August

PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Boulder Public Library - Flatirons Room, 1101 Arapahoe Ave.

6:00 p.m., August 27, 2018
AGENDA Boulder Parks & Recreation

All agenda times are approximate Advisory Board Members 2018
Tom Klenow (Chair)

I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (6:00) Jennifer Kovarik (Vice-Chair)
Mary Scott
II. FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS (6:01)
Raj Seymour
III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (6:03) Valerie Yates
This portion of the meeting is for members of the public to communicate ideas or concerns Pamela Yugar
to the Board regarding parks and recreation issues for which a public hearing is not scheduled Open Member
later in the meeting (this includes consent agenda). The public is encouraged to comment on
the need for parks and recreation programs and facilities as they perceive them. All speakers Mission Statement
are limited to 3 minutes. Depending on the nature of your matter, you may or may not receive BPRD will promote the health and well-
a response from the Board after you deliver your comments. The Board is always listening to being of the entire Boulder community
and appreciative of community feedback. by collaboratively providing high-quality
parks, facilities and programs.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA (6:15)
A. Approval of minutes from July 23, 2018
Vision Statement
B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update We envision a community where every
member’s health and well-being is
V. ITEMS FOR ACTION founded on unparalleled parks, facilities
A. No Items this Month and programs.
VI. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION (6:17)

Goals of the Master Plan
A. Prairie Dog Working Group Phase 2 Report and Staff Analysis 1. Community Health and Wellness
2. Taking Care of What We Have
VII. MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT (6:45) 3. Financial Sustainability
A. Guidelines for Cyclocross in Urban Parks 4. Building Community
5. Youth Engagement
VIII. MATTERS FROM BOARD MEMBERS (6:55) 6. Organizational Readiness
A. Civic Area Bookend PRAB Liaison (verbal)
B. Ecosystems, Climate Change and Community Well-Being – Joint
For more information on BPRD Master
Advisory Board Meeting Preparation
Plan visit the City of Boulder web site
C. PRAB Retreat Planning (verbal) at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/pages/
parks-recreation-master-plan
D. PRAB Community Engagement Updates (verbal)
This portion of the meeting is for members of the board to report on PRAB’s annual work
plan goal of each member: attending two or more parks and recreation-related community
activities per month; promoting parks and recreation through social media; attending site
tours; and supporting the department’s partnership initiatives.
IX. NEXT BOARD MEETING: September 24, 2018

X. ADJOURN
100 Years of Excellence

Future Board Items 2018
January 22 February 26 April 2 (rescheduled March meeting)

• Service Delivery Update (d/i) • Boulder County Farmers Market • Boulder County Farmers Market
License (a) License (a)
• Public Restrooms in Parks (d/i)
• Boulder County Farmers Market • Agreement with BVSD Regarding
• Boulder County Farmers Market
Update (d/i) Collaborative Efforts for Summer
(md)
• Scott Carpenter McCarty Ditch Learning and YSI (d/i)
• PRAB Letter to Council Update (mb)
Easement (d/i) • Urban Forest Strategic Plan (d/i)
• Board Recruitment (mb)
• Updates to the Integrated Pest • Xcel Energy Property Rights
• PRAB Community Engagement (mb) Management Policy (d/i) Agreement (md)
• PRAB Community Engagement (mb) • Universal Design Project (md)
• PLAY Foundation Update (mb)
• New Member Orientation (mb)
• PRAB Community Engagement (mb)
• Outgoing Member Comments (mb)
April 23 June 4 (rescheduled May meeting) June 25

• Board appointments (p) • Urban Forest Strategic Plan (a) • 2019-24 CIP (3rd touch) (a)
• Election of officers (p) • 2019-24 CIP (2nd touch) (d/i) • Harbeck-Bergheim House
• Foothills Parkeway Bicycle and Community Engagement Update
• First meeting for new Board
Pedestrian Underpass (md) (md)
members (p)
• Asset Management Program • Operating Budget Update (md)
• Agreement with BVSD Regarding
Collaborative Efforts for Summer (AMP) Team Overview (md) • 2019-24 Greenways Capital
Learning and YSI (a) • Budget Update (md) Improvement Program (mb)
• Contract for Concession Services • PRAB Community Engagement (mb) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb)
at Flatirons Golf Course (a)
• 2019-2024 CIP (1st touch) (d/i)
• Amendment to the Contract for
Concessions Services at Flatirons
Golf Course (d/i)
• Board Liaison Discussion (mb)
July 23 August 27 September 24
• Election of Vice-Chair (p) • Civic Area Bookend Update (c) • Harbeck – Bergheim House Update
• Prairie Dog Working Group (md)
• Alpine/Balsam – East Bookend
Planning (md) Update (d/i) • Boulder Reservoir Concession Lease
• Cyclocross Guidelines (md) (d/i)
• Harbeck-Bergheim House
Engagement Outcomes (md) • PRAB Retreat Planning (mb) • WRAB Aquatics Nuisance Species
Update (c) or (md)
• Mobile Vending Update (md) • Civic Area Bookend PRAB Liaison
(mb) • Operating Budget Update (md)
• PRAB Community Engagement • EAB Board Follow Up (mb)
(mb) • PRAB Retreat Agenda Review (mb)
• EAB Joint Meeting Preparation • PRAB New Member Application
(mb) Review (mb)

Future Board Items 2018 - continued
October 22 November 26 December 17

• Boulder Reservoir Concession • Harbeck House Update (d/i) • Asset Management Plan (md)
Lease (a) • Capital Project Update (md) • Finalize 2019 PRAB Work Plan (mb)
• Options to Update and Improve • PRAB Retreat Follow Up (mb) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb)
the City’s Mosquito Management
Program (md) • PRAB Goals for City Council Work
Session (mb)
• 2018 Operating Budget and
Recreation Fee Update (md) • PRAB Goals for City Council Work
Session (mb)
• PRAB Retreat Follow Up (mb)
LEGEND
Procedural Item: (p): An item requiring procedural attention
Consent Item (c): An item provided in written form for consent, not discussion by the Board; any consent
item may be called up by any Board member for discussion during the matters
from the department
Action Item (a): A public hearing item to be voted on by the Board (public comment period provided)
Disc/Info Item(d/i): An item likely to become a future action item (or council item) and/or that benefits from
an in-depth presentation of background, financial/social/environmental impacts, public
process, staff analysis and next steps (e.g., presentation of major project initiative)
Matters from Dept (md): Items that will be reviewed and discussed during the meeting but not requiring the level
of in-depth analysis of an action or discussion/information item
Matters from the Bd (mb): Items initiated by the Board that will be reviewed and discussed during the meeting but
not requiring the level of in-depth analysis of an action or discussion/information item

COMMUNITY TOUCHES - The City has recently been working on an update to the calendar of all city events
for community use. Please view the calendar online for all of the latest updates for upcoming events. We are
encouraging staff and the community to be aware of and use the new tool.
https://bouldercolorado.gov/calendar
The event list can be filtered to see only Parks and Recreation events by choosing ‘Recreation’ from the dropdown
menu at the top of the page, and then clicking on the submit button.
If you would like more information about any of the events, just use the link above and select the event you are
interested in. Additional information will appear at the botton of the page with a link directly to the event web page.

TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
FROM: Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation Department

Ali Rhodes, Deputy Director
Jeff Haley, Planning, Design and Community Engagement Manager
SUBJECT: Consent Agenda
DATE: August 27, 2018
A. Approval of Minutes from July 23, 2018
B. Parks and Recreation Development Update

The following information is intended to provide the PRAB with relevant updates on specific
projects as they reach major milestones. This section is not all inclusive of all current projects
and only illustrates major project updates. For a complete list of all current projects and details,
please visit www.BoulderParkNews.org.
Planning and Design

The following projects are currently in the planning and design process that involves research,
alternatives analysis, public involvement and development of planning documents and design
plans to guide decision making and future capital improvements.
• Harbeck-Bergheim House: Staff continues collecting and analyzing key data for the
next steps in the process. Meanwhile, the Harbeck-Bergheim House will be open to the
community for a self-guided tour of the interior of the building on Tuesday, August 28th,
from 10 -11 a.m. Staff will be onsite, however, they are not providing new information or
requesting feedback on any particular subject. Forms will be provided for general
comments.
• Civic Area East Bookend: The city’s Civic Area team provided an update for City
Council concerning ongoing East Bookend planning efforts on August 14, 2018. The
study session provided council with a reminder of the area Existing Conditions report
(including historic amenity, flood-related limitations and other site impacts likely to limit
available space for improvements). Focusing on East Bookend city-owned parcels, staff
sought council input in prioritizing desired enhancements. As it relates to Central Park,
staff confirmed that the bandshell structure would not be relocated and that the general
Central Park Area would be retained in all options shown to the public. PRAB might also
be interested to know that Council placed a high priority on exploration of expansion
areas for BPR activation programming partners – the Boulder County Farmers’ Market
and BMoCA, and preferred exploration of a Public Market Hall. Council’s feedback will
inform options presented during the next phase of public engagement. See the study
session memo here.
3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

• Planning Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the following
projects and will update the PRAB as major milestones are achieved:
o Asset Management Program;
o Beehive Asset Management Software Implementation;
o Boulder Reservoir South Shore Site Management Plan;
o Design Standards Manual (previously Parks Planning, Construction, Operations
and Maintenance Manual); and
o Engagement Coordination Committee.
Construction
The following projects are scheduled for construction, under construction or have been recently
completed. For additional details please visit www.BoulderParkNews.org.
• Elks Park Arbor: Construction on the

artistic Elks Park Wheelhouse Arbor is
complete. Finishing touches, such as
concrete under the arbor and bench,
will be completed by the end of
August.
• North Boulder Park Tot Track:

Construction on the new North Boulder
Park Tot Track is nearing completion.
Youth in the community have been
watching closely and eagerly awaiting
the opening anticipated in September.
Fences will need to stay up until the
replaced turf around the construction
area is established.
In addition to the improvements made

possible by donations, the department
has replaced one existing swing with
an accessible molded bucket swing seat. Accessible surfacing replaced pea gravel en
route to and under the swing.

Bridge in tot track Entrance stone ready for donor recognition
• East Boulder Community Park Parking Lot Improvements: The East Boulder
Community Park northeast parking lot, near the multi-use fields and the racquetball
courts, will be resurfaced in the fall of 2018. Drainage improvements and concrete pads
in tight turn radius areas will be added to increase the expected life span of the new
asphalt. Anticipated completion is by the end of October 2018.
• Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the following projects and
will update the PRAB as major milestones are achieved:
o Boulder Reservoir Visitor Services Center;

o Lighting Ordinance Compliance; and
o Scott Carpenter Outdoor Pool.
Natural Lands
The following projects, focused on habitat and wildlife management in an urban environment,
are currently being managed by the Urban Resources staff:
• Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Restoration: Mosquito activity is decreasing

in Boulder and should continue gradually declining over the rest of the season. No human
cases of West Nile Virus have been confirmed in Boulder County this season. However,
this is the peak time of the season for West Nile Virus, so all members of the community
are advised to take precautions to avoid bites and to eliminate mosquito breeding sites on
their properties. Learn more at the Fight the Bite website.

• Natural Lands Volunteer Recruitment
and Training: Bird monitoring volunteers
gathered to provide updates, program
feedback and to celebrate their efforts. This
program continues to be the longest running,
most successful Natural Lands volunteer
effort. This year over 472 volunteer hours
were recorded for this group.
• Regulations and Seasonal Wildlife

Closures: Closures are still in effect to
provide minimal disturbance while the species of concern (American bittern, Northern
harrier and osprey) are teaching their now fledged young the needed skills to survive.
Staff is carefully entering the area to perform necessary invasive species management to
ensure the habitat they require remains viable. Closures will officially be lifted once
wildlife activity indicates it will be acceptable.
• Natural Lands Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the

following projects and will update the PRAB as major milestones are achieved:
o Urban Wildlife Management.

CITY OF BOULDER
BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
To listen to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meetings in their entirety, please go to the following link:
www.boulderparks-rec.org
Name of Board/Commission: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board

Date of Meeting: July 23, 2018
Contact Information Preparing Summary: Sarah DeSouza, 303-413-7223
Board Members Present: Tom Klenow, Jennifer Kovarik, Tyler Romero, Mary Scott, Pamela
Yugar, Raj Seymour, Val Yates
Board Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Yvette Bowden, Alison Rhodes, Jeff Haley, Tina Briggs
Guests Present: No guests were present.
Type of Meeting: Advisory/Regular
Agenda Item 1: Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
Agenda Item 2: Future Board Items and Tours
Bowden reviewed upcoming community touch opportunities. These events can be found at
www.BoulderParks-Rec.org
Agenda Item 3: Public Participation
Monique Cole, Boulder resident and member of Boulder Community Rowing (BCR), spoke in
support of Boulder Reservoir South Shore improvements and how this will benefit the adapative
rowing program provided by BCR.
Agenda Item 3: Election of Officers
Pamela Yugar and Jen Kovarik were nominated for the position of Vice Chair. Both
nominations were accepted. After two rounds of voting, Jen Kovarik was elected to the
position of Vice-Chair 7-0.
Agenda Item 4: Consent Agenda

A. Approval of Minutes from June 25, 2018
Minutes from June 25, 2018 were approved as written.
B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update

PRAB members made the following comments about this item:
• The Board had no questions or comments about this item.
Agenda Item 5: Action Item
No action items were presented this month

Agenda Item 6: Discussion/Information Item
No discussion/information items were presented this month
Agenda Item 7: Matters from the Department
A. Central Boulder Planning Update

Bowden presented this item to the Board.
• There were no Board comments on this item.
B. Harbeck-Bergheim House Engagement Outcomes

Briggs presented this item to the Board.
• Good presentation of how to provide feedback to the city about this project
• Concern about the perception that money used from any possible sale of the building will
be used to backfill department shortfalls
• When will it be determined whether PRAB is the determining body regarding future use of
Harbeck-Bergheim House
• Appreciated the excellent staff presentation at the recent Open House
• If the decision is made to sell the house, what is the process that will need to be
undertaken?
• How is the public being informed about the Harbeck-Bergheim House matter?
• Can social media be leveraged to enhance the “Be Heard Boulder” platform?
C. Mobile Vending Update

Bowden presented this item to the Board.
• What is the start date for the mobile vending program?
• Where can members of the public find information about the location and type of mobile
vending carts?
• How do vendors find out about the mobile vending program?
• Is there an “app” available that can be used to locate mobile vending carts that are active in
the city?
• Is mobile vending cart food typically pre-prepared?
Agenda Item 8: Matters from the Board
A. Departing Member Romero Departing Comments to the Board

• PRAB member Romero spoke about his time on the board, the projects that he found most
meaningful and gave his thanks to his fellow board members and staff.
B. PRAB Community Engagement Updates
• Board members attended the following activities/meetings/tours: Visits to recreation
centers; Harbeck House community open house; involvement in Duck Race; Strider World
Cup Championship; and department classes and programs.
Adjourn: There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:56 p.m.
Approved by: Attested:
_________________________ ________________________
Tom Klenow Sarah DeSouza
Board Chair Board Secretary
Date _____________________ Date ____________________

TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
FROM: Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation Department

Alison Rhodes, Deputy Director
SUBJECT: Matters from the Department
DATE: August 27, 2018
A. Guidelines for Cyclocross in Urban Parks: As shared with the PRAB in the May consent
agenda, the growing sport of cyclocross is resulting in park use tensions in some
communities. USA cycling has acknowledged this challenge and provided great tips,
including advice and stories, in this guide. Some cities have chosen to ban cyclocross in their
parks to protect assets and minimize conflict.
Recognizing that cyclocross aligns with the department’s mission to promote health and well-
being, it is currently allowed in certain urban parks as part of the department’s Commercial
Use or Special Event permitting. This use (both permitted and not) results in some issues,
such as damage in parks and concerns/complaints from neighbors and other park visitors.
Working with user groups and event promoters, staff has developed a framework that
balances several competing interests:
• Promotes safety for all park users;

• Supports cyclocross on a variety of terrain and topography;
• Minimizes damage to park infrastructure and assets (e.g. turf, trees and irrigation); and
• Minimizes concerns and complaints from other park users and park neighbors.
The PRAB’s input on these draft guidelines will be considered as the guidelines are
completed. The final guidelines will be shared in parks and on social media channels.
Additionally, cyclocross stakeholders have offered to help promote good behavior through
their own established communication networks, such as on team social media and in bicycle
shops.
Attachment A: Draft Guidelines for Cyclocross in Urban Parks
B. Prairie Dog Working Group Phase 2 Report and Staff Analysis (Attachment B)

Attachment A
Guidelines for Cyclocross in Boulder Urban Parks
About Cyclocross in Parks

Bicycle riding, including the discipline of cyclocross, is allowed in Boulder Parks within
certain guidelines. Cyclocross practice in parks as outlined below can allow enthusiasts to
ride in a safe area, with a variety of terrain and surfaces, including turf, sand, dirt, grass, and
hills. Plus, riding in parks close to home avoids the need to drive to a location to exercise.
Goal: These Guidelines for Cyclocross allow cyclocross practice at select urban parks in
Boulder while also protecting public assets and minimizing conflict with other park users and
neighbors.
Objectives:
• Ensure safety for all park users.
• Promote health and well-being.
• Minimize damage to park infrastructure and assets (e.g. turf, trees, and
irrigation) and ensure full cost recovery for damage (including labor).
• Minimize conflicts among park users and neighbors.
Types of Use:
Individual Use: An individual riding solo.
Commercial Use: A group of more than 2 riders who pay a fee to participate
A permit is required for Commercial Use.
Special Event: An organized activity for 50 or more, or meets other requirements of
the City of Boulder’s Special Event Policy.
Guidelines for Cyclocross in Designated Parks
As ambassadors for the sport and their group, participants and instructors are
asked to follow these guidelines:
• Rotate the parks used and/or specific areas of the parks used in order to disperse
repetitive use and minimize damage and conflict.
• Adhere to all on site park rules and signage, including closures.
• Remain courteous and respectful to other on-site users and seek to minimize
conflict.
• Avoid other programmed uses and crowded park areas.
• Do not ride in parks if too much precipitation has occurred, frost exists on the turf,
and/or the areas are becoming muddy.
• Remain flexible if areas need to be altered and/or avoided.
• Require that all participants and instructors understand the importance of riding
within these guidelines and as outlined in the maps for permitted parks.
• Be responsive in continuing to address any future issues with the City of Boulder.
2018 Designated Parks: Tantra, Wonderland, Parkside, Scott Carpenter & Harlow Platts.
Maps for Permitted Parks: Note irrigation/crucial root zones (CRZs)/playgrounds
(in development)
MEMORANDUM
To: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
From: Yvette Bowden, Director of Parks and Recreation (P&R)

Dan Burke, Interim Director of Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)
Jim Robertson, Director of Planning, Housing and Sustainability (PH&S)
Steve Armstead, Interim Deputy Director, OSMP
Keri Konold, Community Relations Officer, OSMP
John Potter, Resource and Stewardship Manager, OSMP
Jeff Haley, Planning, Design and Community Engagement Manager, P&R
Joy Master, Natural Lands Program Coordinator, P&R
Val Matheson, Urban Wildlife Coordinator, PH&S
Andy Pelster, Agricultural Stewardship Supervisor, OSMP
Heather Swanson, Senior Wildlife Ecologist, OSMP
Date: Aug. 27, 2018
Subject: Prairie Dog Working Group Phase 2 Report and City Staff Analysis
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Memorandum is to provide the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board with
the Prairie Dog Working Group’s (PDWG) Phase 2 Report (Attachment A) and a city staff
analysis of expected implementation impacts. Phase 2 was a consideration of potential policy
changes to the city’s prairie dog management approach. This report includes consensus-based
recommendations from the working group and a cover letter with several critical points that the
group would like to emphasize.
In Phase 2, the group identified methodologies under existing plans and policies that can be used
in 2018 and beyond and identified longer-term ideas that need further exploration; require
changes to city plans and policies; or, contemplate the implementation of new practices. The
process for achieving this outcome is fully explained in the Phase 2 Report.
1
The recommendations fall under three main goal categories: environmental, social and
economic; and are further broken down into four key themes: 1) large-block habitat, 2) plague
management, 3) conflict management and 4) funding. Each goal has associated objectives,
strategies and milestones to provide clear explanation of the intent of the PDWG. The PDWG
Phase 2 Analysis Table (Attachment C) provides additional, in-depth information on resource,
economic, ecological, social and other impacts of these objectives, strategies and milestones,
including which theme each falls within.
FISCAL IMPACT
Longer-term practice, plan and policy recommendations resulting from Phase 2 work, if fully
implemented, would have fiscal implications. Staff initially estimates implementation of the full
package of recommendations would cost between $680,000 and $4.25 million beyond current
budgets throughout various departments in a combination of operating and capital expenditures
over a general period of four years. In addition, estimated new personnel time required would be
2.2- 7.5 FTEs. These cost and time figures were respectively calculated by totaling the Estimated
Implementation Cost ranges in the Economic column and the time Estimates in the Staff Column
in Attachment C, using the keys at the bottom of the table.
The city currently allocates approximately 2.57 FTE and $27,000- $300,000 annually toward
prairie dog management. If Phase 2 recommendations are fully implemented while maintaining
current staffing and budget for existing projects, the projected staffing needs would be 4.7 – 10
FTE and $788,000 – $5.45 million (over 4 years) respectively. In determining the estimated
costs of implementation, staff noted that there are several variables causing the range in the
provided estimate that could increase actual costs. Examples of variables include: unknown
linear feet of prairie dog barriers needed (could increase costs substantially above $4.25 million);
fluctuating costs for site-specific relocation of prairie dogs; and, varied costs between in-house
efforts versus consultant services.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Economic: Full implementation of these recommendations would require an enhanced level

of resource allocation including staff time as well as operating and capital budgets. Prairie
dogs occupying irrigated lands may reduce agricultural lease revenues or reduce the value of
city water rights used to irrigate these lands. Prairie dogs encroaching upon state-mandated
areas such as detention ponds or assets such as ball fields could result in safety issues, fines,
or lost revenue.
• Environmental: Protection of prairie dogs and associated species is essential to maintaining
healthy, functioning grassland ecosystems on natural lands owned and managed by the city.
The PDWG recommendations include a variety of strategies designed to increase protection
of prairie dogs and prairie dog colony ecosystems. City plans and policies strive to strike a
balance between protecting and maintaining healthy, thriving prairie dog populations and
also protecting natural communities that do not thrive with prairie dog occupation. High
quality grassland communities include a mosaic of habitat types and species. Changes to
2
protection and management focused primarily on prairie dogs may reduce the ability to
protect and manage for other natural community types and species that do not thrive with
prairie dog occupation (e.g. tallgrass prairie, rare and imperiled butterflies and skippers,
tallgrass prairie birds, etc.). The magnitude of these challenges is heavily dependent on how
the recommendations are implemented, as many recommendations call for planning efforts
and plan creation. Meaning, the outcomes of these efforts are uncertain at this time.
• Social: Impacts to the community would include intentional inclusion of key stakeholders
when implementing prairie dog management practices and updating or revising related plans
and policies. Key stakeholders may include, but are not limited to, private land owners,
neighbors, agricultural operators, prairie dog advocates, people who are pesticide sensitive,
soil health experts, grassland ecosystem experts and advocates, prairie dog relocators, city
staff and departments and government agencies. This phase of the working group resulted in
recommended plan and ordinance changes that would require future work plan assignments
for OSMP, PH&S, P&R, the City Attorney’s Office and the Finance Department. These
recommendations are also intended to reduce the number of conflict areas related to prairie
dog populations including conflicts with maintaining irrigated agricultural land and impacts
to neighboring landowners.
Questions for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
1. Does PRAB generally support the direction of the recommendations?

2. Does PRAB have overarching concerns on economic, environmental or social impacts of
the recommendations that they would like the city manager and city council to be aware
of?
3. Are there other concerns the city manager and city council should be made aware of?
Responses to these questions will be shared with City Council for consideration later in October.
BACKGROUND
The City of Boulder's current prairie dog management practices affect numerous stakeholders
who are concerned about a wide variety of impacts including those to prairie dogs, grassland
ecosystems, human health, and private and public lands. At the Aug. 16, 2016 City Council
meeting, council members suggested the city form a working group that could suggest, based on
a broad understanding of the full range of community perspectives, prairie dog management
practices to be implemented under existing policy, as well as possible longer-term policy
changes. The working group was to provide a forum for conversation. It was also to help
develop innovative ideas to best balance city goals, such as managing diverse grassland
ecosystems and agricultural management while providing for healthy, sustainable prairie dog
populations and addressing neighbor relations.
The City of Boulder sought participants for a working group to make adaptive management
practice recommendations to the city manager. Eighteen members were appointed in 2016 to the
Prairie Dog Working Group (PDWG), based on prospective participants' ability and willingness
to meet expectations including having demonstrated a willingness to be collaborative, innovative
3
and respectful, and to represent broad interests and community perspectives. The working group
consisted of twelve community members, including both Boulder residents and non-residents,
representing broad interests and perspectives: Aaron Cook, Amber Largent, Amy Masching,
Carse Pustmueller, Dan Brandemuehl, Deborah Jones, Elle Cushman, Eric Sims, Jr., Jeff Edson,
John Vickery, Lindsay Sterling-Krank, and Patrick Comer. Kristin Cannon from Colorado
Department of Parks and Wildlife also participated in the working group. Additionally, five City
of Boulder staff members served on the working group - Andy Pelster, OSMP Agricultural
Stewardship Supervisor; Heather Swanson, OSMP Senior Wildlife Ecologist; Joy Master, P&R
Natural Lands Program Coordinator; Keri Konold, OSMP Community Relations Officer; and
Val Matheson, PH&S Urban Wildlife Conservation Coordinator.
In this effort, the City of Boulder committed to consider and incorporate participant advice and
recommendations into staff management decisions to the greatest extent possible. The City of
Boulder also has expressed sincere gratitude to all participants for their dedication to the project.
Heather Bergman and Sam Haas from Peak Facilitation Group, a private contractor, facilitated
meetings of the working group. Meetings were open to the public with a portion of the meeting
reserved for public comment. Working group members were expected to:
• Understand the city's broad range of management goals and constraints for prairie dog
management.
• Develop holistic adaptive management recommendations that provide a community-wide
benefit rather than a singular benefit.
• Recommend pilot ideas and practices that can be implemented under the existing policy and
respect the context of the collective grassland ecosystem. (Phases 1 and 2)
• Recommend longer-term ideas that may need further exploration or more substantial
changes to policy. (Phase 2)
• Serve as a model for the city in terms of collaboration, innovation, and respect.
Phase 1 Outcomes:
During Phase 1, the following six consensus-based recommendations were made by the PDWG.
These can be implemented under existing plans and policies and are detailed in the attached
Information Item: Final Report on Phase 1 and Phase 2 Update from the Prairie Dog Working
Group (Attachment B) provided by Peak Facilitation Group:
• Recommendation #1 – Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing relocation/take sites

on both public and private land.
• Recommendation #2 – Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing receiving sites on
public lands within existing plans and develop recommendations for making receiving
sites more feasible.
• Recommendation #3 – On approved receiving sites, ensure that the number of prairie
dogs to be relocated have adequate accommodations.
• Recommendation #4 – Define successful prairie dog relocation, including evaluation
criteria and processes.
4
• Recommendation #5 – Develop a research proposal for the use of the sylvatic plague
vaccine on the southern grasslands in 2018 and beyond.
• Recommendation #6 – Create a subgroup to work with staff to further develop the above
recommendations.
In 2017, staff priorities included addressing the following two prairie dog management related
projects: a) work on city manager-approved 2017 recommendations and b) relocate over 200
prairie dogs from private properties and approximately 40 prairie dogs from Foothills
Community Park onto public land managed by OSMP. This relocation process was successfully
conducted in a way that was consistent with the working group recommendations under existing
plans and policies, including the Administrative Rule for the Relocation of Prairie Dogs – 6-1-
37.A (02).
In 2018, staff is working on relocating approximately 400 prairie dogs from OSMP-managed
irrigated agricultural lands as well as prairie dogs that have recolonized the Foothills Community
Park and Armory Community (4750 N. Broadway) private property onto approximately 40 acres
of Grassland Preserve designated OSMP-managed lands in the Southern Grasslands.
During Phase 1 a number of ideas and thoughts generated could not be implemented in 2017 for
a variety of reasons (e.g., they would require changes to plans and/or policies or they could not
feasibly be implemented in 2017). The working group recognized that there was more work to be
done and committed to the work being continued during Phase 2.
To address the assigned Phase 1 tasks in 2017 and 2018, OSMP, PH&S, and P&R staff
prioritized work and allocated their time accordingly. As expected this naturally displaced some
time planned for other projects such as site planning for implementation of the North Trail Study
Area (TSA), integration of agricultural management with protection of federally protected
species (e.g. Bald Eagle nests), public outreach on potential prairie dog relocation sites, natural
lands planning and management for various park sites, and education and outreach for the
implementation of the Bear Protection Ordinance. Similarly, the P&R department has a robust
capital program planned through the 6-year CIP that includes investment priorities at
undeveloped park sites such as Valmont City Park.
Throughout the process, public information has been available and kept updated online at
https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp/prairie-dog-working-group which includes background data,
meeting agendas and summary notes (including public comments), reference documents, and
other related materials. On several occasions members of the public attended meetings to either
provide comment or to learn about the work the group was performing. If any comments were
made, these were captured within the summary notes of meetings.
All meetings were open to the public. Meeting information and materials were online. An
explanation of the Phase 2 process is provided in the attachment to this memo.
5
ANALYSIS
A detailed analysis of the task-oriented outcomes from Phase 2 of the PDWG is found in the
PDWG Phase 2 Analysis Table (Attachment C). This staff analysis includes:
• Estimated scope impacts to staff, the public, boards and council;
• Economic, ecological and social impacts and assessments; and
• Estimated start dates, durations and department leads should the recommended package
from the PDWG be adopted and fully funded over the next several years.
The table also demonstrates how the ecological, social and economic pieces are inter-related
through a “Related Topics” column.
The recommendations from both phases of the working group would need to be carefully
considered for potential implications to budget, staffing resources, work plans, and planned
improvements that involve prairie dog management strategies. Staff continue to work
collaboratively to carry out the approved recommendations from Phase 1 of the working group.
Work planning and budgets for upcoming years will be structured so that priorities from the city
manager related to the working group can be addressed.
Current staff resource allocations:

Staff estimates that the current city-wide staffing allocation for prairie dog related management
is 2.57 FTE (this number was calculated by totaling the estimated time staff currently spends on
projects and tasks related to prairie dogs, described below).
Presently within the P&R Department, up to 0.25 FTE of the Natural Lands Program
Coordinator position and up to 0.40 FTE of the field crew staff time is dedicated to prairie dog-
related management including monitoring, counting, mapping, barrier maintenance, passive and
active relocation, planning, community engagement and conflict mitigation. Changes to the
current program such as implementation of the PDWG recommendations without increased
resources would result in less time and resources for other projects and programs such as state-
listed species of concern (e.g., northern harrier, northern leopard frog) monitoring and
management, state-mandated noxious weed control and habitat restoration, community
engagement and volunteer coordination on other topics and maintenance of natural area
infrastructure (e.g., trails, fencing, trash). This does not include time spent by other P&R staff
such as facility managers, GIS and community relations.
Within the PH&S Department approximately 0.20 FTE of the Urban Wildlife Conservation
Coordinator position is dedicated to prairie dog-related management including non-lethal
mitigation plan development, permit development and application review, education, providing
technical advice and assistance on conflict mitigation to private landowners and city
departments. Increasing the proportion of time spent of prairie dog protection and conflict
mitigation would result in less time for other projects that improve human–wildlife coexistence
with other species such as the implementation of the Black Bear and Mountain Lion components
of the Urban Wildlife Management Plan and developing urban ecosystem protection strategies.
6
Currently, four OSMP wildlife ecology staff spend approximately 20% of their time (0.8 FTE
total) dedicated to prairie dog related management including relocation, non-lethal mitigation
and project planning, mapping, monitoring, conflict management, education, and providing
technical advice to private landowners. Increasing the time spent on prairie dog protection and
management would result in less time available for other projects including those related to
protection of other wildlife on city open space lands (e.g., eagles and other raptors, Preble’s
meadow jumping mouse, grassland nesting birds, northern leopard frog); volunteer coordination
for wildlife projects; wildlife habitat restoration;, OSMP wildlife consultation and support for
trails planning and design, strategic planning, agricultural integration; and monitoring and
research associated with implementation of OSMP plans including the Grassland Ecosystem
Management Plan, Forest Ecosystem Management Plan, Visitor Master Plan and Trail Study
Area Plans and the OSMP Master Plan (in production).
Three OSMP standard agricultural staff spend approximately 1% of their time and an 18-month
temporary employee hired in part to address prairie dog conflicts on agricultural properties
spends up to approximately 75% of time on prairie dog issues (0.78 FTE total) . Additional
prairie dog-related tasks would result in less time invested by agricultural staff in agricultural
lease management and oversight and in coordination and support for agricultural plan
implementation.
Other OSMP workgroups currently spending time on prairie dog conservation and management
include OSMP Rangers, GIS, Signs, Public Outreach, Plant Ecology, Research and Monitoring,
Community Relations and others. The time spent across these workgroups currently is estimated
at 0.14 of an FTE. Implementation of additional prairie dog related work without additional
capacity would impact work plans across these workgroups. The total estimated current OSMP
staff commitment to prairie dog management is therefore 1.72 FTE
Current expenditures on prairie dog management

In addition to staff time allocations for current prairie dog-related activities, budgetary
expenditures are estimated $27,000- $300,000 annually across the city on prairie dog
management. Further detail follows.
The P&R department manages about 250 acres of grassland habitat that is fully occupied by
prairie dogs and about another 200 acres of current or future park development sites which have
prairie dogs that are identified for removal in the Urban Wildlife Management Plan. Non-
personnel budget implications of prairie dog management for these tasks total range between
$10,000 - $150,000 per year. This amount is largely dependent upon relocation projects and
barrier installations which vary year-to-year. P&R currently has nearly six miles of prairie dog
barriers to maintain with an estimated asset replacement value of over $825,000. The barriers
have been installed to minimize conflicts between existing prairie dog colonies and park assets or
areas identified in the Urban Wildlife Management Plan as removal areas. One example is the
buffer zone between the conservation areas and the Boulder Reservoir dams which are mandated
by the state to be kept free of burrowing animals. Many of these barriers will need refurbishment
or replacement in the coming years.
7
Budget expenditures for prairie dog management at OSMP range between $10,000- $150,000 per
year, with most expenditure related to relocation of prairie dogs and annual variation based on
whether relocations include prairie dogs from OSMP property, or other City or private property.
The PH&S department reviews all proposed development, construction, and public improvement
projects within, or near prairie dog colonies. For projects on city managed non-OSMP or non -
P&R properties, contractors are hired annually for non-lethal prairie dog mitigation in the form
of passive relocation that allows for temporary ground disturbance without harming prairie dogs.
An average of approximately $6,500 is spent annually on passive relocation, and urban
population survey contracts overseen by PH&S.
Projected staff resource allocation:

Staff estimates that implementation of all of the PDWG Phase 2 recommendations would require
at a minimum, in addition to current staff time spent on prairie dog related management, between
2.2-7.5 FTEs (these figures are calculated by totaling the Staff Scope/Time Estimates ranges in
the PDWG Phase 2 Analysis Table- Attachment C). Similar to the fiscal impact analysis
estimate, this estimate of required staffing resources varies greatly due to variables would only
be known with increased confidence once implementation for specific tasks commences, and
could go even higher.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will present the recommendations of the PDWG and staff analysis to relevant boards and
city council throughout August and October 2018 (see process timeline below). Thoughts and
consideration from the boards, based on three questions below will be provided to the city
manager and to council for determining a course of action.
Questions to be asked of boards include:

1. Does the PRAB generally support the direction of the recommendations?
2. Does the PRAB have overarching concerns on economic, environmental or social
impacts of the recommendations that they would like the city manager and city council to
be aware of?
3. Are there other concerns the city manager and city council should be made aware of?
The presentations that will be made to boards and to council include a review of Phase 1
outcomes, a summary review of Phase 2 recommendations as well as a summation of the staff
analysis.
8
Process timeline:
• Solicit thoughts from relevant boards:
o Environmental Advisory Board, August 1
o Open Space Board of Trustees, August 8
o Parks & Recreation Advisory Board, August 27
• City Council scheduled for Oct.2, 2018
Attachment A - Phase 2 Report

Attachment B - February 1, 2018 Information Item: Final Report on Phase 1 and Phase 2
Update from the Prairie Dog Working Group
Attachment C - PDWG Phase 2 Analysis Table
9
Attachment A
Prairie Dog Working Group – Phase 2

Cover Page
July 2018
PDWG members encourage the City Manager and City Council members to consider the following
factors when reviewing the attached recommendations:
• Implementation is key. The PDWG members feel strongly that the goals, objectives,
strategies, and milestones outlined in the final package be implemented to help achieve the
stated three goals.
• Additional capacity may be needed. The PDWG understands that such impactful
implementation in some areas will most likely require additional resources including
budget allocations, staff time and work plan capacity; any funding for this additional
capacity is critical to accomplishing the goals and objectives. The economic goal includes
an objective that presents some potential sources of funding for these additional needs.
• This is a package of recommendations that work best together. The PDWG recognizes
that some of the objectives, strategies, and milestones in one goal are dependent upon the
completion and concurrent implementation of other objectives, strategies, and milestones
detailed in another goal. For this reason, the PDWG encourages the City Manager and City
Council to look at the ecological, social, and economic goals as a complete package, rather
than as a list of individual ideas. The group appreciates that some items may be easier to
accomplish than others, but that those items may not necessarily be the most urgent. The
PDWG believes that all of the items should be implemented to reach the stated goals.
Because the challenges related to prairie dog management on City lands have ecological,
social, and economic components, the group views each recommendation for each goal as
integral to a comprehensive and effective program.
• There are implications for existing plans and policies, and changes should come
quickly. The PDWG understands that this suite of recommendations has substantial
implications for existing plans and policies and feels strongly that needed changes be
identified and made quickly. The group did not spend time itemizing the specific changes
that are needed to all the existing documents related to prairie dog management, but
recommends that recommended changes be implemented through action by the City
Manager and/or City Council or through amendments to existing plans and policies. The
group recognizes that not everything they have recommended can be implemented
simultaneously, and recommends the use of a phased implementation approach with the
City goal of implementation of all recommendations.
• The PDWG is interested in learning about the implementation progress towards the
stated goals on an ongoing basis. The PDWG recommends that, no more frequently than
twice a year but no less frequently than once year, staff should invite members of the
PDWG and the community to learn about the implementation progress, ensuring the
opportunity for meaningful participation from members of the PDWG about the updates.
• The goals and objectives reflect PDWG consideration of public comments. Since the
PDWG was convened, there have been ten minutes allotted at the beginning of each
meeting to hear both written and verbal public comments. The content of these comments
has varied widely. Some community members advocated for prairie dog conservation, the
creation of a large block of prairie dog habitat, and an effective plague management
strategy. Other community members spoke about the damage that prairie dogs who have
migrated from City of Boulder lands have caused on their properties, specifically the
impact that prairie dog occupation has had on irrigated agriculture properties. Some
1
community members articulated the need for cross-boundary and cross-agency
solutions/collaboration. Others expressed concern about the soil erosion that has occurred
in Boulder due to prairie dog occupation.
• The PDWG discussed the use of Delta Dust and whether/how it should be applied on
OSMP lands. Some in the group feel strongly that use of Delta Dust in burrows at both take
sites (where they come from) and receiving sites (where they go) is critical to the survival
of prairie dogs being relocated. Others expressed concerns about the potential impacts of
Delta Dust on non-target species. Due to the variety of perspectives on this issue, the PDWG
did not come to an agreement about use of Delta Dust on receiving sites and recommended
that staff develop a formal plague management plan by the end of 2019. The City already
anticipates using Delta Dust on the take sites, and in 2018, relocated prairie dogs are being
treated with vaccine before and after relocation which may protect prairie dogs from
sylvatic plague.
• One member disagreed with five specific components of the package of
recommendations. That member’s specific points of view are detailed in the Phase 2 Final
Report.
The PDWG members greatly appreciate the time and consideration the City Manager and Council
have invested in them to engage in this discussion and to review these thoughtfully established and
carefully written recommendations. Additional supporting documents are available on the PDWG
webpage: https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp/prairie-dog-working-group.
Humbly and respectfully,
Members of the PDWG: Dan Brandemuehl, Kristin Cannon, Pat Comer, Aaron Cook, Elle Cushman,
Jeff Edson, Deborah Jones, Keri Konold, Amber Largent, Amy Masching, Joy Master, Val Matheson,
Andy Pelster, Carse Pustmueller, Eric Sims, Jr., Lindsey Sterling Krank, Heather Swanson, and John
Vickery
2
Prairie Dog Working Group
Final Report Phase 2
June 2018
Formation and Objectives of the Prairie Dog Working Group

This document is the third of three process summary reports outlining the efforts of the Prairie Dog
Working Group (PDWG). The May 2017 and January 2018 reports explain the formation and
process of the PDWG and the final recommendations from Phase 1. To summarize, the PDWG was
established after City Council provided direction to staff to do so at their meeting on August 16,
2016. Council’s recommendation came out of conflicts and issues that were raised during the effort
to relocate the Armory colony. At this meeting, Council suggested that the City Manager appoint an
advisory working group of resident and non-resident members who demonstrate City values and
who can recommend, based on a broad understanding of the full range of community perspectives,
adaptable management practices that be implemented under existing policy as well as possible
longer-term policy changes. The City Manager’s Office identified 3 priorities for the Working Group
to address:
1. Identify relocation methodologies under existing plans and policies that can be used in
2017.
2. Identify relocation methodologies under existing plans and policies that can be used in 2018
and beyond.
3. Identify longer-term ideas that might need further exploration or require changes to City
plans and policies.
Taking this direction from Council and the City Manager, Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)
staff worked with staff from Planning, Housing, and Sustainability, and Parks and Recreation to
develop and distribute an application for membership on the Working Group. More than 30 people
submitted applications; most but not all were residents of Boulder or Boulder County. OSMP staff
and the facilitator evaluated each application and selected 12 applicants to be members of the
Working Group. Applicants were selected based on their knowledge of the issues at hand (prairie
dogs, ecology, grasslands, etc.); demonstrated ability to be respectful, innovative, and collaborative;
and ability to attend all six scheduled meetings. In addition to these 12 community members, the
Working Group also included one representative from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, as well as five
members of City staff.
The May 2017 and January 2018 reports (both attached) provide details about the process and
recommendations resulting from Phase 1, which accomplished the first priority of identifying
relocation methodologies under existing plans and policies that can be used in 2017. Below is a
summary of the PDWG’s process for Phase 2, which accomplished the second and third priorities
identified by City Council.
Phase 2 Working Group Process

During Phase 2 of work, the PDWG reached agreement on guiding principles and values for future
prairie dog management goals, agreed on overall prairie dog management goals for ecological,
social, and economic components of prairie dog management, and explored changes to plans and
policies that may be needed to reach the agreed-upon goals. Phase 2 consisted of 6 meetings
(December 2017 – June 2018), with necessary substantial subgroup work outside the full PDWG.
3
PDWG members began Phase 2 by brainstorming, discussing, and agreeing on values and guiding
principles that would frame their discussion of the prairie dog management goals and objectives.
Below are the guiding principles agreed upon by the group:
1. Secure greater ecological sustainability of prairie dog habitat and viable populations so
prairie dogs can provide their keystone function.
2. Implement creative and innovative solutions to achieve greater prairie dog conservation.
3. Protect, improve and restore native biological diversity and consider all native ecosystems
that may be impacted by prairie dogs.
4. Use a system wide approach to land use allocation that includes multiple measurable goals
and objectives that allow different priorities and policies to occur on different land parcels.
5. Increase public awareness and acceptance of the role of prairie dogs in native ecosystems
and the complexity of their management.
6. Use humane treatment and minimize lethal control of prairie dogs.
7. Apply science-based decision making, utilizing documented knowledge, field experience
and adaptive techniques and gathering information from a multitude of sources.
8. Be transparent, fair and consistent in group deliberations and in any final
recommendations.
9. Seek feasible solutions, while acknowledging the social, economic and ecological
components of sustainability.
10. Abide by existing federal and state laws and the city charter, but as needed, make practical
proposals for changes.
11. Think big and outside the box of existing policies and procedures.
PDWG members then proposed and discussed new management goals. The group agreed to
organize their final recommendations into ecological, social, and economic goals with associated
objectives, strategies, and milestones. Over the course of 5 full PDWG meetings and many sub-
group meetings, the group discussed the issues and tried to get to recommendations that all
members could support.
The full PDWG provided guidance and suggestions for refinement, and sub-groups specific to each
goal (open to any PDWG member) met outside of scheduled meeting time to revise the goals
according to the group’s guidance. Each goal and its associated objectives, strategies, and
milestones are intended to be “SMART” (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely).
The document below reflects strong collaborative effort by all members of the PDWG.
This report also includes the following attachments:

• List of PDWG members
• Phase 1 final report
• May 2017 Report of Progress
• Application for membership on the PDWG
• Summaries of all Phase 2 PDWG meetings
4
Overall Prairie Dog Conservation Goal: Sustainably conserve
prairie dogs in Boulder Region by implementing the following
ecological, social, and economic goals, objectives, and strategies.
Goal 1 - Ecological: Update and implement the City’s prairie dog

management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or
more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem areas that will secure viable
plague-resistant prairie dog populations and high-integrity grassland
habitat.
• Objective 1: In collaboration with county, federal, and private partners, secure one or more
interconnected networks of high-integrity grasslands containing viable populations of plague-
resistant prairie dog colonies naturally limited by native predators.
o Strategy 1: Collaborate with county, federal, and private partners to prioritize acquisitions,
easements, and management agreements to consolidate prairie dog grassland parcels,
and as feasible, secure connectivity and linkages among colonies.
Ø Milestone 1: By 2019, pilot application of a habitat quantification tool with parcels
being proposed for new acquisitions or easements related to prairie dog conservation.
o Strategy 2: Amend prairie dog-related components of the Grassland Management

Plan by considering the entire grassland-dominated landscape in the Boulder
Region, and implement the updated plan with an aim to increase the number of receiving
sites for prairie dogs.
Ø Milestone 1: By 2019, work with local experts to review modeling method and data
inputs to provide an updated prairie dog habitat suitability model and GMAP target
viability criteria to map current conditions for the mixed grass prairie mosaic and
prairie dog colonies across the relevant grassland landscape to serve as guidance for
plan updates.
Ø Milestone 2: By 2019, based on milestone 1, work with local experts to update and
implement GMAP goals relevant to prairie dogs along with receiving site location
criteria (I-1) to fully utilize existing grassland receiving sites and to allow additional
qualified grassland receiving sites.
o Strategy 3: Manage prairie dog colonies for plague resistance.

Ø Milestone 1: Prior to implementing the plan under Milestone 2, all translocated
prairie dogs will receive plague abatement.
Ø Milestone 2: By 2019, complete and implement a plague-management and
monitoring plan using proven-effective state-of-the-art plague management
techniques to secure sustainable and plague-resistant prairie dog colonies.
Ø Milestone 3: By 2019, work with Integrated Pest Management to ensure
implementation of an acceptable policy that may limit the use of insecticides but
allows such use on large prairie dog ecosystem colonies as necessary.
6
o Strategy 4: Complete and implement a plan for the reintroduction of the black-footed
ferret into large prairie dog occupied areas as a key native predator.
Ø Milestone 1: By 2020, work with adjacent landowners, including the County of
Boulder and adjacent counties, US Fish & Wildlife Service, other federal partners,
and private landowners in the Grassland Preserves to create and implement a black-
footed ferret recovery plan for the southern Boulder Region.
o Strategy 5: Apply the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, mitigate) regarding adverse
impacts to at-risk species known to be vulnerable to habitat-altering land management
practices associated with prairie dog conservation.
Ø Milestone 1: Based on identified prairie dog occupied and relocation sites, update
inventory and monitoring data for at-risk species associated with the Mixed grass
prairie mosaic and xeric tallgrass prairie.
Ø Milestone 2: Document relative compatibilities of relevant land use and
management options applicable to prairie dog relocation sites and occupied
colonies (e.g., use of insecticides relative to rare insect species, density of prairie
dogs relative to rare plant species).
• Objective 2: Secure and implement a suite of non-lethal methods for managing prairie dog
populations in lands where their proximity to urban and agricultural land use, and other natural
values, are in conflict. (The PDWG recognizes the similarities between this objective and the social
goal and would like to emphasize that implementation of this objective should not detract from
implementation of other ecological objectives.)
o Strategy 1: Collaborate with county, federal, and private partners to implement non-lethal
prairie dog relocations.
Ø Milestone 1: In the near term, due to high occupancy of conflict areas, there is an
increase in the number of successful translocations across the Boulder region.
o Strategy 2: Invest in creating buffer zones on key prairie dog colonies in conflict.
Ø Milestone 1: Pilot by 2021 one property that has prairie dog colonies with managed
buffer zones.
o Strategy 3: Collaborate with the research community to advance testing of new and
emerging tools for managing prairie dog population (such as oral contraception agents).
Ø Milestone 1: Recruit researchers from USGS, CSU, etc. to secure funding and
implement a research plan.
• Objective 3: Amend as necessary and keep all existing prairie dog plans and policies (including
but not limited to the Admin Rule, IPM, UWMP, GMP, Wildlife Protection Ordinance) current as
needed to ensure they are mutually compatible with Goal 1 and its objectives and strategies.
o Strategy 1: Review interdependency among policies and identify needed changes; establish
a priority amongst current policies; and establish and implement a timeline for plans and
policies that need to be updated.
Ø Milestone 1: By 2020 complete policy review and initiate processes for policy
amendments.
7
Goal 2 - Social Coexistence: Support proactive and innovative non-lethal
strategies to minimize conflicts associated with prairie dogs and
competing land uses. Increase public awareness of the prairie dog's role in
Boulder’s Grassland and Urban ecosystems through community outreach.
• Objective 1: Identify and map areas of conflict that can be quantified and tracked annually. Note:
Areas of conflict are not to be defined only by these categories and that the map should expand on
other new areas of conflict as they arise and are identified.
o Conflict categories such as:
§ Agriculture (leased/private): Encroachment of prairie dogs onto existing agricultural
lands.
§ Public and Private adjacent land owners: Encroachment of prairie dogs onto
adjoining properties.
§ Land developers: Within City of Boulder, city process for prairie dog removal (time
delays/costs).
§ Communication and protocols: Clarity and inclusiveness with community.
§ Relocation demands exceed receiving sites: Delays in timely relocation of prairie
dogs due to lack of receiving sites.
Ø Milestone 1: By 2019 identify and map conflict areas annually and make it easily
available to the public.
• Objective 2: Identify and implement innovative proactive non-lethal strategies to address conflicts
in each defined category (Some categories the group has identified):
§ Agriculture (leased/private): Evaluate/Provide barriers or other
exclusion/mitigation methods.
§ Private and adjacent land owners:
o Evaluate/Provide barriers on City of Boulder land adjoining high-conflict areas.
o Add additional criteria to definition of future PCAs in the Grassland Management
Plan to consider the level of conflict with adjoining properties
§ Land Developers: Follow newly proposed protocol for relocations.
§ Communication & Protocols:
o Have clear and consistent communication among all agencies.
o Review protocols and update as necessary.
§ Relocation demands exceed Receiving site:
o Explore additional opportunities for relocations in Southern Grasslands by
evaluating current relocation criteria, in conjunction with Goal 1 efforts, to
alleviate conflicts in other areas.
o Work towards the reintroduction of the black-footed ferret (as stated in goal 1)
by using connecting parcels from the public/private sector to achieve this goal
as a non-lethal strategy in PD management.
o Collaborate with community partners (ex: Prairie Dog Coalition or Defenders of
Wildlife) to implement conflict prevention strategy
Ø Milestone 1: By end of 2019, initiate a pilot program to implement a conflict
prevention strategy in at least two adjoining conflict locations (properties that are
next to or connected to each other).
Ø Milestone 2: By 2022 proactively address 10% of defined conflict areas annually.
8
• Objective 3: Review mechanisms for communication and update as required to ensure prairie dog
management conflicts and concerns are addressed in an effective and timely manner.
o Strategy 1: Establish who to call when conflicts with illegal activity arise and when animal
control cannot be reached.
• Objective 4: Develop a campaign to engage Boulder area residents to expand their appreciation
of the role of prairie dogs in native grasslands in Boulder County and the complex nature of their
management.
o Strategy 1:
§ Create surveys to gauge public awareness and concerns based on historical efforts.
§ Campaign for more public awareness, engage the public through technology, Boulder
newsletters and community outreach programs. Presentations at local libraries,
schools, Boy/Girl Scout troops and 4-H groups are ways to reach out to the community.
§ Provide Boulder residents opportunities to contribute to PD conservation through
assistance with environmental monitoring and outreach programs.
§ Better educate public about plague and update informational sites.
• Objective 5: Develop annual assessment feedback mechanisms.
o Strategy 1: Reevaluation of adaptive management practices.
• Objective 6: Secure modifications to state regulations to facilitate the transfer of prairie dogs
across county lines.
o Strategy 1: Lobby neighboring county commissioners and state legislators to advocate for
these adjustments, providing protocols and language for legislation.
9
Goal 3 - Economic: Implement sustainable processes that provide
resources and capacity to secure prairie dog conservation associated with
the City of Boulder.
• Objective 1: Apply principles of Net Positive Impact1 (avoid, minimize, mitigate, seek net positive
gain) on prairie dog conservation activities, including relocation projects, associated with the City of
Boulder.
o Strategy 1: Utilize a habitat quantification tool to score sites (removal and receiving), to
help offset on-site impact of development and to determine net-positive impact.
Ø Milestone 1: By 2020, pilot the use of the adapted habitat quantification tool
developed to determine Net Positive Impact in one or more scenarios within the
city.
• Objective 2: Establish a grassland conservation fund that augments operating budgets for meeting
prairie dog management and is used for expenditures including but not limited to acquisition (fee title
and/or easements), relocations, and stewardship.
o Strategy 1: Establish inflow and outflows of monies into and out of the grassland
conservation fund.
Ø Milestone 1: By 2019, create and implement a required fee structure for private
landowners relocating prairie dogs to city land.
Ø Milestone 2: Work with Boulder’s philanthropic community (e.g., Community
Foundation of Boulder County2) to identify opportunities to provide sustainable
support to Prairie Dog conservation in the Boulder region.
Ø Milestone 3: By 2020, work with conservation entities to identify conservation
practices, programs, and funding mechanisms that could support grassland
restoration and the mitigation of conflicts on agricultural land. (Example entities
include Natural Resource Conservation Service and Great Outdoors Colorado. An
example of funding which could be explored includes conservation leases.)
o Strategy 2: No less frequently than once, but no more frequently than twice a year, there
will be a publicly-noticed meeting that includes invitations to members of the PDWG
with an opportunity for the members to discuss progress on the ecological, social, and
economic goals and strategies and contribute to the adaptive management process.
Ø Milestone 1: By December 2019 staff will provide an annual report on the inflows
and outflows.
Ø Milestone 2: By 2019 staff will provide their respective department board or
commission with annual updates on the status of the goals and objectives as well as
a review of, and advisement on, inflows and outflows of the grasslands conservation
fund.
1 http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/npi__conservation__01_2016_1.pdf
2 http://www.commfound.org/blog/tags/animals-environment
10
• Objective 3: Support sufficient budgets for city staff to fulfill their roles in achieving the approved
PDWG goals, objectives, and strategies as well as recommended changes to plans, policies and
practices.
o Strategy 1: Revisit and amend department budget allocations (including a line item for
prairie dog management), and annual work plan objectives for staff to ensure they are
compatible with, and can accomplish, the PDWG goals and objectives.
Ø Milestone 1: Recommend departmental operating budget line items for prairie dog
management in the 2020 budget.
Ø Milestone 2: Annually ensure each relevant department has sufficient budgets,
staffing and/or consultants to meet the prairie dog management goals and
objectives.
o Strategy 2: Maximize in-kind contributions to assist with addressing prairie dog

management.
Ø Milestone 1: By 2019, create a pilot project with at least two outside organizations
to help fulfill the PDWG goals and objectives by maximizing in-kind contributions
(i.e., donation of nest boxes or fence/barrier materials or installation).
Ø Milestone 2: Track in-kind contributions on an annual basis and make data
available for other funding opportunities.
Ultimately, one member of the PDWG stated that she was unable to agree with five
components of the recommendation package. These areas of disagreement are detailed below.
• Goal 1, Objective 1, Strategy 1, Milestone 1. In the pilot development and application of an
updated prairie dog habitat quantification tool, stored carbon and soil health should be included
as data inputs.
• Goal 1, Objective 1, Strategy 4. The Boulder region does not provide suitable habitat for the re-
introduction of the black footed ferret; Rachel Caldwell's paper concludes that:
“although two Grassland Preserves on open space land may be large enough to support a
population of black-footed ferrets, neither preserve can certainly support prairie dog colonies
large enough to maintain a black-footed ferret population. With insufficient available habitat
that can be permanently occupied, black-footed ferrets cannot establish in the area.”1
• Goal 1, Objective 1, Strategy 4, milestone 1. Given the circumstances at Rocky Flats, there should
not be a recommendation to create a management plan for a large, prairie dog-occupied
ecosystem within the Southern Grasslands.
• Goal 1, Objective 2, Strategy 1. The use of Delta Dust may be required to carry out this
recommendation. Though this may present suitable relocation conditions for some land
uses, it would not be not be suitable for use in a relocation situation where surface water is
present, as this product is extremely toxic to fish (i.e.; irrigated pasture or crops.)
• Goal 3, Objective 2, Milestone 3. Exploring conservation funding through any lease mechanism
on Open Space and Mountain Parks properties could potentially drive leasing rates out of range
for the current legacy farmers and ranchers who manage these agricultural properties.
1 "ECOLOGICAL STATUS OF BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOGS ON BOULDER, COLO DO OPEN SPACE AND MOUNTAIN PARKS LAND: AN
ANALYSIS OF SELECT INDICATORS" (2015). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 4462.
https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/4462
11
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: List of all Prairie Dog Working Group members
Attachment 2: Phase 1 Final Report (January 2018)
Attachment 3: Report on Process to Date and 2017 Recommendations (May 2017)
Attachment 4: Prairie Dog Working Group Application for Membership
Attachment 5: Summaries of all Prairie Dog Working Group Meetings (February

2017 – June 2018)
Attachment 1:
List of Prairie Dog Working Group Members
25
The Prairie Dog Working Group consists of the following people:
Dan Brandemuehl
Kristin Cannon (Colorado Parks and Wildlife)
Patrick Comer
Aaron Cook
Elle Cushman
Jeff Edson
Deborah Jones
Keri Konold (staff, OSMP)
Lindsay Sterling Krank
Amber Largent
Amy Masching
Joy Master (staff, Parks and Recreation)
Valerie Matheson (staff, Planning and Development Services)
Andy Pelster (staff, OSMP)
Carse Pustmueller
Eric Sims, Jr.
Heather Swanson (staff, OSMP)
John Vickery
26
Attachment 2:
Phase 1 Final Report

Final Report on Phase 1
January 2018

This document provides information about the Phase 1 process of the PDWG. The May 2017 Report on
Process to Date and 2017 Recommendations provides a deeper explanation of the formation and process of
the Prairie Dog Working Group (PDWG). That report is included in this report as Attachment 2. To
summarize, the PDWG was established after City Council provided direction to staff to do so in August 2016.
The Prairie Dog Working Group is comprised of 12 resident and non-resident members who demonstrate
City values and who can recommend, based on a broad understanding of the full range of community
perspectives, practices that can be implemented under existing policy as well as possible longer-term policy
changes. The City Manager’s Office identified 3 priorities for the Working Group to address:
1. Identify relocation methodologies under existing plans and policies that can be used in 2017.
2. Identify relocation methodologies under existing plans and policies that can be used in 2018 and
beyond.
3. Identify longer-term ideas that might need further exploration or require changes to City plans and
policies.
Phase 1 Process
The PDWG met six times between February and May to develop, discuss, and agree to recommendations
that accomplished the first priority of identifying relocation methodologies under existing plans and
policies that can be used in 2017. The Working Group recommended 46 distinct ideas that fell into the
following categories: immediate actions, 2017 relocation pilot projects, relocation pilot programs to
implement starting in 2018 or future years, policy changes, research and study projects, process and
guideline suggestions, and changes to current plans.
PDWG members evaluated 29 of the 46 ideas they believed could be implemented in 2017 under current
plans and policies, using criteria identified by the PDWG and rating each proposed recommendation on a
scale of one to three for each criterion. They then discussed the five highest-ranked ideas that resulted in a
consensus on six recommendations for action in 2017. They are:
 Recommendation #1: Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing relocation/take sites on both
public and private lands.
 Recommendation #2: Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing receiving sites on public lands
within existing plans and develop recommendations for making receiving sites more feasible;
develop recommendations for increasing landowner and stakeholder acceptance of the use of
receiving sites.
 Recommendation #3: On approved receiving sites, ensure that the number of prairie dogs to be
relocated have adequate accommodations, utilizing existing or artificial burrows (including nest
boxes) and taking into consideration existing native vegetation.
 Recommendation #4: Define successful prairie dog relocation; this includes continual evaluation of
new or different relocation methods, ongoing opportunities for stakeholder engagement, and short-
term, mid-term and long-term evaluation of success.
 Recommendation #5: Collaboratively prepare, with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, a research
proposal for US Department of Agriculture approval for the use of the sylvatic plague vaccine (SPV)
on the southern grasslands in 2018 and beyond.
 Recommendation #6: A subgroup comprised of four Working Group members (Dan Brandemuehl,
Pat Comer, Elle Cushman, and Lindsey Sterling Krank) should work with staff to flesh out details of
the recommended items.
1|Page
Each of these recommendations was assigned to a PDWG Boulder City staff member to develop further.
During the summer of 2017, staff created draft documents of the recommendations, which were then
presented to a subgroup of PDWG members in August who made suggestions for revision. The revised built-
out recommendations were discussed by the full PDWG during two meetings (one in September and one in
October). The full group agreed that a subgroup of volunteer PDWG members could finalize the
recommendations. The subgroup met on Friday, December 15 and offered their final suggestions for revision.
PDWG members’ discussion of recommendation #1 generally focused on the potential scenario of multiple
sites with equal imminence. They agreed that the City Manager would have the ultimate decision-making
authority within the context of the priority guidelines. There was robust discussion of recommendation #2,
especially the evaluation matrix in the supplemental material, which PDWG members emphasized should be
used to prioritize available sites, not restrict or decrease site availability. Discussion of recommendation #3
generally focused on the risks and benefits associated with nest box installation within native vegetation
areas. During the discussion of recommendation
#4, PDWG members wrestled with the challenge of defining criteria for successful relocation. When the
PDWG discussed the recommendation #5, which is about the potential for a collaboratively prepared
research proposal to use sylvatic plague vaccine (SPV), they emphasized their preference for a longer-term,
multi-year study, pending the approval of Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Next Steps
The PDWG is entering Phase Two during which they will identify relocation methodologies under existing
plans and policies that can be used in 2018 and beyond, and identify longer-term ideas that might need
further exploration or require changes to City plans and policies.
The PDWG will meet to agree on an overall prairie dog management goal(s) for the City of Boulder that
reflect agreed upon guiding principles to identify changes to plans and policies needed to help achieve the
management goal(s), and to recommend goal(s)-associated changes to plans and policies to the City
Manager. These objectives will be reached over six meetings (December 2017 – May 2018), with subgroup
work outside the full PDWG when necessary. The meeting dates are listed below; all meetings will take place
at the OSMP Annex at 7315 Red Deer Drive from 5 pm to 9 pm:
March 5, 5:00 – 9:00 PM April May 7, 5:00 – 9:00 PM
2, 5:00 – 9:00 PM
To complete the first task, PDWG members will:

 Brainstorm, discuss, and agree on values or guiding principles that will frame discussions of what
the overall prairie dog management goal(s) should be
 Review existing goal statements in the city’s plans/policies
 Propose and discuss new management goals, and agree to one or more overarching goals. Explore
and agree to a package of needed changes to plans and policies that reflect agreed upon goal(s) to
recommend to the City Manager.
2|Page
Recommendation 1: Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing relocation/take sites on both
public and private land to City land.
Proposal
Priorities for relocation from public and private lands to City property are as follows:
 First priority is given to public or private lands upon which construction and/or
development is imminent; prairie dogs are causing immediate damage to a public facility
or utility infrastructure; there is an immediate threat to public safety; or prairie dogs have
re-colonized an area where they had been lawfully removed.
o Imminent construction/development is defined in this context as demonstration to
a high degree of probability that the land will be developed within 15 months.
 Second priority is given to lands owned by city departments upon which development
plans are approved (i.e. Valmont Park) or there are unmanageable conflicts with the
existing or planned land use (including areas identified in the Urban Wildlife Management
Plan and Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan), or relocation has been directed by the
city manager. This includes but is not limited to conflicts with irrigated agricultural use.
Examples of development plans include development identified in City Master plans, for
which a timing/phasing plan has been developed for construction, or the property has an
approved Site Review or Use Review plan.
 Third priority is given to city owned lands that are designated for removal of prairie dogs
and adjacent neighbor conflicts with prairie dogs are ongoing, resulting in sustained lethal
control of prairie dogs on the private property portions of a colony.
 Fourth priority is given to lands where the landowner or city department’s desired future
use of the land conflicts with the presence of prairie dogs.
 Fifth priority is given to lands not within the city limits or owned by the City of Boulder
The city manager has discretion to make determinations of prioritization within the context of these
guidelines.
3|Page
Recommendation #2: Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing receiving sites on public lands
receiving sites.
Prioritization of receiving sites on OSMP managed land:
Following evaluation of colonies in Prairie Dog Conservation Areas (PCAs) and Grassland Preserves
with Grassland Plan relocation criteria it may be necessary to prioritize efforts if more than one
colony is available in any given year. As a result, criteria to prioritize (not to decide if a colony will
be pursued for relocation, just which would be pursued first) between colonies have been
developed, and are included in the supplemental information. Criteria include scale of potential
challenges associated with private or other adjacent property for which there may be objections to a
relocation, or a risk for impacts of prairie dogs to neighboring lands; vegetation and habitat
suitability; access and infrastructure for the relocation; and any other constraints to relocations or
timing. These criteria can help staff determine in which order they should pursue permitting on
available sites. Lower scoring properties are seen as less suitable and face higher challenges to
obtaining a relocation permit and successfully implementing a relocation and thus would be ranked
last in priority for pursuing a relocation permit as compared to other sites with fewer challenges.
Prioritization of receiving sites on other city managed land:

Areas on non-OSMP City properties that are identified for long-term protection (primarily Parks
and Recreation properties) will be considered for receiving sites on a case by case basis. These sites
will provide generally for receiving relocated prairie dogs as described for PCAs, and generally
following guidance contained within the administrative rule for prairie dog relocation, unless
sensitive species are identified in the area, or other land use conflicts have arisen. Future evaluation
of non-OSMP properties may lead to specific criteria being developed for these sites.
Mitigation of conflicts with adjacent landowners:

Staff will develop and implement strategies for engagement with neighbors of PCAs (or Grassland
Preserve colonies near neighbors) ahead of making decisions regarding pursuing relocation permits
for a site.
Strategies could include -

 Planned consultative stakeholder engagement (at a minimum- potentially higher-level
engagement)
o consultative stakeholder engagement means that staff will inform, listen to and
acknowledge the concerns of related publics and will relay how the publics’ input
influenced decisions
 Stakeholders may be encouraged to provide suggestions on management ideas
 Proactive partnerships and community level engagement to foster understanding and support
for prairie dogs and prairie dog ecosystems within the community
Resources (staffing, funding, contractors, etc.) should be adequately planned and allocated by city
departments to be able to undertake the engagement process with sufficient time to be completed before
relocation decisions need to be made
4|Page
 After community engagement, decisions related to whether to pursue relocation to a site will
be based on assessment of neighbor support, likelihood of success and feasibility of agreed
upon mitigation methods, relocation need and capacity to pursue a relocation to the site with
associated mitigation
Thorough engagement with stakeholders and neighbors should be initiated well in advance of the
timeframe of decision to move forward with relocation to a site. As a result, it is possible that
public engagement could lengthen the timeframe between identification of a site as a possible
receiving location, and application to the state for a relocation permit. However, this is likely to
increase the long-term success of relocation and meeting the city’s goals around sustainable prairie
dog conservation and management.
Mitigation:
The mitigation required at each site will be unique depending on -
• Adjacent landowner viewpoints
• Topography
• Vegetation
• Layout of receiving site in relation to adjacent properties
• Size of relocation site
• History of prairie dog occupation patterns
• History of coexistence or conflict between adjacent landowners and prairie dogs
• Other site-specific characteristics
Specific mitigation methods to be used on a site will be decided along with adjacent landowners
through consultative stakeholder engagement. However, options that may be considered include:
 Barriers
o Vinyl, metal, wooden
o Straw
o Vegetative
o Chicken wire
 Reducing size of relocation (fewer animals than site could ecologically accommodate)
 Marking prairie dogs and retrieving from private property if relocated prairie dogs move
off the relocation site
 Plans with neighboring landowners to discourage prairie dog movement onto their
property (landscaping, etc.)
 Including prairie dogs from adjacent private properties in the relocation to provide them
relief from prairie dog occupation
Strategies to increase the feasibility of receiving sites in Grassland Preserves:

To decrease time required for unoccupied colonies to meet vegetation criteria, OSMP will work on a
site by site basis with tools such as seeding, other restoration, shifts to grazing, etc. to encourage
faster vegetation recovery.
5|Page
Recommendation #2 – Supplemental Information
Current practices for prioritizing relocation sites:

Site evaluation OSMP managed land - Occupancy is evaluated in the fall when system wide
mapping is completed. Colonies are included for further evaluation if they:
1. Are in a Grassland Preserve and the Grassland Preserve is at less than 10% occupancy
2. They are a Prairie Dog Conservation Area and are at low occupancy (no set threshold, but
generally less than 50% occupied)
These colonies are then further evaluated. For PCAs, informal evaluation of numbers of adjacent
neighbors, numbers of complaints received in the past related to prairie dogs, etc. are considered.
Sites with fewer neighbors and fewer complaints are prioritized higher than ones for which there
are more potential neighbor issues. For Grassland Preserves, initial assessment of vegetation (not
quantitative), presence of wildlife closures (burrowing owl, bald eagle, etc.) which might influence
timing requirements for relocations, or other issues are considered. For those colonies where the
initial vegetation assessment suggests that the colony may pass the vegetation thresholds and other
circumstances (access, etc.) suggest that the site might be an appropriate relocation site,
measurement of vegetation is undertaken using an established vegetation survey design. Vegetation
surveys were designed to capture the full range of variability within a colony and are stratified by
vegetation type. Surveys are done in summer (typically late July or early fall, when plant phenology
is most appropriate for measurement). If the colony passes the thresholds, it is put on the list as a
potential receiving site for the next summer (to allow time for planning, permitting, etc.).
Prioritization of potential receiving sites:

As detailed above, a process of evaluating OSMP sites to see if they meet established criteria from
the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan is already in place. These evaluations provide sufficient
data to determine if a site could serve as an appropriate receiving site. However, no formal process
has existed for Parks and Recreation sites and no process exists to prioritize among potential sites
to determine which sites would be used first.
Recommended further evaluation process and criteria to be formally applied to prioritize sites
Following the above evaluations, and once this list is compiled, the below criteria will be used to
further prioritize possible relocation sites based on their suitability- including neighbor, stakeholder
and community support, and relative ease for permitting and relocation. This score will be used to
prioritize which colonies to pursue permits on first, not whether to pursue a permit for a certain
site. These are criteria for sites with the highest ecological suitability. These scores will be updated
on a rolling basis, as new information is provided.
Criteria for Grassland Preserves:

1. Ecological suitability of colony (based on Grassland Plan Habitat suitability model which
considers ecological suitability for meeting prairie dog and other grassland community
conservation targets)
a. 80-100% Good or Very Good = High
6|Page
b. 50-80% Good or Very Good = Medium
c. Less than 50% = Low
2. Ease of access (Good = High, Fair = Medium, Poor = Low)
3. Existing infrastructure, either artificial burrows or natural burrows (Extensive = High, Some
burrows = Medium, None = Low)
4. Other (rare plant communities, timing constraints due to sensitive wildlife, etc.) (No
issues= High, Few issues = Medium, Many issues = Low)
Criteria for Prairie Dog Conservation Areas and Grassland Preserves (in addition to criteria above)
1. Adjacent neighbors with concerns over relocation or conflict (directly adjacent to the property
or colony) (None = High, Few = Medium, Many = Low)
2. Adjacent neighbors that support relocation and/or prairie dog occupancy on the site (Many =
High, few = Medium, None = Low)
3. Sufficient vegetation to support prairie dogs (Plenty = High, Marginal = Medium, Poor = Low)
Consistent with the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan, evaluations will consider areas
specifically to enhance prairie dog ecosystem conservation efforts, which will include large blocks of
habitat.
Please see attached examples of criteria application at end of this recommendation document.
Site evaluation on non-OSMP managed city land - The primary other (non-OSMP) city lands that
have been suitable for prairie dog relocation are managed by Parks and Recreation (Parks) and
include the Boulder Reservoir and Area III Planning Reserve (north of Jay Road and U.S. 36). Staff has
explored the possibility of any other properties owned by the city that could be suitable for prairie
dog relocation and the only other city owned property that was identified as a potential relocation
site through this process is a two-acre parcel managed by the Public Works department at Foothills
Parkway and Valmont road. This property is identified for Long- term protection in the Urban
Wildlife Management plan. All three of these properties were occupied by prairie dogs in 2017.
Until additional evaluations of Parks and Recreation or other city properties can be completed, areas
that are identified for long-term protection will be considered for receiving sites on a case by case
basis.
Strategies to increase availability of receiving sites in Grassland Preserves:

The two limiting factors to availability of receiving sites in Grassland Preserves is high occupancy
levels of colonies, and time required for vegetation to recover, especially after long term
occupation.
The Grassland Plan includes criteria that determine which sites can be considered for relocation.
One of these criteria is the existence of previous prairie dog occupation. This specific criterion is
included for two reasons.
7|Page
1. Prairie dogs have been allowed to self-select habitat within grassland preserves for at least
20 years. During that time, nearly 11 years was a period of expanding populations. As a
result, prairie dogs had the opportunity to select the habitat that best suits their needs.
These patterns of occupation are assumed to represent high quality habitat as selected by
the prairie dogs as an indicator of good locations for prairie dog colonies to be placed.
2. An attempt to balance the needs of conserving a variety of grassland habitat, including those
with prairie dog occupation, as well as those without. By not further expanding locations
where prairie dog burrowing and grazing has been present by moving prairie dogs to areas
they have not occupied (at least since mapping was begun in 1996), we better meet our
needs to fulfill multiple Grassland Plan and OMSP preservation goals, including communities
that do not thrive with prairie dog occupation, such as tallgrass prairie and associated
species that are species of conservation concern such as very rare grassland skippers and
grasshopper sparrows.
As a result, availability of relocation sites is tied directly to occupation levels. During times of low
occupation (less than 10% of Grassland Preserve), opportunities exist for relocation.
However, at times of high occupation (greater than 10% occupancy of Grassland Preserve),
relocation of prairie dogs is inconsistent with the Grassland Plan conservation targets and
viability measurements for prairie dog conservation, and meeting multiple goals for grassland
conservation on a system-wide basis.
To decrease time required for unoccupied colonies to meet vegetation criteria when occupation falls
below 10% in Grassland Preserves, OSMP will work on site by site basis to determine what steps can
be taken to encourage recovery of the vegetation community to meet relocation criteria as
determined in the Grassland Plan. What tools are appropriate will depend on site conditions,
including plant communities present, length of prairie dog occupation, slope, soils, etc. Tools that
might be used include:
 Seeding
 Changes in cattle grazing intensity or timing
 Other restoration techniques to be determined
Considerations with expanding receiving site availability:
In addition to increasing availability of receiving sites through strategies described above to

increase neighbor and stakeholder support or acceptance of relocations, funding and staff
capacity increases will also be necessary to increase utilization of available receiving sites.
Current staffing levels can support only 1-2 relocations per season (if relocation contractors are
used to do the actual relocation) based on the permitting, contracting, coordination and support
needed for each project. If additional relocations are possible and desired, additional capacity and
funding will be needed. Staff are committed to exploring all feasible options to supplement staff
capacity and funding.
8|Page
Test application of prioritization criteria on a variety of colonies:
Grassland Preserves:
Damyanovich (Grassland Preserve- currently serving as relocation site)
GP criteria:
1. Medium (50-80% good or very good)
2. High (good access)
3. Medium (some natural burrows)
4. High- Medium (no rare plant or other wildlife issues within receiving portion of colony, 1 for
colony as whole- xeric tallgrass community)
PCA + GP criteria:
1. High (no neighbors with concerns)
2. Low (no neighbors that support)
3. High (plenty of vegetation)
Overall = High (4)/Medium (2)
Waneka (Grassland Preserve currently serving as relocation site)

GP criteria:
3. High (existing artificial burrows)
4. High (no other issues)
PCA + GP criteria
1. Medium- federal neighbor concerns
2. Medium- one public land neighbor support
3. High- Plenty of vegetation
Kelsall (Grassland Preserve)

GP criteria:
1. High (80-100% good suitability)
2. Low (access difficult, through rare plant communities)
4. Low (rare plant communities and nesting burrowing owls- implications for timing)
PCA + GP criteria
Overall = Medium
9|Page
PCAs:
Richardson II (PCA where a State Permit was denied due to potential for conflict with
neighbors)
1. Low (extensive neighbor objection)
2. Low (1 out of 36 neighbors supports)
Overall = Low
Aweida II (PCA)
1. Medium/unknown (some complaints in past, but no comprehensive data)
2. Low/unknown (no support voiced, but no comprehensive data)
Overall = Unknown- additional neighbor outreach required
Ute (PCA)
1. Low- Medium/unknown (substantial complaints in past, but no current, comprehensive data)
3. Medium (marginal vegetation, but sufficient in some areas)
RESULT:
If all the above colonies met relocation site criteria in a single year, based on the evaluation results,
staff would pursue relocation permits in the following order:
1. Waneka (GP)- High- Medium

2. Damyanovich (GP)- High- Medium
3. Kelsall (GP)/Ute (PCA)/Aweida II (PCA)- Medium/Unknown pending further evaluation and
neighbor outreach
4. Richardson II (PCA)- Low
10 | P a g e
Recommendation #3: On approved receiving sites, ensure that the number of prairie dogs to be
relocated have adequate accommodations, utilizing existing or artificial burrows (including
nest boxes) and taking into consideration existing native vegetation.
During prairie dog relocations onto City land, prairie dogs will be accommodated in natural
burrows, or artificial burrows (including nest boxes). Further discussion of acceptable methods and
infrastructure is included in the attached supplemental information.
Within Prairie Dog Conservation Areas (PCAs), infrastructure will be installed to accommodate
prairie dogs as needed during relocation. This will include installation of artificial burrows as
required to supplement existing natural burrows. PCAs are identified in the Grassland Ecosystem
Management Plan on Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) managed city land.
On non-OSMP managed city land (predominantly Parks and Recreation), that has been identified
for long term prairie dog protection and approved for relocation, installation of infrastructure will
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering areas where sensitive species are identified in the
area, or other land use conflicts have arisen and conflicts cannot be resolved. Future evaluation of
non-OSMP properties may lead to specific guidance for these sites.
Within Grassland Preserves (GPs), the goal of accommodating relocated prairie dogs will be
balanced with preservation of intact native plant communities, which is also a priority in Grassland
Preserve areas.
 Within relocation areas of non-native vegetation, or where the soil has been previously
tilled or disturbed, artificial burrows will be installed to supplement natural burrows to
fully accommodate the desired number of prairie dogs.
 Within areas of intact native vegetation that have not been tilled or previously disturbed,
natural burrows can be used for receiving relocated prairie dogs and artificial burrow
installation will be further evaluated to ensure balance of prairie dog relocation goals with
preservation of best opportunity grassland areas. (See supporting information for
discussion of options.)
 Within areas of rare plant communities (communities or species ranked by Colorado
Natural Heritage Program as S1, S2 or S3) or directly adjacent to these communities if the
associated disturbance is deemed to present a threat to conservation of the community,
artificial burrows will not be installed. However, natural burrows can be used for receiving
relocated prairie dogs.
Information is included in the supplemental information detailing the extent of each of these 3
categories in potential relocation sites.
When artificial burrows are installed, options (seeding, location, etc.) for minimizing and mitigating
disturbance or encouraging recovery will be evaluated and encouraged.
11 | P a g e
Background Information
Prairie dog relocation methodology:

In prairie dog relocations a variety of potential methods exist for accommodating prairie dogs on
receiving sites. Based on information collected from relocators, and prairie dog relocation
literature, these include:
 Natural burrows with an intact entrance and tunnel open to at least 36 inches in depth and at
least 4 inches in width
 Natural burrows with an intact entrance and tunnel open to less than 36 inches and at least
4 inches in width that has been further opened with hand tools (auger or shovel) to be at
least 36 inches deep
 Artificial burrows installed with heavy equipment. These include a tunnel structure (usually
corrugated, flexible plastic piping) and an artificial below ground chamber (may be plastic,
wood), which is buried at least 3 feet below the surface. The chamber connects to the tubing
which is installed to provide access to the surface in one or two locations.
 Augured holes that are constructed entirely by machinery (auger) and consist of an angled
hole approximately 4-6 inches in diameter reaching at least 36 inches below the surface and
not corresponding to the location of an existing burrow or burrow mound. Prairie dogs will
not be released into augured holes during relocations at this time (see page 15 for further
explanation).
In addition to these underground accommodations, many relocators also use above ground
cages (caps/retention pens) to protect the released prairie dogs from predation and restrict
their ability to disperse from the site for a few days after release. Later stages of relocation may
not include use of these cages once prairie dogs are established on the site and later captures are
released.
Success of methodologies varies. Based on responses from relocators, experience by the City and
published literature, success (as measured by retention of prairie dogs after release) is generally
highest in natural burrows (either intact or re-opened), followed by artificial burrows, and success
is lowest in augured holes. The degree of success of each of these methods depends on site specific
conditions and how success is measured. It appears that availability of additional natural burrows
(either partially intact or filled in, but still present- the prairie dogs can find them) helps to ensure
retention of relocated prairie dogs on the release colony. In some cases, prairie dogs may not remain
in the provided infrastructure (natural burrows, artificial burrows or augured holes), but will
remain on site by re-opening previously occupied burrows or constructing new burrows. Measures
of success vary from # prairie dogs remaining in the specific area of release, # prairie dogs
remaining in the release site and surrounding colony area and # of prairie dogs remaining in the
release site, colony area and surrounding landscape over time.
Balancing City Goals:

On Open Space and Mountain Parks properties, the City of Boulder preserves approximately 25,000
12 | P a g e
acres of grassland habitat. This area encompasses agricultural landscapes (irrigated hayfields, row
crops), native grasslands, and plains riparian and wetland areas. Within this area, the Grassland
Ecosystem Management Plan defined 8 conservation targets, including Black-tailed Prairie Dogs and
their associated species. As part of planning for management and conservation of prairie dogs, areas
where prairie dog’s conservation was the main priority, or where occupation by prairie dogs was
consistent with other management goals of the property were identified. Within these, Prairie Dog
Conservation Areas and Grassland Preserves were included as sites where prairie dog relocations
could release prairie dogs if relocation criteria were met. Prairie Dog Conservation Areas are
properties where conservation of prairie dogs is the main goal, and potential conflicts between
prairie dog occupancy and management of other OSMP charter goals are minimal (no ag, no rare
plant communities, etc.). Grassland Preserves represent the best opportunity on OSMP lands to
preserve large, intact grassland habitats with dynamic prairie dog colonies embedded in a larger
landscape mosaic made up of high quality native plant communities, prairie dog towns and areas
without prairie dogs present. Because Grassland Preserves represent that best opportunity to meet
conservation goals for a variety of resources, balancing the needs of each conservation target is
necessary to ensure conservation of the full suite of native grassland ecosystems.
Within grassland preserves, many prairie dog colonies exist in areas of high quality native grassland
vegetation. Many of these areas represent the last remaining areas of untilled native grassland on
OSMP and the region. Areas of prairie that were not previously tilled for agriculture represent the
most intact, resilient native plant communities. Areas where the soil has been tilled or experienced
other anthropogenic disturbance, native prairie grass sod is disrupted, creating communities easily
invaded by non-native weeds and where native grasses are less resilient to grazing from either
prairie dogs or cattle. Because tilling has converted large areas of grassland in the Boulder valley
and across the Great Plains, areas of untilled or undisturbed grassland habitat are the best
opportunities for grassland conservation on OSMP. Grassland preserves represent the largest blocks
of habitat containing these intact grasslands. Prairie dog occupation is consistent with maintaining
and conserving these grassland communities. Grassland Preserves are areas where prairie dog
populations at reasonable occupancy levels (10-26% as defined in the Grassland Plan) can function
in their role as a keystone species, shifting occupancy through time and space in a way that
maintains and enhances the intact grassland mosaic of these large habitat blocks. Intact native plant
communities have evolved with this type of prairie dog occupancy and with grazing by prairie dogs
and do not show the level of degradation, soil loss, etc. often seen on more fragmented, tilled and
disturbed sites at much higher occupation levels by prairie dogs.
When prairie dogs are relocated to Grassland Preserves, the relocation criteria included in the
Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan ensure that plant communities are sufficiently resilient
and healthy to support the prairie dogs in a robust and intact plant community and grassland
ecosystem.
In prairie dog relocations, a variety of anthropogenic disturbances are introduced to the colony.
Extensive access by vehicles can create impacts to plant communities. In addition, installation of
additional infrastructure to accommodate the prairie dogs can impact native plant communities.
13 | P a g e
Techniques vary in their level of disturbance with use of natural burrows or burrows re-opened with
hand tools creating the least disturbance. Installation of augured burrows with small equipment
(skid steer) creates larger areas of soil and vegetation disturbance and installation of artificial
burrows with heavy equipment creates larger areas of soil disturbance and removal of native
vegetation. To meet conservation goals related to black-tailed prairie dogs and native plant
communities, OSMP strives to accommodate prairie dog relocation to the largest degree possible
while balancing and minimizing impacts to native plant communities associated with disturbance
resulting from relocation activities.
City relocations:
OSMP Receiving Sites –
Based on the information gathered from relocators and the literature, the City of Boulder will
define adequate accommodation to mean: sufficient burrows are available for the number of
prairie dogs to be relocated. Burrows will be taken to mean natural burrows or artificially installed
burrows (artificial burrows). This is based on currently available methods. Future emergence of
new techniques for constructing burrows or accommodating relocated animals should be
considered and explored. The City of Boulder will continue to work with relocation professionals
to explore new and innovative ways to accomplish successful relocations, especially where new
techniques can provide successful accommodation while limiting ground and vegetation
disturbance. Although augured burrows will not be used for the release of prairie dogs during
relocations, they can serve as supplemental starter burrows for prairie dogs choosing to use them.
It is possible that augured holes could be used in the future for released animals if new, innovative,
and humane techniques are created and then only with staff permission if soil conditions, and/or
geographic conditions are adequate.
Within Prairie Dog Conservation Areas, infrastructure will be installed to accommodate prairie dogs
as needed during relocation. This will include installation of artificial burrows as required to
supplement existing natural burrows.
Within Grassland Preserves, the goal of accommodating relocated prairie dogs will be balanced with
preservation of intact native plant communities.
accommodate the desired number of prairie dogs.
artificial burrow installation to supplement natural burrows will be further evaluated to
ensure balance of prairie dog relocation goals with preservation of best opportunity
grassland areas. In these cases, options might include:
o clustering artificial burrows in areas of lower quality vegetation or in areas with
easier access that avoids high quality communities
o reduction in the number of prairie dogs to be relocated to reduce the need for
supplemental artificial burrows
 exploration of options to maintain integrity of natural burrows following
14 | P a g e
a reduction in occupation to increase the available intact natural
burrows when relocation is begun, thus reducing the need for artificial
burrows. This may include: Installation of plastic tubing or other
contraption to maintain the integrity of the burrow
 Periodic evaluation of conditions and use of hand-tools to maintain
the integrity of the burrows
 Other feasible options to be developed
o completion of a risk analysis with an outside 3rd party (contractor) to evaluate the
impact and significance of artificial burrow installation in these areas to better define
the relationship between artificial burrow installation and long-term protection of
intact native plant communities in our Grassland Preserves.
artificial burrows will not be installed. However, existing natural burrows could still be
used for relocation.
o Within these areas, OSMP will explore options to maintain integrity of natural
burrows following a drop-in occupation that may lead to the site being a suitable
receiving site in the future. This may include:
o Installation of plastic tubing or other contraption to maintain the integrity of the
burrow
o Periodic evaluation of conditions and use of hand-tools to maintain the integrity of
the burrows
o Other feasible options to be developed
Parks and Recreation and other non-OSMP City Property Receiving Sites -
On non-OSMP managed city land that has been identified for long term prairie dog protection and
approved for relocation, installation of infrastructure will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis,
considering areas where sensitive species are identified in the area, or other land use conflicts exist
if conflicts cannot be resolved. Future evaluation of non-OSMP properties may lead to specific
guidance for these sites.
15 | P a g e
Further detail on extent of rare plants, tilled/disturbed or non-native vegetation and intact
native vegetation and the implication for artificial burrow installation as detailed in
Recommendation #3
Total number of colonies in Grassland preserves- 37

North- 17
East- 3
South- 17
Total acres of p.dog occupancy in Grassland Preserves-3294

North-2100
East- 351
South- 843
Total number of colonies in Prairie Dog Conservation Areas (PCA)- 10 (9 without Richardson- site
where relocation permit was denied by the State)
Total number of potential relocation colonies = 47 (46 without Richardson)
Total acres of p.dog colony in PCAs- 589 (466 without Richardson)
Total acres of potential relocation sites = 3883 (3760 without Richardson)
NO ARTIFICAL BURROWS
TOTAL potential relocation site colonies that would NOT have any artificial burrow installation due to
CNHP tracked rare plant communities, although natural burrows could still be used to receive
relocated prairie dogs - criteria of exclusion applies to Grassland Preserves colonies only:
Total Colonies System Wide: 1/47 (46) = 2%

Total Acreage System Wide: 10/3883 (3760) = 0.25% (0.26%)
By Area:
South- 1 colony, 10 acres= 5.9% of colonies, 1.1% of acreage
North- 0 = 0% of colonies, 0% of acreage
East- 0= 0% of colonies, 0% of acreage
PCAs- 0= 0% of colonies, 0% of acreage
YES ARTIFICAL BURROWS

TOTAL potential relocation site colonies with no vegetation based limit to artificial burrow installation
(tilled/disturbed/non-native Grassland Preserves + PCAs):
Total Colonies System Wide: 28/47 (27/46) = 59% (59%)

Total Acreage System Wide: 2675/3883 (2552/3760) = 69% (68%)
By Area:
South- 7 colonies, 476 acres= 41% of colonies, 56% of acreage
North- 8 colonies, 1260 acres = 47% of colonies, 60% of acreage
East- 3 colonies, 351 acres= 100% of colonies, 100% of acreage
PCAs- 10 colonies (9), 589 acres (466 acres) = 100% of colonies, 100% of acreage
16 | P a g e
ARTIFICIAL BURROWS INSTALLED WITH CAREFUL PLANNING/ MINIMIZATION OF
DISTURBANCE
TOTAL potential relocation site colonies that would have to have decisions made about artificial
burrow installation to balance relocation need with protection of native plant communities

By Area:
PCAs- 0 colonies, 0 acres= 0% of colonies, 0% of acreage
*numbers in parenthesis represent colonies/acres with Richardson removed
17 | P a g e
Recommendation #4: Define successful prairie dog relocation, including continual evaluation
of new or different relocation methods, ongoing opportunities for stakeholder engagement,
and short-term, mid-term, and long-term evaluation of success.
The general principles used to guide development of this recommendation are that best intentions,
and continued reevaluation are necessary. The goal of each prairie dog relocation should be:
 to exercise clear, situationally adaptive decision-making regarding relocation practices,
 to perform planned, consultative stakeholder engagement* to inform decisions,
 to evaluate the immediate and far-reaching outcomes of selected practices,
 to ensure relocations are conducted in a way that is humane,
 to mitigate conflicts with existing land uses at the take site and ensure that conservation is
the driving goal,
 to support prairie dog conservation goals,
 to evaluate disease risks and the application of potential mitigation measures,
 to comply with all related federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations and guidelines,
 to minimize and mitigate disturbance to the land,
 to discourage prairie dog recolonization (a plan must be in place if, for some reason, all the
prairie dogs cannot be removed from the take site),
 to plan for fiscally responsible projects, and
 to articulate a plan which defines success for the take and release sites,
 to provide adequate accommodation with existing or artificial burrows.
*Consultative stakeholder engagement means that staff will, at a minimum, inform, listen to and
acknowledge the concerns of related publics and will relay how the publics’ input influenced decisions.
Stakeholders may be encouraged to provide suggestions on management ideas.
The implementation of these goals looks at success of the project overall. The success of the
relocation itself is a piece of the project.
In general, prairie dog relocations will be considered successful when best management practices
(included in supplemental material) are followed and there is evidence of colony stability. Stability
includes evidence of one or more of the following:
 a stable population or positive population growth (through reproduction or annual
recruitment),
 colony retention or expansion,
 suitable vegetation to support the population, and
 presence of other wildlife such as:
o commensal species (defined in the OSMP Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan,
also known as the GMAP) and
o predators
Criteria for good indicators (from The Nature Conservancy 2007) of stability should be measurable,
precise & consistent, specific, sensitive, timely, technically feasible, cost effective, and publicly
relevant. Stability should be evaluated on a short-term, mid-term and long-term basis. Evidence of
stability may be evaluated in a variety of manners (mapping, population surveys, etc.) depending
upon the level of evaluation needed to adequately evaluate each term.
Caveats: Relocations could still be considered generally successful if these conditions are not fully met,
but these criteria outline the desired outcome and when not met should indicate that adaptation may
18
be required. If goals are not met, then it should be determined if there were controllable factors that
could be altered to increase success or if this is typical. Thresholds should be further developed as
research information becomes available. This includes researching typical relocation success rates
immediately following relocation and average survival rates over longer periods of time
19
General Information:
The City of Boulder is one of many agencies in the Front Range that performs prairie dog
relocations. We consulted with two local prairie dog relocation companies in addition to reading
other local government agency plans, specifically the City of Fort Collins Wildlife Management
Guidelines and Boulder County’s Prairie Dog Habitat Element of the Grassland & Shrubland
Management Policy. These plans integrate how to perform a relocation along with what success
looks like. This document is based more upon what success looks like.
Best Management Practices:

This plan will need to take into consideration varying situations as best management practices are
often site/case specific. BMP’s that may be included are outlined below. Yes answers indicate
success:
1. Was the relocation done in compliance with all related federal, state and local laws, rules,
regulations, guidelines and protocols regarding trespass, wildlife, transport, pesticides, etc.?
2. Were assessments performed utilizing recent data on numbers, acreage, etc.?
3. Were only humane practices utilized?
4. Unless performing experiments or research, were practices commonly known to be
successful (with preference given in order of most to least successful) utilized?
5. Were practices prioritized based upon the safety of the relocators?
6. Were known negative influences minimized and mitigated as much as possible within
existing policies/practices?
7. Was relocation performed into best opportunity areas prior to less
suitable habitats?
a. This includes utilizing areas with less conflict potential first,
areas where prairie dog communities can function without
the threat of development or extermination due to conflicts
with competing land uses, areas designated for prairie dog
conservation. An example is the OSMP Grassland
Ecosystem Management Plan (GMAP) designations (box at
right)
8. Was disturbance to the land minimized and mitigated?
9. Were proactive measures taken to mitigate issues (mowing, feeding, acclimation cages,
etc.)?
10. Was the project performed in a fiscally responsible manner?
11. Are removal sites being maintained in a manner to discourage ongoing issues?
a. Where appropriate, was management performed at the release site to discourage
recolonization?
b. Is monitoring being performed?
12. Is an attempt being made to keep coteries together?
13. Is there a sufficient number of prairie dogs already at the site or being relocated to the site
to establish a viable population?
14. Is monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management occurring by staff and/or by being
included in the scope of work for the contractor?
15. Were our goals accomplished?
Measures of Success – Potential Methods:
20
Evidence of stability may be evaluated in the following manner depending upon the level of
evaluation needed to properly evaluate each term:
 A stable population or positive population growth
o Performing visual surveys to determine the number and density of prairie dogs
while taking into account the possibility that they may have moved outside of the
original release site and adjusting to not count preexisting colonies.
 Colony retention or expansion
o Map the extent of the release. Remap the area post relocation. This will allow you
to better track expansion versus dispersal as prairie dogs will respond to food
availability and other habitat conditions over time and may expand or contract their
colonies accordingly and may move across the landscape to forage or find new
colony sites.
 Suitable vegetation to support the population
o Perform surveys to determine the type and density of vegetation taking into
consideration the release site and potential colony movement.
 Presence of other wildlife
o Performing scientific wildlife surveys pre- and post-relocation that would evaluate
the presence of typical commensal and predatory species and changes in their
population.
Evaluations should allow for typical dispersal, natural mortality factors (infanticide, predation and
the inability to survive the winter) and uncontrollable environmental factors such as drought.
Success ratings should take into account the location and season. For example, criteria on presence
of bird species should be adjusted for urbanized areas (page 124 GMAP). Similarly, spring
relocations would be expected to have much higher rates of mortality than relocations in the fall.
Mortality from enzootic disease outbreaks should be considered for evaluation of success
Preventative measures should be further evaluated.
An adaptive management approach should be taken. Adaptive management generally refers to an

ongoing process of:
 assessing conditions,
 developing a plan based on assumptions of ecosystem functions and objectives,
 implementing a plan,
 monitoring the changes,
 evaluating the results, and
 adjusting actions accordingly.
These processes will require planning by staff and allocating of resources well in advance of
relocations. Resources (staff, funding, etc.) will need to be adequately planned and allocated by city
departments to be able to implement and evaluate practices including providing contingencies for
special circumstances. The responsibility for monitoring will be negotiated between the city and
contractors on a case-by-case basis.
This framework of criteria and processes is often currently followed by staff. The guidance in this
document is intended to increase consistency and transparency.
Other factors to consider include the successful ability for the relocated colony to coexist with the
new, human neighbors for the first 2 years. Included in this, if barriers of any type were utilized,
their effectiveness should be evaluated. Additionally, efficacy of burrow types can be evaluated by
21
monitoring burrow use for the different types (existing but collapsed, existing and suitable,
artificial nest boxes, etc). This will help to determine how to increase success rates in the future.
An evaluation worksheet or tool to measure the effectiveness of practices selected would be

beneficial. Once this document is complete the clear and defined procedural steps (from beginning
to end) for how the city, as one organization, handles relocations should be made available online in
a concise manner that might be illustrated by a flow-diagram w/contact information provided at
each step.
The proposed approach is intended to balance overall ecosystem health and sustainability of prairie
dogs and other natural values. Evaluations will be utilized to inform the adaptive management
process.
22
Recommendation #5: Collaboratively prepare, with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, a research
proposal for US Department of Agriculture approval for the use of the Yersinia pestis (plague)
vaccine (previously known as sylvatic plague vaccine – SPV) on the Southern Grasslands in
2018 and beyond.
Summary:
The City of Boulder has developed plans for application of plague vaccine in the Southern
Grasslands in collaboration with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW).
Plague Management Goals: Maintain sufficient prairie dog populations in Grassland Preserves to
meet Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan defined viability measures designed to ensure
conservation of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs and their associate species on Open Space and Mountain
Parks Lands.
2018 Pilot Project:
In 2018, OSMP will obtain sufficient Yersinia pestis vaccine to vaccinate all currently occupied acres
in the Southern Grassland Preserve (90 acres in fall, 2017) during two time periods- summer and
fall. OSMP will not couple dusting with delta dust with plague vaccine delivery due to concerns
over secondary effects to native species within Grassland Preserves (which represent best
opportunity conservation areas for all grassland species, not just prairie dogs). However,
application of two doses of vaccine in 2018 will provide additional protection for the prairie dogs if
plague were to be present in the system in 2018. City staff will apply vaccine according to
recommended doses and application techniques from Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Staff will monitor success of the vaccine through periodic monitoring for plague (techniques and
frequency to be determined with CPW researchers).
City staff will evaluate relocation plans for 2018 and determine if application of plague vaccine
prior to relocation is logistically feasible and desirable. Any plans to do so will be coordinated with
Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
23
Recommendation #5- Supplemental Information
The Prairie Dog Working Group generally supports plague management beyond 2018 as described
below.
Future beyond 2018 in Southern Grasslands
Following completion of the 2018 pilot project in Southern Grasslands, results will be evaluated,
and a feasibility study (success, cost, resources required, etc) will be completed to inform future
plague management plans for Southern Grasslands.
Overall Framework- Future beyond 2018 system-wide
Following collection of data on success of the program in Southern Grasslands, plans will be
completed for other grassland preserves on OSMP or other long-term protection areas on other City
properties, including Parks and Recreation properties. These plans will consider any lessons
learned in Southern Grasslands, and the system-wide goals for prairie dog conservation as included
in the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan and any other relevant city plans.
Considerations:
Based on the Grassland Plan, if acres occupied reach and are maintained at ≥10% (NOTE: desired
occupancy levels for prairie dogs in Grassland Preserves, as defined in the Grassland Plan are 10-
26%) within a Grassland Preserve, then relocation receiving sites will no longer be available in that
Grassland Preserve
Note: recent changes have occurred in the status of the vaccine (including name change from
Sylvatic plague vaccine to Yersinia pestis vaccine). Changes to licensing of the vaccine make full
study design unnecessary for use in management on our properties. As a result, reference to study
design and application to obtain the vaccine, included in earlier versions, have been removed from
this recommendation and replaced with additional, specific details of application.
24
It is based on the most recent and credible scientific
It protects biodiversity and the overall health of the
It meets Council's goal to be compatible with social,
It does not prioritize one land use over another in

It increases public public understanding and trust
It is both directly and indirectly humane and non-
It complies with all the appropriate regulations
It minimizes the potential for unanticipated or

It minimizes the potential for a controversy or
It has the largest possible benefit to associate

Evaluation Instructions: Using your best judgment based on what
It supports OSMPs ability to meet the goal of
It encompasses broad City of Boulder values
It avoids a repeat of Richardson or Armory

It uses effective plague mitigation methods
It focuses on long-term survival of colonies

perservation and conservation of multiple
It has clarity in purpose, goal, and method

It is measurably ecologically sustainable.
you know now, evaluate each proposed recommendation on a
economic, and environmental values

scale of 1 to 3 for each criterion at the top. Remember that these
data and assessment information

recommendations address our first task from Council, which is to
Median
TOTAL
Mean
Max
It considers all stakeholders
Min
identify relocation methodologies that can be implemented in
multiple objective areas
unknown consequences
2017 under current plans and policies. The spreadsheet will
It allows for flexibility
It solves a problem
automatically add up the total score for each item. Please
natural system
complete your evaluation and send it to Heather Bergman by
relocations
Wednesday, May 3, at 5 pm.
conflict
species
lethal
Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing relocation sites. 827
44 45 41 46 45 39 38 38 32 40 41 45 41 40 43 40 42 45 40 42 52 53 36 60
Ensure that receiving site criteria includes a requirement to provide adequate accommodation for the
807
number of prairie dogs that will be moved to the site. 46 42 42 42 46 40 41 40 31 38 44 44 42 38 40 39 41 40 37 34 50 53 32 60
Define successful relocation. 794
43 41 39 44 42 38 38 38 37 39 42 44 40 34 40 40 40 39 37 39 50 54 0 60
Prepare/submit to CPW and USDA proposal for plague management for use of sylvatic plague vaccine and
786
Delta Dust in a focused way for 2017/2018 as part of a larger study to be completed later. 35 41 38 45 45 38 37 45 48 37 47 36 37 38 41 37 35 42 33 31 49 50 28 60
Evaluate sites that have had plague in the past, identify open burrows that could be used in the future, and
770
act to keep burrows open. 41 40 40 45 47 42 39 34 30 38 41 34 37 38 39 34 40 42 34 35 48 48 38 60
Develop best management practices for relocations that minimize impacts to native grassland
766
communities associated with relocation and analyze methods to minimize disturbance. 40 42 41 43 38 39 43 42 33 42 35 37 40 35 39 35 40 39 30 33 48 49 23 60
Create a conservation/mitigation fund to be used for acquisition of land for prairie dogs. 750
36 41 36 40 46 43 40 33 27 37 43 39 38 40 35 36 34 41 33 32 47 44 32 60
Continue to evaluate new or different relocation methods to increase success and/or reduce impacts of
748
relocation. 43 42 36 45 41 37 36 41 27 38 40 38 39 39 36 37 37 37 26 33 47 50 21 60
Develop criteria for selecting relocation contractors. 743
44 43 32 39 40 38 32 32 29 34 39 44 41 32 40 35 42 37 39 31 46 48 25 60
Create a relocation policy that prioritizes colonies that are in imminent threat of lethal control, regardless
734
of land ownership. 42 41 32 38 46 35 32 31 31 32 40 41 41 33 43 35 35 38 37 31 46 47 26 60
For relocations, prior to applying an insecticide that may impact bees, check the Field Watch registry and
723
provide 72-hour notice to any hive managers within 6 miles. 42 40 36 38 38 36 34 34 36 32 31 44 38 31 40 34 41 37 24 37 45 47 26 60
Evaluation of the pros and implications of installing barriers at release sites 720
45 38 34 42 42 31 31 39 22 35 29 40 37 38 38 31 41 36 33 38 45 45 22 60
Create and update annually (based upon current information) detailed, minimum requirements for
712
contractors to follow in the RFP on how the animals are to be treated and the relocation performed. 41 38 30 41 42 29 30 35 32 30 37 41 39 33 40 34 41 36 32 31 45 45 20 60
Review the Administrative Rule for the Relocation of Prairie Dogs to see what could be transferred to
708
future recommendations. 40 40 30 38 39 32 33 32 29 31 36 36 38 38 38 34 39 37 35 33 44 51 0 60
Consider options that would allow Prairie Dog Conservation Areas to be used as relocation sites. 699
31 37 32 39 41 37 37 31 24 38 36 35 37 39 35 35 32 39 34 30 44 44 21 60
Relocate Foothills Area prairie dogs in 2017 if they can be relocated to a release site that has been dusted;
696
if not, use temporary barriers so they remain onsite pending further evaluation or until 2018. 34 34 30 39 46 33 32 33 39 32 39 34 32 41 36 36 31 33 33 29 44 44 30 59
One-time application of Delta Dust in all receiving burrows for 2017 applications. 688
31 30 31 39 37 35 31 37 45 34 38 32 31 33 44 33 30 38 34 25 43 42 25 60
Install and maintain visual barrier fences at relocation sites adjacent to homes. 672
43 29 29 38 46 30 29 32 19 33 27 42 35 27 40 34 34 40 34 31 42 42 29 52
Create a process for stopping suspicious activity during the intervening period when City staff has not
670
determined issues of legality. 37 36 29 36 42 29 31 27 21 31 31 41 37 31 38 31 39 36 35 32 42 45 0 59
One-time emergency application of Delta Dust at the Armory site. 667
34 29 30 35 37 33 29 36 45 31 35 32 31 31 38 30 32 39 33 27 41 40 24 60
It is based on the most recent and credible scientific
It protects biodiversity and the overall health of the
It meets Council's goal to be compatible with social,
It does not prioritize one land use over another in

It increases public public understanding and trust
It is both directly and indirectly humane and non-
It complies with all the appropriate regulations
It minimizes the potential for unanticipated or

It minimizes the potential for a controversy or
It has the largest possible benefit to associate

Evaluation Instructions: Using your best judgment based on what
It supports OSMPs ability to meet the goal of
It encompasses broad City of Boulder values
It avoids a repeat of Richardson or Armory

It uses effective plague mitigation methods
It focuses on long-term survival of colonies

perservation and conservation of multiple
It has clarity in purpose, goal, and method

It is measurably ecologically sustainable.
you know now, evaluate each proposed recommendation on a
economic, and environmental values

scale of 1 to 3 for each criterion at the top. Remember that these
data and assessment information

recommendations address our first task from Council, which is to
Median
TOTAL
Mean
Max
It considers all stakeholders
Min
identify relocation methodologies that can be implemented in
multiple objective areas
unknown consequences
2017 under current plans and policies. The spreadsheet will
It allows for flexibility
It solves a problem
automatically add up the total score for each item. Please
natural system
complete your evaluation and send it to Heather Bergman by
relocations
Wednesday, May 3, at 5 pm.
conflict
species
lethal
Provide incentives for private landowners to offer their land as receiving sites. 663
35 37 30 38 41 36 32 28 24 31 35 33 34 37 30 38 25 39 30 30 41 42 23 60
If CPW eventually requires use of an insecticide (such as Delta Dust) at release sites, analyze implications
662
and check in with City Council for direction. 34 41 27 38 32 31 32 36 37 32 32 34 34 30 32 31 37 34 27 31 41 43 20 60
Take sick or injured prairie dogs to a rehabilitation facility as a first response. 650
37 36 33 35 46 29 29 30 25 28 29 35 37 26 38 33 32 34 31 27 41 37 25 60
Identify a list of preferred prairie dog relocation contractors. 643
34 37 29 34 35 34 31 28 26 31 36 36 33 26 31 33 34 34 34 27 40 39 20 60
For 2017 relocations use existing burrows systems at the approved release site; when those are all
643
utilized, install type/number of nest boxes determined to be appropriate per recommendation of PDC. 37 31 30 36 40 30 30 35 25 29 35 35 31 28 39 30 31 34 29 28 40 44 0 60
Place a temporary moratorium on any relocation receiving sites until they have been dusted or until there
636
is agreement that the receiving site will be dusted. 27 26 30 35 37 34 32 32 43 32 37 30 29 25 36 32 31 32 30 26 40 39 20 60
Establish practices that encourage City staff to trust and implement the advice of prairie dog conservation
628
experts. 35 33 24 34 40 31 29 33 36 29 38 31 33 31 28 30 31 30 28 24 39 41 0 59
In 2017 require the one time use of Delta Dust in release site burrows where plague has been active within
628
the last 3 years or at any site within 5 miles of a site that has been plagued within the last 3 years 32 31 32 31 37 29 27 33 43 32 33 30 29 25 40 29 28 36 28 23 39 42 22 54
Leave the prairie dogs at Foothills Community Park. 601
23 27 27 35 45 38 38 28 23 34 34 29 31 26 28 28 26 26 33 22 38 34 20 60
Attachment 3:
Report on Process to Date and 2017

Recommendations (May 2017)
Report on Process to Date and 2017 Recommendations
May 2017
Formation of the Prairie Dog Working Group

The Prairie Dog Working Group was established after City Council provided direction to staff to do
so at their meeting on August 16, 2016. Council’s recommendation came out of conflicts and issues
that were raised during the effort to relocate the Armory colony. At this meeting, Council suggested
that the City Manager appoint an advisory working group of resident and non-resident members
who demonstrate City values and who can recommend, based on a broad understanding of the full
range of community perspectives, adaptable management practices that be implemented under
existing policy as well as possible longer-term policy changes. The City Manager’s Office identified 3
priorities for the Working Group to address:
1. Identify relocation methodologies under existing plans and policies that can be used in
2017.
and beyond.
3. Identify longer-term ideas that might need further exploration or require changes to City
plans and policies.
Taking this direction from Council and the City Manager, Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)
staff worked with staff from Planning, Housing, and Sustainability, and Parks and Recreation to
develop and distribute an application for membership on the Working Group.1 More than 30 people
submitted applications; most but not all were residents of Boulder or Boulder County. OSMP staff
and the facilitator evaluated each application and selected 12 applicants to be members of the
Working Group. Applicants were selected based on their knowledge of the issues at hand (prairie
dogs, ecology, grasslands, etc.); demonstrated ability to be respectful, innovative, and collaborative;
and ability to attend all six scheduled meetings. In addition to these 12 community members, the
Working Group also included one representative from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, as well as four
members of City staff.2
The Working Group Process

The Working Group met six times between February and May.3 The first meeting focused on
developing group protocols and outlining the process for these six meetings. The second meeting
was a learning session in which the group heard presentations from staff, some participants, and
Dan Tripp (a wildlife disease research with Colorado Parks and Wildlife) on key issues. The third
meeting addressed evaluation criteria to be applied to ideas developed by the group. The evaluation
criteria were weighted equally. The criteria used were:4
• It minimizes the potential for a controversy or conflict

• It meets Council’s goal to be compatible with social, economic, and environmental values
• It is measurably ecologically sustainable
• It complies with all the appropriate regulations
• It is both directly and indirectly humane and non-lethal
• It has the largest possible benefit to associate species
1 The application for membership on the PDWG is attached to this report as Attachment 1.
2 The list of PDWG members is included in this report as Attachment 2.
3 Summaries from all the PDWG meeting are attached to this report as Attachment 3.
4 For additional information about how the criteria were applied and the challenges that Working Group
members identified with this process, please see the May 8th meeting summary.
1
May 2017
• It protects biodiversity and the overall health of the natural system

• It is based on the most recent and credible scientific data and assessment information
• It uses effective plague mitigation methods
• It supports OSMP’s ability to meet the goal of preservation and conservation of multiple
Grassland Plan targets
• It focuses on the long-term survival of colonies
• It increases public understanding and trust
• It encompasses broad City of Boulder values
• It allows for flexibility
• It has clarity in purpose, goal, and method
• It does not prioritize one land use over another in the multiple objective areas
• It minimizes the potential for unanticipated or unknown consequences
• It solves a problem
• It avoids a repeat of issues/conflicts that occurred during the Richardson and/or Armory
relocations
• It considers all stakeholders
At the fourth and fifth meetings, members of the Working Group shared and discussed their ideas
for changes that could be made to current practice, plans, and policies regarding prairie dog
relocation and management. This discussion resulted in 47 separate ideas, which staff and the
facilitation team then categorized into seven groups to help identify those items that needed to be
addressed first if action was going to be taken on them during the 2017 relocation season. One
member of the Working Group later suggested moving some items that were in other categories
into the 2017 relocation pilot projects category. This Working Group member stated that some
ideas could be started in 2017 and would make a difference in 2017, even if they were larger issues
or discussions that would need to carry on after 2017. The categories were:
• Immediate actions
• 2017 relocation pilot projects
• Relocation pilot projects to implement starting in 2018 or future years
• Policy changes
• Research and study
• Process and guidelines
• Changes to current plans
Prior to the final meeting on May 8th, Working Group members evaluated 29 ideas that they
believed could be implemented in 2017 under current plans and policies. The remaining 18 ideas
relating to changes to policies, plans, and bigger-picture prairie dog conservation goals and
strategies were not included in the evaluation exercise due to the need to focus on 2017
implementation options. The Working Group members evaluated the 29 ideas for 2017
implementation using the identified criteria and rating each proposed recommendation on a scale
of one to three for each criterion. Working Group members sent their completed evaluations to the
facilitator, who aggregated the scores to focus discussion at the final meeting.5 At the final meeting,
the Working Group discussed both the evaluation process and the outcomes. Some members of the
Working Group indicated that the process of applying the criteria to the 29 proposals was
5 The evaluation results are attached to this report as Attachment 4.
2
May 2017
challenging and confusing. Reasons for this included conceptual duplication in the criteria,
similarity among proposals, an excessive number of criteria, similarities among criteria, and
insufficient information about the issues at hand.6 The Working Group discussed the five highest-
ranked ideas and specified their reasons for ranking each item as they did, in many cases noting
relationships or connections between the highest-ranked items and proposals that scored lower
overall. Working Group members were also invited to suggest further discussion of lower-ranked
items during the meeting. Several members of the Working Group were surprised that none of the
highest-ranked items were specific on-the-ground actions that could be taken during 2017
relocations (such as using Delta Dust on the 2016 and 2017 prairie dog receiving sites). Others
indicated that they did not rank those one-time or one-off items highly, because they did not add to
the larger understanding of the issues at hand. Additionally, the Working Group received several
public comments identifying concerns about prairie presence on currently leased OSMP
agricultural lands and the impact they may be having on the quality of those lands and on the
agricultural operations that occur there. Some members of the Working Group noted that these
concerns were important and hoped they would be addressed in subsequent discussions on plans
and policies as the 2017 recommendations did not directly address them either.
Recommendations for Action in 2017

After the review of the highest-ranking ideas and other ideas that Working Group members wanted
to explore, the group developed six recommendations for work in 2017. These agreements are
listed below. These are consensus agreements, meaning that all members of the Working Group can
live with the recommendation as written, even if they might have preferred something else if they
were the only person deciding. However, two of the recommendations include noted concerns that
were raised during the discussion and that could not be resolved through the language of the
recommendations; these are noted below as well.7
• Recommendation #1: Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing relocation/take sites
on both public and private lands.
• Recommendation #2: Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing receiving sites on
public lands within existing plans and develop recommendations for making receiving sites
more feasible; develop recommendations for increasing landowner and stakeholder
acceptance of the use of receiving sites.
• Recommendation #3: On approved receiving sites, ensure that the number of prairie dogs
to be relocated have adequate accommodations, utilizing existing or artificial burrows
(including nest boxes) and taking into consideration existing native vegetation.
• Recommendation #4 – Define successful prairie dog relocation; this includes continual

evaluation of new or different relocation methods, ongoing opportunities for stakeholder
engagement, and short-term, mid-term and long-term evaluation of success.
6 Note: One member of the Working Group did not complete the evaluation at all due to a concern about her
lack of knowledge of the issues.

7 Additional detail about the pros and cons of these recommendations are included in the May 8th meeting
summary.
3
May 2017
• Recommendation #5 – Collaboratively prepare, with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, a

research proposal for US Department of Agriculture approval for the use of the sylvatic
plague vaccine (SPV) on the southern grasslands in 2018 and beyond. Note on
Recommendation #5: The Working Group understands that this recommendation may result
in the application of Delta Dust. Some members of the Working Group have ongoing concerns
about Delta Dust; some members have specific concerns about the public perception of the use
of the vaccine due to concerns about genetic modification.
• Recommendation #6 – A subgroup comprised of four Working Group members (Dan

Brandemuehl, Pat Comer, Elle Cushman, and Lindsey Sterling Krank) should work with staff
to flesh out details of the recommended items. Note on Recommendation #6: This
recommendation is not intended to be a smaller Working Group that meets multiple times in
lieu of further discussion by the full Working Group. Rather, it is intended as a discrete task
that will allow staff to better understand the needs and expectations of the Working Group
regarding the other recommendations outlined above. The members of the subgroup were
selected by the Working Group to reflect a diversity of perspectives in the discussion with staff.
One member of the Working Group felt strongly that the subgroup should include another
person with prairie dog relocation experience.
Additional Work Remains

As was indicated by the 47 original ideas generated by the Working Group, discussion of the three
priorities provided by the City Manager’s Office proved to be a large task. Due to the direction that
the group should come up with recommendations by May 2017, the Working Group prioritized
discussion and recommendation of items that could be implemented in 2017 and tried to limit
those recommendations to a number that could be feasibly completed in the next several months.
However, there are several items from the 2017 pilot project list that Working Group members see
as having potential to further improve prairie dog relocation strategy and survival rates, increase
public trust in the City’s prairie dog policies and practices, and address broader goals and strategies
related not only to prairie dog conservation but also to conservation and expansion of prairie dog
habitat in the Southern Grasslands. Because these topics have the greatest potential for lasting and
meaningful change to prairie dog management in Boulder, the Working Group would therefore like
to discuss them more. Additionally, because 2017 items were prioritized in the interest of time, the
Working Group did not have time to explore proposals relating to the second and third priorities
from the City Manager—items relating to changes under current plans for 2018 and items
regarding changes to policies and plans. Many of these remaining topics also have potential to
further discussion of broader prairie dog and Southern Grasslands conservation goals and
strategies, tradeoffs with competing values on OSMP lands, and increasing public confidence in City
policies and processes.
For the above reasons, the Working Group believes there is additional work to be done. The first
step in this additional work would include meeting in September 2017 to debrief any relocations
that occurred and see what lessons those efforts might hold. The Working Group envisions doing
this prior to the study session with Council, so the lessons from 2017 could be incorporated into the
discussion with Council.
Then the group acknowledged a need to further explore the remaining items on their list of
proposed changes from this first phase of meetings, particularly their ideas for plans and policies.
The Working Group has noted that their 2017 implementation ideas provide a foundation for some
4
May 2017
of these additional conversations, as several of the 2017 items begin the work of looking at changes
that could inform revisions to plans and policies. This means that additional discussions would not
have to start “from scratch,” but rather could build on the 2017 efforts. If additional meetings are
acceptable to the City Manager, the Working Group would welcome suggestions from the City
Manager and City Council about how to prioritize the remaining topics.
If the additional meetings are approved by the City Manager, some members of the Working Group
would like for these Phase Two meetings to start as soon as possible after the relocation season in
the fall of 2017. However, staff members of the Working Group have noted that this process was not
included in their work plans for 2017, and additional meetings in 2017 would likely require a
reallocation of their time and work projects. Staff has indicated that it would be easier to include
additional Working Group meetings in their respective work plans for 2018, but that too would
require a review of their existing commitments and a possible reprioritization of tasks. Staff has
prepared a separate document addressing this issue, which is included in the Information Packet
(IP) provided to City Council with this report.
5
ATTACHMENT 4:
Application for Membership on the Prairie Dog

Working Group
Statement of Interest Form – Prairie Dog Working Group – January 2017
Applicant Name: ___________________________________
Applicant Address of Residency (Street Address, City): _______________________________________
Applicant Phone Number: _____________________________________________
Applicant Email Address: ___________________________________________
1. Commitment: The Prairie Dog Working Group will meet at least six times beginning in February
2017 on select Mondays from 5:30-8:30pm. Developing consensus-based recommendations to
the City Manager is key therefore attendance is critical. Please check all meetings you can
commit to attending should you be selected.
February 13
March 6
March 20
April 10
April 24
May 8
2. Perspectives: On August 16, 2016 City Council suggested that the following perspectives might
be useful to exploring adaptive management practices – biodiversity experts, conservation lease
agreement experts, government agency staff, pending development site owners, pesticide
experts, prairie dog advocates, private property owners, and relocation experts. In detail, please
describe how your knowledge and experience (personal and/or professional) with prairie dogs
can bring one or more of these or other perspectives to the working group conversation.
3. Values: The City of Boulder's organizational values include collaboration, innovation and respect.
How will you personally demonstrate these values as a member of the working group? Or, how
have you demonstrated these in previous interactions with city projects or representatives?
ATTACHMENT 5:
Summaries from all the Prairie Dog Working

Group Meetings
CITY OF BOULDER OPEN SPACE & MOUNTAIN PARKS
66 S. Cherryvale Road, Boulder, CO 80303
February 13, 2017
Meeting Summary - FINAL
ATTENDANCE
Participants: Dan Brandemuehl, Kristin Cannon, Patrick Comer, Aaron Cook, Elle Cushman,
Keri Konold Davies, Amber Largent, Amy Masching, Valerie Matheson, Andy Pelster, Carse
Pustmueller, Jesse Rounds, Eric Sims, Jr., Lindsay Sterling-Krank, Heather Swanson, and Jon
Wold
Facilitation: Heather Bergman, Sam Haas
SUMMARY OF WORKING GROUP FORMATION AND OBJECTIVES

Keri Konold Davies, OSMP staff, presented on the City’s appointment process for the
advisory working group and the primary objectives and priorities of the group.
Why Are We Here and What Are the Objectives?
• City Council suggested that City Manager Jane Brautigam appoint an advisory
working group of resident and non-resident members who demonstrate City values
and who can recommend, based on a broad understanding of the full range of
community perspectives, adaptable management practices that be implemented
under existing policy as well as possible longer-term policy changes.
• The objectives of this Working Group are both to serve as a model for the City
regarding collaboration, innovation, and respect, and to build trust in the City’s
implementation of existing policies, and to work toward meeting the Working Group
priorities as described below
• The Working Group will deliver a report of consensus-based recommendations to
the City Manager by May 2017.
Working Group Priorities:
• The first priority is to determine relocation methodologies under existing plans and
policies that can be used in 2017. To learn more about existing plans and policies,
visit https://www.municode.com/library/co/boulder/codes/municipal_code or
https://bouldercolorado.gov/pages/prairie-dog-working-group.
• The second priority is to determine relocation methodologies under existing plans
and policies that can be used in 2018 and beyond.
• The third priority is to determine longer-term ideas that might need further
exploration or require changes to City plans and policies.
1
How Will These Objectives Be Accomplished Effectively?
1. Convene people who are impacted by and interested in prairie dog management,
including members of the public and public land management representatives.
2. Apply the values of collaboration, innovation, and respect to the work and actions of
the group.
3. Develop a shared understanding of the existing City policies and plans as well as
perceived constraints.
PREFERRED GROUP OUTCOMES

The participants were reminded that they had been selected because they represent a
broad section of the community. Some of the selected participants offered deep experience
in prairie dog management, and some were personally interested or involved in their
community about this issue. The intent of the Prairie Dog Working Group is to find an
overlap of objectives and collaborate on a set of recommendations to the City Manager. The
facilitator clarified that the Working Group had ownership not only of the outcomes but of
the process as well. She asked the Working Group participants to share their goals for the
group. Key themes among participant responses are captured below.
• There are group members who shared the goal of prairie dog conservation. Within
this goal, specific topics were raised, including plague management and long-term
prairie dog survival on Open Space and in the region, relocation/transportation best
practices, and the maintenance of ecosystem health.
• Some group members also expressed a need for raising public awareness of the
complexity of prairie dog management, specifically in terms of public and private
lands, state and regional dynamics, and land-use objectives. There were also goals
related to the creation of educational opportunities for the public to learn about
prairie dog colonies and the larger ecosystem context.
• Some group members also voiced a desire to create a balance between agricultural
activity and prairie dog occupation, with the long-term goal of ensuring the health of
native grasslands while maintaining opportunities for agriculture in the area.
• Some group members hoped that the Prairie Dog Working Group could serve as a
model of collaboration for Boulder in the future.
PROPOSED WORKING GROUP PROCESS

The facilitator outlined a potential process for the first and subsequent five meetings,
which is summarized below. The Working Group was invited to adopt, reject, or revise this
preliminary proposal.
Step 1: Outlining Goals and Creating Operating Protocols (1st Meeting)

• Sharing Working Group member goals for the process
• Group discussion of values, protocol concepts and options
• Preliminary agreement on protocol concept at first meeting
• Finalizing protocols at subsequent meetings
2
Step 2: Group Learning (2nd Meeting)
• Brief staff presentations on key issues including Council direction, goals, and
considerations for the Working Group to include in their deliberations
• Working Group member suggestions and requests for information they need to
create a shared understanding of the issues at hand and have an informed
discussion (information could be requested from City staff or outside entities)
• Agreement on shared learning priorities and plan for getting information in a timely
fashion

Step 3: Developing Criteria to Evaluate Recommendations (3rd meeting)
• Group discussion and brainstorming of possible evaluation criteria to assist them in
selecting or prioritizing strategies and approaches
• Group agreement on list of potential evaluation criteria
• Group discussion on whether and how to weight proposed criteria
• Group agreement on weighting strategy
• Group agreement on methodology for application of criteria to proposed
recommendations

Step 4: Brainstorming Recommendations (4th and 5th meeting)
• Open Working Group brainstorming of ideas and proposals for strategies and
approaches
• Clarifying questions about intention of suggested approaches
• Group discussion of any information they need to effectively evaluate proposed
strategies and approaches

Step 5: Evaluating Ideas Proposed Recommendations (6th meeting)
• Application of evaluation criteria to proposed strategies and approaches
• Group discussion of results of criteria application and whether their results are
meaningful and helpful in selecting one or more strategies or approaches to
recommend to the city manager
• Group agreement on one or more strategies or approaches to recommend

Below is a summary of the themes from the ensuing group discussion about the Working
Group process.

• Some group members thought it would be beneficial to devote the entire second
meeting to learning and hearing from experts on certain topics and have short (10
minutes) presentations by experts on other issues as they arose throughout the
process.
• There were also group members who expressed a desire to commit more time to the
idea generation and evaluation earlier in the process and have presentations on
topics as they arose in discussion.
• One person encouraged the group to explore what is working in prairie dog
management first, then think sequentially about how to tackle the parts that are
broken.
3
• Some in the group raised a concern about the prioritization of relocation
methodologies under existing plans and policies. The concern was that existing
plans and policies are limiting in terms of accommodating long-term holistic
solutions. For example, an issue such as the plague may be long-term, but there is
also urgency on this topic when considering the 2017 relocation season and the
health of the prairie dogs.
• There was some interest among group members to both summarize and debrief the
Armory colony relocation, as there were issues that arose in that context that could
be relevant to the management of future cases.
• There was a group discussion about the benefits of forming sub-committees in the
Working Group to answer questions and gather information between meetings that
could be presented to the group.
PROTOCOLS AND GROUND RULES

The Working Group discussed options and issues related to the protocols that would guide
their discussions. Below is a summary of the group discussion and agreement on
collaborative group protocols.
Group Name
The group agreed to the name: “Prairie Dog Working Group.”
Purpose and Authority of the Group

The group itself can propose recommendations but does not have the authority to bind City
staff to any decision.
Group Membership and Alternates

Working Group members were appointed as individuals to fill the seats on the Working
Group; no alternates were reviewed or considered by the City Manager. If a member is
unable to attend a meeting, he or she will not send an alternate. However, the group can
request outside experts or speakers to attend and present on key issues. Exceptions:
Working Group members who represent government agencies may send alternates if the
named member cannot attend in order to ensure that the Working Group has access to the
information and expertise that person is intended to provide.
Representation
Working Group members discussed whether they are representing themselves as
individuals or representing their respective organizations and employers. Several Working
Group members indicated that they would be representing themselves, but the following
members provided clarification on their function:
• Keri Konold Davies, Valerie Matheson, Andy Pelster, Heather Swanson, Jon Wold are
representing the City of Boulder in the Working Group.
• Kristin Cannon is speaking on behalf of Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
• Jesse Rounds is speaking on behalf of Boulder County Parks and Open Space.
• Lindsay Sterling-Krank is speaking on behalf of the Humane Society’s Prairie Dog
Coalition and will clarify when she is speaking for herself.
4
• Aaron Cook is speaking on behalf of Naropa and will clarify when he is speaking for
himself.
• Amy Masching is speaking on behalf of the Human-Wildlife Conflict Collaboration
and will clarify when she is speaking for herself.
Subcommittees
The group agreed that subcommittees will only be formed for information gathering
purposes and not for issue resolution or substantive discussion. Subcommittees are
permitted to reach out to external experts at the request of the group, providing all
relevant information is shared with the entire group during a meeting.
Decision Making
The group agreed to operate under consensus, with no reserve majoritarian voting process.
For the Working Group, consensus has the following components:
• Consensus is both a process and an outcome. During the consensus-building
process, it is the job of the Working Group members to help each other reach an
agreement that everyone can live with.
• It is not the function of the facilitator to force the group to reach agreement.
• If an agreement is not possible, the group will draft a single report to Council that
explains the reasons for the recommendations and the reasons why certain
members could not agree to them.
Public Meetings
All the Prairie Dog Working Group meetings are public. The agendas will be posted one
week in advance on the City website, and meeting summaries will be posted at least a week
before the next meeting. Working Group members can distribute the final meeting
summaries and agendas freely and should encourage public participation.
Public Participation
The Working Group agreed to take 10 minutes of verbal public comment at the beginning
of each meeting. If there is not enough time to attend to each public comment or question,
members of the public will be encouraged to submit a written comment. Before each
meeting, facilitation staff will read the written comments and quickly summarize and send
key themes to the Working Group. Facilitation staff will also distribute the comments
themselves to the Working Group members. Facilitation staff will also offer a verbal
summary of the written comments during the meeting. There will be 10 minutes left open
on the agenda for addressing written comments. Written comments will be obtained both
online via the Prairie Dog Working Group project webpage and at meetings, as needed.
Documentation
Facilitation staff will take notes during the meetings and write summaries, which will
capture the key themes from the group conversation. These summaries will not have
member attributions. The summary draft will be circulated to Working Group members,
who can send edits or suggestions to facilitation staff during a week-long review period.
The group agreed that only final summaries will be disseminated publicly.
5

Meetings
The Prairie Dog Working Group is committed to six meetings.

Media Interaction
Working Group members agreed to refer the media to the public meeting agendas and
meeting summaries and to encourage them to attend the meeting.

Interaction with Other Entities
If any group members would like to solicit information from, or discuss the working group
with individuals or entities who might serve as decision-makers in future policy change
discussions, they must do so with the permission of the group. Any substantive discussion
must be deferred to public comment (either written or verbal). This applies to the Boulder
City Council, City of Boulder Open Space Board of Trustees, City of Boulder Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board, Boulder Planning Board, Boulder County Commissioners, and
Boulder County Planning Commission.

PROPOSED GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The Working Group agreed to adhere to the following common guidelines for open,
transparent, and focused collaboration.

Member Responsibilities
Working Group members will:
• Abide by these protocols, and allow the facilitator to enforce them if necessary.
• Engage in meaningful and productive dialogue.
• Actively participate.
• Focus on the discussion at hand and avoid side conversations.
• Speak up if in opposition to a proposal.
• Provide an explanation for all objections.
• Avoid destructive language and personal attacks.
• Read materials prior to meetings and come prepared.
• Be or become knowledgeable about the issue at hand.
• Proactively work to keep constituents, colleagues, and managers informed about the
group.
• Avoid surprises.
• Characterize your own needs, desires, and interests; let others do the same.
• Disclose conflicts of interest.
• Respect the time of the group; speak briefly and on-topic.
• Learn from the past but let it go; work for the future.

Facilitator Responsibilities:
The facilitator is responsible for:
• Logistics.
• Facilitating meetings to be on point, productive, and on time.
• Enforcing protocols.
6
• Neutrality.
• Fair and equal treatment of all participants.
• Maintaining confidentiality of any discussions that are requested to be confidential.
• Documentation based on non-attribution.
• Making a best effort to incorporate all suggestions for change into draft documents
or explaining why suggestions were not incorporated.
PLAN FOR NEXT MEETING

Working Group members brainstormed and prioritized topics that they would like to learn
more about during the next meeting. Topics included:
• Plague 101: What happens to prairie dog populations when the plague comes, and
what can be done about it?
• Adaptive Management: How does it work, considering established policies and
plans?
• The Armory Prairie Dog Relocation: What happened, and what lessons can be
learned?
• Permit procedures and criteria.
• Information on how the City interacts with the County concerning prairie dogs.
• Information on the numbers, location, etc. of the prairie dog population in Boulder:
Where are the colonies, and in which areas are the City meeting the conservation
goals?
• The Endangered Species Act, and state listing status; how it interacts with prairie
dog management.
• A brief history of prairie dog management in Boulder, including an overview of the
Grassland Management Plan, the Ordinance, and the Urban Wildlife Management
Plan.
• Information on the interface between prairie dogs and agricultural priorities.
The facilitation team will work with City staff to develop an agenda that reflects these
information requests. The entire next meeting will be dedicated to group learning.
7
March 6, 2017
ATTENDANCE
Participants: Dan Brandemuehl, Kristin Cannon, Patrick Comer, Aaron Cook, Keri Konold
Davies, Jeff Edson, Deborah Jones, Amber Largent, Amy Masching, Valerie Matheson, Andy
Pelster, Carse Pustmueller, Eric Sims, Jr., Lindsey Sterling Krank, Heather Swanson, John
Vickery, Jon Wold.
Observers and Subject Experts: Rella Abernathy, Justin Atherton-Wood, Kirk Brown, Joy
Master, John Potter, Susan Spaulding, Paula Stephani, Maria Wasson.
Action Items
Everyone Review the transcript from the August 2016 City Council meeting. (Link
to the video is: Here.
Everyone Send any questions that you know you will want to ask to Heather
Swanson before the next meeting so that she can prepare.
Everyone Re-read the Charter.
INTRODUCTON
After Working Group members introduced themselves, the facilitator explained that Jesse
Rounds, of Boulder County Parks and Open Space, decided to take a backseat at the table but will
ensure that a Boulder County representative will attend every meeting to observe and answer
questions.
PUBLIC COMMENT
As discussed by Working Group members during the previous meeting, the facilitator
began the meeting by providing ten minutes for verbal public comment. Each person was
allowed three minutes to speak. The individual comments are summarized below.
Paula Stephani:
• Stephani, a resident who advocated for the Armory colony, outlined two priorities
that she believed would contribute to prairie dog conservation. With nearly a 98%
decline in the prairie dog population, Stephani emphasized the ineffectiveness of
isolated prairie dog management policies.
• For Stephani, the first priority should be to establish conservation strategies and to
commit to cultivating one large block of habitat where colonies are the primary use.
The second priority should be to design an effective plague mitigation strategy, at
least on the Southern grassland, where Sylvatic Plague has been the primary reason
for decimation.
1
Maria Wasson:
• Wasson, a farmer, lives on a property adjacent to Boulder County Open Space land.
She articulated an interest in finding a way to collaborate with the City and learn the
best way to prevent prairie dogs from starting colonies on her land.
REVIEW OF PROTOCOLS DOCUMENT

Working Group members reviewed and finalized the document that outlined the protocols
and ground rules of the Working Group. Working Group members offered the following
revisions:
• Members agreed that there would be ten minutes provided in total for public
comment. There will be dedicated time for summaries of written comment included
in the ten minutes.
• Jon Wold informed the Working Group that there might be an alternate
representative from the Parks and Recreation Department at future meetings.
STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Boulder staff provided informational presentations on the following topics:
• Prairie Dog Ecology and Management
• History of Ordinances and Policies in Boulder
• Current Ordinances and Policies in Boulder, including City use of lethal control and
2017 relocation priorities
• Agriculture operations in Boulder
• Present status of prairie dogs on State and City lands
• City Measurement of Management on Protected Grasslands and Relocation Policies
and Practices
• Experiences with Relocation and Remaining Challenges
• Plague 101
Note: The PowerPoint presentation will be available Here. Highlights from the presentation
are captured below.
Prairie Dog Ecology and Management:

Heather Swanson, Wildlife Ecologist for Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks,
presented the history and management of prairie dogs within Boulder. Kristin Cannon,
District Wildlife Manager for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, provided information on prairie
dog management at the State level.
Federal Level:
• There are five species of prairie dogs in North America. There are three species of
prairie dog in Colorado. Boulder County is home to the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog. It is
estimated that only one or two percent of their historic habitat remains, due to
human land uses.
• There are two species that are endangered at the Federal level under the
Endangered Species Act: The Mexican Prairie Dog and the Utah Prairie Dog.
2
State Level:
• At the State level, Colorado Parks and Wildlife regulates the possession and
transport of wildlife (Colorado 22-1-106 C.R.S.).
• The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission (#303(3) sets regulations regarding
wildlife. These regulations can be changed more easily than state law. For reference,
the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Furbearers and Small Game Regulation is attached to
the summary.
• State law maintains that individuals must obtain a permit from the state to move
prairie dogs. Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs are also on the prohibited species list (WCR
#008), meaning they cannot be possessed as pets.
• At the State level, all three Colorado prairie dogs are considered a species of special
concern (including the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog). They are also listed as a game
species so can be hunted during hunting season. Under the state license statute,
there is an exemption for the number of prairie dogs that can be lethally controlled
without a license.

Regulatory Status of Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs:
• Prairie dogs are listed as a species of special concern in the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan and the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. Boulder County
and the City of Boulder have their own prairie dog management plans and policies
with the common goal of prairie dog conservation yet with different approaches to
balancing competing uses.
• The County and the City of Boulder collaborate on the management of adjacent
properties to ensure consistency in plans and implementation. On jointly-owned
properties there is a memorandum of understanding that designates the lead agency
and clarifies that the lead agency’s management protocols apply.

City of Boulder Prairie Dog Management
Val Matheson, Urban Wildlife Conservation Coordinator for the City of Boulder, presented
the history of ordinances and policies in Boulder, the current ordinances and policies, the
Urban Wildlife Management Plan, the Integrated Pest Management Policy, and the City’s
use of lethal control.

History of Ordinances and Policies in Boulder:
• During the 1990’s, there was growing concern about the diminishing prairie dog
species. Large fields of colonies were getting killed and poisoned while at the same
time they were being considered for the endangered species list status at the
Federal level.
• In 2000, the City of Boulder developed an ordinance prohibiting lethal control in the
Boulder revised code. Modifications of this code took place from 2000 to 2001 that
prohibited the destruction or damage of burrows. (This ordinance will be included as
an attachment to the summary). This ordinance also prohibited the killing or
poisoning of prairie dogs on private land.
3
• In the year 2003, the State informed the City of Boulder that the City’s ordinance
was inconsistent with State law and that the City could not prohibit a licensed
person from killing prairie dogs.
Current Ordinances and Policies in Boulder:

• In 2002, the City developed an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy. The goal
of this policy was to utilize the most environmentally sound approach to pest
management and to reduce or eliminate, where possible, the volume and toxicity of
pest control treatments. Therefore, non-pesticide alternatives were given
preference over chemical controls.
• The IPM policy uses a “whole systems” approach, considering the target species in
relation to the entire ecosystem.
• In 2005, the City developed a new prairie dog Wildlife Protection Ordinance that
complied with State law (6-1-11/12). This ordinance placed a limit on lethal means
of control for prairie dogs. The City also conducted a survey of prairie dogs located
on private land in City limits in 2012 that showed a population that occupied
approximately 75 acres.
• The goals of this ordinance were to:
• Protect natural ecosystems
• Minimize inhumane treatment of prairie dogs
• Balance wildlife protection with urban land uses
• Minimize the use of pesticides
• The Wildlife Protection Ordinance rests on a six-step decision-making process that
aims to incentivize relocation or means other than lethal control:
1. Minimize other land-use conflicts.
2. Remove only the portion of animals that conflict with the development/other
use.
3. Relocate the animals.
4. If none of these are possible, donate the bodies to an animal recovery
program.
5. Trap animals and use individual lethal control with Co2 so that other non-
targeted species are not killed.
6. If this is not possible, use pesticides and pay the fee to the mitigation fund
(owner must pay $1,200 per acre).
• In 2006, the City passed the Urban Wildlife Management Plan to guide the
management of prairie dogs on City property. This plan allowed the City to map out
conservation opportunities for all prairie dog colonies within the City. The guiding
principal of the Wildlife Management plan was an emphasis on humane non-lethal
control methods, recognizing that urban areas are primarily occupied by humans or
other land-uses.
• With the goal of balancing environmental, economic, and social needs, the Wildlife
Management Plan set different colony designations:
• Long-term protection (colonies on land where there are no potential areas
for conflict)
4
• Interim protection (colonies on land where there are development plans but
nothing immediate)
• Near-term removal (colonies on land where there are irresolvable conflicts)
• In 2010, the City passed the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan. This plan
provides a framework for the conservation and management of natural ecosystems
and agricultural landscapes within grassland habitats. There are eight conservation
targets for the Grassland Plan that include the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog and
associated species, mixed grass prairie mosaic, and xeric tallgrass prairie. Boulder
has several types of grassland:
• OSMP land is primarily tall grass prairie.
• Because Boulder has unique weather patterns and is a moist riparian area,
the soils trap more moisture which means Boulder is home to both wet and
dry short and tall prairie areas.
• Tallgrass prairie is one of the most threatened ecosystems in the world, and
OSMP preserves large patches. Tallgrass prairie is home to many species that
depend on a habitat without prairie dog occupation.
• The Open Space Mountain Park’s (OSMP) Charter goals are to:
• Preserve or restore natural areas characterized by or including terrain,
geologic formations, and flora or fauna that are unusual, unique or
scientifically valuable.
• Preserve or restore water resources, wildlife habitats, or fragile ecosystems.
• Preserve the agricultural uses and land that is suitable for agricultural
production.
• The OSMP Charter was voted on and is in the City’s Municipal Code. The Grassland
Plan was created by staff and underwent a process of community input, expert
review, and public hearings and was adopted at the City plans and policies level.
Implementation of City Ordinances and Policies:

• The City rarely uses insecticide due to potential impacts on people and the
environment. The City has never used pyrethroid spray for mosquitos, even during
the height of West Nile. The City also has limited tree injections for the Emerald Ash
Borer. Delta Dust insecticide is currently used in prairie dog colonies as
recommended by the State and County to prevent disease transmission and protect
human health. Delta Dust kills the fleas that transmit the plague.
• The challenge associated with using Delta Dust is that it is often not used on
relocation receiving sites to protect prairie dogs from the plague. In 2015, after a
large-scale relocation effort in the Southern grasslands, almost the entire population
died due to the plague transmitted from the receiving site.
Boulder City Use of Lethal Control:

• To limit the use of lethal control when feasible, the City requires a permit
application process which includes a demonstration of effort by the applicant to go
through the six-step decision-making process. The landowner must also show an
effort to relocate the prairie dogs and prove that the land will be developed within
15 months or be adversely impacted by the presence of prairie dogs. The landowner
5
must also have an adequate plan designed to prevent prairie dog reentry onto their
property.
• Since 2005, the City has received 16 lethal control permit applications total. 11 of
those permits were issued; three applications withdrew; one was not issued
because passive relocation was feasible; one was deemed “incomplete.” The 11
permit approvals resulted in the death of approximately 685 prairie dogs.
• There are challenges that remain. Removal areas far outnumber the available
relocation receiving sites (there are approximately 700-800 acres of land that need
relocation). The City has prioritized the relocation of prairie dogs from City removal
sites to City receiving sites. However, there is no ordinance that identifies priorities.
During the August 2016 City Council meeting, Council asked that the City to shift
their operational practice and prioritize prairie dogs that are subject to imminent
lethal control regardless of property ownership.

Boulder City Relocation Priorities for 2017:
• In December 2016, the City received a lethal control permit application. It fits the
relocation priority based on the Council’s direction. The challenge is that the City
must adhere to ordinance timelines but is also hoping to integrate the
recommendations from the Working Group on methodology into the decision.
• The City has also prioritized the relocation of the Foothills Community Park
“recolonizers.” Both the private property development site and the Foothills
Community Park colonies will hopefully be relocated to the Damyanovitch property.

Agricultural Operations in Boulder
Andy Pelster, Agricultural Stewardship Supervisor for Open Space Mountain Parks,
presented an overview of Boulder’s agricultural operations, the agricultural management
plan, and the interface between agriculture and prairie dog populations.

Overview of Boulder’s Agriculture Program:
• When the City bought property in 1967-1986, the agriculture community played a
large role in managing the land. However, there was not enough staff to manage the
water rights of the land. To remedy this, Boulder decided to lease the land to local
farms. Boulder currently leases 15,000 acres (of mostly native grassland) to 26
farmers and has over 6,000 acres of irrigated land. To keep the water rights, the City
must show a historic use of the lands which means the City risks the value of the
land by transferring the water to allow for prairie dog occupation.
• The Agriculture Program was a target in the Grassland Ecosystem Management
Plan. The grassland planning area includes 25,000 acres (15,000 of which is leased,
and 11,000 of which is native grassland).
• The Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan seeks to conserve prairie dogs in the
best areas while managing conflict with other land-use priorities. The plan manages
colonies based on several designations:
• Grassland Preserves
• Prairie dog conservation areas
• Multiple objective areas
6
• Transition areas (this is the area that overlaps most with irrigated
agriculture)
• Removal areas
• Viability measurements
• Monitoring
Agriculture Resources Management Plan:

• This plan is currently under development. Its objectives are to:
• Identify the best opportunities for local food production on 80-250 acres for
diversified vegetation and livestock;
• Review activities that are allowed on agricultural lands (farm stands, events,
etc.);
• Develop and formalize recommendations for best management practices;
• Review the leasing process to formalize stewardship plans with a periodic
review of agriculture leasing rates;
• Identify opportunities to provide additional support to the agriculture
community. Many farmers are aging and do not have heirs and the City could
help them write a transition plan.
• The greatest area of conflict between the Agriculture Program and prairie dog
management is irrigable and irrigated landscape. Irrigable landscape often is a
significant factor in identifying transition and removal areas on OSMP land for
prairie dogs.
Current Status of Prairie Dog Occupation

Kristin Cannon, of Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Heather Swanson, of Boulder Open Space
and Mountain Parks, and Jon Wold, of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department,
presented on the current status of prairie dogs at the State and City levels.
State Prairie Dog Occupation:

• In 2015, the State conducted a census of prairie dog habitat on eastern plains in
conjunction with the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA).
The census found that over 500,000 acres are occupied by prairie dogs. Prairie dogs
are classified as “abundant” as defined by the Conservation Plan for Grassland
Species.
• The census found that there have been approximately 300 black-footed ferrets
released at six sites. The Conservation plan and methodology of the survey is attached
to the summary.
Boulder City Prairie Occupation:

• The updated document designates 6,603 out of the 25,000 acres suitable for prairie
dog habitat. This accounts for slope, rockiness of soil, and plant community.
• The total acreage of prairie dog population is 6,409.
• Grassland Preserve: 3,522 acres are occupied by prairie dogs. The desired
occupancy is 10-26% (approximately 800-2,080 acres)
• Prairie dog conservation area: 589 acres are occupied.
7
• Multiple objective areas: 799 acres are occupied.
• Removal areas: 471 acres are occupied.
• Adding the Grassland Preserve land and the prairie dog conservation area together,
there are approximately 4,111 acres available as potential receiving sites.
Current Status of Prairie dogs on City Lands:

• In 2016, OSMP collected the following data:
o Grassland Preserves: 2,100 acres occupied
o Prairie dog conservation area: 291 acres occupied
o Multiple objective areas: 394 acres occupied
o Transition areas: 583 acres occupied
o Removal areas: 257 acres occupied
• In 2016, the Parks and Recreation Department determined that the total acres of
prairie dog occupation on their land were 441.5. Of that 451.5, 239.5 acres are
protected areas and 202 acres are near or long-term removal areas. They use the
following designations to map colony types:
o Habitat conservation areas
o To be developed areas
o Adjacent colonies
o Relocated colonies
City Measurement of Management on Protected Grasslands and Relocation Policies and

Practices
Heather Swanson, of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks, presented on how the City
measures the health and status of prairie dog colonies. Kristin Cannon, of Colorado Parks
and Wildlife, and Swanson co-presented the relocation permit requirements for the State
and City levels.
Measurement of Health and Status of Boulder Prairie Dog Colonies:

• The City’s conservation objective for 2019, as defined by the viability indicators, is
to ensure that prairie dogs, prairie dog commensals, and prairie dog predator
populations are within the acceptable range of variation. This would mean that the
total population and distribution meets the desired indicators set by the City.
• Viability indicator status: Currently, the City has a “good” rating in the category that
measures occupied and protected status. The City also rates “good” in the category
that measures the extent of active colonies in grassland areas. The City also has a
“good” rating in the category that ranks the number of colonies with nesting and
burrowing owls.
• By 2019, the City must maintain the percent of colonies in protected areas, increase
occupancy on the southern Grassland Preserve while decreasing occupancy on the
northern and eastern Grassland Preserves. The City must also increase the number
of colonies with burrowing owl nests, and decrease the acreage of prairie dog
occupancy within the grassland planning area (the area covered by the Grassland
Ecosystem Management Plan).
8
Relocation Policy and Practices:
• At the State level, relocation permits must specify an appropriate habitat and
describe how the applicant plans to mitigate for the impacts of relocation on
neighboring landowners. The applicant must also prove the correct density (less
than 16 prairie dogs per acre) and seek approval from the County Commissioner for
any inter-county relocations.
• To complete a mitigation plan, applicants must contact neighboring landowners to
get feedback. If neighboring landowners do not want the prairie dogs on the
adjacent property, they must specify the potential negative impact.
• At the State level, an initial assessment is conducted by conservation biologists then
permits are signed by regional managers.
• At the City level, applicants must obtain any State or Federal permits.
Experiences with Relocation and Remaining Challenges:

Heather Swanson, of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks, summarized Boulder’s
previous experience with relocation.
Timeline:
• 2000 – 2003: Parks and Recreation Dam relocations within colonies
• 2008 – 2009: Valmont Bike Park and East Boulder Community Park
• 2010 – 2011: Richardson permit application denied by State.
• 2013 – 2014: Relocation to Waneka
• 647 prairie dogs from Foothills Park
• Eight prairie dogs from Granit property
• 412 prairie dogs OSMP transition and removal areas
• 2016: Damyonovich relocation
Possible Receiving Sites:

• The Waneka Grassland Preserve is now unoccupied after a plague outbreak in the
previous colony. There are a substantial number of nest boxes left over.
• Prairie dog conservation areas that are being assessed for public support and
mitigation options are also a possibility.
Relocation Challenges:
• The neighbor often objects to being adjacent to a receiving site.
• The areas needed for relocation exceed potential receiving sites.
• It is difficult to balance the goals of overall grassland health with the need to
relocate as many prairie dogs as possible.
• The intersection of prairie dogs with agricultural needs continues to be a challenge.
• It is difficult to manage the details and implications of moving private land prairie
dogs to City land.
• There are continued disagreements among community members about relocation
methods
Plague 101:
9
Heather Swanson, of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks, provided a brief overview of
the implications of the plague on prairie dog populations.
• Plague is a non-native bacteria disease transmitted primarily by fleas. Prairie dogs

are extremely susceptible once infected.
• There are two types of plague: epizootic, which results in large-scale death, and
enzootic, which results in a localized spread.
• There are several control methods available for fleas: insecticidal dust applied in
and around the entrance to burrows and insecticide applied directly to the prairie
dog.
• Control methods available to control against the plague also include: injectable
vaccine and oral vaccination. To treat the plague, it is possible to use antibiotics.
• Boulder City follows the state requirements for removing prairie dogs from the
sending site. The State requirements are to first apply dust to the entrance of active
burrows at the sending site, then spray individual animals with insecticidal spray
after they are trapped for removal.
• The plague has moved through Boulder’s prairie dog population twice since the City
started mapping. Once from 1994-1997, and once from 2005-present.
• Remaining challenges include unknown factors such as the vectors and conditions
that lead to epizootic outbreaks. Insecticides are also expensive.
PLAN FOR NEXT MEETING

Working Group members agreed to address the following topics at the next meeting on
March 20, 2017.
• Debrief of the Armory relocation.
• Debrief of the Richardson permit application.
• Review the practices and application of Delta Dust.
• Identify criteria for evaluating recommendations.
10
March 20, 2017
Final Meeting Summary
ATTENDANCE
Participants: Dan Brandemuehl, Kristin Cannon, Patrick Comer, Aaron Cook, Keri Konold,
Jeff Edson, Deborah Jones, Amber Largent, Amy Masching, Valerie Matheson, Andy Pelster,
Carse Pustmueller, Eric Sims, Jr., Lindsey Sterling Krank, Heather Swanson, John Vickery.
Expert Presenter: Dan Tripp
ACTION ITEMS
Peak Facilitation Create and send out a spreadsheet that lists the criteria developed
by the Working Group.
Any Working E-mail Heather Bergman if you are planning on presenting a
Group member proposal or (multiple proposals) at the next meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
As discussed by Working Group members during the first meeting, the first ten minutes of
the meeting were dedicated to both verbal and written public comment. There were no
verbal or written public comments at this meeting.
EXPERT PRESENTATION: KNOWING MORE ABOUT THE PLAGUE

Dan Tripp, a Wildlife Disease Researcher in the Wildlife Health Program of Colorado Parks
and Wildlife (CPW), presented research on options for plague mitigation.
What Is the Plague and Where Did It Originate?

• The plague is a bacterial disease that causes infection in humans and animals and
can lead to septic shock.
• The plague is endemic to Asia and Africa. Over 200 mammalian species have been
reported with the plague worldwide. During the Black Death, the plague spread to
North and South America through every major port. The plague was introduced to
the wildlife population through the Bay Area port then spread through the West.
• There are two types of human infections of the plague: the bubonic plague and the
septic/pneumonic plague. The bubonic plague is flea-borne, takes two to six days to
incubate, causes swollen lymph nodes, and is fatal if left untreated for 40-60 percent
of cases. Septic/pneumonic plague is contracted through direct contact, has a short
incubation period of one to four days, requires intensive medical support, is fatal
within three to six days if left untreated.
1
• The first reported case of the plague in Colorado was in San Miguel County in 1941.
The plague was reported in prairie dogs during the 1940s.
• The plague is now established among ground squirrels, rock squirrels, wood rats,
prairie dogs, chipmunks, mice, voles, and rabbits.
The Plague and Prairie Dogs

• There are five species of prairie dogs that have a historic range in North America.
They tend to inhabit semi-arid grasslands and intermountain valleys.
• There have been range-wide reductions in prairie dog abundance largely due to
habitat conversion, eradication efforts, and the plague.
• Prairie dogs are highly susceptible to epizootic outbreaks. When an epizootic plague
spreads through a colony, there is a near 100 percent mortality rate within a six- to
twelve-week period.
• Other wildlife species are impacted by the plague, including black-footed ferrets,
mountain plovers, burrowing owls, swift foxes, badgers, snakes, raptors, and lynx.
Most carnivore species have antibodies that can fight off the plague.
Forms of Mitigation
• Fleas can be controlled with Deltamethrin (Delta Dust). Delta Dust is a Synthetic
Pyrethroid Insecticide that has a recommended dosage of four to five grams applied
into the prairie dog burrows.
• Typically, Delta Dust is applied to burrows within the perimeter of a colony mapped
using GIS systems. This method is labor-intensive, slow, and reactive, but it
effectively manages fleas for eight to ten months. After ten months, that area reverts
to an “unprotected” status.
• Fleas are active year-round. However, there are certain months when flea activity is
higher. For black-tailed prairie dogs, there are balloons of flea activity in March –
April and August – September. The recommended time to apply Delta Dust is during
the fall.
• The sylvatic plague vaccine (SPV), also referred to as the recombinant raccoon
poxvirus, has been shown to lead to more than a 90% survival rate of black-tailed
prairie dogs. There have been similar positive responses from Gunnison’s prairie
dogs and Utah prairie dogs. Young prairie dogs are more responsive to vaccination
than old prairie dogs.
• The U.S. Department of Agriculture Center for Veterinary Biologics granted approval
for experimental use of the SPV. CPW entered a collaborative research effort with
the City of Fort Collins’ Natural Areas, trialing the bait acceptance rate for the black-
tailed, white-tailed, and Gunnison’s prairie dogs. The baits were effective and
palatable in the field and in burrows.
• Field safety was also tested. There was no evidence of adverse impacts in the prairie
dogs that were tested (black-tailed prairie dog and Gunnison’s prairie dogs) or in
other wild rodents that consumed the SPV baits. Prairie dogs were tested for general
injuries and illnesses, oral lesions, and viral infections.
• During the second phase of the experimental research, CPW and the City of Fort
Collins’ Natural Areas monitored three blocks of land in the Soapstone Prairie
2
Natural Area. They measured the uptake of vaccine and placebo baits by prairie
dogs on study plots and their survival over a three- to five-year period. They also
measured prairie dog and small mammal survival on dusted areas to compare. They
used the presence or absence of fleas to determine whether there was plague on the
study sites.
• They also measured small mammal vaccine uptake and survival on the three study
plots which were all between 16 and 74 hectares.
• CPW and the City of Fort Collins’ Natural Areas measured plague by monitoring
carcasses and fleas on prairie dogs and in burrows. They measured prairie dog
survival and abundance. On the three plots, they found that both Delta Dust and the
vaccine protected prairie dogs from the plague. While neither mitigation technique
was perfect (Delta Dust provided immediate protection, while the SPV provided
longer-term protection), both forms of mitigation were found to be effective. CPW
also found that it was necessary to treat the whole colony or complex of prairie dogs
and that efficient production distribution was vital.
• Lessons from this multi-year study included:
o The best time to distribute baits is in the fall (August/September/October).
This will ensure optimal bait uptake and target juveniles.
o The size of the treatment matters. Small vaccinated plots get overwhelmed
by the plague, and vaccinated survivors often fragment or disperse.
o SPV is not a reactive tool to manage epizootic plague.
o Herd immunity can build over time when multiple doses are given to
multiple generations.
o Bait application rates can be customized for a specific goal or species.
o Successful plague control will require multiple tools, including insecticides
and vaccines.
• CPW is now interested in researching the use of the SPV to build prairie dog
populations to level that supports the reintroduction of the black-footed ferrets.
They would also like to answer questions about the duration of the treatment.

CLARIFYING QUESTIONS
Members of the Prairie Dog Working Group asked clarifying questions about Dan Tripp’s
presentation. Questions are indicated in italics.

When will the Armory colony be vulnerable to the plague and when should their Southern
Grassland Habitat Conservation Area (SGHCA) burrows be dusted?
It can be assumed that plague is at the site. By the time there is evidence of plague at the
site it will be too late for any mitigation to be effective.

Has anyone researched the impact of plague mitigation on insects and other non-target
species?
Plague mitigation can decrease insect communities, but they typically rebound quickly.
There was a higher abundance of deer mice, which are an indicator species, on dusted sites
than there were on non-dusted sites.

3
Is there a relationship between the size of the prairie dog colony and plague success?
Smaller isolated colonies stand a better chance of getting out of the way. Plague is
everywhere, and there are no studies that indicate any pattern to the types or sizes of
colonies targeted.

What type of mitigation plan would you recommend for this group?
The first step is to write a comprehensive management plan, then the Working Group
might want to consider funding, commitment, and community input. The plague creates
turbulence for prairie dog management because populations can surge then drop suddenly.
If the goal is to remove this element from the equation, then plague mitigation in prairie
dog management areas may be the best approach. However, plague management should
only be pursued in areas where there is an interest in keeping a sustainable number or
prairie dogs.

Is there any information about resistance in the fleas to the insecticide?
Any form of mitigation continually used on the same colonies has a high potential of
leading to insecticide resistance. There are reports from Africa of fleas that have become
resistant to Delta Dust after multiple treatments. Management plans should include
multiple mitigation tools.

Has there been any research that shows resistance in the prairie dogs to the plague?
That is a topic of research throughout the West. Some would argue that the plague impacts
prairie dogs so strongly that they have little opportunity to develop resistance to it.
However, there is more resistance to the plague in Colorado where prairie dogs have been
exposed to the plague for over 100 years.

What is the licensing process to access the vaccine?
The SPV must be used responsibly as per the license agreement in the exact areas
designated in the agreement. There is no room to make a mistake. It will take time to move
from smaller research plots to a larger management scale. Any proposed use of the SPV
would have to have a research component.

Are there other experiments across the U.S. like the one presented?
Yes, the experiment cited during this presentation is one of 39 similar sites across the U.S.

ARMORY RELOCATION DEBRIEF
Heather Swanson, Wildlife Ecologist of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks, Lindsey
Sterling Krank, Director of the Prairie Dog Coalition, and Carse Pustmueller, an
independent environmental services professional, each offered their perspectives on the
Armory relocation effort.

Armory Debrief Presentation by Heather Swanson
• The Armory relocation site availability was determined based on the receiving site
criteria. City of Boulder staff determined the relocation priorities in May 2016.
4
• The public and the Armory site owner requested use of the receiving site for Armory
prairie dogs. The City Manager checked with City Council to determine the
relocation to be beneficial. City Council then directed staff to relocate the prairie
dogs that faced a direct lethal threat and an agreement was signed with the
developer to allow the contractor to move the Armory prairie dogs to the
Damyanovich receiving site. The developer paid a fee and hired a contractor.
• The City installed ten nest boxes, provided by the Prairie Dog Coalition, on the site.
The contractor trapped 152 prairie dogs at the Armory site and moved them to the
Damyanovich site. The Prairie Dog Coalition flushed the Armory site for two days
and captured and moved an additional prairie dog.
• Everything associated with the Armory relocation was consistent with existing
policies and plans. At the level of operational practices, however, there were no
policies that determined the fee paid by the developer to the City. There was also an
exception made to the practice of avoiding the installation of nest boxes due to non-
native vegetation at the Damyanovich site. The prairie dogs continue to do well at
the Damyanovich site. The prairie dogs continue to use nest boxes and natural
burrows, and they have re-opened or dug additional burrows.
• This was a controversial project. The controversy was focused on the methods (nest
boxes versus augured burrows versus natural burrows), the use of Delta Dust to
minimize plague at the receiving site, and the qualifications of the relocation
contractor. There were also changes to the methodology after the contractor was
hired and communication difficulties with the contractor. The timing of the project
was extremely tight and it dominated staff work for over three months.
Armory Debrief Presentation by Lindsey Sterling Krank

• The Prairie Dog Coalition was trying to relocate 20 acres of displaced prairie dogs in
the Boulder City limits in 2015 (the Armory development and the Naropa
development).
• The City did a census of their colonies and reported back to the Prairie Dog Coalition
that they would not be able to accommodate the two relocation requests. The City
told the Prairie Dog Coalition that there were only 16 acres of grassland that met
their relocation criteria, and they had plans to use it for relocation from public lands.
• The Prairie Dog Coalition responded to City, arguing the following points:
o There are few urban prairie dogs left;
o There are a lot of unoccupied urban grasslands;
o This would be a win-win with a conservation fee;
o Decision-makers would agree.
• City staff agreed to hold a City Council meeting to resolve the issue. Council directed
City staff to start a pilot program and establish the Prairie Dog Working Group. The
City and the developer negotiated a conservation fee. Every step of the relocation
was difficult. Three was a lot of discussion about the relocation methodology. The
Prairie Dog Coalition had determined that receiving burrows were the best method,
but City staff did not want to use them.
5
Armory Debrief Presentation by Carse Pustmueller
• There are several lessons from the Armory relocation that can help inform the
Prairie Dog Working Group objectives. The Prairie Dog Working Group should focus
on prairie dog conservation to avoid a repeat of the Armory relocation difficulties. It
is also important to build trust in the City’s implementation of its prairie dog
policies.
• There are several necessary actions for fulfilling Council’s direction to avoid lethal
means of prairie dog management. The Wildlife Protection Ordinance, specifically
the six-step process must be amended so that more receiving sites are eligible for
relocation. The City must create a formal policy that allows relocations from private
to public lands when there is an imminent threat of lethal control. The City must
also provide effective plague management.
• Effective plague mitigation includes the use of Delta Dust in conjunction with
vaccination. Prairie dog conservation areas and the SGHCA have recurrent plague
endemics that have killed past colonies. In 2015, 1067 prairie dogs were moved to
SGHCA and almost all died eight months later. The Armory Colony that was
relocated to the SGHCA without any plague mitigation is currently at risk of plague
unless dusting occurs right away. Additional colonies should not be moved to the
SGHCA until there has been effective plague management on the site.
• It is important to remember that relocation is not a conservation tool and should
only be used as a last resort. Many prairie dogs die during relocation. There should
be an increased reliance on alternate methods such as fencing and passive
relocation to allow some colonies designated for removal to remain where they are
and to only relocate those colonies most threatened.
• In 2016, prairie dogs occupied only 3,625 acres out of the 6,603 acres designated for
prairie dog use. Of these acres, only 16 acres are available for relocation in 2016.
The Prairie Dog Working Group should consider the following suggestions for
increasing the number of receiving sites:
o Increase the occupancy range (currently set at10-26 percent);
o Revise the criteria used to determine prairie dog habitat for receiving sites;
o Consider the balance between agriculture and wildlife habitat, including
prairie dogs;
o Research the best way to decrease the number of removal areas;
o Purchase land that can be earmarked for large blocks of prairie dog habitat to
create adequate habitat for commensal species like the black-footed ferret;
o Create a conservation fund from the landowners’ fees to buy land for prairie
dog habitat.
• The Prairie Dog Working Group should consider the following suggestions for
relocation and accommodation criteria:
o There should be an increased focus on selecting the relocation contractor
based on skill and experience. Contractors should only be in the business of
conservation, not extermination. The City (not the landowner) should choose
the relocation contractor.
o In terms of accommodation criteria at qualified receiving sites, the City
should use viable existing burrows and provide nest boxes as needed before
6
the prairie dogs are moved to adequately supplement existing burrows.
Augured holes are outdated and inhumane and should not be used.
• The City needs a Comprehensive Prairie Dog Conservation Plan with the goal of
long-term prairie dog conservation. This plan should include:
o The creation of sustainable large blocks of active prairie dog habitat that can
also sustain black-footed ferrets and other commensal species
o Effective plague management, particularly in the SGHCA where plague is
recurrent
o The use of Delta Dust to kill plague-carrying fleas in combination with the
use of the sylvatic plague vaccine
o Adequate accommodation for prairie dogs at release sites
RICHARDSON II RELOCATION DEBRIEF

Heather Swanson, Wildlife Ecologist of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks, Val
Matheson, Urban Wildlife Conservation Coordinator of the City of Boulder, and Lindsey
Sterling Krank, Director of the Prairie Dog Coalition, offered their perspectives on the
Richardson II relocation effort.
Richardson II Debrief Presentation by Heather Swanson and Val Matheson

• The Richardson relocation site was identified as a prairie dog conservation area.
After the Grassland Plan was approved in May 2010, the City evaluated relocation
needs. The City manager designated the Foothills Park and the Hartnagle Open
Space as removal sites. The contractor was identified but the relocation permitting
process was delayed until 2011 because the timing was too tight.
• Public comment forms were sent out to neighbors. The primary themes and issues
that were identified through the public process included:
o Decrease in property value
o Misuse of taxpayer money
o Increased plague risk
o Damage to the habitat on the Richardson property
o Recreational conflict
o Private property damage
o Unsustainable prairie dog density
o Insufficient public process
o Increased attraction of predators dangerous to humans and pets
o Increased road kill
o Danger to livestock on adjacent property
o Inappropriate site for prairie dogs
o Increased threat of the plague in dogs and pets
o Threat to schools and churches
o High probability of prairie dog population spread into Open Space Areas
o Dust and erosion
o Insufficient response to community concern
• The City evaluated possible mitigation options, including:
o Funding passive relocation in the buffer zone next to houses
7
o Maintaining an un-mowed buffer zone between the colony and private
property to the west
o Providing technical support for a barrier construction on the private
property
o Installing raptor perches
o Providing educational signs about the plague and prairie dog ecology
o Relocating prairie dogs into existing burrows only
o Offering other barriers made of vegetation, cloth, vinyl, or metal (note:
barriers can be effective at slowing down the spread of colonies onto
adjacent properties, but there has been no proof of long-term management).
o Dusting the receiving site with insecticide
o Waiting for another receiving site
• The City submitted their application in June 2011, and it was rejected in July 2011.
CPW explained that the mitigation plan failed to address escape control issues or
establish an effective buffer zone. It also failed to provide for the active control of
the prairie dog colony to prevent expansion onto neighboring property. The colony
has since expanded and occupies approximately 111 acres. It is at full capacity.
• There were several areas of controversy associated with the Richardson II
relocation. There was a sense of disenfranchisement of community members from
Boulder City government. People in the community, especially the people on
adjacent properties to the relocation site, did not share the City’s goal of limiting
lethal control.
Richardson II Debrief Presentation by Lindsey Sterling Krank

• The Prairie Dog Coalition advocated for the Foothills colony to stay and lost twice in
front of Council. Richardson Open Space is a prairie dog conservation area. Of the
45,000 acres included in the Open Space system, 24,000 are designated as
grasslands and only 3,000 of those grasslands acres are occupied by prairie dogs. Of
the 3,000 acres occupied by prairie dogs, the prairie dogs are a priority on only
approximately 500 acres.
• The Prairie Dog Coalition offered several mitigation options including the use of
Delta Dust, the creation of a tallgrass buffer zone, passive relocation with the
technician paid for by the Prairie Dog Coalition, and private land removal.
• CPW denied the permit for social reasons under the auspices of biological reasons,
prairie dog conservation areas were not used for their designated purposes, and
prairie dog conservation areas were reduced by 100 acres. Note that the CPW
representative maintained that the reasons were not biological and that CPW knew
the social causes.
CRITERIA FOR FUTURE PRAIRIE DOG WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS

The Working Group discussed criteria to evaluate proposed recommendations to the City
Manager regarding non-lethal relocation techniques, practices, or policies.
• It minimizes the potential for a controversy or conflict;
• It meets Council’s goal to be compatible with social, economic, and environmental
feasibility and values;
8
• It is measurably ecologically sustainable;
• It complies with all the appropriate regulations;
• It is both directly and indirectly humane and non-lethal;
• It has the largest possible benefit to associate species;
• It protects biodiversity and the overall health of the natural system;
• It is based on the most recent and credible scientific data and assessment
information;
• It uses effective plague mitigation methods;
• It supports Open Space and Mountain Park’s ability to meet the goal of preservation
and conservation of multiple Grassland Plan targets (relevant targets include black-
tailed prairie dogs and associated species, mixedgrass prairie mosaic, xeric tallgrass
prairie, mesic bluestem prairie and agricultural operations);
• It focuses on the long-term survival of colonies;
• It increases public understanding and trust;
• It encompasses broad City of Boulder values;
• It allows for flexibility;
• It has clarity in purpose, goal, and method;
• It does not prioritize one land use over another in the multiple objective areas;
• It minimizes the potential for unanticipated or unknown consequences;
• It solves a problem;
• It avoids a repeat of Richardson or Armory relocations;
• It considers all stakeholders.
NEXT STEPS:
• Peak Facilitation will create a spreadsheet that lists the criteria. When proposals are
presented during the next meeting, each member of the Working Group can use this
spreadsheet to rate the ideas on a scale of one to three (privately). Both the
combined tallied results and the anonymous individual rankings will be sent to the
Working Group. This data will be used to inform decisions.
• Any Working Group member with a proposal will have the opportunity to present it
at the meeting on April 10. Each presentation should be approximately five minutes
long.
• Anyone planning to present an idea should e-mail Heather Bergman with the
number of ideas that they plan to present.
9
April 10, 2017
Meeting Summary
ATTENDANCE
Jeff Edson, Deborah Jones, Keri Konold, Lindsey Sterling Krank, Amber Largent, Amy
Masching, Joy Master, Valerie Matheson, Andy Pelster, Carse Pustmueller, Eric Sims, Jr.,
Heather Swanson, John Vickery.
ACTION ITEMS
Working Group Come prepared to discuss the criteria and consider the ideas
members presented during this meeting.
Lindsey Ask permission and send the habitation quantification tool
spreadsheet calculator to Heather Bergman.
PUBLIC COMMENT
As discussed by Working Group members during the first meeting, the opening ten minutes
of the meeting were dedicated to both verbal and written public comment. There were no
verbal or written public comments at this meeting.
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROCESS

Val Matheson, City of Boulder’s Urban Wildlife Conservation Coordinator, and Rella
Abernathy, City of Boulder’s Integrated Pest Management Coordinator, offered to answer
questions from Working Group members about the integrated pest management (IPM)
process.
Clarifying Questions and Comments

Members of the Working Group asked clarifying questions and offered comments about the
integrated pest management process. Questions and comments are indicated in italics.
Will Delta Dust insecticide only be used as a last resort for plague management?
Pesticides are only used as a last resort according to the City’s IPM policy. A pest is viewed
within the context of the entire ecosystem, and if a threshold is reached, then non-chemical
methods are evaluated to address the pest issue before chemicals are considered. When a
pesticide, particularly an insecticide, is used on a broad scale, there must also be an
ecological risk assessment that examines the impacts to non-target species and overall
ecosystem health and function.
1
During the City Council Meeting on August 16, Council passed a resolution regarding
bumblebees. Will this impact the use of Delta Dust for prairie dog management?
City Council passed a resolution to discontinue use of the neonicotinoid family of
insecticide in order to protect pollinators and due to other environmental risks these
insecticides pose. Delta Dust is in the pyrethroid family, not the neonicotinoids. It is a
broad-spectrum insecticide.
Does Delta Dust have to be applied by a licensed commercial applicator?

Delta Dust is available over the counter, but you must have a license to apply it for hire. City
staff could apply it as a public entity. In other cases where insects are controlled over a
broad area, contractors are hired to apply the larvicide for mosquito control and the tree-
injected product for the emerald ash borer program.
If the Working Group were to recommend the use of Delta Dust as part of the 2017 plan,
would that be possible under the existing Boulder regulatory framework?
It would be possible and would not require a policy change, but if it were handled as
similar issues in the past, like the emerald ash borer or mosquito control programs, it
would require a management plan, public process, and City Council approval.
Would the use of Delta Dust be permitted on properties that are adjacent to organic or
transitioning-to-organic properties?
The organic certification only applies to the specific property. It is unclear how buffering
would work.
Does the use of Delta Dust or the plague vaccine raise any legal or ethical issues related to
genetically modified organisms? (GMO’s)
The SPV vaccine is different than genetically modified crops, around which the
conversations of GMOs have centered. It is, however, a genetically recombinant vaccine (as
most vaccines are). Due to the contentious nature of community conversations
surrounding GMOs, the Working Group should be mindful that the vaccine is under an
experimental licensing phase and any negative conversations surrounding its use could be
detrimental to its long-term approval and use.
Some of the literature provided for Delta Dust cited the use of application techniques that are
not considered effective for Boulder’s prairie dog colonies, such as aerial broadcasting and the
soaking of organisms. Boulder will only be placing Delta Dust in underground burrows at a
low rate. The literature also cited cases that poorly administered Delta Dust and emphasized
many of the costs of the use of Delta Dust but did not review the benefits.
The information provided was a list of studies pertaining to deltamethrin that were
gathered within the last few weeks. It is not a completed ecological risk assessment. Like all
pesticide studies, including tests used to register a pesticide, the information in any study
may or may not be relevant to a particular situation. All risk assessments use the available
data and literature to estimate the effects that pesticides could have in complex natural
settings.
2
Pesticides are rated at levels of either “caution,” “warning,” or “danger.” Delta Dust is a
“caution” level pesticide. City staff does not typically utilize what are called “restricted use”
pesticides, but rather uses general-use pesticides that do not require a license to purchase.
The City commits to using the least toxic pesticides when use is necessary. The majority of
pesticides are banned on City properties and any product that is used must first be assessed
and approved for use using stringent criteria. The mosquito management plan includes a
threshold for pesticide use and there should be similar thresholds for Delta Dust use that will
have to be met.
The Pesticide Applicators Act prohibits prairie dog relocators from applying Delta Dust as
volunteers, because they still must get reimbursed for the materials. There was discussion
about scenarios where this may not apply, but no concrete resolution.
If Delta Dust is not used to protect prairie dog colonies, the mountain plover population will
decline and the landscape will not be suitable for the reintroduction of black-footed ferrets.
ADMINISTRATIVE RULE FOR THE RELOCATION OF PRAIRIE DOGS

Val Matheson informed the Working Group members that the City of Boulder is
reexamining the Administrative Rule for the Relocation of Prairie Dogs, which was
developed in 2002. It is not used anymore, but has never been repealed and has
components that may still be viable. The Administrative Rule for the Relocation of Prairie
Dogs is available here.
WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS

The following Working Group members presented recommendations for prairie dog
management in Boulder: Dan Brandemuehl, Pat Comer, Aaron Cook, Lindsey Sterling
Krank, Amy Masching, Val Matheson, Joy Master, Andy Pelster, Carse Pustmueller, and
Heather Swanson. The ideas fit into six buckets: Emergency, 2017 Relocation Pilot Projects,
Policy, Research and Study, Process and Guidelines, and Plans.
Immediate
1. Get Council approval to use Delta Dust on the relocated Armory prairie dog burrows
immediately. Without dusting, the Armory colony is in imminent danger.
2. Keep the Foothills Community Park recolonizing prairie dogs in place at Foothills
Park if the burrows at the release site will not be dusted before relocation. Consider
the use of barriers or other methods to keep the colony contained there.
2017 Relocation Pilot Projects

1. Require the use of Delta Dust in burrows on 2017 receiving sites that have been
previously impacted by the plague.
2. Place a temporary moratorium on any relocation receiving sites until they have
been dusted, or until there is agreement that the receiving site will be dusted.
3. Develop criteria for selecting relocation contractors. The contractors should be
selected and contracted by the City. The contractor should be trusted by the public
and should have extensive experience with and commitment to conservation (not
extermination).
3
4. Install and maintain of visual barrier fences at relocation sites adjacent to privately
owned and occupied land. Fences would address many landowner concerns, e.g.
property devaluation, colony expansion, and potential for plague transmission to
humans and pets.
5. Provide incentives for private landowners to offer their land as receiving sites. One
incentive could be a deduction for property taxes. Look to Rabbit Mountain as an
example.
6. Create a conservation/mitigation fund. Use the habitation quantification tool
developed by the Prairie Dog Coalition as a model. Private landowner conservation
fees would go into the fund and the fund could be used for acquisition of land for
prairie dogs.
7. Evaluate opportunities for using grazing to enhance pest die-off and vegetation
recovery during post-plague restoration on the Grassland Preserves. Strategically
graze to control weedy vegetation, and remove grazing during specific periods to
allow native vegetation to have a competitive edge. Use custom grazing plans for
each site that consider the site conditions, weather, and climatic conditions. This
could speed up the recovery of vegetation and thus the availability of relocation
sites.
8. Continue to evaluate new or different relocation methods (e.g. boring vs. auguring)
to increase success and/or reduce impacts of relocation.
9. Evaluate sites that have had plague in the past, identify open burrows that could be
used in the future, and act to keep burrows open.
10. Consider options that would allow use of Prairie Dog Conservation Areas (PCAs) as
relocation sites. Identify funding for barriers. Move a smaller number of prairie dogs
to multiple PCAs (rather than many to one) after reaching out to neighbors for ideas.
11. Define successful relocation. Data should be continually collected on colonies post-
relocation to measure for plague.
12. Consider the cumulative impacts of relocation on the grasslands. Design best
management practices that minimize impacts to native grassland communities (e.g.
machinery, access, infrastructure).
13. Reevaluate current relocation methods to ensure most successful practices are
utilized. Look at methods to minimize disturbance such as increased weed removal
(with regard to the IPM policy), seeding, equipment cleaning, etc.
Relocation Pilot Projects to Implement Starting in 2018 or Future Years

1. Introduce a landowner fund/savings account for prairie dog relocation that private
landowners could pay into if they want to move their prairie dogs. Ideally, this fund
could act as a placeholder for landowners who are planning to develop.
2. Follow the guidelines of conservation conflict transformation. Identify all
stakeholders involved in prairie dog relocations. Recognize the history that each
group brings to the table that will impact the success of the solution and could
contribute to the conflict’s intractability.
3. Provide equal, fair, and continuous opportunities for stakeholder engagement and
dedicate resources to long-term public engagement and relationship maintenance.
4
4. Consider the substance, process, and relationships necessary for successful
processes. Recognize that conflict is an opportunity. The goal should not be to
eliminate conflict.
5. Create a revegetation plan and exclusion plan with a budget that can be quickly
implemented after die-off, movement, or other changes in occupation on removal
and transition areas that are being used for agriculture. This will decrease the City’s
relocation and mitigation needs and increase agricultural land with minimal prairie
dog conflict.
6. Create criteria for the prioritization of removal sites.
Policy
1. Develop a grassland banking system with the vision of connecting high-quality
grassland habitats. The banking would provide credit for prior Open Space and
Mountain Parks’ investments in grasslands habitat. It would prioritize new city,
county, and federal acquisitions and easements to consolidate grassland parcels. It
would advance Open Space Mountain Parks cropland goals on private farmland in
the County by moving these to fragmented areas ant not contiguous grassland areas.
It would match public and private funds to cover stewardship and implementation.
2. Revise the Wildlife Protection Ordinance number 7321, particularly 6-1-12
(Damaging Prairie Dog Burrows Prohibited), and 6-1-36 (Procedures for Obtaining
Prairie Dog Lethal Control Permits).
3. Create a relocation policy that prioritizes colonies that are in imminent threat of
lethal control, regardless of land ownership.
4. As part of the impact analysis, outline zones of grassland areas where Delta Dust
should or should not be used on receiving sites based on presence of sensitive
species or resources.
5. Use the collected conservation fund money to purchase additional City land for
prairie dog habitat.
Research and Study

1. Measure vaccine and insecticide effectiveness. Collaboratively develop a research
proposal to pilot a vaccine trial.
2. Conduct controlled experiments with zoning, treatment combinations, and
treatment methods.
3. Use baseline and effectiveness monitoring for prairie dog colonies, other sensitive
species, and public perception.
4. Conduct a study on the impact of Delta Dust on the insect population.
5. Update the field surveys for at-risk butterflies, moths, and other species that are
vulnerable to Delta Dust.
6. Continue to work with partner agencies such as Boulder County Parks and Open
Space, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate
feasibility, desirability, and management implications of black-footed ferret
reintroduction to the Southern Grasslands. The City has not yet gone through an
evaluation process.
Process and Guidelines
5
1. Define sustainability as it relates to prairie dog management. Sustainability should
include healthy and efficient connected grassland habitat (approximately 10,000
contiguous acres), disease resistant colonies, prairie dog populations regulated by
native predators, and minimal conflict with people or other Open Space and
Mountain Parks’ values.
2. Follow the three-pronged approach developed by the Prairie Dog Coalition when
evaluating receiving sites. First, identify whether there are prairie dogs on the land
already. If there are no prairie dogs, follow the suitability criteria. Second, consider
doing vegetation treatments on the site to revegetate and introduce native plants in
the area. Third, determine the best approach for maintaining healthy prairie dog
populations on the site and consider strategic use of Delta Dust.
3. Focus conservation efforts on developing at least 1,500 acres of contiguous habitat
on the Southern Grasslands.
4. Review the Administrative Rule for the Relocation of Prairie Dogs to see what could
be transferred to future recommendations.
5. Reevaluate ways to make agriculture land use and prairie dog habitat compatible by
altering practices or by swapping lands/uses.
Plans
1. Create a Plague Management Plan in collaboration with Colorado Parks and Wildlife
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The plague management plan should not advocate
for blanket use of Delta Dust and should include thresholds that integrate science,
regulations, integrated pest management policies, the health of the overall
ecosystem, and the potential for black-footed ferret reintroduction. The plan should
allow for varying thresholds based upon the local, state, and federal status of the
black-tailed prairie dog.
2. Consider whether the goal of the plague management plan should be eliminating the
rollercoaster nature of plague endemics in prairie dog populations. When defining
best practices for sustainability and the complexities of the ecosystem, evaluate the
implications of plague management and whether the rollercoaster is inherently
negative.
3. Identify a system-wide minimum threshold number for prairie dog population
occupation that includes consideration of commensal species. If the number of
prairie dogs drops below the threshold, use Delta Dust. For example, if the objective
is to reintroduce the black-footed ferret, the minimum threshold for prairie dog
occupancy may be set between 80-90% for an area; but the overall system threshold
could be much lower.
4. Review and revise the Grassland Management Plan. Consider the zones (north,
south, central) as separate areas with different criteria. If prairie dogs are gone from
one area, the ecosystem in that area is affected and, for the Southern Grasslands, this
could limit the possibility of black-footed ferret reintroduction.
5. Ensure that all land marked as receiving sites in the Grassland Management Plan
meet the Colorado Parks and Wildlife criteria.
6. Survey private property landowners on an annual basis to determine their short-,
mid-, and long-term plans and intentions for prairie dog management. 2012 was the
most recent private land survey.
6
7. Create more transparent guidelines for both the process of prioritizing relocation
sites and for sharing City relocation priorities with the community. Every year,
Boulder City staff should present the list of priorities for prairie dog relocations to
the city Manager who will present it to City Council for approval.
8. Revise the receiving site criteria to allow for more flexibility and adaptive
management. Collect baseline data before a relocation and conduct a six- to twelve-
month reviews after a relocation. Create scientifically-based estimates for the
permitted density of prairie dogs on relocation sites and ensure that receiving site
criteria includes a requirement to provide adequate accommodation for the number
of prairie dogs that will be located to the site. Develop criteria for identifying
removal areas, with the goal of decreasing the acreage of removal areas. This will
include a discussion of the use of other methods and the balance between prairie
dog habitat and agricultural uses.
9. Form a group to investigate ways to create additional receiving sites is to increase
the occupancy range, which is currently set at 10-26% or do away with that and use
a system of acreage of population instead.
10. Revisit the vegetation options for receiving sites.
11. Ensure that all criteria for removal and transition sites reflect multiple-use
objectives. On irrigated sites, consider using passive methods like blocking off
burrows or using barriers. Reevaluate the agriculture sites based on the potential of
passive methods. This could shorten the list of removal sites.
12. Consider an exemption to the burrow protection ordinance on sites that have
confirmed plague.
NEXT STEPS
• At the next meeting, the Working Group will discuss the ideas that were presented.
• Keri Konold will send the Working Group the links to the presentations from the
second meeting.
• Working Group members will reconsider and finalize the evaluation criteria.
7
April 24, 2017
Meeting Summary
ATTENDANCE
Jeff Edson, Deborah Jones, Keri Konold, Lindsey Sterling Krank, Amber Largent, Amy
Masching, Joy Master, Valerie Matheson, Andy Pelster, Carse Pustmueller, Eric Sims, Jr.,
Heather Swanson, John Vickery.
ACTION ITEMS
Heather Swanson Ask OSMP rangers about the protocols for deciding when to take
injured prairie dogs to rehabilitation.
Val Matheson Inform the group when you hear back the City’s attorney office
about the mitigation/conservation fund.
Carse Pustmueller Refine the wording of recommendation #15 to reflect intentions.
Joy Master Send additional recommendations to Heather Bergman.
Heather Bergman • Send Joy Masters’ additional recommendations to the Working

Group.
• Send the evaluation criteria spreadsheet to the Working Group.
Working Group • Fill out the evaluation spreadsheet individually and send
members responses to Heather Bergman by Wednesday, May 3, at 5 PM.
• Contact each other with questions about specific
recommendations and copy the entire Working Group on any
responses.
PUBLIC COMMENT
As discussed by Working Group members during the first meeting, the opening ten minutes
of the meeting were dedicated to both verbal and written public comment. Each person
was allowed three minutes to speak. The individual comments are summarized below.
Paula Stephani
• Stephani, a resident who advocated for the Armory colony, summarized several
concerns she has related to a recent incident at the Armory relocation site. Several
weeks ago, neighbors of the Armory site sent Boulder City staff photos of several
prairie dogs and newly active burrows at the Armory site. The photos also showed
someone shoveling dirt on top of the burrows. On April 17, residents observed
1
workers covering the burrows with slabs of concrete and noticed prairie dogs
running around trying to find a burrow entrance.
• When animal control arrived, they asked the landowner to stop to allow for a City
investigation. The landowner declined and continued to cover up the burrows.
Police told concerned residents there was nothing to be done.
• What recommendations can the Working Group make to protect prairie dog
burrows from being violated?
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Carse Pustmueller shared her perspective on the incident at the Armory relocation site and
offered several additional recommendations to the Working Group. Below are her
comments and recommendations.
Comments
• Pustmueller reported that she observed the landowner at the Armory relocation site
destroy three burrows, use a Bobcat to pack soil and destroy the tunnels, and cover
burrow openings with concrete slabs. The police arrived at 7:30 PM and told the
landowner to cease and desist. However, the landowner continued to work into the
evening. The next morning, animal control arrived and informed Pustmueller that
there was nothing that could be done to hold the landowner accountable. A sick
prairie dog was euthanized.
• Pustmuller called different City departments and employees throughout the day.
Nothing was done to stop the landowner from destroying the burrows. When the
Department of Animal Control arrived, they noted that there were no active
burrows and issued a warning. The origin of these few prairie dogs is unknown.
They could be residual inhabitants of the Armory colony, or they could be from a
neighboring colony.
Recommendations
1. Boulder City staff should trust and implement the advice of prairie dog conservation
experts like Lindsey Sterling Krank, Dan Tripp, the US Department of Agriculture
(USDA), and scientific literature. This should be an immediate action.
2. Any sick or injured prairie dogs should be taken to a rehabilitation facility as a first
step. This should be an immediate action.
3. The City should prepare with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) a proposal for
USDA approval for the use of the Sylvatic Plague Vaccine (SPV) on the southern
grasslands. This should be an immediate action.
4. There should be a process for stopping suspicious activity during the intervening
period when City staff has not determined issues of legality. This is a 2017
relocation pilot project.
5. The Wildlife Protection Ordinance, specifically section 6-1-12 relating to the
damaging of prairie dog burrows, should be amended to promote non-lethal control
methods. This is a policy issue.
2
RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION
Working Group members reviewed and discussed the ideas presented at the previous
meeting. Working Group members agreed to include the “immediate” and “2017 relocation
pilot project” recommendations in the evaluation exercise. Recommendations are noted in
italics. Additional information about and context for each recommendation is also
included.
Immediate
1. Get Council approval to use Delta Dust on the relocated Armory prairie dog burrows
immediately. Without dusting, the Armory colony is in imminent danger.
• The Prairie Dog Coalition may be able to donate Delta Dust.
• The management objective of using Delta Dust at this site is to demonstrate to the
many concerned members of the public that the City is committed to the long-term
safety of these specific animals. It would show commitment to the stakeholders
involved in the relocation and would reassure members of the public.
• While this would deviate from current practice, it would not require a policy change.
• Working Group members should think about whether this action falls into the
category of ecosystem management, individual species management, or individual
animal management. The Working Group should also consider whether the Armory
colony is in imminent danger and if a one-off dusting is going to help. Delta Dust has
about a year-long effect.
• Delta Dust application should be targeted and strategic. It should not be broad
spectrum. This would require approximately four acres of strategic Delta Dust
application.
• If the Working Group decides to make this recommendation, this could be an
emergency one-time exemption to current policy. However, Working Group
members discussed the need to understand the larger implications of the
recommendation on non-target species and vegetation and the need to rely on staff
expertise and advise. For example, there was a specific concern about rare insects
and whether repeated application of Delta Dust has been proven to impact
invertebrate communities. It may take at least a season to collect all the relevant
information.
• This action would signify the first step toward establishing a large block prairie dog
habitat.
• There were lingering questions concerning the legality of Delta Dust application
inside prairie dog burrows. CPW permits the application of US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) approved insecticides. According to the label, Delta Dust can
be used to “control fleas and ticks in and around rodent burrows with a shaker can.
Delta Dust should be applied as needed for control.” The application of Delta Dust
inside burrows is common practice for most applicators.
3
2. Leave the prairie dogs at Foothills Community Park if the burrows at the release site will
not be dusted before relocation. Consider the use of barriers or other methods to keep the
colony contained there.
• This site was marked as removal zone in the Grassland Management Plan in 2005. It
was deemed a near-term removal site in the Urban Management Wildlife Plan in
2006. Dog parks were installed to deter prairie dog encroachment.
• The Working Group could request an exception to the Integrated Pest Management
process to use Delta Dust at the Damyanovitch site.
• The City has prioritized the relocation of the Foothills Community Park colony and a
private property colony with 156 prairie dogs for 2017 relocations. Development is
imminent at the private property site.
• The construction of a barrier around this property would require a plan revision.
3. The City should collaboratively prepare with CPW a proposal for USDA approval for the
use of the SPV on the southern grasslands to be used in 2018.
• The Working Group would have to decide on the research proposal scope. The
scope would inform feasibility.
• The City could develop a proposal during 2017 and recommend a pilot program for
2018. The research question could simply be: “Is the use of SPV on 14 acres of the
southern grasslands effective in maintaining prairie dog resistance to the plague?”
The scope could be increased after the first year.
2017 Relocation Pilot Projects:

1. Require the one-time use of Delta Dust in burrows on all 2017 relocation sites.
• There is currently a permit for the Damyanovitch property. The City is still
conducting evaluations on additional sites on the southern grasslands.
• Ideally, stakeholders would be engaged in any decisions regarding the use of Delta
Dust on properties. While a stakeholder engagement process may take too long for
the 2017 relocations, there could be intentional outreach in the future.
• CPW is working on a stipulation that would require relocation permit applicants to
agree to the use of Delta Dust at all release sites. The Working Group should draft a
recommendation that specifies what actions should be taken if CPW institutes this
requirement.
• The Delta Dust applicators should be provided with a map of local beekeepers and
should notify them before the application.
2. Place a temporary moratorium on any relocation receiving sites until they have been
dusted or until there is agreement that they will be dusted.
• Fleas are most active in the Spring. Experts recommend using Delta Dust in the Fall.
Fleas are never completely dormant.
• The moratorium would only be for 2017. This would be a temporary solution while
longer-term recommendations are being pursued.
4
3. Develop criteria for selecting relocation contractors. The contractors should be selected
and contracted by the City. The contractor should be trusted by the public and should have
extensive experience with and commitment to conservation (not extermination).
• There is a public perception that contractors who are not focused on conservation
handle prairie dogs recklessly.
• Ideally, this recommendation would help increase the number of contractors who
advocate for humane wildlife management. Contractors could be taught non-lethal
methods.
• There are often only two bids for a relocation request for proposal (RFP) put out by
the City. One bid is typically from The Prairie Dog Coalition and the other is from a
company that also does extermination. This recommendation could limit the
number of choices.

4. Identify a list of preferred prairie dog relocation contractors who meet the criteria
determined in recommendation #3.

5. Install and maintain visual barrier fences at relocation sites adjacent to homes. Fences
would address many landowner concerns, e.g. property devaluation, colony expansion,
and the potential for plague transmission to humans and pets.
• If the City proactively erected barrier fences, it would demonstrate to local
homeowners that the City recognizes and respects their concerns.
• Barriers typically cost between $24.00 - $26.00 per foot.

6. Provide incentives for private landowners to offer their land as a receiving site.
• The Prairie Dog Coalition could potentially provide the incentive for 2017.
• The Working Group should consider what the monetary threshold is. Typically,
incentives between $8,000 - $10,000 prompt landowner agreement.

7. Create a conservation/mitigation fund to be used for prairie dog conservation, including
the acquisition of land for prairie dogs.
• This could be a pilot project for 2017, and then it could be considered as a long-term
policy recommendation based on the feedback from the pilot year.
• City staff is currently waiting to hear from the City Attorney’s Office regarding this
recommendation. Val Matheson will inform the group when she hears back.

8. Continue to evaluate new or different relocation methods to increase success and/or
reduce impacts of relocation.
• This is a general recommendation to use adaptive management.
• The City could contact experts on a regular basis to assess the potential for
integrating new technologies into relocations and prairie dog conservation.

9. Evaluate sites that have had plague in the past, identify open burrows that could be used
in the future, and act to keep burrows open.
• With appropriate training, this could be done by volunteers.

5
10. Consider options that would allow Prairie Dog Conservation Areas (PCAs) to be used as
relocation sites.
• This action is on the 2017 City work plan for the current PCAs.
• There is research that states that sustainable prairie dog relocations typically
require the relocation of at least 150 prairie dogs.
• Many of the PCAs already have prairie dog colonies.
• Many PCAs are adjacent to homes. If the Working Group decides to recommend
barrier placement on sites adjacent to homes, they may want to consider funding
priorities. It would very likely be costly to install a barrier on all PCA property
adjacent to homes.
11. Define successful relocation. Data should be continually collected on colonies post-
relocation to assess occupancy.
• The Working Group should determine a clear definition that can be used to describe
goals in relocation RFPs.
• Data should be collected three months, six months, and a year post-relocation.
12. Develop best management practices for relocations that minimize impacts to native
grassland communities associated with the relocation and analyze methods to minimize
disturbance.
13. Establish practices that encourage City staff to trust and implement the advice of prairie
dog conservation experts.
• It may be difficult to execute this idea if experts disagree.
• While this may have been a factor in what happened at the Armory last week, it is
also important to clarify the lines of authority and communication for emergency
situations.
• Many people have practical knowledge of prairie dog management but do not have a
degree. Their experiences should be included in the analysis of methodologies.
14. Take sick or injured prairie dogs to a rehabilitation facility as a first response.
• Prairie dogs can be taken to rehabilitation facilities outside of the County. The
facility must follow specific release guidelines. Prairie dogs must be released within
ten miles of the capture site. They must also have landowner permission to release
the prairie dog.
• Heather Swanson will ask the Open Space and Mountain Parks rangers about the
protocols for deciding when to take injured prairie dogs to rehabilitation.
15. Determine chain of command and establish protocols to enforce the cessation of
suspicious activity when it appears that the City’s ordinance to protect prairie dogs is
being violated.
16. Create more transparent guidelines for both the process of prioritizing relocation sites
and for sharing City relocation priorities with the community.
6
17. Ensure that receiving site criteria include a requirement to provide adequate
accommodation for the number of prairie dogs that will be moved to the site.
18. Review the Administrative Rule for the Relocation of Prairie Dogs to see what could be
transferred to future recommendations.
19. Create a relocation policy that prioritizes colonies that are in imminent threat of lethal
control, regardless of land ownership.
NEXT STEPS
• Joy Master will send her additional recommendations to Heather Bergman. Heather
Bergman will send them to the group.
• Heather Bergman will send the Working Group the evaluation criteria spreadsheet.
• Each Working Group member will fill out the spreadsheet individually and send
their response to Heather Bergman by Wednesday, May 3, by 5 PM.
• Working Group members should rate each recommendation based on their best
understand. Contact each other with questions about specific recommendations and
copy the entire Working Group on any responses.
7
May 8, 2017
Meeting Summary
ATTENDANCE
Participants: Dan Brandemuehl, Kristin Cannon, Patrick Comer, Aaron Cook, Elle Cushman, Jeff
Edson, Deborah Jones, Keri Konold, Lindsey Sterling Krank, Amber Largent, Joy Master, Valerie
Matheson, Andy Pelster, Carse Pustmueller, Eric Sims, Jr., Heather Swanson.
ACTION ITEMS
Peak Facilitation • Draft the final report.
All Working Group • Review the draft report and send comments to Heather Bergman.
members
PUBLIC COMMENT
As discussed by Working Group members during the first meeting, the opening ten minutes of the
meeting were dedicated to both verbal and written public comment. Each person was allowed three
minutes to speak. Facilitation staff summarized the written comments. The individual comments
are summarized below.
Paula Shuler
• Shuler, a resident of north Boulder County, has a farming property that borders City-owned
open space and has had a conflict with prairie dogs for years. Shuler grows grass hay and
raises beef.
• The prairie dogs on the Stratton and Brewbaker properties have migrated across the street
onto Shuler’s property. Shuler has asked for help from the City of Boulder, and the property
is now designated as a removal area. However, Shuler has been told that there are no
receiving sites available. Shuler’s property condition has begun to decline. There are now
hundreds of holes on her property, and the cost of land revitalization and vegetation
recovery is high.
• Shuler would like the City to immediately construct a barrier fence along Neva Road. In the
short-term, she would like the City to remove the prairie dogs from the Stratton and
Brewbaker properties. In the long-term, Shuler would like the City to consider the impact of
prairie dogs on agricultural land and adjacent private properties. According to Shuler,
irrigated properties are unsuitable for prairie dog habitat. There needs to be more balanced
management practices that consider prairie dog conservation and agricultural production
equally.
• Relocation should not be the only option for prairie dog management. Humane lethal
control should be discussed as an option in cases where prairie dogs are negatively
impacting neighboring properties or inhabiting land that conflicts with ecological health or
other land uses.
1
Robert O’Donnell
• O’Donnell has lived on the Stratton and Brewbaker properties for 30 years. Over the last ten
years, prairie dogs have destroyed lost 20% of the hay he grows. Prairie dogs now live in his
backyard, front yard, and septic field. His land on the Brewbaker property can no longer be
irrigated. There are prairie dog mounds that are two to three feet high. Thistle is growing on
the property now.
• O’Donnell has reached out to City staff and has been told that there are higher-priority
properties for prairie dog removal. O’Donnell wishes that Boulder had a better outlet for
private landowners to express their management concerns.
Joel Schaap
• Schaap farms land across from the City of Boulder’s Stratton and Brewbaker irrigated
agricultural open space. Many of the prairie dogs on that property have migrated and now
occupy his farmland.
• Prairie dogs cause damage to his equipment, hay, and land. While Schaap does not want to
be an exterminator, he has been left with no other choice.
• Schaap would like the City to construct a barrier fence around the Stratton and Brewbaker
property or remove the prairie dogs completely.
Sabrina Gerringer
• Gerringer lives in Boulder County. Her property borders the Stratton and Brewbaker
property. Over the last few years, the number of prairie dogs at the Stratton and Brewbaker
property has increased and the land has become unusable.
• Gerringer believes that the City has a responsibility to manage the prairie dogs on the
Stratton and Brewbaker property. The City’s current lack of management is interfering with
Boulder’s legacy of agriculture on irrigated land.
• The City should consider the use of a different management tool. Relocation is not working.
The City of Boulder should follow Boulder County’s example and use humane lethal control.
Richard Jorgensen
• Jorgensen’s property borders Boulder County open space and the City of Boulder’s open
space, which is managed by the County. Prairie dogs have migrated onto his property. Staff
have told him that the prairie dogs will be controlled, but they have not taken any action.
• Jorgensen would like for the Working Group to recommend the implementation of a policy
that will prevent prairie dogs that have been relocated by the City of Boulder from
colonizing private property.
REVIEW OF WORKING GROUP OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES

Keri Konold of Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) reminded the Working Group of the City’s
appointment process for the Advisory Working Group and the primary objectives and priorities of
the group.
• On August 16, 2016, City Council suggested that City Manager Jane Brautigam appoint an
Advisory Working Group of residents and non-resident members who demonstrate City
values. The members should be able to recommend, based on a broad understanding of the
full range of community perspectives, adaptable management practices that can be
implemented under existing policy as well as possible longer-term policy changes.
2
• The objectives of this group are to serve as a model for Boulder regarding collaboration,
innovation, and respect. They should build trust in the City’s implementation of existing
policies and work toward meeting the priorities described below.
• The first priority of the Working Group is to determine relocation methodologies under
existing plans and policies that can be used in 2017. The second priority is to determine
relocation methodologies under existing plans and policies that can be used in 2018 and
beyond. The third priority is to determine longer-term ideas that might need further
exploration or require changes to the plans and policies.
• To accomplish these objectives effectively, the Working Group is comprised of people who
are impacted by and interested in prairie dog management. The Working Group includes
members of the public and representatives of public land management organizations. The
stated objectives will only be accomplished effectively if the group applies the values of
collaboration, innovation, and respect to their work and actions. The objectives will also
only be accomplished effectively if the Working Group develops a shared understanding of
the existing City policies and plans as well as perceived constraints.

EVALUATION MATRIX DISCUSSION
Members of the Working Group reviewed and discussed the results of the evaluation matrix that
assessed ‘Immediate’ and ‘2017’ recommendations.

Process Reflection
• Certain criteria were irrelevant to specific recommendations. For example, it was difficult to
evaluate the recommendation to develop criteria for contractors for its ability to meet the
goals of the Grassland Plan because that criteria did not seem relevant to the
recommendation.
• Some of the criteria are duplicative. It would have been helpful to categorize the criteria.
Many of the recommendations that are not highly ranked can be placed into four categories:
where, how, who, and why.
• Not all the criteria are of equal value. Some are more important than others. It would have
been helpful to have a weighting system.
• It was difficult to rank the recommendations without incorporating caveats and concerns.
• The recommendations in the matrix reflect only the first part of the three Working Group
priorities provided by Council (the 2017 actions) and did not address the larger issues or
solutions that could inform this issue in the future. It is important for the Working Group to
reconvene to address large-scale recommendations and debrief the implementation of the
immediate and 2017 recommendations. The group should specifically discuss a plague
management strategy, nonlethal tools, and innovative solutions.
• It was difficult to assess the recommendations without a context for what will happen in
2018 and beyond. There was also a frustration about the wording of the recommendations
in the matrix and a specific concern that the 2017 dusting recommendations implied that
dusting would only occur in 2017, which was not the original intent.
• These recommendations did not explicitly address the issue of adjoining property conflicts.
This will continue to be a looming problem. The public comment from residents concerned
about the Stratton and Brewbaker property demonstrated the serious concerns about these
issues and the importance of prioritizing relocation and receiving sites.

3
Content Discussion
Due to a lack of time, Working Group members discussed the recommendations with the top five
highest scores first. The matrix spreadsheet displays the mean, median, minimum, and maximum
score for each recommendation. This discussion is summarized below.
Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing relocation sites.

• This recommendation could be combined with the following recommendation: “Create a
relocation policy that prioritizes colonies that are in imminent threat of lethal control,
regardless of land ownership.”
• OSMP is working on a similar recommendation that would impact internal practices. It
would not impact private or other properties. It will interface with this recommendation.
• The guidelines and criteria for prioritizing relocation sites should be considered in relation
to the Administrative Rule for the Relocation of Prairie Dogs. This rule does not prioritize
public over private lands. However, in practice, public land is prioritized over private land.
• There should be a recommendation that addresses the prioritization of release sites.
Release site prioritization should incorporate the recommendation to “consider options that
would allow Prairie Dog Conservation Areas (PCAs) to be used as relocation sites.”
• If the group wants to recommend a prioritization of receiving sites, it must fit within
existing plans. Changing the receiving sites themselves would require a change to the
Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan. That would be a long-term policy change.
• It is important that Working Group members have an ongoing role in the development of
any prioritization of relocation and release sites.
Ensure that receiving site criteria include a requirement to provide adequate accommodation for the
number of prairie dogs that will be moved to the site.
• The term “adequate accommodation” needs to be clarified. The specific methods (e.g., nest
boxes or existing burrows) should be defined.
• The general wording of this recommendation was its strength. Any one-size-fits-all specific
recommendation is concerning.
• This recommendation provides room for adaptive management and continual collaboration.
Relocation methods are an evolving science and are likely to change.
• This recommendation was made to avoid a repeat of the Armory relocation. Prairie dog
advocates did not feel there was a plan in place to accommodate prairie dogs at receiving
sites.
Define successful relocation.

• This recommendation can be combined with the following recommendation: “Continue to
evaluate new or different relocation methods to increase success and/or reduce impacts of
relocation.”
• This recommendation can be interpreted as a simple decision regarding the end-result
(retention, survivorship, etc.), or it can be interpreted in the larger context of responsible
plague management. To understand whether a relocation was successful, there must also
be an understanding of where and how colonies are surviving or dissipating.
• Prairie dog relocation contractors consider many factors. While retention is one factor,
there are many other associated planning stages that must involve key stakeholders. Many
people view prairie dog activists as single-species advocates, but most are trying to save
the prairie ecosystem. Focusing on the conservation of the keystone prairie dog species can
save approximately 172 other species.
4
Prepare and submit to CPW and USDA a proposal for plague management for the use of the sylvatic
plague vaccine (SPV) and Delta Dust in a focused way for 2017/2018 as part of a larger study to be
completed later.
• Combining the use of Delta Dust with the vaccine will likely be more accepted by the
community than the sole use of a pesticide. However, there may be opportunities where
the vaccine could be used alone.
• The application should be submitted as soon as possible so that SPV can be used in 2018. If
the combination of Delta Dust with SPV could cause a delay, there should be two separate
recommendations.
• This recommendation implies a deliberate effort to conduct research and evaluation. One-
time Delta Dust applications do not have the same implication.
• This larger study should not impede immediate efforts to use Delta Dust. The two efforts
would accomplish different goals. One would provide data, and the other would protect
prairie dogs from the plague and contribute greatly to prairie dog conservation.
• This recommendation does not capture the necessary benchmarks and goals of a planning
process.
• The plague has kept the prairie dog population on a rollercoaster. The Working Group
needs to discuss whether controlling the plague, which could potentially increase the
prairie dog population and aggravate landowner conflicts, should be the goal.
• The study site of this pilot research proposal should be limited to a certain portion of
contiguous land in the Southern Grasslands Habitat Conservation Area (SGHCA). It would
not be a system-wide program.
• Many of the Working Group recommendations speak to the larger theme of establishing
and conserving, through effective plague management, an active prairie dog habitat and
ecosystem in the Southern Grassland Habitat Conservation Area with the goal of
supporting a diversity of commensal species.
• There are concerns about the impact of Delta Dust on crops and agriculture.
• The City has not had a conversation about adopting the goal of reintroducing black-footed
ferrets. The City has talked to U.S. Fish and Wildlife about evaluating the feasibility of
reintroduction. The County has said that they have a goal of reintroducing black-footed
ferrets in 2020. It is not a requirement to have a plague abatement plan in place to
reintroduce black-footed ferrets, but it is recommended. This trial would feed information
and data into the conversation about black-footed ferrets.
Evaluate sites that have had plague in the past, identify open burrows that could be used in the future,
and act to keep burrows open.
• This recommendation could be combined with the following recommendation: “Define
successful relocation.”
• The feasibility of keeping burrows open is unknown. It would be interesting to research
the affordability of keeping burrows open for several years versus installing artificial
burrows when the site becomes usable. This recommendation speaks to the importance of
finding more suitable burrows and sites within existing sites.
• Volunteers could put tubing in the burrows to keep them open.
• This would have to be done responsibly and cautiously. The Administrative Rule states that
sites that have been impacted by the plague should not become receiving sites until a year
has elapsed. This is one of the sections of the Administrative Rule that some members of
the Working Group would like to reexamine.
• This would be a trial pilot project. The City would not evaluate every colony this year.
5
Discussion of Other Recommendations
Working Group members were invited to identify additional items from the evaluation matrix with
lower scores that they would like the group to consider recommending to the City Manager. Several
items were suggested but were not included in the final recommendations; this discussion is
summarized below.
Review the Administrative Rule for the Relocation of Prairie Dogs to see what could be transferred to
future recommendations.
• The Administrative Rule for the Relocation of Prairie Dogs was created in 2002. It was a
guide for moving prairie dogs onto OSMP land. It was used until 2005.
• From 2005-2013 the City took a hiatus from doing relocations until the Grassland
Ecosystem Management Plan was adopted in 2013. The Administrative Rule was never
repealed and is still active, but the City has not been using it as a guide.
• Staff will revisit the Administrative Rule for the Relocation of Prairie Dogs and clarify
whether it has a requirement for barrier fence construction and maintenance at receiving
sites.
One-time application of Delta Dust in all receiving burrows for 2017.

• This recommendation should be revised to:
o “One-time application of Delta Dust in 2017 in all 2017 receiving burrows.”
• This recommendation could be combined with the following recommendation:
o One-time emergency application in 2017 of Delta Dust at the Damyanovitch site.”
• Stating the recommendation this way would allow for additional dusting in 2018 and
beyond.
Create a conservation/mitigation fund to be used for prairie dog conservation, including the
acquisition of land for prairie dogs.
• If the Working Group does not recommend the creation of a conservation fee, the City will
continue to proceed with the relocations as planned. If the Working Group decides to
recommend a conservation fee, a legal fee structure would have to be created. That would
be a 2018 project.
• The wording of this statement did not reflect the intention of the recommendation. The
intention was to offer a conservation fee from the public sector to the private sector
wherein a private landowner could use the public system to help solve an issue. The
conservation fee would create a fund to absorb management efforts. The recommendation
provided in the matrix focuses on land acquisition, which may not be a realistic goal.
• Last year the City created a “lost opportunity fee” for the Armory relocation, but no policy
was created.
• The Administrative Rule for the Relocation of Prairie Dogs does not allow for the creation
of a conservation fund. That could be a specific area of focus if the Working Group decides
to revisit the Administrative Rule.
RECOMMENDATION SELECTION
Working Group members identified and agreed upon the recommendations that will be presented
to the City Manager for relocation methodologies that can be implemented in 2017 under current
plans and policies.
Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing relocation sites.

• This recommendation could be combined with the following three recommendations:
6
o “Create a relocation policy that prioritizes colonies that are in imminent threat of
lethal control, regardless of land ownership.”
o “Consider options that would allow Prairie Dog Conservation Areas to be used as
relocation sites.”
o “Review the Administrative Rule for the Relocation of Prairie Dogs to see what could
be transferred to future recommendations.”
• This should be separated into two recommendations. There should be one
recommendation for receiving sites, and one for relocation sites:
o “Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing relocation/take sites on both public
and private lands.”
o “Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing receiving sites on public lands within
existing plans and develop recommendations for making receiving sites more
feasible.”
• There should be clarification on whether public and private lands are prioritized and
evaluated differently.
• If the Working Group decides to form a subcommittee, this recommendation would be
discussed further.
• The concept of stakeholder engagement should be captured in this recommendation. The
guidelines could outline the conflict transformation approach.
• The recommendation should be to “develop recommendations for increasing landowner
and stakeholder acceptance of the use of receiving sites.”

The Working Group reached consensus agreement on the following recommendations:
1. Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing relocation/take sites on both public
and private lands.
2. Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing receiving sites on public lands within
existing plans and develop recommendations for making receiving sites more
feasible; develop recommendations for increasing landowner and stakeholder
acceptance of the use of receiving sites.

Ensure that receiving site criteria include a requirement to provide adequate accommodation for the
number of prairie dogs that will be moved to the site.
• It is concerning that this recommendation does not reference ecological or agricultural
values. There are potential conflicts with other management goals in some grassland areas.
The recommendation should include a qualification to ensure that the impact to native
grassland and agricultural operation is minimized. The recommendation should have
flexibility built in so that it can be adapted to on-the-ground conditions.
• The recommendation could state that the receiving site criteria should provide adequate
accommodation in previously tilled or non-native conservation areas. There are
approximately 5,000 acres of tilled land. The goal of including this qualification is to
minimize damage to untilled areas and to avoid digging holes in small patches. Another
suggestion is to specify in the recommendation the implementation of best management
practices.
• This recommendation should have been stated:
o “Ensure that receiving site criteria include a requirement to provide adequate
accommodation for the prairie dogs that will be moved to the site, using existing
burrows and nest boxes, with type/number of nest boxes determined by the Prairie Dog
Coalition, and implement this requirement in 2017 and beyond.”
7
• This recommendation would greatly increase the number of nest boxes used. While the
inclusion of a provision about ecological values may dial back that larger number, the
number would still be higher overall. The goal is to have large benefits to the prairie dogs
and small impacts to the ecosystem.
• The above suggestions for referencing agricultural or ecological values in the
recommendation was too broad for some Working Group members. Some members were
concerned that the number of available receiving burrows would be reduced. Agriculture
has been a top priority in the irrigated grasslands and many of the sites are multi-use.
• This recommendation only refers to receiving sites and is not expanded to all OSMP land.
These are sites that have been prioritized for prairie dog use.
• This recommendation could be combined with the following recommendations:
o “Continue to evaluate new or different relocation methods to increase success
and/or reduce impacts of relocation.”
o “Leave the prairie dogs at Foothills Community Park.”
The Working Group reached consensus agreement on the following recommendation:

3. On approved receiving sites, ensure that the number of prairie dogs to be relocated
have adequate accommodations, utilizing existing or artificial burrows (including
Define successful relocation.

• Some Working Group members thought this recommendation could be combined with the
following recommendation: “Develop criteria for selecting relocation contractors.” These
members maintained that the relocation contractors are a key component in the success of
the relocation, both in the immediate relocation and in the long-term survival of the
relocated colony. There were Working Group members who thought that this
recommendation should be separate from the criteria for selecting a relocation contractor.
• A sub-group of the Working Group could define successful relocation. Relocation is an
evolving management practice and innovative techniques are continually being proposed.
• If black-footed ferrets are successfully introduced, they will be a management tool for
prairie dog populations.

4. Define successful prairie dog relocation; this includes continual evaluation of new or
different relocation methods, ongoing opportunities for stakeholder engagement,
and short-term, mid-term and long-term evaluation of success.
Prepare/submit to CPW and USDA a proposal for plague management for the use of sylvatic plague
vaccine (SPV) and Delta Dust in a focused way for 2017/2018 as part of a larger study to be completed
later.
• The application should focus solely on the Southern Grasslands HCA.
• The application must be in collaboration with Dan Tripp and the Colorado Department of
Parks and Wildlife. The goal is to augment Colorado’s research while also creating a
collaborative enterprise that will add value to the local system.
• This recommendation should include plague abatement strategies and plague prophylactics.
However, the State may not care about plague prophylactics.
• The proposal will be written in 2017 and the work will be done in 2018.
8
• There could be a separate recommendation that specifies: “During the interim for approval,
take action independently using legally-approved methods of plague management,
including Delta Dust and other plague prophylactics.”
• The final Working Group report should specify concerns about the use of Delta Dust. The
report should state: “We understand that this recommendation may result in the use of
Delta Dust. Some members of the Working Group have ongoing concerns about Delta Dust;
one member has specific concerns about the public perception of the use of the vaccine due
to concerns about genetic modification.”

5. Collaboratively prepare, with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, a research proposal for US
Department of Agriculture approval for the use of the sylvatic plague vaccine (SPV)
on the southern grasslands in 2018 and beyond.
Evaluate sites that have had plague in the past, identify open burrows that could be used in the future,
and act to keep burrows open.
• This recommendation could be combined with the following recommendations:
o “Review the Administrative Rule for the Relocation of Prairie Dogs to see what could
be transferred to future recommendations.”
o “Define successful relocation.”
• After some discussion, the Working Group determined that this recommendation is
embedded in the previous consensus recommendations and can be left out.
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION
The group discussed the idea of forming a subgroup to flesh out the details of the above
recommendations.
• The subgroup would flesh out the recommendations made by the Working Group.
• The subgroup should have experience and expertise in the issues. Specifically, there should
be someone who has experience relocating prairie dogs, someone who represents
ecological concerns (OSMP staff), someone who represents the interests of adjacent
landowners, and someone who has knowledge of rules and regulations.
• Landowners and lessees experience different conditions and impacts than adjacent
landowners.
• The Working Group agreed that the sub-group would be comprised of the following
members: Dan Brandemuehl, Pat Comer, Elle Cushman, and Lindsey Sterling Krank.
Depending on the subject, there will be different Boulder City staff participating. One
Working Group member did not agree to this and felt strongly that the subgroup should
include one more member with prairie dog expertise and experience, specifically
involvement in the Armory relocation.
With the exception noted above, the Working Group reached consensus agreement on the following
recommendation:
6. A subgroup comprised of four Working Group members (Dan Brandemuehl, Pat
Comer, Elle Cushman, and Lindsey Sterling Krank) should work with staff to flesh out
details of the recommended items.
9
NEXT STEPS
• Peak Facilitation will draft a meeting summary, which will include the recommendations.
• The Working Group will review the draft report and send comments to Heather Bergman.
• The Working Group will reconvene once in the fall to debrief 2017 progress. The Working
Group will potentially meet again in October, November, and December or in 2018 to
discuss bigger picture policy issues and changes to current plans, including nonlethal tools,
innovative solutions, effective plague management strategies, and adjoining property
owners’ concerns.
o Future Working Group meetings should only happen once a month.
o When the Working Group reconvenes, the group should step back and work to
clarify the categories of recommendations.
o Boulder staff will need to address some challenges regarding workplan capacity.
They will submit information regarding workplan prioritization to the City Manager.
Certain items may have to be deferred.
• Because the Working Group did not make any recommendations regarding one-time
application of Delta Dust in 2017, staff will proceed with 2017 relocations without the use
of Delta Dust on receiving sites. Staff’s first priority is the relocation scheduled to start in
several weeks. Staff does not think it would be feasible to include the Armory site in the
CPW SPV application.
• The subgroup must be approved by the City Manager. If approved, Keri Konold will
coordinate the subgroup.
• The report will first be sent to the City Manager, then to City Council with an information
packet on June 1. City Council may be addressing prairie dog issues during their study
session on September 26. Keri Konold will provide more information about the study
session as soon as it becomes available.
10
Prairie Dog Working Group – Task Group Meeting
August 29, 2017
66 Cherryvale Road
ATTENDANCE
Participants: Dan Brandemuehl, Patrick Comer, Elle Cushman, Keri Konold, Lindsey Sterling Krank,
Joy Master, Valerie Matheson, Andy Pelster, and Heather Swanson.
ACTION ITEMS
Staff Revise the recommendations based on the Task Group’s discussion.
Keri Konold Compile the revised document and organize the supplemental document.
Send the document to the Prairie Dog Working Group by the end of the day
on September 7.
Lindsey Sterling • Discuss the outcomes of this meeting Deb, Amy, and Eric and address
Krank their questions.
• Send Keri the spreadsheet that explains burrow depth. It will be
included as an attachment to the summary.
Dan Discuss the outcomes of this meeting with Aaron and address his questions.
Brandemuehl
Pat Comer Discuss the outcomes of this meeting with Carse and address her questions.
OVERVIEW
Prior to the meeting, each of the recommendations developed by the full Prairie Dog Working
Group (PDWG) was assigned to a staff member to develop. The staff team provided the Task Group
with a 7-page summary of recommendations, as well as a longer “support document” to provide
additional information about the recommendations. The draft recommendations were reviewed
and refined by other members of staff, and the master document was compiled and sent to the Task
Group.
Boulder City Council has made the decision to change the Prairie Dog Working Group’s scheduled
meeting on September 26 to an Information Packet (IP). This will likely be submitted to City Council
in late September or early October. It will include the final version of the phase one
recommendations and information on phase two. City Council may also be asked to complete a poll
with longer-term issues to be addressed in phase two so that the Prairie Dog Working Group knows
where to dedicate their energy.
GROUP DISCUSSION ON RECOMMENDATIONS

The staff lead for each recommendation provided an overview of the proposed recommendation,
and the Task Group provided suggestions for revision.
Recommendation 1: Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing relocation/take sites on

both public and private land.
Staff Presentation
Val Matheson, the staff lead for this recommendation, described the rationale behind the
development of the proposed recommendation.
1
• The Administrative Rule was used as the structure for the priorities in this
recommendation.
• A sentence was added about the prioritization of prairie dogs that have re-colonized an area
where they had been lawfully removed. Eleven prairie dogs were left at Foothills
Community Park last spring, and this year there are 62 prairie dogs there.
• This proposal also includes a definition of imminent construction. It is defined as
demonstration to a high degree of probability that the land will be developed within 15
months.
• A fourth priority was given to sites where the landowner or the city department’s desired
future use conflicts with the presence of prairie dogs. This priority was not in the
Administrative Rule. This was added in part to accommodate Naropa University’s concerns
regarding prairie dogs.

Clarifying Questions
Participants asked clarifying questions about Recommendation 1. Questions are indicated in italics
with the responses below.

Is Naropa currently planning the development construction?
They have been planning construction for many years, but they are not pushing a plan forward, so it
is not imminent. To be considered first-priority under this proposal, they would have to become an
imminent development.

What is the best way to accommodate developers who do not want to prolong their timeline?
It benefits everyone to time the relocation for the summer months. If relocation occurs at a time
when development plans are not imminent, prairie dogs may recolonize the area. It would be
unfortunate to relocate a colony then have to spend resources to prevent recolonization.

Is the current timeline working for developers?
The timeline does not always work, because it is often hard to judge whether a development is 15
months from construction. With Naropa, the 15-month criterion did not line up with the
landowner’s intentions. Relocating prairie dogs may have delayed construction plans for Diagonal
Crossing, but that was because they notified the city of the project in the middle of the winter.

Where do city land priorities fit into this prioritization?
That could fit into either priority one or two. For example, Foothills Community Park fits into
priority one because it has caused damage to public facilities. Valmont is likely a number two
priority because it is designated for removal and has a phased plan in place, but funding is being
identified and development is not yet imminent.

What does it mean for a plan to be approved in a city context? Does it have to be funded in the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP)?
The land must be designated, and there must be a phasing schedule. It does not have to be funded
yet.

The third relocation priority is confusing. What is an example of a third-priority site?
A third-priority site might have a colony that is identified in the Urban Wildlife Management Plan or
the Grassland Plan for removal, but is not the highest priority, except for the fact that conflicts with
adjacent neighbors have resulted in sustained lethal control on the adjacent private property.

2
How is this prioritization different from past regulations?
For the past ten years, City of Boulder sites have been first-priority. Lethal control permits have
been issued to private property owners because all receiving sites had been designated for city
prairie dogs. This proposal does not distinguish between public and private lands for first priority
ranking. A development on private property where lethal control is an option would get priority
over agricultural sites where lethal control can be delayed. It also describes why sites are not first-
priority. The criteria for the sending site came from the Administrative Rule.

Will the City of Boulder be doing more lethal control on their own land as a result of this
prioritization?
This is not yet known. There will be fewer receiving sites for city prairie dogs due to receiving sites
being used for private property prairie dogs. Related, the City has not captured up-to-date data on
private properties with prairie dogs.

How many first-priority public sites is the City of Boulder relocating this year?
The City of Boulder is relocating Diagonal Crossing (private) 6201 Spine Road in Gunbarrel
(private), and Foothills Community Park (City).

Group Discussion
• It may be worth specifying that the proposal only includes private property sites within
Boulder City limits.
• City Council wants to minimize lethal control. It is unclear whether they have a preference
about where the lethal control occurs (private or public lands).
• It would be worth discussing how to prioritize within the first priority. Perhaps a rotating
system could work (i.e., public, private, public, private). This may be challenging,
considering how much land Boulder owns. There are also competing needs within city
lands. It should come down to the imminence of lethal impact. The City Manager should
have the authority to make final decisions when necessary.
• Less public money would be spent if there were more private relocations (the landowners
pay for the relocation). However, this would result in more use of lethal control on public
sites. This may be controversial; public land is more visible and the community feels more
responsibility for avoiding lethal control.
• In the future, new types of agricultural properties may take precedence. For example, the
city has identified properties for conversion to organic vegetable production (OSMP
Agricultural Management Plan) to address the priority of local food availability within the
city. When they are ready for conversion/development, the site might then become first-
priority.
• Under this proposed prioritization, the majority of public sites fall into the second priority.
Therefore, it is likely that public/private conflicts would occur less often.
• There is a less vocal group of people who care about agricultural properties. This proposal
does not improve the situation for agricultural sites. When development on agricultural
properties becomes imminent (e.g. conversion to vegetables), the situations would be
described on a case-by-case basis.

Agreements
Based on the discussion above, the Task Group agreed to the following.
• The first priority will be visually laid out to delineate the subset of priorities. It should be
laid out as:
1. Imminent danger is the first priority.
3
1A. Public lands
1B. Private lands
• Specify that the City Manager will have the authority to make a final decision when
necessary.
Recommendation 2: Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing receiving sites on public
lands within existing plans and develop recommendations for making receiving sites more
feasible; develop recommendations for increasing landowner and stakeholder acceptance of
the use of receiving sites.
Staff Presentation
Heather Swanson, the staff lead for this recommendation, described the rationale behind the
• This recommendation presents a new set of criteria to prioritize receiving sites on Prairie
Dog Conservation Areas (PCAs) and Grassland Preserves.
• Page three of the supplemental document provides a scoring system of criteria for
prioritizing relocation sites. This system would help to identify the properties with
challenges.
• This recommendation also includes information about stakeholder engagement. It proposes
a process for assessing the relocation and developing a plan with neighbors. This process
would have to be initiated far ahead of the relocation.
• Page seven of the supplemental document provides additional considerations associated
with expanding receiving site availability.
• One item for consideration is that other recommendations (plague management) could
work in direct opposition to this recommendation since achievement of those goals could
lead to sustained occupancy in the Grassland Preserves above thresholds that would allow
for relocation, thus reducing the availability of receiving sites in the long term within
Grassland Preserves.
Would staff assess sites in the PCA that has been previously hit by the plague?
Yes, if the site is open, Boulder City staff would lead that process.
What does “planned consultative stakeholder engagement” mean?

The term refers to a spectrum of public engagement. On one end of the spectrum is collaboration, in
which stakeholder agreements influence and drive policy. In the middle of the spectrum is
consultation, in which stakeholder feedback is considered, but the process will continue even if
there is not full agreement. Informing the public is on the other end of the spectrum. In the past, the
city has simply informed the public about decisions.
One of the criteria is “habitat suitability.” Does that refer to the quality of the habitat or the potential
viability of the population?
Habitat suitability refers to the suitability as defined in the habitat suitability model in the
Grassland Plan that attempts to balance multiple objectives, finding the best place for prairie dogs
while preserving other habitats.
4
On page six of the supplemental document it states that “during times of low occupation, opportunities
exist for relocation.” How does the City of Boulder define “low occupation?”
For the Grassland Preserves, low occupation means below 10% prairie dog occupation.
Will this recommendation result in the expansion of receiving site options?

It depends. The recommendation itself does not create additional receiving sites, because that can
only be accomplished through a plan revision. However, working with adjacent landowners will
hopefully allow the use of receiving sites that are already available, and working to decrease the
time needed for sites to meet relocation criteria may increase site availability
Group Discussion
• Adjacent landowners will not always support prairie dog relocation. There are places that
will never be receiving sites due to adjacent landowner concerns.
• What are the thresholds for support or lack thereof? In certain situations, the city would
proceed with a relocation even if there was not full neighbor support. The intent of the
stakeholder involvement is to create a procedure that really listens and engages neighbors
in discussions about mitigation and diffuses potential conflicts.
• The scoring system should be tested and prototyped before it is recommended. It is
important to remember that the scoring system is a prioritization tool, not a decision-
making tool.
• To issue a relocation permit, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) requires a certain level of
community support (or lack of objection). City staff should work to develop a more
proactive approach to generate support. The Prairie Dog Coalition could assist in the
creation of support. There should also be a substantial effort to spread public education
about prairie dogs well in advance of a relocation project. There are opportunities for the
city to partner with advocacy groups to accomplish this education.
• There should be more stakeholder engagement early in the process. There should also be a
clear definition of how the engagement will impact decisions. The recommendation
document should explicitly say that consultation will occur even if it impacts the project
development timeframe. Education, outreach and support should be increased. A proactive
approach should be taken.
• There are questions and concerns about conducting extensive stakeholder engagement on
sites that have previously been used as receiving sites. The amount of time since the last
relocation could be a factor. Forgoing stakeholder engagement on sites that had previously
been permitted for relocation may reduce the bureaucracy. Public engagement must be
done on a project-by-project basis to meet state guidelines.
• The Administrative Rule includes recommendations for how relocations should occur on
Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) land, but it does not provide any information about
how relocations should occur on City of Boulder Parks and Recreation land or other city
properties. Some of the guidelines for Parks and Recreation may mimic OSMP, but there
may be some variation.
• City of Boulder Parks and Recreation has not assessed their areas as prairie dog receiving
sites like OSMP did with their Grassland Plan. Parks and Recreation had never been
directed to take non-Parks and Recreation prairie dogs and the Administrative Rule does
not cover Parks and Recreation yet. Parks and Recreation sites should not become de facto
receiving sites simply because there has not been a system-wide evaluation. Some Parks
and Recreation sites are in poor condition. Parks and Recreation needs time to perform
evaluations and write a plan. Waiting for a plan may be time prohibitive, but at minimum,
site assessments should be conducted prior to pursuing an area as a receiving site. This
5
recommendation should specify that Parks and Recreation sites can receive relocated
prairie dogs once an assessment has been conducted. Or, the recommendation could simply
state that evaluations will occur on a site-by-site basis when the site is unoccupied. This
should apply to all non-OSMP city land that could serve as a receiving site.
• In terms of the relocation timeline, there was discussion about extending relocations into
November. Relocations that begin by October 1 or October 15 may extend into November,
but relocations cannot begin in November.
Agreements
• The document will clarify that there should be, at a minimum, consultative stakeholder
engagement in advance. It should mention that public engagement may impact the
development timeline.
• In terms of the scoring system, the document will clearly state that it is not designed to
determine the outcome. It is a prioritization tool.
• The document will include a statement about pursuing partnership and education
opportunities to proactively build community support.
• The document will include vegetation criteria for PCAs.
• The document will specify that evaluation of Parks and Recreation sites and other potential
city receiving sites will occur on a site-by-site basis. It will also state the need for a system-
wide analysis.
• In terms of relocation guidelines for Parks and Recreation land, the document will state:
“Pending the explicit development of guidelines for Parks and Recreation, the guidelines for
OSMP in the Administrative Rule will be used for Parks and Recreation where applicable.”
Recommendation 3: On approved sites, ensure that the number of prairie dogs to be relocated
have adequate accommodations, utilizing existing or artificial burrows (including nest boxes)
and taking into consideration existing native vegetation.
Staff Presentation
• The intent of this recommendation is to maximize the relocation potential on PCAs. While
this will be different for every site, it may require the installation of infrastructure (mostly
nest boxes).
• The situation in the Grassland Preserves is more nuanced due to multiple conservation
priorities. This recommendation lays out three potential situations. The first is in areas with
non-native vegetation, or where the soil has previously been tilled or disturbed. The second
is in areas of intact native vegetation that have not been tilled or previously disturbed. The
third is in areas of rare plant communities or directly adjacent to these communities if the
associated disturbance presents a threat to the conservation of the plant communities. Page
12 of the supplemental document provides a thorough description of how best to minimize
disturbances while still accommodating prairie dogs. Analyses would be site-specific. It
would be helpful to have a contractor conduct a risk analysis of ground disturbance
associated with prairie dog relocations in the context of intact grassland patches in a
landscape context and define/provide a threshold for nest box disturbance.
• The recommendation refers to plant communities ranked by Colorado Natural Heritage
Program as S1, S2, or S3. This system ranks plant species along a spectrum of abundance. S1
means that the species is critically imperiled; and S3 means that the species is vulnerable.
6

When was the most recent insect survey conducted?
Butterfly surveys were conducted in 2015-2016 in some parts of the system. There has not been a
system-wide survey, or comprehensive surveys of other insect groups.

When and where is auguring going to be used, and should the document mention where the use of
auguring is and is not appropriate?
The document says that auguring will not be used for the most part. There have been cases where
prairie dogs have successfully established colonies in augured burrows, but it is not clear what
conditions allow for successful establishment to occur. The document states that there will be
sufficient infrastructure for the prairie dogs. The term “sufficient” will be determined with the
contractor. Lindsey has a spreadsheet that shares her organization’s view of the best burrow depth
for different prairie dogs. Lindsey will share this spreadsheet with Keri, and it will be included
in the summary.

How successful has the city been at keeping coteries together after a relocation?
The contractors working with the city have been fairly successful at keeping coteries together.
Before any relocation, the relocators observe prairie dog behavior and identify and mark coteries.

Group Discussion
• If the receiving site has different soil, new and different technologies can be assessed. Four-
inch burrow width should be the standard.
• Maintaining the aesthetic of the artificial burrows is difficult. The tunnels stick out, which is
unattractive. However, when the tunnels are cut back, it is difficult to find them. GPS may be
an option.

Agreements
• To address the issues related to Parks and Recreation mentioned during the discussion
about the second recommendation, this recommendation will state that “on non-OSMP-
managed city land that has been identified for long-term prairie dog protection,
infrastructure will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, pending the development of non-
OSMP city guidelines.”
• The document will specify that sufficient receiving burrows will be defined with the
contractor on a site-by-site basis.

Recommendation 4: Define successful prairie dog relocation; this includes continual evaluation

Staff Presentation
Joy Master, the staff lead for this recommendation, described the rationale behind the development
of the proposed recommendation.
• There are many different criteria for defining successful prairie dog relocation. Joy worked
with Heather, Keri, and Lindsey to define parameters. This recommendation focuses on
what success means, not how to achieve it. There is also a difference between success of the
7
relocation itself versus success of the relocation in context of the landscape and overall
objectives.
• Adaptive management and flexibility are core principles of this recommendation.
Techniques should be assessed, tried out, evaluated, then adjusted after each relocation.
• The supplemental document defines success and lays out caveats. The caveat list was not
intended to be all-inclusive.
• The supplemental document provides general guidelines for rating successful relocation.
Is it necessary to conduct monitoring 24 months after relocation or is a year adequate?

The monitoring conducted 24 months after a relocation assesses wildlife and vegetation. It
evaluates the long-term sustainability of the site. Monitoring conducted 12 months after relocation
assesses the short-term success of the relocation. The distinction between the two monitoring
objectives should be bifurcated in the report. Boulder County requires their contractors to send a
monitoring follow-up report 24 months after the relocation.
What is the purpose of the ranking chart?

The chart is intended to assist with adaptive management. If a colony is rated poorly, it will be
assessed. The chart places the focus on results.
This recommendation focuses on the receiving sites. Are there also criteria for the take sites?
Page 23 of the supplemental document includes a best management practice about removal site
maintenance. It was not included as a criterion for success because this recommendation focuses on
whether the relocation on the site was successful.
Who is going to do this monitoring?

It will likely be a case-by-case negotiation between the City of Boulder and the contractor. The
financial landscape shifts yearly.
Does the City of Boulder always address the prairie dog management plan with the contractor or
would that have to be integrated into the work plan?
For private properties, Val Matheson would write a statement about what the contractor must do to
prevent recolonization in the agreement. In terms of public lands, there are state regulations that
the city follows.
Group Discussion
• There should be a best management practice (BMP) for moving coteries together. Once
agreed upon, the BMPs should lay out the specifics of a stable prairie dog population and
how to best determine that stability.
• Monitoring should not disturb prairie dogs. There should be passive measurements of
success.
• Evaluations should account for natural mortality, and typical dispersal.
• Every site is different. The definition of success must be wide enough to adapt to the range
of situations.
• It is important that the receiving site infrastructure is adequate.
• The rating could be shifted to be “poor, fair, good, very good, excellent.”
8
• There is criteria used by The Nature Conservancy that could be used as a reference point for
how to set measurable goals.
• This recommendation lays out the effectiveness measures, but it does not include an
implementation monitoring plan. Adaptive management requires a focus on
implementation. This could be included in the scope of work with the individual
contractors.
• There should be goals for take sites and receiving sites. Monitoring take sites would help
ensure that the prairie dogs do not re-colonize the area.
• There are state regulations that ensure prairie dogs and the burrows at the take site have
insecticides applied to them before relocation. Maybe Delta Dust should not be applied
above ground at the non-regulated release site if the goal is to preserve the pollinator
habitat. Everyone, including the City Manager, needs to understand the nuances of Delta
Dust application.
Agreements
• The document will include a statement about the purpose of the chart as a tool for adaptive
management.
• The document will specify that the responsibility for monitoring will be negotiated between
the city and contractors on a case-by-case basis.
• A goal statement about the implementation of measures to discourage prairie dog
recolonization will be added to the document. It should also state that a plan must be in
place if, for some reason, all the prairie dogs cannot be removed from the take site.
• The document will mention the need for an articulated plan at the take site.
Recommendation 5: Collaboratively prepare, with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, a research

proposal for US Department of Agriculture approval for the use of the sylvatic plague vaccine
(SPV) on the southern grasslands in 2018 and beyond.
Staff Presentation
• This recommendation lays out a 2018 pilot project to use SPV on all occupied acres in the
Southern Grassland Preserve, which is one third of the Grassland Preserve.
• There have been preliminary discussions with CPW, but no intense collaboration yet. The
timeframe, scope, budget, study plan for the project will be determined in collaboration
with CPW.
• The results of this project will be evaluated after one year.
Page 28 of the supplemental paper is confusing. It says that the City of Boulder plans to complete a
draft plague management plan. The plague management plan is separate from the pilot project,
correct?
The pilot project is not the same thing as the plague management plan. This should be clarified in
the document.
9
How does this impact relocations? Can the city continue to use the vaccine or Delta Dust before the
program starts?
The vaccine is not included in the relocation permitting process. This has nothing to do with
relocations; it is just a study. CPW may be interested in a paired research study with Boulder
County, where the County uses dust and the vaccine and the city uses the vaccine.

Does this study eliminate the possibility of using plague management tools other than SPV?
No.

When does the city expect to see results of this research study?
Without knowing the details of the monitoring, it is hard to tell.

Is there a USDA release date for public availability of the SPV?
It may be a year or two. It is currently being distributed more than ever before. There are variables
related to manufacturing and distribution that may impact production.

Group Discussion
• From a research perspective, one year is not a very long time. There is nothing in the
document that limits the research to one year. Page 29 of the supplemental document lays
out the future beyond 2018.
• There is a vaccine for the black-footed ferret, but it is not oral. This project moves the city in
the right direction in terms of potential black-footed ferret reintroduction.

Agreements
• The document will refer to the pilot project as a research proposal, rather than a plague
management plan.
• The document should include a description of the comparative research design with
Boulder County.
• The document will state that “pending successful outcomes, the city anticipates continuing
the project.”

NEXT STEPS
• Peak Facilitation will provide a meeting summary draft within a week.
• The revised recommendation documents will separate background information from
recommendations. The lead for each recommendation will do the revisions, then staff will
rearrange the supplemental document. This document will be sent out to the full Prairie
Dog Working Group by the end of the day on Thursday, September 7.
• The full Prairie Dog Working Group meets on Sept 11.
• Task Group members will individually reach out to specific members of the Prairie Dog
Working Group to prepare them and ensure minimal discussion duplication.
o Lindsey will talk to Deb, Amy, and Eric.
o Dan will talk to Aaron.
o Pat will talk to Carse.
• Future e-mails sent from Peak Facilitation will explicitly lay out the homework and
deadlines.

10
September 11, 2017
Open Space Mountain Parks Annex: 7315 Red Deer Drive
FINAL MEETING SUMMARY
ATTENDANCE
Participants: Kristin Cannon, Pat Comer, Aaron Cook, Keri Konold, Lindsey Sterling Krank,
Joy Master, Amy Masching, Valerie Matheson, Andy Pelster, Carse Pustmueller, Eric Sims,
Heather Swanson
ACTION ITEMS
Amy • Review the revised first recommendation’s definition of “plan.”
Masching • Review the revised second recommendation for stakeholder
engagement language.
Aaron Cook • Review the revised first recommendation’s definition of “plan.”
Peak • Send out a Doodle poll for possible meeting dates in October.
Facilitation • Send out the meeting summary.
All Staff • Revise the recommendations per the Working Group’s agreements.
• Provide PDWG with available data on acres/map of the Southern
Grasslands, acres/map/boundaries of native vegetation on
Southern Grasslands, and acres/boundaries of past and present
prairie dog colonies on the Southern Grasslands.
All PDWG • Indicate your availability for the next meeting on the Doodle poll
Members that Peak Facilitation send out.
WORKING GROUP MEMBER STATEMENTS AND DISCUSSION OF GOALS AND GUIDING

PRINCIPLES
Several Prairie Dog Working Group members provided statements about their general
objectives for Phase Two of the Working Group.
• It is important that the Working Group consider all prairie dogs for relocation, and
that enough land is made available. The best relocation methods should be used.
This includes artificial burrows if necessary, and the best available science should
guide decisions.
• The Working Group must define and agree to the overarching goals of the PDWG.
The 2017 recommendations are piecemeal ideas that have been considered
independently from the larger goal of effective prairie dog conservation. While
prairie dog conservation and sustainability have been discussed, the group has not
clearly defined these terms. Effective prairie dog conservation requires the creation
of a large block of active prairie dog habitat that will sustainably support prairie dog
populations as well as their commensal species such as the black-footed ferret.
While there are many aspects to the complicated prairie dog issue, and it is easy to
1
get lost in the details when creating recommendations, the overall goal should be
clear and should drive the creation of PDWG’s recommendations for 2018 and
beyond that are submitted to the City Manager. There should be a guiding theme or
principle that prioritizes the Working Group’s recommendations and ensures its
efforts are clear, worthwhile, and effective.
• City Council’s directive to the PDWG was to establish a group with a full range of
community perspectives who could create adaptive management practices. City
Council did not direct the Prairie Dog Working Group to define the overarching goal
for prairie dog management in the City of Boulder. The City of Boulder’s goals
related to prairie dogs are laid out in multiple plans. Discussion of overarching goals
should be the first step in phase two if the Working Group decides that
understanding of the group’s goal is their priority.
• The information packet (IP) submitted to City Council should specify that the
Working Group plans to establish its goals and guiding principles during phase two.
The Working Group will then work toward its goal by evaluating current plans and
policies to assess areas of alignment and recommending changes to existing plans
and procedures.
REVIEW AND FINALIZATION OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

City of Boulder staff has worked to flesh out the Prairie Dog Working Group’s five
recommendations from Phase One. Staff summarized the recommendations and Working
Group members offered suggestions for revision. Included in the discussion were the
changes proposed by the Task Group developed by the full PDWG at their last meeting of
Phase One to work with staff to flesh out the recommendations.
Recommendation #1: Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing relocation/take

sites on both public and private lands.
Staff Presentation
Val Matheson, the staff lead for this recommendation, described the rationale behind the
• The Administrative Rule was used as the framework for the priorities in this
recommendation.
• The first priority was given to sites with imminent development and to areas where
prairie dogs have re-colonized after they had been lawfully removed. Eleven prairie
dogs were left at Foothills Community Park last year, and this spring there were 62
prairie dogs there.
• This proposal also includes a definition of imminent construction. It is defined as
“demonstration to a high degree of probability that the land will be developed
within 15 months.”
• When the Prairie Dog Task Group met, they agreed to create a sub-prioritization
within the first category to accommodate the possibility that there may be
competing priorities. City land was given priority over private land. The second sub-
priority within the first category was sites that have a plan but are not facing
2
imminent development (e.g., the initial prairie dog relocation of Foothills
Community Park).
• Third priority was given to City-owned sites with significant adjacent neighbor
conflicts that have resulted in sustained lethal control of prairie dogs.
• Fourth priority was given to sites where the landowner or the City department’s
desired future use conflicts with the presence of prairie dogs. This priority was not
in the Administrative Rule.
Group Discussion
• The Working Group discussed that most sites would fall into the first priority and
that capacity to meet second, third, and fourth priorities would be limited. The
document must provide guidance for situations in which multiple sites are equally
imminent.
• Some members of the Working Group expressed concern that many prairie dogs
deemed not to be in imminent danger would not be relocated due to capacity issues.
This recommendation would likely result in more private relocations.
• This recommendation only sets priorities within existing relocation sites; it does not
create more receiving sites. Creation of additional receiving sites should be
discussed during phase two.
• Naropa developers would like the sub-prioritization of City lands removed. Instead,
City of Boulder staff should make decisions about which sites are the most
imminent. The Prairie Dog Task Group agreed to prioritize City sites largely due to
the expected community response; Task Group members thought that there would
be less controversy about lethal control use on private lands than on public lands.
However, the Naropa representative in the Working Group has had an experience
that would suggest otherwise. Naropa received over 400,000 signatures protesting
their application for a kill permit. They have been trying to move their prairie dogs
for eight years, and other developers have jumped ahead and received relocation
permits before them because Naropa did not have a development plan. Naropa is
developing extended material for horticultural classes/experiential gardening and
will present a plan for that.
• The Working Group must decide if and when lethal control of prairie dogs is okay. If
the Working Group decides lethal control is not okay, this prioritization is futile.
Staff said that City Council asked that lethal control be minimized, not eliminated.
Some members of the working group heard Council members state that they didn’t
want prairie dogs killed.
• There was discussion about whether to keep the prioritization of sites that have
experienced recolonization after prairie dogs were lawfully removed.
• It is impossible to predict how often two sites may have equal imminence at the
same time; every year is different. The City of Boulder receives an average of one
private property application for lethal control per year. The amount of receiving
sites will shift every year. If multiple development plans, all intending to use lethal
control, were submitted at once, the City of Boulder would prioritize the sites with
prairie dog numbers that matched receiving sites.
3
Agreements
Based on the discussion above, the Working Group agreed to the following.
• Delete the second bullet of the first priority (“if there are multiple sites within this
category, projects on the city property will be granted available receiving sites prior
to projects on private property”). Insert that the City Manager has the ultimate
decision-making authority.
• Insert a 5th priority: The City of Boulder will take prairie dogs from outside City of
Boulder limits.
• Insert a definition of “plan” within the first priority. Wherever there is an explicit or
implied reference to a plan, define what it means. Insert examples of reasonable
development. Amy Masching and Aaron Cook will review this.
Recommendation #2: Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing receiving sites on
sites more feasible; develop recommendations for increasing landowner and
stakeholder acceptance of the use of existing receiving sites.
Staff Presentation
Heather Swanson, the staff lead for this recommendation, described the rationale behind
the development of the proposed recommendation.
• This recommendation presents a new set of criteria to prioritize receiving sites on
Prairie Dog Conservation Areas (PCAs) and Grassland Preserves. The Task Group
discussed the addition of an example, which can be done before the submission of
the information packet.
• This recommendation also includes information about stakeholder engagement. It
proposes a process for assessing the relocation sites and developing a plan with
neighbors. This process would have to be initiated far ahead of the relocation.
• This recommendation also includes information about how to make receiving sites
more feasible.
• One item for consideration is that other potential future recommendations (e.g.,
plague management) could work in direct opposition to this recommendation since
achievement of those goals could lead to sustained occupancy in the Grassland
Preserves above thresholds that would allow for relocation, thus reducing the
availability of receiving sites in the long term within Grassland Preserves.
Group Discussion
• According to some members of the PDWG, creating more receiving sites is not
included in this recommendation as it requires a policy change. The only changes
that could be made in phase one are related to the improvement of neighbor
conflicts. It may be possible to modify criteria that have built-in flexibility. There are
certain criteria with explicit thresholds, such as vegetation, that would not be able to
be modified.
4
• Some members of the PDWG maintain that creating more receiving sites
(particularly on the Southern Grasslands) is essential to prairie dog conservation
and will be discussed in phase two.
• The language should be changed from “strategies to increase availability of receiving
sites” to “strategies to increase the availability of existing receiving sites” or
“strategies to decrease the time required for receiving sites to become available.”
• There should be a paragraph in the recommendation document that describes what
is in the supplemental document.
• The scoring system on Page Two has never been tested. It is important that the
Working Group know how the scenarios could play out. The document should
clarify why the scoring system has been recommended, and the supplemental
document should provide an example. The document should also specify that the
scoring system will not be used to restrict the number of available sites, but rather
to prioritize them.
• From a prairie dog advocacy perspective, the first consideration should be habitat
suitability. After the habitat is assessed as good prairie dog habitat, neighbor
conflicts and other land use conflicts on the area should be addressed and mitigated
so that the habitat is not rejected for prairie dog use This recommendation should
clarify the steps that will occur. The PCAs and the grassland preserves have different
levels of criteria. Assessing habitat suitability first would likely narrow the
opportunities to a smaller subset of sites.
• Prairie dog conservation areas are small and ultimately provide limited prairie dog
habitat and population expansion. The focus should be on the Southern Grasslands
where there is an opportunity to create large-block active prairie dog habitat to
support sustainable populations of prairie dogs and prairie dog commensal species.
• From a conservation conflict transformation perspective, it is important to consider
the words used to describe community engagement. For example, the phrase
“increasing neighbor acceptance” may be interpreted as an effort to persuade,
rather than collaborate. A better way to say it would be “increase stakeholder and
neighbor engagement in the relocation site process.” The term “outreach” also
implies that the convener is imparting knowledge on the public.
• There are both long-term and short-term components to the stakeholder/neighbor
engagement. There are broad community conversations that must take place to
support the short-term decisions. The document should capture that there is a cost-
benefit analysis of investing in short-term community engagement efforts without
supporting a simultaneous long-term effort.
• At some point, the City of Boulder may have to decide to use lands that have social
conflict. The City of Boulder needs to know the threshold for community
engagement that would allow the City to proceed with a relocation without
receiving full community support. This should not be framed as an “endpoint” of
engagement, but rather a potential decision point. There should not be tight
parameters, as every project will differ.
• The Working Group discussed whether the recommendation should specify that the
stakeholder engagement process is an effort to meet state relocation permit
5
requirements. Doing so may provoke some questions from the community about the
integrity of the process.

Agreements
• Change the heading from “strategies for increasing stakeholder and neighbor
acceptance of relocation site use” to “mitigation of conflicts with adjacent
landowners.”
• The revised scoring system on Page Two should be moved to the supplemental
material and should include a clarifying statement about its purpose.
• On Page Four, the heading should be changed from “strategies to increase
availability of receiving sites” to “strategies to increase the feasibility of existing
receiving sites.”
• The document should clarify that the criteria will not be used to decrease receiving
site availability, but rather to prioritize receiving sites. Bold this statement.
• The document should list the Grassland Preserves first and the PCAs second.
• Where the document has any language related to “community outreach,” replace it
with “community engagement.” Amy Masching will review this.
• On Page Three, in the fourth bullet of stakeholder engagement strategies, remove
the word “robust.”
• The document should capture that there is a cost-benefit analysis of investing in
short-term community engagement efforts while supporting a simultaneous long-
term effort. Investing time now could create a long-term benefit.
• The document should state “after community engagement…” at the bottom of Page
Three.

Recommendation #3: On approved receiving sites, ensure that the number of prairie
dogs to be relocated have adequate accommodations, utilizing existing or artificial
burrows (including nest boxes) and taking into consideration existing native
vegetation.

Staff Presentation
• The intent of this recommendation is to maximize the relocation potential on PCAs.
While this will be different for every site, it may require the installation of
infrastructure (mostly nest boxes).
• The situation in the Grassland Preserves is more nuanced due to multiple
conservation priorities. This recommendation lays out three potential situations.
The first is in areas with non-native vegetation, or where the soil has previously
been tilled or disturbed. The second is in areas of intact native vegetation that have
not been tilled or previously disturbed. The third is in areas of rare plant
communities or directly adjacent to these communities if the associated disturbance
presents a threat to the conservation of the plant communities.
6
• Land that is not managed by Open Space Mountain Parks (OSMP), such as Parks and
Recreation land or Utility land, will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Hopefully a
comprehensive assessment of Parks and Recreation land will be conducted soon.
• The recommendation refers to plant communities ranked by Colorado Natural
Heritage Program as S1, S2, or S3. This system ranks plant species along a spectrum
of abundance. S1 means that the species is critically imperiled; and S3 means that
the species is vulnerable.
Group Discussion
• Augured burrows will not be used because many feel that they are not as successful
and do not provide sufficient cover.
• The recommendation specifies that the preservation of relocated prairie dogs will
be balanced with preservation of intact native plant communities. There are likely
no receiving sites that are completely covered by rare plant communities. Without
having done the analysis, it is thought that this recommendation would not
eliminate sites. The recommendation should specify that rare plant communities
(and the directly adjacent area) embedded in a larger colony will not have nest
boxes, but the rest of the colony might still be able to use nest boxes. It is unlikely
that the use of these criteria would not exclude a single prairie dog colonies for
relocation, but some members of the PDWG believe it could result in inadequate
accommodation because of the proposed nest box restrictions.
• The City of Boulder currently conducts site-by-site evaluations in relation to nest
box installation, but these evaluations have not been based on plant communities.
This recommendation provides a framework for analysis.
• The recommendation only refers to plant communities, not rare insect or animal
species. The City of Boulder has only collected lepidoptera surveys on colonies that
have an established transect running through them. The host communities have
been mapped, but rare plant/species surveys are not made publicly available.
However, it may be possible to generalize rare plant/species on a map, using one
color to signify all rare communities.
• The Colorado Natural Heritage Program rankings have not been tested on city lands.
Reference to the rankings should be removed and replaced by a more general
statement. From a vegetation and plant ecology perspective, the ranking is the bare
minimum, and there are likely one percent of plants that fall into the critically
imperiled category.
• There are concerns about the proposed restriction on nest boxes within native
vegetation areas of the Grassland Preserves (referencing the second bullet of the
recommendation, specifically). Some Working Group members had questions about
how much actual disturbance nest box installation creates. There are 65 acres
occupied by prairie dogs on the Southern Grasslands and many more unoccupied
acres with native vegetation. Some Working Group members thought that in the few
past/present occupied prairie dog acres, the prairie dogs should have adequate nest
boxes to insure their survival after relocation even if that means putting nest boxes
where there is native vegetation, They articulated that any disturbance to native
vegetation from nest boxes could be mitigated by reseeding of native vegetation so
7
that adequate accommodation is provided to prairie dogs being relocated onto areas
with native vegetation.
• It is difficult to balance competing priorities on the grasslands. The Grassland
Management Plan references prairie dogs as one of the constituents on the
Grassland Preserves but does not advocate for maximizing the protection of one
species over another. However, the Plan does call for a large block of active prairie
dog habitat that will support commensal species.
• OSMP is considering issuing a request for proposals (RFP) to do a risk analysis of
the impact of nest box installation. The risk analysis would assess the importance of
the plant communities in a broader regional context as well as assess the impact of
disturbance associated with installation of nest boxes within this broader context.
This is proposed on Page 13 of the supplemental document.
• In areas with intact native vegetation, natural burrows will still be used and
maintained for prairie dog relocation.

Agreements

• The document should specify that natural burrows can still be used in rare plant
communities. If there are documented (e.g., Colorado Natural Heritage Program)
rare plant species/communities embedded in larger prairie dog colonies, nest boxes
may be used in areas where there are no rare plants. Nest boxes also cannot be used
on land directly adjacent to the rare plant species/community.
• Add that there is an option to explore seeding after the nest boxes are installed to
rehabilitate any impact from the nest box installation.
• Staff will provide the PDWG with a map of the Southern Grasslands what shows
acres/areas of intact native vegetation with an overlay of boundaries of past and
existing colonies and existing receiving sites. The recommendation should include a
ballpark number of acres that overlap intact native vegetation with prairie dog
receiving sites. Additional information is needed to finish discussion of this
recommendation.

2017 RELOCATIONS
Val Matheson provided an update on the 2017 prairie dog relocations.

Diagonal Crossing
• Diagonal Crossing is a private relocation from a property on the Diagonal Highway
to OSMP land.
• 182 prairie dogs have been relocated so far. The relocation contractors thought
they had caught nearly all the prairie dogs, then there was a sudden uptick in the
number of prairie dogs getting trapped. The contractors concluded that prairie dogs
were running across the highway to the site.
• A barrier around the Diagonal Crossing site will be installed.
• 25 artificial burrows were installed on the receiving site.

8
Foothills Community Park
• The City estimated that there were approximately 62 prairie dogs at Foothills
Community Park in the spring of this year. That number has now decreased to 40.
• The prairie dogs from this site will be relocated to the Waneka site. Dusting
occurred at the sending site.

6201 Spine Road
• The City of Boulder is working with the landowner. The landowner has secured a
relocation contract for the 20 prairie dogs on their property.
• They need to submit technical document. It is a by-right development, so the
approval could happen very fast.

NEXT STEPS
• The Prairie Dog Working Group must meet for three additional hours to complete
the discussion on Recommendation #3 and to address the final two
recommendations and the supplemental material. Phase Two work will begin in
November, after the IP has been submitted to Boulder City Council.
• Peak Facilitation will send a Doodle Poll for meeting dates in October.
• City of Boulder staff will integrate the changes to the document that the group
agreed to make.

9
October 30, 2017
ATTENDANCE
Participants: Peter Boyatt, Dan Brandemuehl, Pat Comer, Aaron Cook, Elle Cushman,
Deborah Jones, Keri Konold, Lindsey Sterling Krank, Amber Largent, Joy Master, Valerie
Matheson, Andy Pelster, Carse Pustmueller, Eric Sims, Heather Swanson, John Vickery
ACTION ITEMS
Staff Leads for Recommendation Revise recommendation #4 and #5 per the Prairie
#4 and #5 Dog Working Group’s agreements.
Peak Facilitation • Send out a Doodle poll for dates in December
and January for the next two meetings.
• Send out a Doodle poll to the subgroups that
are meeting to finalize recommendations #1-3.
Aaron Cook, Amy Masching, and • Meet to finalize recommendation #1.
Val Matheson
Deb Jones, Lindsey Sterling • Meet to finalize recommendation #2.
Krank, Joy Master, Carse
Pustmueller, Heather Swanson
Pat Comer, Aaron Cook, Deb • Meet to finalize recommendation #3.
Jones, Lindsey Sterling Krank, Joy
Master, Val Matheson, Carse
Pustmueller, Lynn Riedel (if she
wants), Heather Swanson
All PDWG Members • Indicate your availability for the next two
meetings (December and January) on the
Doodle poll that Peak Facilitation will send out.
• Mark your calendars for the second Monday of
each month (5:00 PM – 9:00 PM) through May.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The opening ten minutes of the meeting were dedicated to both verbal and written public
comment. Facilitation staff summarized the written comments. The individual comments
are summarized below.
Paula Shuler
• Shuler, a resident of north Boulder County, has a 160-acre farming property that
borders city-owned open space that continues to be damaged by prairie dogs that
have migrated from City of Boulder land.
1
• Shuler is disappointed that the Prairie Dog Working Group (PDWG) has chosen to
focus on City of Boulder properties with small numbers of prairie dogs because
there are many prairie dogs on agricultural properties and neighboring private
properties. Shuler suggests a field trip to Boulder County to see the damage from
prairie dog habitation.
• Relocation and conservation should not be the only prairie dog management
options. There are thousands of prairie dogs from Open Space and Mountain Parks
(OSMP) land in Boulder County impacting private neighboring properties. The City
of Boulder must act to help private property owners curb property damage and
devaluation due to prairie dogs.
REVIEW AND FINALIZATION OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

City of Boulder staff has worked to flesh out the PDWG’s five recommendations from Phase
One. Staff summarized the recommendations and PDWG members offered suggestions for
revision. Included in the discussion were the changes proposed by the Task Group that met
to discuss the recommendations.
Recommendation #4: Define successful prairie dog relocation; this includes continual
evaluation of new or different relocation methods, ongoing opportunities for
stakeholder engagement, and short-term, mid-term, and long-term evaluation of
success.
Staff Presentation
Joy Master, the staff lead for this recommendation, described the rationale behind the
• Joy Master examined plans from Boulder County and Fort Collins and talked with
multiple relocation contractors to gather a range of perspectives. These discussions
revealed that it is difficult to separate plans related to the implementation of
relocation from the definition of successful relocation; they are often enmeshed.
There is also a difference between success of the project overall and success as it
relates to prairie dogs and their survival.
• To define successful relocation from a project level, City of Boulder staff developed
general principles to guide relocation goals, and the Prairie Dog Task Group added
several principles.
• To define successful relocation from a prairie dog level, the recommendation defines
success as implementation of best management practices (BMPs) and stability of the
relocated colony. Pertinent BMPs were provided as well as ways to evaluate
stability.
Group Discussion
• The Task Group struggled to define success and thought that the quantifiable
measurements to evaluate stability should be kept general in the recommendation
document.
• The recommendation document includes evaluation charts to assess stability after
six months, 12 months, and 24 months. Some members of the PDWG felt that the
2
short-term, 30- to 60-day period immediately after the relocation should also be
evaluated. Some members of the PDWG felt that the recommendation should
include an evaluation five and ten years after the relocation.
• Some members of the PDWG felt that evaluations collected after two years would
not accurately reflect the success of the relocation because long-term data captures
many factors that influence a population’s survival unrelated to the initial
establishment of the colony post-relocation. There is a lack of clarity about when the
measurement of successful relocations ends and general prairie dog management
begins. PDWG members had questions about how much unique information a five-
year post-relocation assessment would contribute.
• Some members of the PDWG felt that there were too many variables to consider
when defining success, many of which are out of our control. The recommendation
does include caveats on page 7. It states: Relocations could still be considered
generally successful if these conditions are not fully met, but these ratings outline
the desired outcome and when not met should indicate that adaptation may be
required. If success goals are not met, then it should be determined if there were
controllable factors that could be altered to increase success or if this is typical.
• The criteria in this recommendation could appear to hold relocated colonies to a
higher standard for success than colonies inhabiting the rest of the landscape as it
lists success as the expansion of the population, which may be unrealistic because
expansion may not occur in the wider system. This could, however, be accounted
for in the evaluation utilizing the same caveat as previously discussed.
• The evaluation of stability lists many field data collection activities that are not
currently being done. There was a discussion about what needs to be done versus
what is feasible. The City of Boulder currently maps the prairie dog colonies every
fall through on the ground mapping of occupied areas. The long-term data of OSMP’s
Grassland Preserves measures the overall stability of the prairie dog population in
the area. It does not measure the density of specific sites because collecting data on
density is extremely labor intensive and error prone, and collecting data on
landscape scale would not be feasible. Success for the Grassland Preserves is
measured as movement toward the conservation goals articulated in the Grassland
Ecosystem Management Plan.
• The City of Boulder’s assessments have revealed a new pattern related to the plague.
Instead of epizootic outbreaks that wipe out an entire colony, there have been more
cases of the plague that have resulted in a population reduction, or having some
survivors remain after the epizootic
• Relocation contractors typically monitor the colonies they have relocated for as long
as possible, and some contractors have reported colonies lasting over 20 years. It
would be helpful if the City of Boulder’s annual assessment data were grouped into a
report that showed which colonies were relocated, so that the contractor could
assess options for making relocations more successful.
• PDWG members had questions about the proposed adaptive management practices
and some relocation experts had concerns about being asked to engage in lengthy
discussions about methods for each relocation. While implementation details are
not outlined in the recommendation document, it would be possible for the City of
3
Boulder to implement the success measures while working with relocation
contractors on a case-by-case basis. When there is a shared understanding of
success, it is easier to agree on methods. There are multiple ways to get from A to B
and still meet success criteria without defining the specific way.
• The landscape perspective seems to be missing from this recommendation. It is
unclear if this recommendation would monitor progress toward larger occupation
goals. In a functional colony, some prairie dogs may migrate, and if they are
remaining on the larger landscape, this would still be successful
• PDWG members had questions about the timeframe for evaluating BMPs during the
relocation. While there may be BMPs that do not apply to every relocation, they
would be assessed before the relocation to determine methods and after the
relocation to measure success.
• One of the goals is: to evaluate disease risks and prophylactic measures. PDWG
members had questions about the use of the word prophylactic. One example of a
prophylactic measure is the sylvatic plague vaccine. Another is the use of Delta
Dust. The City will continue to assess the pros and cons of pesticide use.
• It is important to remember that success is evaluated system-wide; there are no
colony-specific goals. The recommendation must have built-in flexibility to allow for
different future scenarios.
• Some PDWG members were concerned about the level of detail in the tables, given
the time and effort it takes conduct monitoring efforts. Members suggested
emphasizing population and expansion and generalized goals for wildlife and
vegetation, but taking out the quantifiable indicators.
• The following suggestions for change were presented by a member and discussed
by the PDWG:
o One of the stated goals is to mitigate conflicts with existing land uses or
management. The suggested change is to add to allow relocations to occur
and thrive at the end of the sentence. This is suggested because other land
uses often take priority over prairie dog habitat, and the goal should be to
mitigate conflicts to ensure successful prairie dog relocations. PDWG
members thought that the word mitigate addressed the concern raised
about this goal. The PDWG agreed to add at the take site to the bullet and
insert language about conservation.
o One of the stated goals is to support prairie dog colonies, especially in
suitable and protected areas. While not the intent, suitable in this context
can be interpreted as areas where there are minimal conflicts, which may
limit habitat to Prairie Dog Conservation Areas (PCAs). The suggested change
is: to support prairie dog colonies, especially in the Southern Grassland
Preserves, and to create a large block of prairie dog habitat. PDWG members
expressed concern that this suggested revision placed limits on the intent, as
the Southern Grassland Preserves may not always have low occupation.
Some PDWG members had questions about whether this goal refers to
ecological or habitat suitability, and suggested changing the language to
viable colonies. It was determined that the goal referred to both but that
viable was misleading as well. Some PDWG members thought that the goal of
4
supporting prairie dog colonies was too broad, as the goal of relocation is to
maintain or build population numbers. It was discussed that we would add
text about supporting the conservation of prairie dogs and this should be
resolved.
o One of the stated goals is to minimize disturbance to the land. The
suggested change is: to provide adequate accommodation with existing
burrows or artificial burrows while minimizing disturbance to the land.
Some PDWG members suggested changing the goal to minimize and
mitigate disturbance to the land and adding a second bullet for the rest.
There is also a stated goal to ensure relocations are conducted in a way that
is humane.
o One of the stated goals is to discourage prairie dog recolonization. The
revised change is to add …by nonlethal means at the end of the sentence
but the PDWG did not agree to the revision.
Agreements
• One of the goals is: to evaluate disease risks and prophylactic measures. Instead,
insert: to evaluate disease risks and the application of potential mitigation
measures.
• On page five, it states that mortality from enzootic disease outbreaks should be
considered for evaluation of success but different considerations should be given for
those that are native/natural versus those that are not, such as the plague. Some
PDWG members interpreted different consideration to mean less consideration.
This should be edited to clarify that is not the case.
• One of the stated goals is to mitigate conflicts with existing land uses or
management. Instead, insert: to mitigate conflicts with existing land uses at the
take site. Also, add language about conservation to this goal.
• One of the stated goals is to support prairie dog colonies, especially in suitable and
protected areas. Instead, insert: support prairie dog conservation goals.
• The PDWG agreed to add an additional goal: to provide adequate accommodation
with existing or artificial burrows.
• Page 2 of the recommendation describes the criteria for good indicators of stability.
The PDWG agreed to make these criteria more general and take out the charts on
pages 5 and 6.
Recommendation #5: Collaboratively prepare, with Colorado Parks and Wildlife

(CPW), a research proposal for US Department of Agriculture approval for the use of
the sylvatic plague vaccine (SPV) on the southern grasslands in 2018 and beyond.
• Heather Swanson has talked with Dan Tripp and Mike Miller at CPW and will be
scheduling a meeting to discuss the objectives of the SPV research proposal in early
December.
• The goal is to have a draft research plan by the end of 2017. It would be interesting
to work with Boulder County to do a paired study. The proposed plan is to acquire
5
enough SPV to apply it to all the active acres in southern grasslands (60.25 acres last
year). The study would likely not produce results until after the plague moves
through the landscape.
Group Discussion
• Some PDWG group members were concerned that the use of SPV would not be
approved for the study, and they wanted to discuss a contingency plan/strategy.
OSMP staff stated that there would be continual collaboration with CPW to
understand the prioritization of their SPV allocation. If there is no SPV available, this
recommendation would not be carried out.
• A one-year study is unlikely to produce any viable data with SPV alone. Some PDWG
members suggested a dual use of SPV and Delta Dust, or a double dose of SPV over
multiple years. Other members of the PDWG expressed concern about the
controversial nature and community response to the use of Delta Dust. OSMP staff
members will discuss the use of SPV in a multi-year study with CPW and Boulder
County, but there may be constraints associated with committing to a multi-year
study before completing the assessment of the results from the first year.
• The recommendation must address the tension between the goals of this study and
the rules associated with pesticide use and the Integrated Pest Management
Program (IPM). It should provide some flexibility for addressing these issues. It may
be possible to add introductory language about how this is an effort to better meet
the prairie dog conservation goals on OSMP land. It is important to remember the
tradeoffs and risks associated with committing to applying Delta Dust/SPV on every
acre of prairie dog habitat, as this would drastically reduce or stop prairie dog
mortality from the plague which would likely result in the lack of receiving sites.
• The supplemental information for this recommendation provides an overview of the
preliminary pilot framework and goals beyond 2018 in the southern grasslands. It
specifies that there will be a feasibility study after 8, and some PDWG were
concerned that there would not be any on-the-ground action.
• Some PDWG members suggested revising the plague management goal. The stated
goal is to maintain sufficient prairie dog population in the Grassland Preserves to
meet Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan defined viability measures… The
suggested revision was to create and maintain sufficient prairie dog populations.
Other members of the PDWG expressed concern that the goal of creating habitat
does not align with the interests expressed by some members of the public.
Agreements
• Change the heading of the plague management goal on page 1 to plague
management goals for the Southern Grasslands Grassland Preserve.
• In the future beyond 8 in Southern Grasslands section on page 2, specify that
it is the desire of the PDWG that this will be a multi-year study, pending the
approval of CPW.
6
NEXT STEPS FOR FINALIZING RECOMMENDATIONS
• Recommendations #1-3 should clarify that there are plans that are not related to
development.
• The supplemental information for recommendation #2 provided was copy/pasted
from recommendation #3. Heather Swanson will correct this and resend it to PDWG
members. She will also correct the calculation for Richardson II that incorrectly
states that 71+1+1 = 38.
PLAN FOR PHASE TWO OF PDWG

Heather Bergman described the proposed objectives and process for Phase Two.
• During the PDWG on September 11, several PDWG members suggested that the
group agree to prairie dog management guiding principles and values. The
objectives for Phase Two are to agree to guiding principles, identify associated
changes to plans and policies to achieve the management goal(s), and recommend
goal(s) and associated changes to plans and policies to the City Manager.
• There will likely be six meeting in Phase Two. The first meeting will be spent
reaching an agreement on guiding principles (e.g., science-based decisions,
minimization of lethal control, etc.) and values (e.g., consideration of impacts to
grasslands, agriculture, etc.).
• The PDWG will spend three meetings reaching an agreement on overall prairie dog
management goals for the City of Boulder. During the first meeting, the PDWG will
review existing goals and PDWG members will present a proposed goal statement
with associated values and considerations. During the second meeting, the PDWG
will discuss the proposals. During the third meeting, the PDWG will reach an
agreement on one or more goals.
• The final two meetings will be spent exploring the needed changes to plans and
policies to reflect agreed-upon goal(s). There will likely be some sub-group work to
discuss how specific goals relate to different plans/policies.
NEXT STEPS
• Starting in February, the PDWG will meet the first Monday of each month (through
May).
• Peak Facilitation will send out a Doodle poll with additional dates in December and
January for the next two meetings.
• Peak Facilitation will send out a Doodle poll to the subgroups that are meeting to
finalize recommendations #1-3. It may be best to have a three-hour meeting during
the day to discuss all three, and people can come for the first, second, and/or third
portion. Ideally, this group should meet before Thanksgiving.
o Aaron Cook, Amy Masching, and Val Matheson will finalize recommendation
#1.
o Deb Jones, Lindsey Sterling Krank, Joy Master, Carse Pustmueller, Heather
Swanson will finalize recommendation #2.
o Pat Comer, Aaron Cook, Deb Jones, Lindsey Sterling Krank, Joy Master, Val
Matheson, Carse Pustmueller, Lynn Riedel (if she wants), and Heather
Swanson will finalize recommendation #3.
7
Prairie Dog Working Group (PDWG)
December 18, 2017
ATTENDANCE
Participants: Dan Brandemuehl, Kristin Cannon, Pat Comer, Elle Cushman, Aaron Cook, Deborah
Jones, Keri Konold, Lindsey Sterling Krank, Amber Largent, Joy Master, Valerie Matheson, Andy
Pelster, Carse Pustmueller, Eric Sims, Heather Swanson, John Vickery
ACTION ITEMS
Heather Bergman • E-mail all Prairie Dog Working Group (PDWG) members a handout
with suggestions for how to write SMART goals.
• Send out the contact information for all PDWG members.
All PDWG members Review the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan (available here),
and the Urban Wildlife Management Plan (available here) and identify
specific concerns.
Staff Be prepared to present information regarding current goals/targets in
existing plans and policies.
Any PDWG member • Read the SMART goals handout and formulate goal statements that
planning to present meet the standards related to SMART goals.
a goal statement • Consult with other PDWG members who may not share your
perspective.
• Proactively address anticipated questions and concerns from other
PDWG members.
• Be prepared to present how the goal relates to current
plans/policies.
• Send goal statement(s) to Heather Bergman before the next meeting
Carse Pustmueller, • Meet to rework the groups of guiding principles proposed by the
Pat Comer, Deb PDWG and formulate ten guiding principles that capture the aim of
Jones, and Joy each group.
Master • Send the guiding principles to Heather Bergman by January 18.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The opening ten minutes of the meeting were dedicated to both verbal and written public comment.
There were no public comments at this meeting.
DISCUSSION OF PHASE 2
Participants shared their thoughts about the proposed Phase 2 approach. Key themes from the
discussion are captured below.
1
• There were questions about the amount of meeting time allotted to different tasks in the
Phase 2 process proposal. Some participants were concerned that too much time would be
spent agreeing to principles and goals, and not enough time would be spent exploring
needed changes to plans and policies. Some PDWG members felt that there was not an
adequate amount of time spent discussing and agreeing to changes during Phase 1, and
they expressed a concern that the final step of Phase 2 would be rushed. There must be
subgroup work accomplished between meetings to increase the efficiency of time spent
together as a full group.
• Agreeing to overall prairie dog management goals for the City of Boulder may not take
three meetings, but the guiding principles are critical because they are the goalposts for the
conversation about policy changes. Discussing goals is also important because every
suggested change to a policy made by the PDWG will have implications for other
management objectives, so the PDWG must wrestle with those tradeoffs in an informed
manner. All policy changes recommended by the group must be in service of the agreed-
upon goals. It became clear during Phase 1 that PDWG member ideas merit discussion,
which is why there are three meetings planned for presenting, discussing, and agreeing to
goals.
• The PDWG will submit their Phase 2 recommendations to the City Manager who could
potentially tell staff to make the recommended changes or bring the recommendations to
City Council to decide whether to adopt the recommended changes. Council may pick and
choose the changes they would like to implement.
• There were questions about staff’s role in Phase 2 and whether they would be able to veto
recommended changes to policies. Because the goal of Phase 2 is to recommend policy
changes, staff will share the implications of the proposed recommendations on other
management goals but will not be placed in the position of saying “no,” as they often were
during Phase 1, when the objective was to make recommendations that could be
implemented in 2017, not to recommend chances to plans and policies.
BRAINSTORM GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR FUTURE MANAGEMENT GOALS

PDWG members brainstormed guiding principles for future management goals and then sorted
similar ideas into groups. The guiding principles serve as the rules of engagement for suggested
prairie dog management goals.
Idea Group #1
• Resolve conflicts with other land uses and overcome challenges innovatively
• Be creative and innovative
• Use a decision-making approach that is flexible and adaptive
• Look at the broad picture to create something bigger than what there is today, and work
with partners to create something
• Do not reinvent the wheel
• Minimize conflict between prairie dogs and irrigated land (also in group #6)
2
Idea Group #2
• Minimize lethal control
• Emphasize humane treatment of prairie dogs
Idea Group $3
• Make science-based, fact-based, and experienced-based decisions
• Listen to experts and knowledgeable prairie dog researchers
• Provide scientific citations when possible as context for ideas
Idea Group #4
• Ensure the prairie dog is (maintained) in its role as a keystone species
• Maximize conservation of the prairie dog ecosystem
• Increase prairie dog habitat
• Maintain ecological sustainability for the prairie dogs
Idea Group #5
• Accomplish different priorities on different lands
• Have a balanced prioritization of uses across the landscape
• Do not prioritize one use over the other
• Make sure that a system-wide approach is taken when considering goals
Idea Group #6
• Minimize conflicts with neighbors
• Minimize conflict between prairie dogs and irrigated land (also in group #1)
• Increase public awareness of the role of prairie dogs on the landscape and the complexity of
prairie dog management
• Use coexistence strategies for living with prairie dogs
Idea Group #7
• Consider the full range of native ecosystems on City land
• Protect and increase/enhance native biological diversity
Idea Group #8
• Balance environmental, economic, and social sustainability principles in managing
ecosystems
• Consider economic feasibility and transparency
Idea Group #9
• Follow federal regulations, but allow the PDWG to recommend legislative changes to state
laws
• Manage within the City of Boulder Charter
3
Idea Group #10
• Have a transparency of alignment with City goals (in all the things)
• Be consistent, fair, etc., in the treatment of one another (including neighbors)
Group Discussion
The PDWG members asked each other clarifying questions about the proposed principles and
discussed which guiding principles they can support and which would be better addressed through
the goal discussion and/or the plans/policy discussion.
• PDWG members had questions about how to make the guiding principle about listening to
experts clearer in terms of defining expertise. There is a difference between listening to and
deferring to experts. The intention of this guiding principle is to ensure that goals are based
in science and experience. PDWG members should be prepared to offer citations to support
their goals.
• PDWG members had questions about whether the principle of minimizing lethal control
was meant to fit within principles of native ecosystem management or whether the person
who proposed the principle meant elimination of lethal control. The person who proposed
the principle clarified that they meant minimization, not elimination of lethal control.
• Given that prioritization of uses is an ongoing challenge, the intention of the guiding
principle about considering different priorities on different lands is to clarify that certain
areas may be prioritized for prairie dog management and other areas may be prioritized for
other management objectives, such as irrigated land. The goal is to consider the entire
ecosystem. In general, staff at Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) strive for balance
and take a system-wide approach in terms of priorities.
• The City of Boulder Charter can only be changed with a public vote. Section 76 in the
Charter specifies OSMP protocols.
• PDWG members had questions about the intent of the principle about maintaining prairie
dogs as a keystone species. The word “maintain” may convey that the PDWG does not
intend to pursue strategies to increase or enhance prairie dog populations.
• PDWG members discussed the term “adaptive management.” Some felt that pursuing
adaptive management strategies would be limiting and may stymie creativity and
innovation, and others saw adaptive management as an effort to continually reevaluate
processes and approaches. PDWG members discussed the importance of committing to
measurement and agreed to change the principle to “use a decision-making approach that is
flexible and adaptive.”
• Some may interpret the guiding principle about taking a system-wide approach as implying
that prairie dogs are not needed in certain areas if they are abundant in other areas.
However, the intention of this guiding principle is to clarify that there may be some place-
based decisions, and there may be times when prairie dogs take priority on certain lands
and times when other goals take priority.
• PDWG members had questions related to the guiding principle about protecting designated
irrigated land from prairie dog occupation. Some felt that protection of irrigated lands is
more of an outcome/goal than a guiding principle, and others thought that it was important
to specify that prairie dog occupation and irrigated lands are often in conflict. The PDWG
4
agreed to change the principle to: “minimizing conflict between prairie dogs and irrigated
land.”
DISCUSSION OF VALUES AND CONSIDERATIONS

PDWG members listed the values they would like to consider when assessing goals for prairie dog
management. When goals are presented, PDWG will think about how the goals impact the values
below.
• Agriculture/grazing
• Mixed grass prairie
• Xeric tall grass prairie
• Black tailed prairie dog
• Prairie dog associate species
• Mesic bluestem prairie
• Neighbors
• Stakeholders
• Community
• Weeds
• Climate change
• Science
• Humanity (how we interact with wildlife and each other)
• Water/drought
• At-risk species
• Exotic disease (plague)
• Feasibility
• Soil
• Recreation
• Habitat (coexistence)
• Fire
• Funding
PRAIRIE DOG MANAGEMENT PROPOSED GOALS

PDWG members began the process of proposing and discussing the benefits and challenges of new
overall prairie dog management goals. Goal statements are indicated in italics with group
discussion below.
Successful prairie dog management in the City of Boulder means s plague-free and interconnected
population of prairie dogs in the Southern Grasslands habitat that is healthy but naturally kept in
check by a viable population of black-footed ferrets.
• The reintroduction of the black-footed ferrets has been discussed but is not currently an
official goal of the City of Boulder.
• According to the ferret recovery team, the Southern Grasslands is the only place in the city
with a large enough area to accommodate a viable population of the black-footed ferret.
5
• This goal relates to the idea of creating a stabilized population of prairie dogs that is not
subject to getting wiped out by plague on an annual basis. Achievement of this goal may
require a plague management plan to avoid the large fluctuations in populations.
• There are several communities in Colorado that have reintroduced the black-footed ferret,
including Sandstone in Fort Collins, private properties in Pritchett County, and the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal. Some black-footed ferret colonies are thriving and some are not.
• A sub-goal of this proposed goal could be to “increase the number of receiving sites,
particularly in areas like the Southern Grasslands.” Achieving this sub-goal would require a
reexamination of occupancy rates, thresholds, and vegetation criteria.
• This goal relates to the Phase 1 recommendation to define a successful relocation. The City
should not spend money on a relocation if there is no assurance of colony survival.
Create large complexes of prairie dog colonies that are also supported by stepping stones or smaller
colonies throughout the system.
• There is no acreage target associated with this goal yet, but the idea is to create large
complexes across the entire landscape, not just on City land.
• It may be possible to consider using predator species other than the black-footed ferret,
such as the long-tailed weasel, to stabilize the prairie dog population.
Successful prairie dog management in the City of Boulder means having a number of receiving sites
within or outside Boulder County to keep up with the demand.
• The intent of this goal is to include both governmental and non-governmental properties.
• There may be issues with transporting prairie dogs across county lines, and achievement of
this goal may require approval from the County Commissioners.
• It may be possible to petition to change the legislative agenda to address the rule pertaining
to county lines, which is in Senate Bill 111.
Outline a set of strategies for raising public awareness of the complexity of prairie dog management
and the ecological importance of prairie dog colonies in the larger ecosystem context, providing on-
going learning opportunities, keeping the public informed about current practices and policies, and
providing the public with strategies for living with and next to prairie dogs.
• Achieving this goal will require defining indicators for success and framing it as an outcome
so that it is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely. One suggestion for
revision is: “Establish management policies that proactively reduce human/wildlife
conflicts and sustain ecological integrity.”
• OSMP has an educational division that can help define the target audience.
Develop an innovative program (such as a conservation/mitigation fund) to mitigate and offset

prairie dog relocation activities.
• Any landowners hoping to utilize City receiving sites should be required to pay. If they
choose not to pursue relocation of the prairie dogs on their property, they should be
required to pay a mitigation fee.
6
• Currently, when the City agrees to take prairie dogs from a private property, the landowner
pays for the relocation and the staff time. They may also be subject to a loss of use fee.
Consideration of payment into a ‘conservation fund’ for use of public lands as a receiving
site should be discussed.
• If landowners create a loss of prairie dog habitat, that should be offset through a mitigation
fee that is funneled back into grassland conservation.
• If the PDWG wants to propose an overarching goal pertaining to prairie dog conservation, it
is important to define what is meant by “conservation” and specify the amount of habitat
and the percentage of public land they would like to see used for prairie dog conservation.
The Grassland Plan has specific acreage targets.
Figure out when certain priorities trump other priorities on a site-by-site basis.
• Achieving this goal will require identifying key priorities and areas where a change in
designation could significantly contribute to prairie dog conservation.
• It is important to consider all potential perspectives/impacted parties (e.g., people who care
about recreation, plants, pollinators, etc.), and ask: “How would this plan look if it was
written with them in mind?”
• There was discussion among PDWG members about the prioritization of sentient beings
(i.e., prairie dogs and other animals) over vegetation and other non-sentient values.
NEXT STEPS
• All PDWG members should review the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan (available
here) and the Urban Wildlife Management Plan (available here), and then identify specific
concerns. Appendix D of the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan details the viability
criteria (acreage/percentage targets for prairie dog populations).
• At the next meeting, the PDWG will review the goals and targets in existing plans and
policies. Staff should be prepared to present this information at the January 25 meeting.
• Any PDWG member planning to present a goal statement at the next meeting should plan to
address any concerns and questions of other PDWG members during the presentation of
their goal, and should be aware of how their goal relates to current plans and policies.
PDWG members should strive to write goals that are specific, measurable, achievable,
realistic, and timely (SMART). Consultation with other PDWG members who may not share
a similar perspective is also encouraged.
• Any PDWG member planning to present a goal statement at the next meeting should send
their goal to Heather Bergman before the meeting.
• Heather Bergman will e-mail all PDWG members a handout with suggestions for how to
write SMART goals.
• Carse Pustmueller, Pat Comer, Deb Jones, and Joy Master will meet to rework the groups of
guiding principles proposed by the group and formulate ten guiding principles that capture
the aim of each group. Heather Bergman or Sam Haas can make room reservations or set up
conference calls if needed. The subgroup will send the guiding principles to Heather
Bergman by January 18.
• Heather Bergman will send the contact information for all PDWG members.
7
January 25, 2018
OSMP Annex (7315 Red Deer Drive)
MEETING SUMMARY - FINAL
ATTENDANCE
Participants: Dan Brandemuehl, Kristin Cannon, Pat Comer, Aaron Cook, Deborah Jones,
Keri Konold, Lindsey Sterling Krank, Amber Largent, Joy Master, Valerie Matheson, Andy
Pelster, Carse Pustmueller, Heather Swanson

Peak Facilitation •
Send out a Doodle poll to find times in March, April, and
May for the replacement meeting.
• Include time on the next meeting’s agenda to discuss
reactions from PDWG members on the self-guided driving
tour.
Aaron Cook Find and email the location for the February 5 meeting to
Heather, and Heather will send the information out to the group.
All PDWG members Send goals to Heather so that she can send them to the group for
consideration during their February 5 meeting.
Carse Pustmueller Rewrite the language about augured burrows in the Phase 1
Report and send it to Heather.
Heather Swanson • Send information about the licensing and restrictions for
the use of the vaccineto the Prairie Dog Working Group
(PDWG) members.
• Send self-guided driving tour information when it is
ready.
Joy Master Send the group information about the number of Parks and
Recreation acres that the Urban Wildlife Management Plan does
not include.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The first ten minutes of the meeting were dedicated to both verbal and written public comment.
Each person was allowed three minutes to speak. The individual comments are summarized below.
Wes Dixon
Dixon is a Boulder resident and working with Lindsey Sterling Krank at the Prairie Dog
Coalition has opened his eyes. He is glad to know that the City is addressing prairie dog
management collaboratively. He would love for Boulder to leave a legacy of conservation
and sound prairie dog management plans, as well as for the City to do their best to create
win-win situations.
1
Francis Morris
Morris lives in Gunbarrel. While driving down Jay Road or 63rd Street, she is aware of the
prairie dogs and wonders how they survive, as it is mostly dirt in those areas. She considers
herself a prairie dog advocate. She does not believe in the use of lethal methods or in
harming any sentient being. She would like to find a way to avoid killing prairie dogs.
STAFF UPDATE ON VACCINE AND DRIVING TOUR

Heather Swanson provided updates on the collaborative effort with Colorado Parks and
Wildlife (CPW) to use the plague vaccine. She also provided information about a newly
developed prairie dog driving tour. Action items are indicated in italics.
Yersinia Pestis (Plague) Vaccine Proposal in the Southern Grasslands

• Swanson met with Dan Tripp, a wildlife disease researcher for CPW, at the end of
December. The vaccine is now conditionally licensed, and it is no longer
experimental. This development removes the requirement to write a research
proposal for the use of the vaccine.
• In 2018, Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) will obtain sufficient amounts of
Yersinia pestis vaccine to vaccinate all currently occupied areas in the Southern
Grassland Preserve (90 acres) during two time periods (summer and fall). The only
changes to the recommendation are that there will be two applications instead of
one and it is no longer part of a research study. The City can still monitor different
indicators.
• Heather Swanson will send the Prairie Dog Working Group (PDWG) members the
information about the licensing and restrictions for the use of the vaccine.
Prairie Dog Driving Tour

• PDWG members have discussed the benefit of taking people to OSMP land to see
prairie dogs. Swanson has worked with her staff to develop a self-guided driving
tour that uses Google Maps so that people can see the route and the different
recommended stops. When the user clicks on the stop, it shows photos and
information. During the winter months, it is easy to see the hole openings, but it is
not possible to see the landscape or underlying vegetation.
• The stops that were selected represent the whole spectrum of prairie dog sites, and
they are all in active use. There are three stops, all in the Grassland Preserves. Some
have had issues with adjacent landowners, and some have not. There are three
different routes: an eastern route, a southern route, and a northern route. There is
also a standalone stop at Valmont Park. The user will be able to choose from four
different links, each with several stops. All locations are City of Boulder properties,
and all but Valmont Park are OSMP properties.
• Heather Swanson will send the information about the self-guided driving tour when it
is ready.
• The agenda for the next meeting will include time to address questions or concerns
about the tour.
2
AUGURED BURROW RECOMMENDATIONS
There were some lingering concerns about the language used in the draft Phase One Report
regarding the use of augured burrows for prairie dog relocation.
• One member of the PDWG understood the previous agreement to be that prairie
dogs would not be released into augured holes during relocation except when
needed as starter burrows with staff approval. They stated a concern that some of
the language about augured burrows is contradictory. One sentence says, “In most
cases, augured burrows will not be used for the release of animals.” The second
sentence says, "while not the preferred method, augured burrows may be used with
staff permission if soil conditions, and/or geographic conditions are adequate.” This
issue would benefit from additional clarity.
• PDWG members remember discussing how augured burrows will not be used to
release animals but how they have proven to be useful as starter burrows. The
group considered that in some areas there might be areas with soil that would make
augured burrows appropriate and it may be helpful to keep them as an option in
case there is a time when the use of augured burrows would be acceptable.
• It could be helpful to clarify in the Report that the goal is to release prairie dogs into
a suitable burrow and the use of augured burrows could be considered with new
technology. Carse will rewrite the language in the report to reflect this group
conversation.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
A subgroup of PDWG members worked together between meetings to refine the guiding
principles that the PDWG brainstormed at the last meeting. The PDWG discussed the
refined guiding principles and made several suggestions for improvement. The purpose of
the guiding principles is to provide a touchstone for the group to refer to when they discuss
proposed prairie dog management goals.
Guiding Principle #1: Secure greater ecological sustainability of prairie dog habitat
and viable populations so prairie dogs can provide their keystone function
• Land managers sometimes claim that prairie dogs in urban areas are not used as a
keystone species. The PDWG must agree that prairie dogs are a keystone species,
regardless of whether they are in an urban area.
• The sub-group discussed quantifying the security of greater ecological sustainability
(e.g., habitat protection, etc.), but decided that the guiding principle should remain
broad.
• The group agreed to keep this guiding principle as it is.
Guiding Principle #6: Use humane treatment and minimize lethal control of prairie
dogs
• Some PDWG members expressed a concern that the word “minimize” is not strong
enough and would like to clarify that the focus should be on expanding non-lethal
means.
3
• The PDWG has heard from some members of the public who will not accept lethal
control and others, primarily adjacent landowners, who do not support the no-kill
concept.
• The use of words such as “expand,” “improve,” or “increase,” are not specific,
measurable, actionable, realistic, and timely (SMART), but may work as guiding
principles because they set a general direction. Some members of the PDWG
expressed a concern that these words seem to assume that the current efforts are
inadequate or not trending in the right direction. Other members of the PDWG
thought that words such as “expand,” or “improve” provide guidance and aid the
thought process and development of concrete goals.
• The group should be mindful of the possibility that they may develop goals and then
realize that the current effort is satisfactory. Also, if the City discovers that their use
of humane treatment has reached a point where it can no longer be improved, or
they find that they have exhausted their humane treatment options, the City would
like to make sure that they have not violated the guiding principle. The sub-group
discussed this concern and decided that there would likely always be room for
improvement. The sub-group initially used the word "emphasize" instead of
"expand." Some PDWG members expressed concern that the word “emphasize”
implies that using the methods is a choice.
• The importance of expanding knowledge about humane treatments should be
emphasized. Rather than saying that all previous efforts have been insufficient, it
should be clear that the group values moving toward continuous education about
methods.
• It is important to remember that the group will only use these guiding principles to
develop sound goals. The principles will not be turned into a policy.
• The group agreed to change the guiding principle to: “Use and emphasize humane
treatment of prairie dogs and non-lethal means as the priority method to control
prairie dogs.”
BOULDER COUNTY PRAIRIE DOG MEETING

PDWG members who attended Boulder County staff's informative session about 2017
prairie dog management offered their key takeaways from the meeting.
• It was eye-opening to listen to farmers who have struggled to make a living because
prairie dogs have occupied their land. They have had to use lethal control to manage
increasing prairie dog populations even though they would prefer to use organic
means. The soil in the south end of Boulder County is not good, and many of the
burrows have collapsed. The meeting was civil given the diversity of perspectives
present (i.e., landowners, farmers, conservationists, etc.). The most significant
takeaway is that it is important to do a better job controlling prairie dogs in the
north and expanding prairie dog occupation in the south.
• The County relocated 86 prairie dogs last year and fumigated over 17,000 burrows.
One of the County's goals is to reintroduce black-footed ferret by 2020, but they did
not have any quantifiable benchmarks. County staff said that they would work on
integrating benchmarks into their timeline.
4
REVIEW OF EXISTING GOAL STATEMENTS IN CURRENT CITY PLANS AND POLICIES
Staff presented the goals and strategic targets relevant to prairie dog management in
current City of Boulder plans and policies. PDWG members reviewed and discussed the
goals and identified specific concerns. The March 5, 2017, staff presentation from the
PDWG meeting summarizes the relevant plans in more detail. The presentation from this
meeting is available here.
Boulder Parks and Recreation

• The Parks and Recreation department’s mission does not have the same focus as
OSMP’s mission. The Parks and Recreation Department promotes the health and
well-being of the community by collaboratively providing high-quality parks and
programs. The department does not have language specific to prairie dogs in their
commissions. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan specifies that department's
focus is on financial sustainability, youth engagement, building community
relationships, and organization/readiness. Multiple objectives must be balanced on
all Parks and Recreation land. Parks and Recreation also follows the Urban Wildlife
Management Plan and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
• When Parks and Recreation land reaches prairie dog occupancy capacity, they work
with OSMP to find places for relocation. For example, Valmont Park (a Parks and
Recreation property) has an approved development plan and 50 acres of prairie
dogs.
• Parks and Recreation owns some land around the Boulder Reservoir and has used
those for relocations in the past, as the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan states it
is are critical wildlife habitat. Parks and Recreation has approximately 500 to 600
acres of prairie dogs. Many of those acres are designated removal areas. The Urban
Wildlife Management Plan identified the conflict colonies (e.g., Valmont, Foothills).
• Joy will send the group information about the number of Parks and Recreation acres
that are not included in the Urban Wildlife Management Plan.
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan

• The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan provides an overarching plan for the City.
Other master plans fall under the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan goals
allow for the development of policies, which produce work items for staff.
• Natural environment goals listed in the Comprehensive Plan are to protect native
ecosystems and biodiversity, enhance urban environmental qualities, protect
geologic resources, and sustain and improve water and air quality.
• Boulder County is governed by the Boulder Comprehensive Plan (different from the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan).
• The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan designates areas. Some of the areas
designated as developable land have prairie dogs on them, so the suggestion would
be to move them to agricultural land.
Urban Wildlife Management Plan

• The purpose of the Urban Wildlife Management Plan is to establish a set of policies
and guidelines for managing wildlife within the City of Boulder. One of the goals of
5
the Urban Wildlife Management Plan is to "establish wildlife management policies
and practices that proactively reduce human/wildlife conflicts, reflect overall
community values, and sustain ecological integrity." The overarching prairie dog
management goal is to consider all the colonies and identify which ones have the
opportunity for long-term preservation, which should have intermediate
protections, and which conflicts cannot be mitigated.
• There are two chapters related to prairie dogs in the Urban Wildlife Management
Plan. However, the goals are vague. For example, one of the goals is to "provide a
clear and easily understood framework for balancing social, environmental, and
economic goals when managing wildlife on public and private lands.”
• The Urban Wildlife Management Plan does not apply to Open Space land in Boulder
County.
• Several statements in the Ordinance Policy do not align with practice. For example,
there is a policy that states that people who want to kill prairie dogs can either get
a lethal control permit or apply to relocate them. However, when there are a few
prairie dogs left after relocation the City can give a special use permit to allow
lethal control to be used on the residual or non-trappable prairie dogs. That
process is not transparent. There is also language about ensuring there is
"adequate" infrastructure after prairie dogs are removed so that they do not
return. The term "adequate" is not well-defined in this context.
OSMP Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan

• The goal of the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan is to simultaneously
conserve eight conservation targets within viability ratings (which should also
result in conserving nested species). The goals for prairie dogs may impact OSMP’s
ability to meet these other targets.
• The viability criteria set SMART goals for the Grassland Ecosystem Management
Plan. The goals for prairie dog conservation are:
1. System-wide prairie dog occupancy between 800-3137 acres
2. At least 70% of prairie dog occupied acres occur in Grassland Preserves,
Prairie Dog Conservation Areas, or Multiple Objective Areas.
3. All three grassland preserves with occupancy of prairie dogs between 10-
26% of total area
4. At least four prairie dog colonies with nesting burrowing owls in any year
5. At least 50% of prairie dog colonies with territorial horned larks
6. Presence of at least one species of generalist predator on at least 50% of
colonies and presence of at least one species of specialist predator on at least
25% of colonies
Agricultural Land
• OSMP has a goal to lease 80% of its irrigable land to protect its water rights
portfolio from abandonment and to support local agriculture. OSMP has
approximately 6,600 acres of irrigable land. The irrigable land is ditch irrigated, and
the water is difficult to move from one parcel to the next. The department also has a
goal to maintain agricultural leases on 12,000-16,000 acres to support agricultural
6
activities and to be able to us livestock grazing as a tool to manage grassland
ecosystems.
• Conflicts related to prairie dogs on agricultural land typically revolve around the
irrigated parcels. Currently, nearly 2,000 acres of agricultural land is populated by
prairie dogs, almost 29%.
• If a prairie dog colony plagues out on an agricultural property, the City will begin to
put the land back into agricultural production after verifying that the burrows are
not occupied.
PDWG asked clarifying questions about the staff presentations. Questions are indicated in
italics, followed by the response.
Is there an incentive for lethal control applicants to use humane methods?

Applicants first pay an administrative fee ($1,500) to process the application. The City does
not return this fee. Applicants then pay a mitigation fee, which is reimbursed if they use
human lethal control methods. It is not cheap to kill prairie dogs humanely.
What is the City’s process for receiving and processing emergency requests of complaints from
residents?
The PDWG could develop a goal to "address every resident complaint within 30 minutes of
the original call," and explain details about communication tactics, outreach, and staff
allocation. Or the PDWG could develop a goal that lays out how the City would manage
emergency situations in the future.
How did OSMP staff reach the threshold of 10 to 26% occupancy?

OSMP staff reached this threshold largely through professional judgment. There are 800
acres in total, and staff looked at historical occupancy to understand the long-term trends
of the landscape. This analysis included looking at historical recovery rates, which were
approximately 40% per year at the time the thresholds were set.
What are the primary components of the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan that the
PDWG should reconsider?
The implementation of many of the goals is challenging. For example, when occupancy is
below 10% and OSMP would like to relocate prairie dogs, there are mechanisms to do so.
However, capacity is an issue. The City has also stated the goal of taking prairie dogs from
transition or removal areas, but that is not how it has played out because the City has only
taken prairie dogs from private or non-agricultural properties. Unfortunately, the City has
barely made any progress on the goal of removing prairie dogs from agricultural properties
on Open Space.
Is there an upper limit placed on prairie dog population expansion (i.e., if the populations
continue to grow every year)?
The Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan states that if the prairie dog population is at or
above 26% and the City is not meeting other vegetation goals, OSMP can consider removal
7
options. OSMP has never done that. There are several nested species, such as grasshopper
sparrows, who would cease to exist if prairie dog occupancy reached 100% capacity.
Prairie dogs do practice their own methods of population control, including infanticide and
abortion.
What type of OSMP land is included in the designated 800 acres?

Half of the grassland is forested. The three grassland preserves are the areas with
grassland and are suitable for prairie dog habitat.
What is the annual income from agricultural leases for the City?
The City currently earns approximately $150,000 from agricultural leases. Open Space
places this money into the general fund; it is not allocated to a specific project. The City is
reviewing lease rates this spring. It may be worth considering ways to use some of these
funds to build moveable fence barriers around agricultural land to decrease relocation
needs by decreasing conflicts between prairie dogs and landowners/lessees.
The criteria for the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan have been in place for seven
years. Is it a good time to revisit the criteria underlying the goals? Updating the criteria may
lead to reprioritization and influence system-wide goals.
It is always worth looking at the criteria, but the thinking behind the creation of the criteria
has not changed. OSMP has the same commitment to agricultural conservation. However, it
may be worth adding criteria about conflicts with adjacent landowners, as there are
currently no strategies to address that.
PRESENTATION OF NEW PRAIRIE DOG MANAGEMENT GOALS

PDWG members proposed new overall prairie dog management goals for the Working
Group to consider. PDWG members asked clarifying questions related to the proposed goal
statements.
Goal 1: The City, in partnership with neighboring public and private landowners, has
restored and maintained an interconnected network of high-integrity grasslands
that support viable populations of disease-free prairie dog colonies. These prairie
dog colonies are naturally controlled by viable populations of black-footed ferret
and other native predators.
• There are many objectives associated with this goal. The goal statement is about
outcomes, and the objectives listed are quantifiable measurements to help achieve
the outcome. There should then be milestones set for each goal to address timing.
• This goal is ecological, primarily focused on the sustainability and viability of prairie
dog habitat.
• One of the objectives of this goal is to "update City of Boulder grassland parcel
prioritizations and management designations." This update process could be an
ongoing or periodic process. Given that there are 148 colonies on OSMP land, it may
not be feasible to inventory and prioritize every colony, but it could happen at a
broader level.
8
Goal 2: Landowner conflicts associated with prairie dogs have been minimized to
negligible levels, and citizen awareness has increased about prairie dog roles in the
City of Boulder’s grassland ecosystems.
• This goal is about addressing conflict and increasing awareness among residents of
Boulder. Raising awareness is critical to conflict minimization.
• It is important to widen the citizen awareness beyond the City of Boulder and into
Boulder County.
Goal 3: The City has implemented a sustainable process that provides resources and
capacity to support prairie dog conservation goals.
• This goal is about the sustainability of the entire prairie dog management process.
• The structure and resources for the process must be in the right place. For example,
there must be staff capacity to assist with the increased community engagement.
PDWG Discussion
• In general, PDWG members liked both the approach and content of these goals. They
liked the idea of having an overarching goal and supporting objectives, as long as the
objectives articulate strategies to reach the goal.
• In terms of reprioritizing colonies by types (Prairie Dog Conservation Areas,
multiple-use areas, grasslands, etc.), it might be helpful to reprioritize the general
categories, not every colony. The goal would be to look at the current categories and
then prioritize what staff actively manages for, depending on the parcel of land. For
some parcels, the prairie dogs should be the priority. Instead of having a blanket
policy for all lands, each parcel should be viewed as separate entities that have
different policies, implementation strategy, and goals. The Grassland Ecosystem
Management Plan lays out some of priorities on different City land (specifically,
pages 108-109).
Goal #4: Work to remove state legislative barriers to prairie dog relocation to
support black-footed ferret reintroduction throughout the state of Colorado within
five years.
• The Prairie Dog Coalition has a long-term strategy for Senate Bill 99-111. Passing
prairie dog legislation in Colorado without agricultural support is difficult.
Ultimately, the Prairie Dog Coalition would like to quantify black-tailed prairie dog
habitat to identify conservation opportunities.
• With this incentive program, developers could use the quantification tool to
measure the value of the habitat. A landowner in a priority area for conservation of
grassland species could create a net gain, and the developer could purchase the
landowner credits. Hopefully, this incentive program would get agricultural
interests on board to support prairie dog legislation and to offer their land as
receiving sites.
9
Goal #5: Secure viable, sustainable, and healthy prairie dog populations and
ecosystems, including a large-block ecosystem on the Southern Grasslands having
plague-free and interconnected populations of prairie dogs and a viable population
of black-footed ferrets by reprioritizing parcels of land where prairie dogs occur and
creating targeted and individualized policies for each parcel while considering the
City’s many land use needs, and by implementing sub-goals.
• Several members of the PDWG worked to develop this goal, and it was an inclusive
process. This goal has nine sub-goals to support the overarching goal. The draft sub-
goals are not prioritized by importance.
• The goal should clarify that the plague-free areas are within the Southern Grasslands,
not system-wide.
PDWG Discussion
• Some of the sub-goals could benefit from more specificity. For example, the sub-goal
about creating and implementing proactive and non-lethal strategies to reduce
conflicts could be interpreted as a statement that no lethal means will be used. This
statement should be clarified.
• One of the sub-goals is: “Amend the Wildlife Protection Ordinance to focus on non-
lethal options." This sub-goal seems like a one-time task. Tasks that need to be
completed to achieve goals should be placed in a different bucket.
• One of the sub-goals is: “Develop active and effective partnerships with federal,
state, and county landowners adjacent to the Southern Grasslands to help create a
large-block prairie dog ecosystem.” The group agreed to include private landowners
in this sub-goal.
• Wherever there are sub-goals to “expand” or “increase” prairie dog habitat, it is
important to provide a quantifiable percentage or number to make the sub-goal
measurable. Occupancy percentage should be reflected in the goal.
NEXT STEPS
The PDWG agreed to the following next steps. Action items are indicated in italics.
• The PDWG agreed not to meet as a group on February 5 and to find a different time
between now and May to schedule a meeting. Any PDWG member who would like to
meet on February 5 from 5:00 – 9:00 PM can meet to revise and condense the
prairie dog management goals that were presented during this meeting.
• Peak Facilitation will send out a Doodle poll for times in March, April, and May for the
replacement meeting.
• Aaron Cook will find and e-mail the location for the February 5 meeting to Heather,
and Heather will send the information out to the group.
• All PDWG members who would like the sub-group to consider their proposed goal
should send their goals to Heather so that she can send it to the group for
consideration during their February 5 meeting.
• Carse Pustmueller will rewrite the language about augured burrows in the Phase 1
Report and send it to Heather.
10
April 2, 2018
OSMP Annex - 7315 Red Deer Drive
Participants: Dan Brandemuehl, Kristin Cannon, Pat Comer, Elle Cushman, Keri Konold,
Lindsey Sterling Krank, Amber Largent, Joy Master, Val Matheson, Andy Pelster, Carse
Pustmueller, Heather Swanson, John Vickery
Peak Facilitation •Send the public comments received to the

Prairie Dog Working Group (PDWG).
• Send out the guiding principles and list of values
brainstormed by the PDWG.
• Send out the raw notes from the April 2 PDWG
meeting.
Keri Konold • Send the PDWG the email thread between Open
Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) staff and
Paula Shuler.
• Find the results from the Boulder County phone
survey from 2010 related to prairie dogs.
Elle Cushman, Keri Konold, Work together to refine the economic goal(s) and
Andy Pelster, Lindsey Sterling objectives. Keri Konold will organize the meeting.
Krank
Amber Largent, Dan Work together to refine the social goal(s) and
Brandemuehl, Val Matheson objectives. Val Matheson will organize the meeting.
Pat Comer, Carse Pustmueller, Work together to refine the ecological goal(s) and
John Vickery objectives. Pat Comer will organize the meeting. Send
revisions to Heather Swanson for review.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The first ten minutes of the meeting were dedicated to both verbal and written public
comment. Public comments that were submitted online were read to the Prairie Dog
Working Group (PDWG) and sent to the PDWG after the meeting.
Paula Shuler
• Shuler expressed serious concern about the presence of prairie dog colonies on the
Stratton and Brewbaker property in Boulder County. According to Shuler, the
properties were purchased by the City of Boulder but not managed properly, and
the quality of the land has deteriorated.
• Shuler lives on a 160-acre farm south of Stratton and Brewbaker. Prairie dogs have
migrated from Stratton and Brewbaker in all directions to neighboring private
parcels. Shuler has asked for the prairie dogs to be removed in the long term and
1
for the City to build a fence in the short term to keep more prairie dogs from
migrating.
• Irrigated agricultural land is a valuable asset to the City and County and the prairie
dog occupation has negatively impacted the quality of the soils.
Eleanor Lanaghan
• Lanaghan is an Open Space and Trails technician and graduate student of biology at
Miami University and has developed the Colorado Prairie Dog Squad as a citizen
science program to engage residents and wildlife managers in prairie dog research.
The first in-person training will occur in early summer of 2018.
• Colorado Prairie Dog Squad’s mission is to provide prairie dog conservationists and
managers with high-quality data about prairie dog abundance and habitat data
across Colorado’s prairies to protect the ecological functions of grasslands for future
generations. Colorado Prairie Dog Squad has partnered with City and County of
Broomfield Open Space and would like to extend an invitation to work with City of
Boulder Open Space.
Group Discussion
The PDWG discussed the public comments received. Below are the key themes from their
discussion.
• Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) has reached out to Paula Shuler. There are
irrigation improvements planned on the Stratton and Brewbaker property. The
irrigation improvements will be used as a tool to manage prairie dog occupancy, as
prairie dogs will move to drier parts of the property.
• Shuler has put up a mesh barrier on her property. Her property is across the road
from the Stratton and Brewbaker property, not directly adjacent to it. She has an
extensive prairie dog colony on her property.
• Prairie dog occupation of agricultural land is a systemic problem. It decreases
production and impacts the livestock areas and the economic wellbeing of the many
heritage ranchers. There should be time set aside during a future PDWG meeting to
discuss the concerns of heritage ranchers.
SUBGROUP PRESENTATION OF REFINED PRAIRIE DOG MANAGEMENT GOALS

PDWG members who met in February presented the refined prairie dog management goals.
At the April 2 meeting, participants asked clarifying questions about the refined
management goals and determined next steps. Below are the highlights from their
discussion.
Presentation of Refined Prairie Dog Management Goals

• The subgroup compiled the revised goal statement document and accounted for the
comments and input from the previous PDWG meeting. The subgroup split the goals
into ecological, economic, and social components. The document is structured by
overarching goals, objectives to meet those goals, strategies to advance the
individual objectives, and tangible milestones. Milestones and strategies should be
measurable and specific.
2
• The next step is to make the goal statements specific, measurable, accurate, realistic,
and timely (SMART). There should be quantifiable objectives/strategies/milestones
tied to each goal.
• The subgroup would like to have a conversation with the full PDWG about the goal
and objective statements then split into subgroups to determine how to achieve the
objectives and measure the strategies.
Group Discussion of the Ecological Goal Statement

Discussion Related to the Goal Statement
• The goal of “securing viable prairie dog populations” should clearly define what is
meant by the term “secure,” as that term can be interpreted differently. Other terms
such as “long-term” and “sustainable” should also be clearly defined in each context.
• The intent of the ecological goal is to widen the lens to the entire landscape beyond
City Open Space and consider how the habitat suitability criteria can apply to the
entire landscape with the goal of creating more prairie dog habitat. The original
Grassland Management Plan was constrained to City of Boulder OSMP lands (not
Boulder County or Parks and Recreation land).
• One of the ecological goals is to create an interconnected grassland area where
prairie dog conservation is the primary management objective.
• The first sentence of the goal is to “update the City’s prairie dog management
designations.” While designations may be problematic, the intent is not to un-
designate removal areas but rather to identify areas where prairie dogs should be
and to work to maintain prairie dog populations in those areas, independent of the
designations.
• There are multiple management objectives for the Grassland Preserves, and creating
a sustainable ecosystem for prairie dogs is only one of many concerns. The tactics
used to create large-scale prairie dog conservation are being used in the prairie dog
conservation areas (PCAs), but the PCAs are not large blocks of land. PCAs are areas
that do not have many other conservation targets, as these areas are often degraded
or ecologically disturbed by prairie dog activity.
Discussion Related to the Objectives

• It may be useful to consolidate some of the objectives.
• It is important that the objectives set realistic expectations. For example, objective
one is to “secure one or more interconnected networks of high-integrity grasslands
that support viable populations of disease-free prairie dog colonies, with prairie dog
numbers naturally controlled by viable populations of black-footed ferret and other
native predators.” There are two landscapes in Boulder that could support viable
black-footed ferret populations (Rabbit Mountain and the Southern Grasslands), but
there are not areas within Boulder County that are large enough. It should also be
noted that “disease resistant” may be a more appropriate term than “disease free,”
as there is no evidence pointing to the existence of any disease-free prairie dog
populations.
3
• Objective three includes a statement about working with local experts to review
modeling methods and data input to provide an updated prairie dog habitat
suitability model. This objective should more clearly state that its intent is to select
additional receiving sites (“update the habitat suitability model in order to…”).
Objective three is also an example of a statement that would have implications for
other resources managed by OSMP.
• It would be helpful to clarify what is meant by the term “harmonize” in objective
four.
• The subgroup should reword strategy two under objective five to make it clear that
not every colony should increase prairie dog habitat, but rather that prairie dog
numbers should increase in aggregate. The intent of strategy two was not to
prioritize the improvement of prairie dog habitat on all land, but rather to identify
areas where prairie dog occupation is and is not appropriate.
• In objective eight, it is unclear what data for at-risk species is being referenced.
While OSMP monitors nesting bald eagles on the Southern Grasslands, they do not
have a full list of at-risk species.
• There are several strategies that refer to the evaluation of OSMP criteria for release
sites. Colorado Parks and Wildlife often defers to OSMP’s criteria because it is so
comprehensive and thorough.
Additional Considerations
• The group discussed whether and how to include an objective related to population
management. Some members voiced a concern that the document does not include a
statement about the provision of population control methods, which is an important
component of wildlife management. Some PDWG members pointed to objective six,
which states that there will be a plan for the reintroduction of black-footed ferret
and other native predators. They highlighted research that indicates that prairie
dogs practice their own population control (infanticide, abortion, etc.) and that the
primary goal should be to manage and maintain the boundary within which the
prairie dogs live, rather than to thin existing populations. Prairie dog colonies will
expand where they can, and there are both ecological and landowner concerns
related to prairie dog expansion. There is more information about prairie dog
control methods under the “social” goal and associated objectives.
• The PDWG should consider including a statement about ensuring that OSMP is
equipped with the proper tools to remove prairie dogs from properties if habitat
becomes too extensive in areas that are not designated for prairie dog use (e.g.,
irrigated agricultural land).
Group Discussion of the Social Goal Statement

Discussion Related to the Goal Statement
• PDWG members discussed the use of the term “prairie dog conservation.” Some felt
that “prairie dog management” may be a more acceptable term to the broader public
who work outside of the conservation field, and others connoted the term “prairie
dog management” with the use of lethal control. One option would be to create a
4
new phrase to more accurately reflect the social goal, such as “sustainable
management and resiliency.”
• It is important to be clear about the breadth of conflicts associated with prairie dogs,
so that it not assumed that the only conflicts that occur are between landowners and
prairie dogs.
• It should be clear how “increased acceptance” will be measured. It could be
measured through a community survey. The Prairie Dog Coalition did a survey in
2006 that asked 400 people across Colorado and South Dakota what they thought of
prairie dogs. After the survey was conducted, there was an education effort, and the
participants were interviewed again after learning more about prairie dogs. The
overall positive perception of prairie dogs increased after the participants were
provided with educational information. Boulder County also did a phone survey of
over 3,000 residents in 2010 related to prairie dogs. Keri Konold will find the results
from this survey.

• There should be an objective that specifically relates to stakeholder identification.
• Strategy one under objective one states that “staff should review current protocols
and request input from citizens for their update.” Instead, it should be: “staff should
review current protocols and encourage engagement from the public.”
• The goal of objective one is to ensure that there are clear protocols of
communication during a problem or emergency (e.g., at the Armory last year). This
objective could be measured by monitoring the trend in landowner/stakeholder
complaints. However, it should be noted that the call volume often decreases when
prairie dog populations are low and vice versa, so this may not be an adequate
measurement of the quality of communication.
• There were questions related to objective one and whether PDWG members are
concerned that there is a systemic issue related to communication protocols, or
whether concerns stem specifically from the incident at the Armory last year where
burrows were being destroyed. The current protocol is to call animal control in an
emergency to deal with a legal issue. Unfortunately, during the Armory emergency,
animal control did not have the right person on call so they referred complaints to
the police.
• It is important to be mindful of the implications of the term “public education” as
opposed to “engagement.” Engagement implies a mutual exchange of ideas rather
than one-way communication.
• The PDWG discussed strategies to achieve objectives two and three. One suggestion
is to take advantage of the window of time after plague moves through a colony to
restore those areas to their pre-prairie dog states. Another strategy is to look at
colonies from a landscape perspective and anticipate where and when prairie dogs
will encroach so that barriers can be planned. Objective three references prioritizing
parcels for addressing OSMP irrigated agriculture goals on parcels that are isolated
from priority prairie dog colonies. This is challenging because most irrigated
agriculture land is on the margins of Open Space, and almost every parcel is within
migrating distance of another parcel.
5
• OSMP land borders over 11 miles of non-city lands. Barriers cost $27.00 per foot, so
a barrier around the parameter of OSMP land would cost approximately $1.7
million. Perhaps some reprioritization of parcels could help to create an
understanding of the magnitude of the challenge. From the irrigated agriculture
perspective, , it would be most beneficial to invest in quality irrigation systems.
Boulder Parks and Recreation land borders five miles of non-city land, and while
barriers are not the preferred solution, Parks and Recreation has used barriers since
2001 to help institute the Wildlife Management Plan. However, there are tradeoffs
related to barriers that need to be considered, and it is not a one-size-fits all option.
• Objectives four and five could potentially be combined and could relate specifically
to targeted public outreach.
• Regarding strategy one of objective five, it may be possible to provide an online
version of the homeowner packets to avoid the use of paper. The strategy could
specify that technology should be integrated into communication efforts.
• Objective six is currently in the City’s legislative agenda, so the intent of this
objective is to elevate the importance of state regulations that facilitate the transfer
of prairie dogs across county borders.
• The goal document should note that the current OSMP public engagement model for
prairie dog management has been for staff and wildlife ecologists to address
comments and issues as they arise, but that this can impact their ability to focus on
other tasks. There could be a statement like “we appreciate that this goal requires
certain expertise, and we encourage Council to consider resource allocation and
time associated with the achievement of these objectives.”
• The word “citizen” should be replaced by the word “resident” or “community
member.”
• It may be helpful to have Amy Masching review this section before it is finalized to
help with the framing and language.
Group Discussion of the Economic Goal Statement

• There should be more clarity in the objectives about how the money that is raised
would be used.
• Some PDWG members had questions about the term “net positive impact.” Often,
when a city’s goal is to avoid negative impact, the approach is to simply use
mitigation techniques to minimize impact. Instead, the intent of creating a net
positive impact is to go beyond mitigation and devise innovative ways to ensure that
development allows for the restoration of habitat. Net positive impact is applicable
beyond relocation and could be integrated into the PDWG guiding principles.
• Strategy two of objective one is to “provide brokering services to private
landowners for priority receiving and removal sites on public and private land.”
This strategy should have a footnote with references to explain what “brokering
services” means.
6
• Strategy two of objective two is to “work with Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) to identify Farm Bill-funded conservation practices that could
support grassland restoration and prairie dog habitat management on private
lands.” Some PDWG members raised questions about how this would look in
relation to agriculture properties. Prairie dog conservation would only be part of the
partnership with NRCS; the overall goal would be to restore grassland species. It is
also worth researching whether the Farm Bill grants can be used on public land
projects. There may be opportunities for partnership on long-term leases.
• Objective three states that “City of Boulder staffing, budget, and resources are
maintained at sufficient levels.” This connotes that the current levels are adequate.
This could be reworded to: “appropriate budgets are identified and maintained.”
• This goal should include discrete pilot projects that serve as milestones that are
geographically and temporally constrained. The pilot projects can be tweaked and
expanded upon, but it is important to start implementation of projects soon.
• It should be clear how each objective will contribute to the accomplishment of the
overarching goal statement.
NEXT STEPS
• The PDWG will divide into subgroups to refine each of the three goals before the
meeting on April 9. During the next meeting, the PDWG will discuss and finalize the
goals and have a conversation about prioritization (what should be done first?). The
subgroups are:
o Economic goal: Elle Cushman, Keri Konold (lead), Lindsey Sterling Krank,
Andy Pelster
o Social goal: Dan Brandemuehl, Amber Largent, Val Matheson (lead)
o Ecological goal: Pat Comer (lead), Carse Pustmueller, John Vickery
• Peak Facilitation will send out the guiding principles and the meeting summary
during which the PDWG brainstormed values.
7
April 9, 2018
Location: OSMP Annex (7315 Red Deer Drive)
Meeting Summary – FINAL
ATTENDANCE
Participants: Dan Brandemuehl, Kristin Cannon, Pat Comer, Aaron Cook, Elle Cushman, Keri
Konold, Lindsey Sterling Krank, Amber Largent, Joy Master, Andy Pelster, Carse
Pustmueller, Eric Sims, Heather Swanson, John Vickery
ACTION ITEMS
Staff Review plans/policies and flag areas where there are
anticipated needed changes and where the subgroups
should focus their efforts. Send these suggestions to
Keri.
Heather Swanson, Carse Work together to refine the ecological goal(s) and
Pustmueller, Lindsey Sterling objectives based on the suggested revisions from the
Krank, John Vickery April 9 meeting and discuss potential changes to
plan/policies. Carse will coordinate the meeting.
Dan Brandemuehl, Aaron Work together to refine the social goal(s) and
Cook, Amber Largent, and Val objectives based on the suggested revisions from the
Matheson April 9 meeting and discuss potential changes to
plans/policies. Dan will coordinate the meeting.
Pat Comer, Elle Cushman, Keri Work together to refine the economic goal(s) and
Konnold, Lindsey Sterling objectives based on the suggested revisions from the
Krank, Andy Pelster, Carse April 9 meeting and discuss potential changes to
Pustmueller plans/policies. Keri will coordinate the meeting.
Peak Facilitation Send out raw notes from the April 9 meeting.
SUBGROUP PRESENTATION OF ECOLOGICAL GOAL STATEMENT

The subgroup of Prairie Dog Working Group (PDWG) members who met to refine the
ecological prairie dog management goal presented their refined documents, and the group
discussed and determined next steps for the goals and objectives.
Key Revisions
• The document was shortened and objectives were combined. The goal was revised
based on the suggestions from the April 2 PDWG meeting. Objective 1 was
shortened and a separate objective about plague resistance was developed.
• All the objectives related to updates to the Grassland Management Plan were
combined into one, with distinct strategies for each. Objectives 5 and 6 were not
changed.
1
PDWG members asked clarifying questions about the revised ecological goal and
objectives. Questions are indicated in italics, followed by the response.
Strategy 2 of objective 3 is to "review modeling method and data inputs to provide an updated
suitability model encompassing the entire relevant grassland targets and apply those criteria
to lands across City and adjacent county, public and private parcels." What does that process
entail?
The existing Grassland Management Plan does not govern land outside of City boundaries.
It is important to consider all lands and potential opportunities in order to develop large,
contiguous areas of habitat. The Grassland Management Plan was developed with
intentional blinders because management was necessarily confined to City property, but
this strategy is to open opportunities on adjacent land.
Regarding objective 5, what percentage of Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) land is
known to be vulnerable to habitat-altering management practices associated with prairie dog
occupation?
The percentage of area where there are known, at-risk plant or insect species is small, and
the designation of those areas often depends on how “at risk” is defined. OSMP has lists of
nested species within each target. That list could be referenced in this document, even
though it is not tied to prairie dog management. It may be possible to place some indicators
or goalposts on the data to minimize damage to at-risk species. The term “at-risk species”
needs to be defined in this objective (federal level, state level, etc.). This objective should
also state that effective mitigation should be pursued before taking steps to avoid adverse
impacts.
Strategy 1 of objective 3 is to “update receiving site relocation criteria (1-1) to fully utilize
existing grassland receiving sites…” What does the term “fully utilize” mean in this context?
Would executing this strategy require identifying new sites or would it mean changing the
criteria for existing sites so that they can be used more?
The intent is to make changes to the relocation criteria to allow for more flexibility in the
use of current receiving sites and to allow more receiving sites to be identified. The City's
criteria may be too strict and should be revisited. The intent behind this strategy should be
explicitly stated. The strategy should also indicate that there need to be improvements in
the process and capacity for conducting relocations because it is currently a slow system.
Objective 2 is to “manage prairie dog colonies on city OSMP lands for plague resistance…”
Does this refer to all OSMP lands or only OSMP lands that are designated for prairie dog
conservation?
The plague management and monitoring plan will hopefully provide clarity about what
lands should be managed for plague resistance.
Objective 4 provides the year 2020 as a milestone. Is that milestone tied to the creation of the
black-footed ferret recovery plan or the implementation of the plan?
That milestone is tied to the creation of the plan.
2
Goal 1 references “viable plague-resistant prairie dog populations.” What does this mean?
A viable plague-resistant colony is stable and does not have the significant fluctuations in
habitat that are caused by plague. With the reintroduction of the black-footed ferret and
other predator species, the prairie dog population would be regulated in that context. The
population would fluctuate within the natural range of variability.
What are the concerns associated with prairie dog and black-footed ferret habitat in the
Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge?
Rocky Flats has a wildlife management plan. The core area of land in Rocky Flats is not a
wildlife refuge but is managed by the Department of Energy (DOE) in perpetuity. They
probably use lethal control to manage the prairie dog population on that part of the land.
Group Discussion
PDWG members discussed the revised ecological goal and objectives and provided final
suggestions for revision.
• Any reference to the “Boulder Valley” should be replaced with the “Boulder region.”
• Milestone 2 of strategy 1 under objective 2 is to “work with Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) to create and implement an acceptable policy that may limit the
use of insecticides but allows such use on large prairie dog occupied ecosystem
colonies.” There is nothing in the IPM policy that restricts the use of Delta Dust. The
City always evaluates sites to determine if it is necessary to use insecticide, with the
goal of minimizing the use of chemicals. However, Delta Dust has never been used at
the scale that is suggested in this proposal. The strategy is to use Delta Dust and
other insecticides on City lands such as the Grasslands so that it is possible to build
up prairie dog populations in larger areas. The IPM policy may need to be reworded.
It is also possible that the development of a plague management and monitoring
plan will create the desired impact.
• The US Fish and Wildlife Service has changed their criteria for black-footed ferret
introduction. They used to require a minimum of 10,000 acres of contiguous habitat
for reintroduction and they have since reduced that to 1,500 acres. The City of
Boulder does not own 1,500 acres of contiguous property, so it would have to
partner with Boulder County.
• It may be possible to combine objective 6 with milestone 2 in objective 2.
• Objective 1 has two components: habitat health and predator reintroduction. There
is only one strategy to address both elements and it relates to habitat. The strategy
should reference objective 4 (“for more about predator reintroduction, see objective
4”), or the objective could be simplified to: “…containing viable populations of
prairie dog colonies naturally limited by viable populations of native predators.”
However, some PDWG members are concerned that changing the objective in this
way detracts from the importance of black-footed ferret reintroduction.
• The PDWG should consider the intent of objective 2. There are different implications
if the intent is to promote the use of Delta Dust in order to allow for the creation of
large blocks of prairie dog habitat than if the goal is to manage plague (which may or
may not require the use of Delta Dust). The purpose of the IPM policy is to use
3
alternatives to Delta Dust when possible. The intent of this objective should be
clarified.
• While the City of Boulder has no jurisdiction on non-City lands, there are potential
areas for collaboration and partnership. The language in strategy 3 should be
changed to “…and look for opportunities to apply those criteria to lands across City
and adjacent county, public, and private parcels.”
• There was a discussion about the PDWG's overarching, guiding problem statement
for prairie dog management. Each goal and objective is meant to address the
problem statement that “the conservation of prairie dogs in the Boulder region is
currently unsustainable on ecological, social, and economic grounds.”
• Objective 1 should clarify how the money will be acquired to achieve the objective,
or it should reference goal 3, objective 2.
Suggested Areas for Revision

Below are the topics/areas that the PDWG discussed and would like a subgroup to further
refine.
• Clarify the form(s) that mitigation will take and what the thresholds related to
impacts to other species are
• Clarify the intent of revisiting the site review criteria
• Clarify the scope of the plague management objective
• Change references to “Boulder Valley” to “Boulder region”
• Clarify the scope of the IPM revision in Milestone 2 of strategy 1 under objective 2
• Determine whether objective 6 should be combined with milestone 2 in objective 2
• Re-write objective 1 or reference the black-footed ferret objective in objective 1
• Address issues related to funding objective 1 (e.g., the conservation fund)
• Clarify any language that references opportunities on non-City lands so that it is
clear that the intent is to look for opportunities for collaboration and partnership.
SUBGROUP PRESENTATION OF SOCIAL GOAL STATEMENT

The subgroup of PDWG members who met to refine the social prairie dog management goal
presented their refined document and the group discussed and finalized the goals and
objectives.
Key Revisions
• In the goal, the term “increase acceptance” was changed to “identify and minimize
conflict.”
• A lot of content was shortened. Objective 3 was removed because the subgroup
determined it was not addressing high-priority social issues. Objective 6 was moved
up to be a strategy under objective 2. Objectives 4 and 5 were consolidated into one
objective (objective 3).
PDWG members asked clarifying questions about the revised social goal and objectives.
Questions are indicated in italics, followed by the response.
4
Is the transfer of prairie dogs currently allowed across county lines?
Yes, state legislature (Senate Bill 99-111) allows for the transport, but the intent is to keep
it as a proactive item to be addressed with County Commissioners. That item (b. of
strategies for objective 2) should be pulled out and made a separate objective.
Strategy a. of objective 2 is to “implement policies, procedures, and completion timeline for

removal parcels, with barrier or other mitigation alternatives if relocation cannot be
completed within projected timeframe." What is the intent of this strategy?
This strategy is aimed to address adjacent landowner concerns like the ones expressed by
Paula Shuler so that there is a definite timeframe for addressing their concerns. PDWG
members expressed concern that this strategy may exacerbate conflicts with adjacent
landowners if the City cannot commit to removing the prairie dogs either at all or within
the set timeline. It is important only to make promises that can be kept. Landowners have
the right to manage and use control methods on their land. The subgroup should return to
this item to consider how to reword it so that the objective still addresses the problem
while not committing the City to promises it cannot keep. Anyone who contacts the City
should receive a consistent message.
Goal 2 is to “Identify and minimize conflicts associated with prairie dogs and increase
community understanding of prairie dog roles in the context of diminishing habitat and
competing land uses.” What is “the context” referring to here? Some may interpret that
statement as a push for getting public acceptance for a diminished prairie dog population,
rather than a push for building acceptance for a large prairie dog ecosystem.
The goal of placing the issue in the context of diminishing habitat is to show the broader
picture of competing land uses. The extent of prairie dog habitat has decreased
significantly, so this may help people understand the onus to preserve what is left. The goal
should be reworded so that it is clear that the goal is to accommodate prairie dogs while
addressing competing priorities and land uses.
One of the strategies listed under objective 3 is to “speak with HOA boards and property
owners often to help proactively address their specific concerns and needs before they develop
into problems.” How will the City proactively address concerns/needs?
This item came from the recommendation to create packets or educational flyers for new
homeowners to help them understand the issue. It was not intended as a promise that the
City would work with homeowners one-on-one to solve every problem. The second and
fourth bullet should be combined, and the part about “proactively addressing
concerns/needs” should be removed.
Group Discussion
PDWG members discussed the revised social goal and objectives and provided final
• There seem to be three clear objectives: one is related to specific projects for
relocating prairie dogs, the second is relevant to communication protocols, and the
third is about broader social engagement.
5
• Objective 2 is to “Prioritize proactive, non-lethal prairie dog control methods.” Some
worry that the word “prioritize” could mean that a list gets created without any plan
for implementation. Others worry that the word “implement” implies that only non-
lethal methods would be used and emphasized that there may be scenarios for
which lethal control is necessary as a last resort. The PDWG set a guiding principle
of minimizing lethal control. This objective should be re-written to stress that non-
lethal control should be maximized.
• There should be a strategy under objective 2 to address the agricultural component
to ensure that creative solutions for these land management designations are
utilized.
• The following reorganization of goal 2 was suggested: Objective 1 is the review of
mechanisms for communication; objective 2 is about broader social engagement;
objective 3 is about specific problems related to prairie dog conflicts. Objective 3
should identify different categories of conflict (i.e., irrigated agriculture and prairie
dogs, adjacent landowners and prairie dogs, etc.). The strategy related to
communicating with county commissioners should be a separate objective.
• Some PDWG members suggested rewording objective 2 so that it provides specific,
proactive strategies for addressing conflicts. Agricultural goals are raised in this
objective in the context of minimizing conflict. However, this component may belong
in goal 1 as part of the objective concerning updates to the Grassland Management
Plan. Agricultural properties are a fixed asset and exist independent of the location
of prairie dog colonies. The agricultural properties cannot be expanded or moved.
• This goal should be reviewed by Amy Masching.

Below are the topics/areas that the PDWG discussed and would like to be further refined
by a subgroup.
• Create a new objective related to the transfer of prairie dogs across county lines
• Rewrite objective 2, strategy a. to account for potential unachievable promises and
the importance of consistent communication/messaging from city staff
• Consider rewording objective 2, changing the word “prioritize” to “maximize”
• Determine how best to address agricultural interests in this goal (e.g., flood
mitigation tools, potential reevaluation of leases to accommodate different uses)
• Reorganize the objectives per the suggested outlined in the group discussion
• Reword the goal—specifically the part about diminishing habitat—to clarify that the
intent is protect prairie dogs while accommodating other priorities/uses
• Change the second bullet under objective 3 strategies to “create a campaign to build
more public awareness”
• Consider combining bullets 2 and 4 under objective 3 strategies and/or relook at the
HOA bullet to make sure that no unfulfillable promises are being made
• In point a of objective 2, clarify the implications for the designation of removal areas
and what it would mean for related components of the goals (e.g., barrier fences,
etc.).
• Review objective 1 to make it clear that the goal is to review the communication
protocols (not necessarily change them) to make sure that they are clear. Consider
6
including a strategy of holding a briefing/after-action review of the incident at the
Armory
SUBGROUP PRESENTATION OF ECONOMIC GOAL STATEMENT

The subgroup of PDWG members met to refine the economic prairie dog management goal
presented their refined document and the group discussed and finalized the goals and
objectives.
Key Revisions
• The goal statement was not changed, but the word “conservation” needs further
definition. There was a modification to objective 1 to replace “prairie dog relocation
projects” with “prairie dog conservation activities, including relocation projects.”
• The subgroup spent a lot of time discussing objective 2, and rewrote and created
new strategies. The objective was made more general, and the content of the
original objective was turned into multiple strategies that support the purpose of
the objective. A new strategy (4) was created under objective 2.
• The principles of strategy 3 are the same, but it was reworded. The goal of the
revision was to not limit conservation spending to only acquisition and easements
but rather to open it to other opportunities that could create net gains for the prairie
dog ecosystem.
PDWG members asked clarifying questions about the revised economic goal and objectives.
Can the subgroup further clarify objective 2? It seems that it may be limiting only to be able to
use the conservation fund money just on public lands.
It may not have been the intent for the money be only applicable on public lands. While it is
a public fund, one of the goals of the conservation fund is to allow for public resources to be
used to provide a private solution.
Regarding objective 2, strategy 2 (“utilize monies in the fund to leverage federal, state, county,
city, and philanthropic programs and funds”), should the original language about the Sierra
Club be included as a strategy?
Yes, that will be included in the final version.
Regarding objective 2, strategy 1: the current fee structure only requires landowners who are
requesting relocation to pay the relocation fee. Did the subgroup want the structure to
remain the same, or did they want to broaden it to more people?
This objective should clarify that it is for the relocation of prairie dogs from private land.
Group Discussion
PDWG members discussed the revised economic goal and objectives and provided final
• Objective 3 should clarify that the “phase 2” refers to the PDWG’s process.
7
• There are three groups of funding needs: acquisition of land for prairie dog habitat,
prairie dog management by staff, and non-lethal control measures. The original
intent of the prairie dog conservation fund was to collect money from private
landowners to help fund the acquisition of priority prairie dog habitat and
easements. Then, there was a discussion about including agricultural lease fees in
the fund. It may be useful to provide a break-down of which fees would be used to
fund different needs. Regarding the City's acquisition plan for OSMP, there are not
many areas available for acquisition in the southern area of the City. The City owns
45,000 acres and Boulder County owns more than 100,000. Very few parcels exist
that are larger than 35 acres. The southern area is nearly all private land. It may be
possible to specify that the priority aim of the conservation fund is to acquire prairie
dog habitat, but there are certain realities tied to OSMP’s budget that may limit the
acquisition capacity. The objective could prioritize the list of funding needs for
which the conservation funds would be spent. Using matching funds with Boulder
County for acquisitions may be possible.
• Objective 2 strategy 3 should be reworded so that it does not say that the City will
“investigate the possibility of using private landowner agricultural leases…”. It
should also clearly state how this strategy relates to objective 2, or strategy 3 should
be pulled out as a separate objective.
• Regarding objective 2, strategy 2, milestone 1, there are some terms and entities
that are not accurately defined in the document. For example, Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) is an agency, not a funding program.

Below are the topics/areas that the PDWG discussed and would like a subgroup to further
refine.
• Clarify the collection and use of fees on public lands
• Change the language in objective 2, strategy 3
• Clarify in objective 3 that “phase 2” refers to the PDWG process
• Clarify the language about “requesting relocation” in objective 2, strategy 1
• Re-examine the language about fees and uses and consider prioritizing the uses (e.g.,
“this money will be spent on X use”)
• Consider whether objectives 1 and 2 should state that funds will not be used for
staff time
• Review objective 3, strategy 2 and determine whether it should be rewritten or
separated out as a distinct objective
• Regarding objective 2, strategy 2, milestone 1, clarify the language around agencies
and think about stating that the City should work with agencies “such as” NRCS
• Consider recommending an update/change/prioritization to funding needs—while
property is expensive, it may be helpful to take another look at the acquisition plan
for the purpose of attaining large-block habitats
NEXT STEPS
• Three subgroups will meet before the meeting on April 30 to address the specific
suggested revisions discussed during this meeting. The subgroups should also begin
8
to consider what implications the goal/objectives/strategies/milestones have for
changes to current plans and policies. This will be the last round of revisions.
Subgroups should send their revised goal documents to Peak Facilitation several
business days before the April 30 meeting. The subgroups are:
o Ecological goal: Lindsey Sterling Krank, Carse Pustmueller (coordinator),
Heather Swanson, John Vickery
o Social goal: Dan Brandemuehl (coordinator), Val Matheson, Aaron Cook
o Economic goal: Pat Comer, Elle Cushman, Keri Konold (coordinator),
Lindsey Sterling Krank, Andy Pelster, Carse Pustmueller,
• Staff will review current plans/policies and flag areas where they anticipate a need
for changes and where the subgroups should focus their efforts. Staff will send these
suggestions to Keri. Staff will inform the subgroups they are participating in about
the plans that would likely be impacted by the goals.
• Peak Facilitation will include the PDWG guiding principles in the next agenda.
• The PDWG will briefly review the final revised goals at the April 30 meeting. Before
the meeting, members of the PDWG should review the revised goals and come
prepared to raise concerns only if they are unable to live with the document as it is
written. The PDWG will reach a final agreement on the goals during the meeting.
The PDWG will then prioritize the objectives within each goal. Finally, the PDWG
will discuss potential changes to current plans and policies for each goal. There will
also be an update on the proposed changes to the IPM policy.
9
April 30, 2018
OSMP Annex – 7315 Red Deer Drive, Boulder CO
Meeting Summary – FINAL
Participants: Dan Brandemuehl, Kristin Cannon, Pat Comer, Aaron Cook, Elle Cushman, Keri Konold,
Lindsey Sterling Krank, Amber Largent, Val Matheson, Andy Pelster, Carse Pustmueller, Eric Sims
Jr., Heather Swanson, John Vickery
ACTION ITEMS
Pat Comer, Lindsey Sterling Work together to refine the ecological goal(s) and objectives.
Krank, Carse Pustmueller, Pat will coordinate the meeting. Send the final document to
Eric Sims, Heather Swanson Peak Facilitation by EOD Wednesday, May 9.
Dan Brandemuehl, Aaron Work together to refine the social goal(s) and objectives. Dan
Cook, Amber Largent, Val will coordinate the meeting. Send the final document to Peak
Matheson Facilitation by EOD Wednesday, May 9.
Elle Cushman, Keri Konold, Work together to refine the economic goal(s) and objectives.
Lindsey Sterling Krank, Andy Keri will coordinate the meeting. Send the final document to
Pelster Peak Facilitation by EOD Wednesday, May 9.
Peak Facilitation Once the refined documents are collected, send out an online
survey to the PDWG that asks members to input the expected
implications that each objective would have to existing
plans/policies and prioritize each objective from most
urgent/important to least urgent/important.
Heather Bergman and Keri Draft an introductory document to include with the report.
Konold
PUBLIC COMMENT
The first ten minutes of the meeting were dedicated to written and verbal public comment. Peak
Facilitation also sent public comments submitted online to the Prairie Dog Working Group (PDWG)
after the meeting.
Written Public Comment

Pam Wanek
• Wanek submitted a written comment through the online form and offered feedback on the
specific goals and objectives discussed by the PDWG during the April 9 meeting.
• Wanek stressed the importance of connecting state and federal goals to any Boulder prairie
dog management goals. She asked that the PDWG emphasize the importance of agencies
working together to achieve common objectives. (Note: Wanek’s full written comment is
attached to this summary).
Verbal Public Comment

Paula Shuler
• Shuler lives south of the Brewbaker and Stratton irrigated properties, and their property is
full of prairie dogs. She is discouraged that the PDWG has not discussed the value of
irrigated properties as an asset to the area, as many sites have been damaged or destroyed
by prairie dogs. She encourages the PDWG to consider the perspectives of agricultural
1
advocates. The percentage of properties that are irrigated and leasable has decreased
significantly due to damage from prairie dog occupation. Shuler encourages members of the
PDWG to go on the prairie dog driving tour put together by Open Space and Mountain Parks
(OSMP) staff, especially the northern portion of the tour.
• OSMP had a policy of working with property owners to take reasonable action to limit the
spread of prairie dogs onto adjacent properties. OSMP recently changed the wording of the
policy to "OSMP will work with neighbors and property owners to help identify actions that
the landowner can take if they choose to maintain their properties without prairie dogs."
The City should be a good neighbor to property owners. Shuler has asked for help for three
years (she would like a barrier fence in the short term and removal of prairie dogs from the
property in the long term).
• Shuler does not think it makes sense to conduct irrigation improvements on the land
adjacent to her property. According to the Grassland Management Plan, the 160 acres of the
Stratton and Brewbaker properties are “our land, our legacy, and our future.”
Group Discussion of Public Comments

• OSMP staff clarified that the changes to the website mentioned by Shuler were not a change
in policy but rather an update of the 1996 language on the website. The portion of the text
that Shuler mentioned was from a “frequently asked questions” page that had not been
maintained, so it was recently updated to reflect current policy.
• Andy Pelster will work with Shuler to find a time to discuss her concerns.
SUBGROUP PRESENTATION OF SOCIAL GOAL STATEMENT

The subgroup of PDWG members who met to refine the social prairie dog management goal
presented their refined documents, and the group discussed and provided final suggestions for
improvement.
Key Revisions
• The objectives were revised based on the feedback received by PDWG members during the
April 9 meeting. The goal was renamed "social coexistence." The goal statement was
reworded to capture the intent of creating a proactive, innovative, and non-lethal approach.
• The subgroup outlined a series of steps for accomplishing the objectives. The subgroup also
created categories of conflict areas around which strategies should be developed.
• Objective 4 is intended to ensure implementation of the strategies outlined in the goal, and
objective 6 describes an assessment feedback loop to ensure that the implementation is
successful.
PDWG members asked clarifying questions about the revised social goal and objectives. Questions
are indicated in italics, followed by the response.
The first objective mentions conflicts associated with prairie dogs and competing land uses. Should
there be an explicit objective related to mitigating the conflict between prairie dogs and irrigated land
uses as much as possible?
Objective 2 identifies innovative and proactive strategies to address conflicts in each defined
category (including agriculture). The subgroup did not assume that they understood all the conflict
areas, so hopefully during the implementation of objective 2, strategies can be created to deal with
specific conflicts. The subgroup considered buckets of conflict, each bucket would correspond to a
2
different mitigation idea. The success of implementation should be reported on an annual or bi-
annual basis. New conflict areas may be identified during this review process.
Does the subgroup intend for the conflicts to be identified on the ground?
Yes, the subgroup intended for conflicts to be tangibly identified on the ground. There will likely be
multiple innovative strategies recommended, and a combination of approaches may be necessary if
there is a combination of conflicts.
Objective 2 mentions “high-value areas.” What are “high-value areas”?

The phrase "high-value areas" refers to the prioritization of certain agricultural lands over others.
Barriers or other exclusion methods may be tailored after the highest priority areas are
determined. The strategy for identifying high-value areas will be determined during
implementation.
How much of the designated agricultural land overlaps with prairie dog occupation?
The City has 6,000-7,000 acres of irrigated land, but not all those acres are occupied. 15,000 acres
of the grassland system is leased. Prairie dogs occupy 895 acres of the designated agricultural land.
Group Discussion
• The group discussed including a statement in objective 2 about identifying conflicts "on the
ground," but decided that the inclusion of such a statement may be confusing since some
conflicts are not centered around a geographic area but are focused on communication or
other non-spatial aspects. The objective should include a statement that “current and
anticipated place-based conflicts will be mapped.”
• Objective 4 is intended to implement the strategies. It may not be necessary to include this
objective since the milestones should serve as checkpoints for implementation of the
strategies.
• Many of the objectives could use additional details in the strategies and milestones through
pilot programs and target implementation dates.
• Conflicts on agricultural lands are not only resolved using exclusive methods. The subgroup
should consider changing point 1 of the “agriculture” component under objective 2 to
“evaluate, provide barriers, and pursue other exclusion or mitigation measures.”
• There are questions about whether the achievement of point 2 of the “private and adjacent
landowners” component of objective 2 is realistic. Point 2 is currently written as “add
additional criteria to the definition of prairie dog conservation areas (PCAs) to filter out
areas of known high conflict with neighboring properties.” Some PDWG members feel that
there should be some mechanism to measure which PCAs have a higher level of conflict
with adjacent property owners than others. There should be a statement about continuous
reevaluation of conflicts, since variables are continually changing (home sales, etc.). Some
are concerned that evaluating PCAs may lead to a loss of PCA areas and would like to see the
inclusion of a proposal to replace that land. The draft ecological goal and objectives include
this update to the PCA designation.
• The first step is to identify the conflict zone (e.g., the overlap of agricultural land with
prairie dog occupation), and the second step is to come up with strategic and innovative
solutions. Each conflict should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
• PDWG members asked whether current agricultural lessees are compensated by the City if
prairie dogs occupy their property and whether that might be a strategic solution that this
objective could suggest. The City does not compensate all lessees but does provide sprints
to account for prairie dog occupation. However, the agricultural community has indicated
3
that the compensation does not adequately compensate property owners for the loss of
production. The finalization of the Agricultural Management Program has led to discussions
about lease rates potentially being determined on a case-by-case basis to account for prairie
dog occupation. The subgroup should also consider including a recommendation to attach
precipitation factors into the determination of lease rates.
• A logo that the City created for another campaign could be used for the prairie dog
campaign. It uses the acronym SMART (sustainable management aimed at resilience
targets). The campaign could survey residents to understand what they do not like about
prairie dogs (e.g., the aesthetics of their colonies, etc.). The question could be "what has not
worked in the past and what could be improved upon in the future?” Then a post-campaign
survey could be developed that tracks changes in perception.
• One of the strategies or milestones could be the implementation of X number of barrier
installation projects in collaboration with community partners such as the Prairie Dog
Coalition or the Defenders of Wildlife.
• In terms of implementing a communication strategy, much of the current resources and
literature on plague are outdated or lacking. Other group members may be able to
collaborate with the Prairie Dog Coalition to create better resources.
• Parks and Recreation also has conflicts with adjacent landowners and competing land uses,
so Joy Master should review this goal. Val Matheson will check with Joy about this.
SUBGROUP PRESENTATION OF ECONOMIC GOAL STATEMENT

The subgroup of PDWG members who met to refine the economic prairie dog management goal
improvement.
Key Revisions
• The wording of the goal statement was not changed. A milestone was added to strategy 1 of
objective 1 to use the habitat quantification tool (laid out in the ecological goal) to impact
positive impact.
• The language in objective 2 was refined. The group discussed the milestones for this
objective at length and would like feedback from the PDWG about milestone 4.
PDWG members asked clarifying questions about the revised economic goal and objectives.
How unique or unusual is it to revisit and amend department budget allocations to create a line item
for prairie dog management? Do other species have distinct line items?
OSMP has an operating plan for wildlife, and it includes a line item for prairie dogs. Parks and
Recreation does not have a line item for prairie dog management. It would be good to clarify in
objective 3 that it may be necessary to hire additional staff or bring in a consultant to achieved
approved goals and objectives.
Objective 3, strategy 2, milestone 1 is to “create a working relationship with at least two outside
organizations to help fulfill the PDWG goals and objectives.” What does a “working relationship” mean
in this context?
Typically, this means an in-kind contribution. For example, outside organizations could contribute
nest boxes.
4
Group Discussion of Objective 2, Milestone 4
Objective 2, milestone 4 is to "investigate the possibility of using private landowner agricultural
lease fees to help fund use of non-lethal control methods to resolve prairie dog conflicts with
adjacent landowners and on irrigated farmlands." The PDWG provided suggestions for revision.
• There are agricultural lands that are currently not leased for grazing purposes and are
already used by wildlife as habitat. This objective intends to allow private conservation
entities to pay a lease fee for this land to preserve it as wildlife habitat, and that money
could support agriculture or be deposited into the conservation fund. This recommendation
is not specific to irrigated land. The agricultural community is concerned that a
conservation entity may compete and outbid agricultural producers for the properties and
that this could exacerbate conflict.
• This milestone could be framed as: “investigate the possibility of creating a conservation
lease program (e.g., “adopt an acre”) with a priority focus on prairie dog conservation and
an effort to avoid irrigable lands and/or bidding wars with agricultural tenants.”
• Some members of the PDWG support using the “adopt an acre” language, and some do not.
There are concerns that the terms "lease" or "adopt an acre" may lead conservation entities
that have participated in this program to believe that they have rights to the property,
which could create more conflict with agricultural uses. Some PDWG members would prefer
that it be framed as the creation of a funding mechanism for conservation entities to
contribute to relocation and conflict mitigation.
• There are agriculture properties that are not being leased for which OSMP has made the
management decision to maintain as wildlife habitat. Only irrigated portions of Open Space
receive a designation; properties do not have to have an agricultural designation to be
leased. So, it would be possible for a conservation group to adopt a parcel of agricultural
land that is not currently being leased and keep it as it is.
• The intent of objective 2 is to create a strategy for tapping into existing resources by 2020.
However, the language implies that the goal is to identify opportunities, rather than create a
plan or strategy. The language should be more precise.
Group Discussion of Other Objectives

• In objective 3, strategy 1, the subgroup should clarify in the document that the strategy is to
revisit “annual work plan objectives” (not just “objectives”).
• Objective 3, strategy 2, milestone 2 should clarify that it is to “make data available for other
funding opportunities.”
• Objective 2 should specify who determines how the money in the conservation fund will be
used and who will oversee proper distribution of the money. The OSMP Board of Trustees
will be made aware of the budget for the fund. The subgroup should discuss who the
oversight body would be considering that Parks and Recreation has a different board.
SUBGROUP PRESENTATION OF ECOLOGICAL GOAL STATEMENT

The subgroup of PDWG members who met to refine the ecological prairie dog management goal
improvement.
Key Revisions
5
• The ecological subgroup did not have time to meet in person to refine the goal. There are
some areas on which the group has not reached a consensus that require further discussion
by the full PDWG.
• The subgroup would like the full PDWG to discuss several issues on which the subgroup did
not reach a consensus. The first topic is the location of a broader swath of land on which
prairie dogs are the priority for management. Some feel that PCAs are inadequate because
they are fragmented, and would like to see the designation of a more substantial
conservation area, perhaps on the Southern Grasslands. The second topic is the impact to
prairie dog colonies of protecting all at-risk species. Some believe that there should be a
threshold or limit placed on the protection of at-risk species that allows prairie dog
conservation targets to be met while still emphasizing the importance of at-risk species. The
final topic is the criteria for receiving sites. Some subgroup members would like to include
language about how the intent of revising the receiving site criteria is to produce more
receiving sites while others do not feel comfortable specifying a desired outcome for the
revision process.
• The subgroup struggled to decide where the topic of receiving sites and relocations should
be placed in the goal document. Some felt that it belonged within the ecological goal and
some felt that, given the social implications of relocations, it belonged within the social goal.
The "take-site" is often a source of conflict, and the receiving site is often the area where
ecological principles are most important. Some members of the subgroup felt strongly that
the receiving site criteria and relocation issue belonged in the ecological goal because they
believed it should be tied to the Grassland Management Plan update and pulling it out of
that context would not make sense. Other members of the subgroup felt strongly that the
revision of the receiving site is urgent and should not happen as part of the Grassland
Management Plan revision.
Group Discussion
• Objective 5 of the prior version of the document was to “update receiving site criteria to
fully utilize grassland receiving sites.” This objective was contingent upon the completion of
the work laid out in the other objectives.
• There are a lot of properties in the OSMP system that are not being used to their fullest
potential as receiving sites. The PCAs are not getting recycled quickly enough and are
underutilized.
• There may be a lack of consensus about objective 1 because the group has not agreed upon
the overall goal statement. Some seem to be aiming to expand receiving sites, and others do
not see this as the primary goal.
• The suitability model must be updated, and the components of the Grassland Management
Plan that relate to viability must be revisited first. These updates may translate into more
areas of prairie dog occupation, but including that as an objective would be “putting the cart
before the horse.”
• There are specific components of the Grassland Management Plan that should be prioritized
as urgent, including the revision of the habitat suitability model and the grassland habitat
viability criteria and the receiving site criteria. The document should state that these
components should be revised as a separate, expedited amendment. The subgroup should
rewrite this objective to clarify that these components of the Grassland Management Plan
should be revised quickly (2018-2019).
• Many of the goals, objectives, strategies, and milestones are dependent on each other and
have sequential components. Putting these objectives and milestones into a timeline would
be helpful.
6
• Some members of the subgroup felt the purpose of objective 2 was to use existing grassland
habitat for prairie dogs and to create new areas on the grassland. The new areas should be
managed like PCAs and should be used as receiving sites. While OSMP staff PDWG members
said that there are areas on the Southern Grasslands being managed for sustainable prairie
dog occupation, other members of the subgroup said that the current version of the
objective is written in a way that implies status quo management. One suggestion is to
change the objective to: “Manage existing and newly-established interconnected networks
on City land to secure the most suitable habitat as PCAs for priority use and to serve as
receiving sites.”
• OSMP does not typically manage land for a single use and would be uncomfortable labeling
an area as priority prairie dog use when other values are necessary to manage. The goal
could specify that prioritizing prairie dogs would not mean the diminishing the importance
of other goals. Some members of the PDWG expressed discomfort at the idea of “finding
new areas” for prairie dogs, as prairie dogs have access to the entire grassland system and
putting them in a specific area may jeopardize the mosaic of the grassland system.
• This objective may also need to include a statement about utilizing lands outside of the
OSMP boundaries and working with adjacent landowners, including Boulder County to find
priority habitat.
• The underlying issue is that more receiving sites are needed but the City is also managing
for different objectives, and revising the habitat suitability criteria may not necessarily lead
to the creation of more receiving sites. Members of the PDWG felt they had agreed at the last
meeting that one of the goals is to create a large block of prairie dog habitat on the
grasslands that would allow for the reintroduction of the black-footed ferret.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS MOVING FORWARD

Heather Bergman, Peak Facilitation, offered several suggestions for how the PDWG should proceed
with their future collaborative efforts.
• PDWG members should individually reflect upon the amount of uncertainty they are
comfortable with. It is possible to reach a successful outcome without giving up anything
other than an entrenched position. The challenge with framing an issue as a binary choice is
that it leads to positional bargaining rather than interest-based bargaining. In positional
bargaining, people state what they want (e.g., “increase the number of receiving sites”), and
in interest-based bargaining, people state why they want it (e.g., “I care about creating a
healthy ecosystem for prairie dogs”). Interests are the “why;” positions are the debate about
“how.” PDWG members should determine how specific the final document should be while
recognizing that too much specificity will lead to a positional debate about “how.”
• Given the uncertainty of the final outcome, it is natural to want to propose processes that
make it more likely that specific desired outcomes are met. Because the outcome is
unknown, PDWG members are encouraged to develop recommendations that match all the
interests stated in the group in some way.
• The ecological subgroup should return to the document that they presented during the
April 9 meeting and review the specific recommendations for change from the full group.
The subgroup should be strategic about where they choose to insert specifics.
• The audience for the final recommendation document is the City Manager, City Council, and
the department heads of OSMP, Parks and Recreation, Sustainability, and Housing.
• It may be possible to recommend creating a subgroup that acts as a touchstone or review
entity after the conclusion of the PDWG process to ensure that the implementation of the
goals and objectives honors the intent of the full PDWG. Creation of such a group may soften
the sense of urgency and the desire for specificity. The City Manager may be open to the
7
possibility of approving the formation of a group that meets annually to review progress
and provides additional suggestions to City Council.
• The PDWG does not have funding for more than one more meeting. The PDWG decided to
postpone the final meeting and use the designated meeting time on May 7 for the subgroups
to finalize the goal documents.
• The final recommendation document should include a cover page that specifies that the
group cares about impactful implementation of the strategies and milestones. The cover
page could include a statement about how the PDWG would like to see the implementation
of X amount of pilot projects by Y date. This cover document should also articulate that
implementation takes additional staff time and capacity, and that funding for this additional
capacity is critical. (There is also an objective in the economic goal related to the provision
of resources for the implementation of the approved recommendations.) The cover page
should also include a statement about how some objectives/strategies/milestone in one
goal are dependent on the completion of objectives/strategies/milestones laid out in
another goal. The cover document should also include a definition of the term
“conservation.”
NEXT STEPS
• The May 7 PDWG meeting will not be a full group meeting. Rather, three subgroups will
meet during that time to further refine and hopefully finalize the ecological, social, and
economic goals. Subgroups will send their final documents to Peak Facilitation by
Wednesday, May 9. The subgroups are:
o Ecological goal: Pat Comer (coordinator), Lindsey Sterling Krank, Carse
Pustmueller, Eric Sims, Heather Swanson
o Social Goal: Dan Brandemuehl (coordinator), Aaron Cook, Amber Largent, Val
Matheson
o Economic Goal: Elle Cushman, Keri Konold (coordinator), Lindsey Sterling Krank,
Andy Pelster
• Peak Facilitation will send a Doodle poll to PDWG members to reschedule the May 7
meeting for later in May or June.
• After the subgroups send Peak Facilitation their documents, Peak will create an online
survey. The survey will ask PDWG members to provide their thoughts on the implications of
the goals, objectives, strategies, and milestones on existing plans and policies and what
plans and policies may need to be changed. It will also list each objective and ask PDWG
members to prioritize them from most important and urgent to least important and urgent.
Peak will create a report of the responses and send it to the PDWG before the next meeting.
• Peak Facilitation will send out the written public comment from Pam Wanek.
• Heather and Keri will write a draft introductory document, which will be sent to PDWG
members for their review, to use as a cover page for the recommendations,
• There is a PDWG update to City Council on August 7. The City Manager will review the
PDWG memo and determine what she will present to City Council.
8
ATTACHMENT 1
WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT (Please note this comment is verbatim as submitted by Wanek)
Pam Wanek from Unincorporated Adams County

Thank you for allowing me to attend the 4.9.2018 PDWG meeting. I have not been a participant
during the last 11 meetings so I am sure you have probably looked at some of the items I am going
to address here. To give you my background, I have a working background with prairie dogs for the
last two decades this involves working in the field and review of multiple federal, state and local
government policies and law. Please consider my comments for your plan:
• The overall objective of state and federal governments is to maintain or increase “occupied
acres” of prairie dogs to avoid listing. Other objectives are to equalized distribution of
prairie dogs throughout the state where inventories are conducted on a county by county
basis, and the establishment of prairie dog complexes measured in thousands of acres.
• In both federal and state documents the biggest threat to prairie dogs is plague and the
current target population numbers set by both agencies are an estimate of what is needed
and a starting point for conservation but no way guarantees that it is enough for self
sustaining populations. There are no population models that can adequately predict how
many “occupied acres” are needed in the event of plague; therefore, the recommendation is
to have larger “occupied acres” and complexes than would be normally estimated due to the
presence of plague.
• Another huge threat to prairie dogs is a lack of regulatory control and the failure of local
governments and agencies to fully understand the magnitude of the problem. Collaboration
among these entities will be vital to avoid future listing of the species.
Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAA’s) Might potentially be one
goal to strive for that would protect local governments and private landowners under an
umbrella agreement should prairie dogs or other species become officially listed.
• Key documents every local government should be looking at an incorporating into their
conservation plans include the following: The Multi-state Conservation Plan for the Black-
tailed Prairie Dog, The Colorado Grasslands Conservation Plan, State Wildlife Action Plan
(SWAP) and review of Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances:
• Given this background the following are my recommendations for the City’s plan:
The goal statement needs to broad and more encompassing consider this:
The overall prairie dog conservation goal is to conserve, enhance or re-establish occupied
prairie dog acreage by working collaboratively with state, federal and other local
jurisdictions while balancing the ecological, social and economic goals of the city.
• This goal statement recognizes collaboratively working with multiple agencies for the goal
of “occupied acres” but still respects the city’s responsibility to balance the local
community’s interests. It also educates the city’s own residents that there are other federal
and state agencies that actually do have goals to stop further decline of the BTPD and one of
those goals is a shared responsibility among all local governments and to ensure that BTPD
populations are distributed across broad ranges to prevent their entire collapse in the event
of plague or other unnatural events.
Goal 1: Ecological
• Objective 2 – Manage prairie dog colonies on city OSMP plague resistance –
My comment: concerned that this is just being assigned to OSMP and not other departments
– Parks and Rec or other private landowners. The goal of the city should be “Occupied
Acres” of prairie dogs. Why confine this to OSMPs? The responsibility for plague
9
management should be shared on a multi-landowner multi-departmental basis. The city
might consider targeting certain colonies at multiple ownership levels as their focal colonies
to protect (due to manpower and other cost factors) and private landowners may be
interested in plague resistance protocol for their colonies as well.
• Objective 3 – Update Grassland Management Plan …Strategy 3: Work with local
experts…apply to lands across City and adjacent county, public and private parcels…
Working group comments:– cannot extend authorities to other lands, may cause ill feelings
by outside jurisdictions – My comment: excellent point and this is one reason why the
county must be on board with this. Under current federal and state guidelines (See Multi-
state conservation plan BTPD and the state) “occupied acres” inventories are based upon
countywide occupancy; therefore, it would be prudent for the county to become engaged in
any loss or gain of protected “occupied acres” for any city or private landowners within the
county.
Val: What is a viable population definition? Linds: it means stable. Patrick: a population that
can be regulated by predators and not plague. Pam Comment: I really like Patrick’s idea
here and would add to this…a sustainable population is one that can reproduce itself every
year and is self-regulating by predators or other natural factors and not plague. You may
need to really open up what is stable, this includes natural factors such as attrition
throughout the year (i.e natural population swings). How little is too little for stable? Can
pdog populations self-regulate (internal pdog factors…infanticide…etc). Also, consider gains
and losses of “occupied acres” at the macro and micro levels.
• Objective 4: Completed and implement plan for re-introduction of BFF….
Someone mentioned to add other predators to this and I liked that idea. My comment: swift
fox, ferruginous hawks, burrowing owls, plover, curlew, any other associates in decline from
the loss of prairie dogs. Add another section here. My conversation with T. Jackson
(CPW)…she mentioned that swift fox had become abundant in some areas in Colorado and
they were transferring them to Wyoming for example.
Goal 2: Social …minimize conflicts

• Pam: develop a response systems for pdogs that move off of designated conservation areas
to unsuitable areas…there must be accountability to inhibit a potential problem. This is one
reason why people don’t want prairie dogs next to them because they don’t know how to
manage them! Educate city planners to incorporate barriers along with approved
development plans. The city may want to relax vegetation standards in some situations
where it is beneficial for non-pdog lands to grow plants to heights without city ordinances
to require vegetation management (mowing). The city may need to hire extra staff that are
specifically trained in how to fix problem areas.
Andy: ag land need proactive strategies
Pam – Social – goes way beyond local communities it is a regional and statewide problem it
will be extremely important to press for the goals in the Colorado State Grasslands
Conservation Plans all 12 objectives are very encompassing and the more you talk about
this it will educate the state as a whole. Equally important is the State Wildlife Action Plan
(2005 and 2015). And of course education about the Colorado Local Land Use Control
Enabling Act. Local governments have the primary authority to protect habitats within their
political jurisdiction.
• Work with other county commissioners: SB99-111 my comments about this bill. It is used
too much as a scapegoat by local governments, although I do agree in some instances it is a
difficult bill to maneuver around when other counties do not have prairie dog conservation
plans therefore do not understand why they need protection or why such protections would
be economically beneficial. Rural counties benefit because private landowners can maintain
10
large complexes without the costs born onto the county and these “occupied acres” are a
positive count to their county inventory. The key point with SB99-111 is: Why should a
county accept another county’s prairie dogs? And this is a good point. Each county should
be accountable for prairie dogs within their jurisdiction.
• In 2002 we presented to the capitol HB02-1183 that made clarification of SB99-111
basically two provisions where county commissioner approval not required: 1. In cities that
have annexed lands into multiple counties (because counties only have land use planning
jurisdiction in unincorporated sections of the county) and 2. Sanctuaries on private lands
approved by CPW. What it did not do is allow local governments to buy land beyond their
contiguous political boundaries for prairie dogs. The bill failed mainly because the issue was
political and genuine hate for prairie dogs. Since I worked on that bill, with CDOW at the
time, I have all the notes, etc…and am more than willing to share. This bill needs to be
presented again!
My comments: Education the key---involve metro chambers, DRCOG, Colorado Counties,
etc…most of these entities have no idea about the Multi-state Conservation Plan or the State
Grassland Conservation Plan. Must drive in over and over that these documents do exist and
there is a problem with the loss of pdogs and securing acreages that are pdog occupied.
Joy: need to categorize conflicts – Pam: yup and then perhaps put into a decision tree –
those that want pdogs, those that like pdogs but NIMBYs, those that do not want any prairie
dogs.
Carse: Conservation funding how much $ will conservation fund have and how will this be
allocated to staff and other things. Is a viable pdog population more important than buying
land?
My comment: Carse raises a very good question how is the money allocated how is it
designated. Remember the key to conservation is “occupied acres” of prairie dogs.
Obviously land is needed to do this but just managing pdogs for plague and reinstatement is
difficult too. Do you set occupied acreage limits? If so after the limit reached how do you
allocate.
My comment: Mitigation money should clearly not be comingled with the general operating
budget. Skeleton goals should mimic general language under CCAA – candidate
conservation agreements:
Qualifying actions may be:

• protecting and enhancing existing populations and habitats;
• restoring degraded habitat;
• creating new habitat;
• augmenting existing populations;
• restoring historic populations; and
• not undertaking a specific, potentially impacting/damaging activity.
Working Group: Mitigation – originally used net gain but removed because too difficult to quantify
• Pam – Why? Net gain and net loss seems to be fairly simple, either lands have prairie dogs or they
do not. Is the city done annexing land? County can use three mile annexation plans for cities within
jurisdiction.
• Pam – City may be statutorily restricted for fees on infractions…infractions should be applied to
each “occupied acre” Very important to hinge the importance of the goal of occupied acres – that
terminology!
• Pam- may need to change development code to increase required OS for developers to mitigate
with contiguous OS rather than piecemeal.
11
• Pam – monies from O & G royalties to mitigate damages and buy more OS
• Andy – willing sellers more of a limitation than money.
On Delta Dust and SPV –
• Pam – I had some real issues with this, in my conservations with D. Tripp Delta Dust and SPV will
ALWAYS need to go hand in hand you cannot just depend on SPV – plague is ubiquitous and many
other species will remain infected if you only depend on SPV and they will carry this to other
unprotected colonies…espec, fox, coyotes, birds of prey and mountain lions (die from plague)
• Pam – IPM – will need an entirely separate section dedicated to prairie dogs – the city must be
flexible to dust colonies to protect human health, not only next to public buildings but for those
individuals that work directly within burrows or other pdog habitat related activities. Deltadust is
being used to protect a species of greatest conservation need this is a paradigm shift where you
actually need to pesticide to protect a native species from the city’s current position where
pesticides may harm people and other native species. The city must accept that in certain
situations, pesticides can be helpful for native species and humans…especially with the
introduction of exotic diseases. It’s a reality just like human inoculations to avoid serious disease.
• Val – in general has a problem with goal statements but not having a problem statement. For
example we cannot have ferrets because we don’t have big enough blocks for prairie dogs. Build
goal statements from problems statements – Pam – yes perfect approach.
Finally, thanks for all your hard work and determination to make this a great document!
12
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
OSMP Annex (7315 Red Deer Drive, Boulder CO)
Meeting Summary – DRAFT

ATTENDANCE
Participants: Dan Brandemuehl, Pat Comer, Elle Cushman, Keri Konold, Lindsey Sterling Krank,
Amber Largent, Val Matheson, Joy Master, Andy Pelster, Carse Pustmueller, Heather Swanson, Eric
Sims, John Vickery

Additional Staff: Rella Abernathy


Peak • Update the final goals document and the cover page.
Facilitation • Create the final report.
Group • Send the PDWG the dates of the OSBT and City Council meetings on
the subject of prairie dogs.
Keri Konold Send out details regarding the PDWG celebration on June 20.

PUBLIC COMMENT
The first ten minutes of the meeting were dedicated to written and verbal public comment. Below is
a summary of verbal comments provided during the meeting.

Elizabeth Black
• Black displayed photos of the Dust Bowl in comparison to current soil conditions in Boulder
and argued that the Dust Bowl is happening again due to prairie dog occupation.
• Over 1,000 acres of Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) land is no longer leasable, and
prairie dogs occupy almost 200 acres of OSMP irrigated land (approximately 10% of OSMP
land). Boulder cannot collect lease payments on this land, and the soil health has suffered.
Most parts of Boulder only have one foot of topsoil, and once that is gone the land will be
destroyed.
• It is time that the City of Boulder admit that its prairie dog management policies have been a
failure. Lethal control of prairie dogs must be reinstituted to prevent further soil erosion.

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) POLICY UPDATE
Rella Abernathy, City of Boulder’s Integrated Pest Management Program (IPM) Coordinator,
provided an update about the City’s IPM policy. Below are the key points from her presentation.
• IPM has several definitions. Boulder follows the original philosophy of IPM, which includes
guiding principles of biodiversity protection, ecosystem services, and adaptation/resilience.
Boulder is currently updating its IPM policy because it includes obsolete language that
needs to replaced, and the City needs to integrate council-directed changes into the policy.
The new language will have an emphasis on ecosystem health and services.
• Terrestrial species have declined by 39% between 1970 and 2010. There has also been a
massive decline in invertebrate abundance. These species provide functioning soils,
pollination services, food fiber, clean water, etc. Biodiversity is important because
ecosystems are interconnected. Ecosystems are being degraded but are also the source of
the solution.
1
• During the 1950's four professors responded to the overuse of DDT by outlining the
founding principles of IPM, which focused on the comprehensive ecosystem and recognized
that a focus on top systems often impacts soil, water, plants, and non-target species. The
professors advocated for the use of natural controls within an ecosystem and for adopting a
holistic and environmentally-sound approach. In the IPM hierarchy, prevention is vital, and
chemical controls should be reduced and eliminated when possible.
• For the City of Boulder, the IPM policy is the guiding document for prairie dog management.
The IPM Operations Manual provides procedural guidelines for staff workgroups to use
when managing prairie dogs. The City of Boulder is revising the IPM policy in coordination
with its ecosystem protection strategy.
Members of the PDWG asked clarifying questions about the IPM policy. Questions are indicated in
italics, followed by the response.
What is the timeline for the update to the IPM policy?

Staff is currently consolidating several documents and will be seeking Open Space Board of
Trustees (OSBT) feedback soon.
There seems to be a lack of data about the impact that the use of pesticides on prairie dog colonies
would have on non-target species. Without this data, is it possible to use pesticides on prairie dog
colonies?
The IPM policy does not prohibit the use of pesticides. The City considers the use of pesticides on a
site-by-site basis. The City collects as much information as possible, determines costs, balances
tradeoffs, and reaches the best possible solution. In this process, the City looks at the "big picture"
impacts. For example, the City recently decided to use systemic pesticides on 10% of the City's
emerald ash borers after a city-wide discussion of the environmental, economic, and social
tradeoffs of doing so. The IPM policy is a guiding document that provides a variety of tools to make
decisions.
Have there been any City of Boulder studies about the impact of Delta Dust in the burrow holes?
The City's process is to consider the goal for the site and the current condition of the prairie dog
colony to determine whether Delta Dust, the vaccine, or a combination of treatments are
appropriate. This process of considering pros and cons may be different depending on the site
location (i.e., southern grasslands versus northern grasslands).
How does the City determine when or when not to use Delta Dust at the sending-site?
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) requires the City to treat the sending site for fleas. The US
Geological Survey (USGS) has tested alternatives to Delta Dust, so it is important not to get attached
to the use of one product because the City is open to considering a variety of tools.
What are the application instructions for Delta Dust?

Some PDWG members emphasized that the instruction label specifies that Delta Dust should be
applied “in and around” the burrow, while other PDWG members who work with Delta Dust stated
that it is not necessary to treat “around” the burrow because applying the dust only inside the
burrow provides effective plague management. Given Boulder’s IPM goals of minimizing exposure
to pesticides, Parks and Recreation only applies Delta Dust inside burrows.
Is there anything in the IPM policy that would prevent the implementation of a plague management
plan?
2
No, not in the IPM policy. Any plague management plan should consider the whole ecosystem.
CITY PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Keri Konold provided a brief update on the City of Boulder’s plan for implementation of the PDWG’s
recommendations
• If the PDWG’s recommendations get approved by City Council, OSMP leadership has agreed
that it would be beneficial to have a point-person tasked with overseeing implementation
over time.
• Ideally, there would be a person who would “orchestrate” implementation and would be
funded by a variety of different departments. Staff will recommend this in their memo to the
City Manager.
REVIEW OF ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS

PDWG members reviewed the results of the online survey, which asked participants to place the
ecological, social, and economic objectives in the order in which they should be implemented.
• The survey results indicate that the PDWG sees a need to address and reduce conflict
related to prairie dog management. While addressing conflict is a near-term solution, it is a
necessary step toward achieving the broader vision.
• The PDWG would like to emphasize that the survey was intended to indicate the order in
which the objectives should be implemented; multiple objectives can be pursued and
implemented simultaneously.
• Many strategies within the objectives should be started immediately, but there are some
that can wait.
• The cover page should specify that the goals, objectives, and strategies complement each
other. During implementation, there should be an awareness of a logical timeline regarding
which objectives, strategies, and milestones must be accomplished first and which items
should be address concurrently. This goals document should guide the implementation
overseer's work plan.
FINAL AGREEMENT ON RECOMMENDED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The subgroups for each goal (ecological, social, and economic) presented their revised documents,
and the PDWG reached final agreement about the goals. Agreed-upon changes to the goals
document are indicated in italics. The agreed-upon changes will be integrated into the final goals
document and included in the report to the City Manager.
Ecological Goal
• The PDWG discussed whether to remove, keep, or change objective 1, strategy 3, milestone
3, which states: “By 2019, work with IPM coordinator to create and implement an
acceptable policy that may limit the use of insecticides but allows such use on large prairie
dog occupied ecosystem colonies as necessary.” The group agreed to change the wording to:
“By 2019, work with IPM to ensure implementation of an acceptable policy that may limit the
use of insecticides but allows such use on large prairie dog ecosystem colonies as necessary.”
• Objective 1, strategy 2, milestone 2 is to “…update GMAP goals relevant to prairie dogs
along with receiving site location…”. The PDWG agreed to change this milestone to: “Update
and implement GMAP goals relevant to prairie dogs along with receiving site location…”
• PDWG members discussed whether the ecological objective of securing and implementing
non-lethal removal methods on lands with conflicting urban and agricultural uses should be
part of the ecological or social goal. Some PDWG members worried that having a similar
objective in both the ecological and social goals would detract from the implementation of
3
the other ecological objectives. Other members of the PDWG were worried that moving the
objective to the social goal would minimize the ecological component of the objective. For
example, strategy 3 of this objective refers to oral contraception agents, which would not fit
under the social goal. This objective pertains to the management of prairie dog populations
concerning biology and ecology; the social goal pertains to the management of prairie dog
conflicts with people. The PDWG agreed to leave the objective in the ecological goal, and
specify that implementation of this objective should not detract from the other important and
urgent ecological objectives.
• PDWG members should consider whether it is appropriate to set a milestone for increasing
the number of translocations successfully implemented in the Boulder region (objective 2,
strategy 1, milestone 1). The ecological subgroup emphasized that the milestone was only
for 2019 and did not extend beyond that; the aim was simply to “move the needle.” The
group discussed whether it would be helpful to state the current limiting factors (i.e., staff
resources, the presence of plague, etc.), but agreed that the details about budgeting and
capacity in the economic goal were sufficient. The PDWG agreed to change the language to:
“In the near term, due to high occupancy of conflict areas, increase the number of
translocations across the Boulder region.”
• One member of the PDWG did not agree with objective 1, strategy 4 because they did not
think that 1,500 of contiguous acreages is suitable for prairie dog habitat. They also
emphasized that working with Boulder County and adjacent counties could require
adherence to their prairie dog management practices, which may include lethal control.
• Since the list of prairie dog plans and policies may extend beyond the listed items, the
PDWG agreed to change objective 3 to: “Amend as necessary and keep all existing prairie dog
plans and policies (including but not limited to Admin Rule, IPM, UWMP, GMAP, Wildlife
Protection Ordinance) current as needed to ensure they are mutually compatible with goal 1
and its objectives and strategies.”
Social Goal
• The subgroup revised the goal statement to include a pilot program and suggested that the
Stratton and Brewbaker property be considered as a site to acknowledge the time and effort
the property owners have put into submitting comments and attending PDWG meetings.
Some PDWG members expressed discomfort with explicitly mentioning the Stratton and
Brewbaker property, as there are many other similar conflict areas owned by people who
did not attend the meetings or submit public comment. There should be criteria to
determine which properties the City considers for the pilot project, but City staff should not
list specific properties in the goals document.
• The group agreed to change the bullet in objective 1 to: "conflict categories such as."
• The group agreed to change objective 2 to: “Identify and implement innovative, proactive,
and non-lethal strategies…”
• The group agreed to change the bullet under objective 2 (on relocation demands exceeding
receiving sites) to: “Work towards the reintroduction of the black-footed ferret using
connecting parcels from the public/private sector to achieve this goal as a non-lethal strategy
in prairie dog management.”
• PDWG members had questions about what the review of mechanisms for communication
(objective 3) would entail. The social goal aims to provide sequential objectives. The first
step is to identify and map conflict areas; the second step is to determine what strategies to
use to improve them; the third step is implementation; and the fourth step is to review and
provide feedback mechanisms for future scenarios.
4
• Some of the proactive, non-lethal strategies listed under the “relocation demands exceed
receiving site” section in objective 2 are related to ecology and population management and
may fit better under the ecological goal. Objective 2 could specify the education components
that play into black-footed ferret reintroduction (e.g., “expand appreciation for prairie dogs
and associated species"). The group agreed to amend the second bullet under the
“relocation demands exceed receiving site” section of objective 2 to: “Work towards the
reintroduction of the black-footed ferret (as stated in goal 1) by using connecting parcels…”
• Some PDWG members did not agree with the concept of "stockpiling" prairie dogs to qualify
for black-footed ferret reintroduction.
• The group agreed to clarify what the term “adjoining” means in objective 2, milestone 1.
Economic Goal
• The PDWG discussed objective 2, strategy 2, which pertains to the establishment of bi-
annual meetings of the PDWG for “reporting out the status of the goals and objectives as
well as the review of, and advisement on, inflows and outflows of the grasslands
conservation fund.” Some PDWG members would like to informally discuss progress on all
goals and objectives during these meetings, and others expressed concern about the staff
time and capacity needed to gather information bi-annually. The group discussed the
possibility of creating a separate goal of sharing progress on the implementation of the
ecological, social, and economic goals to promote ongoing transparency and accountability.
The group discussed the level of formality and format for this sharing-out process (e.g., an
annual report, informal presentation by staff, formal meeting, etc.). The group agreed to
revise strategy 2 in a way that addresses all three goals: “No less than once but no more than
twice a year, there will be a publicly-noticed meeting that includes invitations to members of
the PDWG with an opportunity for the members to discuss progress on the ecological, social,
and economic goals and strategies and contribute to the adaptive management process.”
• There were questions about how the current version of the economic goal preserved the
idea expressed in previous drafts about investigating the possibility of using private
landowner agricultural lease fees to help resolve prairie dog related conflicts. Subgroup
members stated that they had incorporated this idea in objective 2, strategy 1, milestone 3.
The subgroup changed the original idea of “agricultural lease fees” to “conservation leases”
during the last round of revisions. The idea of using agricultural lease fees was changed
because some members of the PDWG expressed concern about the possibility that the
milestone could be perceived as an opening to create competition between stakeholder
groups (agricultural lessees and conservation groups). Some PDWG members would like to
add a milestone about exploring the possibility of using a portion of agricultural lease
money to mitigate prairie dog conflict on agricultural land (through barriers, etc.). Other
PDWG members stated that there is no surplus available in the agricultural lease pot of
money; the lease revenues do not cover the cost of the current program. The group agreed
to add “work with conservation entities to identify conservation practices and other
programs/funding mechanisms that could support grassland restoration and the mitigation of
conflicts on agricultural land” to objective 2, strategy 1, milestone 3.
COVER LETTER DISCUSSION

The PDWG discussed the content of the draft cover letter that will be attached to the final report
and provided suggestions for revision.
• The PDWG agreed to add a bullet in the cover letter that summarizes the key themes from
public comments received (both verbal and written) and specifies that the PDWG members
stated that the goals and objectives meaningfully address the public comments.
5
• The PDWG agreed to change the language in the bullet on implications for existing plans
and policies. The current language states that changes should be implemented through
"swift" action by the City Manager and City Council or through amendments to existing
plans and policies. Instead, the PDWG suggests including language about determining
priorities and implementing a phased approach while acknowledging that the City cannot
accomplish everything simultaneously.
• The PDWG agreed to remove the definition of the term “conservation” in the cover letter.
• The PDWG agreed to add a bullet that specifies the areas where there is not a consensus
among group members (i.e., "the PDWG agrees to this document, except for one member
who expressed specific concerns about X, Y, Z").
• The PDWG agreed to add a bullet about the use of Delta Dust during relocations. This
language will be reviewed and finalized by Lindsey Sterling Krank and Val Matheson.
2018 RELOCATION AND PLAGUE MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION

One member of the PDWG raised concerns about the plan for the use of sylvatic plague vaccine
(SPV) during prairie dog relocations. Below are the key themes from this discussion.
• During the 2018 relocations, prairie dogs will receive a dose of SPV before they are moved.
The sending sites will be dusted and sprayed with insecticide. The prairie dogs will receive
the second dose of SPV in the fall. Some PDWG members were not satisfied with this plan
and felt that it does not provide adequate plague protection for the prairie dogs because
there is research that indicates that the application of Delta Dust must also occur at the
receiving site to provide effective plague management
• During Phase One of the PDWG, the group did not reach consensus about whether the
receiving site would receive Delta Dust.
• 2018 relocations are starting now, and the plan is to move approximately 400 prairie dogs.
The IPM policy does not preclude the use of Delta Dust, and the City makes decisions on the
use of Delta Dust on a case-by-case basis. The City has and will continue to consider Delta
Dust as part of the decision process for relocations, but there is no guarantee that it will or
will not use it. Several PDWG members remain concerned that the City will not use Delta
Dust at the receiving sites.
• The PDWG agreed to create a bullet in the cover page that says: "The PDWG discussed the
use of Delta Dust and whether/how it should be applied on OSMP lands, both in the long
term and specifically during 2018 relocations. Some in the group strongly stated that use of
Delta Dust at both take-sites and receiving-sites is critical to the survival of prairie dogs and
should be an integral part of relocations. Others expressed concerns about the potential
impacts of Delta Dust on non-target species, particularly pollinators that are susceptible to
insecticide. Due to the variety of perspectives on this issue, the PDWG did not agree to the
use of Delta Dust on receiving sites; the City already anticipates using it on the take sites.”
Lindsey Sterling Krank and Val Matheson will review and approve the language of this
bullet.
NEXT STEPS
• Peak Facilitation Group and Keri Konold will update the final goals document and the cover
letter.
• Staff is creating a memo to send to the City Manager in July.
• Peak Facilitation Group will create the final report.
• OSBT will provide feedback on the report during its August 8 meeting and will send this
feedback to the City Manager, who will decide what to carry forward to City Council. City
6
Council is tentatively scheduled to address prairie dog matters during the September 18
City Council meeting.
• Peak Facilitation Group will send the PDWG the dates of the meetings when OSBT and City
Council will discuss prairie dog matters.
• The final celebration for the PDWG is scheduled for June 20. Keri Konold will provide
further details.
7
Attachment B
INFORMATION PACKET
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager

Jim Robertson, Director of Planning, Housing and Sustainability (PHS)
Yvette Bowden, Director of Parks and Recreation (PR)
Tracy Winfree, Director of Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)
Keri Konold, Community Relations Officer, OSMP
John Potter, Resource and Stewardship Manager, OSMP
Joy Master, Conservation Ecologist, PR
Val Matheson, Urban Wildlife Coordinator, PHS
Andy Pelster, Agricultural Stewardship Supervisor, OSMP
Heather Swanson, Senior Wildlife Ecologist, OSMP
Date: February 1, 2018
Subject: Information Item: Final Report on Phase 1 and Phase 2 Update from the Prairie
Dog Working Group
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Information Packet is to provide council with the Prairie Dog Working
Group’s Final Report on Phase 1 (Attachment A) and to provide information on the current
working of the group for Phase 2. The final report includes the six consensus-based
recommendations from the working group approved by the city manager in June 2017 that can
be implemented under existing plans and policies. During Phase 2, the group is identifying
relocation methodologies under existing plans and policies that can be used in 2018 and beyond,
and identify longer-term ideas that might need further exploration or require changes to City
plans and policies. A process for achieving this has been determined and is fully explained in the
Final Report on Phase 1 and in the Phase 2 Proposed Process (Attachment B).
Staff will continue to implement the Phase 1 recommendations in a collaborative manner. In

Phase 2 which is currently underway, the working group will make longer-term plan and policy
recommendations to the city manager and will likely report out at a City Council Study Session
at a date in 2018 yet to be determined.
FISCAL IMPACT
Implementation of the Phase 1 recommendations have thus far had minor fiscal impacts that
were absorbed under existing OSMP, PHS, and PR budgets in 2017 and are planned for in 2018
budgets. The displacement of other wildlife management priorities in 2017 that occurred is
discussed below. Longer-term plan and policy recommendations that result from Phase 2 work
will have fiscal impacts that will need to be identified as they are further refined.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS

• Economic: There are no large-scale economic impacts to the community; however, there will
be financial implications and potential trade-offs to implement the recommendations.
• Environmental: There are potential impacts to environmental factors that will be identified
and explored during further refinement and implementation of recommendations.
• Social: Impacts to the community will include intentional inclusion of key stakeholders when
implementing prairie dog management practices. Key stakeholders may include, but are not
limited to, private land owners, neighbors, agricultural operators, prairie dog advocates,
people who are pesticide sensitive, grassland ecosystem experts and advocates, prairie dog
relocators, and government agencies.
BACKGROUND
The City of Boulder's current prairie dog management practices affect numerous stakeholders
who are concerned about a wide variety of impacts including those to prairie dogs, grassland
ecosystems, human health, and private and public lands. At the Aug. 16, 2016 City Council
meeting, council members suggested the city form a working group that could suggest, based on
a broad understanding of the full range of community perspectives, adaptable prairie dog
management practices to be implemented under existing policy, as well as possible longer-term
policy changes. The working group was to provide a forum for conversation. It was also to help
develop innovative ideas to best balance city goals, such as managing diverse grassland
ecosystems and agricultural practices while providing for healthy, sustainable prairie dog
populations – all while maintaining good neighbor relations.
The City of Boulder sought participants for a working group to make adaptive management
practice recommendations to the city manager. Sixteen members were appointed, based on
participants' ability and willingness to meet certain expectations including having demonstrated a
willingness to be collaborative, innovative and respectful, and to represent broad interests and
community perspectives. The working group included twelve participants, including Boulder
residents and non-resident members, representing broad interests and community perspectives.
Working group participants include: Aaron Cook, Amber Largent, Amy Masching, Carse
Pustmueller, Dan Brandemuehl, Deborah Jones, Elle Cushman, Eric Sims, Jr., Jeff Edson, John
Vickery, Lindsay Sterling-Krank, and Patrick Comer. Kristin Cannon from Colorado
Department of Parks and Wildlife also participated in the working group. Additionally, five City
of Boulder staff members served on the working group - Andy Pelster, OSMP Agricultural
Stewardship Supervisor; Heather Swanson, OSMP Senior Wildlife Ecologist; Joy Master, PR
Conservation Ecologist; Keri Konold, OSMP Community Relations Officer; and Val Matheson,
PHS Urban Wildlife Coordinator.
In this effort, the City of Boulder committed to consider and incorporate participant advice and
recommendations into staff management decisions to the greatest extent possible. The City of
Boulder also has expressed sincere gratitude to all participants for their dedication to the project.
Heather Bergman and Sam Haas from Peak Facilitation Group, a private contractor, facilitates
the working group. Meetings are open to the public with a portion of the meeting reserved for
public comment. Working group members are expected to:
• Understand the city's broad range of management goals and constraints for prairie dog
management.
• Develop holistic adaptive management recommendations that provide a community-wide
benefit rather than a singular benefit.
• Recommend pilot ideas and practices that can be implemented under the existing policy and
respect the context of the collective grassland ecosystem. (Work done in Phase 1.)
• Recommend longer-term ideas that may need further exploration or more substantial
changes to policy. (Currently underway in Phase 2.)
• Serve as a model for the city in terms of collaboration, innovation, and respect.
Throughout the process, public information has been available and kept updated online at
https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp/prairie-dog-working-group and includes background data,
meeting agendas and summary notes (includes public comments), reference documents, and
other related materials. On several occasions members of the public have attended to either
provide public comment or to learn about the work the group is performing on the city’s behalf.
If any comments were made, these are captured within the summary notes of meetings.
ANALYSIS
The following six consensus-based recommendations were made by the Prairie Dog Working
Group during Phase 1. These can be implemented under existing plans and policies are detailed
in the attached Final Report on Phase 1 (Attachment A) provided by Peak Facilitation Group:
• Recommendation #1 – Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing relocation/take sites

on both public and private land.
• Recommendation #2 – Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing receiving sites on
sites more feasible.
• Recommendation #3 – On approved receiving sites, ensure that the number of prairie
dogs to be relocated have adequate accommodations.
• Recommendation #4 – Define successful prairie dog relocation, including evaluation
criteria and processes.
• Recommendation #5 – Develop a research proposal for the use of the sylvatic plague
vaccine on the southern grasslands in 2018 and beyond.
• Recommendation #6 – Create a subgroup to work with staff to further develop the above
recommendations.
In 2017, staff priorities included addressing the following two prairie dog management related
projects: a) work on city manager-approved 2017 recommendations and b) relocate over 200
prairie dogs from private properties and approximately 40 prairie dogs from Foothills
Community Park onto public land managed by OSMP. This relocation process was successfully
conducted in a way that was consistent with the working group recommendations to the greatest
extent possible under existing plans and policies, including the Administrative Rule for the
Relocation of Prairie Dogs – 6-1-37.A (02).
During Phase 1 a great number of ideas and thoughts generated could not be implemented in
2017 for a variety of reasons (e.g., they would require changes to plans and/or policies or they
could not feasibly be implemented in 2017). The working group recognized there was more work
to be done thereby committing to the current work in progress during Phase 2.
To address the assigned tasks at hand, OSMP, PHS, and P&R staff continue to prioritize work
and allocate their time accordingly. It is expected that this will naturally displace some time
planned for other projects such as site planning for implementation of Trail Study Area Plans
(TSA’s), integration of agricultural management with protection of federally protected species
(e.g. Bald Eagle nests), public outreach on potential prairie dog relocation sites, natural lands
planning and management for various park sites, and education and outreach for the
implementation of the Bear Protection Ordinance. Similarly, the P&R department has a robust
capital program planned through the 6-year CIP that includes investment priorities at
undeveloped park sites such as Valmont City Park. These priorities have been carefully planned
and illustrated in the Urban Wildlife Management Plan. The outcomes of the working group will
need to be carefully considered for any potential budget and investment implications to planned
improvements that involve prairie dog management strategies for development. Staff remain
committed to this initiative and are focused on working collaboratively to research ideas and find
successful solutions. Work planning and budgets for upcoming years will be structured so that
additional priorities from the city manager related to the working group can be addressed.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will continue to proceed with implementing the Phase 1 recommendations in a
collaborative manner. Phase 2 work is currently underway. The consensus-based process is
working successfully and the group is making excellent progress working together to meet the
goals of Phase 2. These goals are to 1) identify relocation methodologies under existing plans
and policies that can be used in 2018 and beyond, and 2) identify longer-term ideas that might
need further exploration or require changes to City plans and policies.
On a date after the last meeting scheduled for May 2018, the working group will provide a final
report to the city manager. Additionally, an Information Packet Memorandum and/or a
discussion of Phase 2 recommendations with City Council at a Study Session on a date in 2018
yet to be determined will be necessary to share analyses and discuss potential impacts of
recommendations from the working group.
All meetings are open to the public. Meeting information and materials are online. An
explanation of the Phase 2 process is provided in both attachments to this memo.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: Final Report on Phase 1
• Attachment B: Phase 2 Process Proposal
ATTACHMENT A

Final Report on Phase 1
January 2018

The May 2017 Report on Process to Date and 2017 Recommendations provides a deeper explanation
of the formation and process of the Prairie Dog Working Group (PDWG). That report is included in this
report as Attachment 2. To summarize, the PDWG was established after City Council provided
direction to staff to do so in August 2016. The Prairie Dog Working Group is comprised of 12 resident
and non-resident members who demonstrate City values and who can recommend, based on a broad
understanding of the full range of community perspectives, practices that can be implemented under
existing policy as well as possible longer-term policy changes. The City Manager’s Office identified 3
priorities for the Working Group to address:
1. Identify relocation methodologies under existing plans and policies that can be used in 2017.
and beyond.
3. Identify longer-term ideas that might need further exploration or require changes to City plans
and policies.
Phase 1 Process
The PDWG met six times between February and May to develop, discuss, and agree to
recommendations that accomplished the first priority of identifying relocation methodologies under
existing plans and policies that can be used in 2017. The Working Group recommended 46 distinct
ideas that fell into the following categories: immediate actions, 2017 relocation pilot projects,
relocation pilot programs to implement starting in 2018 or future years, policy changes, research and
study projects, process and guideline suggestions, and changes to current plans.
PDWG members evaluated 29 of the 46 ideas they believed could be implemented in 2017 under
current plans and policies, using criteria identified by the PDWG and rating each proposed
recommendation on a scale of one to three for each criterion. They then discussed the five highest-
ranked ideas that resulted in a consensus on six recommendations for action in 2017. They are:
 Recommendation #1: Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing relocation/take sites on
both public and private lands.
 Recommendation #2: Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing receiving sites on public
lands within existing plans and develop recommendations for making receiving sites more
feasible; develop recommendations for increasing landowner and stakeholder acceptance of
the use of receiving sites.
 Recommendation #3: On approved receiving sites, ensure that the number of prairie dogs to
be relocated have adequate accommodations, utilizing existing or artificial burrows (including
 Recommendation #4: Define successful prairie dog relocation; this includes continual
evaluation of new or different relocation methods, ongoing opportunities for stakeholder
engagement, and short-term, mid-term and long-term evaluation of success.
 Recommendation #5: Collaboratively prepare, with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, a research
proposal for US Department of Agriculture approval for the use of the sylvatic plague vaccine
(SPV) on the southern grasslands in 2018 and beyond.
1|Page
ATTACHMENT A
 Recommendation #6: A subgroup comprised of four Working Group members (Dan

Brandemuehl, Pat Comer, Elle Cushman, and Lindsey Sterling Krank) should work with staff to
flesh out details of the recommended items.
Each of these recommendations was assigned to a PDWG Boulder City staff member to develop
further. During the summer of 2017, staff created draft documents of the recommendations, which
were then presented to a subgroup of PDWG members in August who made suggestions for revision.
The revised built-out recommendations were discussed by the full PDWG during two meetings (one in
September and one in October). The full group agreed that a subgroup of volunteer PDWG members
could finalize the recommendations. The subgroup met on Friday, December 15 and offered their final
PDWG members’ discussion of recommendation #1 generally focused on the potential scenario of

multiple sites with equal imminence. They agreed that the City Manager would have the ultimate
decision-making authority within the context of the priority guidelines. There was robust discussion of
recommendation #2, especially the evaluation matrix in the supplemental material, which PDWG
members emphasized should be used to prioritize available sites, not restrict or decrease site
availability. Discussion of recommendation #3 generally focused on the risks and benefits associated
with nest box installation within native vegetation areas. During the discussion of recommendation
#4, PDWG members wrestled with the challenge of defining criteria for successful relocation. When
the PDWG discussed the recommendation #5, which is about the potential for a collaboratively
prepared research proposal to use sylvatic plague vaccine (SPV), they emphasized their preference for
a longer-term, multi-year study, pending the approval of Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Next Steps
The PDWG is entering Phase Two during which they will identify relocation methodologies under
existing plans and policies that can be used in 2018 and beyond, and identify longer-term ideas that
might need further exploration or require changes to City plans and policies.
The PDWG will meet to agree on an overall prairie dog management goal(s) for the City of Boulder that
reflect agreed upon guiding principles to identify changes to plans and policies needed to help achieve
the management goal(s), and to recommend goal(s)-associated changes to plans and policies to the
City Manager. These objectives will be reached over six meetings (December 2017 – May 2018), with
subgroup work outside the full PDWG when necessary. The meeting dates are listed below; all
meetings will take place at the OSMP Annex at 7315 Red Deer Drive from 5 pm to 9 pm:
March 5, 5:00 – 9:00 PM May 7, 5:00 – 9:00 PM

April 2, 5:00 – 9:00 PM
To complete the first task, PDWG members will:

 Brainstorm, discuss, and agree on values or guiding principles that will frame discussions of
what the overall prairie dog management goal(s) should be
 Review existing goal statements in the city’s plans/policies
 Propose and discuss new management goals, and agree to one or more overarching goals.
Explore and agree to a package of needed changes to plans and policies that reflect agreed
upon goal(s) to recommend to the City Manager.
2|Page
ATTACHMENT A
Recommendation 1: Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing relocation/take sites on both
public and private land to City land.
Proposal
Priorities for relocation from public and private lands to City property are as follows:
 First priority is given to public or private lands upon which construction and/or
development is imminent; prairie dogs are causing immediate damage to a public facility
or utility infrastructure; there is an immediate threat to public safety; or prairie dogs have
re-colonized an area where they had been lawfully removed.
o Imminent construction/development is defined in this context as demonstration to
a high degree of probability that the land will be developed within 15 months.
 Second priority is given to lands owned by city departments upon which development
plans are approved (i.e. Valmont Park) or there are unmanageable conflicts with the
existing or planned land use (including areas identified in the Urban Wildlife Management
Plan and Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan), or relocation has been directed by the
city manager. This includes but is not limited to conflicts with irrigated agricultural use.
Examples of development plans include development identified in City Master plans, for
which a timing/phasing plan has been developed for construction, or the property has an
approved Site Review or Use Review plan.
 Third priority is given to city owned lands that are designated for removal of prairie dogs
and adjacent neighbor conflicts with prairie dogs are ongoing, resulting in sustained lethal
control of prairie dogs on the private property portions of a colony.
 Fourth priority is given to lands where the landowner or city department’s desired future
use of the land conflicts with the presence of prairie dogs.
 Fifth priority is given to lands not within the city limits or owned by the City of Boulder
The city manager has discretion to make determinations of prioritization within the context of these
guidelines.
3|Page
ATTACHMENT A
Recommendation #2: Create guidelines and criteria for prioritizing receiving sites on public lands
receiving sites.
Prioritization of receiving sites on OSMP managed land:
Following evaluation of colonies in Prairie Dog Conservation Areas (PCAs) and Grassland Preserves
with Grassland Plan relocation criteria it may be necessary to prioritize efforts if more than one
colony is available in any given year. As a result, criteria to prioritize (not to decide if a colony will
be pursued for relocation, just which would be pursued first) between colonies have been
developed, and are included in the supplemental information. Criteria include scale of potential
challenges associated with private or other adjacent property for which there may be objections to a
relocation, or a risk for impacts of prairie dogs to neighboring lands; vegetation and habitat
suitability; access and infrastructure for the relocation; and any other constraints to relocations or
timing. These criteria can help staff determine in which order they should pursue permitting on
available sites. Lower scoring properties are seen as less suitable and face higher challenges to
obtaining a relocation permit and successfully implementing a relocation and thus would be ranked
last in priority for pursuing a relocation permit as compared to other sites with fewer challenges.
Prioritization of receiving sites on other city managed land:

Areas on non-OSMP City properties that are identified for long-term protection (primarily Parks
and Recreation properties) will be considered for receiving sites on a case by case basis. These sites
will provide generally for receiving relocated prairie dogs as described for PCAs, and generally
following guidance contained within the administrative rule for prairie dog relocation, unless
sensitive species are identified in the area, or other land use conflicts have arisen. Future evaluation
of non-OSMP properties may lead to specific criteria being developed for these sites.
Mitigation of conflicts with adjacent landowners:

Staff will develop and implement strategies for engagement with neighbors of PCAs (or Grassland
Preserve colonies near neighbors) ahead of making decisions regarding pursuing relocation permits
for a site.
Strategies could include -

 Planned consultative stakeholder engagement (at a minimum- potentially higher-level
engagement)
o consultative stakeholder engagement means that staff will inform, listen to and
acknowledge the concerns of related publics and will relay how the publics’ input
influenced decisions
 Stakeholders may be encouraged to provide suggestions on management ideas
 Proactive partnerships and community level engagement to foster understanding and support
for prairie dogs and prairie dog ecosystems within the community
Resources (staffing, funding, contractors, etc.) should be adequately planned and allocated by city
departments to be able to undertake the engagement process with sufficient time to be completed before
relocation decisions need to be made
4|Page
ATTACHMENT A
 After community engagement, decisions related to whether to pursue relocation to a site will
be based on assessment of neighbor support, likelihood of success and feasibility of agreed
upon mitigation methods, relocation need and capacity to pursue a relocation to the site with
associated mitigation
Thorough engagement with stakeholders and neighbors should be initiated well in advance of the
timeframe of decision to move forward with relocation to a site. As a result, it is possible that
public engagement could lengthen the timeframe between identification of a site as a possible
receiving location, and application to the state for a relocation permit. However, this is likely to
increase the long-term success of relocation and meeting the city’s goals around sustainable prairie
dog conservation and management.
Mitigation:
The mitigation required at each site will be unique depending on -
• Adjacent landowner viewpoints
• Topography
• Vegetation
• Layout of receiving site in relation to adjacent properties
• Size of relocation site
• History of prairie dog occupation patterns
• History of coexistence or conflict between adjacent landowners and prairie dogs
• Other site-specific characteristics
Specific mitigation methods to be used on a site will be decided along with adjacent landowners
through consultative stakeholder engagement. However, options that may be considered include:
 Barriers
o Vinyl, metal, wooden
o Straw
o Vegetative
o Chicken wire
 Reducing size of relocation (fewer animals than site could ecologically accommodate)
 Marking prairie dogs and retrieving from private property if relocated prairie dogs move
off the relocation site
 Plans with neighboring landowners to discourage prairie dog movement onto their
property (landscaping, etc.)
 Including prairie dogs from adjacent private properties in the relocation to provide them
relief from prairie dog occupation
Strategies to increase the feasibility of receiving sites in Grassland Preserves:

To decrease time required for unoccupied colonies to meet vegetation criteria, OSMP will work on a
site by site basis with tools such as seeding, other restoration, shifts to grazing, etc. to encourage
faster vegetation recovery.
5|Page
ATTACHMENT A
Current practices for prioritizing relocation sites:

Site evaluation OSMP managed land - Occupancy is evaluated in the fall when system wide
mapping is completed. Colonies are included for further evaluation if they:
1. Are in a Grassland Preserve and the Grassland Preserve is at less than 10% occupancy
2. They are a Prairie Dog Conservation Area and are at low occupancy (no set threshold, but
generally less than 50% occupied)
These colonies are then further evaluated. For PCAs, informal evaluation of numbers of adjacent
neighbors, numbers of complaints received in the past related to prairie dogs, etc. are considered.
Sites with fewer neighbors and fewer complaints are prioritized higher than ones for which there
are more potential neighbor issues. For Grassland Preserves, initial assessment of vegetation (not
quantitative), presence of wildlife closures (burrowing owl, bald eagle, etc.) which might influence
timing requirements for relocations, or other issues are considered. For those colonies where the
initial vegetation assessment suggests that the colony may pass the vegetation thresholds and other
circumstances (access, etc.) suggest that the site might be an appropriate relocation site,
measurement of vegetation is undertaken using an established vegetation survey design. Vegetation
surveys were designed to capture the full range of variability within a colony and are stratified by
vegetation type. Surveys are done in summer (typically late July or early fall, when plant phenology
is most appropriate for measurement). If the colony passes the thresholds, it is put on the list as a
potential receiving site for the next summer (to allow time for planning, permitting, etc.).
Prioritization of potential receiving sites:

As detailed above, a process of evaluating OSMP sites to see if they meet established criteria from
the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan is already in place. These evaluations provide sufficient
data to determine if a site could serve as an appropriate receiving site. However, no formal process
has existed for Parks and Recreation sites and no process exists to prioritize among potential sites
to determine which sites would be used first.
Recommended further evaluation process and criteria to be formally applied to prioritize sites
Following the above evaluations, and once this list is compiled, the below criteria will be used to
further prioritize possible relocation sites based on their suitability- including neighbor, stakeholder
and community support, and relative ease for permitting and relocation. This score will be used to
prioritize which colonies to pursue permits on first, not whether to pursue a permit for a certain
site. These are criteria for sites with the highest ecological suitability. These scores will be updated
on a rolling basis, as new information is provided.
Criteria for Grassland Preserves:

1. Ecological suitability of colony (based on Grassland Plan Habitat suitability model which
considers ecological suitability for meeting prairie dog and other grassland community
conservation targets)
a. 80-100% Good or Very Good = High
6|Page
ATTACHMENT A
b. 50-80% Good or Very Good = Medium

c. Less than 50% = Low
2. Ease of access (Good = High, Fair = Medium, Poor = Low)
3. Existing infrastructure, either artificial burrows or natural burrows (Extensive = High, Some
burrows = Medium, None = Low)
4. Other (rare plant communities, timing constraints due to sensitive wildlife, etc.) (No
issues= High, Few issues = Medium, Many issues = Low)
Criteria for Prairie Dog Conservation Areas and Grassland Preserves (in addition to criteria above)
1. Adjacent neighbors with concerns over relocation or conflict (directly adjacent to the property
or colony) (None = High, Few = Medium, Many = Low)
2. Adjacent neighbors that support relocation and/or prairie dog occupancy on the site (Many =
High, few = Medium, None = Low)
3. Sufficient vegetation to support prairie dogs (Plenty = High, Marginal = Medium, Poor = Low)
Consistent with the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan, evaluations will consider areas
specifically to enhance prairie dog ecosystem conservation efforts, which will include large blocks of
habitat.
Please see attached examples of criteria application at end of this recommendation document.
Site evaluation on non-OSMP managed city land - The primary other (non-OSMP) city lands that
have been suitable for prairie dog relocation are managed by Parks and Recreation (Parks) and
include the Boulder Reservoir and Area III Planning Reserve (north of Jay Road and U.S. 36). Staff has
explored the possibility of any other properties owned by the city that could be suitable for prairie
dog relocation and the only other city owned property that was identified as a potential relocation
site through this process is a two-acre parcel managed by the Public Works department at Foothills
Parkway and Valmont road. This property is identified for Long- term protection in the Urban
Wildlife Management plan. All three of these properties were occupied by prairie dogs in 2017.
Until additional evaluations of Parks and Recreation or other city properties can be completed, areas
that are identified for long-term protection will be considered for receiving sites on a case by case
basis.
Strategies to increase availability of receiving sites in Grassland Preserves:

The two limiting factors to availability of receiving sites in Grassland Preserves is high occupancy
levels of colonies, and time required for vegetation to recover, especially after long term
occupation.
The Grassland Plan includes criteria that determine which sites can be considered for relocation.
One of these criteria is the existence of previous prairie dog occupation. This specific criterion is
included for two reasons.
7|Page
ATTACHMENT A
1. Prairie dogs have been allowed to self-select habitat within grassland preserves for at least
20 years. During that time, nearly 11 years was a period of expanding populations. As a
result, prairie dogs had the opportunity to select the habitat that best suits their needs.
These patterns of occupation are assumed to represent high quality habitat as selected by
the prairie dogs as an indicator of good locations for prairie dog colonies to be placed.
2. An attempt to balance the needs of conserving a variety of grassland habitat, including those
with prairie dog occupation, as well as those without. By not further expanding locations
where prairie dog burrowing and grazing has been present by moving prairie dogs to areas
they have not occupied (at least since mapping was begun in 1996), we better meet our
needs to fulfill multiple Grassland Plan and OMSP preservation goals, including communities
that do not thrive with prairie dog occupation, such as tallgrass prairie and associated
species that are species of conservation concern such as very rare grassland skippers and
grasshopper sparrows.
As a result, availability of relocation sites is tied directly to occupation levels. During times of low
occupation (less than 10% of Grassland Preserve), opportunities exist for relocation.
However, at times of high occupation (greater than 10% occupancy of Grassland Preserve),
relocation of prairie dogs is inconsistent with the Grassland Plan conservation targets and
viability measurements for prairie dog conservation, and meeting multiple goals for grassland
conservation on a system-wide basis.
To decrease time required for unoccupied colonies to meet vegetation criteria when occupation falls
below 10% in Grassland Preserves, OSMP will work on site by site basis to determine what steps can
be taken to encourage recovery of the vegetation community to meet relocation criteria as
determined in the Grassland Plan. What tools are appropriate will depend on site conditions,
including plant communities present, length of prairie dog occupation, slope, soils, etc. Tools that
might be used include:
 Seeding
 Changes in cattle grazing intensity or timing
 Other restoration techniques to be determined
Considerations with expanding receiving site availability:
In addition to increasing availability of receiving sites through strategies described above to

increase neighbor and stakeholder support or acceptance of relocations, funding and staff
capacity increases will also be necessary to increase utilization of available receiving sites.
Current staffing levels can support only 1-2 relocations per season (if relocation contractors are
used to do the actual relocation) based on the permitting, contracting, coordination and support
needed for each project. If additional relocations are possible and desired, additional capacity and
funding will be needed. Staff are committed to exploring all feasible options to supplement staff
capacity and funding.
8|Page
ATTACHMENT A
Test application of prioritization criteria on a variety of colonies:
Grassland Preserves:
Damyanovich (Grassland Preserve- currently serving as relocation site)
GP criteria:
4. High- Medium (no rare plant or other wildlife issues within receiving portion of colony, 1 for
colony as whole- xeric tallgrass community)
PCA + GP criteria:
1. High (no neighbors with concerns)
2. Low (no neighbors that support)
Waneka (Grassland Preserve currently serving as relocation site)

GP criteria:
3. High (existing artificial burrows)
4. High (no other issues)
PCA + GP criteria
Kelsall (Grassland Preserve)

GP criteria:
1. High (80-100% good suitability)
2. Low (access difficult, through rare plant communities)
4. Low (rare plant communities and nesting burrowing owls- implications for timing)
PCA + GP criteria
Overall = Medium
9|Page
ATTACHMENT A
PCAs:
Richardson II (PCA where a State Permit was denied due to potential for conflict with
neighbors)
1. Low (extensive neighbor objection)
2. Low (1 out of 36 neighbors supports)
Overall = Low
Aweida II (PCA)
1. Medium/unknown (some complaints in past, but no comprehensive data)
Ute (PCA)
1. Low- Medium/unknown (substantial complaints in past, but no current, comprehensive data)
3. Medium (marginal vegetation, but sufficient in some areas)
RESULT:
If all the above colonies met relocation site criteria in a single year, based on the evaluation results,
staff would pursue relocation permits in the following order:
1. Waneka (GP)- High- Medium

2. Damyanovich (GP)- High- Medium
3. Kelsall (GP)/Ute (PCA)/Aweida II (PCA)- Medium/Unknown pending further evaluation and
neighbor outreach
4. Richardson II (PCA)- Low
10 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT A
Recommendation #3: On approved receiving sites, ensure that the number of prairie dogs to be
relocated have adequate accommodations, utilizing existing or artificial burrows (including
During prairie dog relocations onto City land, prairie dogs will be accommodated in natural
burrows, or artificial burrows (including nest boxes). Further discussion of acceptable methods and
infrastructure is included in the attached supplemental information.
Within Prairie Dog Conservation Areas (PCAs), infrastructure will be installed to accommodate
prairie dogs as needed during relocation. This will include installation of artificial burrows as
required to supplement existing natural burrows. PCAs are identified in the Grassland Ecosystem
Management Plan on Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) managed city land.
On non-OSMP managed city land (predominantly Parks and Recreation), that has been identified
for long term prairie dog protection and approved for relocation, installation of infrastructure will
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering areas where sensitive species are identified in the
area, or other land use conflicts have arisen and conflicts cannot be resolved. Future evaluation of
non-OSMP properties may lead to specific guidance for these sites.
Within Grassland Preserves (GPs), the goal of accommodating relocated prairie dogs will be
balanced with preservation of intact native plant communities, which is also a priority in Grassland
Preserve areas.
fully accommodate the desired number of prairie dogs.
natural burrows can be used for receiving relocated prairie dogs and artificial burrow
installation will be further evaluated to ensure balance of prairie dog relocation goals with
preservation of best opportunity grassland areas. (See supporting information for
discussion of options.)
artificial burrows will not be installed. However, natural burrows can be used for receiving
relocated prairie dogs.
Information is included in the supplemental information detailing the extent of each of these 3
categories in potential relocation sites.
When artificial burrows are installed, options (seeding, location, etc.) for minimizing and mitigating
disturbance or encouraging recovery will be evaluated and encouraged.
11 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT A
Background Information
Prairie dog relocation methodology:

In prairie dog relocations a variety of potential methods exist for accommodating prairie dogs on
receiving sites. Based on information collected from relocators, and prairie dog relocation
literature, these include:
 Natural burrows with an intact entrance and tunnel open to at least 36 inches in depth and at
least 4 inches in width
 Natural burrows with an intact entrance and tunnel open to less than 36 inches and at least
4 inches in width that has been further opened with hand tools (auger or shovel) to be at
least 36 inches deep
 Artificial burrows installed with heavy equipment. These include a tunnel structure (usually
corrugated, flexible plastic piping) and an artificial below ground chamber (may be plastic,
wood), which is buried at least 3 feet below the surface. The chamber connects to the tubing
which is installed to provide access to the surface in one or two locations.
 Augured holes that are constructed entirely by machinery (auger) and consist of an angled
hole approximately 4-6 inches in diameter reaching at least 36 inches below the surface and
not corresponding to the location of an existing burrow or burrow mound. Prairie dogs will
not be released into augured holes during relocations at this time (see page 15 for further
explanation).
In addition to these underground accommodations, many relocators also use above ground
cages (caps/retention pens) to protect the released prairie dogs from predation and restrict
their ability to disperse from the site for a few days after release. Later stages of relocation may
not include use of these cages once prairie dogs are established on the site and later captures are
released.
Success of methodologies varies. Based on responses from relocators, experience by the City and
published literature, success (as measured by retention of prairie dogs after release) is generally
highest in natural burrows (either intact or re-opened), followed by artificial burrows, and success
is lowest in augured holes. The degree of success of each of these methods depends on site specific
conditions and how success is measured. It appears that availability of additional natural burrows
(either partially intact or filled in, but still present- the prairie dogs can find them) helps to ensure
retention of relocated prairie dogs on the release colony. In some cases, prairie dogs may not remain
in the provided infrastructure (natural burrows, artificial burrows or augured holes), but will
remain on site by re-opening previously occupied burrows or constructing new burrows. Measures
of success vary from # prairie dogs remaining in the specific area of release, # prairie dogs
remaining in the release site and surrounding colony area and # of prairie dogs remaining in the
release site, colony area and surrounding landscape over time.
Balancing City Goals:

On Open Space and Mountain Parks properties, the City of Boulder preserves approximately 25,000
12 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT A
acres of grassland habitat. This area encompasses agricultural landscapes (irrigated hayfields, row
crops), native grasslands, and plains riparian and wetland areas. Within this area, the Grassland
Ecosystem Management Plan defined 8 conservation targets, including Black-tailed Prairie Dogs and
their associated species. As part of planning for management and conservation of prairie dogs, areas
where prairie dog’s conservation was the main priority, or where occupation by prairie dogs was
consistent with other management goals of the property were identified. Within these, Prairie Dog
Conservation Areas and Grassland Preserves were included as sites where prairie dog relocations
could release prairie dogs if relocation criteria were met. Prairie Dog Conservation Areas are
properties where conservation of prairie dogs is the main goal, and potential conflicts between
prairie dog occupancy and management of other OSMP charter goals are minimal (no ag, no rare
plant communities, etc.). Grassland Preserves represent the best opportunity on OSMP lands to
preserve large, intact grassland habitats with dynamic prairie dog colonies embedded in a larger
landscape mosaic made up of high quality native plant communities, prairie dog towns and areas
without prairie dogs present. Because Grassland Preserves represent that best opportunity to meet
conservation goals for a variety of resources, balancing the needs of each conservation target is
necessary to ensure conservation of the full suite of native grassland ecosystems.
Within grassland preserves, many prairie dog colonies exist in areas of high quality native grassland
vegetation. Many of these areas represent the last remaining areas of untilled native grassland on
OSMP and the region. Areas of prairie that were not previously tilled for agriculture represent the
most intact, resilient native plant communities. Areas where the soil has been tilled or experienced
other anthropogenic disturbance, native prairie grass sod is disrupted, creating communities easily
invaded by non-native weeds and where native grasses are less resilient to grazing from either
prairie dogs or cattle. Because tilling has converted large areas of grassland in the Boulder valley
and across the Great Plains, areas of untilled or undisturbed grassland habitat are the best
opportunities for grassland conservation on OSMP. Grassland preserves represent the largest blocks
of habitat containing these intact grasslands. Prairie dog occupation is consistent with maintaining
and conserving these grassland communities. Grassland Preserves are areas where prairie dog
populations at reasonable occupancy levels (10-26% as defined in the Grassland Plan) can function
in their role as a keystone species, shifting occupancy through time and space in a way that
maintains and enhances the intact grassland mosaic of these large habitat blocks. Intact native plant
communities have evolved with this type of prairie dog occupancy and with grazing by prairie dogs
and do not show the level of degradation, soil loss, etc. often seen on more fragmented, tilled and
disturbed sites at much higher occupation levels by prairie dogs.
When prairie dogs are relocated to Grassland Preserves, the relocation criteria included in the
Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan ensure that plant communities are sufficiently resilient
and healthy to support the prairie dogs in a robust and intact plant community and grassland
ecosystem.
In prairie dog relocations, a variety of anthropogenic disturbances are introduced to the colony.
Extensive access by vehicles can create impacts to plant communities. In addition, installation of
additional infrastructure to accommodate the prairie dogs can impact native plant communities.
13 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT A
Techniques vary in their level of disturbance with use of natural burrows or burrows re-opened with
hand tools creating the least disturbance. Installation of augured burrows with small equipment
(skid steer) creates larger areas of soil and vegetation disturbance and installation of artificial
burrows with heavy equipment creates larger areas of soil disturbance and removal of native
vegetation. To meet conservation goals related to black-tailed prairie dogs and native plant
communities, OSMP strives to accommodate prairie dog relocation to the largest degree possible
while balancing and minimizing impacts to native plant communities associated with disturbance
resulting from relocation activities.
City relocations:
OSMP Receiving Sites –
Based on the information gathered from relocators and the literature, the City of Boulder will
define adequate accommodation to mean: sufficient burrows are available for the number of
prairie dogs to be relocated. Burrows will be taken to mean natural burrows or artificially installed
burrows (artificial burrows). This is based on currently available methods. Future emergence of
new techniques for constructing burrows or accommodating relocated animals should be
considered and explored. The City of Boulder will continue to work with relocation professionals
to explore new and innovative ways to accomplish successful relocations, especially where new
techniques can provide successful accommodation while limiting ground and vegetation
disturbance. Although augured burrows will not be used for the release of prairie dogs during
relocations, they can serve as supplemental starter burrows for prairie dogs choosing to use them.
It is possible that augured holes could be used in the future for released animals if new, innovative,
and humane techniques are created and then only with staff permission if soil conditions, and/or
geographic conditions are adequate.
Within Prairie Dog Conservation Areas, infrastructure will be installed to accommodate prairie dogs
as needed during relocation. This will include installation of artificial burrows as required to
supplement existing natural burrows.
Within Grassland Preserves, the goal of accommodating relocated prairie dogs will be balanced with
preservation of intact native plant communities.
accommodate the desired number of prairie dogs.
artificial burrow installation to supplement natural burrows will be further evaluated to
ensure balance of prairie dog relocation goals with preservation of best opportunity
grassland areas. In these cases, options might include:
o clustering artificial burrows in areas of lower quality vegetation or in areas with
easier access that avoids high quality communities
o reduction in the number of prairie dogs to be relocated to reduce the need for
supplemental artificial burrows
 exploration of options to maintain integrity of natural burrows following
14 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT A
a reduction in occupation to increase the available intact natural

burrows when relocation is begun, thus reducing the need for artificial
burrows. This may include: Installation of plastic tubing or other
contraption to maintain the integrity of the burrow
 Periodic evaluation of conditions and use of hand-tools to maintain
the integrity of the burrows
 Other feasible options to be developed
o completion of a risk analysis with an outside 3rd party (contractor) to evaluate the
impact and significance of artificial burrow installation in these areas to better define
the relationship between artificial burrow installation and long-term protection of
intact native plant communities in our Grassland Preserves.
artificial burrows will not be installed. However, existing natural burrows could still be
used for relocation.
o Within these areas, OSMP will explore options to maintain integrity of natural
burrows following a drop-in occupation that may lead to the site being a suitable
receiving site in the future. This may include:
o Installation of plastic tubing or other contraption to maintain the integrity of the
burrow
o Periodic evaluation of conditions and use of hand-tools to maintain the integrity of
the burrows
o Other feasible options to be developed
Parks and Recreation and other non-OSMP City Property Receiving Sites -
On non-OSMP managed city land that has been identified for long term prairie dog protection and
approved for relocation, installation of infrastructure will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis,
considering areas where sensitive species are identified in the area, or other land use conflicts exist
if conflicts cannot be resolved. Future evaluation of non-OSMP properties may lead to specific
guidance for these sites.
15 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT A
Further detail on extent of rare plants, tilled/disturbed or non-native vegetation and intact
native vegetation and the implication for artificial burrow installation as detailed in
Recommendation #3
Total number of colonies in Grassland preserves- 37

North- 17
East- 3
South- 17
Total acres of p.dog occupancy in Grassland Preserves-3294

North-2100
East- 351
South- 843
Total number of colonies in Prairie Dog Conservation Areas (PCA)- 10 (9 without Richardson- site
where relocation permit was denied by the State)
Total number of potential relocation colonies = 47 (46 without Richardson)
Total acres of p.dog colony in PCAs- 589 (466 without Richardson)
Total acres of potential relocation sites = 3883 (3760 without Richardson)
NO ARTIFICAL BURROWS
TOTAL potential relocation site colonies that would NOT have any artificial burrow installation due to
CNHP tracked rare plant communities, although natural burrows could still be used to receive
relocated prairie dogs - criteria of exclusion applies to Grassland Preserves colonies only:
Total Colonies System Wide: 1/47 (46) = 2%

Total Acreage System Wide: 10/3883 (3760) = 0.25% (0.26%)
By Area:
South- 1 colony, 10 acres= 5.9% of colonies, 1.1% of acreage
North- 0 = 0% of colonies, 0% of acreage
East- 0= 0% of colonies, 0% of acreage
PCAs- 0= 0% of colonies, 0% of acreage
YES ARTIFICAL BURROWS

TOTAL potential relocation site colonies with no vegetation based limit to artificial burrow installation
(tilled/disturbed/non-native Grassland Preserves + PCAs):

By Area:
PCAs- 10 colonies (9), 589 acres (466 acres) = 100% of colonies, 100% of acreage
16 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT A
ARTIFICIAL BURROWS INSTALLED WITH CAREFUL PLANNING/ MINIMIZATION OF

DISTURBANCE
TOTAL potential relocation site colonies that would have to have decisions made about artificial
burrow installation to balance relocation need with protection of native plant communities

By Area:
PCAs- 0 colonies, 0 acres= 0% of colonies, 0% of acreage
*numbers in parenthesis represent colonies/acres with Richardson removed
17 | P a g e
ATTACHMENT A
Recommendation #4: Define successful prairie dog relocation, including continual evaluation
The general principles used to guide development of this recommendation are that best intentions,
and continued reevaluation are necessary. The goal of each prairie dog relocation should be:
 to exercise clear, situationally adaptive decision-making regarding relocation practices,
 to perform planned, consultative stakeholder engagement* to inform decisions,
 to evaluate the immediate and far-reaching outcomes of selected practices,
 to ensure relocations are conducted in a way that is humane,
 to mitigate conflicts with existing land uses at the take site and ensure that conservation is
the driving goal,
 to support prairie dog conservation goals,
 to evaluate disease risks and the application of potential mitigation measures,
 to comply with all related federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations and guidelines,
 to minimize and mitigate disturbance to the land,
 to discourage prairie dog recolonization (a plan must be in place if, for some reason, all the
prairie dogs cannot be removed from the take site),
 to plan for fiscally responsible projects, and
 to articulate a plan which defines success for the take and release sites,
 to provide adequate accommodation with existing or artificial burrows.
*Consultative stakeholder engagement means that staff will, at a minimum, inform, listen to and
acknowledge the concerns of related publics and will relay how the publics’ input influenced decisions.
Stakeholders may be encouraged to provide suggestions on management ideas.
The implementation of these goals looks at success of the project overall. The success of the
relocation itself is a piece of the project.
In general, prairie dog relocations will be considered successful when best management practices
(included in supplemental material) are followed and there is evidence of colony stability. Stability
includes evidence of one or more of the following:
 a stable population or positive population growth (through reproduction or annual
recruitment),
 colony retention or expansion,
 suitable vegetation to support the population, and
 presence of other wildlife such as:
o commensal species (defined in the OSMP Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan,
also known as the GMAP) and
o predators
Criteria for good indicators (from The Nature Conservancy 2007) of stability should be measurable,
precise & consistent, specific, sensitive, timely, technically feasible, cost effective, and publicly
relevant. Stability should be evaluated on a short-term, mid-term and long-term basis. Evidence of
stability may be evaluated in a variety of manners (mapping, population surveys, etc.) depending
upon the level of evaluation needed to adequately evaluate each term.
Caveats: Relocations could still be considered generally successful if these conditions are not fully met,
but these criteria outline the desired outcome and when not met should indicate that adaptation may
18
ATTACHMENT A
be required. If goals are not met, then it should be determined if there were controllable factors that
could be altered to increase success or if this is typical. Thresholds should be further developed as
research information becomes available. This includes researching typical relocation success rates
immediately following relocation and average survival rates over longer periods of time
19
ATTACHMENT A
General Information:
The City of Boulder is one of many agencies in the Front Range that performs prairie dog
relocations. We consulted with two local prairie dog relocation companies in addition to reading
other local government agency plans, specifically the City of Fort Collins Wildlife Management
Guidelines and Boulder County’s Prairie Dog Habitat Element of the Grassland & Shrubland
Management Policy. These plans integrate how to perform a relocation along with what success
looks like. This document is based more upon what success looks like.
Best Management Practices:

This plan will need to take into consideration varying situations as best management practices are
often site/case specific. BMP’s that may be included are outlined below. Yes answers indicate
success:
1. Was the relocation done in compliance with all related federal, state and local laws, rules,
regulations, guidelines and protocols regarding trespass, wildlife, transport, pesticides, etc.?
2. Were assessments performed utilizing recent data on numbers, acreage, etc.?
3. Were only humane practices utilized?
4. Unless performing experiments or research, were practices commonly known to be
successful (with preference given in order of most to least successful) utilized?
5. Were practices prioritized based upon the safety of the relocators?
6. Were known negative influences minimized and mitigated as much as possible within
existing policies/practices?
7. Was relocation performed into best opportunity areas prior to less
suitable habitats?
a. This includes utilizing areas with less conflict potential first,
areas where prairie dog communities can function without
the threat of development or extermination due to conflicts
with competing land uses, areas designated for prairie dog
conservation. An example is the OSMP Grassland
Ecosystem Management Plan (GMAP) designations (box at
right)
8. Was disturbance to the land minimized and mitigated?
9. Were proactive measures taken to mitigate issues (mowing, feeding, acclimation cages,
etc.)?
10. Was the project performed in a fiscally responsible manner?
11. Are removal sites being maintained in a manner to discourage ongoing issues?
a. Where appropriate, was management performed at the release site to discourage
recolonization?
b. Is monitoring being performed?
12. Is an attempt being made to keep coteries together?
13. Is there a sufficient number of prairie dogs already at the site or being relocated to the site
to establish a viable population?
14. Is monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management occurring by staff and/or by being
included in the scope of work for the contractor?
15. Were our goals accomplished?
Measures of Success – Potential Methods:
20
ATTACHMENT A
Evidence of stability may be evaluated in the following manner depending upon the level of
evaluation needed to properly evaluate each term:
 A stable population or positive population growth
o Performing visual surveys to determine the number and density of prairie dogs
while taking into account the possibility that they may have moved outside of the
original release site and adjusting to not count preexisting colonies.
 Colony retention or expansion
o Map the extent of the release. Remap the area post relocation. This will allow you
to better track expansion versus dispersal as prairie dogs will respond to food
availability and other habitat conditions over time and may expand or contract their
colonies accordingly and may move across the landscape to forage or find new
colony sites.
 Suitable vegetation to support the population
o Perform surveys to determine the type and density of vegetation taking into
consideration the release site and potential colony movement.
 Presence of other wildlife
o Performing scientific wildlife surveys pre- and post-relocation that would evaluate
the presence of typical commensal and predatory species and changes in their
population.
Evaluations should allow for typical dispersal, natural mortality factors (infanticide, predation and
the inability to survive the winter) and uncontrollable environmental factors such as drought.
Success ratings should take into account the location and season. For example, criteria on presence
of bird species should be adjusted for urbanized areas (page 124 GMAP). Similarly, spring
relocations would be expected to have much higher rates of mortality than relocations in the fall.
Mortality from enzootic disease outbreaks should be considered for evaluation of success
Preventative measures should be further evaluated.
An adaptive management approach should be taken. Adaptive management generally refers to an

ongoing process of:
 assessing conditions,
 developing a plan based on assumptions of ecosystem functions and objectives,
 implementing a plan,
 monitoring the changes,
 evaluating the results, and
 adjusting actions accordingly.
These processes will require planning by staff and allocating of resources well in advance of
relocations. Resources (staff, funding, etc.) will need to be adequately planned and allocated by city
departments to be able to implement and evaluate practices including providing contingencies for
special circumstances. The responsibility for monitoring will be negotiated between the city and
contractors on a case-by-case basis.
This framework of criteria and processes is often currently followed by staff. The guidance in this
document is intended to increase consistency and transparency.
Other factors to consider include the successful ability for the relocated colony to coexist with the
new, human neighbors for the first 2 years. Included in this, if barriers of any type were utilized,
their effectiveness should be evaluated. Additionally, efficacy of burrow types can be evaluated by
21
ATTACHMENT A
monitoring burrow use for the different types (existing but collapsed, existing and suitable,
artificial nest boxes, etc). This will help to determine how to increase success rates in the future.
An evaluation worksheet or tool to measure the effectiveness of practices selected would be

beneficial. Once this document is complete the clear and defined procedural steps (from beginning
to end) for how the city, as one organization, handles relocations should be made available online in
a concise manner that might be illustrated by a flow-diagram w/contact information provided at
each step.
The proposed approach is intended to balance overall ecosystem health and sustainability of prairie
dogs and other natural values. Evaluations will be utilized to inform the adaptive management
process.
22
ATTACHMENT A
Recommendation #5: Collaboratively prepare, with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, a research
proposal for US Department of Agriculture approval for the use of the Yersinia pestis (plague)
vaccine (previously known as sylvatic plague vaccine – SPV) on the Southern Grasslands in
2018 and beyond.
Summary:
The City of Boulder has developed plans for application of plague vaccine in the Southern
Grasslands in collaboration with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW).
Plague Management Goals: Maintain sufficient prairie dog populations in Grassland Preserves to
meet Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan defined viability measures designed to ensure
conservation of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs and their associate species on Open Space and Mountain
Parks Lands.
2018 Pilot Project:
In 2018, OSMP will obtain sufficient Yersinia pestis vaccine to vaccinate all currently occupied acres
in the Southern Grassland Preserve (90 acres in fall, 2017) during two time periods- summer and
fall. OSMP will not couple dusting with delta dust with plague vaccine delivery due to concerns
over secondary effects to native species within Grassland Preserves (which represent best
opportunity conservation areas for all grassland species, not just prairie dogs). However,
application of two doses of vaccine in 2018 will provide additional protection for the prairie dogs if
plague were to be present in the system in 2018. City staff will apply vaccine according to
recommended doses and application techniques from Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Staff will monitor success of the vaccine through periodic monitoring for plague (techniques and
frequency to be determined with CPW researchers).
City staff will evaluate relocation plans for 2018 and determine if application of plague vaccine
prior to relocation is logistically feasible and desirable. Any plans to do so will be coordinated with
Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
23
ATTACHMENT A
Recommendation #5- Supplemental Information
The Prairie Dog Working Group generally supports plague management beyond 2018 as described
below.
Future beyond 2018 in Southern Grasslands
Following completion of the 2018 pilot project in Southern Grasslands, results will be evaluated,
and a feasibility study (success, cost, resources required, etc) will be completed to inform future
plague management plans for Southern Grasslands.
Overall Framework- Future beyond 2018 system-wide
Following collection of data on success of the program in Southern Grasslands, plans will be
completed for other grassland preserves on OSMP or other long-term protection areas on other City
properties, including Parks and Recreation properties. These plans will consider any lessons
learned in Southern Grasslands, and the system-wide goals for prairie dog conservation as included
in the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan and any other relevant city plans.
Considerations:
Based on the Grassland Plan, if acres occupied reach and are maintained at ≥10% (NOTE: desired
occupancy levels for prairie dogs in Grassland Preserves, as defined in the Grassland Plan are 10-
26%) within a Grassland Preserve, then relocation receiving sites will no longer be available in that
Grassland Preserve
Note: recent changes have occurred in the status of the vaccine (including name change from
Sylvatic plague vaccine to Yersinia pestis vaccine). Changes to licensing of the vaccine make full
study design unnecessary for use in management on our properties. As a result, reference to study
design and application to obtain the vaccine, included in earlier versions, have been removed from
this recommendation and replaced with additional, specific details of application.
24
ATTACHMENT B

Phase 2 Process Proposal
October 23, 2017
December 2017 through May 2018
Phase 2 Objectives
• Agree on an overall prairie dog management goal(s) for the City of Boulder based on
agreed upon guiding principles
• Identify associated changes to plans and policies needed to achieve management
goal
• Recommend goal(s) and associated changes to plans and policies to the City
Manager
Step 1: Agree on Guiding Principles (One Meeting)

• PDWG members brainstorm guiding principles for future management goals (e.g.,
different priorities in different areas of OSMP lands, science-based decisions,
minimization of lethal control, etc.)
• PDWG members discuss which principles they can support and which they feel
would be better addressed through the goal discussion and/or the plans/policies
discussion.
• PDWG members agree on a set of guiding principles to frame forthcoming
discussion on goals.
Step 2: Agree on an Overall Prairie Dog Management Goal for the City (Three Meetings)
• The PDWG will review the existing goal statements that exist in current City plans
and policies.
• Individually or in small teams (based on preference), PDWG members may propose
a new overall prairie dog management goal for the Working Group to consider. No
one is obligated to propose a goal, but any member of the Working Group may do so.
• The PDWG will discuss the various proposals and their respective benefits and
challenges.
• The PDWG will agree on one or more goals to present to the City Manager.
• Schedule:
o Meeting 1: Review of existing goals; presentations of proposals
o Meeting 2: Discussion of proposals
o Meeting 3: Agreement on one or more goals
Step 3: Explore Needed Changes to Plans and Policies to Reflect Agreed-upon Goal(s)
(Two Meetings)
• For each agreed-upon goal, the PDWG will discuss what, if any, changes are needed
to existing plans and policies to ensure consistent implement of the goal.
• For each agreed-upon goal, the PDWG will agree on a package of associated changes
to plans and policies to recommend to the City Manager.
• Note: This step may require small groups to work outside full PDWG meetings to
identify changes to plans and policies to share with the Working Group.
PDWG Phase Two Recommendations Analysis Attachment C
Legend: If 100% approved

L – low effort / time commitment
Scope / Time
Assessments & Impacts with funding to implement
Estimates
Related Themes
M – medium effort / time commitment
H – high effort / time commitment
Economic Environmental Social Staff Suggested Approximate Department Lead(s)
Public Engagement
Council / Boards
(e.g., estimated (e.g., natural (e.g., facilities, work plan, Timing Duration of Task
implementation cost, resources) existing plans & policies)
Staff
OB = Objective S - Strategy M - Milestone
CIP or operating
expense)
Recommendations by Goal Category

ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
populations and high-integrity grassland habitat.
In collaboration with county, federal, and private partners, secure one or more interconnected networks of high-integrity grasslands containing viable populations of plague-resistant prairie dog colonies naturally limited by native
OB 1
predators.
S1 Collaborate with county, federal, and private partners to prioritize acquisitions, easements, and management agreements to consolidate prairie dog grassland parcels, and as feasible, secure connectivity and linkages among colonies.
By 2019, pilot application of a habitat Requires time from real estate staff and
quantification tool with parcels being perhaps other staff (uncertain what
M1 proposed for new acquisitions or M L L $ quantification tool will require) and may 2020 3 months OSMP
easements related to prairie dog require modifications to OSMP
conservation. acquisition plan
Amend prairie dog-related components of the Grassland Management Plan by considering the entire grassland-dominated landscape in the Boulder Region, and implement the updated plan with an aim to increase the number of
S2
receiving sites for prairie dogs.
PDWG Phase Two Recommendations Analysis

Scope / Time
Estimates
Related Themes
Public Engagement
Council / Boards
Staff
CIP or operating
expense)

Will require update to many related
ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more
GMAP large prairie
conservation targetsdog-occupied
that would ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
M1 By 2019, work with local experts to
populations and high-integrity grassland habitat.by shifts to goals and
be impacted
review modeling method and data
viability targets for prairie dogs
inputs to provide an updated prairie Outcome may reduce ability to
manage for and protect non-
dog habitat suitability model and Will require extensive staff time and
$$ (consultant and experts), prairie dog community types 2020- after completion
GMAP target viability criteria to map H M L lead to other projects being given a 1 year OSMP
operating and species (e.g. xeric tallgrass of OSMP Master Plan
current conditions for the mixed grass lower priority or being
prairie, grasshopper sparrows,
prairie mosaic and prairie dog colonies delayed/removed from workplan (e.g.
rare skippers and butterflies)
integration of natural resources with
across the relevant grassland landscape
agricultural management, monitoring
to serve as guidance for plan updates. and protecting rare and declining
wildlife species)
Moderate updates to
vegetation criteria- no
significant impact. Extensive
modifications leading to less
By 2019, based on milestone 1, work
vegetation recovery time prior
with local experts to update and to relocation for unoccupied Public process surrounding mofication
implement GMAP goals relevant to colonies, or identifying would require other workplan priorities 3 months+ 2 years to
2021- needs to follow
prairie dogs along with receiving site additional relocation sites to be displaced or delayed (e.g. monitor colonies for
M2 M M L $ completion of updated OSMP
location criteria (I-1) to fully utilize beyond where prairie dogs ecological staff support for new trail vegetation conditions
suitability modeling
existing grassland receiving sites and to have previously been mapped planning or trail with modified criteria
limit the ability to manage and restoration/maintenance)
allow additional qualified grassland
protect other non-paririe dog
receiving sites. communities and species (e.g.
rare plant communities and
imperiled butterfly/skipper
species)

Scope / Time
Estimates
Related Themes
Public Engagement
Council / Boards
Staff
CIP or operating
expense)

Manageand
S3 ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation prairie dog colonies
maintenance of for
oneplague resistance.
or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
OSMP for OSMP sites
If restricted to sylvatic plague PH&S for private sites
vaccine (planned for 2018), P&R for P&R sites
2 months (vaccine order
then believed to be limited. If
Prior to implementing the plan under time + waiting time
includes additional use of Minimal- requires 1-2 days of staff time
M1 Milestone 2, all translocated prairie L L L $ 2018- already planned after vaccination for
broad specrum insecticide, to deploy vaccine
dogs will receive plague abatement. animals immune
impacts to other aspects of the
systems to respond
ecosystem likely- evaluation
needed

Scope / Time
Estimates
Related Themes
Public Engagement
Council / Boards
Staff
CIP or operating
expense)

ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of oneCreation
or moreof plan
largewould havedog-occupied
prairie moderate ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
workplan implications due to staff
detication and public process- other
2019 for creation of 9 months (including
projects would be impacted, delayed or
$ for development plan, 2020 to begin public process) for plan OSMP, PH&S, P&R
not completed (e.g. bear protection,
implementation creation
None for development of plan. pollinator protection, ecosystem
Dependent on outcome of services strategies, monitoring for
plan. Impacts could include rare/declining species)
By 2019, complete and implement a non-target impacts of
plague-management and monitoring insecticides to other aspects of Dependent on outcome of plan impacts
ecosystem, increased conflicts could include reduction over time of
plan using proven-effective state-of-the- relocation receiving sites due to
M2 H M L with adjacent landowners, Ongoing for
art plague management techniques to $$ for implementation agriculture and non-p. dog maintenance and continued expansion
implementation
secure sustainable and plague-resistant community types (e.g. xeric of p.dog populations in conservation
prairie dog colonies. tallgrass, grasshopper areas, leading to reduced opportunities
sparrows) from long-term to address conflict.
expansion and maintenance of Implementation (dependent on
p.dog populations contents of plan) could include
extensive staff time to provide plague
management and increase staff time
required to address conflicts with
adjacent landowners or agriculture,
reducing staff ability to implement
p.dog relocations
By 2019, work with Integrated Pest

Management (IPM) to ensure The IPM policy guides the use *Revisions to the IPM
implementation of an acceptable policy of the most environmentally policy is already a
M3 M* M* M* $ *12 months PH&S
that may limit the use of insecticides sound approaches to pest workplan item for IPM
but allows such use on large prairie dog management Coordinator in 2018
ecosystem colonies as necessary.
S4 Complete and implement a plan for the reintroduction of the black-footed ferret into large prairie dog occupied areas as a key native predator.

Scope / Time
Estimates
Related Themes
Public Engagement
Council / Boards
Staff
CIP or operating
expense)

No impacts for plan creation.
ECOLOGICAL - Update
By 2020, workand
withimplement
adjacent the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance
Implementation: of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
restoring
landowners, including the County of populations
nativeand high-integrity
extirpated grassland habitat.
predator that
Boulder and adjacent counties, US Fish will also contribute to
Creations of plan- no impacts.
sustainable prairie dog
& Wildlife Service, other federal Implementation: potential implications
populations. Potential impacts
M1 partners, and private landowners in the H M M $-$$ (may require consultants) for visitor use, agricultural lease 2020 6 months OSMP
of management for ferrets
Grassland Preserves to create and management, good educational
(including plague control,
implement a black-footed ferret opportunity
sufficiently high prairie dog
recovery plan for the southern Boulder populations, etc) to impact
Region. conservation and management
of other natural resources
S5 Apply the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, mitigate) regarding adverse impacts to at-risk species known to be vulnerable to habitat-altering land management practices associated with prairie dog conservation.
Based on identified prairie dog Inventory and Monitoring, including

occupied and relocation sites, update contractor identification and 3 years- monitoring is
$$$- will require Inventory data would be
inventory and monitoring data for at- management would displace other seasonal, variable year-
M1 H L L contractor/researcher beneficial to natural resource 2020 OSMP, P&R
risk species associated with the Mixed wildlife monitoring priorities already in to-year and needs
assistance management
grass prairie mosaic and xeric tallgrass the workplan including those likely to be repeated periodically
identified in the new OSMP Master Plan
prairie.
Document relative compatibilities of

relevant land use and management Beneficial to identify interface Work with contractors, researchers will
options applicable to prairie dog $$$- will require between p.dog mgmt. actions take staff time otherwise allocated for 2022- wait for
M2 relocation sites and occupied colonies M M L contractor/researcher and impacts to sensitive other wildlife management or IPM preliminary data from 9 months OSMP, P&R, PH&S
(e.g., use of insecticides relative to rare assistance species to help in mitigating projects (e.g. mosquito management, monitoring to inform
insect species, density of prairie dogs negative impacts monitoring of rare/sensitive species)
relative to rare plant species).

Scope / Time
Estimates
Related Themes
Public Engagement
Council / Boards
Staff
CIP or operating
expense)

ECOLOGICAL - Update
Secure and and aimplement
implement the City'smethods
suite of non-lethal prairie dog management
for managing plans
prairie dogtopopulations
ensure the in
creation and maintenance
lands where of to
their proximity one or more
urban and large prairieland
agricultural dog-occupied ecosystem
use, and other naturalarea thatare
values, will
insecure viable
conflict. (The plague-resistant
PDWG recognizesprairie dog
the similarities
OB 2 populations and high-integrity grassland
between this objective and the social goal and would like to ensure that implementation of habitat.
this objective should not detract from other ecological objectives.)
S1 Collaborate with county, federal, and private partners to implement non-lethal prairie dog relocations.
Work with contractors. Increased ability

to address conflict situations, limit lethal
control. Staff time required for
In the near term, due to high Requires installation of articial
permitting, mitigation of neighbor
nest boxes for most or all 1 year to begin to show
occupancy of conflict areas, there is an concerns, coordination of contractors. OSMP, PHS, P&R depending
$$-$$$$ (depending on source p.dogs- impacts to invasive 2019- 2018 relocations increase, continue
M1 increase in the number of successful H L L During relocation season, displaces on sending and receiving
of p.dogs- City or private) species vulnerability, are already underway evaluation each year
translocations across the Boulder other projects such as wildlife staff sites
disruption of intact native after
region. support for habitat restoration, trail and
plant communities
other infrastructure project planning,
support for volunteers and coordination
of protection for rare/sensitive species
S2 Invest in creating buffer zones on key prairie dog colonies in conflict.

May increase release site
Pilot by 2021 one property that has Barriers & their installation can 6 mo's to plan
potential/mitigate conflict. Every new
M1 prairie dog colonies with managed H M L $$$$ have negative impacts on 2020 12 months to OSMP
initiative/item means something else
buffer zones. multiple species implement/evaluate
must go.
S3 Collaborate with the research community to advance testing of new and emerging tools for managing prairie dog population (such as oral contraception agents).
Recruit researchers from USGS, CSU, Potential to help advance tools for
$-$$$ (depending on funding Potential impacts of field
M1 etc. to secure funding and implement a M L L mitigation of social conflicts with p.dogs. 2019 ongoing TBD
for research) research to non-target species
research plan. Other workplan priorities dispaced
Amend as necessary and keep all existing prairie dog plans and policies (including but not limited to the Admin Rule, IPM, UWMP, GMP, Wildlife Protection Ordinance) current as needed to ensure they are mutually compatible with Goal
OB 3
1 and its objectives and strategies.

Scope / Time
Estimates
Related Themes
Public Engagement
Council / Boards
Staff
CIP or operating
expense)

Review
S1 ECOLOGICAL - Update interdependency
and implement among
the City's policies
prairie and identify needed
dog management changes;
plans to ensure establish a priority
the creation amongst current
and maintenance policies;
of one or more andlarge
establish and
prairie implement aecosystem
dog-occupied timeline for plans
area and
that policies
will securethat need
viable to be updated.prairie dog
plague-resistant
By 2020 complete policy review and Will require staff time from multiple
Impacts to other plan
M1 initiate processes for policy H M M $ depts displacing other workplan 2020 9 months OSMP, PH&S, P&R
initiatives and goals
amendments. priorities
SOCIAL COEXISTENCE - Support proactive and innovative non-lethal strategies to minimize conflicts associated with prairie dogs and competing land uses. Increase public awareness of the prairie dog's role in Boulder's Grassland and
Urban ecosystems through community outreach.
Identify and map areas of conflict that can be quantified and tracked annually. Note: Areas of conflict are not to be defined only by these categories and that the map should expand on other new areas of conflict as they arise and are
identified. o Conflict categories such as:
▪ Agriculture (leased/private): Encroachment of prairie dogs onto existing agricultural lands. ▪ Public and Private adjacent land owners: Encroachment of prairie dogs onto adjoining properties.
OB 1
▪ Land developers: Within City of Boulder, city process for prairie dog removal (time delays/costs). ▪ Communication and protocols: Clarity and inclusiveness with community.
▪ Relocation demands exceed receiving sites: Delays in timely relocation of prairie dogs due to lack of
receiving sites.
Beneficial to know conflict areas and

shows willingness to work with
neighbors. Strategy and method for
determining and mapping conflict will
need to be developed and implemented
By 2019 identify and map conflict areas 2020- staff unavailable
requiring staff time including GIS staff, 6 months- 1 year
M1 annually and make it easily available to H L M $-$$ Unknown until after completiong OSMP, PHS, P&R
wildlife staff, outreach staff and depending on strategy
the public. of OSMP Master Plan
agricultural staff from OSMP, PHS, PR
displacing other workplan priorities such
as monitoring of rare/sensitive species,
coordination of bear protection, non-
native species control,
OB 2 Identify and implement innovative proactive non-lethal strategies to address conflicts in each defined category (Some categories the group has identified):

Scope / Time
Estimates
Related Themes
Public Engagement
Council / Boards
Staff
CIP or operating
expense)

▪ Agriculture
ECOLOGICAL - Update(leased/private):
and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
Evaluate/Provide barriers or other
exclusion/mitigation methods.
▪ Private and adjacent land owners:
o Evaluate/Provide barriers on City of
Boulder land adjoining high-conflict areas. Effective barriers are expensive to
construct and maintain throughout their Staff could begin or
o Add additional criteria to definition of
intended life cycle. City owned continue to implement
future PCAs in the Grassland Management
properties have many miles of shared barrier fencing
Plan to consider the level of conflict with
boundary with private property or construction projects 18-24 months for
adjoining properties
irrigated agricultural fields. A cursory on a limited basis in priority barrier fencing
▪ Land Developers: Follow newly proposed
GIS analysis of OSMP prairie dog 2019, however, construction projects,
protocol for relocations.
colonies and irrigated agricultural fields significant infrastructure
▪ Communication & Protocols:
o Have clear and consistent communication alone indicates that more than 100 expenditures of staff maintenance activities
among all agencies. irrigated fields currently intersect time or CIP funds and passive mitigation
occupied prairie dog colonies. Providing (>$10,000) would techniques would be on-
o Review protocols and update as necessary. H M M $$$$-$$$$$ Unknown effective barriers for neighboring require a reallocation going activies as long as OSMP, P&R, PH&S
property owners who have recently of departmental individual colonies are
▪ Relocation demands exceed Receiving
(within last 6 months) reported conflicts resources and/or occupied. Modifying
site:
o Explore additional opportunities for would require an investment of more proposed work plan. the Grassland
relocations in Southern Grasslands by than $1 million if each were selected for Changes to the Ecosystem Management
evaluating current relocation criteria, in barrier installation. Passive relocation Grassland Ecosystem Plan could take up to 24
conjunction with Goal 1 efforts, to alleviate techniques would likely require Management Plan months once the
conflicts in other areas. contracted services or the addition of would likely need to be process in initiated.
o Work towards the reintroduction of the staffing resources. Changes to the developed after the
black-footed ferret (as stated in goal 1) using existing Grassland Management Plan completion of the
connecting parcels from the public/private would require a public process and OSMP Master Plan.
sector to achieve this goal as a natural board and council approvals.
strategy in PD management.
o Collaborate with community partners (ex:
Prairie Dog Coalition or Defenders of Wildlife)
to implement conflict prevention strategy

Scope / Time
Estimates
Related Themes
Public Engagement
Council / Boards
Staff
CIP or operating
expense)

ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one Community
or more largeimplications involved in
prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
selecting properties- advantageous for
selected properties and shows
By end of 2019, initiate a pilot program
Dependent on strategy- if willingness to work with neighbors, but
to implement a conflict prevention
includes barriers potential for potentially contentious for others not
M1 strategy in at least two adjoining M L L $-$$$ operating 2019 1 year OSMP
impacts to other wildlife selected. Selection process will need to
conflict locations (properties that are movement, weed invastion be developed. Conflict prevention will
next to or connected to each other). require initial staff time and ongoing
staff time for maintenance of any
infrastructure involved
Community implications involved in

selecting properties- advantageous for
selected properties and shows
Dependent on strategy- if willingness to work with neighbors, but
By 2022 proactively address 10% of includes barriers potential for potentially contentious for others not 2 years for initial, then
M2 H L L $-$$$$$ operating 2020 OSMP, PH&S, PR
defined conflict areas annually. impacts to other wildlife selected. Selection process will need to ongoing
movement, weed invastion be developed. Conflict prevention will
require initial staff time and ongoing
staff time for maintenance of any
infrastructure involved
OB 3 Review mechanisms for communication and update as required to ensure prairie dog management conflicts and concerns are addressed in an effective and timely manner.
Establish who to call when conflicts

S1 with illegal activity arise and when L L L $ N/A H:PHS 320 hours 2018 Completed PH&S
animal control cannot be reached.
OB 4 Develop a campaign to engage Boulder area residents to expand their appreciation of the role of prairie dogs in native grasslands in Boulder County and the complex nature of their management.

Scope / Time
Estimates
Related Themes
Public Engagement
Council / Boards
Staff
CIP or operating
expense)

• Create surveys to gauge public
ECOLOGICAL - Update and implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
awareness and concerns based on
historical efforts.
• Campaign for more public
awareness, engage the public through
technology, Boulder newsletters and
Increased community engagement.
community outreach programs.
Campaign to engage Boulder area
Presentations at local libraries, schools, residents to expand their appreciation
Boy/Girl Scout troops and 4-H groups $$, operating, of the role of prairie dogs in native
12 months to launch,
S1 are ways to reach out to the H M L consultant/professional services - grasslands in Boulder County and the 2020 TBD
then on-going
community. provider complex nature of their management;
conducting education programs requires
• Provide Boulder residents staff to redirect their current program
opportunities to contribute to PD priorities/topics
conservation through assistance with
environmental monitoring and
outreach programs.
• Better educate public about plague

and update informational sites.
OB 5 Develop annual assessment feedback mechanisms.

OSMP
Work plans need to allow timing for PH&S
Reevaluation of adaptive management
S1 L L L $, operating - staff to conduct this process of 2020 On-going P&R -
practices. reevalutation
Ob 6 Secure modifications to state regulations to facilitate the transfer of prairie dogs across county lines.
Lobby neighboring county

commissioners and state legislators to
Council would need to including this as a 6 months for Legislative
S1 advocate for these adjustments, L L M $, lobbing 2019 PH&S
priority for the 2019 Legislative Agenda. Agenda evaluation
providing protocols and language for
legislation.

Scope / Time
Estimates
Related Themes
Public Engagement
Council / Boards
Staff
CIP or operating
expense)

ECOLOGICAL - Update and implementECONOMIC - Implement
the City's prairie sustainableplans
dog management processes that provide
to ensure resources
the creation and capacityof
and maintenance toone
secure prairie
or more dogprairie
large conservation associated
dog-occupied with the
ecosystem Citythat
area of Boulder.
will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
OB 1 Apply principles of Net Positive Impact (avoid, minimize, mitigate, seek net positive gain) on prairie dog conservation activities, including relocation projects, associated with the City of Boulder.
S1 Utilize habitat quantification tool to score sites (removal and receiving), to help offset on-site impact of development and to determine net-positive impact.
By 2020, pilot the use of the adapted there is no direct impact to

staff will need to dedicate hours to
resources by using the tool
habitat quantification tool developed determine the right tool components 12 months to have a full
M1 M L L $$, opearting itself; any impacts may occur 2020 OSMP
to determine Net Positive Impact in and to utilize the tool to score one or year of evaluation
from the results of using the
one or more scenarios within the city. more sites
tool
Establish a grassland conservation fund that augments operating budgets for meeting prairie dog management and is used for expenditures including but not limited to acquisition (fee title and/or easements), relocations and
OB 2
stewardship
S1 Establish inflow and outflows of monies into and out of the grassland conservation fund.
By 2019, create and implement a

A fee structure would help Requires an ordinance and will affect
required fee structure for private
M1 H M M $$ absorb associated costs of Finance and City Attorney's Office staff 2019 12-18 months PH&S
landowners relocating prairie dogs to environmental impacts work plans
city land.
Work with Boulder’s philanthropic

community (e.g., Community
Foundation of Boulder County ) to
M2 M M L $ - - 2019 ongoing TBD
identify opportunities to provide
sustainable support to Prairie Dog
conservation in the Boulder region.

Scope / Time
Estimates
Related Themes
Public Engagement
Council / Boards
Staff
CIP or operating
expense)

By 2020,
ECOLOGICAL work with
- Update and conservation
implement the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
entities to identify conservation populations and high-integrity grassland habitat.
practices, programs and funding
mechanisms that could support Time directed toward
Demonstrates city’s partnership
grassland restoration and the administrative tasks rather
initiative; staff would need to adjust
M3 mitigation of conflicts on agricultural M L L $, operating than implementation and field 2020 On-going TBD
work plans to allow for this
land. (Example entities include Natural tasks but may increase
administrative work
Resource Conservation Service and capacity in the future.
Great Outdoors Colorado. An example
of funding which could be explored
includes conservation leases.)
No less frequently than once, but no

more frequently than twice a year, Meetings support transparency and
there will be a publicly-noticed meeting build trust; may not be necessary long-
that includes invitations to members of Time directed toward meeting term but are important in the near-term
On-going for the near-
S2 the PDWG with an opportunity for the L M L $, operating & preparation rather than for demonstrating accountability and 2019 TBD
term
members to discuss progress on the implementation and field tasks effectiveness of approved actions .
ecological, social, and economic goals Increased community engagement.
Maintain relationships built.
and strategies and contribute to the
adaptive management process.
By December 2019 staff will provide an Time directed toward meeting Financial staff needed to support report
M1 annual report on the inflows and L M L $, operating & preparation rather than field development. Evaluation of progress 2019 On-going TBD
outflows. tasks and recalibration.

Scope / Time
Estimates
Related Themes
Public Engagement
Council / Boards
Staff
CIP or operating
expense)

OSMP
By 2019
ECOLOGICAL staff will
- Update andprovide their the City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one
implement Accountability.
or more large Working group
prairie members
dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant
PH&S prairie dog
respective department board or are likely
populations and high-integrity grassland habitat. to be highly interested in P&R
attending meetings where updates will
commission with annual updates on Time directed toward
be provided; other members of the
M2 the status of the goals and objectives L M M $, operating reporting & preparation rather 2019 On-going -
public who expressed concerns during
as well as a review of, and advisement than field tasks
the working group are also likely to
on, inflows and outflows of the attend. Adaptive Management in
grasslands conservation fund. action.
OB 3 Support sufficient budgets for city staff to fulfill their roles in achieving the approved PDWG goals, objectives, and strategies as well as recommended changes to plans, policies and practices.
S1 Revisit and amend department budget allocations (including a line item for prairie dog management), and annual work plan objectives for staff to ensure they are compatible with, and can accomplish, the PDWG goals and objectives.
Other management objectives OSMP

Recommend departmental operating (i.e., protecting rare/sensitive Directing funding to pdog mgmt, will PH&S
$$$ - (varies by dept and year), P&R
M1 budget line items for prairie dog L L M species) will receive a lower naturally alter a department’s ability to 2019 (for 2020) On-going
operating
management in the 2020 budget. priority or will not be address other services
addressed
Annually ensure each relevant OSMP
Other management objectives PH&S
department has sufficient budgets, Directing funding to pdog mgmt, will
$$$-$$$$$ - (varies by dept and (i.e., bear protection) will P&R
M2 staffing and/or consultants to meet the M - M naturally alter a department’s ability to 2019 (for 2020) On-going
year), operating & CIP receive a lower priority or will
prairie dog management goals and address other services
not be addressed
objectives.
S2 Maximize in-kind contributions to assist with addressing prairie dog management.
By 2019, create a pilot project with at

least two outside organizations to help Demonstrates ability to partner on
implementation of goals and objectives OSMP
fulfill the PDWG goals and objectives by May offset the financial costs
M1 M L L $$$ - operating or CIP (TBD) and positive relationship development; 2020 12 months P&HS
maximizing in-kind contributions (i.e., of PDWG goal implementation.
opportunity to storytell about the role P&R
donation of nest boxes or fence/barrier of prairie dogs in the ecosystem
materials or installation).

Scope / Time
Estimates
Related Themes
Public Engagement
Council / Boards
Staff
CIP or operating
expense)

ECOLOGICAL - Update
Track in-kind and implement
contributions on anthe City's prairie dog management plans to ensure the creation and maintenance of one or more large prairie dog-occupied ecosystem area that will secure viable plague-resistant prairie dog
Impact to finance divisional staff,
M2 annual basis and make data available L - - $, operating populations and high-integrity
- grassland habitat.
reported information would be available 2020 On-going PH&S
for other funding opportunities. online
Key to Related Themes Key to Staff Scope (Estimated Hours)

= conflict managment L = 0-.05 FTE
= funding M = .05-0.1 FTE
= large-block habitat H = 0.1 -0.5 FTE
= plague management
Key to Estimated Implementation Costs

$ = less than $10,000
$$ = $10,000 - $49,999
$$$ = $50,000 - $99,999
$$$$ = $100,000 – $499,999
$$$$$ = $500,000+
Ecosystems, Climate Change and Community Well-being
A Joint Advisory Board Meeting
An ecosystem can be defined as “the interconnected community of living organisms (plant, animal,
insect, microbial) that depend on, and influence, the physical environment in which they reside.” But
what does that really mean in the context of the City of Boulder? Over the nearly 200,000 years of
human history, humans have sometimes had impacts on local ecosystems but generally didn’t alter
larger global ecological systems. The advent of phenomena like the ozone hole and global warming
clearly demonstrate that human systems are having ecological impacts that can cause potentially
serious changes—from the local to the global.
The combination of both local and global changes is now having recognizable impacts on ecosystems
locally. Whether it is the increased length and intensity of fire seasons (now over 4 months longer
than the 1970s) or the decline in pollinator species in urban gardens, we now face a wide variety of
changes that could diminish the ability of the natural world to continue to provide the many benefits
it provides for our community—clean air, clean water, storm buffering, habitat for species etc. A
number of these issues have now reached a scale that may be beyond what the City can effectively
address on its own. Consequently, the City is seeking community engagement and opportunities for
cooperative solutions.
The purpose of this workshop is for a number of city advisory boards to jointly explore ecosystem
issues from their own purviews. Some of these issues will be specific to each board and some may
overlap with other boards.
This meeting is part of a three-
part process. City staff is
engaged in a year-long effort
to identify and assess
ecological issues and threats
across all aspects of city
operations and land
holdings—urban, agricultural
and wildlands. There has also
been a community-wide focus
on ecosystems in the 2018
climate action program. This
will culminate in a Community
Ecosystems Summit on
November 16th at CU’s
Sustainability, Energy and
Environment Center.
The joint advisory board meeting will be a third track of engagement to help the city identify
important ecological issues to be considered and addressed. City staff will look at the outcomes of all
three sets of workshops to ensure there is a comprehensive workplan for addressing ecosystem
issues. These findings will be presented to city leadership and Council late this year.
In preparation for the workshop we’d like each board to respond to the following two questions by
Friday August 17th.
1. From the perspective of your board and its advisory role, what are the 2-3 most significant
ecological issues facing the community in the next 3-5 years? This might be things like pollinator
decline, loss of urban canopy, soil degradation, threat of wildfires, etc.
2. From the perspective of your board, what opportunities do you see to address these issues? does
your board think we will need to be able to address these issues? What resources do we need to
implement these opportunities?
The Environmental Advisory Board will compile the feedback from the boards and will provide a
summary that will serve as the basis for the discussion at the Joint Advisory Board meeting on
September 19th.

August

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

August

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD

Boulder Public Library - Flatirons Room, 1101 Arapahoe Ave.

AGENDA Boulder Parks & Recreation

Tom Klenow (Chair)

VI. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION (6:17)

IX. NEXT BOARD MEETING: September 24, 2018

100 Years of Excellence

Future Board Items 2018

January 22 February 26 April 2 (rescheduled March meeting)

April 23 June 4 (rescheduled May meeting) June 25

100 Years of Excellence

Future Board Items 2018 - continued

October 22 November 26 December 17

100 Years of Excellence

100 Years of Excellence

FROM: Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation Department

SUBJECT: Consent Agenda

DATE: August 27, 2018

A. Approval of Minutes from July 23, 2018

B. Parks and Recreation Development Update

Planning and Design

3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

• Elks Park Arbor: Construction on the

• North Boulder Park Tot Track:

In addition to the improvements made

3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

o Boulder Reservoir Visitor Services Center;

• Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Restoration: Mosquito activity is decreasing

3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

• Regulations and Seasonal Wildlife

• Natural Lands Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the

o Urban Wildlife Management.

3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

Name of Board/Commission: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board

Agenda Item 3: Election of Officers

Agenda Item 4: Consent Agenda

B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update

Agenda Item 5: Action Item

No action items were presented this month

No discussion/information items were presented this month

Agenda Item 7: Matters from the Department

A. Central Boulder Planning Update

B. Harbeck-Bergheim House Engagement Outcomes

C. Mobile Vending Update

Agenda Item 8: Matters from the Board

A. Departing Member Romero Departing Comments to the Board

Approved by: Attested:

Tom Klenow Sarah DeSouza

Board Chair Board Secretary

Date _____________________ Date ____________________

FROM: Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation Department

SUBJECT: Matters from the Department

DATE: August 27, 2018

• Promotes safety for all park users;

Attachment A: Draft Guidelines for Cyclocross in Urban Parks

3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

Guidelines for Cyclocross in Boulder Urban Parks

About Cyclocross in Parks

Guidelines for Cyclocross in Designated Parks

To: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board

From: Yvette Bowden, Director of Parks and Recreation (P&R)

Date: Aug. 27, 2018

COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS

Date _ Date