Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR01-047 zone change/preliminary plan for Mt. Sopris Tree FarmGllll llnl lll�ll111llll� 111111 Sara J Fisher Eagle, CO
I����iInIIIIIIVI
Commissioner _moved adoption
of the tollowing Resolution:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-304(7—
754139
Page: 1 of 57
04/10/2001 04:51P
D 0.00
APPROVAL OF THE ZONE CHANGE AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR MT. SOPRIS TREE FARM PUD
File Nos. ZC -00046 and PDP -00020
WHEREAS, on or about January 2, 2001, the County of Eagle, State of Colorado,
accepted for filing applications submitted by Eagle County (hereinafter "Applicant ") to re -zone
the herein described property in Eagle County from the Resource [R] to the Planned Unit
Development [PUD] Zone District per File No. ZC- 00046, and for approval of the Planned Unit
Development Preliminary Plan for the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Planned Unit Development, File
No. PDP- 00020; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requested the approval of a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Preliminary Plan which would allow for the development as follows:
A 124.31 acre site southwest of the intersection of El Jebel Road and U.S. Highway 82
which would include a number'of active and passive recreation areas, pedestrian paths, a
protected riparian corridor, an interpretive trail, fishing access to the Roaring Fork River,
an approximately .15,000 square foot government services facility, and other public uses
in existing structures.
WHEREAS, at its public hearings held February 8 and February 22, 2001, the Roaring
Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission, based upon its findings, recommended approval of
the proposed Zone Change from R to PUD, and based upon its findings, recommended approval
of the proposed Preliminary Plan of the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Planned Unit Development, with
certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of
Colorado, has considered the evidence, testimony, exhibits, the Master Plan for the
unincorporated areas of Eagle County, comments of the Eagle County Department of
i
Community Development and the Eagle County Engineering Department, comments of public
officials and agencies, the recommendation of the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning
Commission, and comments from all interested parties.
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT, and with the modifications
imposed by the conditions hereinafter described, finds as follows:
1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the
hearings before the Roaring. Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission and the
Board.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 5- 240.F.3.e. Standards for
the review of a Sketch PUD:
2. Unified ownership or control. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that
is part of this PUD is owned or controlled by one (1) person.
3. Uses. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (2)] -The uses that may be developed in the PUD are
those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or
allowed as a limited use in Table 3 -300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource
Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the
property at the time of the application for PUD.
4. Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (3)] — The dimensional limitations
that shall apply to the PUD are not those specified in Table 3 -340, "Schedule of
Dimensional Limitations ", for the zone district designation in effect for the
property at the time of the application for PUD. However, variations may be
permitted as necessary for the PUD Preliminary Plan to achieve the purposes of
obtaining desired design qualities and avoiding environmental resources.
5. Off - Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (4)] - It has been
demonstrated that off -street parking and loading provided in the PUD complies
with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off - Street Parking and Loading
Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards.
6. Landscaping. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD does
comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination
Standards.
2
7. Signs. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD are as
specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations.
8. Adequate Facilities. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (7)] - The Applicant has clearly
demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will
be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid
waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection, and roads, and has demonstrated
that the proposed PUD will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police
and fire protection, and emergency medical services.
9. Improvements. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (8)] - It has been clearly demonstrated that
the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in
Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding:
(a) Safe, Efficient Access.
(b) Internal Pathways.
(c) Emergency Vehicles
(d) Principal Access Points.
(e) Snow Storage.
10. Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3 -e (9)] - The
development proposed for the PUD is compatible with the character of
surrounding land uses.
11. Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD is
consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use
Map (FLUM).
12. Phasing Section 5- 240.F.3.e (11) - A sufficient phasing plan has been provided
for this development.
13. Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD has
been demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the common
recreation and open space standards with respect to:
(a) Minimum area;
(b) Improvements required;
(c) Continuing use and maintenance; or
(d) Organization.
j
Q-7-/ Q -1
14. Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD does
demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents
available at the time the application was submitted, as well as the
recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural
Resource Protection Standards have been considered.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 5- 280.B.3.e. Standards for
the review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision:
15. Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5- 280.B.3.e (1)] - The PUD is consistent
with the Master Plan, and it is consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).
16. Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5- 280.B.3.e (2)] - The
Applicant has fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all
of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use
Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3,
Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards.
17. Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5- 280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed
subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause
inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or
premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of
development.
18. Suitability for Development. [Section 5- 280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to
be subdivided is suitable for development, considering its topography,
environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the
potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public
improvements to the area.
19. Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5- 280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed
subdivision is compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and
shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area.
20. PUD Guide [Section 5- 240.F.2.a.(8)] - Applicant has submitted a PUD Guide
that demonstrates that it meets the requirements of this Section.
0
(Z-"
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 5- 230.D., Standards for
determining whether to adopt, adopt with modifications, or disapprove the
proposed amendment to the Official Zone District Map:
21. Consistency With Master Plan. With proposed conditions of approval, the
proposed PUD is consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the
Master Plan;
22. Compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed amendment is compatible
with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and, with proposed
conditions of approval, it is an appropriate zone district for the land, considering
its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district;
23. Changed conditions. There are changed conditions that require an amendment to
modify the present zone district and/or its density /intensity;
24. Effect on natural environment. The proposed amendment does not result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment [beyond those resulting
from development under current zoning], including but not limited to water, air,
noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands.
25. Community need. It has been demonstrated that the proposed amendment meets a
community need.
26. Development patterns. The proposed amendment does result in a logical and
orderly development pattern, does not constitute spot zoning, may logically be
provided with necessary public facilities and services; and
27. Public interest. The area to which the proposed amendment would apply have
changed to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or
density in the area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
the County of Eagle, State of Colorado:
THAT the petition of Eagle County, File No. ZC- 00046, for a Zoning Amendment to
change from the Resource [R] Zone District to the Planned Unit Development [PUD] Zone
Q�/ I
District be and is hereby approved for the following described property located in the
unincorporated area of Eagle County:
See Exhibit A
attached hereto and thereby incorporated herein by reference
THAT, subject to the conditions set forth below, the application for the Preliminary Plan
for the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Planned Unit Development be and is hereby approved:
1. The changes required in the February 21, 2001 Memorandum from the
Engineering Department be incorporated in the engineering drawings.
2. A note be required on the final plat that site - specific geotechnical investigations,
with subsurface explorations, be provided for the location of the proposed
government office building, and at any other planned structures (other than picnic
shelters and restrooms) prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Upon commencement of Phase II, the Local Issuing Authority, as defined in the
State Highway Access Code (2- CCR601 -1), will impose terms and conditions
necessary to design, fund, and construct safe pedestrian access across the CDOT
right -of -way.
4. The illumination part of the PUD Guide note that only security lighting will be
allowed on the building between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM, and the Sheriff's
parking lot and entrance will use shielded, low profile lighting unless special
events dictate otherwise. (This condition is satisfied in the PUD Guide approved
pursuant to this Resolution.)
5. Allowed uses in the PUD Guide include a fenced dog park. (This condition is
satisfied in the PUD Guide approved pursuant to this Resolution.)
6. The Applicant provide a complete set of engineering plans, including plans for
internal pathways, satisfactory to the County Engineer, be provided prior to
approval of the final plat which satisfy all applicable provisions of the Land Use
Regulations, and which specifically demonstrate that:
a. Adequate roads will be provided within the site.
b. Internal pathways are designed and located as required and represented by
the Applicant.
0
C. An adequate emergency access to the site will be provided.
d. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth
traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic.
e. A phasing plan for the development, as well as the corresponding drainage
report, is clearly reflected.
f. A sufficient grading and erosion control plan has been completed and
incorporated in the engineering plans.
7. The active recreation line as represented on Exhibits A -1 and A -2 be applied to
the Preliminary Plan attachment to the PUD Guide.
8. All oral and written representations by the Applicant in materials submitted in
connection with this application and/or in one or more public hearings shall be
binding.
THAT the Board of County Commissioners directs the Director of Community
Development to enter this amendment on the appropriate page of the Official Zone District Map
and to provide a copy of this Resolution to the applicant.
THAT, the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Preliminary Site Plan map dated March 2001, attached
hereto as Exhibit B is approved.
THAT, the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PUD Guide, dated March 27, 2001, attached hereto as
Exhibit C is approved.
THAT, the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Wildlife Analysis Report and Wildlife Management and
Enhancement Program dated October 16, 2000, attached hereto as Exhibit D is approved.
THE BOARD further finds, determines and declares that this Resolution is necessary for
the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado.
7
MOVED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioner of the
r
County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the ay of
2001, nunc pro tunc to the 20th day of March, 2001.
Commissioner _ seconded adoption of the foregoing resolution. The roll
having been called, the vo a was as follows:
Commissioner Tom C. Stone ow
Commissioner Michael L. Gallagher
Commissioner Am M. Menconi
This Resolution passed by vote of the Board of County Commissioner of the County of
Eagle, State of Colorado.
Order No. V267474
A PORTION OF TRACTS 43, 45 AND 46 OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST,
6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT CORNER NO 4 OF SAID TRACT 43; THENCE S 88 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 00
SECONDS W A DISTANCE OF 130.05 FEET; THENCE S 00 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 20 SECONDS
W A DISTANCE OF 1337.01 FEET; THENCE N 89 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 40 SECONDS W A
DISTANCE OF 1002.35 FEET, THENCE N 30 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 37 SECONDS W A
DISTANCE OF 559.45 FEET; THENCE N 63 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 20 SECONDS W A
DISTANCE OF 729.22 FEET; THENCE N 37 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 16 SECONDS W A
DISTANCE OF 698.86 FEET; THENCE N 64 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 58 SECONDS W A
DISTANCE OF 491.55 FEET; THENCE N 12 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 11 SECONDS W A DISTANCE
OF 290.82 FEET; THENCE N 25 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 07 SECONDS W A DISTANCE OF
318.78 FEET, THENCE N 03 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 09 SECONDS W A DISTANCE OF 167.00
FEET,. THENCE S 89 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 47 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 423.89 FEET,
THENCE S 21 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 06 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 145.20 FEET, THENCE S
59 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 06 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 190.11 FEET, THENCE S 88
DEGREES 36 MINUTES 56 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 505.67 FEET; THENCE N 01 DEGREES
59 MINUTES 07 SECONDS W A DISTANCE OF 617.67 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID .
TRACT 43; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE N 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 26 SECONDS E A
DISTANCE OF 1004.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CDOT FRONTAGE ROAD BOUNDARY; THENCE
DEPARTING SAID NORTH LINE OF TRACT 43, ALONG SAID CDOT FRONTAGE ROAD BOUNDARY
THE FOLLOWING COURSES;
S 00 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 29 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 27.63 FEET, S 77 DEGREES 32
MINUTES 15 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 57.67 FEET; ALONG A NONTANGENT CURVE TO THE
RIGHT, OF RADIUS 568.11 FEET, AN INTERIOR ANGLE OF 27 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 39
SECONDS, AND CHORD BEARINGS 75 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 29 SECONDS E A DISTANCE
267.60 FEET; S 60 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 59 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 334.40 FEET;
ALONG A NONTANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, WITH A RADIUS OF 197.86 FEET, AN
INTERIOR ANGLE OF 64 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 53 SECONDS, AND CHORD BEARING S 29
DEGREES 25 MINUTES 59 SECONDS E AND DISTANCE 115.40 FEET; S 01 DEGREES 36
MINUTES 29 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 63:60 FEET; ALONG A NONTANGENT CURVE TO THE
LEFT, WITH A RADIUS OF 121.16 FEET, AN INTERIOR ANGLE OF 74 DEGREES 59 MINUTES
28 SECONDS, AND CHORD BEARING S 34 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 29 SECONDS E A DISTANCE
147.50 FEET; S 71 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 29 SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 270.83 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID CDOT FRONTAGE ROAD BOUNDARY S 00 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 29
SECONDS E A DISTANCE OF 722.98 FEET; THENCE S 88 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 00 SECONDS
W A DISTANCE OF 101.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE
OF COLORADO.
NOTE: THE FINAL POLICY DOES NOT IN ANY WAY GUARANTEE OR INSURE THE DIMENSIONS
OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS DERWEDFROM THE CHAIN OF
TITLE AND ONLY AN ACCURATE SURVEY CAN DETERMINE THE DIMENSIONS.
Exhibit A
C
Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PUD
Planned Unit Development Guide
(Revised March 27, 2001)
1. Purpose
The purpose of the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PUD guide is to serve as the governing
regulations that will control the land uses within the PUD. The PUD Guide will serve as
the zone district regulations for the PUD and will regulate the use of land and all
dimensional limitations for structures planned for the site; and provide additional
regulations. The PUD Guide is in conformance with the requirements listed in Article 5-
240 F 2 a (8) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations.
Additionally, the purpose of this guide is to insure the orderly and compatible
development of the property. The Guide replaces the standard zoning provisions of Eagle
County with site specific restrictions that are more appropriate to the specific conditions
of lands contained within the development. This PUD Guide will establish and
implement a long range comprehensive plan for the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PUD that will
encompass such beneficial features as a balance of government and recreational uses,
enhancement of public safety, creation of aesthetically pleasing environmental features
and promotion of high standards of development quality through stringent site planning,
landscape controls and architectural design guidelines all for the benefit of the existing
and future citizens of the mid - valley region.
2. Intent
The Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PUD is intended to be a recreational and public service
project. The Guide remains somewhat flexible to allow for changes and innovations in
recreational design as the project progresses and the ultimate formation of a recreational
district guides the development of the remaining portion of the property. These changes
will only be permitted, as they remain consistent with the Preliminary Plan, which is
included within the PUD application.
3. Enforcement
The provisions of this Guide are enforceable by the authority and powers of Eagle
County as granted by law. Enforcement actions shall be consistent with the authority and
actions defined in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations.
Exhibit C
C
4. Modifications to this Guide
It is anticipated that modifications to this Guide will be necessary from time to time as
the project progresses through its development life. This Guide provides two types of
modifications; Major and Minor. These two types are defined below:
5. Major Modifications
Major modifications shall require amendments to the PUD Preliminary Plan. Major
modifications are those changes, which could alter the character, intensity or land use of a
portion of the project. Examples include proposal for additional recreational facilities or
expanded public buildings. Major modifications shall be defined and processed in
accordance with Section 5- 240.17.1m, Amendments to Preliminary Plan for PUD, of the
Eagle County Land Use Regulations.
6. Minor Modifications
Minor Modifications are these changes which will not alter the original concept of the
project but which may result in a change in design of the development. Minor
Modifications are changes which do not alter the intensity or general location of
permitted uses. Examples include proposals for eliminating the roundabouts in the trail
system, small changes in orientation of recreational fields, the reshaping of parking pods
internal road alignment alterations, or changes in proposed recreational uses that do not
have a significant impact on adjoining property owners or the spirit and intent of the
approved Preliminary Plan and the BHA Master Plan.
In addition, the applicant may construct two (2) soccer fields or (1) soccer field and (1)
baseball /softball field prior to commencement of Phase II anticipating that adequate
restroom facilities and parking have been provided in Phase I to accommodate the
additional recreational facilities. Applications for Minor Modifications shall be
processed in accordance with Section 5 -300, Limited Review Use, of the Eagle County
Land Use Regulations. The Community Development Director will have discretion over
whether the modification is a major or minor change for the purposes of implementing
this section of the PUD Guide.
C C
7. PUD Zone District
Government/Recreation Zone District (G/R)
Purpose
To provide recreational and government uses for the Mid - Valley area.
Uses by
a. Community/Public Building with footprint no greater than 15,000 square feet
b. Two (2) Soccer Fields as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
C. Two (2) Softball/Baseball Fields as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
d. Two (2) Tennis Courts as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
e. Two (2) Basketball Courts as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
f. Two (2) Volleyball Courts as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
g. Community/Botanical Gardens as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
h. A Gazebo as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
i. Ice Skating Facilities as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
j. Skateboard Facilities as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
k. Senior Center as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
1. Open Space /Greenbelt as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
m. Walking/Biking Trails as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
n. Surface Parking Lots as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
o. Public Meeting Rooms as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
p. Outdoor BMX Track as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
q. Recreation Administration Offices and Maintenance Facilities as shown on the
approved Preliminary Site Plan
r. Concession and Restrooms as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
S. Pavilions as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
t. Ponds and other associated drainage facilities as shown on the approved
Preliminary Site Plan
U. Interpretive and Public Education Displays as shown on the approved Preliminary
Site Plan
V. Tot Lots and Playgrounds as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
W. Picnic Shelters and Tables as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
X. Outdoor Amphitheater as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan
Y. Public Assembly
Z. All other recreational and government uses deemed consistent with the
Preliminary Plan and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
aa. Fenced Dog Park as shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan.
bb. Nordic uses including cross country skiing, snowshoeing and other passive winter
recreational uses consistent with the restrictions contained within the Wildlife
Management and Enhancement Program approved and attached to the PUD
Guide.
Dimensional Standards
As shown on the attached table entitled "Dimensional Limitations ".
8. Signs
All signs associated with the entry point as well as individual building identification signs
shall be consistent with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Division 4 -3, Sign
Regulations.
9. Controls
A. Wildlife Management and Enhancement Program
1. All guests and employees shall be subject to the mitigation measures proposed within
the Wildlife Management Enhancement Plan. The recommended actions will
implemented at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners.
2. All dogs and dog owners shall be subject to the restrictions proposed within the
Wildlife Management and Enhancement Program.
3. The entire text of the Wildlife Management and Enhancement Program document is
hereby incorporated by reference and shall be recorded as an appendix to the Final
PUD Guide.
B. Construction
All construction shall be subject to erosion control measures and standard Best
Management Practices to control dust emissions, air quality, and water quality and noise
and odor limitations.
C. Landscaping/Irrigation/Weed and Pest Management
The applicant shall landscape all areas within Phase I (see Preliminary Plan) as soon as
construction, excavation and re- contouring are complete. All subsequent landscaping
associated with Phase II shall be completed following re- grading and re- contouring
associated with this phase.
Timers and moisture sensors and /or other water saving technologies will be incorporated
into the recreational component of the project. Prior to construction of any recreational
facilities, the applicant shall submit an irrigation management plan that shall be approved
by Eagle County prior to commencing construction of Phase II of the project.
Prior to the issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for the Government Building, the
applicant shall submit a comprehensive weed management program for the entire site. In
addition, a comprehensive revegetation plan shall be submitted for the balance of the
4
property (Phase II) including native seeds for grass and trees prior to the implementation
of Phase H. This will be subject to approval by Eagle County, and installed consistent
with the Landscaping Plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners for Phase H.
Best Management Practices will be followed in the use of all pesticides and herbicides on
the site.
The County represents that it will be able to obtain water rights, or that a future lessor of
the site will be able to obtain access to water, to ensure the irrigation needs of the site for
facilities contemplated by Phase II of the PUD.
A Illumination Standards
The purpose of this section is to establish standards for controlling illumination to
prevent intense flare or direct illumination that would create a nuisance which detracts
from the use or enjoyment of adjoining property or causes traffic hazards for motorists.
Exterior illumination shall not cast glare directly onto adjacent properties. Low Pressure
Sodium (LPS) lamps are the preferred illumination source. All lighting associated with
the project, including all lighting associated with proposed and existing structures, trails
or safety features, including the parking lights shall be low profile and meet or exceed the
requirements promulgated by the Town of Basalt Lighting Ordinance. Only security
lighting will be allowed on the building between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM. All 24 hour
parking lot lighting and entrances will use shielded, low profile lighting unless special
events dictate otherwise. All outdoor lighting shall be located, aimed, or shielded so as to
minimize stray light trespassing across property boundaries. No night time lighting will
be used for the ball fields.
E. Mitigation
The applicant agrees to pay RFTA (RTA) the recommended transit mitigation fee of
$7023.00 prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Phase I.
C,
WILDLIFE ANALYSIS REPORT
Mt. Sopris Tree Farm
El Jebel, Colorado
Planned Unit Development
Final Plan Application
Prepared for:
Eagle County, Colorado
October 16, 2000
Prepared by:
Dawn Keating
2079 County Road 112
Carbondale, CO 81623
970.963.3023
WRIS Data Maps:
Lex Ivey
Otak Rock Creek Studio
36 North Fourth Street
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
970.963.1971
Exhibit D
C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ........................................................................... ..............................3
H. General Site Description ....................................................... ..............................3
M. Vegetative Characteristics ...............................................:.... ..............................4
Vegetational Significance ....................................................... ..............................4
Cottonwood Riparian Ecosystem ............................................ ..............................4
IV. Wildlife Habitats and Species .............................................. ..............................8
Elk........................................................................................... ..............................8
MuleDeer .............................................................................. .............................12
Bighorn Sheep, Sage Grouse, Lynx ....................................... .........:...................12
Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Peregrine Falcon ......................... .............................12
Bear........................................................................................ .............................13
GreatBlue Heron ................................................................... .............................13
RiparianBirds ........................................................................ .............................13
Conclusion and Potential Impacts of Development ............... .............................15
V. Wildlife Management and Enhancement Program .......... .............................15
Objectives and Planned Actions ............................................ .............................15
Elkand Mule Deer ................................................................. .............................15
Bear........................................................................................ .............................18
GreatBlue Heron ................................................................... .............................18
Birds....................................................................................... .............................18
WeedControl ......................................................................... .............................19
Education............................................................................... .............................19
Implementation and Monitoring ............................................ .............................21
VI. References ............................................................................. .............................23
VII. Appendix
I. INTRODUCTION
The following Wildlife Analysis is submitted as a component of the Final Planned
Unit Development (PUD) application for the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm in Eagle
County, Colorado. The Eagle County Land Use Regulations require a Wildlife
Analysis for a PUD application in order to protect and maintain wildlife in Eagle
County. Article 4 - Site Development Standards, Section 4 -410 — Wildlife
Protection of the Land Use Regulations outlines the specific provisions of the
Wildlife Analysis. These include identifying critical wildlife habitats in the
project area and recommending mitigation measures needed to protect wildlife
species and their habitats.
Direction for the protection of wildlife at the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm can also be
found in the 1996 Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Master Plan and the 1998 Mt. Sopris
Tree Farm Community Master Plan. Both of these documents state a desire to
protect and improve wildlife and riparian habitat at the Tree Farm.
II. GENERAL SITE DESCRII'TION
The Mt. Sopris Tree Farm is comprised of 123.72 acres of relatively flat
topography, with an elevation ranging between 6416 to 6496 feet above sea level.
It is found within the Roaring Fork River watershed southwest of El Jebel,
Colorado at N %z, Section 3, TBS, R87W. To the north and east of the Tree Farm
property are residential subdivisions. The parcel is bordered on the south and west
by the riparian zone of the Roaring Fork River. The Tree Farm parcel is
surrounded by a ten -foot high deer fence that separates it from adjoining
properties. It was installed to prevent deer and elk from grazing on the irrigated
hay fields.
Prior to 1962, the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm was an irrigated pasture. In 1962, the U.
S. Forest Service acquired the property in order to produce seeds and trees for
revegetation efforts on public lands. During this time, the property was graded to
facilitate these growing activities. In the late 1980's, the Forest Service
abandoned seed and tree production, and leased the land for private hay
production. A center point irrigation system was installed during this time to
increase the hay yield. In 1994, the U. S. Forest Service traded the land to Pitkin
and Eagle Counties for open space and recreational purposes. Under a lease with
Eagle County, the land is still being used for private irrigated hay production.
f' 4
III. VEGETATIVE CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetatively, .the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm property is divided into two sections. The
first and larger is an irrigated hay field comprised of mixed introduced grass and
for species that cover approximately 85% of the site (Figure 1).
The plant species found in this section include: alfalfa (Medicago sativa), awnless
brome (Bromus inermis), white clover ( Trifolium repens), common dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale), curlycup gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa), common
mullein (Verbascum thapsus), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), cereal rye
Secale cereale), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), plumeless thistle (Carduus
acanthoides), wheatgrass (Agropyron sp.), and Salina wildrye (Elymus salinus).
In the southwest corner of the Tree Farm property is a small section that has not
been continuously cultivated. It has similar grass species as above, but includes a
scattering of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) that has escaped mowing
operations (Figure 2). This sections covers approximately 15% of the Tree Farm
property. In contrast to the flat graded hay field, it is marked by small undulations
in the terrain. It also includes a large (approximately 10' x 50') waste pile of river
rock, gravel and loose dirt that is overgrown with thistle (Figure 3).
Vegetational Significance
None of the above species are listed as threatened or endangered in the state of
Colorado. Plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides) is listed in the Eagle County
Weed Management Plan (Resolution 2000 — 45), as one of fifteen noxious weeds
found in the County that requires management to contain. Both common tansy
and common mullein are listed as Colorado noxious weeds.
Cottonwood Riparian Ecosystem
The most significant plant community found in the area is below the Tree Farm
along its southern boundary. Sections of this area are owned either privately or by
the U.S. Forest Service. This is area is a biologically diverse riparian habitat on
both sides of the Roaring Fork River dominated by narrowleaf cottonwood
(Populus angustifolia) with a mixed shrub understory (Figure 4). The 1997
Roaring Fork Biological Inventory completed by the Colorado Natural Heritage
Program proposes a two mile stretch of the Roaring Fork River, that includes the
area below the Tree Farm, as a conservation site because of its natural heritage
significance (see Appendix 1 for report and map). This site includes a globally
rare and state vulnerable riparian plant community, narrowleaf cottonwood/alder
(Populus angustifolia/Alnus incana) (Figure 5).
57.
77,
A-4
Nr
4914, Lj
T .4.4 IN
VT
WA
1 A"Ap
J {:.yau� ;'.ti_; e :,�3z€ �r -s'::� ? :.fie• .! i � _ _ - '"'i. _ _ _._ .�.'sa �r� -.ate
I • _ r T ,,.�t`Y,� M�' � , �+. . � air �� y t , l� �..5+",�, -.' r� r - f�.��� r tti i ,1,3 +. � �yyi!�'ii., �'::
�a .t 1 �c ��_, f - r! t �t'`� � /••� -cy #�`� a.'�ayff -!r• •� -'- _�� t�"�i
t � 1v �' Z � d - � � M : ;r' .� _,'�!� Yom"- -P } � - '�''�• �� i � �ra�. �.
r �" ? ' c F✓ _ . tt t . : !'--�� L f . k r 1 � + � L `may IL t o
' -Or�.
1-0 wl
f _
1v `
Y ♦y ♦ � 'Ry f��
tr � jr
i IT .4t,� .
EN
tr
�1y.p- (yl,� \�.. � �� ii _ ��'`•��C mot'} its �J!4} �J�j'v y, 1•CI
In addition to Colorado Natural Heritage recommendation, the riparian area below
the Tree Farm is significant because its foliage height diversity provides habitat
for a variety of wildlife species not found on the Tree Farm. These include deer,
elk, bear, and various birds (see IV. Wildlife Habitats and Species ), (Figure 6).
While this ecologically significant area is found outside the boundaries of the
proposed Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Final PUD (see Appendix 2 for boundary map of
Tract C), its closeness and access from the Tree Farm will have management
implications for activities taking place on the property in order to protect its
diverse wildlife habitat and species (see V Enhancement and Management
Program .
IV. WILDLIFE HABITATS AND SPECIES
Due to the lack of foliage height diversity and native vegetation, there is almost
no habitat for wildlife on the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm property. Foliage height
diversity usually provides an array of cover, food, nesting and perching
opportunities for wildlife that is lacking at the Tree Farm because of the
predominance of the cultivated hay meadows. This situation is further
compounded by the lack of wetlands, ponds or streams that would provide water
for wildlife. Additionally, the routine haying operation and seasonal grazing has
diminished any ground nesting opportunities for birds. A ten -foot high deer fence
around the boundary of the property prevents migration of animals across the
property.
Article 4, Section 4 — 410 (A. — C.), Wildlife Protection, of the Eagle County
Land Use Regulations identifies a process to protect and maintain wildlife in
Eagle County. This process, discussed below, includes locating potential wildlife
habitats within the project area, determining potential impacts from development
and lastly, recommending protection strategies for the wildlife species and their
habitats. An analysis of the Colorado Division of Wildlife's (CDOW) WRIS maps
(Wildlife Resource Information System) for the eight species listed in Section 4 —
410 3 a. — m. of the regulations was conducted. Location of potential habitats on
the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm for elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep, bald eagle, golden
eagle, peregrine falcon, sage grouse and lynx are discussed below.
American Elk (Cervus elaphus ) — Five critical elk habitats require analysis in
Section 4 — 410 C. 3 a. — c. These are elk migration corridors and patterns,
production areas, severe winter range and winter concentration areas (see
Appendix 3 for CDOW definitions of these habitats). None of these habitats were
found on the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm property. Where native vegetation is still
intact across the Roaring Fork River to the south of the Tree Farm property, there
is WRIS mapped elk winter concentration habitat (Figure 7). To the east of the
Tree Farm property by a mile and across Highway 82, there is mapped severe
winter range. The barriers created by the river, highway traffic, the ten -foot high
R'7.l.l.7 7 tJ
!- !.!_!_WI •�
!."' 0.11.�JrJ
v:9.l.C•_f_SJFJ
�.6 :'.i: �a_�•.� of
I
6
.!_!_!.!]� rte\
��!_!_!_1.��-
.48.•Y.11.J��-
rig
9
!
V., -7
FARM
IN
ITZ
Id Cou,6b- le County
Min nty
,FIGURE 9: SELECTED BIRD HABITAT
Blueheron Nest Site
Bald Eagle Winter Range
Town of Basalt
Highway/Major Rd.
Other Rd.
ILES
ikWffe
r
12
property fence and urbanization dissuade elk from using the property on a regular
basis. Elk occasionally feed on hay bales when they are stored on the property,
gaining access from a hole in the property fence, but this is not a usual event
(pers. comm. Kevin Wright, CDOW).
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) - Five critical deer habitats also require
analysis in Section 4 —410 C. 3 d. — e. These habitats are mule deer staging areas,
migration corridors, severe winter range, winter range and winter concentration
areas. None of these habitats are found on the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm property
(Figure 8). Across the Roaring Fork River to the south where there is native
vegetation for food and cover, there is mapped winter range, severe winter range
and winter concentration areas. On the steep south facing slopes across Highway
82, there are mapped severe winter range and winter concentration areas. These
habitats are at least 1/ mile from the Tree Farm. Deer utilizing these habitats do
not come down on to the Tree Farm because lack of food and cover, traffic,
urbanization and ten -foot high fence make the property unsuitable habitat.
Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis), Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)
and Lynx (Felis lynx) — No habitats for these three species were identified on the
Tree Farm property or in a ten -mile radius of the area through an analysis of
WRIS data.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos),
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)— Section 4 — 410 C. 3. i. — k. requires an
analysis of potential roost and nesting sites for these three bird species. No
roosting or nesting sites are know to occur on the Tree Farm property, or in the
area surrounding it. Figure 9 identifies bald eagle winter range along the Roaring
Fork River, including the area below the Tree Farm. Consideration of the use by
eagles of the adjacent river corridor during the winter is important. Bald eagles
are listed as threatened by both the Federal and State government. The Colorado
Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) lists the bald eagle as state critically imperiled
during breeding season, and state rare during the non - breeding season (Colorado
NDIS, System for Conservation Planning).
Other Wildlife Species — Although the Tree Farm is devoid of habitat requiring
analysis in the Land Use Regulations, the cottonwood riparian ecosystem below
the property along the Roaring Fork River, does provide a wealth of potential
habitat for numerous amphibian, bird, mammal and reptilian species. Identifying
and protecting these species will have management implications for some of the
recreational activities proposed at the Tree Farm (see V. Wildlife Management
and Enhancement Program). Notable among these species, bear, herons and
riparian birds, are discussed below.
13
Black Bear (fhsus americanus) — An analysis of the WRIS data for bears shows
suitable habitat occurring for bears throughout the Roaring Fork Valley. Black
bears mobility and versatile diet contribute to their wide distribution. They prefer
foiested and riparian ecosystems where the flora is diverse and abundant since
over 95% of their diet is vegetation. In years when vegetation is scarce due to
weather or other factors, bears' range increases in search of food. Occasionally,
when vegetation is limited, members of the bear population that reside on the
Crown area southwest of the Tree Farm property (approximately 2 —3 miles)
come down to the valley floor near El Jebel in search of food (pers. comm. Kevin
Wright, CDOW).
Great Blue Herons (Ardea herodias) — The Roaring Fork River provides
suitable habitat for Great Blue herons, whom prefer to reside in shallow water at
the edges of streams, rivers, lakes and ponds. Currently, there are approximately
100 Great blue heron rookies in Colorado. Four of these rookeries occur in the
Roaring Fork Valley. The WRIS data shown in Figure 9 identifies one of these
four rookeries as abutting the western boundary of the Tree Farm parcel. This
nesting site is the Rock Bottom Ranch rookery that is located on the south side of
the river. Herons using the Rock Bottom Ranch rookery also utilize the riparian
area on the north side of the river below the Tree Farm for feeding and resting
from spring - fall. Great blue herons are common in Colorado, but are
increasingly being threatened by human disturbance and habitat alteration. They
are particularly sensitive during breeding and have been given an imperilment
ranking by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program as vulnerable during their
breeding season. The Rock Bottom Ranch rookery was recently acquired by the
Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, and is being managed for protection of
the herons. Future activities at the Tree Farm should foster the stewardship efforts
that have begun at this nearby rookery.
Birds — During three site visits in September and October 2000, few if any bird
species were seen on the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm property. This is due to lack of
cover, food and nesting opportunities. As noted above however, the riparian area
below the Tree Farm provides many opportunities for wildlife to succeed.
Twenty -eight bird species are listed below as common species found in riparian
habitats in the Roaring Fork Valley. An additional twenty -five species of birds
were detected in riparian- wetland habitats during the Roaring Fork Valley Bird
Monitoring Project (1997 Final Report, Appendix 4), for a total of fifty -three bird
species found in local riparian- wetland habitats.
C)
Common riparian bird species in the Roaring Fork Valley:
• Catbird, Gray
• Chickadee, Black - capped
• Dipper, American
• Flycatcher, Cordilleran
• Flycatcher, Willow
• Goldfinch, American
• Grosbeak, Black- headed
• Heron, Great blue
• Killdeer
• Kingfisher, Belted
• Magpie, Black- billed
• Oriole, Bullock's
• Owl, Great horned
• Sandpiper, Spotted
• Sparrow, Fox
• Sparrow, Lincoln's
• Sparrow, Song
• Sparrow, White- crowned
• Swallow, Tree
• Swallow, Violet -green
• Thrush, Swainson's
• Vireo, Warbling
• Warbler, MacGillivray's
• Warbler, Yellow
• Woodpecker, Downy
• Wood - pewee, Western
• Wren, House
Many of the species listed above are neotropical migratory birds. That is, they
spend the winter in Central and South America and their breeding season in the
Rocky Mountains. Unfortunately, due mostly to habitat loss, many of the species
are declining. Given the diversity of bird species and good quality habitat found
adjacent to the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm, protection of these species and their habitat
needs to be factored into decisions regarding the development of the property (see
V. Wildlife Management and Enhancement Program).
14
01 15
Conclusion and Potential Impact of Development - Historical and current uses
of the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm has greatly diminished the availability of wildlife
habitat for most wildlife species on the property. Critical habitats and species
requiring analysis in Article 4, Section 4 — 410 in the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations are not present. Elk and mule deer use the property only occasionally.
However, with the proposed changes in use of the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm as
indicated in the PUD Final application, there will come an accompanying change
in use of the property by wildlife. The richness of species adjacent to the Tree
Farm presents a number of opportunities and challenges to manage the activities
on the Tree Farm in order to avoid detrimental effects to wildlife. Additionally,
there is the opportunity to undertake enhancement programs that will encourage
wildlife to return to the Tree Farm property. These are discussed below.
�. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Objectives for the Wildlife Enhancement and Management Program are described
in this section, followed by a list of recommended actions that should be
undertaken in order to achieve the objective.
Objective #I — Reduce Attractiveness of Property for Elk and Mute Deer
In order to protect elk and mule deer, ensure that development and recreational
activities don't draw individual animals or herds onto the Tree Farm property.
This objective is proposed due to the increase of recreational activity, traffic,
people and dogs that are anticipated with the development of the property. These
activities have the potential to be detrimental to elk and deer.
Recommended Actions:
Maintain and repair holes in the existing ten -foot high deer fence that
surrounds the Tree Farm in order to keep elk and mule deer off the
property.
2. Remove stored hay bales that are attracting deer and elk on to the
property.
3. Limit access to the riparian area below the Tree Farm by allowing only 1-
2 gates in the fence.
4. Utilize plants that don't attract elk and deer during landscaping (see
Appendix 5, Table l., for a list of recommended plants).
�. _�''*i'«'�1'' -;• ` ° '7T'; L i �sra�t� 4, -fi -'` t•7�1� } � r t2` 1 , •,4 7 Uj�yii
,ss"$ � 3 " ''?�4� ; � t.. a Vii_ �. i wn' Y i •.
�+ p� � 1.•� � Vii• � ra� '� a /�s �+ � {-'_ . ' si `4 ,- s : tit h�-{'s .,fy'�•'i�U' i } t�I( "i ) } s < T.si l•r. r �"
.} ' +T• T -s ?i��4I'lk; �td� a •y �i kYy.. G- * �;�Ya 4t C f,.
t , ..� ! " —" _ r t h #?�"'h� "�` s b. � Yv �st < A • + "`a" s ;F }'K i } s. 9 � b 1
'• � • y °1`kk- 5. .•<!'ri .. '4 :` i Y air � •:. � t �.
f-a
,it �_'•� v �Zat' r T Y �t n " �..r� . Y 1. .. � a r � • 'y7
jq
171' •Y.'•t .• i •r � � • � Y ����'M� ;�:� � r j. j�' r
' � ; is s�<-v •� ,tir •Yy t
�!r• � � . -mac. __.
t
h
t
*d-'�'9k-4- <,� .r'. ) ., mot, r '•' s � . t � y '.
y } '�- •<� --� eA t.'i 2'!t'� KF 6.-'. �� :SO s - f �•.(J t• J
- - ..v _ - ..S ".: ).• . - .. •'t. � � �y .. ✓ .'f:'L Lit
� ...E
�'. $fit J" - � �.. -0Y. '�•tc 1y ^�4.:A {f8Y s- d7MR�3t� � •3'4.. ✓ a�S �{'J. �.
E ;��.y x 5 *,'.,!X� r,� <'#- yi�r_y ,y�.�,j "ayets•,�• -.�'�- ,,,.a, jy;� 7`ty;
.t tat
$y •, t Psu��TY�y�
i,- > �r. 'S }-' -: r' .�rs.•ii'it 1.
w j r � 3 �i. � � 7*?��� l�tg F.,p 4 , - �� tyy�x i� j,���y' �� y"'as Yt r ;i�"3PYyiti }a,.�" � L�1* t � ..i�" w�� �1 •�
t r. .v u�Y. •- 1K.`I. �-.. �xr.t.Lira'•- ��.'Gi"�+'� � }��� -��• _ .'� i" } i �. i � .
�,ytir•�, tK�� t y� LT IfyNo .
11 vl i
t ` .�? n' , #� � y� It � Li�` i .a '°� ,j� ZY1 " v� s r� s i •i •1; �a��-, t�
k �y {�� r ��• �y-- <,�:�" 4'S'?„° � :� vt yQr. " p� +t- .� ys'.F'_F`�"F,.��
� C r /h.,' 'ro„ pt,�y -� _�a�Q i �•.v Ste*' �-,
T �, +'Yi f¢''1y� • ' f "lY� ••'!!� � „ L'4� •. ��{ja� I �-
' x G�:7,4i 1,1
n:`.�'� }.'y��4 ^I'`T• � �yR�Y��p � t �`�S� /s �•/'T'�q��
� �•+'" •�'"�� ;.z1 ••�iJ �P,!'j }•���:�.\f �i,A�"t�'�+'�1�t`diff ♦_T',�I l�7'z^s''�,�`�'.s .��.f
C
Obiective #2 — Reduce Attractiveness of Property for Black Rears
In order to protect bears and limit the chance of an encounter with humans,
eliminate food sources that bears may find attractive from the property.
Recommended Actions:
18
1. Utilize bear -proof trash containers in order to prevent bears from being
attracted to and feeding on rubbish left at the recreational facilities.
2. Maintain and repair holes in ten -foot high property fence in order to help
deter bears from coming on to the property.
3. Choose plants during the landscaping phase that are not attractive to bears.
Bears are especially attracted to plants that produce nuts, berries and
fruits.
Objective #3 — Protect Heron Rookery
Limit recreational activities near the heron rookery during the breeding season
(Feb. 15 — June 15).
Recommended Actions:
Prevent construction of additional trails from the Tree Farm down into the
riparian area along the Roaring Fork River.
2. Discourage use of the trails going down into the riparian area from the
Tree Farm
by people and dogs during the breeding season.
3. Develop cooperative management plans to protect the rookery in
conjunction with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, U. S. Forest Service,
private landowners and Aspen Center for Environmental Studies.
Objective #4 — Protect and Restore Habitat for Birds
Limit recreational activities during the breeding season in the riparian area and
restore native big sagebrush community along the southern boundary of the
property. While riparian and wetland habitats support the largest number and
greatest variety of bird species, sagebrush plant communities provide habitat for a
number of bird species. Along the southern boundary of the Tree Farm parcel
outside of the deer fence is a strip of remnant big sagebrush plant community
(Figure 10) It serves as an example of what native plant community probably
existed on the Tree Farm prior to cultivation, providing the opportunity to restore
this native plant community during the development of the Tree Farm. Doing so
would increase the habitat for bird species utilizing sagebrush plant communities.
Recommended Actions:
1.. Close access to the riparian trails from the Tree Farm during waterfowl
nesting season (April — May).
19
2. Broaden existing sagebrush plant community along southern boundary of
property (Figure 11).
3. Provide water sources for birds through the installation of a pond and
reconstruction of the Robinson Ditch.
4. Increase foliage height diversity by planting a variety of trees and shrubs
in order to increase food, nesting and cover opportunities on the property
for birds.
Objective # 5 — Manajze Weeds.
The health and productivity of natural plant communities and wildlife habitats is
threatened by the introduction of numerous invasive non - native plants. In
response to this growing problem, Eagle County recently adopted a Weed
Management Plan (Resolution 2000 — 45) and listed fifteen weed species targeted
for increased control efforts. In 1990, the State of Colorado established the
Colorado Weed Management Act, and directed all counties in Colorado to prepare
and adopt a noxious weed management plan. A number of plant species found at
the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm are listed either on the Eagle County or Colorado
Noxious Weed lists.
Recommended Actions:
1. Implement the Eagle County Weed Management in cooperation with
Eagle County staff in order to control weeds and notably, the invasion of
Plumeless thistle on the property (Figure 12).
2. Develop and implement a written Revegetation Plan for all disturbed areas
prior to commencement of grading or redevelopment activities in order to
prevent the spread of weeds on the property and into the adjacent riparian
area.
3. Develop strategies with the U. S. Forest Service to control beginning
invasions of migrating weeds into the riparian area below the Tree Farm
property. Species detected during October 2000 site visits included
plumeless thistle, common tansy, common dandelion and common
mullein.
Objective #6 — Create Environmental Education Opportunities
In order to foster appreciation and understanding of local wildlife, develop an
environmental education program at the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm.
Recommended Actions:
C, 20
1. Install Riparian Overlook viewing platforms for birdwatching and other
.. native wildlife watching opportunities.
2. Build an Environmental Interpretive Center.
3. Install interpretive signs along the walking trails near the areas restored
with native vegetation.
Objective #7 — Implementation and Monitoring
In order to protect and maintain wildlife in Eagle County and at the Mt. Sopris
Tree Farm, prepare a written implementation schedule for the Wildlife
Management and Enhancement Program prior to construction and development of
the property.
Recommended Actions:
1. Develop a partnership between the Colorado Division of Wildlife, U. S.
Forest Service, Eagle County, private landowners and interested citizens
to monitor and evaluate information about wildlife on and adjacent to the
property. This group would jointly recommend any modifications to the
Wildlife Management and Enhancement Program.
2. Initiate collection of baseline data of seasonal utilization by current
wildlife species and numbers in order to gauge effectiveness of Wildlife
Management and Enhancement Program.
3. Collect data on elk, deer, bear and bird activities.
4. Collect data on recreational activities in relation to wildlife use.
5. Record and monitor effect of revegetation and landscape improvements.
6. Monitor effectiveness and utilization of pond and irrigation ditch when
completed.
7. Monitor construction activities in relation to wildlife use.
8. Provide annual written reports to the County Commissioners on the
implementation and effectiveness of the Wildlife Management and
Enhancement Program.
Ci (--,1 21
REFERENCES
Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 1997. Roaring Fork Biological Inventory,
Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO
2. Elizinga, Stephen, pers. comm. Eagle County Weed and Pest Coordinator, Eagle
County, CO.
3. Hockelberg, Cindy, pers. comm. U. S. Forest Service, Sopris Ranger District,
Carbondale, CO.
4. Gray, Mary Taylor, 1998. The Guide to Colorado Birds, Westcliff Publishers,
Englewood, Colorado.
5. Kershaw, Linda, Andy MacKinnon, and Jim Pojar, 1998. Plants of the Rocky
Mountains, Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
6. Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS) for Colorado, 2000. System for
Conservation Planning, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO.
Website http:# ndis.nrel.colostate.edu
7. Aennicke, Jeff, 1990. Colorado Wildlife, Falcon Press Publishing, Helena, MT.
8. Theobald, David, Eric Odell and Richard Knight, 1999. Development Trends and
Losses of Habitat in Pitkin County, Colorado. Colorado State University, Ft.
Collins, CO.
9. Thompson, Rick, 1999. Seven Star Ranch Wildlife Plan, Appendix 8.2
Landscaping in Deer and Elk Habitat. Western Ecosystems, Boulder, CO.
10. Vidal, Linda, 1997. Roaring Fork Valley Bird Monitoring Project, Roaring Fork
Chapter of the Audubon Society, Aspen, CO.
11. Yanishevsky, Rosalind and Susan Petring -Rupp, 1996. Management of Breeding
Habitat for Selected Bird Species in Colorado, Colorado Division of Wildlife and
Great Outdoors Colorado, Denver, CO.
12. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, 1987.
Managing Forested Lands for Wildlife, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver,
CO.
13. Wildlife Resource Information System (WRIS) distribution data, 2000. Colorado
Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO.
14. Wright, Kevin, pers. comm. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Glenwood Springs,
CO.
C
C,
APPENDIX 1
CNHP Proposed El Jebel Conservation Site
Description and Map
APPENDIX 1.
CNHP Proposed El Jebel Conservation Site
Description and Map EI Jebel
Biodiversity Rank: B4 Moderate significance
This site includes a fair occurrence of a vloball_y -rare plant community and an occurrence of the
mountain whitefish.
Protection Urgency Rank: P3
Residential development is a definable threat.
Management Urgency Rank: M3
Management actions are needed to maintain the quality of the site. Weed control and restricted
recreation access is recommended.
Location: Eagle County. Between Basalt Mountain and The Crown along the Roaring Fork
River.
Legal Description: U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute Leon quadrangle. T8S R87W S 3, 4, 10, 11.
General Description: This site includes approximately a two mile stretch of the Roaring Fork
River (approximately 6100 feet) between The Crown and Basalt Mountain, southwest of El
Jebel. The El Jebel site includes small fragments of riparian communities within developed
areas. The river is deeply entrenched for small reaches. Narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus
angustifolia) with mixed understory dominates both banks of the river along this stretch.
Approximately 500 acres are included in this boundary.
Biodiversity Rank Justification: This site includes a globally -rare riparian plant community,
narrowleaf cottonwood/alder (Populus angustifolia/Alnus incana). This plant community is
known from 30 locations scattered throughout Colorado. There are poor quality remnant
examples of narrowleaf cottonwood/skunkbrush (Populus angustifolia/Rhus trilobata) and
narrowleaf cottonwood/coyote willow (Poptulzus angustifolia/Salix exigzua) communities within
this site but they are not considered element occurrences according to CNHP methodology.
Further surveys, with additional landowner permission, may reveal larger occurrences which
would change the importance of this site.
The mountain whitefish (Prosopium ivilliamsoni) is known to occur in Roaring Fork River from
Glenwood Springs to near Woody Creek. and unverified occurrences have been reported between
Woody Creek and Aspen. There are few rivers in Colorado known to contain this fish species. It
is mostly restricted to the northwestern portion of the state.
C
Natural Heritage element occurrences at the El Jebel site.
C
Element Common Name
Global
State Federal State
Federal
EO`
Rank
Rank Status Status
Sens.
Rank
Populus angustifolia/ montane riparian
G3
S3
C
Alnus incana forest
Prosopium mountain whitefish
GS
S3
williarnsoni
Ev= Element Occurrence
Boundary Justification: The boundary is drawn to protect the occurrences from direct
disturbances. Additionally, the hydrologic regime of the area must be protected in order to
maintain the quality and long -tetra viability of the occurrences.
Protection Rank Justification: This site is privately owned. Development in the riparian zone
is unlikely. However, similar riparian areas along the Roaring Fork have been developed. The
land owners future plans are unknown.
Management Rank Justification: This site is adjacent to a housing subdivision, human-made
ponds, irrigation ditches, and hayfields, which are contributing to an infestation of exotic plant
species in the natural riparian vegetation. These weeds should be controlled. Disturbance of this
site should be minimized, and may include fencing or restricting human activities. A trail /rail
corridor is proposed for the old railroad tracks which run through this site. A 100 foot wide
easement is owned by the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority. This 100 foot area may see
a lot of disturbance if this project is funded. The riparian plant communities would be highly
threatened. Water quality, quantity, and flooding must not be significantly altered. Hydrologic
considerations must extend beyond the site boundaries, especially wherever the watershed is not
contained in the proposed site.
M 4 s O 11
I (
; 4 �VIV ,
.0
t 0 a
�EE
w / ARMµy� G
_ � •� / ��: � - �, ..sue
• a 5 ,,r
3 ii
1+ its'
f -. y
t
aj
r k -i
k.Ye
;. _ e
afield County I agle County
®s ® �®�s;• ssttea
R.Kkin C my
ROARING FORK
BIOLOGICAL INVENTORY
Proposed Convervation Site
... Town of Basalt -
Highway /Major Rd. _
Other Rd.
0.5 0
Wildlife data cares: Colorado WL Heritage Prog.
�f
APPENDIX 2
Map of Tract C — U.S. Forest Service Property
N
z
R
L
Z
O
L
V
L
in
O
q®
Fbt
C", . c
i v �
� U �
a �
W
W
W
�M
0
2
4
O
00
C A
CJ
TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 87 ..WEST, 6th P, M.
TRACT "AN, A Portion of - Cracis 43, 45: and .46 of Section 3
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
NOTE, Locat;ons of wells and ;rr.gxt.on
One easement are approximate
LEGEND
a.L.0. Drass trop
Messurenents iron 1989 Noupor sw-7 -
0 2 I 12• Atun:num Coo narked L.S. I.35 SCALE • 1 1/2' Copper Cap narked L.S. 7.!35
o Set Monunent °
vC• witnc:: Corner H
1 took s 00 K
Appro.Mite tocaiwn of C.1c. N.Y. sa
ro
_ --
- - -- -- - - - - -- re. -a M3.
�: _._ ;Ir - --
' VNte R�.er Niibnel
Forest LaMf
� • �
W.11
13
07•]'370• C Ui.t7
C . a
, S 21 • ( :�
I•ARCCL TO CAALr AND FITKIN
CI3UNTIES
�Ae7k rr•a
~s
IPw_-Qint to P1. 101
- 255)...
_c
won / zyzaY c
`' Appq•oko LOcatlan of 20. 7rrggt:on LNe fa7tenent — — — —
w.D Y+
t
O
-i
128.00 i{re•
I
p
�t
W-u #s
(
c 1134 O
C Y•3ror V\
M17
: •B pr Y
---- ---
------------------
- - - -�) I
p.. ,. 41 .i ,. •,, - -
I
o/ ...7.
+
e
I
�
0
�91
{r _V.
6.
•�
O
CI
J,1
N
NOTE, Locat;ons of wells and ;rr.gxt.on
One easement are approximate
LEGEND
a.L.0. Drass trop
Messurenents iron 1989 Noupor sw-7 -
0 2 I 12• Atun:num Coo narked L.S. I.35 SCALE • 1 1/2' Copper Cap narked L.S. 7.!35
o Set Monunent °
vC• witnc:: Corner H
1 took s 00 K
C I C,
WRIS Seasonal Activity Area
Definitions for Elk and Deer
:// ndis .nrel.colostate.edu /ndis/ftp html_site/meta/elk.i
APP ENDIX 3. WRIS Season a ctivity Area IDelinitions for Elk an ='"er,
Wildlife Resource Information System (WRIS)
ELK
Seasonal Activity Area Definitions
** NOTE **
Not all counties have all activity areas present. Therefore, any number of the
following could be found in the corresponding county specific zip file.
OVERALL RANGE:
The area which encompasses all known seasonal activity areas within the observed
range of an elk population.
WINTER RANGE:
That part of the overall range of a species where 90 percent of the individuals are
located during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to
spring green -up, or during a site specific period of winter as defined for each DAU_
WINTER CONCENTRATION AREA:
That part of the winter range of a species where densities are at least 200% greater
than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define
winter range in the average five winters out of ten.
SEVERE WINTER RANGE:
That part of the range of a species where 90 percent of the individuals are located
when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and /or temperatures are at a minimum in
the two worst winters out of ten. The winter of 1983 -84 is a good example of a
severe winter.
HIGHWAY CROSSING:
Those areas where elk movements traditionally cross roads, presenting potential
conflicts between elk and motorists.
MIGRATION CORRIDOR:
A specific mappable site through which large numbers of animals migrate and loss of
which would change migration routes.
MIGRATION PATTERN:
A subjective indication of the general direction of the movements of migratory
ungulate herds.
PRODUCTION AREA:
That part of the overall range of elk occupied by the females from May 15 to June 15
for calving. (Only known areas are mapped and this does not include all production
areas for the DAU).
RESIDENT POPULATION AREA:
An area used year -round by a population of elk. Individuals could be found in any
part of the area at any time of the year; the area cannot be subdivided into
seasonal ranges. It is most likely included within the overall range of the larger
population.
SUMMER RANGE:
That part of the range of a species where 90% of the individuals are located between
spring green -up and the first heavy snowfall, or during a site specific period of
summer as defined for each DAU. Summer range is not necessarily exclusive of winter
range; in some areas winter range and summer range may overlap.
SUMMER CONCENTRATION AREA:
Those areas where elk concentrate from mid -June through mid - August. High quality
forage, security, and lack of disturbance are characteristics of these areas to meet
the high energy demands of lactation, calf rearing, antler growth, and general
preparation for the rigors of fall and winter.
LIMITED USE AREA:
An area within the overall range which is occasionally inhabited by elk and /or
http://ndis.nref-colostate.edu/ndis/ftp_hunl_site/meta/elk.t
C1, C,
contains a small scattered population of elk.
DIGITAL DATA DISCLAIMER:
This wildlife distribution map is a product and property of the Colorado
Division of Wildlife, a division of the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources. Care should be taken in interpreting these data. Written
documents may accompany this map and should be referenced. The
information portrayed on these maps should not replace field studies
necessary for more localized planning efforts. The data are typically
gathered at a scale of 1:24000 or 1:50000; discrepancies may become
apparent at larger scales. The areas portrayed here are graphic
representations of phenomena that are difficult to reduce to two dimensions.
Animal distributions are fluid; animal populations and their habitats are dynamic.
The Colorado Department of Natural Resources is not responsible and shall
not be liable to the user for damages of any kind arising out of the use
of data or information provided by the Department, including the installation
of the data or information, its use, or the results obtained from its use.
ANY DATA OR INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES IS
PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Data or information provided by the
Department of Natural Resources shall be used and relied upon only at the
user's sole risk, and the user agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
Department of Natural Resources, its officials, officers and employees from
any liability arising out of the use of the data or information provided.
_-)
nttp:ii nais. nrei. coiostate. eawnais ittp- nimi- site/metaimuieaeer. t
C,
Wildlife Resource Information System (WRIS)
MULE DEER
Seasonal Activity Area Definitions
** NOTE **
Not all counties have all activity areas present. Therefore, any number of the
following could be found in the corresponding county specific zip file.
OVERALL RANGE:
The area which encompasses all known seasonal activity areas within the observed
range of a mule deer population.
SUMMER RANGE:
That part of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are located between
spring green -up and.the first heavy snowfall. Summer range is not necessarily
exclusive of winter range; in some areas winter range and summer range may overlap.
CONCENTRATION AREA:
That part of the overall range where higher quality habitat supports significantly
higher densities than surrounding areas. These areas are typically occupied year
round and are not necessarily associated with a specific season. Includes rough
break country, riparian areas, small drainages, and large areas of irrigated
cropland.
WINTER RANGE:
That part of the overall range where 90 percent of the individuals are located
during the average five winters out of ten from'the first heavy snowfall to spring
green -up, or during a site specific period of winter as defined for each DAU.
WINTER CONCENTRATION AREA:
That part of the winter range where densities are at least 200% greater than the
surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter range
in the average five winters out of ten.
SEVERE WINTER RANGE:
That part of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are located when the
annual snowpack is at its maximum and /or temperatures are at a minimum in the two
worst winters out of ten.
RESIDENT POPULATION AREA: An area that provides year -round range for a
population of mule deer. The resident mule deer use all of the area all year; it
cannot be subdivided into seasonal ranges although it may be included within the
overall range of the larger population.
LIMITED USE AREA:
An area within the overall range of mule deer that is only occasionally inhabited
and /or contains only a small population of scattered mule deer.
MIGRATION PATTERN:
A subjective indication of the general direction of the movements of migratory
ungulate herds.
MIGRATION CORRIDOR:
A specific mappable site through which large numbers of animals migrate and loss of
which would change migration routes.
HIGHWAY CROSSING:
Those areas where mule deer movements traditionally cross roads, presenting
potential conflicts between mule deer and motorists.
DIGITAL DATA DISCLAIMER:
This wildlife distribution map is a product and property of the Colorado
Division of Wildlife, a division of the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources. Care should be taken in interpreting these data. Written
documents may accompany this map and should be referenced. The
2
ILLL }J. / /IIULO- 111GL.bULUDIWLO.OUW LIUJW LLjJ_IILLUI 3LLG O 16 L4, 111UIW A.L
information portrayed on these maps should not replace field studies
necessary for more localized planning efforts. The data are typically
gathered at a scale of 1:24000 or 1:50000; discrepancies may become
apparent at larger scales. The areas portrayed here are graphic
representations of phenomena that are difficult to reduce to two dimensions.
Animal distributions are fluid; animal populations and their habitats are dynamic.
The Colorado Department of Natural Resources is not responsible and shall
not be liable to the user for damages of any kind arising out of the use
of data or information provided by the Department, including the installation
of the data or information, its use, or the results obtained from its use.
ANY DATA OR INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES IS
PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Data or information provided by the
Department of Natural Resources shall be used and relied upon only at the
user's sole risk, and the user agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
Department of Natural Resources, its officials, officers and employees from
any liability arising out of the use of the data or information provided.
`2
i.
Local Avian Riparian Species
APPENDIX 4. Local Avian Riparian Species-
LIST OF SPECIES RECORDED AT NORTHSTAR
RIPARIAN- WETLANDS HABITAT
Complete Species List of Birds Detected During Point - Counts:
American Robin
Black- billed Magpie
Broad - tailed Hummingbird
Common Snipe
Red - winged Blackbird
Yellow Warbler
Song Sparrow
Band - tailed Pigeon
Tree Swallow
Violet -green Swallow
Ruby - crowned Kinglet
Sora Rail
Mallard
Lincoln s Sparrow
White- crowned Sparrow
Pine Siskin
American Coot
Chipping Sparrow
MacGillivray's Warbler
Brown - headed Cowbird
Dusky Flycatcher
Warbling Vireo
Great Blue Heron
American Crow
Olive -sided Flycatcher
Northern Flicker
Cordilleran Flycatcher
Black- headed Grosbeak
Western Tanager
Orange - crowned Warbler
House Wren
Red- tailed Hawk
Canada Goose
Evening Grosbeak
Western Wood Pewee
Barn Swallow
Fox Sparrow
Stellar's )ay
Starling
C
Grey - headed junco
Black-capped-Chickadee
Red - breasted Nuthatch
Bullock's Oriole
White- breasted Nuthatch
Belted Kingfisher
Mountain Chickadee
Green - winged Teal
Total # Of Species Detected at Northstar in 1997: 53
C,
r
APPENDIX 5
Landscaping Plants and
Frequency Browsed or Grazed by Deer and Elk
APPENDIX 5.
C,
Landscaping plants and the frequency with which they are browsed or
grazed by deer and elk.
LIFE FORM
Common Name, Scientific Nanie Browsing Frequency
TREES
Alder, Alnus tenuifolia
Sometimes
Apples (most), tblalnus spp.
Often
Aspen, Populus tremuloides
Often
Fir, Douglas, Pseudotsuga menziesii
Rarely
Hackberry, Celtis reticulata
Sometimes- Rarely
Hawthorne; Crataegus spp.
Rarely
Juniper, Rocky Mountain, Juniperus scopulorunt
Often
Maple; box elder, Acer negundo
Rarely
Maple, Rocky Mountain, Acer glabritnt
Sometimes
Pine, limber, Pintos Jlerilis
Rarely
Pine, lodgepole, Pinus contort
Sometimes
Pine, pinon, Pinus edulfs
Rarely
Pine, ponderosa, Pinos ponderosa
Sometimes
Plum, wild, Pruntts americana
Sometimes- Rarely
Spruce, blue, Picea pctngens
Rarely
Spruce, Engelmann, Picea*engelniannii
Rarely
SHRUBS
Apache plume, Fallugia paradora,
Sometimes- Rarely
Bearberry, Arctostaphylos uva -ursi
Sometimes
Buffaloberry, Shepherdia canadensis
Sometimes
Ceanothus, Fendler (Buckbrush), Ceanothus fendleri
Sometimes
Chokecherry, common, Pntnus virginiana
Often
Creeper, Virginia, Parthenocissus inserta
Rarely
Currant, golden, Ribes aureunt
Sometimes - Rarely
Currant, wax, Ribes cereunt
Sometimes-Rarely
Goldenrod, Solidago spp..
Sometimes- Rarely
Holly- grape, Oregon, jVahonia repens
Sometimes- Rareiv
Honeysuckle, Lonicera involucrata
Sometimes- Rarely
Ivy, English, Hedera helix
Sometimes- Rarely
Jamesia, Jantesia antericana
Sometimes
Juniper, common, Junipertts contnturis
Rarely
Lead plant, Antorpha fruticosa *
Rarely
Licorice, wild, Gl cyrrhiza obtusata
Sometimes
' deer and elk. Landscaping plants and the frequency with which they are browsed or grazed by
LIFEFORM
Common Name, Sclentiftc Name Browsing Frequency
Mountain mahogany, curlleaf, Cercocarpus ledifolius
Sometimes - Rarely
Mountain mahogany, true, Cercocarpus montantrs
Often
Ninebark, Physocarpus ntonogynus
Sometimes- Rarely
Pine, mugo, Pinus mugo mughus
Often
Pocentilla/ Cinquefoil, Potentilla spp.
Rarely
Rabbitbrush, Chrysothaninus nauseosus
Sometimes
Raspberry, Rubus deliciosus
Sometimes
Roses, (most) Rosa and Rosea spp.
Often
Skunk brush, Rhus rrilobata
Rarely
Snowberry, western, Syntphoricarpos occidentalfs
Rarely
Spirea, bluemist, Caiyopteris hicana
Rarely
FLOWERS
Arnica, heartleaf, Amica cordifolia
Sometimes
Arnica, orange, Arnica fulgens
Sometimes -Often
Aster, hairy golden, Hererotheca villosa
Sometimes- Rarely
Bedstraw, northern, Galiunt boreale
Sometimes
Blazing star, Liatris punctara
Sometimes
Bluebells, chiming bells, Merrensia ciliata
Sometimes
Blueberry, Vaccinium spp.
Often
Cactus, prickly pear, Opuntia polyacantha
Sometimes- Rarely
Chickweed, mouse -ear, Cerastitint vulganim
Sometimes
Clover, yellow sweet, Melilotus officinale
Often
Coneflower, prairie, Raribida coluninifera
Sometimes- Rarely
Coneflower, tall, Rudbeckia lacinata
Sometimes
Daffodils
Sometimes - Rarely
Flax, blue, Linunt lewisii
Rarely
Fleabane, daisy, Erigeron spp.
Sometimes- Rarely
Gaillard iaBlanketflower, Gaillardia aristata
Rarely
Geranium, wild/ Fremont, Geranium frentonti
Often
Gilia, scarlet, Ipotnopsis aggregara
Sometimes
Golden, banner, Themiopsis divaricarpa
Sometimes- Rarely
Goldenrod, Missouri/ smooth. Solidago mi souriensis
Sometimes
Gumweed, curly -cup, Grindelia squarrosa
Rarely
Harebell, mountain, Campanula rottindifolia
Rarely
HorsemintBergamot, Monarda ferrulosa
Sometimes
Houndstongue, Cynoglossuni officinale
Rarely
Hyacinth, grape
Sometimes - Rarely
Iris, wild, Iris ntissouriensis
Sometimes- Rarely
Larkspur, Nelson's, Delphinium nelsonii
Sometimes- Rarely
C-11
Landscaping plants and the frequency with which they are browsed or grazed by L
deer and elk.
LIFEFORM
Common Name, Scientific Manic Browsing Frequency
FLOWERS
Lavender
Sometimes- Rarely
Lily, mariposa, Calochortus gunnisoni
Rarely
Locoweed, Lambert, Oxytropis lamberri
Sometimes- Rarely
'Lupine, silver, Lupinus argenteus
Sometimes- Rarely,
Marjoram
Sometimes - Rarely
Milkweed, showy, Asclepias speciosa
Rarely
Miner's candle, Cryptantha virgata
Rarely
Mullein, Verbascunt thapsus
Rarely
Onion, nodding, Alliunt cernuum
Often
Pasque !lower, Pulsatilla patens
Sometimes
Pearly everlasting, Anaphalis margaritacea
Rarely
Penstemon, low, Penstemon virens
Ofteri
Phlox, common, Phlox multiflora
Often
Pussytoes, rose, Antennaria rosea
Sometimes
Rhubarb
Rarely
Sagebrush, pasture, Arremisia frigida
Often
Sagebrush, Wyoming big, Arrentisia tridentaca
Sometimes
Sagewort, common, Arremisia cantpestris
Sometimes- Rarely
Salsify, Tragopogon porrifolius
Often
Salvia, Salvia reflexa
Sometimes - Rarely
Santolina
Sometimes - Rarely
Scorpionweed, Phacelia heterophylla
Sometimes- Rarely
Snow -on -the mountain, Euphorbia marginata
Rarely
Solomon seal, false, Sntilacina racentosa
Often
Solomon seal, few - flowered False, Sntilacina stellata
Sometimes
Spearmint, Afentha spicata
Sometimes
Stonecrop, yellow, Sedunt lanceolantnt
Rarely
Strawberry, Fragaria spp.
Often
-Sulphur - flower, Erigonunl umbellata
Rarely
Sunflower, common, Heliamhus anntts
Sometimes
Sunflower, low, Helianthtts pumilus
Often
Thyme
Sometimes- Rarely
Tulips
Often
Wallflower, western, Egsimunt asperunt
Sometimes
Yarrow, Achillea lanulosa
Sometimes- Rarelv
Yucca% Yucca glauca
Rarely
° Flowers are often eaten: The rest of the plant is rarely eaten.
deer and elk. Landscaping plants and the frequency with which they are browsed or grazed by
LIFEFORIM
Common Name, Scientific Nance Browsing Frequency
GRASSES
Bluegrass,-Canada, Poa compressa
Often
Bluegrass, Kentucky, Poa pratensis
Often
Bluestein, little, Schizachyrium scopariunt
Rarely
Buffalograss, Buchloe dacryloides
Rarely
Dropseed, sand, Sporobolus cryptandrus
Sometimes
Fescue, king spike, Leucopoa kingii
Sometimes
Grama, blue, Boureloua gracilis
Rarely
Grama, sideoats, Boutelotta curtipendula
Rarely
Junegrass, prairie, Koelaria cristard
Sometimes
Needle & thread, Stipa comata
Sometimes
Oatgrass, timber, Danthonia spicata
Sometimes
Saltgrass, inland, Dacrylis gloncerata
Sometimes
Squirreltail, Sitanion hystrzr
Sometimes
Timothy, Phleunt pratense
Sometimes
Wheatgrass, crested, Agropyron cristarunt
Sometimes
Wheatgrass, western, Agropyron smirhii
Sometimes