DOCSLIB.ORG

Colorado Gunnison's & White-Tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Colorado Gunnison's & White-Tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Strategy Colorado Gunnison’s and White-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Strategy July 2010 COLORADO GUNNISON’S AND WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION STRATEGY This document should be cited as: Seglund, A.E. and P.M Schnurr. 2010. Colorado Gunnison’s and white-tailed prairie dog conservation strategy. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado, USA. STATE OF COLORADO Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Thomas E. Remington, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 wildlife. state. co. us It is with pleasure that I sign the Colorado Gunnison's and White-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Strategy. This strategy document forms the basis of future management decisions for these two species in Colorado through a public process that selects the top- priority actions for the nine Individual Population Areas (IPAs) described therein. The Western Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies has coordinated prairie dog conservation activities throughout the western United States, and this strategy is an outgrowth of that effort, The actions described in this strategy and the associated IPA Action Plans are aimed latproviding for the continued existence of these two prairie dog species, thereby offsetting the need for either species to be listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. Through the involvement of local and statewide stakeholders in the development ofthi strategy, the social and economic needs of Colorado's citizens have been incorporated. A workshop that included landowners, conservation organization members, scientists, an agency personnel was held in May of 2007 to formulate specific strategies. Continued involvement of these stakeholders has produced an approach that explicitly considers the needs of all concerned parties in developing local IPA plans for prairie dog cjnServatiot. I hereby approve the Colorado Gunnison's and White- Tailed Prairie Dog Conservatio Strategy. SIGNED: Thomas E. Remington Director Colorado Division of Wildlife 6060 Broadway Denver, CO 80216 / DATE: ____ -L~~ _ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Mike King, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Tim Glenn, Chair. Robert Streeter, Vice Chair. Mark Smith, Secretary Members, David R. Brougham. Dennis Buechler. Dorothea Farris. Allan Jones. John Singletary. Dean Wingfield Ex Officio Members, Mike King and John Stulp Colorado Gunnison’s and White-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Strategy TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. vii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... ix I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................1 II. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................3 A. Purpose ................................................................................................................................3 B. Organization of the Colorado Conservation Strategy Document .....................................3 C. Background ........................................................................................................................4 Range-wide ..........................................................................................................................4 Colorado ...............................................................................................................................6 D. Goals ....................................................................................................................................7 E. Management & Legal Authorities ....................................................................................7 F. Mechanics of Colorado Conservation Strategy Development ..........................................8 Process & Public Participation.............................................................................................8 Data Sources ........................................................................................................................9 G. Local Action Plans ...........................................................................................................10 H. Stakeholder Considerations ............................................................................................10 I. Adaptive Management ......................................................................................................11 III. CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT .....................................................................................12 A. Biology & Life History .....................................................................................................12 Species Description ............................................................................................................12 Taxonomy ..........................................................................................................................12 Life History ........................................................................................................................13 Population Dynamics .........................................................................................................15 Social Structure ..................................................................................................................16 Habitat Requirements.........................................................................................................16 Diet .....................................................................................................................................18 B. Distribution .......................................................................................................................19 Gunnison’s Prairie Dog......................................................................................................19 White-tailed Prairie Dog ....................................................................................................22 C. Monitoring & Inventorying Gunnison’s & White-tailed Prairie Dog Populations in Colorado ....................................................................................................................25 Historical Survey Efforts ...................................................................................................25 Gunnison’s Prairie Dog ...............................................................................................25 White-tailed Prairie Dog .............................................................................................25 Recent Survey Efforts ........................................................................................................26 Inventory of the Distribution of Gunnison’s & White-tailed Prairie Dog Colony Locations ...................................................................................................................26 Monitoring & Inventorying Current Gunnison’s Prairie Dog & White-tailed Prairie Dog Populations in Colorado ......................................................................27 D. Gunnison’s Prairie Dog Individual Population Areas: Status & Distribution ..........29 Gunnison Individual Population Area ...............................................................................29 General Description of Area ..................................................................................29 i Table of Contents Colorado Gunnison’s and White-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Strategy Population Information ..........................................................................................32 Issues ......................................................................................................................33 Current Conservation Efforts ................................................................................34 La Plata-Archuleta Individual Population Area .................................................................35 General Description of Area ..................................................................................35 Population Information ..........................................................................................37 Issues ......................................................................................................................37 Current Conservation Efforts ................................................................................37 San Luis Valley Individual Population Area .....................................................................38 General Description of Area ..................................................................................38 Population Information ..........................................................................................40 Issues ......................................................................................................................40 Current Conservation Efforts ................................................................................40 South Park Individual Population Area .............................................................................41 General
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Southern Rockies Lynx Management Direction Volume 1
    USDA FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Forest Service Southern Rockies United States NationalDepartment Forests of in ColoradoAgriculture & southern Wyoming Lynx Management OctoberForest 2008 Service Rocky Mountain Region Direction Southern RockiesVolume Lynx Amendment 1 Record of Decision October 2008 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Lead Agency: Plan. The SDEIS added information and analysis United States Department of Agriculture for the White River National Forest to the material Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region already provided for the other six national forest units. Cooperating Agency: Colorado Department of Natural Resources The No Action alternative (Alternative A) was developed as a baseline for comparing the effects States Affected: of Alternatives B, C and D. The purpose and need Colorado and southern Wyoming for action is to establish direction that conserves Responsible Official: and promotes recovery of Canada lynx, and Rick D.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Prairie Dogs Range from 12 – 16 Inches Dog
    National Park Service Bryce Canyon U.S. Department of the Interior Bryce Canyon National Park Utah Prairie Dog (Cynomys parvidens) All photos by Kevin Doxstater Prairie Dogs are ground-dwelling members of the squirrel family found only in North America. There are five species within the genus and the Utah Prairie Dog is the smallest member of the group. Restricted to the southwestern corner of Utah, they are a threatened species that has suffered population declines due to habitat loss and other factors. Vital Statistics Utah Prairie Dogs range from 12 – 16 inches Dog . Utah Prairie Dogs reach maturity in (30.5 – 40.6 cm) in length and weigh from 1 year; females have a life span of about 1 – 3 pounds (.45 – 1.4 kg). Color ranges 8 years, males live approximately 5 years. from cinnamon to clay and they have a fairly Interestingly, they are the only non- distinct black eyebrow (or stripe) not seen fish vertebrate species endemic (found in any of the other 4 prairie dog species. nowhere else in the world) to the State of Their short tail is white tipped like that of Utah. their close relative the White-tailed Prairie Habitat and Diet Like the other members of the genus, for the remaining time. These include Utah Prairie Dogs live in colonies or serving as a sentry looking for intruders or “towns” in meadows with short grasses. predators, play, mutual grooming, defense Individual colonies will be further divided of territory or young, or burrow and nest into territories occupied by social groups construction.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Central San Juan Caldera Cluster, Southwestern Colorado by Peter W
    Geologic Map of the Central San Juan Caldera Cluster, Southwestern Colorado By Peter W. Lipman Pamphlet to accompany Geologic Investigations Series I–2799 dacite Ceobolla Creek Tuff Nelson Mountain Tuff, rhyolite Rat Creek Tuff, dacite Cebolla Creek Tuff Rat Creek Tuff, rhyolite Wheeler Geologic Monument (Half Moon Pass quadrangle) provides exceptional exposures of three outflow tuff sheets erupted from the San Luis caldera complex. Lowest sheet is Rat Creek Tuff, which is nonwelded throughout but grades upward from light-tan rhyolite (~74% SiO2) into pale brown dacite (~66% SiO2) that contains sparse dark-brown andesitic scoria. Distinctive hornblende-rich middle Cebolla Creek Tuff contains basal surge beds, overlain by vitrophyre of uniform mafic dacite that becomes less welded upward. Uppermost Nelson Mountain Tuff consists of nonwelded to weakly welded, crystal-poor rhyolite, which grades upward to a densely welded caprock of crystal-rich dacite (~68% SiO2). White arrows show contacts between outflow units. 2006 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey CONTENTS Geologic setting . 1 Volcanism . 1 Structure . 2 Methods of study . 3 Description of map units . 4 Surficial deposits . 4 Glacial deposits . 4 Postcaldera volcanic rocks . 4 Hinsdale Formation . 4 Los Pinos Formation . 5 Oligocene volcanic rocks . 5 Rocks of the Creede Caldera cycle . 5 Creede Formation . 5 Fisher Dacite . 5 Snowshoe Mountain Tuff . 6 Rocks of the San Luis caldera complex . 7 Rocks of the Nelson Mountain caldera cycle . 7 Rocks of the Cebolla Creek caldera cycle . 9 Rocks of the Rat Creek caldera cycle . 10 Lava flows premonitory(?) to San Luis caldera complex . .11 Rocks of the South River caldera cycle .
    [Show full text]
  • Status Review Finding for the Black-Tailed Prairie Dog
    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING THE STATUS REVIEW FINDING FOR THE BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG What are the findings of the black-tailed prairie dog status review? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has completed a status review of the black-tailed prairie dog and has determined it does not warrant protection as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. The Service bases its conclusion for this finding after a thorough review of all the available scientific and commercial information regarding the status of the black-tailed prairie dog and the potential impacts to the species. What is a status review? A status review, also known as a 12-month finding, makes public the Service=s decision on a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The finding is based on a thorough assessment of the available information on the species, as detailed in the species= status review. One of three possible conclusions can be reached as part of the finding: that listing is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but presently precluded by other higher-priority listing activities involving other species. In the case of black-tailed prairie dog, the Service found that the black-tailed prairie dog is not likely to become a threatened or endangered species within the foreseeable future in all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, listing of the black-tailed prairie dog as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act is not warranted at this time. What specifically does the Service look at to determine if a species needs to be listed as threatened or endangered? We consider the factors specified in the Endangered Species Act to determine whether a species meets the definition of “threatened” or “endangered” per the criteria stated in the Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Response of Selected Plants to Fire on White Sands
    Session D—Ecology of Fire on White Sands Missile Range—Boykin Response of Selected Plants to Fire on 1 White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico 2 Kenneth G. Boykin Abstract Little was known about the ecology, impacts, effects, and history of fire related to many plants and communities within White Sands Missile Range. I began by identifying the known aspects and the gaps in knowledge for White Sands Missile Range. I analyzed existing data available for the Installation taken from the Integrated Training and Area Management (ITAM) program for 1988 to 1999. Burn plots were identified at 34 sites with fires occurring sometime within that 11 yr span. Selected plant species were analyzed to identify the response to fire including change in frequency, cover, and structure. Analysis of data indicated varied responses to fire and identified a need for long term monitoring to account for natural variability. Introduction Fire is a major factor influencing the ecology, evolution, and biogeography of many vegetation communities (Humphrey 1974, Ford and McPherson 1996). In the Southwest, semi-desert grasslands and shrublands have evolved with fires caused by lightning strikes (Pyne 1982, Betancourt and others 1990). Fires have maintained grasslands by reducing invading shrubs (Valentine 1971). The impact these fires have on the ecosystem depends not only on current biological and physical environment but also on past land use patterns (Ford and McPherson 1996). Fires impact communities by affecting species diversity, persistence, opportunistic invading species, insects, diseases, and herbivores. Plant species diversity often increases after fires and some communities are dependent on fire to maintain their structure (Jacoby 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • GOOSEBERRYLEAF GLOBEMALLOW Sphaeralcea Grossulariifolia (Hook
    GOOSEBERRYLEAF GLOBEMALLOW Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia (Hook. & Arn.) Rydb. Malvaceae – Mallow family Corey L. Gucker & Nancy L. Shaw | 2018 ORGANIZATION NOMENCLATURE Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia (Hook. & Arn.) Names, subtaxa, chromosome number(s), hybridization. Rydb., hereafter referred to as gooseberryleaf globemallow, belongs to the Malveae tribe of the Malvaceae or mallow family (Kearney 1935; La Duke 2016). Range, habitat, plant associations, elevation, soils. NRCS Plant Code. SPGR2 (USDA NRCS 2017). Subtaxa. The Flora of North America (La Duke 2016) does not recognize any varieties or Life form, morphology, distinguishing characteristics, reproduction. subspecies. Synonyms. Malvastrum coccineum (Nuttall) A. Gray var. grossulariifolium (Hooker & Arnott) Growth rate, successional status, disturbance ecology, importance to animals/people. Torrey, M. grossulariifolium (Hooker & Arnott) A. Gray, Sida grossulariifolia Hooker & Arnott, Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia subsp. pedata Current or potential uses in restoration. (Torrey ex A. Gray) Kearney, S. grossulariifolia var. pedata (Torrey ex A. Gray) Kearney, S. pedata Torrey ex A. Gray (La Duke 2016). Seed sourcing, wildland seed collection, seed cleaning, storage, Common Names. Gooseberryleaf globemallow, testing and marketing standards. current-leaf globemallow (La Duke 2016). Chromosome Number. Chromosome number is stable, 2n = 20, and plants are diploid (La Duke Recommendations/guidelines for producing seed. 2016). Hybridization. Hybridization occurs within the Sphaeralcea genus.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Analysis of Effects of Mowing and Burning on Colony Expansion in Reintroduced Black-Tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys Ludovicianus) Jason Northcott,1 Mark C
    Spatial Analysis of Effects of Mowing and Burning on Colony Expansion in Reintroduced Black-Tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) Jason Northcott,1 Mark C. Andersen,2,3 Gary W. Roemer,3 Ed L. Fredrickson,4 Michael DeMers,5 Joe Truett,6 and Paulette L. Ford7 Abstract direction of the treatment plots. The results support these Factors governing the rate and direction of prairie dog hypotheses; analysis of burrow counts by site and treat- (Cynomys spp.) colony expansion remain poorly un- ment shows that prairie dogs preferentially colonized both derstood. However, increased knowledge and ability to mow and burn treatments compared to untreated areas at control these factors may lead to more effective reintro- the periphery of the colonies. Directional analysis showed ductions of prairie dogs and restoration of grassland habi- a significant posttreatment orientation of new burrows tats. We present density and directional analyses of the toward the treatment plots for all colonies. Our results establishment of new burrows on three reintroduced colo- show that the direction of expansion of prairie dog colo- nies of Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) nies can be manipulated. Effective control of the expan- in southern New Mexico; the study colonies had been sub- sion of prairie dog colonies may lead to more successful jected to mow and burn treatments in the second year of reintroductions. the study. Our hypotheses were that prairie dogs will pref- erentially dig new burrows in the treatment plots versus Key words: Black-tailed prairie dogs, Cynomys ludovicia- control plots and that the colonies will expand in the nus, directional analysis, fire, grasslands, reintroductions.
    [Show full text]
  • BYE, BYE BIRDIE Introduction
    BYE, BYE BIRDIE introduction Humankind is now precipitating the extinction of large numbers Studies For Our Global Future of animals, birds, insects, and plants. Despite human activity, extinction occurs at a natural rate of about one to three species per year. Current estimates suggest that we are losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the natural rate. This means that concept dozens of species could be going extinct every day. Between The rate of wildlife endangerment is human impact on the natural world and issues brought on by an increasing and difficult decisions are required increasingly warm climate, over 500 known species could face to determine how to prioritize efforts to save 1 extinction by 2040. endangered species. objectives Scientists believe that many of the species being lost carry untold potential benefits for the health and economic stability Students will be able to: of the planet. With limited funding available for conservation, • Develop and apply a list of criteria that can many believe that humanity should make some tough choices be used to make decisions about protecting and decide which species can and should be saved. endangered species. • Conduct research on an endangered species Vocabulary: biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and effectively communicate to classmates endangered species, extinction, indicator species, IUCN Red List its importance and why it should be saved. of Threatened Species, keystone species, poaching, umbrella subjects species Environmental Science (General and AP), Biology, English Language Arts materials skills Critical thinking, researching, comparing and • Research Guide (provided) evaluating, public speaking, decision making method Students determine a list of criteria to use procedure when deciding the fate of endangered species, then conduct research on a specific species 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Stansbury Brings Listening Tour to Placitas by the Numbers
    SANDOVAL PLACITAS PRSRT-STD U.S. Postage Paid BERNALILLO Placitas, NM Permit #3 CORRALES SANDOVAL Postal Customer or Current Resident COUNTY ECRWSS NEW MEXICO SignA N INDEPENDENT PLOCAL NEWSPAPER St S INCE 1988 • VOL. 32 / NO 9 • SEPTEMBER 2021 • FREE IVEN By the numbers: D ILL New Mexico and —B the 2020 Census ~SIGNPOST STAFF While Sandoval County remains among the fastest growing counties in the state, New Mexico’s overall growth rate lags well behind its neighbors, according to data from the 2020 Census released last month. Over the last ten years, Sandoval County grew by 17,273 residents for a total population of 148,834, a 13.1 percent increase. Faster growth was noted only in Eddy County, 15.8 percent, and Lea County, 15 percent, both in the southeast Oil Patch. Sandoval remains the fourth-largest county by pop- ulation behind Bernalillo, Doña Ana, and Santa Fe counties. The state’s population reached 2.1 million with 58,343 more residents, up 2.8 percent since the 2010 Census. The nation as a whole grew by 7.4 percent, the lowest rate since the 1930s, and compares to rates U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury visits with John Stebbins of Placitas after her listening session of ten percent or more in states surrounding New at the Placitas Community Library. Stansbury, elected in June to fill out Rep. Deb Haaland’s term, Mexico except Oklahoma. was touring the district with her staff during the August congressional recess. Data also show New Mexico to be among the most racially and ethnically diverse state.
    [Show full text]
  • A Reciprocal Transplant Experiment with Winterfat (Krascheninnikovia Lanata) Melanie Barnes
    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Biology ETDs Electronic Theses and Dissertations 12-1-2009 The effect of plant source location on restoration success: a reciprocal transplant experiment with winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) Melanie Barnes Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/biol_etds Recommended Citation Barnes, Melanie. "The effect of plant source location on restoration success: a reciprocal transplant experiment with winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata)." (2009). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/biol_etds/4 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biology ETDs by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The effect of plant source location on restoration success: a reciprocal transplant experiment with winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) BY Melanie G. Barnes B.A., Biology, Reed College, 2001 DISSERTATION Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Biology The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico December, 2009 DEDICATION In memory of my mother, Georgene Grace Barnes. The completion of this dissertation is also dedicated to my friends and family who have supported me in this endeavor and who taught me many things about life that gave me the perspective I needed to complete this work. I would like to thank Heather Simpson, Jerusha Reynolds, Terri Koontz, Nathan Abrahamson, Jeremy Barlow, Brittany Barker, Laura Calabrese, Jennifer Hollis, Maureen Peters, Helen Barnes, and Tom Barnes. Finally, I want to thank Lisa for her love and emotional support; it means the world to me.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Habits of Rodents Inhabiting Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems of Central New Mexico." (2007)
    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Special Publications Museum of Southwestern Biology 5-10-2007 Food Habits of Rodents Inhabiting Arid and Semi- arid Ecosystems of Central New Mexico Andrew G. Hope Robert R. Parmenter Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/msb_special_publications Recommended Citation Hope, Andrew G. and Robert R. Parmenter. "Food Habits of Rodents Inhabiting Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems of Central New Mexico." (2007). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/msb_special_publications/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Museum of Southwestern Biology at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Special Publications by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPECIAL PUBLICATION OF THE MUSEUM OF SOUTHWESTERN BIOLOGY NUMBER 9, pp. 1–75 10 May 2007 Food Habits of Rodents Inhabiting Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems of Central New Mexico ANDREW G. HOPE AND ROBERT R. PARMENTER1 Special Publication of the Museum of Southwestern Biology 1 CONTENTS Abstract................................................................................................................................................ 5 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Study Sites ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Open Space Master Plan for Louisville Owned Parcels
    CITY OF LOUISVILLE OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN covering the following properties: AQUARIUS CTC DAUGHENBAUGH DAVIDSON MESA LAKE PARK NORTH TAMARISK WAREMBOURG LEON A. WURL WILDLIFE SANCTUARY MISCELLANEOUS January 2004 City of Louisville Department of Land Management and Louisville Open Space Citizens Advisory Board TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF MAPS ...............................................................................................................................2 SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................3 CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY CHART OF OPEN SPACE LANDS........................................4 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................5 1.1 Report Organization.................................................................................................6 2.0 RELEVANT GOALS AND POLICIES..............................................................................6 3.0 MANAGEMENT GOALS AND PROTOCOL ..................................................................6 4.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS.................................8 4.1 Location ....................................................................................................................8 4.2 Climate ......................................................................................................................9 4.3 Topography...............................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]