Loading...
6A - Public hearing and recommendation to City Council on an ordinance amending Chapter 6-1, B.R.C.CITY OP 130ULD~I2 PARKS AND RECR~ATION ADVISORY BOARD AG~NDA ITEM ME~TING DAT~: November 24, 2003 AGENDA TITL~: Public heaung and iecommendation to City Council on an ordmance amendmg Chapter 6-1, B R C. 1981, pertammg to the protection of wildhfe PRESENTER/S: Jan Geden, CPRP, Director, Paiks and Recieation Department Jeiry Gordon, Acting CiYy Attorney Sue Ellen Hariison, OtGce of the City Attorney Jeff Lakey, Supeimtendent, Plamm~g and Development Division, Parks and Recreation Department Jeanne Scholl, Environmental Resouice Coordmatoi, Parks 1nd Recreahon Depaitment Bev Johnson, Environmental Plannei, Plannmg Department Ahce Guthrie, City IPM Coordmatoi, Office of L~nvuonmental Affaus Bryan Piitchetl, Resouice Conservation and Education/Outreach Coordmator, Open Space/Mountain Parks EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: City Council directed staff to submit the amendments to the prairie dog and bird protection ordinances to City Council far first ieadmg on October 21, 2003 The attached ordmancc (Attachment A) was taken to City Council for fiist ieadmg, but sYaff mformed Council that lhere were issues with the proposal and pubhc input was needed befoie fmahzmg it The proposal includes the followmg elements 1. Adopt wildhfe protection language similar to Amendment 14 of the state constiluuon which prohibits the killing of protected wildlife species. 2. Adopt bird prolectron language consistent wilh Pedeial migratoiy bitd prolechon provisions 3. Adopt a permit system foi prairie dog and b~id exteimmation to assure that impacts to non-larget oi protected species aie mmimized. At the OctoUei 21, 2003 Crty Council meetmg, Councii passed an emergency oidmance (Oidmance No 7322, Attachment E) that "except as aulhorized by state law, no person shall ut~lize lethal means of control for piairie dogs or Uuds, oi remove piaiiie dogs from the giound with the intenL to kill them, or tiitilize methods ot ielocat~on toi praiiic dogs that cause PRAB_wildlife ordinnnce 11-24-03 rev AG~NDA ITGM # VI-A PAGC 1 unnecessary suffecing to arumals " Exceptions are for dam protection, airpoil iunways and taxiways, and public health and safeLy. The ordmance is in effect foi 120 days. It aiso requires thaY landowners provide the city manager with 20 days' notice of pro~ected poisonmg oi relocations and perimt the manager or designee lo be piesent durmg lhe exteimination oi ielocatton. Council asked Lhat ataff addiess the issue oY humane tieadnent City Council also diiected the City Attorney's Office to mvestigate civil acrion to clarify the city's position on poisoning of piauie dogs. Staff is workmg with tbe City Managei's Office to schedule a sCUdy session with City Council on this issue befoie returning m Febiuaty for second ieadmg Staff will mcorpoiate feedback fiom the public and advisoty boaids on the pioposed amendments and will conduct a full analysis of iesouice and budgetary impacts of the pioposals. Fiscal Impacts: BudQetary Additional funding would be needed for the staff recommended options. Staff is evaluating costs and will provide available mformation at the Nov. 24 meetmg. Staff Time A permit system as proposed would iequire additional costs and staff time to admmister Staff proposes chargmg a fee for the permit that would cover the costs and staff trme Ot6er Impacts: Economia The proposed option will have an econom~c impact on property owners (includmg city deparlments) or businesses that wish to remove prauie dogs oi birds from their propeities. Some property owners may have on-going financial impacts as birds and prairie dogs conYmue to re-colomze ceitam sites. If a fee-based permttlmg system is adopted, city deparlments will also have to obtam a permit and will be assessed the fee. Far the Parks and Recreation Department, areas of concern are the followmg srtes. • Valmont Park - 110-ll9 acres (Phase 2 developmenl), 40°lo active prairie dogs • Aiea III- 191 acres, 60 acics active piaine dogs • Noith Foolhills Community Patk - 22 acies (Phase 2 development), piairie dogs are begmning to colonize the a~ea. • Boulder Reservoir complex - praiiie dog colomes on dams Commurutv. The staff pioposal has shmulated a communrty discussion involvmg thosc who feel that birds and prairie dogs should not be kilied undei any conditions and tho~e whose primary focus is on oveiail environmental balance. Board and Commission feedback: This rtem is scheduled foi Open Space Boaid of Trustees, Environmental Advisory Board, Transportation Advisory Board, Watei Resouices Advisoiy Boatd and Plaunmg Board in Deceinbei. PRAB_wildlife ordinance 11-24-03 rev AGENDA ITPM # VI-A PAGG 2 Public feedback: A preliminary meeting with attorneys for the Rocky Mountam Ammal Defcnse (RMAD) and two members of Chc Environmental Advisoiy Boatd (EAB) was held m September to discuss an mitial drafl of the ordtnance. Represenlattves of Cheee orgamzahons expressed prelimmary suppoiC foi the direction proposed by staff. At subsequent Council meelmgs, membets of RMAD have expressed concein for the protechon and furtherance of animal iights. Members of the pubhc, RMAD attorneys and RMAD members have indicated Yhat they do not support the proposed ordmance as written. They want the cily to piohibit all bird and prairie dog poisonmg and expiessed concerns thal vacuummg piau•ic dogs is inhumane trealment. Staff held three meetmgs with stakeholdeis and lheir comments are summaiized below. ~nvironmental group representatives • Protecrion of nahve ecosystems is a pnouty • Control of biids and prairie dogs should be humane • Some conCrol of piairie dogs is necessary • Contmue to mvcstigate biith contiol methods for prairie dogs • Should be an oveiall ciYy piairie dog conseivaY~on plan • Urban piairie dogs do serve a purpose for education and as prey foi iaptois • Need more information on feiret piogram Rocky Mountam Ammal Defense members and piairie dog relocators• • Pieveni kilhng of any ammal • Prevent mhumane treatment of any ammal • Piotect ecosystems • City should buy more land to mmimize confhcts and providc sites for relocation • Dispute data fiom Open Space/Mountam Parks on amount of land available for prairie dog relocation and amount of land currently occupied by prairie dogs • Have city look into mtei-county agreemenis foi relocation • Boulder should mamtain posrtion as environmental leader through its oidinances • Want language m ordmance that requiies Open Space/Mountam Paiks Department to accept pranie dogs for relocauon • Want to go back to "old oidinance" • Disagree with assumption tbat mumcipalities cannot prevent "killing" of piairie dogs, smce state law appltes only to poisomng • Want public piocess extended m ordei to have anothei meehng with stafY • Thmk city of Boulder should challenge state law based on city's rights not to have poison in its enviionment • Offended that new ordinance refeis to native buds not wild buds and wants it changed PRA13_wildlife ordinunce 11-24-03 rev AGENDA IT~M # VI-A PAG~ 3 Piivate property owneis• • Private propeity owncrs have liabilily issues wilh piairie dogs - polenhal lawsuits if someone is hurt (bitten, plague, m~uiy fiom burrow) • Feel ihe city has an obligahonhesponsibihty to deal with piairie dogs coming onto piivate land from cdy land • Employees and clients have health and safety conce~ns about close pioximity to piairie dogs and burrows • Want to do lhc humane thmg • Relocahon or removal foi feiret program is veiy expensive • Would like City Council to deLermine what is reasonable habitat fo~ praiiie dogs, paihcularly wittun the urban aieas • Pnvale propeity owners were fearful of discussmg therr opmions on this issue in public forums • Would like ability to maintam buffer areas between prauie dog colorues and famhties • Current proposal doesn't have any ieal options - makes poisoning too difficult and relocation isn't feasible • Are coneerned about peimrttmg costs • Need to be able to deal with burrows m order to discourage expansion of prairie dog colonies • Wrllmg to compromise to deal with issue of prairie dogs Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board tiansmit to City Council an advisory recommendation on the following: 1. What does PRAB considei to be the goal(s) of the revised oidmance~ • Prevent the kiliing of any ammal? • Prevent mhumane treatment of ammals? • Piotect ecosystems on Parks and Open Space/Mountam Parks lands? 2. How does PRAB recommend conflictmg prioiihes be resoived? (Such as biodiversity protection, development pro~ects, wildhfe conflicCs on private propeity ) 3 Staff would hke comments from PRAB on the pioposed wildlife piotection ordinance. ANALYSIS: Background: Prairie Dog Protection The history of Boulder's effoits to piotect prairie dogs thiough legislahon began in 1999. Several evenCs m the 1990'a focused attention upon the impoitance of pia~rie dogs as a dimimshing keysCone species m grassland ecosystems. Coneeins about lhe protection of prairie dogs arose from several mcidents m Boulder and m some suiioundmg communities where large colomes of prairie dogs were poisoned. In addition, the National Wildlife FedeiaYion had petihoned the U S. Fish and Wildhfe Seivice (USFWS) to cons~dei an emeigency hsdng of lhe PRAB_wildlife ordinance 11-24-03 rev AG~NllA ITI;M # VI-A PAGE 4 black-tailed piaiiie dog (Cynomys ]udovacianus) as a threatened species undei the fedeial Endangeied Species Act (ESA) In December 1999, City Council adopted an ordmance amendmg the cirteiia for site ieview in Section 9-~4-1 ] oi'the Land Use Regulat~ons. The amendments strengthened the mty's ability to negotiate the piotection of prairie dogs and olher species of concein and theii habitat in conneclion with cerlam development pio~ects On Januaiy 18, 2000, City Council adopled Resolution No. 842 (Attachment C) regaidmg Lhe piotection and management of black-tailed piairie dogs and an ordmance prohibitmg the poisonmg of piairie dogs. The oidmance was amended July 3, 200J to piohibrt deshuction of active piaine dog burrows The city's original goal was to p~event the loss ot indroidual prairie dogs Chrough poisoning withm the city. The cily has been able to successfully prevent poisoning of prairie dogs piimarily by acceptmg ielocated piairie dogs from pnvate and pubhc lands on crty Open Space and Mountain Parks properties. Although the city has emphasized piotection of piaiiie dog habitat on private pioperty whenever possible, the city also has made land available to relocate prairie dogs when conflicts between the animals and exishng or planned land uses were irresolvable. When the original ordinance was adopted, staff anticipated that a relatively small number of piairie dogs would need lo be ielocated and that lhe Open Space/Mountam Parks Department had enough space to accommodate those arumals on city lands. Howevei, as pianie dogs have contmued to re-colomze old sites and expand theii populations onto new srtes, the numbei of prairie dogs needmg ielocahon has continued to grow At the same time, Lhe existing populalion oPpiairie dogs on Open Space/Mountam Parks propeities has continued to grow diamatically to the pomt where it is thieatening the overall health of the grassland and other ecosystems. City Council held a study session on this issue on May ] 3, 2003 Thc staff inemoiandum from this meetrng is in Attachment D Update on the Federal Status of Prairie Dogs Recent prairie dog colony mappmg and mventory, conducted by state agencies within the piaitie dogs' historic range, mdicate that piaiiie dogs may be moie widespiead and numerous than oiigmally thought. This mformation has led the USFWS to consider elmimahng the prairie dog as a candidate for l~sting as threatened undei the federal ESA However, no formal action has been laken yet. The inventoiy data collected in Colorado was prvotal to swaymg the opinion of lhe USFWS. Accordmg to that mformation, Colorado has sigmficantly moie prairie dogs and potential habitat than previously estimated From this data, tlie Coloiado Division of Wildlile and the reseaichei who conducted the mventory conclude that all potential habitat in Boulder County is cuirently occupied Bird Protection At the May 21, 2002 Ciry Counc~l ineetmg, a citizen askcd Council to ban lhe use of Avitiol, an avicide used to kill pigeone At the June 4, 2002 Counc~l meetmg, the same cihzen presented PRAI3_wildlife ordinance 11-24-03 rev AGENllA ITCM #_Vl-A_ PAGG_5_ Council wrih a petition of 788 signatures suppoitmg a ban on ~he use of Aviuol. Council referred the item to the EAB to conduct public heaiings on the poisoning of pigeons and otber wild birds Also upon Council's request, the City Attorney's Office produced a June 7, 2002 memoiandum addiessing the issue At the June 13, 2002 meetmg, Lhe ~AB heard pubhe comment fiom citizens opposmg the use of avicides lo cont~ol pigeons. The Crty Attomey's Office presented several ophous Co merease the piotechon of wild biids within the city At its July 25, 2002 meetmg, the EAB unammously agieed Yo recommend that Council deciare tlie city a bird sanctuary, makmg it illegal to poison, in~ure or caplure wild birds The City Attorney drafted Ordinance No. 7227 that declared Bouldei a wild bird sanctuaiy, and revised it based on comments fiom Crty Council, staff and the public, mcludmg RMAD The oidmance was passed on third readmg, Sept 17, 2002. Staff drafted admimstrative rules and permit iequirements and presented them to the EAB m March, 2003 for comment. However, the Colorado Depattment of Agricultuie intervened befoie the iules and peimrttmg system were enacted Problems with the Current Ordinances: Earher lhis year, the city was nohCied by the Colorado Department of Agriculture that our oidinances which piohibit prairie dog and bird poisonmg (B.R C sechons 6-1-11, 6-1-12, 6-1- 34, and 6-1-35) are preempted by state law regardmg commercial pesticide apphcators. The stale's posilion is that oui ordinances need to be eiYher repealed or amended. Because of state pre-emption issues and because of the scarcity of land available for relocation, certain city wildhfe preservation ordmances are currently not bemg enforced On August 19, 2003 City Council adopted Resolution No. 927 (AttachmenC B) which publ~cly acknowledged the suspension of enforcement and urged the public to use non-lethal control measures for prairie dogs and birds. C~ty Council directed staff to return withm 60 days with suggested amendments ar alternalive approaches. An Approach Based upon Amendment 14 of the Colorado State Constitution: Amendment 14 to the Colorado Constitution was passed by Colorado voters m 1996. It makes it unlawful to take wildLfe with any leghold trap, any instanY kill body-gi7pping design trap, or by poison or snare m lhe state of Colotado The provisions, however, exclude the taking of wild or domest~c rodents and do not apply to prauie dogs or birds. A couiC case was imtiated in 2002 by RMAD in an attempt to foice the state to enfoice Amendment 14 Part of the theory of that case was that when piauie dogs aie poisoned (which is not forbidden by Amendment 14), othei species ot wildlife are also being killed The plaintiffs' theoiy was Chat these othei species of ammals were protected by Aniendment 14, and that moie piecautions needed to be taken to piotect them under these cncumstances. (Copies of the rulmg and relevant porhons oP the court transciipts can be provided to PRAB inembeis upon iequest ) YRAB_wildlifc ordinance 11-24-03 rev AGENDA PfTM # VI-A PAGE 6 The tiial ~udge m this case suppoiled the RMAA Lheory He iuled thal to reduce the iisk oi mcidental Lakmg of protected species, pesticide applicators musl show that they have taken steps to mmimize the risk to olher specics which are prolected undei Amendment 14 The Uial ~udge held that those applymg poison should spend more time observing, recordmg and investigahng ptauie dog buiiows prior to applying poison m oidei Co deteimine whether othei species of ammals would be unduly impacted by the use of poison The ~udge's iulmg also apparently placed more responsib~hty on the Coloiado Division of Wildlife to momtor such observalions and investigations oP the apphcatois. One oP the options discussed in this memorandum, and ieflected m the attached diaft ordinance, would adopt Amendment 14 type language mto Boulder's code. The impact would be that local enfoicemenl would become fcasible and local iequirements foi adequate mspechon could be enforced. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act: The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) was first drafted in ] 918 as enablmg legislaCion for the 1916 Convention between Che United States and Gieat Butain for the Protection of Migratoiy Birds in the Umted States and Canada The MBTA was designed to control the "unrestrained killmg of gaine biids, market hunnng, and wanton waste " See, Conrad A FjeCland, Possibilities foi Expansion of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for Lhe ProtecCion of M~giatoiy B~rds, 40 NaC Resouices J. 47, 47 (2000) This federal law makes it illegal to "pursue, hunl, take, capture, kill," or attempt to do any of these actions, with iegard to piotected birds, bird parts or bird eggs 16 U.S C§ 703 (2003). In rts current form, the MBTA (along with implemeuting Pederal iegulations) protects a long list of bird species and reflects tieaty agieemenLs between Yhe United States and Great Britam, Mexico, Japan, Canada and the lormeL Soviet Umon. A list oY proYected epecies is available on Che USFWS website at htlp //mi rg alorybirds fws.~ovhntinlti/mbta/mbCintro hlml oi by contachng staff If the city wished to urihze this fedeial legislarion as the basis to design a system of consislent local enforcement, one ophon would be to piovide lhat those mCending lo utilize lethal means of Uird control be required to submit a staYement to lhe city mdicahng measuies taken to avoid collateral damage to the species protected under federal law. This appioach might have the benefit of fbstering a helpful dialogue between city staff and ihose intending to uUl~ze lethal means of contioL However, tt probably would not avoid all use of all lethal control measures. What are our Overall Protection Goals'? The original approach taken by the city Co protect pra~r~e dogs and birds fiom inhumane treatment is no longer woikmg. This is due to legal obstacles and a lack of available land for prairie dog relocation As a consequence, it is now necessaiy to ie-evaluate city resources and goals and to develop new appioaches to addiessmg the wildlii'e protection issues PRAB_wildlife ordinunce 11-24-03 rev AGENDA ITI:M # VI-A YAGG 7 In developmg opCions, it is ~mportant to revistt and clarify oveiall city pohmes and goais ielated to lhe protection of w~ldhfe species and theu habital. Success is not possible unless the community develops a common undeisCanding of what it is hying to accomplish and unletis it establishes piioiittes. One of the city's piimazy enviionmental policies is to promote biological diveisity and to protect native species and their habitat. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Pian Pohcy 4.06 states that lhe promotion of biological diveisity and protection of federal endangered and threatened specieti and their associated habitat will be emphasized. The city, thiough ite Open Space and Mountam Parks and other city programs, works to maintain, iestoie and preseive native ecosystems, wUich mclude plants, animals, waYer, soii, terram, and geologic formations. The city takes an ecosysCem appioach to natural resource management This means that the city's priority is to manage plant and animal species and their habrtat in an efforl to mamtam fundamental ecological piocesses. The city seeks to balance all the elements and piocesses of naturally evolvmg ecosystems, mcluding the natural abundance, diversity, and ecological mtegrity of the plants and ammals. Regardless of their status under the federal Endangered Species Act> prairie dogs play an impoitant role m giassland ecosystems. There is no doubt that this role is critical and that these animals and their ecosystems have been vasYly dimimshed in the overall nat~onal picture As the cily has piotected thousands of acres of grassland ecosystems (through its Open Space and Mountain Parks program) it has also made it possible for numeious praiue dog colomes to be protected It must be recognized, however, that the pohcies that protect wildlife within the ciCy's urban coie can have a profound impact on Che natural ecosystems outside the city For example, piotecYion of individual ammals within the uiban core can affect the balance of nature on open space and park land. In adoptmg oidmances which required the relocation of numeious piairie dogs to open space lands, the crty madveitenUy placed many of its giasslands at iisk. The oveipopulation of the species m those habitats is having a considerable impact on giassland vegetation and is ~eopatdizmg overall biodiversity In this context, it is usefui to keep in rtnnd that adopted city policy states that uiban wildlife will be managed to mmimize impacts to the open space outside the uiban core and to mamtam healthy, balanced ecological processes Bouldei Valley Compiehensive Plan Policy 4.11 states that when a wildlife species is determmed to be a nuisanee or m conilict with Luban life, or poses a pubhc health oi safety hazard, a full iange of alternative wildlife management techruques will be considered by the crty m ordei to mrtigate the problem m a mannei that is humane, effeclive, economical and ecologically responsible. To the extent that the city's piimary goal is to piotect the health and biodiversiry of the natural ecosysCems, it may not be possible to place equal emphasis on the protection of each mdividual ammal YRAI3_wildtife ordinunce 11-24-U3 rev AGENDA IT~M #_VI-A_ PAG~_8_ G~ven these pohcies and piiounes, staff pioposes that the followmg oveiall goals be uUlized when considermg stialegies foi protecting wildlife m lhe uiban atea. Goal 1: Protect the Uiodiversity and overall health of natural ecosystems, focusing on native species. Goal 2: Utilize an ecosystem management approach to the protection of city-owned natural lands in all policy decisions. Goa13: Encourage humane treatment of wildlife in the management of conl7icts between wildlife and human Iand uses. OPTIONS: Staff has considered seveial options to me'et lhe crty's wildhfe piotection goals. Each option would have some impact on staff resources and on the city's budget Some options u~e more effective than others in meeling our environmental goals. The options are not necessarily mutually exclusive and some combination of approaches may be desirable. In evaluahng these options, staff suggests utilizmg the followmg criteria. 1. Effectiveness in meeting goals 2. Limited private and pubiic costs and/or resources required 3. Administrative efficiency Option 1: ~ducation and voluntary agreements with landowners. This option calls for the city to provide mfoimation to the public about appiopriate and humane ways to address conflicts between land uses and piairie dogs or birds. The city would also woik with private landowneis on a case-by- case basis to fmd solutions to specrfic land use conflicts, and to discourage the use of poisons in exterminatmg wildlife. This approach wauld be non-iegulatory and it would promote coopeiation belween the city and private landowners However, this option would also piovide the least amount of assurance Chat non-target species would be protected itom poisoning It also would requiie on-going educational effarts on the part of city staff and continuous fundmg foi staff iesources smce affecled propeity owners and tenants wili conhnue to change ovei rime. Option 2: Adopt wildlife protection Ianguage similar to Amendment 14 of the state constitution and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. PRAI3_wildliFe ordinance 11-24-03 rev AGENDA ITF.M # VI-A PAGE J Local adoption of ordmance language adopting an Amendment l4 appioach is an oplion reflected in the attached diaft oidmance This appioach, inspired by the holdmg m lhe case biought befote the DisCiict Couil by Rocky Mountam Amnial Defense, would provide leverage m pieventmg the unwairanted killmg of piolected species To lhe extenl ihat limited state resources exisl for enfoicement of the stale law, the abihty for local enfoicemenl of complementary local regulations might have a salutary effect This oplion mighl be combined with a permil system m oider to provide a mechamsm foi momtormg and enfoicing the provieions of the code. Option 3: Option 4: It is impartant to iecogmze that ihis approach is not fiee. A law on the books has no value unless citizens are awaie of that law Staff is evaluatmg enfoicemenl costs and appioaches and their budgetary impacts Amendment 14 does not protect birds. However, usmg the model suggested fot local complementary Amendment 14 animal pmtection, the crty might consider a legislat~ve approach that is complementary to tederal protections extended to many species of birds pursuant to the federal Migratoiy Biid Treaty Act. This federal law is admmistered by the Umted States Fish and Wildliie Service and protects bud species natrve to North America. Require consultation with the city before taking aclion. Council could adopt an oidmance which would, at a mmimum, require consultation with city staff before piairie dogs or buds are exterminated or iemoved from pioperly located withm the city. This would allow the city to mtluence pioperly owners as specific animal conflict issues arise However, it would not uecessaiily pievent a landowner from usmg lelhal approaches to wildlife conflicts. Minimize impacts to protected species by adopting a permit system for prairie dog and bird extermination. Council could adopt an ordinance that requires a local permit for piaiue dog or bird exYermmalion This ophon rmght be utilized in combination wiCh the adoption of local Amendment 14 and the Migratoiy Bird Treaty Act style iegulations. It would allow the ciCy to monitoi extermmalion on private sites m order to ensure thal adverse impacls on protected species have been minimized It would not prevent all impacts to protected species. One thmg to note with a permit system is that is it does not prohibit poisonmg or tiappmg and killmg Also, even if protected ypecies have been found on the site, there is no requitement in Amendment 14 (or the proposed city of Boulder code) that they be ielocated, even if it were feasible to do eo PRAB_wildlife ordinance 11-24-03 rev AGENDA ITRM #_VI-A_ PAGE_10_ This appioach migh~ also piovide eome assuiance that humane methods of rcmoving the prairie dogs iiom a site (telocahon, euthauasia) have been fully explored However, this approach would also have sigmficant impacts on stal'f time and on lhe crty's budget Staff would have to admmistei a peimil eystem. Applications would hztve to be received and revtewed, peiinitted activities would have to be monrtored and piovision for enfoicement iesouices would have to be made. This ophon also has the potential to have a fmaneial impact on piivate and pubhc piope~ ly owners as it may iequire contiacting with a yuahfied biologist to ensuie thal impacts to non-target species are mmimized. The USFWS tequires cihzens to apply for and receive a depredation permit befoie ielocating or killiug bitd species coveied under the MBTA. The city could require lbat citizens submit a copy of that permit and accept it in lieu of a separate crty of Boulder permit. PRAll wildlife ordinance 11-24-03 rev AGENDA ITCM # VI-A PAGE 11 Comparison of Options ++ Meels crlterion to a high degree + Meets criterion - Does not meet criterion -• u.~~ ~ r,.~~r:.,o ...,..~~~ Effectiveness in meeting city-wide goals Option 1: Develop an education + progiam/voluntaty agreements with landowners Limited private and public wst and resourcesinvolved On-gomg staff resources requned to pro-actively ieach property owners. Option 2: Adopt wildlife ++ protection language similar to Amendment 14 of the staYe constituhon and the MBTA ++ Mimmal impact on resouicesto adoptthe piovisions Enfoicement would iequire allocation of Efficiency or simplicity to administer It may be difficult lo sustam the piogiam on an on-gotng basis. ++ • Without a commitment lo enforcement, this appioach would have mimmal benefits. resouices. Option 3: Require consulYadon with the city before taking achon againsl birds oi prairie dogs Option 4: Minimize impacts to protecled species by adopting a permit system foi piaiiie dog and bnd extermmation. ++ Consuitation would be initiated by the landowner and would be relatively simple to admmistei. Impacts on pubhc and W~ll require staff time private resources to admmisCei CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: The ielationship between ecosystem management, wildlife preseivation and human needs and activiUes m and about the city raises a series of relatively complex issues. The ciCy has made significant efforts to deal with those iesues over time. Boulder's open space progiam, foi + - Some staff resources would be needed to gather mformation and provide consulLation on a neriodic basis ++ -- PRAB wildlife ordinance 11-24-03 rev AGENDA IT~M #_VI-A_ PAG~_12_ example, is signiticant m lhat regaid Howevei, it is clear that some of Lhe inihal appioacl~es adoplcd by the ciry have to be re-evaluated at this pomt both because of legal issues that have arisen and because earliei assumptions about the number of piauie dogs needmg relocation and open space availabilrty for ielocahon have proven maccurate. The attached draft ordinance was piesented to Council on October 21 far fn st teadmg because Council requested that this maCter be given pnoiity. Staff is now cond~ictmg public hearmgs to get etlkeholder and community input on ali sides of the issue m order to iefine the city's approach to these issues. Queshons mvolving w~ldlife/human inteiface are complex and they tmplicate a set of values ihat influence policy decisions m several ways The attached proposed oidinance would adopt Amendment 14 type language into local law. It would also provide for some monitoiing of the effects of local control measures on those species of birds that are protected by the federal legislation. ATTACHMENTS: A Proposed ordinance B. Resolution No 927, adopted August 19, 2003 C. Resolution No. 842, adopted Januaiy 18, 2000 D. May 13, 2003 Study Session memorandum E Ordmance No 7322, adopted October 21, 2003 PRAB_wildlife ordin~nce ll-24-03 rev AGENDA I1'EM # VI-A YAGE 13 Attachment A ORDINANCE NO 7321 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6-1, B R C 1981, PERTAIrIING TO THE PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TI~ CITY OF BOLTL.DER, COLORADO Sechon 1 Section 6-1-1, B R C 1981, is amended to read 6-1-1 Legislative Intent (a) The purpose of th~s chapter ~s to protect the public health, safety, and welfare ofthe residents of the city by prescribmg the types of ammals that can be kept m the city and the conditions under which they can be kept, hnutations on keepmg an~mals that create a nuisance by bemg safety or health hazards, and the procedures by wh~ch the crty manager or an authonzed agent may impound and dispose of animals kept m violation of the chapter (b) Tlie fiirtl~oi purposcs ot this ~h~~>ter aiie to ( L) P~otect uniq~ie elcments of thc loctil eirv~roniiient, (2) 1'ioYect n~Uve ~vildlife bio-divervty and bio-diwrs~ty gencrally wrthm ihis comnuamt}, (3) Adv~triccloeal~ominuivryv~lucsliyd~scowngingtFicuseoflethtilrneansolt~ntm~~l coi~trol that cause great ptim or pr~~lnr~ged discort~fo~ l tu tanim~ls ~rid hirds, (4) FosteriP~e~7res~ivation,sofaraspossible,ofv~iiousanimal~ndbirdspecre~,residerlt to ihe local cc~niruunrry, aud (5) Legislale in ~~ mannei il~~t st~tisfies issues of locat coucern ~n a mai~ne~ that is .dso coi~s~stent w~ih applicnb~~ st<~te and fedeial regidttituins The crty ~ecorn~res the ~tnte's~u(liorilytoregitlntewiltiat»ri~alspu~stian1toSecttons33-1-101 tlvouc~l~ ;3- b-20~~ C" R S, and to re~ulaie pestrades and the co~7vuerci ~l ap~J icnlo~ s c~f ~~~ tili cules piarsuai~tioYhestatePesUcideApp1ictitors'ActatSectioii35-LO-102,elsrq ('itS, while a~l;nowledgm~; that regul~hon oi'mtitt~rs oflocal ecolo~;acal sign~fiu~n~e tve t~lsc~ mattcis of vul~d local cance~ro (bc) The city counc~l intends to protect persons and properiy m the city from animals rumm~g at large and to abrogate the requirements of the Colorado fence lawZ (ed) The city council, not~tnthstandmg the use of words such as"keeper," "owner" or "trtle" m this chapter, mtends to implement and contmue the common law view that the properry K IPLCU~o-7321 ~zr wpd AGENDA ITEM #y1_~,, ~'AGE~ nghts of owners m their an~mals are qualified by the city's exercise of rts police power over such an~mals, and that summary impoundments and d~spos~tions of ammals are two such quahfications of such nghts' ' .~ „ > , > , Section 2 Section 6-1-11, B R C 1981, ~s amended to read 6-1-11 Prairic Dog l,clhal C'onlrol Mcllwds Resh•icted - - , , - herar-rtself K\DI CIAo 7i21 izr wpd AGENDA ITEM #,JU~~,, ~'~~~~, , ' streeessor-ectmon- , (~) Tl~e follow~rig ~re le~rislauve findm~;s of fact ( t) Prawe dogs 6~ e in arul atou~~d biuioas that ~n t~urt make up col~~mes (2) Pumie dog colnn~as t~ie a vital part o1'a grassland ecosystem tha1 ath~cts numerous other s}~ccics oi' wildhfc (3) Ftundredsofapeucsoi'wildlifefrequentpraincdogcolcimes Someoftlioselocatc ~n~rau~~d~igbuirows 'I'hosespec~esincfudesalamaGndcis,snal~es,bunov,an~.~owlz otP7er ~epiiles aiid iabbits (4) Bec~u~e <~ther Spemes occupy praGrie dog burrows imc( colonies, there ~s tz ii,I, that usm~ lethul metho~ls of 4>rnuie do~ corltrc~l that ~~dversely nffect p~~~rie do~ li~~t~itnl will also a~tvciscl} imptict olkier spaci~s (5) TheaGyliastuq~uredarulma~nlamssul~stm~iinllaudsfnronens~ocear7~lpnrl~,tiiti;~~c and impurlanf poilions of such lands arc alvo utili~ed foi thu piesc~vaitiou tincl promot~on oi wildl ife htib~tat foi pr a~nc do~;s arid for othcr impo~tarit ai~imal ,~~cics lhnt shair SucI7 fi.tbiYat (f>) ln orcicr 1<> minuivzo tlio advarSO impact upon othor sp~crc5 when ut~lvm~ Ictl~t~l mc~ns of C7r~wie dci~; conL~ctil that may ad~crscly nff'ect prain~ dog ha6iitir it i~; necessai~ tom~l.etho~oughobservalion5ofcolome~sol'prtirnedo~;s}~iioi ~oiheuve of IeCh tl methods, ~nd to specdic~lly evaluate e~cl~ liole fo~ eviderue of iron-t~irgG spec~cv (7) Piopert~ <~taneis siiould l~e oi~ ^otue tl~ai cxte}ui~g and reloc~ting prxiric• da<;5 mu~mu~cti thr iis]< of ktllrug otl~e~ specre~ that uriQer Sarne c.ucun~sutnccs, n~~n be pioir;c~it~d midci sttite ~nd (octtt lav K 1PLCI-o-7321 ~zr wpd FiGENDA ITEM #_~ ~ pqG~~ t~) On February ~4, 2000_ tl~e Umicd States 1 itih ;~nd ~1'ildiit~e Se~vice foutul lhnl u thre~ttened stntus Co~ the hl~cl<-tniled p~arne du~; is wa~ ranted undei ~l~e L?ndan~;cied Specres AcY of I9~3 IG I~ S(' Secuou IS71 et,u< In view ofihts fact, Houlite~ residents shotdcl bu e~iromas;ed 1o take appro~riiate ttction to prot~ct t17~4 ~pecics wtnch is nowa"cancl~datu species" fo~ fedeial piutection (eb) Erccpt as oYheiwise ~uthonzed by staYe oi f'edeial lai~, no ~crson, pr~perty ownci, or propcity managci sliall utiliae lut}~al rnotliods of ~or~hol foi nnv pratrte dog w~Yhotrt ~"iisi obt~~nuig rt letl~~il control ~crmrt from lhc crry m~mng¢r (fi ) It is a specific defense to a charge of violatmg th~s section that the person who poisoned the anrmai-a p~airie dog owned, or was responsible for a dam, or acted at the duecrion of such a person, and that removal of the animal was necessary to protect the dam and to comply with the Dam Safety Manual published m January 1988, by the Colorado State Engmeer's Office, or any successor edihon (<I) T1 is ~t specitio defense to a ch~rgu of violatin~ this scchai ihat tl~c p~rs~~n who noi4oned a piauic dog c~w~ted, c~r wtts iesponsible for operahn~, ~n tiiiport 1'ticiliry or acled nt tl~~ direction of such a pcrsun, and d~a1 r emoval of ihe animal w as ueocssttiy to ~aromotc h~~m~m safety or m ordei Io comply wilh Pade~ al AvinUon ndiYiimtitr aUon stm~dnrcls or i egulatior~s Section 3, Section 6-1-12, B R C 1981, is amended to read 6-1-12 ~'rahibiteclF'roleedon of 131ac1z-Tailed 1'raieie Ua~ and of Prairie Du~ lim~raws (a) Except as perrrutted by , , , this chapter or by ot}ier ,pec~ tic ~tovisrons oPstatte It~N no person shall knowmgly ki11 any black-tailed prairie dog (Cvnomys ludovieianus) It is a tip~c~fre ctefense to a violnuon of this subsection thnt Ietlial means of control wi~ie uutrred oiily nfte~ a pe~ruit was obtainoct {iom 61~e city mariu~ei pur~iAant 1o SecUon E,-1-36 `Pra~ne 170~ aud Bnd Lethal ('ontiol Peu7uts," 6 R(' (981 anil fwttte~ b~sed upon n tihowin~* th~1 siicll ~Tieans wererle~estit~ry to sl~~p uew colom~auon of land p~awouslv uriocr.u~~ied by piau~e dogs c~~ as }~~~I ol a p~o~rain io st~p ie-colonu.atton oflands f~m7i wlucVz p~airte do~;s wete lnwfullv ieux>~i'd T'he m~n~;cr's dutcrrninntion with rc~;arcl to thc gi aintms; oi elcmul ofsucl~ authoi izatwii ,hall bc sub~tcl to rcvicw puisuttnt to tl~e piocectures Sei 1u~~th u~ Subsect~oii G-I-i6~), 13 IC (' l9Rl K \PLClAo-7321 ~z~ wp4 AGENDA ITEM # V I "{~} , ~AG~~ (b) No person shall damage any pra~rie dog burrow It is a spec~fic defense to a charge of violation of this subsection that (1) Theburrowwasurunhabitedbecausetheprainedogmhabrtmgithaddiedbeforethe burrow was damaged, (2) The pra~ne dog mhabitmg the burrow had been relocated by a wddhfc tuloc~tion profess~ontil peimittcc~ by thu state 1o enf~a~;c n~ wildh£e statei~lociiTiou, or that a wildlife relocatoriciocatian ~rof'essional licensed by the state had made a good farth effort to relocate all the pra~rie dogs m the colony or m `'- --- --`--'-' °- ---` -`--a specdied nre~, whether or not all had been eucce5sfu(ly captured mid relocated, (3) The burrow was m or near a dam, airport runway or ta3ciway safety area, or other existmg structure where sliuctwal mtegrrty or the safety of ihe sliuc~iwe's utie~s , ns threatened by that bun ow o~ by burt ov,~ng tic1ivtty,`'--a~c i~oi~ar (4) The burrow was on the property on which the person resides, (S) 'Clie buiro~v was damageci m comiccTion with horia fide ~ctivirius oP an ac~dem~c investig~tar or of a c~ ry or siate ciuplovice while ~n thc process of ~esc tt~chm~ amm~l control or proleal~pr~ ~ssues, (G) The binrow w~s datimti~ed aCTer nulhou~.tiuon h~td beon oht~~ned Cor ihnt purpose f~orn the [u,u1~e~ (sub~ecC to ~eview pursiianl io the pu>ced~ues set f~~ritt u~ Suhsecdon G-1-36~), B(2C I~8t) ba5ed upoi~ a showmg 1h~t such nctiou was ne~cssary to sto}~ new coloru~~tiun o{'It~nd p~evioiisly unoccu~~etl by pia~na do~;s or ns }~m1 oF t~ piugtam Yo stcip re-colonvalion of l~uids Proi1~ ~mhicli prairir dogs werE IawPully re;mcivec9, ot (7) `I he bo~row w~is ~la~roa~ed u~ con~unetion with the utihzation oS I~thal me~ms of ~onhol of' piaine dogs accomplishcd rn ~onfoimHy wril~ tho p~ovistons of thts ~ha~~t~r (c) If the c~ty manager has reason to believe that work pursuant to any permit or other approval will damage any prvne dog burrow, r~etsub~eetto-vid lhat work would uot be within the ~p~ci(ic~ defenses m subsection (b) of this section, the city manager shall deny oi resciud the permit or approval or condrtion rts exercise on lawf'ul relocahon of the animals or upnn thc g~~nt~ng oi' n E>iaiiie do~ lell~Eil conuol pcnm4 pwsua~~t to llie p~ovisiom of this c}iaptei x \PtcNo 7321 i<r wpA ~1G~NDA ITEM # V ~ , PAGE~ Appeal from a dete~ mui~ tiou ol'the manabe~ pw suun I to thiv subsca1 ioii approvafshall be m accordance ~tnth the provisions for demals of such permits or approvals Section 4 Section 6-1-13, B R C 1981, is amended to read 6-1-13 Killing Wild Animnls Prohibited (a) No peison shall knowmgly ktll any wild ammal protected by federal or state const~tuhon', law, or regulation This prohib~hon shall not apply where the appl~cable state law makes such lnllmg a felony "Protected" m this sect~on means those ammals which may not be killed under applicable law, and also means killmg arumals m a hme, place, or manner prohibited under such law, or by a person not authonzed to do so (b) it shnl) be ~mlawful to tal<e waldlife witl~ arty leghold 1iap, Hny mstant lull body gripping deti~gn irap, o~ hy porson or sriare lioweve~, this snbsectiori s}tall not }aica}iibit ( I) 'i he U~lung of wildlife. by u~e of tf1~ Qevices o~ methods described iu tlus subsection bv fcaei~l, state, couniy, or ivimrcrpal deF~ailr7icrits <rl" he,Glih foi t}ie puipose of piotecung humari hettlth or saCetY, (~') i'hc use of the deviccs oi mctl~odw desm~bud ~u ihis euhtitcuou lor contrc~llmg (n) iars oi micc, (13} otl~cr wdd or d~imest~c iodents, c~ocpt foi be~vei or iu~isl.int, as otherwise authorircd by It~w so loi2~; ~s siACli tal~ing is a~ccomnlitihed pu~:,nant Yo tl~~ ~~rovisions ofi tlvs chapte~, or (<') w~ld o~ domestic bu ds as otl~erwrse autl~oi icud hy law, tio long as such takmg is ttccompLshed pwtiu~int lo ~hc provtsion~ of (Vus chtq~ter, (>) lNic use of no~~-letfi~l sria~u~ tr,tps s~~ec~'ically desi~;neel not lo I.~ll, or r~els u~ take wildld'e f'o~ scren~iiic iescu~ch ~~ic~~ecis, fo~ falconry, li,r ~e;locatiorl, o~ fo~ ror;dreal u cat~rocnt, (~41 I I~~ use of lia}~s, poison;, oi ncts by agunts ot a~;encics ul t}~e 5tttte ~f Coloraclo Divis~c~n of Wilc3life to tal<c oi managefish o~ othe~ non-~uttrnuiahan aqunhe wiltllife, or (`~) Tlletalang~~fwildlrfevrithiiiu.ums,lishin~equi~rnen~,a~cheryeyurpment,orothei impiements m h~ud us nuthoi iicd by law K 1PLCU\a 7i? I vr wpd AGENDA ITEM # V I"l~' , PAG~~ (c) [1s used rn Ih« ~uh,rction. ~ml~ss tkie contexl otl~erwise ieywies (1) 'Iheleim`I<d,inc~'tihallni~~nth~acqwsitiuno~possess~onofe~nldlife,buitiuchterm shall not in~lud~ ihc ~ccidental wom~duig oi l~ilhn~; c~f wildlife bv a nuitor vc{ucia, vesscl, ui tra~n (2) I hoterm` ~wldlifc' rnoans~ny wild vu~~ebiate, turiustn~tl ~nveitebrato, mulhatil~, ~intl ciusYttcean, whcther, tihve or dead, mcludmg ~tny p~rt, Enc~duct, ~eg, or ol(,pnng thmeof th~Y uxi~ts sis ~ specics m a nahiral wild statc m tl~e~r plaa: of nn~*in, }aiesently oi histoucnlly, except tl~ose specie5 dete~rmued to be doivcsuc anrmlls hy iule oi regulaUOn hy Uie stlis agr~cultural comrmssrori ~E g, Article XVIi, Section 12(b) of the Colorado Consriturion Section 5 Sechon 6-1-33, B R C 1981, is amended to read 6-1-33 l~+ild-Nxli~~e Bird Refi~ge Created (a) The ['ollow~rig arc legislativcf~ridmgs offxct (l) Nauve bucl5 are an essenlral pait oC U~e city's locsil ecosystem ;u~~l 1t~cir presence cortuibutes to tl~e qunlity o1'life of eity ~esidcnts andvisitors, (3) The cit~'S ope~i space ~n~l parl.s proc±ranls ttre enuched by the pietien4e ol rtahve 171IC~5, (i) 1 he humane tiot~iment of birds atnd ot}~er wildlife is a core valus I'oi uty residents, (4) A f;rtat mnnv hnd species a~c protc~~ted by tl~c fedeutl I ttw tmd re~~dation uicl~ic9mg Species pio1e~ted by the A9~gratary I~ird I'toaLy Act, 1G U S C' 70i _t ec^c~, and ielated fudtx~il iegulahons, aud (5) [ he teckle5s uut~~~tlwn of letl~al nicth~~ds of brrd control has ~d~-t:ne nupacts ou tl~otic ,Kiecieti of nnt~ve l~ird5 r~rotecled by federal l~w and by otlier npplirt~bla Mtta1e wind local regulaafi~~us (U) The area withm the city is decllieci to be a b~rd sanctuary for the refuge of wtld-uuii~~e birds All persons are urged to protect the wdd-n<iii~ r birds and their refuges withm such sanctuary , urge~ aud to avo~d and take reasonable steps to prevent all unnecessary molestation of birds in the c~ty K \PLCNa 7321 izc wpd ~GENDA I7EI~ # VI ft , I~AGE o~ ~ Section 6 Section 6-1-34, B R C 1981, is amended to read 6-1-34 Use of 3'oismrl3ird l.eihx( Conh•ol i7cll~ods Restricted , > (a) No persoi~ shull uUh~e let~~pl iroeai~s of coi~twl (o~ auy btrd w~d~out Ptrst haumg obt~ined a bird lethal conlrol permu froii~ the cilq n~ana~;er ~~u~t~iani to ihe pruvisioi~s of tl~is cl~~pter (b) No p~inuttue shali 1'ail to comply Nnlh any ~ondmon specifiad m sach pc~nut Section 7 Sechon 6-1-35, B R C 1981, is amended to read 6-1-35 Injuring or Captw•ing ~ild-Nxtive Birds Restricted (a) E~cept as c~tlaciwisc permilYcd by State lax, $it shall be unlawful for any person m the city knowmgly to shoot at, wound, kill, capture, ensnare, net, trap or m~ure any rovtlcl-n~itivo bird, or dan~ago the eggs or young of any such bird o~ to em}~loy leth~l means oYcc~nhol for ~iy budw~Uioat f'ust obtt~rmng s~ bud lethal i~ontrol purii~~t pu~suant to the pro~isioi~s o{' Seclion 6-I-36, `.Piauie Dog and Drid l.ethal ('onrial Peimits,,, t3 R C 1981 (b) This scctun~ vl~~tl i~al ~ply 1~~ ( I) '1'he cnpdwe of oi in~tiuy u7 a hnd th~t is incidei~tal to removmg ihlt hud or its ne5l Cro~n a suuclute, includiu~;, witl~out liiuitat~on, ~tny covoiuig ovei a ti~dewalk, (2) Tl~c capt~ue ~ud ielense of anv bird I't>i purely liumai~rtauan pu~~aoseti, (3) Any Fitamane SocieYy of I3ould. i V111e5 cmployee, veteimariau or per5o7~ l~~ensc~~ under s1ate oi feder~tl law as ~vildlifc rchabilit~~ttors who urc e:n~a~;cd ru tlacii p~ ofession~l act~vitacs ot' nm mal u c;titment, rchabiLY~ttion cir ~ eloc~tion, (4) An} crty em~>loyeo, Htunnnc Socicl5 of13c7ulder Vallcy ~mplntier;, ~etcnntuian, or othcr pcrsoi~ licei~sed undei ;tat4~ o~ feder~l l~w as w~liitd~c ~rh~~bil~ttitors o~ t~~ re5curcheis engaged in the ca~~lure ku~d banding of brrds Secrion 8 Sechon 6-1-36, B R C 1981, ~s repealed and reenacted to read K ~PLCU~o 7321 nr wpd AGENDA ITEM #~, PAGE,~, , , 6-1-3b I'r~irie Dog rmd 13ird LMhal Control Peri7iiis (~a) An a}~plicm~t ibi a prai nc dog Ur bu d 1~*th~tl control pcimrt e}iall file <m applicti1ion wiCh thc manager cin forms siannlied by the n~anagcr for that }~ui~o5c ht~ch such nppl~caYioii shall include a signeGl auihou~~Uc~n by tho ownuz of the Iflnd on wincl~ Yhe lethal roeans of control wdl be employcd and sli~ll piovide all ruq~tested miormaliou which, at nmvm~irn shall cons~st at' (1) Payi7ienl of nn appli~aYion fee Lo be set by thc mnna~ar in ai1 ~mount suEft~rerlt to cove~ ifie 7d~TUnisUative procesvug cosiS i'or tl~e ti~~~~licpUOn (2) Thc narneti, nddre,>ses nud telecom~7nmic~hoi75 nwnl7ars of tlie a}~}~licai~t, thc owne~ oft}~e propeih~ on wVttch letll~l conl~ol meastiue, arc pio~osed, ll~e }~roperty i~iai~nE;c~ oCsucl~prope~tv andofconstdta~~Cswrthre~,nrdtoleth~I~ortt~olniea~eu~cswhoVi~ive been ielamed or ~ousulted t~y a~ro~~erry owi~ei ~u p~i~perty mnr~~~~±e~ tip}~licaml (3) ~1 descript~c>n ol the teusons why Icthql cai~Yiol me~tsuies aie rec~uire~9 (4) A dus~riplroi~ ol dic pioposeci lothal contiol maa5urc5 h WI CU~o.7321 ~rr wryd AGENDA ITEM # V~, p~q~~+r_~ (S) Dacumerl~niion of iwn Iethal cc7nir~] me~su~es ~ttteinpied or c~-alualecl ~nd Il~a; re~itiorls ~vhy riori-leihal r,oniiol measures <~re msiiffiaei~t (fi) l~or ii praine do~; leihtrl cunirol pon7irt. a map shnll be piovided oP the p~cipcrty on wlvch 5~icli measui cs ~n~il I b~; employcd $tat clemonetrates thc locnbon of'pi tni ic dog buriows ~ho estinint~~l numbcr ofi hve p~tjirio dogs mhabumg tliu srtu wdl also he noted (7) 1~"or a bndlathal 4onUOl peimit, an c:xptanat~on shall be pro~idud of thc iuason lhat the b~rds are a riuisance oi henlth ltiteat ~i~d an estimF~tc Sl~all l~e prov~ded oP the nurnbe~ arld tv}~es ol' bnds tl~al w~ll be aftected by the leUial control inei~s~ires }[owever, an appiovod clap~cuiaUon p~rm~t issued hg the Uuiled St~tes Frsh and Wildhfe Se:rv~ce n~ny bc subslittiited li~r other~rifouvation ieqaueQby lh~s sul~~,ecuon (a) (b) Upon ieoetpt of an ~~~}~lication tl~e city utanager shall revievr it fot complelc~~ass and u ~vill bt accc~T~cl wl~en The u7ailtigra dc1c~ mmes th~tt iY is complute Such dutcrmin~tion shall bc macie w~Gliin five dt~vs of'the suhiwssioil o{ tlac t~~plicat~on (c) Wdhm one tlt~y oi' d~c subiinsvon oi' tti corunlete a~plic~ric~n, a not~ce descri~tivc ol' tho pio~~erry fo~ which an applicntion hnti beer~ submitted will bc posCed bv Yhc applicant on thc sab~cat pi operty m.~ m;~nncr dasit;necl tu ~i ve i easonable noi i ce to neiglibor s and passei s bv (d) No suouei than Iiv~ da~~s aftei ieceivul~ a co~nple6ed ap~licallo~~, iha ~u~nttiger sl~~ll ~e~~tew it iri ~cco r~tauce wi Q~ the p~ o~~i .ioils o f thr s sect~on ~~~d :;(iall consi der ar~y ~o~7u7icnts i ccei v ed m coimectioi~ tf~e~ewith ~ he iriu~~ti~;ei stiall gr~rlt lhe permu if the mannge~ deteinuue~5 that tlle a~pl~c~rll l~as deu~nnsht~t~d 4hat itrneets Che foqow~ng staridards (I ) Standa~ds foi lutlial ~ontrol ofprairie cio~;s (A) I hc <~p~~lu~ini htt, employcd a tlualiPi~d b~ologisi oi m~de oYl~er ~ppiopnaiz provisiun5 lar ficld studies as iequucd Yo sttusi'v the piovis~ons Uf thi:, secUOn (B) '1'l~e anplirnut h[~ti p~ovrded 5uf~c~ei~t ui1<~imahon concenung lhe nrescuce of oihci non-tai~;ot wildt~fe species i~~ tl~c piauir do~ habitnt (C) The:tpplict~nt Irat Sapplied a plan to muvmve thc iisl: i~l'deatti, suCfurin~ oi ditiplacemcut oi speci~s i~t~ter ltiai~ piniric da~5 basc~l upou adec~u<~ic obscr~at~un ic~<ordiu~; aud mvestigatiou oi the axititint; sde coi~clrtrouy K \PLCUlo-fl21 izr wpd /#GENDA ITEfVI #~I~'I~ , PAG~,~, (I)) Ihedrpl~canlha,tiden~onstitit~:dthatnorelocsitioualtern~live ~~tudluibyllle ~C7pli~ant is av~il~ble or that relocatron is othe~wise m(elsrblu Iu mn(~mg siich tlemons~rt~tion, ;in ~pphcant sl~al~ show, ~long witli am otl~ei i~~le4ant f'a~tors thal (~) I'~ioi to thc submissaon of the np~Lcation, Ihc man<~gci has deteimul~d drat ~rtv laiids are untiv~~l~blc {'oi ielo4~itiun 1'hc mana~ci's elctumm~t~hc~n in th~s rc~~tid sh<ill bc l~as~d upon a dete~roui~sirion of the ~vddl~fe c~nyul€; cap~tcitY ~f ciry I ands amd apon ltte run~i~;e:i's cons~derau~n of tl~e policies set 1'0~ tli u~ tlie Boutdei Valley Ct~nipiehei~sive Plttn bea~mg upon nntur~l ccovytittrn rn~nageirieut ~nd t}ie m~tnagement of wildlrfe-huuiau conihcts I'he rt~lncigei's deteucru~tihon i» tlns regaid sl~~ll be fmal nn~l noi Sub~ecl to uppeal oi revie~~ (u) Thete ure no ~~oi~-city lands availa6le o~ feasihl~ i'Qi relocxtion (E) If the apphctmt ts proposuig to poison nraine dc~~,s, he o~ shc lu~~, ~dcntiFied flnd employcd ~ c criif~ ed opuraton c~eusecl hy thu Stnto of Colo~ ado pw Suant to Se:ction i5-1q-1 [4, C R S, for tliat ~x~ipose tm~l Itas submitteci n pltii~ Co comply ~vttlr Cl~a~tei G-IQ "1'eshcide Use," B R C 19R1, rel~ting to the ic;iil~t~on oTpest~cicle uso anc~ req~nred noria: (2) Stai~dtu~'ls Coi Jetlinl control c~f birds (~1) flie apphcant has e~~y>loyed <a qutaliJied biolo~isi to cnnduU the naces~ary field ~tudies as requ~r ed t~y tliis sectron o~ ~nttde o4her adi~quate p~uv~sions u~ accomplich such stuclies, (R) fl~ca}~~licnnthaspu>videcladeq~~atamtorrnaticinconcermngthcp~esenc~cii non-tar~,~et ~wldld'c spec~es in the ~t~ea ni which Icthnl mcanti uf ~onliul aic lo bc l~1ilvud and hs~s ~now~led mi'oioiation ubouthow suih noi~-ta~gel specics wdl be affected (C') Ttie a~~licant 11~s dem~~nstrnted U~nt t~e i~r sh~ ha5 cxl~nus[od alI ieasoutible i~on-lelhal meari~; oi'icmo~a~~;? utuslnce l~i~ds, (1)) 1 he applicant hns demoilstrate~ how }ie or she ~vill riimni~ve 1ha r~sl~ of kiliu~~; oi iu~un»~ i~on tl~get s~aecies, nnd K\PLCIAo-7321 nrwpJ ~G~NDA Il'E(N #~„~(1-1~ , ~RO~~ (1-) lt' tlio ap}~(~car16 is pro~o~;iug to ~oition narsti~~ce budti, the tippLctu~t has ideutiriederid eiv}>loyed ~ certif~ed ope~alorlicensedby tl~e fil~~tc ofC'~lo~ado und is m compliai~ce w~th ('htiple~ G-10 "Pesticidu lJse," E9 K(' I~)81, and haw subnutted a plan to comply wrth sa~d ch,~}at~i relnimg to thc re~;ulanon oi' peeUCide i~se ~tnd the requirecl ncitia> (e) The ciq~ maria,,er ir~tty impcise upon the uxeicise o1"the pe~mit anv conchlutinti ic*a5out~bly rclatud to tho ~~iuposes ofthis cha~)tcr (I) Ni~pei m~ttee sl~~ill ['~~I to cornply wdh t~r~y coridiuoil specdied iri a pr~~rie ~lo~! oi bu d letha] contiol E~eurut (~) A pe~nvl issued ui~der this cl~n~tei is specific to tlie prc~~eily appLed i"o~ tind ae uot tranaferiabic (h) The rnana~c~ s1~all anprove, appiove wrtli ct~nclilious, or deily a pcimd no lairr ihan two w~*cks aher icce~pt of a compleY~ applica1ion (i) 'I'hu raµn~crnenis of Yhis sUCtion ttppiy to xll private la»ds ~~ith~n tl~c cit} lunits of 13oulder, xll lands oti~n~d or rnari~gcd bv the city, ;~nd nll ciri acUvrties ~tf[ectin~; p~uuie dogs o~ l~irds insidc oi outsulc ol'Yhc criy lunits (7) A~iv n~rplicant lin a let6al coiurol per~cut a~giieved by a decision of th~ city nrai~a~e~ cone~~nnih an a}~}~licnunn mtiy appeal such decision to a l~annug ofPwe~ ~ppomted bv Ihe city ruana~;er by Iihrtg m1 ~ppe~l with the c~1y rriano~;er wit}w~ foiutee~~ day~ i7f the i~suarlce or iui<~I elcn~nl of' ~}~ernuC After giving notice to all ulle~esiecl pa~ tre~, t6e l~ca~u~q ofCicer sh~ll he<~~ the xppeat w~tluei Yhu~ty days of Ihe notice of appeal, lmder the piocediires p~etcrrbed hy Chttpter I-3, "Quasi-,ludicial T[~aungs," B R C' 1981 '1'he hcai ing office~ shali dctc~ n~mc whet}rcr Y1~e permiY mecYs ihe icylu~ements oi'Yhis chaptei anil shal~ ~;raut or de.ny tl~c a~~phcatron with conc9rtic~ns, av a~pi~K~riFite (l:} 1 he city in,in<~gei shiill specify thc te~m of each pei mrt, wh~ch shall bc a ieasonable amotimt oi'timc uncla tl~e circurnsttmces A permit cxpir<;s iFl~thiil contiol n~eustues cio riot t<tke pls~ce ~N ih~u ihc s~ecd'ic~~ ta~m of Yhc pei init (l) 'i'he c ity i77auagci iuay revol.e apeirnit i~,aued unde~ tl~is chapter Coi the giounds arid uudei the p~ncedu~e5 ~aiescubed by Section 4-1-i(1, 'lievocation of Lrcen;,es.'~ B R(' I981, and also for P~~iliue lo abide by any }~roviti~nn o( tlus rf~apter oi coudilion of the nermit K WLCNo 7321 vrwpd ~iG~Nd/~ iTEIN # VI -19-~, r~a~~~,. (~u) I'he c~ty mant~be~ iuay s~i5~e~id nm ~~ortiorl of tlus cl~a~~te~ ~n llre event of t~n auieigeucy sriuahoi~ wliich thretiteus ri ~epar~blc h~~u~ to tlie I~enlth, ~ul'ety nr welfare oE the intinbi~ants of th~ edy oi to tl~e c~6y's plann~ne a~ea or to $ie c~ty's envnoivneiil Sectton 9 This ordmance is necessary to protect the public heahh, safety, and welfare ofthe res~dents of the city and covers matters of local concem Section 10 Because this ordmance regulates the taking of life of species of an~mals of great concem, and because it impacts important environmental issues, this ordmance ~s deemed an emergency and shall take effect immediately upon rts final passage by the counc~l. Section 11 The council deems it appropnate that his ordtnance be publ~shed by htie only and orders that copies of th~s ordmance be made avulable m the office of the crty clerk for public mspectwn and acquisrtion INTRODUCED, READ ON FLRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 21s` day of October, 2003 Attest C~ty Clerk on bahalf of the D~rector of Finance and Record K \I~LClJ~o 7321 ~zr wpd Mayor ~1GENDA 17EM #.Yl -~ , ~~~~~_ RBSOLUTION NO. 927 A R~SOT.CJTION INFORMIIVG THE PTJI3LIC OF SUSPENSION OF ENFORCBM~NT OF CERTAIN WILDLIF6 PROTECTION PROVISIONS AND URGING 'I'HE [1SE OF 1VON-LETHAL CONTROL MEASURES POR P12ATTtIE DOGS ANA BIRDS Attachment B WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Bouldei pieviously passed Sections 6-1-11, 6-1-(2, 6-1-34, and 6-1-35, B R C 19R1; und WHL~REAS, the mtenl of these p~ovi~ions was lo piotect wildlife, paiticularly piuwe dogs and birds, from betng killed by commetclal and tes~denhAl piopeity owners; and VJHL~R~AS, lhese pxoviswns, ~n whole oi m pait, appear to be pieampted by state law and therefore need to be iepealed or ~mended; and WH6REAS, Criy pioseculois cannot prosecule laws wh~ch have legal mfirmrttes and, as a result, they aie not cuucntly pioseculmg violations ot thesc secUons, and WHEREAS, members of the public and of' City staff need to he mformed about lhe currant stlte of enforcernent of these piovisions; and WHEREAS, City staff will ietuin to Conncil wrthin stxty days with sugges[ed amendmants or allarnat~ve approaches to Che cuiient provisions, and WH~REAS, thc undeilying polic~es of these code sections still reflect cornmuruty valuas; NOW, THEREFOR~, D~ TT T2~SOLVED BY TT~E CTT'Y COUNCIL OF THL~ CITY OP BOULDBR,COLORADO: Thak mernbers of the pubhc and Clly Stuff Ue mformed thal enfo~ cement of Sections 6-] -1 l, 6-1-12,6-1-34,and6-1-35,BRC 1981,willbesuspendedpendmgamandmentoiadoptionofothei altarnalive appioaches Uy Council m oidei lo iesolve tite cuuent conilicl between these local provisions and state law; anct l'ending amendment of the noled provisions, tlic public is utged to compiy on a voluntary basis with thc underlymg values al the piovisions by avoid~ng leth~tl methods when dealmg wrih praiue dags ~nd b~rds that become problematio, and by voluntauly worktng with City staff on alteinative means of add~e~sing particular problems as they arise APPROVED this 19°i day of August, 2003 ~,'~'~~, (~'~'^ Mayor Attest; /,f'.~,oa D~ /~ ~, DG~rtiq~ C~ty Clerk on behalf of the Dnector of Finance 1nd Recoid I<1GCAD~ 927 kq wpd F1,GEIVD/~ 1 i~Ei41 #~~ ' ~`V~AGE~,~, READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this day of , 20 Mayor Attest City Clerk on behalf of the Director of Fmance and Recoi d K\PI CIAo 7321 vr wpd AGENbA ITEM # ~ f -R , ~'AGE,~„ Attachment C RESOLUTION NO saz A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE PROTECTIOti A.~~ MANAGEMENT OF BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOGS. WHEREAS, the City of Boulder. Colorado, reco~mzes that the black-tailed praine dog (Cynon:vs ludovtcinnus) is a vrtal and important species to the ~rasslands of tne Boulder Vallep, and WHEREAS, the City of Boulder values pratne dogs as a vttal element m grassland ecosystems, and WHEREAS, black-tailed praine dog populations are declmmg throughout the~r range due to the rapid loss of erassland habttat and are, therefore, a species of local concem; and WHEREAS, the Ctty of Boulder is committed to the protection of pra~ne dogs and their habitat withm the Boulder Valley; and WHEREAS, the Crty's goal is to effect~vely ehmmate any need for poisomng or extermmation of pra~ne dogs on pnvate and public lands m Boulder and on C~ty-owned lands in the Boulder Valley, and WHEREAS, the City of Boulder, through its Open Space and Mountaui Parks programs has set aside over 5000 acres of public land as Praine Dog Habitat Conservauon Areas and is committed to the long-term management of these areas as functiomng grassland ecosystems. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUIvCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLOR.ADO, THAT. 1. The Crty Council directs the City Manager to establish pohcies that will emphasize praine dog hab~tat protection as a prionty on all publ~c and pnvate lands, unless the presence of praine dogs is in conflict with the exisring or planned use of the site; or the publ~c health and safety on or neaz the site is m ~eopazdy due to the presence of prazne dogs 2. The Ciry Council directs the City Manager that when the protect~on of praine dog habitat ts m conflict wtth the mtended use of the site, relocat~on wtll be the method for removmg the praine dogs from the site. 3 The City Council directs the Crty Manager to establ~sh pohcis such that the Crty of Boulder w~ll accommodate all praine dog relocat~on needs of pnvate and public landowners m the city Further, that City acceptance of relocated pratne dogs is based upon the condition that the landowner of the property where praine dogs are to be removed wtll take the respons~biltty for all costs of relocation and recerving site preparat~on. Open Space propernes wili be the pnmary source of recetvtn~ s~tes for relocated praine dogs, although other City-owned tands may recerve praine dogs ~f appropnate sites are available, Agenda Item #~f~ Page #_~ -1 The City Counc~l d~rects the C~ty Manager and the Ooen Space Depanment to take the lead m findms and prepanne recervmg s~ces on Open Space properties The Ci~~ hfana~er and the Open Space Department are further directed to work to insure tha~ appropnate ecolo_ical condinons are present for successful relocauon When, howeoer. e~~ents occur ~here relocation is required and appropnate ecoloe~cal condittons are not present on Open Space property, the Depanment will talce reasonable extra measures to accommoda[e relocation needs. recoen~zine the relocation effort may be less successful than under more optimal conditions. INTRODUCED, READ, PASSED AND ADOPTED thts 18th day oF]anuar}~, 2000. ~~ L ~i 4~lilliam R Toor, Mayor Attest~ ~~ C~ty Clerk on behalf of the Dtrector of Finance and Records AGENDA ITEM # VI' , C'A~E~Q,, Attachment D MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor William R Toor and Members of Ctty Council FROM: Franlc Bruno, C~ty Manager Chnstme Andersen, Deputy C~ty Manager for Environmental Services M~ke Patton, Director of Open Space and Mountam Parks Dave Kuntz, D~vision Mariager Bryan Pritchett, OSNII' Resource Conservation and Education/Outreach Coordmator DAT~: May 1, 2003 SUBJ~CT: May 13, 2003 Study Session on Prairie Dog Management and Relocation I. PURPOSE The purpose of this study session is to update City Council on the status of managing pra~ne dogs on Open Space and Mountam Parks lands as City Council duected Last year, OSMP staff discussed wnth C~ty Council the impacts associated wrth the on-~omg relocation of praine dogs onto the OSMP system (Attachment A) At that time, C~ty Council requested that OSMP staff retum thts year, vnth an update on thaY issue The purpose of this study session therefore, is to 1 update City Counctl on relocation efforts to date, 2 discuss the current status of taigeYed pra~ne dog relocation requirements on city owned lands, 3 d~scuss the current status of praine dog populahons on OSMI' lands, and, 4 discuss the impact of the relocation program and the importance of mamtammg the mtegnty of OSMP's native grasslands II. QUESTIONS FOR COONCIL Important questions for City Council to cons~der dunng the study sess~on are 1 What are the imphcahons for contmued relocat~onof praine dogs on i. Long teim survival of pra~rie dogs, and, ii. Grassland ecosystems 2 What course should staff take m the development of strategies for future management of pra~ne dogs m the city and on OSMP lands~ /~GENDA I7EM # //-~} , PAG~~,L, III. BACKGROUND RELOCATiON EFFORTS TO DATE AND FUTUR~ REMOVAL NEEDS ~XCEED INITIAL EXPECTATIONS Be~innine Assumptions: 525-875 Prairie Doas, 67 Acres, 15 Sites In~tial City Council consideratton of protection and relocatton of pra~rie dogs occurred m mid-1999 ]nformahon presented at the November 16, 1999 City Counc~l meetmg became the basis for the approval of an ordmance and subsequent City Council resoluhon At that time it was understood that a relatrvely sma11 number of pra~rie dogs existed ~nthm the c~ty hmits Estimates proJected no more than 900 praine dogs, on 67 acres, at I S sites, that needed to be relocated (Attachment B) Of these 15 s~tes, 4 were pnvate and 11 were pubhc Relocation was Umited to ammals on land factng ~mmedtate development or where there was a percerved threat to publ~c safety (i e Boulder Reservoir Dam) Relocation to Date: 1228 Prairie Does, 145 Acres, 11 Sites To date 1228 pratne dogs from about 145 acres on 11 different sites (6 private and 5 public) have been relocated to OSMP lands Only 6 of these 11 sites were among the 15 origmally idenrified Currently, 18 srtes (7 private and 11 pubhc) have been ~dentified that will require eventual prairie dog removal Only ten of these are from the ongmal hst developed m 1999 These 18 srtes occupy an area of about 240 acres In a natural sethng, prairie dog densit~es normally range from 4 to 14 pra~rie dogs per acre CU researchers (Colhnge et al, 2002) have found the densrties of Boulder-area pratne dogs to be closer to 27 pra~ne dogs per acre The densrties on the relocation sites are more than twice that of naturally occurrmg populat~ons The total number of pratrie dogs on these 18 sites is therefore esUmated to be as h~gh as 6400 ammals For example, it is estimated that development aY Ualn2ont Butte may reqwre relocation of 1000 - 2000 prvne dogs In contrast to these densriy estimates, the Colorado Division of Wildlife has established a guideline of 10 praine dogs per acie to enhance survrval rates for relocated praine dogs Based on these gutdelmes up to 6401cres of OSMP land may be needed to handle the estimated remainm~ prairie dogs The followmg graphs compare the acres and numbers of praine dogs ongmally estimated, relocated to date and pro~ected for relocat~on ~1GENDA ITEM #~~~, ~'AG~ ~J.? Relocation Site Acres 300 - " ___ ~_~~_ _ _ ._ _ __ ~~~.. ,._ - ~_;~~ --- = _ - ; _- ° - " ' _ - z= == -_ ~"~ = 250 _ - m . -_ ~ W .-.~ m _ = =' _ ` "" ~~=; ~ =~~~' " ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ Y - 200 " - _ ~ _ -~,~^; - „~ ~ ~- ~=~`~-_ =~__ _~= ~ ` _ - `~~~ -~~= w,~= -- ; ~ ~ ~ ~ = "~ z - . ". _~~ 148~ =~ '"~' ~ 150 _ _ ~ a ~a _ ~xµ~; ~x v_ ~- m =~~~ ~~ ~~ 100 __ - _ =- - =~' ~ - _ -=>~_ _ : ~ _='67 _ : -Q-.~-; ~ __- LL _~~~~ -~ ~-_.-=~ .~ ~ ` ~ _- £ F ti ~~=- ` ~-n ~~ 50 ~. _ : . r ~ '~ ~ ~ " ~;; ~ ~~_ f. ~ _ ~: ~_ , _ ~~ 0 Originally Estimated Relocated To Date Remaining Relocation Needs Estimated Number of Prairie Dogs To Be Relocated 7000 6000 0 5000 v a a 4000 ~ ~ 3000 z 2000 1000 0 Originally Estimated Relocated To Date Remaining Relocation Needs Re-colonization of Removal Areas Another expectat~on was that once prairie dogs were relocated from removal a~ eas, those sendtng sites would no longer be sources of pr2ine dogs Lack of barners or meffective barrters, changes m development plans, reproduction of remaimng ammals and migration fiom surroundmg arels, have caused the re-colomzatton by prairie dogs back onto sites where they wei e removed Seven sites had to be relocated repeatedly, and for three sites, - - _ - -_ry ---- ~. - -- -~~~--- -~-~~- =~ = ==- ~ -saoo ---- - ~~ _ _~ ~ ~ rt =~ - ~==~~ ° __ _ _ _-:-~ =~~_-~.~;:r- =~-~: u _ = _ = ~_ - ; ~ - a~ =~ - =~, ~ V~ --_ __- ~-~_ :d ~~v~ ~ ~ - =_ _ . ~ : ~-m - _ ~_" - - _-- - - _ _~ ` ~ - - " ' __ _ _ ~. _ ~ ~=e ~ ~ - - - ~~.-^ -- " _ =~ -- - _ -w rr - ~_ ==~= - - - - - -~ ~ - - - - _ = 122~ °' ~ ~ - - - M `~a`= - ' "rr~-~ = ~ -= _ _ - - e~GENDA 17Ef~ #_V~',~, ~AG~,~„ removal needs still persist due to re-colomzat~on These cucumstances create a situation that is difficult to manage In the 1999 daYa presented to City Council, staff est~mated there were 75 - 100 praine dogs to be removed from the Micro Mohon, Inc srte (refer to Attachment A) Relocahon efforts m 2000 removed 161 prame dogs and the site was considered to be free of prairie dogs However, due to construchon delays, the area was re~colomzed from surroundmg colon~es and OSMP staff was required to return the stte to remove 17 more prairie dogs m 2001 The "buffer zone" below the dams at Boulder Reservoir m 1999 was estimated to contam approximately 50 - 75 prurie dogs needmg removal from the area All prairie dogs had been removed from the area before 1999 While 53 praine dogs were relocated from the dams m 2000, OSMP relocated an additional 134 praine dogs m 2001 and 129 m 2002 from the dams, a total of 316 pi auie dogs over the three year penod Relocat~on is required foi this area for 2003 iV. ISSUES CURRENT STATUS AND IMPLICATIONS OF PRAIRIE DOGS ON OSMP LANDS 4000 Acres Currentlv Occupied bv Prairie Does The OSMP area occupied by prairie dogs was at it lowest pomt m 1995 and 1996 due to a ma~or plague epidemic In 1997 there were only approxtmately 555 OSMP acres occup~ed by pra~ne dogs Dunng the development of the oidmance, rt was estimated that between 975 and 1300 acres of OSMP grasslands were occupied by prairie dogs Now, nearly 4000 acres are occupied 40'%~ A~mual Growth Rate Occupied acres have mcreased an average of 40% per year smce 1995, and a total of 175% smce the ordmance was passed m 1999 (see graph below) The recent drought may have contnbuted to th~s expansion by reduc~ng readily available food supphes While it is not certam that populations mcreased durmg the drought, there has been a ma~or expans~on of the area occupied by prairie dogs on OSMP lands over the last year as animals range further for ava~lable food ~1~ENDA ITEM # Vl"l~ , ~'AGE,,,~, 4,000 3 500 Prairie Dog Colony Growth :; v 4~__x_~_ -> _-°-' ~ _p' p- = ' _ ' ;3 x-s• v~~ ~--+^_x-~~-.~_'xt'u.fY ".. ._. k ~~ISY_1Y° -y. __ - - .v_*~=EY'cL_::°~s; y .., _"x'~.~.~~.>.,. ~ - ° ~ ~~ a ° ~ ~ : " , ,,_,,,_ .~. - ~: _ '- -_-- - -= %= ~-za _ ~='-,v_~- ~~'=-a _3 '~ t"~' S - ~X`~~ ' ~ ' - 3 000 ~:^ s~.:.a~ - '.:~"~.. - - - " _ ~=~' ~= ° ~-- .' ~°'_-~p~v_ ~r ° ° " 3' [ _~ , w~_ , ~ ,~ _-~ ~ ~ =-_ ~ ~ - ' _ " ` ` a~; - ''= g~°`µ - ~ ^ ~~ ~ =?;~ x r==` ~~ ~ ' ~; = 2 500 ; _ = ~== ~ ' ~ m _ , _ = _ _ ,_ _ m~ ~ ~. ~ ~ . ~ _ _ ~~ ~ ="' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ :;~:~ : ~- ~ `~ - ~ ~- -~ ~ ~ 2,000 ~ _ __. - - ~ ' - ` ~ ~Pdo Acres a t _ _ _ ~ ,5~ _ _ _ t~ -~, ~ ~ -~~ . 1,500 ~ ~ '~ ~ _. ~~ - -m S ~~~ ~-_ ' ~~~ " == - " z ' 1 000 . - -~ ^ __ , .~ _ ~~`~ Y Y °~"~ ~ ` ~#~ ~ ~_~- ;; , ~~ ~ 500 ~ ~ - ~ ~'~ ° ; . - °-_ ~ x'~~ 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 The entire OSMP land area, east of the forested foothills, comprises about 22,000 acres if one assumes that all of th~s area has the potenrial to be occupied by pra~ne dogs, and assummg no addmonal pravie dogs are relocated to OSMP lands, the graph below illustrates that at the current occupation levels and rate of colony expans~on, all of that land becomes fully occupied by prairie dogs between 2007 and 2008 Projected Prairie Dog Colony Growth 30000 -=~=_ ~..- --. - - ~ __ _ g_; -=~~°~ ~,=d~-°° ~-.~.= ~- ~= -~`' ~ -," - ~ _-- v.:.~:~=` _ - - " = _ ~ _ _ - 5~ - _ - ~~ - , 25000 "_ `" `~''~~"" ~„~;~,~"°°=='°_-~= ^"..= =~ - ~, ~~ ~~ ~ ~ '_' ~ ~ - ---..._ _ __ ~"- ~._ ~^ r ~ ~. =r , ' _ _ ,~, _ W•;_ x - - `-s = ~?~ _ = x ~ =3.: ~ ~ ~ ~. . ~ v 2~~~~ _ ~ ~' m~ ~ _ ~ _- ~- ~ = ~ ~ ~ a i ~. = --...=- - ° Q 15000 ~ ~ - _ - ~ Pdog Acres _ - ' ~ ~` - ~" ^Total Habita ~ 10000 Y` ~ ~ ~ . - - " - `~ - ~ y ~ q ' ~ ~~ ~ =- ~ =- ; `" . ~ ~ " _ - :s., - ~ - - 3 '-__-'__~~- a~ " ~= ~ 5000 `~. - ' ~= =~_ ~ ~ ~µ ~ ~ ~_ 0 - ' ~ 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 AGENDA ITENI # VI-p , pAGE~ However, this aiea mcludes ripanan aieas, ungated hay and croplands, and othei areas known to be undesirable or unmhabttable by pratne dogs Ad~ustmg the habrtable acres based on these factors, only 12,000 acres could be potentially occup~ed Nearly 4,000 of those acres are already occupied The graph below illustrates that th~s 2rea could become fully occup~ed between 2005 and 2006 without any addirional praine dog relocations Pro~ected Prairie Dog Colony Growth 30000 -~. _m_ --~=- : ;.~ ,-~ =~-~;~ g-w.- -: °'~°~~--'` - rt __ m ~ -~ ~ a „ _ ~- s = ; ' `~~ *k~p ~ . _ = - ' _ m ~, _ 'M° ~ ~-~~- ,- c^'~_`G. ~ 25000 . kM v .~..,p . °°-.,.~_^-~- _..-:~~= ~ : _ ~ "~;_ = v= ~ =~~' s <= v-_.. ` _ °~_ . ` _-a`'.~.~ x°'~`` ~Y ` ` ~C`+ I 20000 ~v~ _ , ~~ -~ ,~ a v q __, ~*~ ~~7 ~ '-__- _ ~_=_~`;;=~r~~ s _ _ - _ -~~ " u - =_=~»~~~~~=°- - - < ="~ ~" ~Pdog Acres Q 15000 r;~= rs.~ ~~_ =~° ~ _ .- ~"~=_~_ ~~~- ~° m - ~==~ a~ d7otalHabita i - i t ? 10000 _ __ ~µ - ~ v-~ ~", , ~ ~~~~ ~ ' ~s ~ = _ _ _ ~ ~"` _r W _ ~~ °~' _ _ ~_c 5000 '~ - ~' `~ ~ ~ "W .~ ~ ~ ~` __ ~ ~ -- : ~ "a ~'~ ~ O 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Conservation of natural resouices can occur at three different levels, ecosystems, populations and mdividuals Over the last few years, OSMP has been able to successfully mana~e at all three levels However, it ~s no longer possible to manage for mdividuals without puttmg populat~ons (praine dogs and other species) arrl ecosystems at nsk While prairie dogs can play a v~tal functional role m some grassland types, their presence everywhere is not a des~rable situahon OSMP's grassland portfolio is a valuable and important City asset, locally as well as regionally Like an mvestment portfol~o, managmg for drversity improves the long term viabihty and guards agamst catastrophic losses Praine dogs have the potenrial to decrease overall diversity of grassland types Managmg for a smgle species (espec~aily gven the praine dogs' susceptibiLty to plague) ~eopardizes not only some grassland ecosystems but the prame dogs themselves IMPORTANCE OF BOULDER'S GRASSLANDS AND TH~ ROLE OF PRAIRIE DOGS Grasslands Ecosvstems are as I~nnm•tant ~s Pr~irie Does The grassllnds found on OSM P lands ai e part of a formerly contmuous band of grasslands along the mounYam front rism~; out of the Great Plams prair~es They represent some of the few remammg patches of native prairie along Colorado's Front Range Here, prairie dogs have been an integral, but never dommant, part of the ebb and ~1GENDA ITEM #~-~_, WAG~~_ flow of Itfe responding to changmg climates and geolog~c events dunng the past several milhon years These grasslands cons~st of a mosa~c of diveise types Each type is not only characterized by different plant spec~es, but ~s also characterized by its own set of associated wild6fe The shortgrass community, preferred by pr~irie dogs, is unfavorable and unmhabrtable to spec~es requinng Yhe greater cover and structural drversity of the tall- or mixed-grass prairies And, while prairie dogs prefer the shartgrass commumty, they are capable of moving onto other grassland types, and convertmg them to the~r preferred s}nrtgrass commumty Under more natural, less fragmented condrt~ons, as resources necessary to sustam these colomes d~nndie, the prairie dogs move to other areas and the s~te from wh~ch they move recovers to rts origmai potenUal On a hmrted, fragmented land base such as OSMP, this cannot occur The pra~rie dogs remam m the same locatton and vegetation contmues to declme resultmg m the permanent loss of the other grassland type (i e Yallgrass commumty) and its associated spec~es, as well as mcreased potenhal for weed mvasion and soil loss Fillmg the remammg grasslands wrth pra~ne dogs will compromise these last rare and threatened grasslands, drivmg out grassland-dependent species like bobolmks, grasshopper sparrows, Preble's meadow~umpmg mice, harvest mice and regal fntillary butterfly Carl Bock, nahonally renowned grassland ecologist at the Univers~ty of Colorado, recently observed that "b uds associated with mtxed and tallgrass prairies have fared well m the Boulder Valley over the past 100 yeazs " Bock's research suggests that despite the C~ty's efforts to preserve prairie dogs, many b~rd species commonly associated with shortgrass prauie (pra~rie dog colomes) are not found on OSMP "Conse~vation of prairie dogs on Boulder Open Space is a desirable goal. However, it should not be dm~e at the expense of those other grassland vertebrates oT interest and conse~vation concern that require subst~ntial grass cover, and that may persist mm•e snstainably than prairie dogs in the present w•ba~rgrassland m~h~ix:' Carl Bock (2003) PRAIR[E DOGS AND PLAGUE Plague contmues Yo be a ma~or factor m potentially reducmg piame dog populations Plague frequently kills more than 99% of praine dogs m mfected wlomes In the presence of plague, prame dogs are most likely to survive m small isolated colomes greater than 3 kilometers from the nearest ne~ghbormg colony G~ven that all of OSMI''s prline dog colomes are withm 3 kilometers of one another, it is possible all of the ammals could be killed durmg a smgle plague event As these colomes contmue to grow the nsk of a plague event movmg from colony to colony is greater ~GENDA ITEIN # V I ~ , PAG~~ OTHER IMPLICATIOIYS Spread of Noo-Native Weeds The spread of norrnative plants poses one of the single most detrimental threats to OSMP natural and agricultur~l resources Contmued relocation of cotomes and expansion of existmg pra~ne dog colomes, mcreases opportunrties for weeds to spread and dimm~shes the OSMI' DepartmenYs abil~ry to control noirnatrve mvaders Conflicts with Neiehbms The existence of prauie dogs on OSMP lands can create conflicts vnth neighbors and surrounding land uses OSMP has been dilrgent about findmg relocatwn srtes that are as far as possible from private lands Potential m~gration of prazrie dogs from relocation srtes can be percerved as an additional problem on ad~ommg lands Unsustainable colouization Current rates of colony expansion md~cate that all poss~ble OSMI' areas mhabitable by prairie dogs anll be fully occupied by 2005 vnthout any additional relocarionefforts This situation would put other grassland types and values at nsk and exclude other natrve species Therefore, contmumg to relocute colomes is not sustamable V. NEXT STEPS Council direction re~ardmg the goals and values for piairie dog management on OSMP and c~ty regulations will guide staff development of ahernattves to address issues identified m this memorandum Staff seeks direct~on on the followmg l~st of goals Conservation of black-tatled pra~ne dogs Preservation of healthy grassland ecosystems Consistency with Colorado Department of Agncultuie regulahons and state statutes Staffproposes to develop stiategies wrth thts d~rection and will be available to returnto City Council m July ATTACI-IMENTS A Boulder City Council Study Session, January 22, 2002 memo B 1999 Pro~ected Relocation Needs ~GENDA ITEM #.,.(/L~,, ~aG~ 3g Attachment E ORDINANCE NO 7322 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6-1, "AIVIMALS," B R C 1981, RELATING TO WILDLIFE PROTECTION BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO Section 1 Chapter 6-1, B R C 1981, is amended by the addition of a new section 6-1-12 5 to read 6-1-12 5 Limitation on LethTl Means of Control for Prairie Dogs and Birds, and Requirement fm~ nse of Humane Methods of Relocation fm• Prairie Dogs (a) The followmg are legislative findmgs of fact (1) Local birds and other wildl~fe contnbute to the umque elements o£Boulder's local environment (2) Protectmg bio-dtvers~ty and avoidmg unnecessary harm to ammal and b~rd species that reside m the local environment is essenrial to the preservation of Boufder's umque local environmental values and to the quality of life of its residents and visitors (3) Inhumane treatment of wildhfe violates basic values of this commuruty (4) The city is currently evaluating legislarive and pol~cy approaches to address the concerns noted m this section (b) For one hundred and twenty days followmg the adoption of this ordmance and except as otherwise autharized by state law, no person shall util~ze lethal means of control for prairie dogs or birds or remove prairie dogs from the ground with the mtent to kill them or utilize methods of re(ocation for pra~ne dogs that cause unnecessary suffermg to ammals ( I) For purposes of th~s section, unnecessary suffermg mcludes avoidable lacerations, suffocation, broken bones, amputations or the mfl~ction ofpam on arumals that could have been avotded by the use of reasonable, pracrical, and humane relocation pracrices r ~o ~3z~ ~~ ~~~d AGENDA ITENt #~, ~'AGE~ (2) This section shall not apply to methods ofpra~rie dog control the sole result of which is damage to prairie dog burrows that are umnhabited when damaged, damage to prairie dog burrows after good faith attempts have been made to relocate pra~ne dog mhabitants by state licensed wildlife relocators, or damlge to prair~e dog burrows that are located on the property on which the person causing the damage resides (3) This section shall not apply to activ~ties undertaken to protect a dam, atrport runway or ta~ciway safety area, or to comply ~nnth re~ulations of' the federal aviat~on admmistrat~on, Yo activities undertaken to protect the physwal mtegrity or safety of existmg structures, or to acrivit~as nacessary m order to deal rnnth a verified health hazard (c) In the event of extermmation pursuant to state law or relocation of pratne dogs, the land owner on whose land the extermmahon will occur, or from whose land the relocation is to be made, shall provide the manager wrth twenty days' notice of th~s pro~ected achvity and permrt the manager or a designee of the manager to be present durmg the extermmahon or relocahon Section 2 This ordmance is necessary to protect the publ~c health, safety, and welfare of the res~dents of the c~ty, and covers matters of local concern Sechon 3 The council deems ~t appropriate that th~s ordmance be published by t~tle only and orders that copies of this ordmance be made ava~lable m the of6ce of the city clerk for publ~c mspect~on and acquisitton Section4 ThisordmanceregulaYesbehaviorthatimpacts~mportantenvironmentalandother values of the Boulder commumty Lethal and mhumane means of control are currently being uYilized thatmay be harmtng species protected by sYate and federal law, advei sely affectmg the local environment, and perpetuatmg mhumane values As a result, this ordmance is hereby declared to be an emergency measure and as such shall be m full force and effect upon rts passage I ~o ~i22 79 wpd ~lGEN~A ITEtN # VI ' , ~AGE,~Q„ INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, PASSED, ADOPTED AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE BY TWO-THIRDS COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY thts 215` day of October, 2003 Mayor Attest City Clerk on behalf of the Director of Finance and Record ~ ~o ~3zz» ~~~d r~GFNDA 17EM # ~ ~ , IPAGE~