The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1.27 ImpactAnalysis- WildlifeAssessmentepetterson@rmes-inc.com | www.rmes-inc.com po box 833 glenwood springs co 81602 | 970.309.4454 Balanced solutions to complex environmental issues. PENDO solutions ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES R OCKY E COLOG Prepared for: Carbondale Investments, LLC River Edge Colorado Wildife & Vegetation Assessment Report Garfield County, Colorado December 2010 App. K-2 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 2 Table of Contents 1 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Figure 1: Project Location .................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Figure 2: Aerial Photo of Property ................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Figure 3: Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 7 2 HABITAT CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Upland Habitats ................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Riparian Habitats ................................................................................................................................. 8 2.3 Figure 4: Vegetation Communities in Project Area ...................................................................... 10 2.4 Traffic .................................................................................................................................................. 11 2.4.1 Table 1: Current traffic levels on Highway 82 ............................................................ 11 2.4.2 Traffic and Big Game Species ....................................................................................... 12 2.5 General Use of Upland Habitats ..................................................................................................... 12 3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................13 3.1 Table 2: Land Use Impacts from Proposed Development ......................................................... 13 3.2 Interim Land Use and Long-Term Reclamation .......................................................................... 14 3.3 Figure 5: Proposed Development Plan .......................................................................................... 15 4 WILDLIFE IMPACT ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................16 4.1 Mule Deer ........................................................................................................................................... 16 4.2 GIS-based Impact Assessment Model ........................................................................................... 18 4.2.1 Figure 6: Modeled Indirect Impact Zones for Wildlife ............................................. 20 4.2.2 Figure 7: Mule Deer Winter Ranges ............................................................................. 23 4.3 Elk ........................................................................................................................................................ 24 4.3.1 Figure 8: DAU Boundaries ............................................................................................ 28 4.3.2 Graph 1: DAU E15 Total Elk Population Estimates ................................................ 29 4.3.3 Graph 2: Calf to Cow Ratio for DAU E15 from 1999 to 2008 ............................... 30 4.3.4 Graph 3: DAU E16 total elk population, 1998-2007 ................................................. 31 4.3.5 Graph 4: Calf:Cow Ratio for DAU E16, 1998-2007 ................................................. 32 4.3.6 Future Elk Populations ................................................................................................... 33 4.3.7 Highway Fencing and Cattle Creek Culvert ................................................................ 34 4.3.8 River Edge Colorado Impact Discussion .................................................................... 35 4.3.8.1 Impacts of the River Edge Colorado Project .....................................................35 4.3.9 Figure 9: NDIS Elk Winter Ranges .............................................................................. 38 4.4 Riparian Habitats ............................................................................................................................... 39 4.5 Great Blue Heron .............................................................................................................................. 39 4.5.1 Figure 10: Great Blue Heron Nesting Activities ......................................................... 46 4.6 Bald Eagle ........................................................................................................................................... 47 4.7 Lewis’s Woodpecker ......................................................................................................................... 47 5 RECOMMENDED WILDLIFE MITIGATIONS ..............................................................................50 5.1 Lighting & Game Use ....................................................................................................................... 50 5.2 Roads ................................................................................................................................................... 50 5.3 Trails .................................................................................................................................................... 50 5.4 Fences .................................................................................................................................................. 50 App. K-3 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 3 5.5 Landscaping and Revegetation ........................................................................................................ 51 5.6 Domestic Dogs .................................................................................................................................. 51 5.7 Domestic Cats .................................................................................................................................... 52 5.8 Bears .................................................................................................................................................... 52 5.9 Birds ..................................................................................................................................................... 52 5.10 Open Space Management ................................................................................................................. 53 6 VEGETATION & NOXIOUS WEEDS ...............................................................................................54 6.1 Upper Bench ...................................................................................................................................... 54 6.2 Lower Bench ...................................................................................................................................... 55 6.2.1 Figure 11: Noxious Weeds Map .................................................................................... 58 7 LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................................59 8 APPENDIX I: CDOW NDIS HABITAT DEFINITIONS ...............................................................66 9 APPENDIX II: QUALIFICATIONS OF REPORT AUTHOR .......................................................68 App. K-4 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 4 1 Summary This Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report has been prepared in support of an application for PUD Plan Review (Rezoning) and Subdivision Review (Preliminary Plan) for the proposed River Edge Colorado (Project) in accordance with the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land use Resolution of 2008 (ULUR), as amended. The analysis specifically addresses the requirements of Section 5-502.E.8.a and c of the ULUR. This report also provides recommended mitigation measures. The property to contain River Edge Colorado (REC) is owned by Carbondale Investments, LLC. The site is located on an alluvial bench adjacent to the Roaring Fork River (Figure 1). Historically, the site was likely dominated by basin sagebrush flats (Artemisia tridentata var. tridentata), with patches of mountain sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. pauciflora). During the past 80 years or so, this site was used as a cattle ranch, and the broad, flat terraces were irrigated pastureland. During the summer of 2005, the Bair Chase development began grading of the site for the development of a golf-course and residential community. Midway through grading, the project was terminated, which left the majority of the property with a cobbly surface. Topsoil was salvaged by this early grading process and stored in large piles on the property. A Conservation Easement exists adjacent to the property, and is held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy. Terms and conditions associated with this easement, as they related to wildlife and wildlife habitat are further disclosed and commented on in this document. Multiple site visits have occurred by the author, including on-site visits with Colorado Division of Wildlife staff. • The property is not within any CDOW mapped mule deer or elk winter ranges, however elk loafing and use of the property is significant during the winter months. • River Edge Colorado is utilizing recent research and peer-reviewed literature to develop its heronry protection measures. Nevertheless some impacts to heronry may still occur. River Edge Colorado is proposing a “no construction” buffer area around the heronry, coupled with berming and vegetative screening. Golden eagles have discovered this heronry and are actively preying upon heron chicks (in 2010). • River Edge Colorado is incorporating a number of “best management practices” to minimize impacts to other wildlife species. • River Edge Colorado has maintained a noxious weed treatment program for the past two years, and is proposing to restore large areas that have been infested with non-native plants and noxious weeds. App. K-5 107°10'0"W 107°10'0"W 107°15'0"W 107°15'0"W 107°20'0"W 107°20'0"W 107°25'0"W 107°25'0"W 39°35'0"N39°35'0"N39°30'0"N39°30'0"N39°25'0"N39°25'0"N39°20'0"N39°20'0"N133 82 82 §¨¦70 §¨¦70 Garfield County Pitkin County Garfield CountyPitkin CountyGlenwood Springs CarbondaleØ FIGURE 01 Project Location V 0361.5 Miles River Edge Colorado Interstate State Higway County Boundary Municipal BoundaryBLM Lands USFS Lands Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010 R OCKY M OUNTAIN E COLOGICAL S ERVICES,I NC.5 App. K-6 59705 980 5990 6 000 601 0 6020 5960 5950 603 0 6040 605 0 6060 594 0 6070 6080 6090 6110 6100 6120 61306140 59306150 616 0 617 0 6 1806190 6 200 621062206 2 6 0 6270623062406250628059 2 0 6200 6020 62106080 6140 602 0 6000 6 030 6020 60 40 6 190 6060 6040 6240 61 90 6020 59705950597059906000 60306000617 0 6020 601062 0 0 5 9 7 0 5950 5940 5960 6020 6110 6030 6150 603 0 612 0 605 0 6160 5970596 0 600061606 0406150 600 0 60306220 60106210 6 0 1 0 6100 594 0 59906020 6140 6030595060 4 0 6 150 6040 6010 5990 6 150 6030 6130 5990 60105990 6 0 1 0 6 150 5940 6180 599 0 616 0 6160 6190 6060 5950 6010 6020 597059906030 5950 6070 59806070 5990594059406 020 5990601061 7 0 59406000 6030 6090 5960 6150 6010 5960 6030 61406 130 6180107°15'30"W107°15'30"W107°15'45"W107°15'45"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'15"W107°16'15"W107°16'30"W107°16'30"W39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'45"N 39°27'45"N39°28'0"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010 Scale: 1" = 600' 0 600 1,200300 Feet VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 02 Existing Conditions 82 82 R o a r in g F o rk R iv erRiver Edge Colorado Property Other Property Contour - 10 Ft. Major 6ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,INC. App. K-7 107°15'30"W107°15'30"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'30"W107°16'30"W39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'30"N 39°28'0"N 39°28'0"N39°28'30"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 03 Project Site 82 82 River Edge Colorado Property Other Property Contour - 10 Ft. Major Ironbridge PUD Teller Springs PUD Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District Plant La Farge Sand & Gravel H Lazy F Mobile Home Community Frywald Subdivision Thunder River Market Elk Springs PUD River Edge Colorado BLM Lands BLM Lands BLM Lands Residential/Suburban Planned Unit Development Rural Commercial/General Commercial/Limited Public Land Scale: 1" = 1,000' Feet 0 1,000 2,000500 7ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,I NC. App. K-8 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 8 2 Habitat Conditions 2.1 Upland Habitats The majority of the River Edge Colorado (REC) property was graded for the previous Bair Chase project in 2005. During this process, topsoils on the property were salvaged and stored in large stockpiles on the property. These topsoil stockpiles are currently dominated with a variety of ruderal early seral plant species which are not noxious weeds in the eyes of the Colorado State Department of Agriculture, but are often considered “weedy”. Some of these species include white sweetclover (Melilotis alba), flixweed (Descurania sophia), and alfalfa (Medicago sativa). While REC began treating noxious weeds in 2007 some noxious weeds persist including kochia (Bassia sieversiana), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), cheatgrass (Anisantha tectorum), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), and scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium). REC has also began seeding topsoil stockpiles and graded areas with a temporary seed mix, consisting of native grasses and annual grasses to increase soil cover, reduce erosion, and help reclaim areas from weeds. The graded areas, bereft of topsoil, are essentially bare, and have very low aerial cover of plant species. Current vegetation cover on the graded areas is approximately 5 to 15%, with the densest vegetation being stands of cheatgrass and kochia. Moderate to large cobble-sized material dominate the surface soils stratum. During site reviews in 2008-2010, unknown grass species were emerging, which may be the temporary seed mix used by REC. 2.2 Riparian Habitats Riparian habitats along the Roaring Fork River and lower Cattle Creek are dominated by mixed deciduous overstories, with understories dominated by noxious weeds and non-native agricultural grasses. Overstories of narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) are further augmented by silver buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea), river birch (Betula fontinalis), alder (Alnus incana) hawthorne (Cratagus rivularis & C. saligna), boxelder (Acer negundo), Rocky Mountain juniper (Sabina osteosperma), and intermittent ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). Many of the cottonwoods along the steep banks above the Roaring Fork River were established from the flood irrigation practices on the upland hay meadows. Therefore many of the cottonwood trees in the area have become decadent, and are dying off due to the cessation of flood irrigation on the property in the past 10 years. Riparian understory vegetation is dominated by the aggressive and weedy reed canarygrass (Phalaroides arundinacea), and agricultural cultivars such as orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), smooth brome (Bromis inermis), timothy (Phleum pratense), and native shrubs such as skunkbrush (Rhus aromatica sbsp trilobata) and wild rose (Rosa woodsii). Noxious weeds include common tansy, field bindweed, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), scotch thistle, plumeless thistle, common mullein (Verbascum thapsis), and Russian olive trees(Elaeagnus angustifolia). Cattle Creek supports an aggressive canarygrass population along its entire App. K-9 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 9 reach on the property, which outcompetes most other native riparian plant species. The general conditions of the understory in riparian systems along lower Cattle Creek and along the Roaring Fork River are very poor due to high levels of disturbance resulting in noxious weeds and a prevalence of aggressive, agricultural grasses and canarygrass. However, the native component of the understory habitats along this section of the Roaring Fork River would potentially respond quite favorably to an aggressive noxious weed program. During wetland delineations in July of 2010, the Federally Threatened Ute ladies-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) was detected occurring in the inundation zone adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. Approximately 300 individual plants were observed flowering during surveys conducted in August and September of 2010. On-site visits with botanists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado Natural Areas Program and naturalists and staff from Roaring Fork Conservancy subsequently occurred, as well as on-site reviews with Regulatory Biologists with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to ensure the long-term persistence of this species within the Conservation Easement area. The REC property does not have any orchid populations, and otherwise potential habitats outside of the banks of the Roaring Fork River have already been compromised by non-native grasses and weeds which have persisted in the riparian areas. Water and wastewater pipelines may cross orchid-occupied habitats if water and wastewater service is provided by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District (RFWSD). If water and wastewater services are not provided by RFWSD then orchid habitats may be avoided. If water and wastewater services are provided by RFWSD then County review of potential impacts to orchids would occur as part of location and extent review (M. Sawyer 8140 Partners 12/6/2010). Further, a section 404 permit application (under the Clean Water Act) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will require section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Roaring Fork Conservancy Conservation Easement Approximately 54.4 acres adjacent to the Property are held in a Conservation Easement by the Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC) since 2000. The easement was granted by Sanders Ranch Holdings in February 2000 in order to protect, maintain and enhance the conservation values of the property including the heronry, Cattle Creek and inherent biological and ecological values. RFC receives $3,000 per month in “stewardship fees” from Carbondale Investments LLC. for stewardship, land management, and monitoring of the easement area, which since the easement was granted in February of 2000 has totaled approximately $387,000. Stewardship by RFC does not include noxious weed treatments, and is the responsibility of the land owner with coordination and approval from RFC. These fees were to be used for signage, habitat improvement projects, restoration and improvement of habitats, as well as annual monitoring. Since the property was placed into the Conservation Easement in 2000 annual monitoring has occurred on the property. RFC also guides once-a-year float trips down the Roaring Fork for the public for educational purposes. App. K-10 107°15'30"W107°15'30"W107°15'45"W107°15'45"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'15"W107°16'15"W107°16'30"W107°16'30"W39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'45"N 39°27'45"N39°28'0"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010 Scale: 1" = 600' 0 600 1,200300 Feet VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 04 Vegetation 82 82 R o a r in g F o rk R iv erRiver Edge Colorado Property Other Property Agricultural Grass Early Seral Forbs Grasses Native Grasses Wetland Grasses Sagebrush Shrublands Mixed Shrublands Riparian Shrubland Willows Oakbrush Cottonwood Mixed Cottonwood Riparian Forest Water Ditch 10ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,I NC. App. K-11 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 11 2.4 Traffic Traffic in Colorado is often the leading indirect impact to wildlife habitat and wildlife mortality. Highways are often located in areas of flat benches adjacent to river systems, which bisect upland habitats from riparian habitats. As riparian habitats often attract upland wildlife species, and in some cases congregate wildlife for significant periods of time, increased traffic levels on roadways can often form effective barriers to wildlife movement, and can then fragment habitats by dissuading wildlife from crossing roadways. For some species, the draw of traditional habitats or water can override the fear of traffic, and wildlife will often attempt to cross busy roadways, incurring mortality and thus negative impacts to population levels. Further, for species such as deer and elk, vehicle strikes can often cause significant financial impacts to commuters, through increased insurance rates, direct costs of repairing or “totaling” of vehicles, to costs of hospitalization, injury, and even death to drivers and passengers in vehicles. Elk that cross Highway 82 near the REC property will often wreck a vehicle if struck at or near the posted speed limit (which is posted at 50 to 65 miles per hour along the REC boundary). Forming the eastern boundary of the property is Highway 82. This highway is the main transportation corridor connecting the entire Roaring Fork Valley, servicing Glenwood Springs to Aspen and beyond over Independence Pass to the intersection with US Highway 24 near Twin Lakes, and to Highway 133 from Carbondale to Delta. As such, the highway carries commuter traffic, but also carries regional traffic, heavy equipment and truck traffic, construction traffic, and tourist traffic. Much of this traffic is generated during the morning and evening rush hours, coinciding with daily commuter traffic between bedroom communities in and west of Glenwood Springs, and work destinations is the Snowmass and Aspen areas. Holiday and weekend traffic spikes also occur, and are associated with major holidays given the tourist destination resorts of Aspen and Snowmass Village, and also the Crystal River Valley and the Basalt area. A moderate amount of the traffic that passes by the property is associated with larger regional transit patterns associated with I-70 to Highway 133 traffic, which accesses the Towns of Paonia and Delta and other areas. 2.4.1 Table 1: Current traffic levels on Highway 82 Environmental baseline (Year 2010) and Year 2020, at locations along U.S. Highway 82 between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale (junction with US-133). Traffic Monitoring Point Mile Marker Traffic Volume (CDOT Growth rate a) 2010 2020 Downtown Glenwood Springs .07 29,100 34,222 (1.32) Thunder River Marketplace 7.8 22,900 28,820 (1.47) West of Carbondale (Junction w/ US-133) 11.6 22,400 28,190 (1.47) East of Carbondale 13.5 17,700 23,541 (1.6) a 20-year factor. Source: CDOT website, October 2010. CDOT modeling indicates that by the Year 2020 (i.e., the likely period in which full build out has occurred and full occupation can be anticipated), baseline traffic adjacent to the project will reach approximately 29,000 vehicles per day (Average Annual Daily Traffic [AADT]) (CDOT 2010). App. K-12 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 12 2.4.2 Traffic and Big Game Species Research on traffic impacts to habitat connectivity and wildlife use patterns indicate that traffic levels of 4,000 to 5,000 vehicles per day (VPD) begin to have significant deterrents to wildlife crossings (Ruediger et al. 2000, Alexander et al. 2005, Gagnon et. al. 2007). Some of the other actions wildlife take when having to cross a road with 4,000-5,000 VPD includes animals avoiding highways altogether (not even trying to cross), failed attempts (animal tries to cross, but turns around due to traffic), injury in crossing (from vehicles strikes), or death. As Highway 82’s traffic is currently near 23,000 VPD, Highway 82 could already be considered a significant barrier to wildlife movement patterns. That said, it is locally common knowledge that elk herds coming down from the Missouri Heights area still cross Highway 82 during the winter and early spring months. Elk have extremely high winter range site fidelity, and are even known to cross Interstate 70 near Avon (with VPDs approaching 31,000) in an effort to access winter ranges. Unfortunately, this means that elk crossing Highway 82 at REC incur high mortality rates from vehicles strikes. It is not uncommon for over 20 animals to die along the REC area alone during one winter, with equal mortality numbers further south along Highway 82 near the Aspen Glen subdivision. Mule deer also have noticeable mortality along this section of highway as well. The exact numbers of deer or elk killed along Highway 82 at REC are unknown. The main reasons why so many animals are killed in this area is vehicle speed, the number of vehicles on the highway, and the time of day when elk try to cross. Interestingly, elk in this area generally attempt to cross Highway 82 during lower traffic periods (before and after daytime traffic spikes). This is a pattern also observed in other elk populations which need to cross busy freeways (Gagnon et. al. 2007). While elk using nighttime periods to cross the highway is when traffic is at its lowest, the visibility of drivers is limited. In 2009 CDOT, in cooperation with CDOW began constructing a game fence along the east and west sides of the highway in order to minimize elk/vehicle strikes. During the winter of 2009 there appeared to be less mortalities, but the elk fence was not complete at that time. The elk fence has been completed as of 2010. The fence also ties into the large culvert at Cattle Creek, which would allow for some elk (and other wildlife species) crossing underneath of SH 82. One-way escape ramps for wildlife have also been installed, which would allow for elk and deer trapped in the highway Right- of-Way (ROW) to exit. While the presence of the fences will definitely limit elks traditional movement to winter ranges in the lower valley, much less mortality to elk will benefit the herd. 2.5 General Use of Upland Habitats Wildlife use of the upland habitats is currently limited by vegetation and foraging abilities. The most commonly observed species on the property was the Wyoming ground squirrel (Spermophilus elegans), which has colonies near the railroad grade. The presence of this squirrel likely attracts incidental foraging by great-horned owls, red-tailed hawk, red fox, gray fox, and coyote; however predator use of the property is likely incidental, as predators would likely prefer to hunt and forage on surrounding higher quality habitats. Predators likely forage out from the REC property into area subdivisions, and native habitats along the Roaring Fork River corridor. Bird use in the uplands is limited to a few species that can utilize the existing habitat conditions. This is generally limited to mourning dove, meadowlark and mountain bluebird, however many other species may be observed within the uplands as they pass through the property to other more suitable habitats in the area. Bird use of riparian shrubland habitats is much more robust, with many different species utilizing the shrubby habitats. As the riparian areas and wetland complexes along Cattle Creek App. K-13 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 13 and the Roaring Fork River are dominated by noxious weeds and reed canarygrass, bird use of these areas is likely compromised. 3 Proposed Development This section provides information on the project, as provided by the developer and edited for this report. The River Edge Colorado Planned Unit Development is a proposal to create a “clustered” form of residential development with neighborhood amenities including natural open space, community recreation, parks, and neighborhood agriculture that is design to serve the residents and preserve natural areas and reference the rural character and agricultural roots of the Roaring Fork Valley. The proposed community will include approximately 365 residential units of various sizes and types including 55 affordable homes. Housing types will range from attached homes to small single family attached and detached garden homes, village homes, and larger estate homes. Lot sizes will vary from over 1 acre to 5,000 square feet for single family homes, and 3,500-6000 square feet of land area for each garden home. Over 80 percent of the units back to either proposed active parks or reclaimed open space. A soft trail system is used to connect open spaces and other common elements with the sidewalk network. The residential blocks in the community are small or bisected with soft trails and sidewalks to facilitate walking. Street trees and plantings are proposed to enhance the aesthetics of the street. The community is served with a variety of recreational facilities and a neighborhood center that could include meeting room(s), day care facility, fitness room, offices, kitchenette, restrooms, recreational facilities, and limited commercial use such as a deli/coffee shop. Parks will provide informal recreational opportunities within the community and include tot lots, playfields, and trail system. The west portion of the property is generally set aside as the naturalized area that buffers the existing conservation easement along the Roaring Fork River. The soft trails around the property allow residents to enjoy the river and wetland areas without entering the conservation easement area in conformance with the terms of the conservation easement. Approximately 78 ½ acres of the 159 acre site (49%) is in some form of open space, common area or park. 3.1 Table 2: Land Use Impacts from Proposed Development Land Use Acres Percent of Total Within Development Undeveloped Open Space 40.50 25.44% Common Areas 12.98 8.15% Park 17.08 10.73% Garden/Orchard 5.06 3.18% Neighborhood Center 2.30 1.44% Residential-Low Density 43.92 27.60% Residential-High Density 9.38 5.89% Right-of-Way (Circulation)25.50 16.02% Utility 2.43 1.52% Stormwater Ponds (included in areas above)3.75 2.35% Subtotal 159.16 100% Within RFC Conservation Easement Pond 1.5 Stormwater Channel 0.1 Subtotal 1.6 TOTAL 160.76 100% App. K-14 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 14 3.2 Interim Land Use and Long-Term Reclamation Open Space areas will be reclaimed using local native plant materials, initially focusing on grasses and some sagebrush recruitment and over time forb establishment will also occur. Please see the Reclamation Plan (RMES 2010) for more information on reclamation of Open Space areas. In areas to be developed into residential housing, developed parks, and community gardens there will be interim agricultural use of the land. This would involve the regarding of these areas to produce a level field, re-distribution of topsoil, and the subsequent planting of either grass hay or possibly alfalfa or even shrubs and trees to utilize this land for an undetermined period of time as development occurs on the site. These areas would obviously need to be irrigated during the growing season. As the phased development expands then these areas would then be subsequently developed. There may also be interim reclamation in some areas which are not suitable for agricultural production, but need to be reclaimed and stabilized. In the long term these areas will see future development or conversion into landscaped community common areas, community facilities and gardens or orchards. In general these interim reclamation areas are too steep or topographically challenged or isolated for suitable agricultural utilization. App. K-15 107°15'30"W107°15'30"W107°15'45"W107°15'45"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'15"W107°16'15"W107°16'30"W107°16'30"W39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'45"N 39°27'45"N39°28'0"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010 Scale: 1" = 600' 0 600 1,200300 Feet VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 05 Landuse 82 82 R o a r in g F o rk R iv erRiver Edge Colorado Property Other Property Undeveloped Open Space Common Area Park Garden/Orchard Neighborhood Center Residential - Low Density Residential - High Density Right-of-Way (Circulation) Stormwater Pond Utility Foot Trail Wastewater Treatment Line 15ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,I NC. App. K-16 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 16 4 Wildlife Impact Analysis 4.1 Mule Deer Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) occur throughout Colorado, and are relatively common in the west. Colorado’s subspecies (O. h. hemionus) is the largest subspecies. Males can weigh up to 440lbs., but the average size of males is closer to 155lbs. Does are fully grown at 2 years of age, but buck can continue to grow until they are 9 or 10 years of age. During the early 1900s populations of mule deer in Colorado were greatly depleted because of market hunting. The meat was used by newly arrived settlers, and was also shipped east. The advent of a conservation ethic and a Department of Fish and Game led to recovery of this species in the State. Although mule deer populations across the western US declined in the 1950s through the 1970s, mule deer populations in Colorado still increased. In the late 1990s through 2007, mule deer populations across the state have a downward population trend. This is partly due to chronic wasting disease and habitat loss generally in winter ranges. Mule deer occupy all ecosystems in Colorado from grasslands to alpine tundra, but they reach their greatest densities in shrublands on rough, broken terrain, which provides abundant browse and cover. Their wide distribution and general adaptability make for broad diets. However, deer are considered to be browsers (primarily eating shrubs and twigs), as opposed to grazers (who eat mostly grasses). In Colorado, the winter diets of mule deer consist of browse from a variety of trees and shrubs (74%) and forbs (15%). In the spring, browse contributes 49% of the diet, and forbs and grasses make up about 50%. Summer diets are about 50% browse, and forb consumption increases to 46%. Browse use increases in the fall to 60%, and forb consumption decreases to 30% (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Several studies in Colorado have indicated that diets containing 30% or more of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) or juniper (Sabina spp.) reduce rumen microbes and are therefore deleterious (Carpenter 1976, Nagy and Tengerdy 1967, Nagy et al. 1964, Alldredge et al. 1974) and therefore mule deer generally consume no more than about 1% of available sagebrush forage on western rangelands. When heavy snows bury grasses and forbs on such rangelands and force mule deer to consume high amounts of sage and juniper, mortality rates increase due to malnutrition. Mule deer seem to be able to survive without free water except in very arid environments. However, they do drink available water and also eat snow (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Mule deer are mostly nocturnal or crepuscular in the warmer months, becoming more diurnal during winter. Activity depends on local conditions including temperature, season, weather, and forage. Over much of Colorado deer are migratory, summering at higher elevations and moving down slope to winter range. In some areas of Colorado, migrations may be over 55 miles, but in most areas, migrations are closer to around 5 miles. The routes followed are often habitual, and deer show a certain amount of fidelity to these routes. Snow depths of 8 to 16 inches appear to trigger fall movements, and depths over 3 feet prevent use of an area (Loveless 1967). In some areas of northwestern Colorado, mule deer begin migrations before snow accumulation (Garrott et al. 1987, as cited in Fitzgerald et al. 1994). They suggest that better quality forage on winter range at that time of year triggers the movements. Throughout the winter, mule deer will move about winter ranges, depending on snowfall and snow melting events, but generally linger on more south facing slopes, where snow depths are shallowest. Spring and summer ranges are most typically mosaics of meadows, aspen woodlands, alpine tundra and Krummholz, or montane forest edges. Montane forests and pinyon-juniper woodlands with good shrubby understories are often favored winter ranges. Because of mule deer seasonal migratory movements, estimation of home ranges is somewhat difficult; however deer appear to be seasonally App. K-17 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 17 sedentary, staying within areas of 100 to 2,000 acres. In areas where the animals do not migrate significant distances, annual home ranges are 1,700 acres to 5,400 acres (Mackie et al. 1982). Migrating individuals show strong winter and summer range site fidelity. In Colorado, mule deer breed in November and December (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Females are in estrus for just a few hours, but will repeat estrous cycles every three to four weeks until bred. About 70% of breeding occurs in a 20-day span in some populations. The does monthly cycles can somewhat explain observations of fawning occurring from late May through late July in Colorado. Yearling females typically produce a single fawn, and older females in good condition produce twins. Fawns are precocial at birth, and typically weigh about 9 lbs. They can consume vegetation at two to three weeks of age but are not weaned until fall. Sex ratios at birth favor males slightly, but with increasing age, females commonly exceed males by ratios of 2:1, 5:1 or higher (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Does are solitary during fawning, but soon form groups of yearlings, does, and fawns when the young a few months old. Mortality in mule deer varies with age class and region. Fawn annual mortality varies from 27% in Utah to 67% in Colorado in one study (Anderson and Bowden 1977). Fawn mortality is due to predation and starvation. Larger fawns are more likely to survive, and smaller fawns are more likely to starve. However, predators will likely take any size of fawn. Winter mortality of fawns may approach 75% annually. Mortality of adult deer is mostly from hunting and starvation (Carpenter 1976). Predators include coyotes, bobcats, golden eagles, mountain lions, black bears, brown bears, and domestic dogs. Locally, coyote and mountain lion predation on fawns can account for significant mortality within populations. Mule deer may survive up to 20 years in the wild, but such longevity is very rare, and in most populations 28 to 43% of the population is replaced each year. About half of this mortality is from fawns, 15% is from does, and 35% is from bucks. Conditions at River Edge Colorado Property The property supports low-density year-round levels of mule deer use. There is currently a small herd of approximately 5 to 10 deer, which may swell slightly during the winter months. The REC property does not support mule deer winter range(s), as per CDOW’s Natural Diversity Information System (NDIS) (see Figure 3, and see Appendix I for definitions). However NDIS mapping depicts rough area boundaries of habitat use patterns, and on-site verification is recommended by CDOW. Based on verification of habitats, the REC property itself would not meet the definition of Winter Range, but habitats on adjacent properties near the Roaring Fork River, which contain shrubby vegetation, would likely meet criteria as Winter Range. Deer tend to stay in the riparian cottonwood forests and shrublands near the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek confluence areas on the adjacent properties conservation easement areas but they commonly venture into pasture areas on REC property during the nighttime hours. During the summer months, the abundance of water in the area would continue to keep deer on the property. Deer do utilize the flat terraces despite the lack of quality vegetation. Deer scat (and definitely elk scat) were common in upland habitats, but there is definitely more deer use closer to the RFC easement area along the Roaring Fork River where escape cover, browse, and water resources are at hand. Deer likely move into the upland areas (where the development is proposed) during the nighttime hours. The recent opening (2009) of the Rio Grande Trail has introduced bicyclists, runners and many dog walkers to the property. The recent presence of dogs on the property during the daylight hours has likely deterred deer use of areas within 100 meters of the trail (Freddy et al. 1996, Lenth et al. 2008, and see Sawyer et al. 2006 for winter range issues). Because of the open line-of-sight views of dogs App. K-18 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 18 on the trail (and off the trail in the case of off leash dogs), mule deer use of the upland habitats on the property have likely decreased in the past year, at least during the daylight hours. Research has indicated that in level terrain with large line-of-sight distances, wintering deer will increase their residency distance from disturbances by at least 0.5 km (Sawyer et al. 2006). Deer (and wildlife in general) were found to be significantly less likely to utilize habitats within 100m of recreational trails (Lenth et al. 2008, George and Crooks 2006, Knight and Cole 1995, Knight and Gutzwiller 1995, Miller et al. 200, Odell and Knight 2001). This is not to say that there is no deer use of existing upland areas on the REC property, or areas near the trail. Indeed there is good research on many parks and open space areas which indicate that while diurnal deer use will definitely decrease, nighttime activity by deer does still occur to some degree (George and Crooks 2006). Nevertheless, the current use of the Rio Grande Trail is likely having a negative impact on mule deer utilization of the property. Off leash dogs, while being a prohibited activity on the Rio Grande Trail, have commonly been observed on the property, and have been observed chasing elk on the property (pers. obs. 2009, R. Shepherd pers. comm. 2010). 4.2 GIS-based Impact Assessment Model A quantitatively determined area was modeled in GIS to approximate indirect1 impacts and loss of habitat effectiveness around the edges of the property for activities associated with the full build-out development of REC (see Figure 5). This is based on the premise that human activities, noise, fugitive light, and road noise would diminish the habitat effectiveness on the property. The impact area was delineated assuming that summertime vegetation screening (assuming full canopy on reclaimed deciduous vegetation) and topographical screening that would prevent deer, elk and nesting birds from seeing visual cues and hearing audible cues loud enough to elicit a behavioral response (e.g., fleeing, avoidance, to reductions in foraging or resting). We used the following buffer distances for the vegetation types found on and around the property: 1. Shorter native grasses and forbs, agricultural vegetation, interim reclamation: 400-foot buffer 2. Reclaimed and existing sagebrush shrublands: 300-feet 3. Oakbrush, mixed shrublands, riparian shrublands, etc.: 200-feet 4. Planted vegetation screening areas: 200-feet 5. Mixed riparian cottonwood and understory shrubs, riparian forests: 150-feet We mapped vegetation data for baseline mapping utilizing the 2009 high-resolution aerial photos. We then further delineated vegetation types on the property from site visits and aerial photography interpretation. We then utilized a GIS-based visual model using an observer eye-level of 4-feet (approximately the eye-height of a deer or elk), and modeled what an animal could see given topographical constraints coupled with vegetation within the development and on surrounding lands (e.g., Conservation Easement area). The furthest extent we chose for visual modeling was 400-feet, which is likely the maximum distance a deer or elk would be able to see given the long-term reclamation proposed in the project area, as well as the distance from which wildlife would elicit a behavioral response (i.e. flee, 1 Indirect Impacts: those effects of the proposed development which are reasonably certain, but would occur later in time or are spatially separated from the project. Examples of indirect impacts (effects) would include increased traffic, noise and activities from residents, fugitive lighting, etc. Direct Impacts: would include the impacts (and effects) associated with implementation of the proposed project. Direct impacts would include direct conversion or manipulation of habitats (including beneficial or detrimental changes) or direct impacts to a species, (including road and home building, occupancy of developed areas, reclamation of open space areas, use of soft path trails). App. K-19 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 19 change movement trajectories, cease eating, etc.) given their accustomization to human activities in the surrounding areas. For example, the presence of a ridgeline or other topographical feature may shorten the buffered distance, given that the animal could not see over a ridge, and areas with dense screening vegetation would also have shorter buffered areas, when compared to an area adjacent to a meadow with no tall vegetation or topographical features shielding the view of an animal. We also proceeded with the assumption that since there appears to be many migratory and residential wildlife species in the area even with the existing presence of the Rio Grande Trail, Highway 82, high summertime use of the Roaring Fork River and Conservation Easement area by boaters, angler and groups watching the herons, and nearby subdivisions, some wildlife species still were able to accept the conditions such that the remaining habitats in the area still provided enough security and foraging potential allowing them to continue to utilize the area. For example, if a migratory bird was so uncomfortable with the use recreational patterns on and adjacent to the Roaring Fork River and gravel pits, then it wouldn’t have stopped in its migration to set up a territory in the area, and would have found a quieter location. This modeled disturbance or indirect impact area shows that there would be indirect impacts from development across the majority of the property and on adjacent RFC managed areas (see Figure 5 below). Within this “indirect impact” area, we conservatively assumed that wildlife species would not linger for long periods of time, would have decreased foraging, and would generally avoid these areas during the daylight hours. The impact area also assumes that if wildlife species cannot see human activities and vehicle traffic, and human noises are muffled by vegetation and topography, wildlife would be more likely to utilize habitats closer to the development and trails compared to sites in more rural habitats. One additional assumption is that some wildlife species would be more sensitive to human activities (such as elk), and they would generally have a larger buffer distance, compared to a wildlife species more acclimated to human activities (such as magpie, or red fox). Therefore this existing impact area is “generalized” to cover most of the wildlife species one would expect to find in this area, based on existing habitat types and observed species. App. K-20 59705 980 5990 6 000 601 0 6020 5960 5950 603 0 6040 605 0 6060 594 0 6070 6080 6090 6110 6100 6120 61306140 59306150 616 0 617 0 6 1806190 6 200 621062206 2 6 0 6270623062406250628059 2 0 6200 6020 62106080 6140 602 0 6000 6 030 6020 60 40 6 190 6060 6040 6240 61 90 6020 59705950597059906000 60306000617 0 6020 601062 0 0 5 9 7 0 5950 5940 5960 6020 6110 6030 6150 603 0 612 0 605 0 6160 5970596 0 600061606 0406150 600 0 60306220 60106210 6 0 1 0 6100 594 0 59906020 6140 6030595060 4 0 6 150 6040 6010 5990 6 150 6030 6130 5990 60105990 6 0 1 0 6 150 5940 6180 599 0 616 0 6160 6190 6060 5950 6010 6020 597059906030 5950 6070 59806070 5990594059406 020 5990601061 7 0 59406000 6030 6090 5960 6150 6010 5960 6030 61406 130 6180107°15'30"W107°15'30"W107°15'45"W107°15'45"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'15"W107°16'15"W107°16'30"W107°16'30"W39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'45"N 39°27'45"N39°28'0"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010 Scale: 1" = 600' 0 600 1,200300 Feet VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 06 Indirect Habitat Impacts 82 82 R o a r in g F o rk R iv erRiver Edge Colorado Property Other Property Indirect Habitat Impacts from Core Development Area Indirect Habitat Impacts from Open Space Trail Ssytem Indirect Habitat Impacts from Stormwater Pond in Conservation Easement 20ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,I NC. App. K-21 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 21 Direct Effects- The development would not occur in highly suitable habitat for deer and most of the development would be placed on areas devoid of topsoil with very sparse vegetation. Effective mule deer habitat would not be directly impacted. With the reclamation of 40.3 acres of currently poor- quality habitats, some more effective mule deer habitat will be created around the edges of the development. As deer are more likely to continue to utilize the property during the non-winter months than elk are, deer use is expected to continue. Any potential fencing would generally limit areas where deer will persist, but during the nighttime deer may venture into more developed areas. Because access to the RFC conservation easement areas will be limited, deer would continue to use these areas. Access is limited throughout the conservation easement area, and access to the heronry area is forbidden during the nesting and fledging season. As long as access continues to be managed and generally limited, deer use of the conservation easement areas along the Roaring Fork River should continue (habitats along upper Cattle Creek are in very marginal conditions at this time). The interim land use (temporary grass mixes and agricultural production areas [e.g., alfalfa, grass hay]) will allow for improved deer grazing, albeit mostly during the nighttime hours nearer residences due to elevated, precluding human activities during the daylight hours. Indirect Effects-Deer would be able to continue to utilize the dense, shrubby cottonwood forests and riparian areas as security cover, and retention of these areas and avoidance of these areas by roads, homesites, trails and other uses would allow for deer to use the area after development. Dogs must be leashed in conservation easement areas. But despite dogs being leashed in these areas and in the development, deer would still likely flee people walking dogs around the edges of the subdivision and on soft trails, and it is inevitable that some leashed dogs will escape their owners and chase wildlife (K. Wright & J. Broderick, CDOW pers. comm. 2007). During the daytime hours, deer will find security and shelter in the conservation easement area, and given the noise and activity associated with a neighborhood, it is unlikely that deer would linger for long periods of time near homes, roads, and (during nice weather) foot paths. The placement of trails through reclaimed open space areas along the western side of the property will keep deer from fully utilizing reclaimed habitats during the daylight hours. It is highly likely that deer would venture nearer, and even within the subdivisions during the nighttime hours when human activities are generally indoors. Barking dogs and loose dogs will likely frighten off deer to some degree, and some dog/deer conflicts are possible. Placement of a dog park within the subdivision away from higher-quality habitats along the riparian corridors and conservation easement areas will help enable continued deer use around edges of the property and in adjacent conservation easement areas. It is my professional opinion is that dog parks, if located away from higher quality habitats, can help deter dog use of quality habitat areas, and would provide dogs and their owner’s suitable and appropriate areas to recreate away from deer habitats. Summary – Development of the REC property is designed to leave a buffer strip between high quality habitat off the property and the development to allow for continued deer use off the REC property. Although existing habitats on the property are in generally poor condition, the development of REC would nevertheless reduce some habitat availability. However, this would have negligible impacts on deer populations given the low carrying capacity of habitats on the REC property. There will also be some level of indirect effects from increased human activity adjacent to higher quality habitats within the conservation easement areas. The indirect impacts from new levels of human activity, noise, dogs, etc. may reduce deer carrying capacities within the greater REC and conservation easement areas, but this will be largely dependent upon REC and residents following the recommended mitigation measures (see section 5 Recommended Wildlife Mitigations). Cumulative indirect impacts to mule deer on conservation easement areas will also be dependent upon App. K-22 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 22 Roaring Fork Conservancy’s decision whether or not to allow new trail use or interpretive use of the constructed pond in the conservation easement area. Deer use of habitats within open space areas on REC and on adjacent conservation easement areas will likely continue and even possibly expand with habitat restoration and strict access control, but generally only at night. Deer would generally find cover in the thickest patches of shrubs, and venture forth into more open areas during the evening and nighttime hours. The planned soft path trail alignments will place high levels of summertime human activities very close to deer refugia on REC property and to adjacent refugia on conservation easement areas, which would expand the area of indirect impacts. As deer will have more intense human activities around them, there will be increased stress levels. If deer venture into residential areas, damage to landscaping is almost guaranteed. Given the current land conditions of the project area, and available habitat on the property and plans to improve habitat, this project would likely have negative impacts to individual deer from time to time, but would not have significant impacts to mule deer populations and no substantive change in deer carrying capacity on or around the property would be expected. App. K-23 107°15'0"W107°15'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°17'0"W107°17'0"W39°26'0"N 39°26'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°28'0"N 39°28'0"N39°29'0"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 07 Mule Deer Winter Range 82 82 River Edge Colorado Property Other Property Mule Deer Winter Concentration Mule Deer Severe Winter Range Mule Deer Winter Range R o a r i n g F or k RiverScale: 1" = 2,000' Feet 0 2,000 4,0001,000 River Edge Colorado 22ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,I NC. App. K-24 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 24 4.3 Elk Elk currently utilize the REC property as a winter loafing and winter concentration area. These elk often show up on the property in mid to late November, after migrating down from habitats east of the property on Red Mountain and Missouri Heights, and from habitats the west towards Sunlight Peak and Dry Park. Elk are currently utilizing various portions of the property throughout the winter, depending on snowfall and snowmelt events, and currently utilize other winter ranges adjacent to the property (such as Aspen Glen and Iron Bridge golf courses). Elk will often linger in the area into the early springtime to take advantage of the early green-up of forbs and grasses in March. Given the complexity of the elk issue, the following is a detailed analysis of elk ecology and utilization of habitats in the greater area, which presents the background information and biology needed to provide for a robust assessment of potential impacts. Elk Ecology In the southern Rocky Mountains, as elsewhere in North America, elk are often associated with edge (ecotone) habitats where forested and meadow/shrubland systems are intermingled. During much of the year, elk are typically found near edges where forests grow adjacent to parks, meadows, or alpine tundra (Skovlin 1982, Fitzgerald et al. 1994). During the summer months, elk may spend significant amounts of time feeding in open alpine environments above treeline. Use of alpine habitats is thought to be associated with the cooler temperatures, persistent snowbanks and free water, and breezy conditions which keep bothersome flying insects to a minimum (Adams 1982, Lyon and Ward 1982). Similarly, during the winter elk may concentrate in sagebrush expanses, pinyon and juniper woodlands, irrigated meadows and other open habitats which are significant distances from forested cover (Lyon and Ward 1982). While habitats used by elk vary considerably over the course of a year, elk tend to inhabit higher elevations during the summer months, and migrate to lower elevations and/or south facing slopes during the winter months. On winter ranges, elk form mixed herds of bulls, cows and calves (Fitzgerald et al. 1994), but in the more developed areas in Colorado bulls may avoid traditional winter ranges which are near roads, homes and other human developments (B. Andree, CDOW pers. comm. 2006, Dodd et al. 2007). Generally, elk feed at twilight and at night, but they readily forage and disperse through the daylight hours (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Elk are generalist feeders, but usually prefer to graze on grasses, grass-like plants and forbs during the non-winter months (Nelson and Leege 1982, Fitzgerald et al. 1984). The specific diet for elk in a particular locality is largely determined by the season and palatability of available forage plants (Nelson and Leege 1982). In Colorado, elk show a clear preference for grasses and grass-like plants (Hoover and Wills 1984). Browse species can also vary by site and palatability of available plants. Shrubs, deciduous trees, and sometimes conifers compose much of the winter diet when snow depth limits access to grasses, sedges and forbs (Nelson and Leege 1982). Elk can locally utilize aspen shoots as well, and can have locally significant impact on aspen development. On Colorado winter ranges, Gambel’s oak (Quercus gambelii), aspen (Populus tremuloides), serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.), sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), and snowberry (Symphorocarpos spp.) are the major browse species used by elk (Hoover and Wills 1984). Locally heavy elk feeding on aspen bark during the winter and spring can be very significant, and can leave long-lasting impacts on aspens stands. In Colorado, the breeding season for elk begins in early September, peaks during the last week of September and the first week of October, and is over by late October (Boyd and Ryland 1971, Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Mature bulls compete for females and father harems of adult cows and calves. Most of the breeding is done by bulls three years of age or older (Freddy et al. 1986). Other bulls App. K-25 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 25 continually attempt to usurp cows in the harem, and as a result of this constant activity of protecting the harem, herd bulls loose considerable weight during this time of the year. Harem size typically ranges between 15 and 20 cows (Boyd 1978, Thomas and Towell 1982). There is no breeding activity by elk on the REC property. Elk have a 240-255 day gestation period and most calves are born in late May or early June, with the peak of calving from June 4-6 (Freddy 1987). Yearling cows can breed in Colorado, but less than 1/3 of them are successful at producing offspring that survive into the fall, compared to about ¾ of adult cows (Freddy 1987). Calving grounds are carefully selected by the cows and are generally in locations where cover, forage, and water are in close proximity (Seidel 1977). Calving sites occur in the middle to upper portions of summer range and often occur in the same general area each year. Although selected sites are used for a brief period in the spring there are some key characteristics required for optimum reproductive success. Sites must provide security from harassment and be within or adjacent to high-quality summer range. They can occur in any forest type on gentle slopes, given that cover, food and water are nearby. The aspen habitat association is often regarded as the most productive type for elk reproduction in Colorado, however, in areas with a paucity of widespread aspen stands; use of Krummholz stand types can be significantly utilized. Cows with calves isolate themselves from the herd for two to three weeks or until the calves are large enough to travel. Cows and calves then begin to gather into larger nursery groups. By mid-July, herds of several hundred animals are common on some summer ranges. There is no calving activity on the River Edge Colorado property, nor in the conservation easement areas. Most elk mortality is due to predation on calves, hunting and winter starvation (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Localized mortality from vehicle strikes may also produce noticeable impacts on herds (Gagnon et al. 2007). A concern for both State (CDOW) and Federal (US Forest Service) biologists is the lack of elk security habitat in summer ranges, primarily where high road densities have led to changes in elk distribution and/or herd composition (Andree pers. comm. 2006-2007, Giezentanner 2004). Elk commonly retreat to secure areas, defined as areas of cover away from roads, during periods of stress (Hillis et al, 1991). Stress on elk often begins prior to summer archery hunting seasons and continues through fall hunting seasons, though general dispersed recreation may also cause stress (DeVergie 1989, Morrison 1992, Phillips 1998, Phillips and Alldredge 2000, D. Freddy, as cited in Giezentanner 2004). This can cause a shift in elk use away from National Forests and other public lands, where high road densities may occur, to private lands where access is controlled. Elk studies have consistently demonstrated that they avoid roads (Lyon 1979, 1983, Thomas et al. 1979, Christensen et al. 1993, Rowland et al. 2000, and Lyon and Jensen 1980). The amount of vehicular travel on roads appears to be the key factor that causes avoidance. A study by Lyon (1983) demonstrated that elk habitat effectiveness decreases by approximately 25% with a density of one mile of road per square mile of land, and by at least 50% with a density of 2 miles of road per square mile. The same research concluded that the best method of maximizing elk habitat effectiveness is by closing and obliterating roads. Recent research by Gagnon (et al. 2007) has indicated that consistent road traffic in repeatable patterns throughout the day allows some herds to become accustomed to higher levels of traffic. They further conclude that low-level use of roads, as is common on smaller dirt roads and rural roads, is too erratic and unpredictable to allow for elk habituation and accustomization. App. K-26 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 26 Along the I-70 corridor from Gypsum east to Eagle-Vail and from New Castle west to Parachute and DeBeque, and along the Roaring Fork Valley, development of winter range occurred during the late 1990s and early 2000s at a very high rate. Near the Towns of Silt, Rifle and Parachute, development comes in the form of natural gas exploration and extraction, which includes new roads, pipelines, well pads and other infrastructure (laydown yards, compressor stations, etc.). The oil and gas boom also had a temporary increase in the demand for housing in these areas. In the Vail and Roaring Fork Valleys, development in winter range occurs mostly as residential development. Some development of commercial space and golf courses also occurs in these areas. The increase of residential traffic around subdivisions and county roads further fragments and reduces the viability of remaining winter ranges. Human activities around homes and pet dogs can indirectly reduce remaining habitat effectiveness around homesites and within subdivisions. The result of this development is that elk are finding winter range a significant limitation to long-term herd health, and elk are being forced onto smaller areas of winter range, where overgrazing or damage to agricultural fields can occur. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) manages elk populations capable of supporting both significant harvests and opportunities for nonconsumptive uses (Freddy 1993). Elk license sales account for a large percentage of all license revenue, indicating the importance of elk herd management and population viability in the state. Indeed, unique to CDOW is the fact that their budget does not come from any type of State tax revenues, but is supported primarily through license fees. The shift of elk use from public to private lands during and following hunting seasons constrains efforts to achieve desired hunter harvest. Constraints on harvests limit CDOW’s abilities to meet harvest objectives. Although Colorado elk populations were at all time high levels in the early 2000s, the issue of diminishing winter ranges as a result of increasing land development (Freddy et al. 1993) spurred CDOW to begin reduction of herd sizes to be compatible with the amount of remaining winter range. This was done in order to maintain healthy animals with good calf:cow ratios and to minimize overgrazing of winter ranges and overpopulation stress to elk. Even non-consumptive recreational activities may be detrimental to elk, causing animals to alter behavior patterns, expend energy to avoid humans, and possibly to abandon preferred habitats (Knight and Cole 1995, Morrison 1992, Phillips and Alldredge 2000). Good calf:cow ratios are considered to be around 1:2, ratios less than this can be indicative of stressed populations. While there is no calving on River Edge Colorado property, elk may linger late into the spring months when cows are nearing the latter stages of their gestation period. Population Trend and Abundance for Elk Elk were nearly exterminated in Colorado in the late 1800’s due to market hunting pressures and subsidence hunting from Colorado’s mining communities (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Overexploitation reduced the native population in the State to as few as 500 individuals. The re-establishment of elk, where current herd numbers are believed to be larger in Colorado than any other state, is one of the noteworthy wildlife conservation achievements. Regarding elk abundance, the Colorado Natural Diversity Information Source website (Species Occurrence and Abundance- 2008), identifies Rocky Mountain elk abundance as “abundant” in areas around River Edge Colorado. A classification of “abundant” for mammals denotes “observed daily; >100/day in appropriate season and habitat, OR the dominant species (in terms of number) collected by standard techniques in appropriate season and habitat.” App. K-27 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 27 While elk are habitat generalists, their populations do respond to climate-induced factors (e.g., forage availability and quality). Hunter harvest also has a strong influence on populations. Where elk populations remain high or exceed objectives, this can often be attributed to a failure in providing secure habitat on public lands where hunter harvest can be used to maintain populations within objectives. Hunter harvest on private lands is typically more limited, as either access fees or landowner preferences restrict the number of hunters and the gender of elk harvested. Region-wide, most elk populations are at or above herd management objectives, which are established within an estimated carrying capacity and balanced with hunter demand and other resource objectives. Though data in this objective -setting process is typically limited and many assumptions are made, CDOW is in a constant process of checking and improving their modeling efforts. Tracking the calf:cow ratio provides information about the overall health of the elk population. Overall body condition for cow elk relates directly to the reproductive potential of the population (D. Freddy, as cited in Giezentanner 2004). As stress increases, overall health and resulting body condition decreases for cows resulting in a lowering of calf production and/or survival. As security habitat conditions increase, cow body condition will also increase resulting in increased calf survival and a higher calf:cow ratio for the population. Conversely, when habitat security conditions decrease, cow body condition decreases with a resultant reduction in calf production and survival. The CDOW estimates elk herd numbers annually by monitoring hunter kill success and by conducting winter aerial counts. From the monitoring conducted by CDOW, and the herd size estimates subsequently derived, it is clear that elk populations are at high numbers locally and throughout Colorado. Data Analysis Units (DAUs) are used to manage herds of big game animals, are generally geographically discrete, and, for the most part, contain discrete big game populations. DAUs are designed to support and accomplish the objective of the CDOW’s Long Range Plan and meet the public’s objectives for big game. River Edge Colorado lies technically within DAU E16, but the Roaring Fork River forms the boundary with DAU E15 and animals have been observed crossing the River in either direction (Figure 7). Therefore, the following section details both DAU E16 and E15 elk population trends given the cross-DAU herd movement. This background information provides baseline conditions for an impact analysis of the River Edge Colorado project. The following DAU information was generously provided by CDOW Wildlife Biologist Julie Mao. App. K-28 107°14'0"W107°14'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°18'0"W107°18'0"W39°24'0"N39°26'0"N 39°26'0"N 39°28'0"N 39°28'0"N 39°30'0"N 39°30'0"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 08 Elk Data Analysis Unit 82 82 River Edge Colorado Property Municipal Boundary Elk Data Analysis Unit Scale: 1" = 4,000' Feet 0 4,000 8,0002,000 Glenwood Springs Carbondale Elk DAU E-16 Elk DAU E-15 28ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,I NC. App. K-29 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 29 DAU E15 DAU E15 is a small DAU of 850 square miles, with 626 square miles (74%) on the White River National Forest alone. Approximately 39% of this DAU is in designated Wilderness. No communities are found within the interior of the DAU, but it is bordered on its east by the towns of Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, and Aspen and the Roaring Fork River. Only 20% of the winter range for this herd is found on NFS lands, another 28% is on BLM and the majority (52%) is on private land. The total population of elk within this DAU has increased from a low of about 800 animals in the early 1950s to a high of over 8,000 in 1998 and 1999 (Giezentanner 2008). The current estimate of 4,246 is above the herd objective set by DOW in the 1988 DAU plan of 3,300. It has decreased from its 10-year high of 8,205 in 1998. CDOW has used more liberal antlerless seasons in managing this herd to reduce the population towards the population objective in the DAU plan. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008PopulationElk Population for DAU E-15 4.3.2 Graph 1: DAU E15 Total Elk Population Estimates App. K-30 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 30 The calf to cow ratio in this DAU follows a similar trend as several of the other DAUs the central Colorado Mountains. It was above 50 calves for each 100 cows until 1992 when it began to decline. The 10 year average is currently around 42 calves per 100 cows which often is indicative of a stressed population, but the last 5 years average is 36 calves per 100 cows, which can be concerning. The long- term drought, increasing recreation use of public lands and the rapid development of private lands all are possible factors in the decline. The private lands within this DAU are extremely valuable and continue to be developed into private home sites at an amazing rate. This development is often in winter range. 4.3.3 Graph 2: Calf to Cow Ratio for DAU E15 from 1999 to 2008 Summary- The population has declined from 7,858 in 1998 to an estimate of 4,246 in 2008. This is a decline of 39%. CDOW has been actively managing this herd to reduce the population to the population objective of 3,300 animals. The current population is much closer to the management parameters established by the CDOW. Although the population decline may appear to be a concern, it is not as it is still above management parameters established by CDOW, and a lower population level will be better for the elk and elk habitat. However, the calf:cow ratio is low, has declined over the past 5 years, and is a concern to CDOW biologists. This decline may have started during droughts in the early 200s, but has persisted likely due to increasing heavy recreation use of public lands in the DAU where calving activities occur. As shown in Colorado studies, both motorized and non-motorized recreational activities on calving range can have deleterious impacts to calf success, and increased use of existing trails, and continued construction of new trails is only further introducing new impacts to elk habitats. It is possible that at least some of this decline is a result of stress response of the population being over the DAU population objective for the herd. This stress comes from too many elk on not enough habitat. There have been no significant increases in the number of open roads on public lands over this time period, but new trails through elk winter ranges and transitional ranges has occurred along the Crystal River, and Roaring Fork Rivers in the past few years (including the Rio Grande and Crystal River Trails), and all open roads and trails continue to experience increasing use by recreationists during the summer and fall. Winter recreation in the form of snowmobile use is dramatically increasing, but by the time snowmobile use begins in the high-country, elk have moved to lower elevations. The Rio Grande Trail in particular bisects the River Edge Colorado property, and keeping this trial open during the winter 20 30 40 50 60 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Calf:Cow Ratio App. K-31 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 31 months places trail users and their dogs into the middle of important elk loafing and winter ranges in the greater project area. The continued development of winter ranges on private lands into private home sites is likely causing increased stress on the population and may contribute to reduced calf production and survival. Elk herds in the lower Roaring Fork valley are often wintering on golf courses, and herds have to move through subdivisions and recreational features such as the Rio Grande Trail where harassment and stress is common. Some animals may have to cross Highway 82, which increases stress and mortality. All of these factors likely play a part in the downward trend in reproductive fitness of this herd. Data Analysis Unit E16 DAU E16 covers approximately 1,377 square miles of which 1,043 (76%) is on the White River National Forest. It forms a rough triangle from Glenwood Springs to Aspen and to Vail, which all lay on the boundary of the DAU. No major towns are found within the interior of the DAU, but several small communities, such as Thomasville and Meredith do exist within its boundaries. The private lands on the north and west portions of the DAU were heavily developed as private home sites and commercial properties in the 1990s and early 2000s. The Hunter-Frying Pan and the Holy Cross designated Wildernesses are found inside this DAU. Approximately 40% of the winter range for this herd is on private lands, with 60% on public lands (primarily White River National Forest and Bureau of Land Management lands). The total population of this herd has mirrored many of the other herds in Colorado. It increased from a low of approximately 1,750 animals in the early 1950s to a high of nearly 9,500 animals in 1999. The CDOW has been actively managing this herd through liberal hunting seasons targeting the antlerless segment of the population. The goal has been to decrease the herd to within the population objective of 6,000 post-hunting season animals (Broderick, pers. comm. 2007). The current population estimate was 7,200 in 2009 (Graph 3). 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Elk Population 4.3.4 Graph 3: DAU E16 total elk population, 1998-2007 App. K-32 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 32 Over the past 10 years, the calf to cow ratio for this population has mirrored most of the other populations in the central Colorado Mountains. It remained fairly stable until 2001 when it began a downward trend (Graph 4). It has remained in the low calf ratio of 41 calves per 100 cows since 2003. This low level of calf recruitment is normally indicative of a stressed population. The heavy hunting pressure of the past few years has resulted in a reduced overall population and it would be expected that there would be a corresponding increase in calf production from this reduced population. The relatively low number of calves surviving to post-hunting season coupled with the downward trend may indicate a problem in the reproductive capabilities or winter range conditions available to this herd. The western portion of the state of Colorado suffered through a prolonged drought in the early 2000s, and this drought reduced forage production and nutrition and may have been one factor in the reduced calf production and survival earlier this decade. 20 30 40 50 60 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Calf:Cow Ratio 4.3.5 Graph 4: Calf:Cow Ratio for DAU E16, 1998-2007 Summary- The population has declined from approximately 9,500 in 1998 to an estimate of 6,259 in 2006. This is a decline of 34%. The CDOW has been actively managing this herd to reduce the population to within the population objective of 6,000 animals. The population objective has not been reached this point, but management has significantly reduced the herd as a result of impacts to winter range. There are no current concerns about the overall population number or overall trend for this herd (Giezentanner 2004, 2008). However, loss of winter range carrying capacity is a significant concern (Andree, pers. comm. 2006 & 2007, P. Will, pers. comm. 2008). The persistently low calf:cow ratio continues to be a concern for CDOW Biologists. A large portion of the summer range in the DAU is public land, much of it in designated Wilderness, and relatively protected from intense disturbances, however it is subject to heavy and increasing recreation uses. The overall mileage of open system roads and trails on the WRNF has not increased significantly over the past 10 years, but the use of the existing system has definitely increased. The private land portions of the winter range throughout the DAU was significantly developed into private home sites and other developments in the 1990s and early 2000s (B. Andree pers. comm. 2005-2007, K. Wood CDOW pers. comm. 2007, J. Groves pers. comm. 2007, and see Petterson 2006a & b, 2007b & c). The eastern portions of this DAU have a large component of lodgepole pine and have seen large areas impacted by the mountain pine beetle outbreak. The pine beetle outbreak and subsequent death of mature lodgepole pine would actually improve foraging conditions for elk. The cumulative impacts of the drought and the App. K-33 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 33 residential developments and recreational activities may be resulting in reduced reproduction capability and lower over-winter survivorship of calves. 4.3.6 Future Elk Populations During the next 20 years, the following factors are the likely regulators of elk herd numbers in central Colorado: large scale alterations of forest habitats by bark beetles, loss of transitional and winter range habitats (through residential/recreational and oil & gas development), sport hunting, chronic wasting disease, and possible wolf (Canis lupus) predation. These are factors which are deemed likely based on professional judgment, but are admittedly speculatory. These factors could act independently, or mutually, in determining elk herd demographics, numbers, and fitness in the near future. The first of these factors, large scale habitat alteration, is both imminent and ongoing in much of the lodgepole pine stands in DAU E16, and the high country. With regard to elk summer range, changes that are likely to occur in lodgepole pine systems are fairly well understood and straight forward in relation to the likely post- MPB forest stand conditions and subsequent elk habitat conditions. With MPB mortality, understory grass and forb production will increase, and forest patchiness will also increase. Stand treatment actions aimed at preventing or reducing MPB impacts could also influence forage and cover, or even exacerbate the natural progression of MPB infestations. Yet elk are adaptive animals and they can coexist successfully with considerable environmental change (Lyon and Ward 1982), as long as essential habitat needs are provided. Both the quantity and quality of forage are likely to increase in the lodgepole pine forests of DAU E16 in the aftermath of a MPB epidemic. Increased forage production is due to the inverse relationship between the density of overstory canopy cover and understory grass and forb production (Yeager and Riordan 1953, McConnell and Smith 1971). By reducing the density of overhead vegetation, grasses and forbs desired by elk become more readily available. As part of the natural progression of stand mortality caused by bark beetle infestation, overstory canopy closure would decline (substantially in many places). Snag decadence and coarse woody debris would slowly increase while decay of needles, twigs and boles would cease the production of allelopathic chemicals, which currently retard grass and forb growth. In some areas, blowdown of dead lodgepole trees will create barriers to elk movement, and in most cases impose difficulties to elk movement, but this blowdown would likely also increase the difficulties hunters/recreationists have in accessing elk, and this could likely increase elk security habitat. The increase in foraging opportunities in lodgepole pine forests in DAU E16 may keep elk lingering longer in these areas during the spring, summer and fall months. In contrast to the increase in summer range foraging opportunities, and increased security habitat due to MPB generation of coarse woody debris, the loss of winter range habitats in DAUs E15 & E16 and across the lower elevations on private lands and lower elevations on Forest lands (mainly through residential development and oil & gas extraction on private and public lands) will have direct and indirect negative impacts to elk populations. In west-central Colorado, winter range is the limiting habitat for elk. This is due to the large elk herd sizes and the diminishing lower elevation ranges available for wintering elk. This change is due to the conversion of open sagebrush parks, agricultural meadows and lower elevation shrublands to housing developments, golf courses, and other more urban landscapes. Additionally, oil & gas development on the western end of the DAU E15 (and more so in DAU E14) and lower elevation BLM and private lands also produced a loss of winter range through both habitat fragmentation, and direct habitat loss (from roads and drill pads). Both the development of residential and recreational facilities and development of oil and gas resources also has indirect impacts to habitat through increases in traffic and road networks. Increased road densities are directly linked to decreased calf:cow ratios, bull ratios, and hunter success (Freddy as cited in Giezentanner 2004). Within DAU E15 & E16, there was significant development of winter range App. K-34 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 34 habitats in the Eagle Valley that occurred near the towns of Vail, Eagle-Vail, Avon, Edwards, Wolcott, Eagle, and Gypsum in the past 10+ years. In the future, likely impacts to winter ranges around Minturn are also anticipated from the Battle Mountain Resort project (Petterson 2007b, B. Andree CDOW pers. comm. 2007, Thompson et al. 2010 (in progress)). In the Roaring Fork Valley, loss of winter range has occurred near Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, Aspen, Snowmass Village and Basalt from various developments on private land, and may be expected to increase in the near future (Petterson 2006a, b, 2007c, Wood pers. comm. 2006 & 2007). Because of this net loss in winter range, habitat degradation from overgrazing by elk on remaining winter range habitats has increased, and potential concerns regarding overgrazing and over stocking of elk on remaining winter ranges continue (B. Andree, K. Wood, J. Groves and J. Broderick, CDOW, pers. comm. 2005-2009). The recent construction and use of trails through winter ranges is introducing hikers, dog walkers and bicycling activities through very important elk winter ranges, and despite the perceived “low-impact” activities associated with recreational trail use (as no motor is used), elk still show a very strong negative response to these non-motorized recreational activities. Indeed, the newly opened Rio Grande Trail could be producing some of the largest singular impacts to elk’s ability to utilize winter ranges in the Roaring Fork Valley. Further, due to increased traffic on local roads, elk mortality from vehicles strikes is increasing, and is prompting discussion for more mitigation measures (Andree pers. comm. 2005-2006, Clevenger et al 2001, Farrell et al. 2002, Dodd et al. 2006, Dodd et al. 2007). In the foreseeable future, elk populations within DAU E15 & E16 will likely decrease, primarily from more winter ranges becoming unavailable to elk and concerns over the decreasing calf:cow ratios, and subsequent management-induced reductions in herd sizes. Within the foreseeable future, summertime motorized and non-motorized activities will likely increase, putting additional stressors on calving elk. 4.3.7 Highway Fencing and Cattle Creek Culvert In 2009 and 2010 CDOT and CDOW installed an elk fence along both the west and east sides of SH- 82 in order to reduce vehicle-elk collisions. While some elk will still cross SH-82, the fencing has significantly reduced the connectivity though this area and has reduced the “back-and-forth” movements across the highway. One option for elk migration is to use the culvert conveying Cattle Creek underneath Highway 82. This culvert is very large- approximately 12 feet high, and 16 feet wide, and has a gravel substrate. Waters flowing through the culvert (surprisingly) do not freeze-over during the winter months; therefore a suitable substrate exists through the culvert allowing for animal passage. This culvert is large enough to allow for elk passage. However, due to the length of the culvert (over 120 feet long), elk may be very hesitant to pass through the culvert. Research shows that fencing is definitely necessary to “force” elk to utilize underpasses and large culverts. In 2009 when the elk fence along SH 82 was installed, the fence was tied into the culvert to “force” elk to utilize the culvert. While conditions on the east side of the highway at the culvert mouth are not suitable for elk residency, this passageway across SH- App. K-35 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 35 82 is the best option for elk movement at this time. 4.3.8 River Edge Colorado Impact Discussion In the greater Roaring Fork Valley the lack of available winter range, or more accurately, the conversion of winter range into residential development and golf courses and preclusions of otherwise available habitats by use of recreational trails has increased stress levels on wintering elk that is realized through low calf:cow ratios and lower post-winter weights of elk. Because of the decreasing winter range and availability of remaining winter range, the remaining habitats are supporting more elk than they can sustainably handle. With new development and trails, more elk are being forced to utilize smaller winter ranges or on sub-optimal areas (such as golf-courses). The impacts to elk winter range occurred in the Roaring Fork Valley as they did across many areas in the state. Development of individual lots in Missouri Heights and larger developments at Aspen Glen, Iron Bridge, Horse Springs, and River Valley Ranch has forced more elk onto the remaining winter ranges. The proposed developments at Pinyon Mesa (immediately east of REC), Spring Valley Ranch in Missouri Heights (550 units & 2 golf courses), Hunt Ranch in Missouri Heights (95 units), and potential development of the Bershenyi Ranch will continue to reduce available winter range. The River Edge property only supports marginal foraging opportunities due to the scraping off of topsoil by the Sanders Ranch development. However, over the past 5 years, early seral and weedy species have slowly become established on the site, providing a bit more grazing opportunities every year. During the past few winters, when the property provided only very marginal grazing opportunities, many of the elk likely moved to other winter ranges in the area for feeding (including the conservation easement area, West Bank, Horse Springs, Aspen Glen, and Iron Bridge areas). But surprisingly high numbers of elk persisted on the property through the winter, likely utilizing the property as a loafing area during the daytime hours, or when snows covered foraging opportunities on other properties. Because of the lack of human activities on the REC property, elk may have simply used the REC property for loafing in between foraging bouts on other neighboring properties where the foraging was better, but human disturbances and stressors were higher. Elk can show high site fidelity, which means they are very attached to a site regardless of changes in habitat conditions. Elk will, however, change winter ranges and leave an area if human activities and associated disturbances (including traffic and domestic dog activities) are high enough. The opening of the Rio Grande Trail for winter use during 2009 introduced daily walkers, dog walkers, and sometimes bicyclists and cross country skiers through the middle of this property while elk were still using the area for loafing and winter range. The opening of the Rio Grande Trail combined with the construction of the elk fence along SH-82 has noticeably reduced the number of elk observed wintering on the REC property during the winter of 2009-2010. While many elk were displaced, elk use of the property still occurs, but is much more abbreviated and temperamental. 4.3.8.1 Impacts of the River Edge Colorado Project With the development of REC property, any wintering elk will likely avoid the phase being actively developed on the property during construction. As elk are not on the property from April through November, activities during this time would have no impact on elk. The large amounts of construction activity, heavy equipment, and human activity will likely preclude all but incidental elk use. Elk will likely still show up at the property in November as they have done for years, but winter time construction activities would quickly force elk to use other adjacent winter range areas. These areas will likely end up being Aspen Glen, Horse Springs, Iron Bridge, other private lands and lands managed by the BLM. This is not to say that some elk would still likely linger on the site, and even be App. K-36 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 36 seen close to construction activities, but it’s reasonable to assume that elk would avoid heavy construction activities. Also of consideration is the new Rio Grande Trail and elk fence along the highway. With the opening of the trail and fence, elk use of the property was down in the 2009-2010 winter season due to poor habitat connectivity and elk avoiding areas near the year-round Rio Grande Trail. How much elk use there is of the Cattle Creek culvert has been a topic of discussion. Various reports discuss elk use of underpasses (Clevenger and Waltho 2000, 2005; Dodd et. al. 2005, 2006, 2007; and see Cramer 2007 for literature review), and reports do support the need of fencing to “force” elk to use a culvert or underpass. While the Cattle Creek culvert is not ideal for facilitating elk movement, it is likely that the fencing to the culvert and limiting elk options to cross over Highway 82 is the most reasonable alternative for the situation. If human activity on the property and on adjacent properties in conservation easements (i.e., undeveloped open space areas2) is restricted during the winter months, then elk may continue to utilize these available habitats. Habitat conditions within the areas along lower Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River are not the same as within the REC property, but if elk feel safe in these open space areas, and have learned that human disturbances do not occur in these areas, then elk may end up continuing to use the habitats. However, it is also possible that elk may end up altogether not using open space areas for loafing, and may indeed continue through REC to other traditional winter range areas, including area golf courses. If human activities, even if incidental or infrequent, occur during the winter months in the RFC and REC open space areas, then elk would likely abandon using these areas and therefore most of the REC property would not be used by elk. This would be especially pertinent around the soft-surface trails on the western side of the development- keeping these trails closed from December 1 through March 31 (or until the elk leave the area in the spring) will definitely help with maintaining potential utilization of otherwise available habitats. The Rio Grande Trail will effectively keep elk from using the eastern side of the property, aside from some incidental nighttime use of reclaimed areas and adjacent properties. Because the 160 acres or so of loafing and (marginal) winter ranges on the River Edge Colorado property will no longer be available for elk use, more elk will end up having to either utilize uplands outside of the valley floor, or will have to increase their densities on remaining winter ranges. Elk being forced to utilize smaller patches of available winter ranges will increase nutritional stress for the elk (through intraspecific competition for forage), and other behavioral and nutritional stressors which would lead to decreased calf:cow ratios, and lower weights of elk coming off of winter ranges. While the REC project in and of itself may have minor impacts to elks overall available nutritional input during the winter (because current foraging conditions on the property are so poor), cumulatively, with other area projects, elk winter ranges will continue to decrease in the lower Roaring Fork Valley, and if calf:cow ratios do not improve after decreasing overall elk populations for DAU E15 & E16, CDOW may decide to further reduce elk populations within these DAUs to ensure a healthy elk population (CDOW Long Range Plan, K. Giezentanner USFS pers. comm. 2008, J. Groves CDOW pers. comm. 2008). Summary- The REC property is only used during the winter months by elk, and provides relatively poor nutritional foraging opportunities at this time. Over the past year, the installation of the game fence along SH-82 by CDOT, and the opening of the Rio Grande Trail further reduced the accessibility and utilization of the REC property by elk. Currently, elk loafing on the property during 2 for the purposes of discussion, defined herein as areas including both RFC easement areas and areas left as open space by REC, and dominated by reclaimed and existing native vegetation) App. K-37 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 37 the winter months is fairly low, but nevertheless this property does play an important role in overall elk winter ranges in the Roaring Fork Valley. Development of the property will preclude most elk use, albeit of a marginal-condition habitat. Elk would still likely use some habitats on the REC property and on the RFC conservation easement areas, but the proximity of homes, human activities and dogs would likely further reduce the utilization of otherwise available habitats. While this project in and of itself only impacts a fairly small area of winter range, cumulatively this project adds to other stressors and impacts to winter ranges for elk herds in the area. How elk will finally end up using or avoiding the REC property and adjacent properties is admittedly speculatory. The literature indicates that elk do tend to avoid areas of human habitation, but in some cases elk will continue to utilize subdivisions and areas of high human habitation (e.g., the towns of Estes Park, Evergreen, and subdivisions such as Eagle Ranch south of Eagle, Iron Bridge, West Bank and Aspen Glen). Conservatively, one must assume that the REC project will further reduce elk winter range and foraging opportunities in the area, but the exact future utilization and use patterns of the property will remain to be seen, and will depend on overall human activities and ultimately the elk’s balancing of utilization of available foraging opportunities and tolerance of using residential areas as winter range. Elk use of subdivisions as de facto winter range is, ultimately, not in the best interests of elk or the residents, but in some cases it ends up being the elk’s best option. App. K-38 107°15'0"W107°15'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°17'0"W107°17'0"W39°26'0"N 39°26'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°28'0"N 39°28'0"N39°29'0"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 09 Elk Winter Range 82 82 River Edge Colorado Property Other Property Elk Higway Crossing Elk Winter Concentration Elk Severe Winter Range Elk Deer Winter Range R o a r i n g F or k RiverScale: 1" = 2,000' Feet 0 2,000 4,0001,000 River Edge Colorado 38ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,INC. App. K-39 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 39 4.4 Riparian Habitats The property is adjacent to two main riparian areas: 1. Cattle Creek, and 2. Roaring Fork River. Cattle Creek was heavily impacted in the past by grazing practices. Based on historical aerial photographs, the ranch had cow pens which overlapped Cattle Creek; therefore significant trampling and disturbance to the riparian habitats occurred on much of Cattle Creek. Currently, the eastern section of Cattle Creek on the REC property is dominated by non-native species, including common tansy and canary reed-grass. The habitat along this eastern section has limited structural diversity, is relatively narrow, and is dominated by only a few weedy species. Therefore the current habitat condition of this eastern section is poor with little habitat diversity. Most species observed in this area were upland bird species (however no small mammal trapping has taken place), and common riparian bird species were lacking due to the paucity of structural diversity of habitats. Some deer, elk, and nighttime use of the area by other species is likely as they travel to and from higher quality habitats. Lower Cattle Creek (near the confluence with the Roaring Fork) is of a better habitat quality and condition. The lower Cattle Creek area has various shrub and tree plant species, stream meanders, and more native vegetation. Nevertheless, the understory vegetation in this area is also dominated by non- native graminoid species, which somewhat diminishes the habitat conditions. More wildlife species utilize this area due to widespread wetland habitats, and the structural diversity provided by taller shrubs (e.g., silver buffaloberry [Shepherdia argenteus]). The REC project does not have accepted plans for habitat work in Cattle Creek, due to stipulations in the Roaring Fork Conservancy’s Conservation Easement, but a pond is planned with the coordination and oversight of RFC on a disturbed bench overlooking the confluence area. The Roaring Fork River, which forms the western property boundary, supports diverse riparian woodlands and shrublands. Most of the trees along the river are somewhat decadent, and there is a general lack of younger trees along the river (likely due to modified instream flows). A couple of the larger ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) trees along the river are currently providing nesting for a small to moderately sized great blue heron rookery. One of the three rookery trees fell down into the Roaring Fork in the spring of 2009 due to high springtime flows and bank scour on the western bank. The riparian habitats along the river provide habitat for a number of bird species, as well as habitat for many mammal species. 4.5 Great Blue Heron Great blue herons breed across the entire North American continent. They are the largest heron species in North America, and are considered to be common and widespread. They are highly adaptable to different habitats and environments. Great blue heron populations are generally stable or increasing throughout most of their range and are ranked globally secure, but rare to uncommon in Colorado (G5/S3B) (NatureServe 2010). The World Conservation Union (IUCN) red list category for the great blue heron is “Least Concern”, and the Audubon Watchlist Status is “Green” (Audubon App. K-40 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 40 Society 2007). As with all migratory birds, the great blue heron is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (as amended). Great blue herons generally nest in colonial “heronries”. Habitat characteristics of heronries vary considerably depending on locations within North America. Likewise, the level of human activity around established heronries also vary widely; however, high levels of human activity have been associated with heronry abandonment (Bjorkland 1975, Wershkul et al. 1976). The level of response from a disturbance is influenced by a variety of factors, including breeding stage and distance (Vos et al. 1985). Human disturbance can be a major factor influencing nesting and foraging activities of great blue heron. Some herons do become habituated to human activities (Grubb 1979, Kelsall & Simpson 1980, Butler 1991, and Vennesland 2000). Human recreational activities can cause herons to temporarily abandon their breeding attempts, allow predation of eggs (Moul 1990), or permanently abandon a colony (Markham & Brechtel 1979). Most heronries are located in areas away from human activity, or have significant vegetative screening from human activities (Watts & Bradshaw 1994, Gibbs & Kinkel 1997, J. Lowsky pers. comm. 2008). Klein (1993), and Lowsky (2007 & pers. comm. 2008) both reported that great blue herons had highly variable responses to humans in vehicles and afoot. However, in most situations herons responded stronger to humans on foot than on bicycles or in vehicles. This is a common theme with many wildlife species, including elk. As cited by Lowsky (in his 2007 report to RFTA for impacts to a heronry from the Rio Grande Trail near Basalt), Rodges and Smith (1995) reported that great blue herons flushed at a mean distance of 32.0 + 12.3m in response to persons approaching on foot. Similarly, Skagen et al. (2001) found a reduction in the number of great blue heron nests when they were exposed to humans on foot. Vos et al. (1985) studied a heronry in Larimer County, Colorado, and found that heron’s response to human activity changed as the breeding season progressed through the year. Herons were most responsive to human intrusions early in the breeding season (March), flushing from the nest at the slightest disturbance and not returning until the cause was no longer present. During egg laying and incubation (mid-April), herons were less willing to abandon nests and returned more readily. This “nest site fidelity” is a common theme among many bird species- whereby as the breeding season progresses, adult birds are less likely to stay away from eggs or nestlings, and is thought to be a function of “resource investment” into their young (Thompson 2007). Vennesland (2000) experimentally showed that herons do habituate to non-threatening presence of people near colonies. His results showed that colonies in rural areas that seldom experienced human activities left nests more readily than colonies in urban areas. His study concluded that heron breeding productivity was significantly diminished with higher levels of pedestrian activities within 250m of colonies due to decreased nest protection from adults, and increased secondary predation from bald eagles. But he also Rafters at base of heronry, June 3, 2007 App. K-41 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 41 concluded that “…total human activity (including pedestrians, cars, planes and land clearing equipment) had no relationship to heron breeding”. Vos et al. (1985) determined that during the early breeding season, flushing distance of herons was 150m, and dropped to only 60m later in the breeding season. Vennesland (2000) also showed similar results, with more urban colonies having flushing distances ranging from 49m, decreasing to 15m as the breeding season progressed, and rural colonies having flushing distances of 150m and 60m respectively. Personal observation of the colony at Cattle Creek Colorado during June and July of 2007 showed humans (landing rafts from float trips down the Roaring Fork River) at the base of the ponderosa pine trees containing nests (see photo), with no flushing of herons (distances of less than 10m). To reduce flushing and negative impacts to nest success, various buffer distances are recommended in the literature. Buffer areas generally have restrictions limiting or modifying human access or activities which would allow nesting herons to still fulfill life history requirements un-harassed, but buffer areas can also include mitigations such as vegetative screening to hide human activities, which would still allow for herons to continue with their daily activities un-harassed. Buffer area restrictions generally only apply when herons are conducting reproduction activities (which in Colorado, is generally from March 1 through late July). Most studies reviewed by Butler (1991) and Lowsky (2007) recommend a “no human activity” buffer distance of 300m for heronries that have little to no existing human exposure. In Colorado, studies recommended a buffer distance of 200m (Miller 1994, Colorado State Parks 1998) while Vos (1985) recommended 250m. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (Will 2008) recommended a buffer of 500m for the heronry on the RFC conservation easement area, however this large distance is not supported in the scientific literature, and this buffer distance would put the LaFarge gravel pit, the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation Water Treatment Plant, much of the Teller Springs subdivision, and even State Highway 82 in conflict within this buffer distance, not to mention almost all of the REC project. Heronry within RFC Conservation Easement Great blue heron (GBH) generally arrive in the valley in mid March, depending on weather conditions. At this time, 2 ponderosa pine trees comprise the heronry (one tree fell down in 2009 due to bank erosion on the Roaring Fork River), with the one tree on the east bank of the Roaring Fork River (in the conservation easement area) having approximately 10 nests, and the tree on the western side of the river having 15 nests. Other “stick nests” were observed in old cottonwoods, and in another small ponderosa pine, but these “stick nests” have not produced chicks for the past 2 years. If one assumes that each productive nest contains an average of 2 nestlings, then this rookery could potentially produce 50 nestlings. This number is speculative given mortality factors to fledglings. Nevertheless, this heronry is fairly productive given the limited size of area it occupies, when compared to the heronry at Rock Bottom Ranch (9 nests in 2008) and Woody Creek (15 nests in 2008). In 2010, two golden eagles were observed predating on chicks still in the nest in the conservation easement property adjacent to Golden eagle circling heronry after failed attempt to take a large chick App. K-42 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 42 REC, which incidentally was the cause of the heronry abandonment at the Rock Bottom Ranch. The two ponderosa pine trees comprising the rookery are large, mature trees in excess of 100 feet tall. Surrounding cottonwoods are very decadent, in decline, with large amounts of snags and dead tops. These smaller trees are being used as roosts for adults (and later in the summer, roosts for fledglings). The large amount of snags in the RFC conservation easement area has attracted a small colony of Lewis’ woodpeckers. It is common for heronry trees to succumb to the accumulation of guano, die and begin to fall apart. GBH will then begin to move their heronry to other suitable live trees in the area as their old heronry trees decline. Ponderosa pine (or cottonwood trees for that matter) of a larger size and structure are very limited in the general area. Other ponderosa pine, which are much smaller (less than 60% of the height of the existing trees), occur within the area but are not being used by GBH at this time. Cottonwood and ponderosa pine trees in the area that are large enough to support GBH nests are limited, and are mapped in Figure 11. The next available ponderosa pine trees upriver that are of a similar size of the currently used trees are at the southern end of Aspen Glen, around a series of ponds adjacent to the river. Between River Bend and the Aspen Glen ponderosa pine trees, only two ponderosa exist of similar size, and one of these trees is occupied by the bald eagles at Aspen Glen. RFC Conservation Easement Heronry Stipulations The RFC Conservation Easement identified a heronry within the “Rookery Zone” as part of the Conservation Easement. It should be noted that the original location of the heronry (as depicted in 2000) is no longer viable and is no longer used. The nesting trees previously identified have died (due to heron’s acidic guano) and fallen down and no trees within that area have matured to a size similar to existing heronry trees. However this is not to say that herons would not in the future possibly select the site to re-establish a heronry. The “Rookery Zone” established by the Conservation Easement provide little relevant protection measures to heronries; however the controls and restrictions are still in place pursuant to the Conservation Easement. The following are abbreviated versions of the terms and conditions set forth in the Conservation Easement which REC is bound to and applicable at this time: • Rookery Zone o REC will berm and visually screen all property or lots within 200 meters through planting of dense trees and vegetation o REC will screen all property or lots outside 200 meters of the rookery, but vegetative screening will not be as dense as screening within 200 meters. o All plans and materials for screening shall be reviewed by RFC prior to installation, and screening plans shall be submitted to Garfield County in connection with any development process o No roads, bridges or trails or public access is allowed within this zone o No utilities or infrastructure, aside from buried utilities o No dogs within or adjacent to the Rookery Zone, cats must be kept indoors o No outdoor construction activities adjacent to the Rookery Zone any time between February 15 and July 15. Building heights shall not exceed 25’, and second story decks and accessory dwelling units will be prohibited on the bench immediately above the App. K-43 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 43 heronry. The 2000 Rookery Zone is located within the Conservation Easement pursuant to the agreed upon legal boundaries established between the RFC and the land owner in 2008, and therefore no height or construction timing restrictions currently affect any of the residential areas within the proposed REC project area. • Cattle Creek/Lower Roaring Fork Riparian Zone o REC shall install sufficient screening, through the planting of appropriate natural vegetation along the common boundary of the Cattle Creek/Lower Roaring Fork Riparian Zone and the Rookery Zone, including screening of any adjacent trails built within or adjacent to this portion of the Easement, in order to deter entry into the Rookery zone and minimize the disturbance of the blue heron habitat. o All plans and materials shall be reviewed by RFC and shall be submitted to Garfield County in connection with any development process. Other restrictions regarding development and use of amenities within the RFC Conservation Easement areas can be found in the Grant of Conservation Easement document (February 3, 2000). Impacts of the River Edge Colorado Project Another heronry in the Roaring Fork Valley has undergone significant monitoring and documentation due to three consecutive years of abandonment (Lowsky 2007, J. Lowsky pers. comm. 2008, J. Groves pers. comm. 2008). The abandonment of the heronry at Rock Bottom Ranch (RBR) was originally assumed to be from a combination of nest tree decadence, human use of the ACES center at Rock Bottom Ranch, mesocarnivore nest predation (e.g., raccoons), and possibly from trail use along the Rio Grande Trail (J. Lowsky pers. comm. 2008, J. Groves, CDOW pers. comm. 2008). Although various experts on great blue herons opined that use of the Rio Grande Trail, which is approximately 200 meters from the heronry, caused the herons to abandon their nests, golden eagles were finally verified to be the causal factor for abandonment in 2008, 2009 and in 2010. The REC heronry has one of the heronry trees separated from the development by the Roaring Fork River, which would help with buffering and reducing a perceived threat from development activities. However, the heronry has a lack of screening vegetation, which means that herons on nests would have unobstructed views of activities on the REC property. While it is well documented in the literature that loud noises, and un-anticipated activities may cause herons to flush, or even abandon a nest site, the entire REC property was previously stripped of topsoil during the spring months by Bair Chase, during the most sensitive time of the nesting season, and this heronry has an unobstructed view of the LaFarge gravel pit operations, and during the summer has daily human activities at the base of their nest trees. Even with all these activities, the herons at this heronry still have successfully reared chicks year after year. The presence of golden eagles beginning to predate chicks at this site in 2010 will be a factor that needs to be considered for the long-term viability of this heronry site. Of all the perturbances to this heronry, golden eagles will by far be the most likely cause of its temporary or permanent abandonment. River Edge Colorado has proposed to limit surface or exterior construction within a 200m buffer area until the herons leave the heronry seasonally (i.e., outside of the breeding season), or abandon the heronry. Activities proposed to occur within the 200m buffer would include immediate berming and planting of vegetative screening (which may occur during the heron’s seasonal occupancy of the nest trees). It is important to note that this heronry has been exposed to similar activities and disturbances in the past, and currently is exposed to very proximal human activities (including noxious weed treatments, etc). REC is proposing to plant 1½ inch caliper trees and 5-foot evergreens in addition to App. K-44 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 44 some smaller trees and shrubs on the berm. Project planners (M. Sawyer 8140 Partners, 12/6/2010) have expressed a concern over planting larger trees on the berm as they may desiccate during the winter months, and believed that smaller trees would be able to produce effective screening well enough. While it is my opinion that the planting of smaller-sized trees would cause a delay in achieving taller and more effective screening vegetation (i.e., a five-foot tree would take longer to achieve mature heights and would support less lateral screening through branch density and cover than, for example a 10 or 15-foot tree), the issue of whether or not herons would abandon the heronry if the trees were not at full maturity or density is the true issue. Having smaller trees more widely spaced would produce less effective vegetation screening, but given the distances to homes even a sub-standard vegetation screen would still not likely produce conditions that would cause herons to abandon their heronry. But obviously, the taller and thicker the vegetative screening the better the shielding of herons potential view of human activities at the REC development. Approximately 11 homes will be within the 200m buffer area. It is my professional opinion that with screening vegetation and berming, there is a relatively low likelihood that herons would abandon the heronry. However, the exact threshold of development at which herons may perceive a “threat” is unknown and would be speculatory: as home construction encroached upon the heronry it would make sense based on the literature that herons would be more likely to change their use and behavioral patterns. But this heronry is subject to almost daily disturbances by boaters, anglers and bird-watchers approaching their nest trees either on foot or from the river during the summer months. There is also human activity and loud noises from the LaFarge Gravel Pits nearby and the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District’s water treatment plant. The Roaring Fork Conservancy has also indicated that they visit the conservation easement area multiple times during the summer to conduct monitoring and stewardship activities. This heronry was also subject to daily heavy equipment operation for months within distances less than 50 meters of the nest trees during Bair Chase’s topsoil salvaging operations. Nevertheless, REC modified their construction plan to delay heavy construction within the 200m buffer until after July 15th, with the understanding that by this time the herons would be very far along in their rearing of chicks ( indeed some chicks would likely have fledged), and herons would not likely abandon chicks so late in their development. Vegetative screening should have a strong component (60 to 70%) of evergreen trees (such as ponderosa pine [Pinus ponderosa] and juniper [Sabina osteosperma]). This is because during the sensitive time of heron pair bonding, nest selection and egg laying (late March through early May), deciduous trees have not yet leafed out, and visual screening from deciduous trees would be very marginal. Spruce trees would provide more screening, but they are not indicative of local vegetation, and spruce would require more nurturing to keep them persisting, while ponderosa pines are more drought tolerant and hardy. Gambel’s oak (Quercus gambelii), hawthorn (Cratageus spp.) and box elder (Acer negundo) should also make up a secondary component of the vegetative screening (30 to 40%). An on- site determination of heights and densities of trees and additional heights of any potential berming would need to occur, and the use of story-poles should occur to ensure that nests are actually visually screened. REC is proposing to develop a buffer area planting and berming plan during the pre- development phase for RFC review, and to implement the plan as part of pre-development site reclamation. Summary- The heronry on the conservation easement property is comprised of two trees, but is relatively productive despite being near a gravel pit, a water treatment plant, and seeing daily human activities on the river and around the nest trees. Despite this, there is some risk that during construction of the REC project herons may change their behaviors and adults may temporarily leave their nests, but given the distances between the proposed homes and nest trees it is doubtful that the App. K-45 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 45 development of REC would cause heronry abandonment or mortality to chicks. Having said that, a lack of nest attendance by adults puts chicks more at risk to eagle predation. It is inevitable that once the ponderosa pines currently used as the heronry begin to die-off (from guano accumulation), herons would abandon the site. Further, the recent golden eagle predation on chicks at this site may cause seasonal or even permanent abandonment of this heronry. Berming and screening vegetation will help mitigate some impacts, but seasonal closure of the foot path and enforcement of the closure will be the most important component of proposed mitigation measures. Use of the proposed foot path during the spring months would by far be the most likely negative impact from this project to cause heronry abandonment, and this trail should be closed from February 15 through July 15 to minimize human activities near the heronry (although a closure from March 1 through August 1 would likely be more effective given observed use of the site). Heronries do eventually move due to nest tree decadence, or from other factors (such as golden eagle harassment). Once the current heronry site is abandoned, it is likely that the herons would move their heronry upriver, and continued development of REC would have negligible impacts to herons. The planting of the 200m buffer with screening vegetation and berming should allow for the rest of the REC development to move forward with minimalized potential impacts to great blue heron. However, it is my opinion that REC’s proposed planting of smaller sized trees would delay the full effectiveness of the vegetation screen, and having a foot path so close of the conservation easement area may reduce habitat effectiveness within the conservation easement property. The required construction of the “holding pond” within the “Rookery Zone” would help improve habitats around the REC project for herons, but use of this pond site for interpretation or educational activities will place high levels of human activity very close (indeed within the conservation easement area) during sensitive times of the year for breeding birds (e.g., herons) and mammals. It is my recommendation to minimize activities which draw human activities to the conservation easement area, or near the conservation easement area in order to preserve conservation values. Given that the pond site overlooks much of the conservation easement area, human activities overlooking the conservation easement area will have disproportionately high impacts on habitat effectiveness within the conservation easement area, including potential heron nesting back into the Rookery Zone. App. K-46 kk107°15'30"W107°15'30"W107°15'45"W107°15'45"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'15"W107°16'15"W107°16'30"W107°16'30"W39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'15"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'45"N 39°27'45"N39°28'0"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010 Scale: 1" = 600' 0 600 1,200300 Feet VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 10 Heron Nesting Locations 82 82 R o a r in g F o rk R iv erRiver Edge Colorado Property Conservation Easement Heron Nest Location Other Property k 200 Meter Heron Nest Buffer 46ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,INC. App. K-47 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 47 4.6 Bald Eagle Bald eagle winter in the greater Colorado River and Roaring Fork River watersheds beginning in late November and migrate back north to summering ground in March. During the winter months, bald eagle numbers in the Roaring Fork watershed may swell to 10 to 15 eagles. In the past 5 years the numbers of year-round resident eagles in the greater areas has steadily increased and now around 7 different nest sites are located in the Roaring Fork and Colorado River corridors in Garfield County. For the past 50 years, a bald eagle nest site has been located on the Aspen Glen subdivision. Nesting at this site has been successful for the past 5 years. Prior to this, the next most recent successful nesting at this site was in the mid 1970’s. Bald eagles were delisted from the Endangered Species Act in July 2007, but nests and nesting activity are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Bald eagles primarily use the REC property for roosting on trees near the river and hunt for fish. Bald eagles are also known to scavenge on carcasses of deer and elk within the greater area. Bald eagles seen on the REC property during the summer months adjacent to the river are likely the pair associated with the Aspen Glen nest. The greatest potential impact to bald eagle will be during the development phase. Loud machinery and construction activities may preclude bald eagle from fully utilizing perching sites on and near the property, when these activities are on more of the western side of the property nearer the Roaring Fork River. However the eagles from the Aspen Glen subdivision are well accustomed to human activities, vehicle traffic, loud noises, and even gravel mining operations from the nearby LaFarge Gravel Pit. Therefore, the level of activities anticipated from construction and development of REC may indeed preclude some use of trees near the REC property for short periods of time, bald eagles would still likely be able to find and utilize other perches in the area, and no significant changes in behavioral patterns would be expected. Human activities occurring on foot (e.g., on foot trails or potentially activities around the “holding pond” in the easement area) would likely produce more of an avoidance reaction to eagles than would construction activities. But given the small size and scale of this project in relation to the overall available habitat for bald eagle along the Roaring Fork River, bald eagles should be able to still find and procure enough food resources to continue to persist and successfully fledge young out of the Aspen Glen nest site. 4.7 Lewis’s Woodpecker Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) has fairly unique flying patterns with long glides and aerial acrobatics, which is uncommon among woodpeckers. Distributed in the United States west of the Great Plains, Lewis’s woodpecker favors open forests, ranging in altitude from low-elevation riparian areas to higher-elevation burns and pine forests. Like all other woodpeckers, it requires snags (standing, dead, or partly dead trees) for nesting, although it is not anatomically specialized for excavating in wood and the trees it selects for nesting are generally well-decayed. Lewis’s woodpecker was included in this assessment as it is fairly uncommon in the valley, the US Forest Service locally lists this species as Sensitive, and there is a breeding population of this bird on the property. Species Ecology Synopsis The sporadic distribution and relatively uncommon status of this species within much of its range present a serious challenge for existing local-scale census methods. Broad-scale population trends indicate that numbers have declined markedly throughout the species’ range since the 1960s, and several examples of local reductions in distribution have been reported. Possible reasons include loss App. K-48 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 48 of suitable habitat, presence of pesticides in the environment, and competition for nest holes or general disturbance by the European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Lewis’s woodpeckers are migratory, arriving in breeding and summer ranges in May, and departing again in early to mid-September. Lewis’s woodpeckers from the REC property likely migrate westward towards the lower Uncompahgre, Gunnison, and Colorado River valleys, but some birds may migrate as far south as northern Mexico. Their migration is slow and is diurnal. Important aspects of breeding habitat include an open canopy, a brushy understory offering ground cover, dead or downed woody material, available perches, and abundant insects. Three principal habitats are open ponderosa pine forest, open riparian woodland dominated by cottonwood, and logged or burned pine forest; however, breeding birds are also found in oak woodland, nut and fruit orchards, pinyon pine/juniper woodland, a variety of pine and fir forests, and agricultural areas including farms and ranchlands. In the Roaring Fork valley, Lewis’s woodpeckers are often found in older cottonwood stands with abundant snags. These snags are often formed in decadent cottonwood stands or in stands near old irrigation ditches or ir rigated fields, where the water has been piped or the irrigation ditch no longer functions and widespread cottonwood mortality has occurred. Lewis’s woodpeckers in the valley are relatively rare above 7,000 feet in elevation. Their diet varies with seasonal abundance of food items: primarily free-living (not wood-boring) insects, acorns or other nuts, and fruit. Lewis’s woodpeckers hunt for insects in the air, on tree trunks and branches, in bushes, and on the ground. They use snags, telephone poles, fence posts, and other locations with open views for perches when fly-catching. Such habitat features, and the furrowed bark of mature cottonwood trees, provide crevices in which Lewis’s Woodpeckers store acorns, other nuts, and grains during fall and winter. Near streams, ponds, and wet meadows, Lewis’s woodpecker will take advantage of locally abundant hatches of insects. They seldom if ever excavate for wood-boring insects; instead, they catch insects by fly-catching and gleaning. They glean like other woodpeckers, by starting at the base of a tree or trunk and working up or out to smaller branches, using visual cues during gleaning rather than auditory cues. In some cases, they may raid acorn caches, and feed in orchards. Lewis’s woodpeckers catch insects in flight generally by hawking from a perch, but also engage in “nonspecific” or “direct” long-duration foraging flights, sometimes amid swallows and swifts over fields and open water. They scan almost continuously for insects between fly-catching bouts, usually from the top of a pole or dead tree. Lewis’s woodpeckers also eat acorns, which is generally harvested, shelled, and broken into pieces. Pieces (or whole meat if unbroken) are stored in a natural crack or cavity. They generally pick acorns and nuts from branches rather than from the ground, perching crosswise above the food item, and sometimes hanging from underneath. They use tops of poles or broken-topped snags, with a suitable crack in which the food item can be wedged, as an anvil for shelling and breaking up acorns and nuts. The main threat to this species is the loss of habitat. In areas such as western Colorado, where Lewis’s woodpeckers are more closely associated with cottonwood stands, one study documented declines in this habitat. The surface area of cottonwood stands declined 31% along the lower Arkansas River and 9% along the South Platte River. During the same period, there were increases in the shrub understory layer, with prominent invasion of tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima). The loss of cottonwoods is attributed to attrition of standing dead trees and lack of regeneration of seedlings because of flood control, low water-flow rates, and intense grazing from cattle. In addition, the frequency and severity of fires has increased because fuel loading increases with invading tamarisk. With the burning of much of the App. K-49 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 49 cottonwood galleries near Ranch at Roaring Fork in 2008, there may have been an abundance of snags created, but private landowners in the burn area cut down most of the standing dead cottonwood trees. Impacts of Development The development of the REC property would have minor negative indirect impacts on Lewis’s woodpecker, but there should be no direct impacts on habitat or long-term ability for Lewis’s woodpecker to persist on the site. As the development is avoiding activities within the RFC Conservation Easement areas, the current cottonwood snags and existing habitat for the woodpecker would not be impacted. Management of wetland areas for mosquito control may reduce the flying insect population in the area; however, through the widespread preservation of the wetland areas, there should be ample insect production for the woodpeckers. Lewis’s woodpeckers may be negatively impacted by human activities, and the loud noises and activity associated with construction may preclude some nesting activities near the development. However, this would be short-term in general, and it is likely that most woodpecker activities would continue to occur in the area throughout the development process. The greatest long-term potential impact to Lewis’s woodpecker is the continued mortality of cottonwood trees along the slopes due to the cessation of flood irrigation practices. Over time, cottonwood snags will fall down (as is the natural process), and potential nesting cavities will become more limited. As these cottonwood snags are in the RFC Conservation Easement area, management of cottonwood stands and snags will be under the discretion of the RFC. Once trees within the development become large enough to provide cavity nesting habitats, it is likely that Lewis’s woodpecker would begin to utilize these habitats, as they do in downtown Glenwood Springs neighborhoods with larger deciduous trees. App. K-50 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 50 5 Recommended Wildlife Mitigations The following are standard wildlife impact minimization efforts which are commonly recommended by wildlife biologists including CDOW, and have been shown to be appropriate for the settings around River Edge Colorado. Many of these recommendations are considered to be “best management practices” to consider for wildlife, which would allow for continued wildlife use of areas within the area around the development. These may be significantly modified based on planning outcomes, and do not include mitigation measures already incorporated into the REC proposal. . 5.1 Lighting & Game Use Because the open space areas associated with Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River will receive use by mule deer and elk during the night, the indirect nighttime lighting of the open space areas and transient lighting from roads and homes (beyond what is required for safe driving conditions) is not recommended in order to allow big game use of the area. Further, lighting of open spaces beyond the building envelope areas is strongly discouraged (for instance; from bright back-yard lights illuminating open space areas). Tall vegetation should be allowed or supplementally planted 10’ off of roadsides in areas where headlights from vehicles illuminate open space areas in order to minimize unintended “spotlighting” of foraging game at night. Determination of these areas would likely need to occur after the development is mostly complete. 5.2 Roads Along the existing and new roads that would occur in this area, the following items are recommended: o Fences along the roads should not be allowed (aside from elk fence along SH-82) o Cut and/or fill slopes along the roads should be designed to facilitate wildlife movement; this includes using native plant materials that mimic local native vegetation species and distribution. 5.3 Trails The following trail closures should be implemented and enforced by an HOA: o Trails within REC and continuous open space areas should be closed during the sensitive deer and elk winter season (December 1 through March 31). o Dogs should be on a leash year-round, aside from within designated dog-parks or within enclosed yards. o Any potential future trails within Conservation Easement areas will be reviewed and approved by the Roaring Fork Conservancy. 5.4 Fences Fences within the developed neighborhoods do not need to comply with wildlife friendly fencing standards, given this development is more of an urban setting. Fences within Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork River corridors would generally not occur, and any fencing within these areas would need to be wildlife friendly, and would be reviewed and approved by the REC and the Roaring Fork Conservancy. As previously discussed, any potential elk fence is intended to keep elk and deer from entering more “urban” areas, for the safety of wildlife and residents. App. K-51 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 51 5.5 Landscaping and Revegetation As the open space areas are used as winter range (and severe winter range), reclamation of road cuts, infrastructure routes and open spaces will need to occur using appropriate native plant species and vegetation profiles. Revegetation should also occur as soon as possible, however planting in the spring after big game have left the area would be best as otherwise any newly planted materials would likely be browsed first, and plants with little time to set roots will likely be pulled up by grazing big game. Noxious weeds should be treated bi-annually in order to minimize their spread and impact on winter range and increase the success of revegetation activities. Please see the Reclamation Plan for additional discussion and recommendations for vegetation management. 5.6 Domestic Dogs Dogs can have a significant impact on wildlife and the ability for wildlife to effectively use otherwise available habitats. Dogs can chase and kill wildlife, or so exhaust and injure wildlife that wildlife dies later. Larger mammals such as deer and elk are especially vulnerable during the winter/early spring, when their energy reserves are depleted, food resources are most limited, and most of the adult females are pregnant. Young wildlife are also vulnerable to attack and harassment by dogs. Even if not chased by dogs, wildlife tends to avoid areas where dogs are kept outside, which has the effect of creating a barrier to wildlife movement and reducing the available habitat. Domestic dogs, unless they are seeing- eye dogs or assistance dogs for the disabled, should never be allowed to run free in Conservation Easement areas or during the winter months (December 1 through April 30). As the open space areas are a very important big game winter loafing area, it is inevitable that dogs allowed within the open space areas along Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River, even under leash control, will escape control and chase and likely injure wildlife. To minimize the impacts of dogs on wildlife, the following recommendations are presented: o As required by Garfield County, dogs will be limited to one per dwelling unit (plus young up to 3 months old). This restriction should also apply to cats. o Dogs should not be allowed outside of fenced yards during the winter months unless under leash control. o Any fenced enclosures constructed for the overnight maintenance of dogs or cats must be within property lines. o Loose dogs should be prohibited. This includes dogs owned by contractors, subcontractors, delivery personnel, home owners and their guests. Loose or uncontrolled dogs can have a significant impact to big game through direct and indirect mortality, increased stress, and displacement from preferred ranges. In the past, CDOW has had numerous reports of dogs brought to construction sites by workers which chase and harass wildlife. Due to the location of this property near sensitive wildlife habitat areas, construction workers should not be allowed to bring dogs on site. One opportunity is of putting in a “dog park” on the property, away from the best big game habitats. This could assist with keeping dogs from running loose on the property, chasing wildlife, and otherwise harassing big game, or precluding habitat use through barking and intimidation of wildlife. This would also provide homeowners a place where dogs could run free and play without fear of harming wildlife or running off. App. K-52 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 52 5.7 Domestic Cats Domestic cats can have significant impacts on local breeding bird, small mammal, amphibian, and reptile populations in area habitats. Keeping cats indoors would protect a major component of the potential non-game wildlife use in the area. Homeowners should be informed through their HOA regarding the impact of domestic cats on wildlife. 5.8 Bears Black bears can occur in the area from spring (late April) through fall (late November). There are existing problems with bears, garbage, and people in Garfield County and some bears have shown signs of habituation and aggression towards residents. Areas near the property are considered to be “bear- human conflict areas” by CDOW. The Gambel’s oak, serviceberry and chokecherry stands on the property provide black bear fall foraging areas. Continued bear use of these areas will likely continue even after full development. With the residential setting, it is inevitable that garbage and food sources will become available to bears, and human/bear conflicts will likely occur. These conflicts, however, can be minimized by implementation of appropriate mitigation measures: o There should be no dumps that have edible materials associated with the construction and post-construction activities. Construction workers and contractors should be notified and educated about the importance of keeping trash, food and drink items properly disposed of to discourage bear activities in the area. o Residential garbage should be placed in bear-proof dumpsters, individual bear-proof trash containers, or kept in trash cans inside closed buildings. Trash cans should not be left outside overnight prior to trash collection, as bears quickly become habituated to these schedules. o Pets should not be fed outside. Bowls of pet food left around buildings will attract bears and other predators (e.g. coyotes or red fox) and nuisance species (e.g. skunks, raccoon, woodrats). o Birdfeeders and hummingbird feeders need to be brought in during the evenings, and removed altogether during the fall months (September through late November). Catchment basins should be used underneath bird feeders to catch seed. Bears are known to visit bird- feeding sites where seeds have accumulated on the ground. o Compost piles should be forbidden, unless they are used in centralized, wildlife-proof areas, not only to reduce attracting bears, but other wildlife species such as raccoon, skunk, red fox, etc. o Homeowners should be educated about bears and other local wildlife via a homeowner’s brochure, such as that produced by the CDOW. The presence of community gardens and orchards will undoubtedly attract bears, and there could be long-term human-bear conflicts in REC because of orchards and community gardens. Both community gardens and orchards should consider fencing to keep out (or discourage) bears and even elk & deer damage. Because of this, CDOW will likely have increased service needs in the area. 5.9 Birds Many sensitive bird species utilize the conservation easement area adjacent to REC; therefore the following recommendations are presented: o Pet cats should remain indoors, as cats will readily prey upon these species and can have a significant impact on bird use in the area and on bird populations. App. K-53 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 53 o Bird feeders are discouraged due to black bear use in the area. Bird feeders can be used in the winter (from mid November through mid March), as bears are hibernating during this time. o All bird feeders, including hummingbird feeders, should be hung away from any window or deck, be at least 10’ from the ground, and be suspended between two trees or posts. Any seed feeders should have a seed catchment pan to catch discarded seed. o A 200 meter activity buffer will be annually placed around trees with active heron nests. This buffer would not be applicable to empty or unused nests or roost trees. From March 1 through August 1, no external construction activities or new building erection, crane use, or trail use/construction may occur within the 200 meter buffer area. The exact location of the buffer area will be set annually by a site visit to heron nesting trees by an accredited wildlife biologist during the spring months. 5.10 Open Space Management REC should consider incorporating the following: o All persons within the development should be prohibited from chasing, scaring, frightening, disturbing, or otherwise harassing wildlife as part of effort to force wildlife off open space areas, around homes, or conservation easement areas on the property. In incidences where deer or elk become a nuisance within the development, passive means (i.e. permanent or temporary ungulate fencing) may be employed with coordination through CDOW. o The HOA will have the right to locally restrict wildlife from sensitive areas by using temporary fencing and other passive means. Any fencing erected would not restrict free movement of wildlife but would be used only in small, isolated areas to help direct wildlife and/or people. o Soft trails around the property (especially those trails on the western side of the development) should be closed during the winter months (December 1-March 31) to allow for continued big game winter range use. The soft trail nearest the currently occupied heronry trees should be closed from March 1 through August 1 to be in compliance with RFC stipulations within the “Rookery Zone” section of the Grant of Conservation Easement. However, if herons abandon the heronry there would be no need for such a restriction. o Roaring Fork Transit Authority should consider closure of the Rio Grande Trail from December 1 through March 31 to allow for elk wintering opportunities. At this time the wintertime trail use is reducing the availability of the area to wintering elk. This recommendation is not enforceable by River Edge Colorado, but RFTA, as a partner with REC, should consider the impacts of their recreational amenities. App. K-54 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 54 6 Vegetation & Noxious Weeds The entire property was traversed in 2008 for a comprehensive noxious weed survey. Colorado listed noxious weeds were recorded with a Trimble GeoXT GPS. Data gathered on each point included species, the approximate size of the infestation, the density of the infestation (in percent total vegetation cover), and the dominant vegetation type (grass, forb, shrub or tree) surrounding the infestation. GPS points were loaded into GIS (geographic information system) to show the location of the weeds on an aerial photo. Additionally, polygons were drawn in GIS to show the larger more dispersed infestations on the property (see attached weed maps). Information on general vegetation condition and species diversity was also noted. 6.1 Upper Bench The majority of the property lies on an old river terrace that lies about 75 feet above the Roaring Fork River. The type of species that are present on the disturbed upper areas of the property depends upon the underlying soil texture. The finer soils and topsoil stockpiles on the property were dominated by cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium), and Jim Hill mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum). The noxious weeds such as Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides), common burdock (Arctium minus), and common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) are all common are generally widespread, but occur in relatively sparse densities. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) is very common within this area. REC has been actively treating these weeds since 2008. The more coarse textured soils on the upper bench of the property are dominated by patchy, sparse stands of narrow leaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis), and common mullein (Verbascum thapsus). Finer textured topsoil stockpiles showing dominance by cheatgrass Narrowleaf cottonwood establishing on coarse textured soils App. K-55 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 55 6.2 Lower Bench The lower bench is not owned by River Edge Colorado, but they are required to perform some management activities on the property as part of the Conservation Easement. The property with the easement is directly adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. In most regions of the property the slope down to the river is exceedingly steep and is dense with woody vegetation such as ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), and oakbrush (Quercus gambelii). In some regions of the property, these steep slopes are directly adjacent to the river. In other places, river bottom/ riparian vegetation communities are present in areas of prolonged sediment deposition as a result of river configuration and water flow dynamics. These river bottom areas are dominated by narrowleaf cottonwoods, silver buffaloberry (Shepherdia argenteus), hawthorn (Cratagus rivularis & C. salina), coyote willow (Salix exigua), canary reed grass (Phalaris arundinaceae) and other pasture grasses. This lower region also has some river side channels running through them. These wetland areas include species such as water sedge (Carex aquatilus), rushes (Juncus balticus, J. ensifolius), and spike rush (Eleocharis palustris). Common mullein and yellow sweetclover on coarser soils App. K-56 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 56 Noxious weeds are both dense and abundant in the riparian areas. Species include Scotch thistle, houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), plumeless thistle, common burdock (Arctium minus), Canada thistle (Breea arvense), common tansy, and St. John’s wort (Hypericum perfoliatum). These areas are held under a Conservation Easement by the Roaring Fork Conservancy. Dense stands of oxeye daisy in Conservation Easement areas St. Johnswort and oxeye daisy in coyote willows App. K-57 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 57 Weed Management Management of noxious weeds on this property will need to continue to be consistent and persistent. It is well known that all weeds are opportunists and easily invade disturbed soils and out-compete native vegetation very easily. Although REC is currently treating weeds, it is strongly suggested that weed control treatments continue to occur before development begins. A reduction in weed populations now will assist in weed control going forward. Since all the uplands have already been disturbed, and intensive landscaping will occur in this area, there is little desirable vegetation to avoid with herbicides or mechanical treatments. However, the riparian areas will need a careful prioritization and herbicide application and/or other methods of control as these areas are more ecologically sensitive. Most of the riparian areas require RFC coordination for weed control. Prioritization of Weed Control Since the extent of the weed problem is known, a strategic prioritization of weed control activities should be executed. Small, isolated patches of weeds and/or new invaders to the area should be higher priority than very large, well-established infestations. Therefore, high priority should be given to: o Weeds that are new or relatively uncommon to the region. This would include the small populations of St. John’s wort. o Small infestations of species known to be highly invasive. This would include oxeye daisy. o Infestations likely to spread to other areas such as road sides, trails and drainages. This would include houndstongue and common burdock that is close to highly traveled trails as well as weeds that are directly adjacent to any water courses. o Edges of large infestations. This would include the edges of the large infestations of Canada and Scotch thistles and common tansy around the edges of the property. Lower priority will be given to: o Large established infestations that would be difficult to eradicate. o Less invasive species that only infest highly disturbed areas. Additionally, regular communication with the Garfield County weed program can be helpful to become aware of the potential invaders in the area as well as any new herbicides or other control methods they have found to be particularly effective. Their contact number is (970) 625-8601. App. K-58 ^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_^_60006010 6020 5970599059805960 59506030 6040 6 050 6060 6070 6080 6 090 6100611 0 6120 594 0 6130 614059306 150 6160 617061806190 6200 6210 62206 2 6 0 62706230624 06280 59206000606 0 6 010 6200 59705940 6000 59706 030 6210 618 0 6020 599060 4 0 6 030 59905950 6 010 61505990 616 0 5 9 4 0 6080 607 0 618 0 5990 5990 5950 6 160 60206200 6 140 596060105990 603 0 59906030 59905 9 8 0 61 9 0 602 0 6150 62206110 6090 6150 61606020 605 0 6 060 600059 4 0 6020 6 1 2 0 596061206040 6130 5980 6010 6040 6020 6020 6180 600 0 6150 6140 6130 60006070 602 0 603060006100 5990 599060306160 6020 60105940601 0 6160 5950 5990 6 030 6010594 0 6 110 599 0 600060206160 59606030 6 140 6040 59505940613 0 107°15'30"W107°15'30"W107°16'0"W107°16'0"W107°16'30"W107°16'30"W39°28'0"N 39°28'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'0"N 39°27'30"N 39°27'30"N Prepared By: Prepared For: Date: PENDO Solutions River Edge Colorado 11.08.2010VN This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. The maps are distributed "AS-IS" without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of suitability to a particular purpose or use. Disclaimer: FIGURE 11 Noxious Weeds 82 82 R o a r in g F o r k R iv erRiver Edge Colorado Property Other Property Contour - 10 Ft. Major Scale: 1" = 800' Feet 0 800 1,600400 Canada Thistle St. John's Wort Burdock Common Tansy Houndstongue Musk Thistle Oxeye Daisy Plumeless Thistle Scotch Thistle Common Tansy Plumeless Thistle Scotch Thistle ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ ^_ 58ROCKYMOUNTAINECOLOGICALSERVICES,INC. App. K-59 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 59 7 Literature Cited Adams, A.W. 1982. Migration (Chapter 7), in Thomas, J.W. and D.E. Toweill, eds. Elk of North America: ecology and conservation. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, PA. Alexander, S.M., N.M. Waters and P.C. Paguet. 2005. Traffic volume and highway permeability for a mammalian community in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. The Canadian Geographer, 49(4), pg 321-331. Alldredge, A.W., J.F. Lipscomb, and F.W. Whicker. 1974. Forage intake rates of mule deer estimated with fallout cersium-137. J. Wildl. Mgmnt., 38:508-516. Anderson, A.E. and D.C. Bowden. 1977. Mule deer-coyote interactions. Pp. 15-16 in Colorado Game Res. Review, 1975-1976 (O.B. Cope, ed.). Colorado Div. Wildl., Ft. Collins, CO. 73pp. Andree, W. M. 2006. Personal communication. Vail District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Andree, W. M. 2007. Personal communication, July 5, 2007. Vail District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1994. Colorado birds, a reference to their distribution and habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History. 442 pp. Arft, A.M. 1995. The genetics, demography and conservation management of the rare orchid Spiranthes diluvialis. PhD dissertation. University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. Bailey, A. M., R. J. Niedrach. 1965. Birds of Colorado. Denver Mus. of Nat. Hist., Denver, CO. Bjorkland, R. G. 1975. On the death of a Midwestern heronry. Wilson Bulletin 87:284-287. Boyd, R.J. 1978. American elk, pp. 11-29 in J.W. Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert, Big Game of North America, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg PA. Boyd, R.J. and E.E. Rayland. 1971. Breeding dates of Colorado elk as estimated by fetal growth curves. Colorado Division of Wildlife Information Leaflet No. 88. Broderick, J. Personal Communications, Wildlife Biologist, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Glenwood Springs, CO. Burke, J. 2007. Personal Communication. Forest Silviculturalist, White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, CO. Butler, R.W. 1991. A review of the biology and conservation of the great clue heron (Ardea herodias) in British Columbia. Technical report Number 154. Canadian Wildlife Service, pacific and Yukon Region, British Columbia, Canada. Butler, R.W. 1992. Great Blue Heron in A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, eds. The Brids of North America, No. 25. The Academy of natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. and te American Ornithological Union, Washington DC. Carpenter, L.H. 1976. Nitrogen-herbicide effects on sagebrush deer range. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, C). 159pp. Christensen, A.G. L.J. Lyon and J. Unsworth. 1993. Elk management in the Northern Region: considerations in forest plan updates or revisions, USDA Forest Service, GTR INT-303. Missoula, MT. App. K-60 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 60 Clevanger, A. P., B. Chruszcz, and K. Gunson. 2001 Highway mitigation fencing reduces wildlife- vehicle collisions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:646-653. Clevenger, A.P. and N. Waltho. 2000. Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Conservation Biology. 14:47-56. Clevenger, A.P. and N. Waltho. 2005. Performance indices to identify attributes of highway crossing structures facilitating movements of large mammals. Biological Conservation. 121:453-464. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2008. Natural Diversity Information System. http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/ftp/index.html Cramer, P. 2007. Elk use of existing structures and wildlife crossings in Western U.S. and Canada. Unpublished Report. USGS Cooperative Research Unit, Utah Transportation Center, Utah State University. DeVergie, W.J. 1989. Thesis: Elk movements, dispersal, and winter range carrying capacity in the upper Eagle River Valley, Colorado. Dept. of Fishery & Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO. Dodd, N.L., J.W. Gagnon, S. Boe and R.E. Schweinsburg. 2005. Evaluation of measures to minimize wildlife-vehicle collisions and maintain permeability across highways- State Route 260, Arizona, USA. Interim Report from Arizona Game and Fish Department to Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ. Dodd, N.L., J.W. Gagnon, S. Boe, and R.E. Schweinsburg. 2006. Characteristics of elk-vehicle collisions and comparison to GPS-determined highway crossing patterns. Pages 461-477 in C.L. Irwin, P. Garrett, and K.P. McDermott, eds. 2005 proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Tansportation. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh NC. Dodd, N.L., J.W. Gagnon, S. Boe, and R.E. Schweinsburg. 2007. Assessment of Elk Highway Permeability by Using Global Positioning System Telemetry. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(4):1107-1117; 2007). Edwards, J. S. 1972. Arthropod fallout on Alaskan snow. Arct. Alp. Res. 4: 167–176. Farrell, J.E., L.R. Irby, and P.T. McGowan. 2002. Strategies for ungulate-vehicle collision mitigation. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 8:1-18. Federal Register 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule. FR 70(90) 24870-24934. http://www.USFWS.gov/endangered/candidates/2005.CNOR%2011May05%20FR.pdf Fertig, W., R. Black and P. Wolken. 2005. Rangewide Status Review of Ute Ladies’-Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). Prepared for the USFWS and Central Utah Conservancy District. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History. University Press of Colorado. P.O. Box 849, Niwot, CO 80544. Freddy, D. 2003. Personal communication with Keith Giezentanner regarding proposed parameters of elk populations. Biologist with CDOW. App. K-61 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 61 Freddy, D. J., W.M. Bronaugh and M.C. Fowler. 1986. Response of mule deer to disturbance by persons afoot and snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 14:63-68. In Joslin, G., and H. Youmans, coordinators. 1999. Freddy, D., L.Baker, R.M. Bartmann, and R.C. Kufeld. 1993. Deer and elk management analysis guide, 1992-1994. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Freddy, D.J. 1987. The White River elk herd: a perspective, 1960-1985. Tech. Publication, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. 37:1-64. Gabrielsen, G.W. and E.N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. Pages 95- 107 in R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Gagnon, J.W., T.C. Theimer, N.L. Dodd, S. Boe, and R.E. Schweinsburg. 2007. Traffic Volume Alters Elk Distribution and Highway Crossings in Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(7): 2318-2323; 2007. George, S. and K Crooks. 2006. Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve. Biological Conservation 133:107–117. Gibbs, J.P., and L.K. Kinkel. 1997. Determinants of the size and location of Gret Blue Heron colonies. Colonial Waterbirds 20:1-7. Giezentanner, K.I. 2004. Management indicator species monitoring protocol, White River National Forest, Rocky Mountain elk. USDA Forest Service, White River National Forest unpublished report. Glenwood Springs, CO. 10p. Giezentanner, K.I. 2007-2008. Personal Communications. Forest Ecologist, White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, CO. Groves, J. Personal Communications, Carbondale District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Glenwood Springs, CO. Grubb, M.M. 1979. Effects of increased noise levels on nesting herons and egrets. Proceedings of 1978 Conference of Colonial Waterbird Group: 49-54. Hart, J.H. and D.L. Hart. 2001. Interaction among cervids, fungi, and aspen in northwest Wyoming. Pages 197-205 In: Sheppard, W.D., D. Binkley, D.L. Bartos, T.J. Stohlgren, and L.G. Lane (compilers), sustaining aspen in western landscapes: symposium proceedings; June 13-15, 2000, Grand Junction, CO. proceedings RMRS-P-18. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ft. Collins, CO. Hillis, J.M., M. J. Thompson, J.E. Canfield, L.J. Lyon, C.L. Marcum, P.M. Dolan, D.W. McCleerey. 1991. Defining elk security: the Hillis paradigm. Pages 38-43 in Proceedings of Elk Vulnerability Symposium. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. Hoover, R. L. and D. L. Wills, eds. 1984. Managing forested lands for wildlife. Published by Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. 459pp. Kelsall, J.P., K. Etienne, C. Strong, M. McCaustland, and M.L. Parkes. 2006. Annotated atlas and implications for conservation of heron and egret nesting colonies in the San Francisco Bay area, ACR Technical Report 90-3-17. Audubon Canyon Ranch, Marshall CA. Kingery, H. E. 1998. Colorado breeding bird atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Div. Wildl., Denver. App. K-62 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 62 Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:31-39. Knight, R.L. and D. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pp 51–69. in Knight, R.L. and D. Cole, editors. eds. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. Island Press. Washington D.C. Knight, R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 51-69 in R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington D.C. Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller, editors. (eds.). 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. Island Press. Washington, D.C. Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and recreation: coexistence through management and research. Island, Washington, D.C. Lenth, B.E., R.L. Knight, M.E. Brennen. 2008. The Effects of Dogs on Wildlife Communities. Natural Areas Journal 28(3):218-227. Leptich, D.J. and P. Zager 1991. Road access management effects on elk mortality and population dynamics. From proceedings of a symposium on elk vulnerability; Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. April 1-12-1991.(In USDA Forest Service, 2000). Loveless, C.M. 1967. Ecological characteristics of a mule deer winter range. Tech. Bull., Colorado Div. Game, Fish and Parks, 20:1-124. Lowsky, J. 2007. Great Blue Heron Abandonment. Memorandum to the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, June 7, 2007. Colorado Wildlife Science, Basalt, CO. 22pp. Lowsky, J. 2008. Personal Communications. Wildlife Biologist/Principal, Colorado Wildlife Science, Basalt, CO. Lyon, L.J. 1979. Habitat effectiveness for elk as influenced by roads and cover. J. Forestry. 77:658-660. Lyon, L.J. 1983. Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk. J. Forestry. 81:592-595. Lyon, L.J. and A.G. Christensen. 2002. Elk and land management. Pages 557-582 in D.E. Toweill and J.W. Thomas, Elk of North America: Ecology and Management. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. Lyon, L.J. and A.L. Ward. 1982. Elk and land management. Pages 443-477 in J.W. Thomas and D.E. Toweill, eds. Elk of North America: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PE. Lyon, L.J. and C.E. Jensen. 1980. Management implications of elk and deer use of clear-cuts in Montana. J. Wildlife Management, 44:352-361. Mackie, R.J., K.L. Hamlin, and D.F. Pac. 1982. Mule deer. Pp. 862-877, in wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics (J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, eds.) Johns Hopkins Univ. Press. Baltimore, 1147pp. Markham, B.J. and S.H. Brechtel. 1979. Status and management of three colonial waterbird species in Alberta. Proceedings of 1978 Conference of Colonial Waterbird Group. 2:55-64. Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife response to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:124–132. CSA App. K-63 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 63 Morrison, J.R. 1992. Thesis: The effects of ski area expansion on elk, and accuracy of 2 telemetry systems in mountainous terrain. Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO. Moul, I.E. 1990. Environmental contaminants and breeding failure at a Great Blue Heron colony on Vancouver Island. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Nagy, J.G. and R.P. Tengerdy. 1967. Antibacterial action of essential oils of Artemisia as an ecological factor II. Antibacterial action of the volatile oils of Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush) on bacteria from the rumen of mule deer. Appl. Microbiology. 16:441-444. NatureServe. 2008. Spiranthes diluvialis Sheviak comprehensive report. NatureServe Explorer (www.natureserve.org/explorer) accessed 23 June 2008) NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2007. Version 1.4 . Arlington, Virginia, USA: Association for Biodiversity Information. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/. Nelson, J.R. and T.A. Leege. 1982. Nutritional requirements and food habits. Pages 323-367 in J.W. Thomas and D.E. Toweill, eds. Elk of North America: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. Odell, E. and R.L. Knight. 2001. Songbird and medium-sized mammal communities associated with exurban development in Pitkin County, Colorado. Conservation Biology 15:1143–1150. CrossRef, CSA Petterson, E. S. 2010. Reclamation Plan for River Edge Colorado. Garfield County, Colorado. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Glenwood Springs, CO. Petterson, E.S. 2006a. Ecological Assessment for the Los Amigos project, Garfield County, Colorado. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Redstone, CO. Petterson, E.S. 2006b. Wildlife Assessment for the Hunt Ranch project, Garfield County, Colorado. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Redstone, CO. Petterson, E.S. 2007a. Wildlife Assessment for the Ginn Battle Mountain Resort. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Redstone, CO. Petterson, E.S. 2007b. Ecological Assessment for the Spring Valley Ranch project, Garfield County, Colorado. Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Redstone, CO. Phillips, G.E. 1998. Effects of human-induced disturbance during calving season on reproductive success of elk in the upper Eagle River Valley, Colorado. Dissertation, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO. Phillips, G.E. and A.W. Alldredge. 2000. Reproductive success of elk following disturbance by humans during calving season. J. Wildlife Management, 64:521-530. Pierson, K. and V.J. Tepedino. 2000. The pollination ecology of a rare orchid, Spiranthes diluvialis: Implications for conservation. Report prepared for Uinta National Forest by Utah State University, Logan, UT. Quinney, T.E. 1982. Growth, diet, and mortality of nestling Great Blue Herons. Wilson Bulletin 94:571-577. Riedel, L. 2008. Personal communication. City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks, Boulder CO. App. K-64 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 64 Rodgers, J.A. and H.T. Smith. 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9:89-99. Romme, W. H., M. G. Turner. 1991. Implications of global climatic change for biogeographic patterns in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Conserv. Biol. 5: 373–386. Rosenberg, K. V., R. D. Ohmart, W. C. Hunter, B. W. Anderson. 1991. Birds of the lower Colorado River valley. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson. Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson and J.G. Kie. Elk distribution and modeling in relation to roads. J. of Wildlife Management, 64:672-684. Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gnidek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinalki, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, A. Williamson. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142p. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, G. Gough, I. Thomas, B. G. Peterjohn. 1997. The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis. Version 96.3: www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Seidel, J.W. 1977. Elk calving behavior in west central Colorado, in Proceedings Western States Elk Workshop, Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver, CO. Sipes, S.D and V.J. Tepedino. 1995. Reproductive biology of the rare orchid, Spiranthes diluvialis: Breeding system, pollination and implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 9(4): 929- 938). Sipes, S.D., P.G. Wolf and V.J. Tepedino. 1995. The pollination and reproduction of Spiranthes diluvialis: Implications for conservation of four populations. Report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management by Utah State University, Logan, UT. Skagen, S.K., C.P. Melcher, and E. Muths. 2001. The interplay of habitat change, human disturbance and species interactions in a waterbird colony. The American Midland Naturalist 145:18-29. Skovlin, J.M., P. Zager, and B.K. Johnson. 2002. Elk habitat selection and evaluation. Pages 531-556 in D.E. Toweill and J.W. Thomas, Elk of North America: Ecology and Management. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. Spellerberg, L.F. 1998. Ecological effects of roads and traffic: a literature review. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters. 7, 317-333. Suzuki, K. 1997. Aspen regeneration in elk winter range of Rocky Mountain National Park and Roosevelt National Forest. Masters Thesis, Colorado State University, Graduate Degree Program in Ecology, Ft. Collins, CO. Thomas, J.W. and D.E. Toweill. 1982. Elk of North America: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. Thomas, J.W., H. Black, Jr., R.J. Scherzinger and R.J. Pedersen. 1979. Deer and elk, pp. 104-127 in J.W. Thomas, ed., Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington, USDA Forest Service, Agricultural Handbook No. 553. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. Thompson, R.T. 2007. Stillwater Bald Eagle Conservation Plan, Town of Silt, Colorado. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder CO. 36pp. App. K-65 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 65 Thompson, R.W., L. Sakata & E. Petterson. 2008. Habitat Conservation Plan for Battle Mountain Resort, Minturn, CO. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. in progress. Towry, R.K., Jr. 1984. Wildlife habitat requirements. Pages 72-209 in R.L. Hoover and D.L. Wills eds. Managing forested lands for wildlife. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to list the Spiranthes diluvialis as a Threatened species. Federal Register 57(12):2048-2052. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the United States: The 1995 List. USFWS, Office of Migratory Bird Manage. I49.2: M 58/4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding on a petition to delist the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid and initiation of a 5-year review. Federal Register 69(196): 60605-60607. U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Land and Resource Management Plan, White River National Forest (as amended). Glenwood Springs, CO. U.S. Forest Service. 2002b. Record of Decision for the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 Revision. Glenwood Springs, CO. U.S. Forest Service. 2006. Final Environmental Assessment, Management Indicator Species (MIS) Forest Plan Amendment 03/06, to the 2002 Land and Resource Management Plan- 2002 Amendment for the White River National Forest. White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, CO. Vennesland, R.G. 2000. The effects of disturbance from humans and predators on the breeding decisions and productivity of the Great Blue Heron in south-costal British Columbia. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. response of breeding great blue heron (Ardea herondias) to human disturbance in north central Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8:13-22. Watts, B.D. and D.S. Bradshaw. 1994. The influence of human disturbance on the location of great glue heron colonies in the lower Chesapeake Bay. Colonial Waterbirds 17:184-186. Weber, W.A. and R.C. Wittmann. 2001. Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope and Western Slope. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO. Wershkul, D.F., E. McMahon, and M. Lieitschuh. 1976. Some effects of human activities on the great blue heron in Oregon. Wilson Bulletin 88:660-662. Will, P. 2008. Personal Communications, Area Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Glenwood Springs, CO. Wood, K. 2007. Personal Communications, Basalt District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Glenwood Springs, CO. Yeager, L.E. and L. Riordan. 1953. Effects of beetle-killed timber on range and wildlife in Colorado. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 18: 596-616. Yong, W., D. M. Finch. 1997. Population trends of migratory landbirds along the middle Rio Grand. Southwest. Nat. 42: 137–147. App. K-66 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 66 8 Appendix I: CDOW NDIS Habitat Definitions The following section defines the ungulate seasonal activity area definitions used by CDOW in their habitat mapping protocol. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK HIGHWAY CROSSING: Those areas where elk movements traditionally cross roads, presenting potential conflicts between elk and motorists. MIGRATION CORRIDORS: A specific Mappable site through which large numbers of animals migrate and loss of which would change migration routes. OVERALL RANGE: The area which encompasses all known seasonal activity areas within the observed range of an elk population. 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: 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. SEVERE WINTER: 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. SUMMER CONCENTRATION: 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. 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. WINTER CONCENTRATION: 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. 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. MULE DEER 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. HIGHWAY CROSSING: Those areas where mule deer movements traditionally cross roads, presenting potential conflicts between mule deer and motorists. App. K-67 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 67 MIGRATION CORRIDORS: A specific Mappable site through which large numbers of animals migrate and loss of which would change migration routes. OVERALL RANGE: The area which encompasses all known seasonal activity areas within the observed range of a mule deer population. RESIDENT POPULATION: 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. SEVERE WINTER: 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. 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. WINTER CONCENTRATION: 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. 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. BLACK BEAR FALL CONCENTRATION: That portion of the overall range occupied from August 15 until September 30 for the purpose of ingesting large quantities of mast and berries to establish fat reserves for the winter hibernation period. HUMAN CONFLICT: That portion of the overall range where two or more confirmed black bear complaints per season were received which resulted in CDOW investigation, damage to persons or property (cabins, tents, vehicles, etc), and/or the removal of the problem bear(s). This does not include damage caused by bears to livestock. OVERALL RANGE: The area which encompasses all known seasonal activity areas within the observed range of a population of black bear. SUMMER CONCENTRATION: That portion of the overall range of the species where activity is greater than the surrounding overall range during that period from June 15 to August 15. App. K-68 River Edge Colorado Wildlife & Vegetation Assessment Report 12/11/2010 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 68 9 Appendix II: Qualifications of Report Author The primary author for this report was Eric Petterson, Principal Ecologist at Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. Mr. Petterson holds a Master of Science Degree in Rangeland Ecosystem Science and a Bachelors of Science Degree in Wildlife Biology from Colorado State University. Mr. Petterson has 19 years of natural resource planning and management experience. He has authored numerous Biological Assessments and Evaluations for NEPA and Endangered Species Act compliance for both wildlife and plant species protection. He has produced management plans and impact analyses for federal, state, and private natural resource projects, and conducted many surveys for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species in Colorado. He has implemented a variety of vegetation monitoring and vegetation management projects, wetland delineations, and research-based projects for the USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado State Parks, Summit County, Town of Breckenridge, Pitkin County Open Space & Trails, City of Aspen, Gunnison County, Town of New Castle and various private properties within Pitkin, Eagle, Grand, Garfield, Gunnison and Boulder Counties. Wildlife and vegetation management reports and compliance have been provided for entities such as Aspen Skiing Company, Vail Resorts, Sunlight Ski Company, Loveland Ski Area, ETC Canyon Pipeline, Noble Energy, SG Interests, Kennecott Utah Copper (a subsidiary of Rio Tinto), Western Area Power Administration, Holy Cross Electric and Mountain Parks Electric Assoc. Mr. Petterson has also been a consultant/contractor on post-fire vegetation management on the Hayman, Missionary Ridge, Burn Canyon, and Eldorado Canyon fires in Colorado, and the Cerro Grande fire in New Mexico. RMES, Inc. has also provided wetland delineation and 404 permitting for compliance with the Clean Water Act for clients including natural gas development companies, Kennecott Utah Copper, developers, pipeline companies, and for wetland reclamation and habitat improvement projects. Mr. Petterson has managed Rocky Mountain Ecological Services since 2000, and previous to working with RMES, Inc., he was the District Wildlife Biologist and Fuels Planner for the Canyon Lakes Ranger District on the Arapaho & Roosevelt National Forest. Mr. Petterson was with the USDA Forest Service for 10 years. App. K-69