental Affairs, Parks and Recreation, OSMP, the CMO and the CAO (in
the case of the ordinance). This arrangement was established and was effective because it both
combined the skills from various staff and spread the work program impact out among
departments. As a result of this staffing arrangement, work programs from several departments
have been either postponed or slowed to complete the UWMP project.
AGENDA ITEM#________PAGE
9
The UWMP includes several actions to implement the plan and to move toward a pro-active
approach to addressing urban wildlife conflicts. Some of these actions are short-term projects to
address inconsistencies in city policies and other are more long-term, on-going actions to help
maintain an acceptable balance between the presenceof wildlife in the city and human land uses.
The following is a prioritized list of the short and long-term actions as discussed in the plan:
Short-Term ActionItems
Priority
1
Action Item 1:Develop amendments to Resolution #842 for Council consideration.(This
resolutionwas adopted by City Council in 1999 and established a goal of
eliminatingany need for lethal control; relocationwas identified as the only
preferredmethod of removing prairie dogs from a site.)
Action Item 2: Review Wildlife ProtectionOrdinance for possible amendments1
including re-visiting burrow destructionrestrictions which may be putting
us in opposition to the policy of minimizing the use of lethal control;
reviewing the length of time for a lethal control permit for private
property – the average length of the process is currently 5 months and
many property owners find that that results in more costly property
destruction and the lethal control of more prairie dogs.
Action Item 4: Revise site review criteria to eliminate conflictswith the UWMP.1
1
Action Item 6:Prioritize thecompletion of the OSMP Grassland Plan.
Action Item 16: Develop recommendations to the CDOW to address inconsistencies in 1
the state’s relocationpolicies and permitting.
Action Item 5: Consider revisions to the BVCP during the next major update to clarify
3
where biodiversity and ecosystem conservation will be emphasized
relative to the planning areas.
3
Action Item 7:Develop a prioritized list of easements and other property acquisitions in
areas identified for long-term protection.
3
Action Item 8:Develop policy guidance to reviewproperties for inclusion in OSMP HCA
system.
Action Item 14: Develop a legislative strategyto modify or repeal C.R.S. 35-7-203.3
On-Going Action Items
Action Item 9: Workwith property ownersto develop site management plans to 1
protect and contain or remove and exclude prairie dogs.
1
Action Item 10:Provide technicalassistance to city departments to implement UWMP
recommendations.
1
ActionItem 3: Continue administration of Wildlife Protection Ordinance and lethalcontrol
permitting process.
Action Item 11: Conduct annual inventories of prairie dog colonies and prioritize2
annual removal and relocation efforts.
AGENDA ITEM#________PAGE
10
Action Item 12: Develop and maintain an on-going list of potential relocationsites.2
Action Item 13: Continue participation in and management of the Front Range Prairie2
DogWorking Group
Action Item 15: Review the Colorado Wildlife Commission meeting agendas for actions3
that could affect the city’sprairie dog management.
The action items listed above with a priority #1 are those items that need to be addressed in the
near future to resolve city policy inconsistencies and prevent some of the current conflicts from
escalating. Priority #2 items are those actions that would improve or enhance our success at
managing prairie dogs within the city and would occur on an on-going basis. Priority #3 items
are actions that would strengthen the program but do not necessitate immediate action.
As discussed above, the staff team developing the UWMP and handling some of the on-going
urban wildlife issues was formed on a temporary basis with the understanding that certain
projects and departmental functions would be impacted on a short-term basis. A longer term
solution to staffing the UWMP implementation is needed. Some options include looking at staff
roles across departments and the possibility of combining functions; or creating a permanent
urban wildlife management team through a new funding source.
In the meantime, staff proposes the following interim plan to implement of some of the highest
priority action items in the UWMP.Because of current work loads, staff would not begin work
on the interim implementation plan below until 2007:
Proposed Interim Implementation Plan
(through 2007)
Continue with existing team (Planning, Parks and Recreation, and OSMP) to complete
the following #1 priority items:
Develop amendments to Resolution #842 for Council consideration.
Review Wildlife Protection Ordinance for possible amendments.
Amend site review criteria in the landuse code to eliminate conflicts with the
UWMP.
Continue administration of the WildlifeProtection Ordinance and lethal control
permitting process.
Analyze existing staffing and resources and examine possible organizational and
implementation structure. Identify funding strategy, if structure change is
recommended.
Analyze existing staffing and resources and examine possible organizational and
implementation structure. Identify funding strategy, if structure change is
recommended.
OSMP staff would work on the following in 2006 and 2007:
Completion of the OSMP Grassland Plan.
The following #1 priority items wouldnotbe addressed until a longer term staffing
solution is developed:
AGENDA ITEM#________PAGE
11
Provide technical assistance to city departments on a limited basis to implement
plan recommendations.
Work with property owners to develop site management plans to protect and
contain or remove and exclude prairie dogs. In specific areas, this may result in
prairie dog colonization on city-owned lands if management actions are not taken
on private property.
Work Program Impacts (through 2007):
Potential postponement of a Long-Range Planning Division work item such as the
CU South Land Use Suitability Study.
Reduced participation in the Interagency Bear Management Team (Parks and
Recreation).
Reduced role in the Front Range Prairie Dog Working Group (OSMP/Parks and
Recreation).
Reduced role in the implementation of the Boulder Feeder Canal Trail plan (Parks
and Recreation).
Reduced role in implementation of OSMP Visitor Master Plan (OSMP).
OPTIONS FOR LONG-TERM STAFFING AND MANAGEMENT:
Because Boulder is surrounded by and so well-integrated with its natural systems, wildlife
conflicts will always occur in the urban area and require on-going management. Prairie dogs
will always be part of the grassland ecosystems surrounding the city and sometimes inhabit
properties intended for human uses. The city has always had on-going urban wildlife conflicts
but they have been addressed on an ad hoc basis and often without clear policy and procedure.
In addition, ad hoc wildlife management can sometimes cause work program disruptions and
result in expensive and short-lived solutions.
Development of further components to the UWMP (e.g. bear and mountain lion) and long-term
implementation of the prairie dog component can not occur without a more permanent staffing or
organizational solution. Urban wildlife management and long-term UWMP implementation
would be better managed with an on-going staff member or team devoted solely to urban wildlife
conservation and management.
There are numerous possibilities for addressing this staffing need. Options for solving this
staffing need could range from continuing the existing staffing team to combining multiple
environmental functions throughout the city into one program as described below. The most
effective and efficient way to have focused,coordinated implementation of the UWMP, rapid
response to urban wildlife issues and consistent prairie dog management would be to have the
responsibility assigned to a work group that has the expertise and resources to provide the
services for all city departments. However, to accomplish this, a funding source must be
identified.
Staff is proposing to further develop options for long-term management of urban wildlife issues
and bring those back to Council prior to the 2008 budget discussions. The following are the
options that staff is analyzing and considering:
AGENDA ITEM#________PAGE
12
Option A: Continue with existing team to conduct limited implementation of the first
priority action items of the UWMP(e.g. policy, regulatory changes)
Option B: Consider a merge all city resource conservation programs and look for
efficiencies within one program. No matter where in the city organization the work
group is placed, work plan priorities would be re-assessed and impacts evaluated.
Option C: Consider establishment and funding of an urban resource conservation
manager to coordinate implementation of plan and provide support to other departments
on urban wildlife management. To be mosteffective, the position should be placed in a
central department or division within the city organization.
Option D: Consider establishment and funding of an urban resource conservation
work group to perform “in-house” services implementing the plan and conduct field
management work (including prairie dog relocations and lethal removals).
Option E: Consider a merge of severalenvironmental and resource conservation
programs within the city to create an environmental sustainability program combining
policy development and conservation management functions.
NEXT STEPS:
A public hearing and consideration of acceptance of the UWMP by City Council is scheduled for
August 29, 2006. Board recommendations will be included in the Council packet for that
meeting. Assuming the UWMP and the interim staffing plan are accepted by City Council on
that date, the staff team will further develop and refine the options and review them with the
appropriate boards and City Council prior to development and submission of the 2008 budget.
Once the earlier action items are completed, staff will continue to work on the next species
components once a long-term staffing solution is developed.
Approved By:
______________________
Frank W. Bruno,
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
APrivate Property Owner Comments
BProposed Urban Wildlife Management Plan with the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog
Component.
AGENDA ITEM#________PAGE
13
AGENDA ITEM#________PAGE
14
Attachment A:
AGENDA ITEM#________PAGE
1
AGENDA ITEM#________PAGE
2