The Yampa River at Morgan Bottom
Riparian Habitat and Rare Species Assessment
Why the Yampa River at Morgan Bottom is important
The Yampa River is one of the last free-flowing rivers in Colorado where nature still dictates the
dynamics of the flow. The highest elevation uplands are comprised of large, intact spruce-fir
forests and aspen groves, which grade into extensive sagebrush and gambel oak shrublands at
lower elevations. These vast shrublands provide critical habitat for Greater Sage Grouse and
Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse. In the lowlands, the Yampa River spreads out and meanders
through Morgan Bottom. Along this section of the Yampa River, cottonwood gallery forests
form a lush ribbon of green riparian vegetation flanked by irrigated hay meadows. The Morgan
Bottom riparian and aquatic areas contain many rare and imperiled wildlife species, as well as
vegetation communities that are considered globally rare including several good occurrences of
a globally imperiled community - box elder - narrowleaf cottonwood / red-osier dogwood (Acer
negundo - Populus angustifolia / Cornus sericea) riparian forest.
Morgan Bottom Riparian and Habitat Values
The box elder – narrowleaf cottonwood / red osier dogwood riparian forest is restricted to the
Yampa and White River Basins of northwest Colorado, and is not known to occur outside the
state of Colorado. It is best developed along the Yampa River for approximately 30 miles,
between Craig and Milner, Colorado. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program identified Hayden
and Morgan Bottoms, approximately 16 miles along the Yampa River, as important for their
riparian and wetland values (Culver and Sanderson 1996). Morgan Bottom contains a number
of high quality stands of box elder - narrowleaf cottonwood / red-osier dogwood riparian
forest. Associated shrubs within the riparian forests include thinleaf alder ( Alnus tenuifolia),
Pacific willow (Salix lucida ssp. caudata), and hawthorn (Crataegus rivularis) (Culver and
Sanderson 1996). Cobble bars on the insides of meander bends support regenerating stands of
narrowleaf cottonwood and coyote willow (Salix exigua) with irrigated hay meadows and
pastures dominating the floodplain adjacent to the riparian communities (Culver and Sanderson
1996). In addition, many areas within Morgan Bottom that are degraded or no longer contain
cottonwood forests have a high potential to be restored. The riparian forests and wetlands
within Morgan Bottom are important for flood abatement, groundwater recharge, wildlife
habitat, and possible removal of nutrients from agricultural runoff (Culver and Sanderson
1996). Across Morgan Bottom, the riparian forests range in width from bare banks up to 1800
ft wide.
Morgan Bottom riparian forests are home to many rare birds including Greater Sandhill Crane,
and Bald Eagle as well as providing habitat for neotropical migratory birds. The state rare
(G5T4/S2B) Greater Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis tabida) uses Morgan Bottom as a staging
area (Culver and Sanderson 1996). Morgan Bottom contains the second largest Greater
Sandhill Crane staging area in Colorado and the best staging area in northern Colorado.
Beginning in the middle of August until the first week of September, nesting pairs and fledglings
come to Morgan Bottom, where they stay and feed on grain crops in the surrounding uplands
until they migrate south in mid to late September. A small number of Greater Sandhill Cranes
also nest in the riparian forest of Morgan Bottom. This entire stretch of the Yampa River is used
as breeding and winter range by the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (Culver and
Sanderson 1996). This portion of the Yampa River also is also identified by Colorado Parks and
Wildlife as Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) production area.
Morgan Bottom provides high quality habitat for many mammals. The state endangered river
otter (Lutra canadensis) is known to use Morgan Bottom. This portion of the Yampa is ideal
habitat for river otter because of the dense riparian vegetation, backwater sloughs, presence of
beaver, and potential for large flows (Brian Holmes pers. Comm.). Morgan Bottom provides
Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus) winter range as well as habitat for mule deer (Odocoileus
hemionus).
Morgan Bottom is also an important area for rare and declining fish, including the globally
vulnerable (G3/S2) roundtail chub (Gila robusta), globally vulnerable (G3G4/S3) flannelmouth
sucker (Catostomus latipinnis), blue head sucker (Catostomus discobolus) (G4S4), and mountain
whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) (G5/S3). Primary threats to these three native fish species are
diversion of water and the construction of passage barriers that result in habitat fragmentation
(USDA Species Conservation Project). The mountain whitefish was historically native to the Yampa
and White River drainages in Colorado. Alarming declines in the Yampa River were found in the late
1990s by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Increases in water temperature are one potential reason for this
decline. The Morgan Bottom area also provides spring spawning habitat for non-native
Northern pike which travel downstream and negatively impact the globally critical imperiled
(G1/S2) Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha) and
razorback sucker (Xyrauchen taxanus) in the lower reaches of the Yampa River. Recent studies
implicate Morgan Bottom as a significant area for pike spawning (Hawkins, pers comm;
Atkinson pers comm.). Northern pike are known to prey on adult Colorado pikeminnow,
roundtail chub, flannelmouth and bluehead suckers (UCRRP 2014). In the Yampa River, it is
thought that the high densities of nonnative predators is a major contributing factor in the
reduction of the Colorado pikeminnow population (UCRRP 2014). A major recovery action in
the Yampa River is the control of nonnative and reduction of access to Northern pike spawning
habitat (UCRRP 2014).
Riparian Forest Description
Globally rare box elder/narrowleaf cottonwood/red osier dogwood (Acer negundo - Populus
angustifolia / Cornus sericea) riparian forest is found in western Colorado. This riparian forest
occurs on broad alluvial floodplains, with strongly meandering stream channels, where it can
form extensive stands. Stands have a multi-layered canopy that is codominated by box elder
and narrowleaf cottonwood with a broad-leaved deciduous shrub layer dominated by red osier
dogwood (Culver and Sanderson 1996).
This rare riparian community is presently known only from northwestern Colorado in broad
alluvial valleys from 6000-7000 feet elevation, and has significantly declined from historical
distributions. Few examples are in protected status outside Morgan Bottom. Significant areas
within Morgan Bottom occur on The Nature Conservancy properties, Colorado Parks and
Wildlife land, and lands held under conservation easements. There are still concerns about the
sustainability and condition of the riparian forest within Morgan Bottom because of the poor
regeneration of dominant trees, habitat instability, and presence of non-native understory
species (Richter 1999). The watershed processes necessary to maintain this community are also
strongly influenced by surrounding land use in the watershed (Richter 1999).
Vegetation Summary: This deciduous broad-leaved riparian forest is typically codominated by
the trees alder and narrowleaf cottonwood. A well-developed tall-shrub layer is present in the
form of nearly impenetrable red-osier dogwoods. A few other shrub species are occasionally
present, including Crataegus rivularis, Rosa woodsii, and Salix lucida ssp. caudata. The
herbaceous layer is diverse but moderately sparse due to the intense shading of the shrub
layer. Perennial forbs are the most abundant species, including Cirsium spp., Rudbeckia
laciniata, Solidago gigantea, and Maianthemum stellatum (= Smilacina stellata). Most of the
graminoid species present are introduced "hay" species, but a few native species are present in
small amounts, including Carex hoodii, Carex pellita (= Carex lanuginosa), Carex microptera, and
Poa palustris. Hydrophyllum fendleri is reported to be important in this association, but none of
the stands sampled have this species present. It may be very susceptible to elimination by
livestock grazing. Most stands of this association have been impacted by grazing and nearby
hay pasturing, with a significant component in the understory of introduced grass species, such
as Dactylis glomerata, Bromus inermis, Poa pratensis, and Phalaris arundinacea (Culver and
Sanderson 1996).
Relationship with geomorphic processes
Alteration of the geomorphic processes along the Yampa River is the result of deforestation of
the stream banks and loss of bank stability (Richter 1999). The channel within the Morgan
Bottom reach has straightened significantly in recent decades in portions of the reach (Richter
1999). Other sections of the Yampa River have also increased sinuosity which will lead to
meander cutoffs in the future if nothing is done (Stantec 2015). Point bar recruitment sites for
narrowleaf cottonwood have been reduced with this straightening (Richter 1999). With
downcutting and incisement of the channel, the groundwater table has also dropped which has
led to less asexual reproduction in narrowleaf cottonwood and more infilling with alder (Richter
1999).
Riparian restoration goals:
The ultimate goal of any riparian restoration project within Morgan Bottom is to reestablish
native woody vegetation corridor along the Yampa River while reestablishing or maintaining the
hydrologic and other ecological processes. The woody riparian vegetation not only provides
important habitat values, it provides stabilization to the streambanks. Historically clearing and
thinning of the riparian forest along the Yampa River was widespread during Anglo settlement
(Richter 1999). The deforestation of the stream banks as well as the associated loss of bank
stability is a leading cause of the alteration of geomorphic processes (Richter 1999). This
alteration has also lead to a lack of recruitment of narrowleaf cottonwood.
Richter (1999) established a working hypothesis for riparian restoration priorities. She
suggested that initial restoration efforts should reestablish native woody vegetation along the
streambanks. Richter (1999) estimated that approximately 25% of the Yampa’s stream banks
were devoid of native woody vegetation. Increased bank stability with expanded vegetation
may help to increase channel sinuosity and reestablish point bars as well as enhancing sexual
recruitment in narrowleaf cottonwood over the long term (Richter 1999).
Asexual reproduction in narrowleaf cottonwood may provide a rapid and economical means of
expanding native riparian woody vegetation once groundwater connection has been
reestablished (Richter 1999). Asexual reproduction was found to be especially significant in
mixed age stands that have water within 1 m of the ground surface (Richter 1999). Within
agricultural pastures, Richter (1999) documented root suckers as far as 25 m away from the
parental tree. Closed canopy conditions can also affect suckering by limiting light penetration
(Richter 1999). Intense livestock grazing pressure also appears to limit the establishment of
suckers as evidenced by fenceline contrasts (Richter 1999). A monitoring project on the
Carpenter Ranch showed that elk also can have a significant impact on cottonwood
establishment from suckering.
Riparian Restoration Technical Review and Recommendations
This section reviews the literature focusing on the restoration of narrowleaf cottonwood, a
dominant overstory tree and thus a primary structural component of the Yampa River’s riparian
forest habitat.
Several approaches can be taken to reestablish woody riparian vegetation in the intermountain
West (see Hoag 2007, a primary reference with numerous photos). Among these, a costeffective method that is widely used is to plant dormant nonrooted cuttings, or pole planting
(See Tamarisk Coalition 2014). The basic concept of pole planting is to drill a hole into the soil
and plant a dormant cutting of sufficient length to reach the water table, which allows
establishment with no supplemental watering. The success of pole planting is dependent on
plant material, cutting handling, planting site characteristics, and post-planting care.
Plant Material
Hoag and Landis (2002) recommend that cuttings should be made from as many individual
plants as possible to maximize genetic diversity. Furthermore, experiments by Dreesen and
Harrington (1999) demonstrate that the source stock (ecotype) is the most important factor
influencing establishment and growth, more so than fertilizer and fungicide treatments. Others
also suggest that because various ecotypes of cottonwood are adapted to local conditions, a
diversity of plant material sources will ensure that some plants are well-suited to the site
conditions where they are planted if you cannot get plantings from nearby. Within Morgan
Bottom, many cottonwood stands exist that can provide poles for planting at restoration sites.
Carlson et al. (1992) recommend nursery-grown narrowleaf cottonwood stock over wild trees
for higher establishment success since commercially grown nursery stock tends to be higher
quality, and often has higher establishment rates. Nursery stock is typically vigorous and
relatively free of insect and disease damage, although it may not be readily available and is
quite expensive. One study also showed that while there is good survival with long, rooted
cuttings, there is very poor survival with unrooted cuttings (Randall and Krinard 1977).
Thus an alternative approach is to develop a nursery stock, as per Dreesen and Harrington
(1999), and harvest the healthy pole cuttings once the trees are greater than 3 m, after 3-4
years. Alternatively, rooted pole cuttings can be harvested and transplanted after 1 year of
growth in a nursery, when they are approximately 20” and have about a foot of rooted
material. After the first harvest of cuttings, poles can typically be cut every 2 years, for up to ten
years (Tamarisk Coalition 2014). Developing a source stock (nursery) may also be the best
alternative since sources of young cottonwood and alder trees are not widely available. By
developing a diverse stock of nursery trees, growth conditions can be controlled to maximize
vigor and health prior to planting cuttings at the restoration site.
Poles can be cut as short as 4 feet long, but longer poles should be used when possible (Hoag
2007). Longer poles have a better chance of survival because they do not have to compete with
grasses for light, and their new leaves will be above the deer grazing level (Hoag 2007). Pole
cuttings up to 20 feet (6.1 m) are useful in difficult revegetation projects since they can better
access deep water tables to enhance rooting. Tall poles avoid browsing by large animals and
shading by herbaceous vegetation. Longer poles are also more resistant to bank slough (see
Hoag 2007 for more detail)
Cutting and Handling
When planting cottonwood and willow cuttings, poles planted during the dormant season have
better survival than poles planted in the spring (March), once bud development has started.
Swenson and Mullens (1985) provided guidance for planting narrowleaf cottonwood cuttings
and suggest the suitable time for taking them is almost 90 days, from November to February.
Dave Dressen and Greg Fenchel, with the Los Lunas Plant Materials Center, suggest that the
ideal time to harvest cuttings is very early spring (e.g. February or March) in the Grand Junction
area (Tamarisk Coalition 2014).
Hoag and Landis (2002) provide guidance for revegetation of dormant nonrooted cuttings.
“Woody stems or large branches should be collected from donor plants near the project
area during the winter dormant season. Collections should be made from as many
different plants as possible to promote biodiversity. After collection, the cuttings can
either be stored for future planting or transported to the planting site . . .Prior to
planting, post cuttings are soaked for 1 to 7 days to allow the root primordia to swell to
the point they are ready to emerge from the bark. Once the roots emerge, it is much
harder to plant the cutting because the roots are so tender that they are easily scraped
off when planting them.”
Site Characteristics
Placing large dormant cuttings into pre-drilled holes requires knowledge of the seasonal water
table. Swenson and Mullens (1985) also suggested that the water table be monitored at
proposed planting sites by establishing observation wells at each site for at least one growing
season prior to planting. Likewise, Dreesen and Harrington (1999) determined that best results
are found when these directions are followed:
“A site characteristic which needs early definition is the depth to the water table and
the variation in water table depth over an annual hydrologic cycle. Monitoring wells
should be drilled at least a year before planting to determine water table depth
fluctuations. This knowledge will determine the length of pole necessary so that the
butt-end of the pole is always in contact with moisture in the capillary fringe above the
water table. The drilling of monitoring wells can also provide knowledge on the type of
alluvium present at the site. Clay rich soils are generally detrimental to pole planting
success possibly as a result of poor soil aeration. At the opposite extreme, augering
holes in cobbly soils is very difficult. Two alternatives to augering have been successful
on occasion: 1) a sharpened steel rod mounted on a backhoe bucket which can poke
and wiggle a hole between cobbles, a “stinger", or 2) a high pressure water jet to wash
out sediments between cobbles allowing the insertion of a pole. Drilling techniques
include one-person gasoline powered augers, manual bucket augers with long shafts,
and tractor-mounted augers . . . Accessibility of the site to heavy equipment is an
important consideration especially when deep holes must be augered. “
Management Considerations
Restoration sites should be evaluated to determine the likelihood of cottonwood sprouting if
the area is protected from mowing and grazing. By allowing sprouting, the costs can be kept to
a minimum.
Where mature cottonwoods are lacking and groundwater is within 1, cottonwood poles could
be planted up to 50 m apart and eventually fill in through sprouting (Richter 1999). Where
groundwater depth is beyond 1 m, the cottonwoods should be planted at much greater
densities (Richter 1999). Once cottonwoods and other woody plants are either planted or
sprouted, management must protect them specifically fencing to control livestock and wildlife
grazing impacts as well as mowing.
Appendix A. Riparian, wetland and aquatic species information
Flannelmouth Sucker, Roundtail Chub, and Bluehead Sucker
Status of Species
Flannelmouth Sucker
Roundtail Chub
Bluehead Sucker
Sensitive species by USFS, former Special
Concern in Colorado, no Federal listing,
species of concern by CDOW
State Special Concern in Colorado,
Sensitive species by USFS
Sensitive species by USFS
General Habitat
All three native species are found within the same habitat with small differences.
Flannelmouth Suckers inhabit larger streams and rivers of all types (riffles, runs, eddies, and
backwaters). Flannelmouth prefer warm to cool waters (<25ºC). Large deep pools provide
habitat for all three fish in times of low flow. Younger suckers stay in the shallow riffles, and
lack of floods may contribute to declining numbers in some controlled rivers. Suckers have been
found to actively avoid reservoir habitats and may have been eliminated in areas inundated by
reservoirs. They can swim long distances (200km) or be sedentary. All species need low widthdepth ratios so building up of sediment can decrease habitat. Bluehead suckers are highly
associated with deep riffle habitats (Anderson and Stewart 2003) in both low and moderate
flow conditions. They are most affected of the three native species in low flow conditions, and
prefer temperatures (>28ºC). Roundtail chub prefer temperatures (22-24ºC), and are found as
adults in low velocity deep areas with high debris cover.
Hybridization
The most detrimental invasive is the white sucker, which is hybridizing with the
flannelmouth and less often with the bluehead sucker. Hybridization between flannelmouth
and bluehead suckers is rare. Hybridization between roundtail chubs and other chub species
are a minor threat. “Fish screens may reduce escapement of larger life stages but may do little
to reduce entrainment and escapement of early life stages (Bestgen et al. 2011).” Discontinuing
stocking of non-native salmonids, brown trout, smallmouth bass, and physical removal may
moderately reduce competition with the native species. Controlling white suckers is very hard.
Previous efforts have tried stocking the area with non-hybridized native fish, which can be
challenging.
Distribution
Metapopulation management for these rare fish is extremely important, so corridors
between populations are essential. These corridors must have significant flows, which may
become a problem with diversions. These natives are declining, and flannelmouth suckers only
inhabit 50% of their historic distribution.
Roundtail Chub
Bluehead Sucker
Flannelmouth Sucker
In Colorado: San Juan River, Colorado River from
Moab to Silt, Green River near Meeker, Colorado,
Duchesne River from Green River confluence
upstream to Myton
In Yampa: either “common” or “abundant”,
including near Jupiter Springs and Craig, CO and
common in Dinosaur National Monument, known
in Elkhead Creek tributary
Historically in the Colorado, Green, San Juan,
Bonneville Basin, Snake River, Little Colorado,
most major tributaries of the Upper CRB
In Yampa it is either “common” or “abundant”
between Dinosaur National Monument and
Hayden, CO
Originally in most, if not all medium to large
lower elevation rivers of the Upper Colorado
drainage and similar habitats of Lower Colorado
drainage. Impacted greatly in Lower Colorado
believed to be from dams, and diversions
In Yampa either “common” or “abundant”,
known in Elkhead Creek tributary
Restoration or Habitat Management Recommendations:
All major recovery and management plans for these three species identify control of
nonnative fish species to alleviate competition with and/or predation on rare fishes as a
necessary management action (Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council). High priority areas for
removal are spawning and nursery habitats. For removal of nonnatives, knowledge of the
species is needed and a combination of mechanical, chemical, biological, physical, and
physiochemical methods be used. When there are more areas of low velocity pools, the nonnatives tend to be favored.
The reduction of roundtail chub populations may be caused by disruption of forage
potential in pools. Primary threats to all three rare fish species are diversion of water and the
construction of passage barriers that result in habitat fragmentation (USDA Species
Conservation Project). Lesser threats include modification of steambeds, landscape changes,
and degradation of riparian zones (USDA Species Conservation Project). Since bluehead and
flannelmouth suckers are common in deep riffle habitats, narrowing rivers to lower the
width/depth ratio and lower velocity are important habitat improvement activities for these
fish during the low flows (Anderson 2006). Wildfires and other land use activities that deposit
sediment into the river can affect width/depth ratios in downstream populations (USDA Species
Conservation Project). In a study done on the Delta and Escalante Rivers in 2005, native fish
thrived when water flow was around 600 cfs, and numbers dropped when the flow went below
400 cfs (Anderson 2006). Bluehead suckers are most affected by dam construction and changes
in both the temperature and hydrology (USDA Species Conservation Project).
Recommendations would be to lower width/depth ratios to increase the amount of deep riffles
and pools available for the natives, along with reducing water diversions. Removal of the white
sucker would keep the genetic integrity of native suckers, but is very difficult to do.
Northern Leopard Frog
Status of species
Northern leopard frog has experienced significant declines across most of its range. Colorado
Parks & Wildlife has listed the Northern leopard frog as a State Species of Special Concern (SC)
meaning the protection is not statutory.
General Habitat Description (riparian or aquatic needs)
This species requires a multitude of different habitats in order to meet all the necessities
caused by their different life stages. Breeding takes place in a variety of different aquatic
habitats. Slow moving or still water along streams and rivers, wetlands, permanent or
temporary pools, and beaver ponds are used by Northern leopard frog. When leopard frogs
begin to reach the early stages of adulthood they move across land and along drainages in
order to find new breeding grounds. They can be vulnerable to disturbances because they
choose to use very small ponds for reproduction typically less than 5 ha (Smith et al. 2007).
Distribution
The northern leopard frog distribution
extends from the northern and western
portion of the United States, along with
the southern Canadian provinces.
Northern leopard frogs have declined to
be uncommon in the southwestern
portion of their historic range including
Colorado.
Leopard frogs are threatened most by
habitat loss, non-native species,
pollution and disease. These negative
influences have impacted the species,
causing it to disappear from a large
portion of its historical range.
Figure 1: Distribution across North America of
the northern leopard frog. Red is where the
frog is now considered uncommon and
declines have been noted. Light blue indicates
where and how far the population extends.
Image taken from U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Colorado Information
The northern leopard frog can be found throughout Colorado in the mountains and in the
lowlands. It was once very common within Colorado but now is rare in many areas around the
state, particularly up in the mountains.
Figure 2: Map of Colorado with known northern leopard frog sites. Interactive map
can be found at:
http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/herpatlas/coHerpAtlasD/viewer.htm?SPECIESID=19
8&SPNAME=NORTHERN%20LEOPARD%20FROG
Yampa River Information
Northern leopard frogs have been found along the Yampa River within the riparian and wetland
habitat although the numbers are low.
Restoration or habitat management recommendations
The highly permeable skin of frogs (Duellman and Trueb 1986) makes them more susceptible to
absorbing toxins. Pesticide use and runoff can impact the frogs. In terms of the most prudent
steps to take to help boost numbers of the northern leopard frog the following should be done.




Protection of known and potential breeding sites
Control of predaceous nonnative fish and bullfrogs
Monitoring and protection of water quality
Investigation and prevention of the spread of infectious diseases within the population
Sandhill Crane
Status of Species
Greater Sandhill Crane
Listed as State Special Concern by Colorado
Parks and Wildlife, downgraded in 1998 after
a successful 1992 recovery plan that raised
the population. Not listed as a species of
concern in the North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan. IUCN category is Least
Concern.
General Habitat
Sand hill cranes almost always nest in areas close to water. The Colorado Parks and Wildlife
found that half of nests are associated with grassy hummocks on beaver ponds, on beaver
lodges or beaver dams. Sandhill cranes are also found in wetlands that are lined with willows or
aspens. On a few rare occasions they have been documented to nest in sagebrush. Nests can be
reoccupied each year and have been for between 25-30 years as mating pairs return to the
same site. Two main staging areas where large flocks gather together before migration are
located along the Yampa River. One is near Hayden in Morgan Bottom and the other is near the
Elk River. Open sedge meadows and short upland vegetation contain the highest Sandhill crane
populations. The nests can be identified as low mounds made up of local dominant vegetation
that may be up to six feet across. These nests are usually found within 300 yards of a larger
water body, and ideal placement is high vegetation within standing water.
Distribution
In Colorado: The Sandhill cranes of Colorado also migrate through Idaho, Utah, western
Montana, and Wyoming usually settling down in the winter in the southern US. This
metapopulation (the Rocky Mountain Population) always stops in the San Luis Valley in the
spring (February/March) and fall (September/October) and was estimated to be between
18,000 and 21,500 individuals in the mid-1990s. Breeding between the Rocky Mountain
Population and Mid-Continent Population can sometimes occur.
In Yampa: The Sandhill Crane population arrives in the Yampa Valley in early March and leave
the area in September. Main staging areas are located near Hayden in Morgan Bottom and near
the Elk River.
Restoration or Habitat Management Recommendations
Sandhill cranes are generalist omnivores feeding on plant tubers, grains, small vertebrates, and
invertebrates. The loss of wetland ecosystems are their primary threat, as they must use
staging areas for migration. Human disturbance is known to cause adult cranes to leave their
nests and abandon their young. Conflicts between farmers and cranes also contribute to their
decline as a large flocks can ruin an entire field of crops. ICF (International Crane Foundation) is
currently treating corn seeds with a deterrent in the Midwest to prevent the cranes from
ruining the crop being grown, but allowing them to continue to use the land. Currently hunting
is not allowed in Colorado for the Rocky Mountain Population, but is allowed for the MidContinent Population. Since the Colorado population is migratory, conserving the staging and
wintering areas should be a priority. Since wintering areas of this population are further south,
habitat management should target the staging areas. The current stable population is facing
threats from extended droughts and altered the hydrology of the staging areas.
The Sandhill Crane Management Plan for Colorado was last revised in 1991. The population
goal was between 18,000-22,000, to allow for expansion, protect current habitat and provide
for recreational uses of the population. Educating farmers and developing ways to minimize
crop damage is also an important consideration. If hunting the Rocky Mountain Population
starts again, close monitoring of changes in population structure will be necessary. Making sure
that hydrology doesn’t change and humans do not disturb nesting areas along the Yampa is
most crucial. If the area being restored is a part of the known main staging area, the restoration
project will be extremely important in their population. Since they live in such close proximity
to beavers, reintroduction of beavers in the area may be highly beneficial by providing new
nesting structures.
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
Status of Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service categorized the species as Threatened as of November 2014.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be proposing the designation of critical habitat for the
western population of the yellow-billed cuckoo.
General Habitat Description (riparian or aquatic needs)
The yellow-billed cuckoo prefers to nest in woodlands where there is an understory of dense
vegetation especially near water. Nests in the west are typically placed in willows along streams
and rivers where nearby cottonwoods serve as the foraging site. Breeding takes place in river
floodplains in dense willow.
Distribution and Life History
Yellow-billed Cuckoo is becoming increasingly rare in the western portion of the United States.
Around September the birds depart North America to head to South America for the winter.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service it is estimated that 90 percent of the cuckoos
streamside habitat has been lost. Some of this loss has been attributed to agriculture, dams,
overgrazing, and exotic plants such as tamarisk. Yellow-billed Cuckoo primarily feed on large
insects such as caterpillars and cicadas. Breeding coincides with the emergence of cicadas and
the tent caterpillar. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the western population
is a distinct population segment (subspecies) of the eastern population with a division between
the continental divide from Montana to central Colorado.
Colorado Information
According to the North American Breeding Bird Survey since 1966 the yellow-billed cuckoo has
declined by 51 percent, and 84 percent of the breeding population in the U.S. The loss and
conversion of riparian habitat in the West has led to a steep decline. The species has been
recorded sporadically and inconsistently in western Colorado. Sightings have been made along
river valleys in Gunnison, along the Yampa River, and in the Grand Junction area. Cuckoos were
regularly detected in the 1980s around the Uncompahgre and Gunnison River. Yet, in the first
Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas (1987-1994) only three cuckoos were recorded on the western
slope, and of these three only one cuckoo was confirmed to have bred on the Yampa River in
Routt County.
Figure 2: Sites surveyed for Yellow-billed Cuckoos in
western, Colorado in 2008. Image from the Rocky Mountain
Bird Observatory
Yampa River Information
The Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory conducted 64 playback call surveys in June and July of
2008 on the Yampa River. Two individuals were detected on the Yampa River near Craig.
The following plant species on the site were recorded in the overstory from most to least
abundant:



Cottonwood spp.
Box elder
Willow spp.
Plants recorded in the understory of the Yampa River drainage area were:


Box elder
Hawthorne spp.




Cottonwood spp.
Willow spp.
Red-osier dogwood
Alder spp.
Restoration or Habitat Management Recommendations
Direct loss and degradation of low-elevation riparian woodland habitat has been cited as the
primary cause of the declines for the populations in the western portion of the range (Wiggins
2005). Alteration of flow regimes and the diversion of water can result in habitat degradation
and loss.
The amount of area required by a pair of breeding cuckoos is large in comparison to other
riparian bird species (4 ha or 10 acres) and territories can range in size from (4-40 ha). The
study from the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory found that in the North Folk valley there was
an abundance of Russian olive where the Yellow-billed Cuckoos were detected most frequently
and where a nest was documented. This tree is not a preferred nesting site and restoration of
native tree species could help to increase population size. During the 2008 breeding season
these birds were detected in residential areas up to two miles away from riparian corridors.
Once again numbers could increase if they had more natural habitat to nest in. Pesticide usage
may impact food resources and should be investigated around the Yampa River (Laymon 1998).
Works Cited
Native Fish
Bestgen, K. R., G. B. Haines, and A. A. Hill. 2011. SYNTHESIS OF FLOOD PLAIN WETLAND
INFORMATION: TIMING OF RAZORBACK SUCKER REPRODUCTION IN THE GREEN RIVER,
UTAH, RELATED TO STREAM FLOW, WATER TEMPERATURE, AND FLOODPLAIN
WETLAND AVAILABILITY; Final Report Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program
Projects 22F and FR-FP Synthesis; Larval Fish Laboratory Contribution 163
Bezzerides, N. and K. Bestgen. 2002. Status review of roundtail chub Gila robusta, flannelmouth sucker Catostomus
latipinnis, and bluehead sucker Catostomus discobolus in the Colorado River basin. 2002. Colorado State
University Larval Fish Laboratory, Fort Collins, CO.
Bower, Michael R., Wayne A. Hubert, and Frank Rahel. 2008. Habitat features affect bluehead sucker,
flannelmouth sucker, and roundtail chub across a headwater tributary system in Colorado River
Basin. J. Freshwater Ecology 23(3): 347-358
Colorado River Fish and Wildlife Council. 2006. RANGE-WIDE CONSERVATION
AGREEMENT AND STRATEGY FOR ROUNDTAIL CHUB Gila robusta,
BLUEHEAD SUCKER Catostomus discobolus, AND FLANNELMOUTH SUCKER
Catostomus latipinnis. Publication Number 06-18; found at:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/UT_conservation_plan_5-11-07.pdf
Fuller, Pam and Matt Neilson. 2015. Catostomus latipinnis. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
Database, Gainesville, FL. Found at:
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=348
Ptacek, J.A., D.E. Rees, and W.J. Miller. (2005, April 25). Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus discobolus): a technical
conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/blueheadsucker.pdf
Rees, D.E., J.A. Ptacek, R.J. Carr, and W.J. Miller. (2005, April 6). Flannelmouth Sucker (Catostomus latipinnis): a
technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/flannelmouthsucker.pdf
Rees, D.E., J.A. Ptacek, and W.J. Miller. (2005, May 3). Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): a technical
conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/roundtailchub.pdf
http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlifespx.asp?SpCode=010633
Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
Beason, Jason P. 2009. Yellow-billed Cuckoos in Western Colorado. Tech Rep. RYBCUCDOW & USFWS-08-1. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton,
Colorado. 27 pp. found at:
http://rmbo.org/v3/Portals/0/Documents/Science/2008/CDOW_USFWS_YBCU_REPORT
_26JAN09v3.pdf
Johnson, Matthew J., Jennifer A. Holmes, Christopher Calvo, Ivan Samuels, Stefani Krantz,
and Mark K. Sogge. 2007. Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Distribution, Abundance, and
Habitat Use Along the Lower Colorado and Tributaries, 2006 Annual Report. Found
at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1097/
Laymon, S. A. 1998. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccycus americanus). In The Riparian Bird
Conservation Plan:a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in
California. California Partners in Flight.
http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html
Laymon, S. 1998. YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO, Coccyzus americanus. Found at:
http://www.blm.gov/ca/pdfs/cdd_pdfs/Ybcu1.pdf
Technical Service Center Fisheries and Wildlife Resources Group (Darrell Ahlers,
Wildlife Biologist, Dave Moore, Wildlife Biologist, Shaun Root, Biologist and Durel
Carstensen, Biologist). 2013. Yellow-billed Cuckoo Study Results – 2012: Survey
Results from New Mexico Highway 60 to Elephant Butte Reservoir: Middle Rio
Grande, NM found at:
http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/fish/Reports/2012YBCU_SURVEY_REPORTR.pdf
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014 Public Hearing for Proposal to Designate Critical Habitat
for Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo to be Held in Sacramento CA December 18, 2014.
Found at: http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/outreach/PublicAdvisories/WesternYellow-BilledCuckoo/outreach_PA_Western-Yellow-BilledCuckoo.htm
US Fish and Wildlife Service. Species Profile for Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06R
http://www.fws.gov/oregonFWO/Species/Data/YellowBilledCuckoo/
Wiggins, D. (2005, March 25). Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus): a technical
conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.
Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/yellowbilledcuckoo.pdf
Northern Leopard Frog
Duellman, W.E. and L. Trueb. 1986. Biology of Amphibians. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY. 670 pp
Smith, B.E. and D.A. Keinath. (2007, January 16). Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens): a
technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.
Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernleopardfrog.pdf
Species Profiles found at:
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/amphibians/northern-leopard-frog/
http://www.epa.gov/housatonic/thesite/restofriver/reports/final_era/B%20%20Focus%20Species%20Profiles/EcoRiskProfile_leopard_frog.pdf
http://www.fws.gov/nevada/nv_species/nleopard_frog.html
http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlifespx.asp?SpCode=020191
Sandhill Crane
Websites/References
Colorado Parks and Wildlife Endangered and Threatened List
http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx
Colorado Crane Conservation Coalition Facts by Van Graham 2014
http://coloradocranes.net/crane-facts/colorado-greater-sandhill-cranes/
Cornell Lab of Ornithology Sandhill Crane
http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/sandhill_crane/lifehistory
International Crane Foundation
https://www.savingcranes.org/sandhill-crane.html
USGS Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan Sandhill Crane
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/cranes/gruscana.htm
LITERATURE CITED
Atkinson, Billy. 2015. Pers. Comm.
Carlson, J. R., G. L. Conaway, J. L. Gibbs, and C. J. Hoag. 1992. Design criteria for revegetation in
riparian zones of the Intermountain area. In: Clary, W. P., E. D. McArthur, D. Bedunah,
and C. L. Wambolt. Proceedings--symposium on ecology and management of riparian
shrub communities. Sun Valley, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.
Carsey, K., G. Kittel, K. Decker, D. J. Cooper, and D. Culver. 2003. Field guide to the wetland and
riparian plant associations of Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins,
CO
Culver, Denise and John Sanderson. 1996. A Natural Heritage Assessment of Wetlands and
Riparian Areas in Routt County, Colorado, report by Colorado Natural Heritage Program.
Dreesen D. R., and J. T. Harrington. 1999. Vegetative propagation of aspen, narrowleaf
cottonwood, and riparian trees and shrubs. In: Landis T. D, J. P. Barnett, eds. National
proceedings: forest and conservation nursery associations—1998. Asheville, NC. USDA
Forest Service, Southern Research Station. General Technical Report SRS-25. Pp. 129–
137.
Harrington, J. T, S. Hine, and D. R. Dreesen. Propagation of Narrowleaf Cottonwood by Stem
Cuttings III: Media Density and Slow Release Fertilizer Incorporation. Available at
http://morasc.nmsu.edu/docs/Propagation%20of%20Narrowleaf%20Cottonwood%20b
y%20Stem%20Cuttings%20III.pdf
Hawkins, John, personal communication. Colorado State University. Dinosaur National
Monument River Science Symposium 2015.
Hoag, J. C. 2007. How to plant willows and cottonwoods for riparian restoration. Technical
Note: Plant Materials No. 23. USDA Conservation Services, Boise, Idaho. 22 pp. Available
at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_PLANTMATERIALS/publications/idpmctn7064.p
df
Hoag, J. C., and T. D. Landis. 2002. Plant materials for riparian revegetation. In: Dumroese, R. K.,
L. E. Riley, and T. D. Landis, Technical coordinators. National Proceedings: Forest and
Conservation Nursery Associations-1 999, 2000, and 2001. Proceedings RMRS-P-24.
Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 33-43. Available at:
http://www.fcnanet.org/proceedings/l999/hoag.pdf
Randall, W. K., and R. M. Krinard. 1977. First-year growth and survival of long cottonwood
cuttings. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note SO-222, 3 p. Southern For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans,
La.
Richter, H. E. 1999. Alteration of forest structure and ecosystem function along the Yampa
River, Colorado. Unpublished dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 191
pp.
Stantec Inc. 2015. Reconnaissance Level Geomorphic Assessment: Morgan Bottom Reach
Yampa River Report for The Nature Conservancy and Routt County Conservation District
on file with The Nature Conservancy.
Swenson, E. A., and C. L. Mullins. 1985. Revegetating riparian trees in southwestern floodplains.
In: Johnson, R. R. et al. Ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses.
Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-RM-120. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 135-138.
Tamarisk Coalition. 2014. Suggested Methodologies for Cottonwood Pole, Willow Whip, and
Longstem Plantings. Available at
http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/drrp/implementation/pdf/2014_01_30_Cottonwood&Willow_
Guide%20(1).pdf.
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program 2014. Recovery Implementation
Program Recovery Action Plan (RIPRAP). Available at:
http://www.coloradoriverrecovery.org/documents-publications/foundationaldocuments/RIPRAP/RIPRAPApril2014Z.pdf