No preview available
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