HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.04 Vegetation & WildlifeSECTION 4:70(C, D)
SUPPLEMENTAL IN FORMATION
VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
Section 4z7O(C and D)
Supplemental fnformation - Veoetation and Wildlife
Rocky Mountain Ecological services, Inc. of Redstone, colorado did an
evaluation of the vegetation on the property as well as the wildlife.
The complete text of their report is attached.
The existing vegetation is identified on the attached Vegetation Map.
It consists primarily of sagebrush, with scattered patches of juniper
and pinyon. The sagebrush flats were cleared at some point in the
past; and the native grasses were replaced with crested wheatgrass.
trto significant areas of weed infestation were identified during the
vegetation inventorY.
A weed management plan (see copy attached) has been developed for
the property. The strategies identified in this plan will be utilized
during the construction and subsequent re-vegetation of the property
in order to keep the weeds under control.
I
PROJECT MANAGER
-BclslAbtrr--QErigqBS-
-PreEe--LU-
-9i!!&4.84-
REVISION DATE
-gE!!.C!-
ARTEMISIA TRIDENTATA
(SAGE MEADOW- TYP.)
MIXED SAGUGRASSES
o
o %
a ocCI
A € EI.U3E
i, \,,
-EtU1J\-o9 {,
2_ E i(Lil
NOBLE DESIGN STUDIO
p 970ffi.7027 l97O5B
bdHmnqtsEI@ltjlr!+h
ARTEMISIA TRIDENTATA
(SAGE MEADOW. TYP.)
GUY
ARTEMISIA TRIDENTATA
(SAGE MEADOW. TYP.)
ARTEMISIA TRIDENTATA
(SAGE MEADOW- TYP.)
MIXED SAGE/GRASSES
MIXED SAGUGRASSES
MIXED SAGE/GRASSES
<^----J
o
@
s
&
@o
o bo
o&n
L-01
Existing Vegetation
SHEET
PINYON/JUNIPER WOODLAND (rYP.)
r9S1@12 C.tuld.ffit14
WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN
For PTNYON MESA
This report is based on recommendations found within the current Garfield Coun$ Noxious Weed
Management Plan as well a site inventory of vegetation on the p@ect site.
WEED MAI\.IAGEMENT:
The project will be built in phases. The east side (Lots 1 through 48) will be built in {e first phase
and tneiecond phase (Lois a9 through 80) on the west side lots will remain undisturbecl untilthe
latter phase is undenray. Much of the site will remain undisturbed as nearly 50 percent of the
project site will not be developed.
The stands of Pinyon and Juniper trees have created a biologiggl effect whereby understory
weeds and other understory plint growth have been inhibited. The stands of Pinyon and Juniper
witl be protected as much as possible so little noxious weed presence is anticipated.
lnitially, the owner will be responsible for the eradication and contiainment of noxious weed
speci6i during the cunent OuitOing season and into the following season. After the project is built,
tne XomeownLis Association wilibe responsible for the eradication, suppression, and
containment of noxious weeds.
Revegetaton, with temporary iniga[on, will occur on all hazardous slopes br 1) ercsbn control'
2) dust control, and, 3) for noxious weed control-
The goals of the projects weed management program are b prevent the spread and
estaSlishment of noiious weeds, eradlcate species where neoessary, as well as to contain and
manage noxious weed species that may develop as a result of constsudion acfivities.
per the vegetation report and site inventory there was no significant presence of the following
noxious weed species:
Canada thistle, Musk thisUe, Chicory, Oxeye Daisy, Common Burdock, Plumeless This[e, Hoary
Gressryhitetop, Purple loosestrife, houndstongue, Russian Olive, Jointed Goatgrass, Scotch
Thisle, XnapweeO liifuse, spotted or Russian), Tamarisk, D4matian Toadflaq YdlwT@dflax,
Leafy Spurge or Yeitow Starthistle (Garfield County Noxious Weed Lisg.
Vegetation present on the site, besides the Pinyon and Juniper stands, were aE bllows:
Sagebrush (both ArfemLsia tridentata sbsp. pauciflora and Ntemisia f. sbsp. trklentatal and black
sad'e (Arfemisia nova).ln the southwest comer of the property areas exotic grasses oocur, as
noleOi Fendle/s bluegrass (Poa tendten), lndian paintbrush (Castilleia drornosa), dwarf larkspur
(Detphinium netsonii),-prairie Junegrass (Koetena macranthal, sedge (Carcx geophila), lndian
Acelrass (Oryzopsii hymenoides), westem wheatgrass (Pasapyrum smithii), horsebrush
ffetraayiiaianbsceni), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), Orcrcarya spp., and milkvetch
(Astragal us mollissimus var.thompon iae).
WEED CONTROL STRATEGIES:
Weed control objectives will be to eradicate, suppress or containment of weed populations-
Eradicate means completely eliminating allweed plants, including live roots, rhizomes and seeds.
Eradicating a weed species is very difficult unless it is present in small numbers.
Suppress means to reduce the abundance of a weed species, typically as measured by plant
O"jiiity. Suppression efforts reduce the vigor of well-established and possibly permanent weed
popudtions winin an infested area, decrease propagule pressure and spread to.sunounding
ir6as, mitigate the negative impacts of established weeO populations on inbsted aneas, and help
restore infested areasl Such eiforts will employ a broad anay of weed management techniques
as follows:
a) Biological: the use of desirable to disrupt the growth of noxious weeds.
b) Cultural: implement the growth of desirable plants over noxious weeds, including maintaining
an optimum fertltity and pla-nt moisture status in an area, planting at optimum density and spatial
anangement in an area, and planting species most suited to an area.
c) Mechanical: physically disrupt plant growth, including titling, mowing, hand-pulling, and hoeing.
tl) Chemical: use of herbicides onty where necessary to disrupt the grorvtr of noxious weeds.
Containment means confining an infestration so it does not expand as follors:
a) Mowing or cufting where necessary
b) Preventing weeds from becoming established in the first place.
c) Re-seeding with a mixture of competitive, desirable plants, especially grasPs, that span the
sbectrum of j'rowth periods (cool- and warm-season planB) and rooting depths.
d) Containment efforts will include maintenance of a weed-free buffer zone that separate
iritesteO areas from largely uninfected areas if this occurs as a result of construction activities.
REVEGETATION:
1) Hydroseeding will occur where there are hazardous disturbed slopes and areas of disfurbance
wlBr 15% slopes or greater (Garfield County Reclamaton Guidelines).
2) Seeding materialto be used for reclamation:
Seeding rarte: zlbs per 1000 square feet (or 25 lbs per acre)
06 SPECIES coltlf,oN NAilE
17 Oryzopsis hymenoides
16 Fostuca idahoensis10 Chrysothamnusnauseousus10 Pseudoregneria sPicata inerme
10 Pseudoregneria sPicata10 Pascopyrum smithii6 Leymus cinereus5 Artemesia tridentata5 Poa secunda4 Boutelous curtiPendula
2 Stipa comata2 Bouteloua gracilis
2 Hilaria jamesii
1 Elymus elymoides
lndian Ricegrass
ldaho Fescue
Rabbitbrush
Beard less Bluebunch Wheatgrass
Bluebunch Wheatgrass
Westem Wheatgrass
Basin Wildrye
Mountrain Sage
Sandberg's Bluegrass
Side+ats Grama
Needle and Thread
Blue Grama
Galleta
Bottlebrush Sq uineltail
3) Areas of impact Primarily areas around the first phase of development, and later, areas
impacted by the second phase of development.
4) Temporary irrigation will be provided where necessary to establish revegetation seeding.
5) The project will conform to Garfield County guidelines for Weed Management and
Reclamation Guidelines.
Prepared June 5, 2(X)6 by Noble tlesign Strdio
Robert Adams, ASIA Prolect Manager
KYMOUNTAIN ECOLOGI ERVICE INC.
NEPA..WILDLIFE..VEGETATION..WILDFIRE MITIGATION..WETLANDS ..PLANNING
WII-DLIFE ANALYSIS
Inapn.CT AND MITIGATION REPONT
Fon Txe
Los Aurcos, LoweR VALLEY PRo-lEcr
Ga.nrrelo CoUNTY Cotonaoo
PnepnneD FoR:
NOeLE DESTGN STUOIO
APRIL,2006
0222 BOBCAT LANE . REDSTONE . COLORADO . 81623
PHoNE/FAX: (970) 963-2190 ' CELL: (970) 309-44s4
EMAIL: ERIC.PETTERSON @STARBAND.NE,T
i.ip
':l
il
1 SuuuanY
This Wildlife Assessment Report detaits the habitats, wildlife use, potential impacts and mitigation
measures proposed on the Lost Amigos, Lower Valley Subdivision (also known as Phase 3),
aOlacent to'the Thunder River Marketplace and immediately south of County Road 114 in Garfield
County (see Figure 1).
The proponent is proposing the development of the property, placing 80 building envelopes within
the 6b acre parcel. fne property is currently zoned PUD- Subdivision (High Density).
The site is located on a mid-slope bench in between the greater Missouri Heighb_area_and the
Roaring Fork Valley. The site is dominated by sagebrush (Arfemisia tidentata pauciflora) flats,-and
scatter6d pinyon pine (prnus edulrs) and junlper tree (Sabina osteosperma) stands- Most of the
""g"Urrrn
stands "pp""r to have b'een cleared many years ago [o1 grazllg, as evidenced by the
lack of native undersiory grasses and forbs, and the dominance of the cultivar crested wheatgrass
(Agropyron cisiatum) on itr" site. There is one area in the southwestem comer of the property that
ip-p"ii" to have noi been cleared in the past. ln this. area the understory of the sagebrush is
dbinlnated by a variety of native forbs and grasses. The greater area is commonly used by elk
during the winter months.
After a site visit on April 24,2006, coordination with Kelly Wood, District Wildlife Manager with the
Colorado Division of Wildlife occurred to discuss potential impacts to wintering big game in the
area.
1.1 Ever.uetED SPEcIES
lnformation on species status, distribution, and ecology was derived from USFWS recovery plans,
Colorado Natural Heritage Program maps and reports, Colorado Division of Wildlife habitat
mapping, personal knowl6dge fr6m the CDOW District Wildlife Manager, various scientffic studies
and'reioris, and field reviJws. The US Fish and Wildlife list of Threatened and Endangered
Species was used to determine if any species potentially occurred within.or adjacent to the
pioperty. Additionally, the Colorado Division of Wildlife's list of Threatened, Endangered, and
bpdciei of Concem was referenced to determine is any species had potential habitat on or adiacent
to the property (see:
us/VVi
atenedAndEndanqeredSpecies.htm for the complete CDOW list)
h
Research was conducted by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services to determine relevant habitat
associations, life history traiG, the iangewide or stiatewide distribution of known populations, and
current status and trend of each species.
The Colorado Natural Heritage database was consulted to ascertain the existence of known
occurences within the projeit area. Habitat surveys were conducted in April 2006 by Eric
Petterson, Principal Ecologist of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, lnc-
2Sa
f nocrcv ivtouNTAIN EcoLocICAL SERVlcEs, INC.
The following species either had habitat on or adjacent to the proper$:
E1k
Mule Deer
Black Bear
Bald Eagte (Federally Threatened)
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (State Species of Concem)
River Otter (State Threatened)
o
o
o
o
o
o
The property does not contain any habitat for Federally Threatened or Endangered species.
Howdvei bald eagles (Federally Thieatened) are known to use the Roaring Fork drainage during
the winter months, and a nest siie occurs souih of the project area in the Aspen Glen subdivision.
Additionally, Colorado River cutthroat trout (S'tate Species of Concem) have suitiable habitat in the
Roaring rork River and its tributaries. The development of the property should not impact the
ability of tnis species to utilize suitable riverine habitats near the project area-
River Otter (State Threatened) does have suitable habitat within the Roaring Fork River, but as the
piofurtv does not have any stieams, this project should have no impact on River Otter or its habitat.
3Sr
f Rocrv UouNTAIN EcoLoGICAL SERYICES,INC.
z TABLE oF ContrrNrs
1 Summary
1.1 Evaluated SPecies
2 Table of Contents
3 Existing Conditions
3.1.1 Historical Use and
3.1.2 UplandVegetation
3.2 Figure 1: Map of Los Amigos Lower Valley Property
3.3 Wildlife Use of Area .........
3.3.1 Mule Deer....
3.3.1.1 Figure 2: Mule DeerWnter Range
3.3.2 Elk.............
3.3.2.1 Figure 3: Elk Winter Range
3.3.3 Lighting & Game Use...........
3.3.4 Roads
3.3.5 Fences......
2
2
4
5
5
5
6
7
7
8
9
Landscaping and Revegetation.....
Domestic Dogs .........
CDOW lndemnification..................
3.3.9 Bears...
3.3.6
3.3.7
3.3.8
3.3.10
3.3.11
...10
...11
...11
... 'l'l
...12
...12
12
13
.....13
.....14
8irds.........
Figure 4: Map of Btack Bear Human Conflict Area (CDOW).-..
4 Sagebrush Habitats
4.1 Figure 5: High Quality Sagebrush Habitats on Property
4.2 Other Recommended Mitigations.
15
15
16
4t3
f Rocrv MouNTAIN EcoLoGICAL SERVICES,INC.
L.osAnigos, Laerervalb V/ildWA,,4hsitRe?ort A?lil 2006
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1.1 HrstonrcetUspeNo Inrpecrs
The sagebrush flats on the property were cleared
many years ago for increased grazing or possibly
hay meadow production. This deduction was
made based on the almost complete lack of native
forbs and grasses in the sagebrush areas, and
instead of native plants, the dominance of the
understory by crested wheatgrass (a cultivar from
Asia). Over time, the sagebrush has become
reestablished in the flats.
The area is currently used by OHV's and four-
wheel drive vehicles for hill climbing and other off-
road activities. Because of the highly erosive soils
in the area, these activities have produced evident
scarring of hillsides.
There is also quite a bit of trash in the drainage
bisecting the property, with old cars, tires and
other refuse in the gulch. A buried utility corridor
Hill climbing activities on the site have produced
these scars
was not historical cleared and
and pad exists along the northern side of the property,
3.1.2 Upr-errroVBcrtlrroN
The site is dominated by sagebrush (both Artemisia tidentafa sbsp. pauciflora and A.f. sbsp.
tidentata) and possibly black sage (Arfem isia nova)- There are scattered stands of pinyon / juniper
trees on the property as well. These two tree species are notorious for providing very harsh
growing conditions under them due to allelopathic chemicals released by the dominant trees.
These chemicals retard and prevent the establishment of grasses, forbs and other shrub species
from becoming established under the tree crowns. However, this is the natura! condition of these
pinyon/juniper woodlands.
ln the southwest corner of the propefi some
reseeded with exotic grasses, and therefore
has a healthy native understory suite of
species, including: Fendler's bluegrass (Poa
fendleri), lndian paintbrush (Castilleja
ch romosa), dwarf larkspur (De I ph i n i um
nelsoniil, prairie Junegrass (Koeleia
macrantha), sedge (Carex geophila), lndian
ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), western
wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithif), horsebrush
(Tetradymi a canesce/rs), rabbitbrush
(C h rysoth amn u s nauseosus), Ore rcarya spp.,
and milkvetch (Asfragalus mollissimus var.
thompsoniae).
of the
Photo of sagebrush flats proposed for development.
5
Ss
, RoCKY MoUNTATN ECoLoGICAI SERVICES, INC.
*., :,
'lc. '-:
':-'t{..
3.2 Frcunn t Mep or Los Aurcos Lowen Verr-ny pnopBnry
I
1
irl.{;tr Rocky Mountain
Ecologlcal Servlcss, lnc.
0??2 Bohear Lane. Redstone. CO 81623
970 963.2 r90
elic.petterson@starband net
_ _L:: trls":- Low_e.r Yalt:y
Los Amigos- Phase 3
Garfi eld County, Colorado
Figure
1
Drawn By: Eric P€tterson
Date: Aprll 2006
scale: 1:5.370
s.
4-
J
"\ '.if-;
"a ilr '"-'
,-"},
'T
ra
t
:' ra "T .i.."
*i .!.7 -..r '_'J
t i:r
.. irl ,":r. t'
rl
,li
'.<]
.!'
a'
3
3.3 Wrrlr,rrB Usn or AnBe
3.3.1 Murc DBen
The property has moderate levels of mule deer use, but this use increases during the winter months.
The CDOW has most of the area mapped as mule deer Winter Range and Severe Winter Range.
The significant use of the property by elk may preclude some deer use.
Development of the property will convert a significant portion to unavailable habitat for deer use.
Based on the current land use plan, there will be some "Open Space" areas within the development
(mainly along the gulch), and around some of the edges of the property. Deer are more likely to
continue to use some of these areas than elk are, but the presence of dogs in the subdivision will
likely exclude any significant deer use of these open spaces. Even with dogs in kenneled or fenced
yards, their barking and activities will keep deer away from the general area. Also, it is inevitable
that off-leash or loose dogs will chase any deer near the subdivision.
Some recommendations to minimize impacts to deer from the development would be:
. Prohibit dogs (although having one dog per household is permitted at this time).
. lncorporate provisions in the covenants enforcing prohibition of off-leash dogs
(through fines, etc.). This should be especially considered for the winter months
(November 1"t through March 31"t).
. Remove all fences. lf fences are needed to dissuade trespass from nearby BLM
lands, then fences should be "wildlife friendly"- See Section 3.3.5 below
. Work with BLM to curtail OHV use and possible restoration of impacted habitats
adjacent to the property.
Intact understory of undisturbed sagebrush area
7SaI Rocrcv Mor.rNTArN Ecot-ocrcar Srrvrces, INc.
3.3.1.1 Freanz 2: Man-s Dppn Wwtun ReNen
8
Legend
QJ towerValley Property
r
-
- .
:,
tU U t E_DEE R-winter_concentration_STATE
i-i,i nf Uf-e-DEER-severe-winter_STATE
',' t' MULE_DEER-winter_range_STATE
trt
tr Rocky Mountaln
Ecologlcal Servlces, lnc.
022? Bolrcat Lsne. Redstone. CO El623
970.963.?190
eric. pellerson@starband.het
Mule DeerWinter Range
Los Amigos- Phase 3
Garlleld County, Colorado
Figure
2
Drawn By: Eric Pettarson
Date: April 20oG
Scale: 1:12.738
S*I Rocrv Mousrary Ecorocrcar SrrvrcEs,INc.
3.3.2 Elx
The properg is within an important migration corridor channeling elk from the Missouri Heights,
Spring talby, and Red Table Mountain areas. North of the property, the_ steep clifis preclude
signiti-cant eli migration routes down to the Roaring Fork Valley, and the Cattle Creek drainage
privides a good riute for migrating elk. Because of this, herds congregate and move through the
area, winteing near the Roaring Fbrk River, Aspen Glen and the Bair Chase Ranch. Even before
Bair Chase v6getation (and winter foraging opportunities) was removed in 2005, elk would move
back and forth-from the Bair Chase anO Aspen Glen properties up onto the Los Amigos properties
and adjacent BLM and private lands east of SH-83. This movement around their winter ranges is
driven 6y sno6allevents, and subsequent snowmelt periods throughout the w_inter. With the lack of
winter foraging opportunities on Bair Chase, elk use of other winter ranges in the area have become
more important for elk nutritional needs.
Because of the understory of crested wheatgrass in much of the sagebrush meadows, and OHV use
in adjacent BLM lands, elk foraging in the area of the Lower Valley proiect has already been
compromised to some degree. However, as elk have very traditional use patterns, elk will continue
to use these compromised winter ranges.
The CDOW has the property, and surrounding areas mapped as elk Winter Range, and Severe
Winter Range.
Development of the property will convert a significant portion of the area to unavailable habitat for elk
use. Based on the cuneht land use plan, there will be some "Open Space" areas within the
development (mainly along the gulch), and around some of the edges of the property. As elk can be
very sensitive to human Lctivities, elk will generally avoid much of the property. Elk m-ay pass
through the property during the nighttime hours, as they move thrcugh the area looking for more
suitab-le winter ioraling opportunities. There is even the likelihood that elk will browse within the
subdivision after development. Because elk are very habitual, they will likely show up in the area
during the early winter as they move out of the high country onto their traditional winter ranges. Elk
wi[ [[ely contihue to use the adjacent BLM lands south of the property, and will likely utilize these
habitats much more intensively.
As elk will continue to use these traditional yet compromised habitats (Bair Chase, the BLM lands,
adjacent suffiivisions, and the Los Amigos Lower Valley property), the ability of elk to find adequate
forage throughout the winter, coupled with increased stress from elevated human activity in the area
will iikely meln that over-wintering elk will have increased levels of winter mortality from nutritional
deficiencies.
!n summary, this project will contribute with other land use changes in the greater Cattle Creek area
that are hiving a negative impact on elks ability to procure suitable winter forage. The direct
negative impacG of this particular project on elk fitness and spring health of elk.coming ofi of winter
ra,ige is not likely measurable or quintifiable, but cumulatively the loss of habitat on Bair-Chase,
increased traffic on SH-84, and OHV use on BLM tands, may produce measurable increases in elk
mortality, and decreased fitness of elk coming ofi of winter ranges in this area. ln the future, the
redevelopment of Bair-Chase and associated revegetation of the property will help improve this
situation. Given the high density of homesites proposed for the Los Amigos property, on-site habitat
improvement or mitiga[ons to increase winter forage quality on-site are not likely feasible or would
have no measurable improvements to elk winter range.
There are recommendations to minimize other stresses or negative impacts to elk moving through
and using the area. These recommendations are listed below.
9SQ
f - Rocrv MoUNTATN Ecoloctcal SeRvIcES, INc.
3.3.2.1 Fteune 3: ELK Wtx'tna RtNcp
Legend
QJ to*,Valley Property
'//, gt(-nishrnray-crossing-STATE
- l' ELK-produc{ion-area-STATE
.1,, j, elf-severe-winter-STATE
'1.-.J ef-X-winter-concentration-STATE
F*
Rocky lllountain
Ecologlcal Services, lnc.
0?22 Bobcat Lane. Redstone. CO Ei623
970.963.2190
eric.p€fi erson@starband.net
.. ltf lvinler.nanses . _
Los Amigos- Phase 3
Garfield County, Colorado
Figure
3
Dtawn By: Eric Petterson
Oate: Apnl 20o6
Scale: 1:1?.738
Ss
f -RocrvMotxrArN
EcoLoGrcALSERvrcES, INC.10
\,'
3.3.3 Lrcnrrxc&GaMsUsn
Because the area will likely receive use by mule deer and elk during the night, nighttime lighting of
the property and excessive lighting of driveways (beyond what is required for safe driving conditions)
is not recommended in order to allow big game use of the area. Furthet lighting of existing winter
range beyond the building envelope areas is strongly discouraged (for instance; from bright back-
yard lights illuminating adjacent BLM lands). Vegetation should be planted 10' ofi of roadsides in
areas where headlights from vehicles illuminate winter range areas in order to minimize unintended
'spotlighting" of foraging game at night.
3.3.4 Rolos
Along the existing and new roads that would occur in this area, the following requirements should be
followed:
o Fences along the roads should not be allowed.
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.
, o Large or extensive retaining walls should not be utilized.
3.3.5 FeNcrs
As the area will be used extensively by big game in the winter months, fencing will inhibit big game
movement, and is therefore strongly discouraged. As the area is no longer grazed by cattle or
domestic sheep, fencing should not be necessary. Decorative fencing that is not designed to allow
wildlife passage is strongly discouraged. Additionally, existing fencing shall be removed as soon as
possible. Fencing that is needed to keep pets and children adjacent to the houses are allowed, as
well as to keep BLM lands delineated from private lands.
Any fences intended to keep pets or children adjacent to the homes are acceptiable, other fences to
keep OHV use or trespass from BLM lands from occuning should comply wtth the following
specifications:
o Fences may consist of two rails, with the upper ratl44 inches above the ground, and the top
of the bottom rail24 inches above the ground. This will allow adult animals to easily jump
over fences, even in deep snow, and will allow calves and fawns to crawl under or pass
through the rails, or
o Buck and rail fences are practically impossible for wildlife to cross, therefore buck and rail
fences are strongly discouraged.
o lf cattle or domestic sheep grazing resumes in the area, and fencing livestock out becomes
a necessity, the property owners should consult with CDOW & BLM personnelto develop an
acceptable fence design. There are various types of fences that are compatible with fencing
out horses, domestic sheep, and cattle and still allow for wildlife movements across fence
lines.
o Prior to construction in or adjacent to winter range habitiats, snow fencing or silt fencing shall
be erected at the edge of the building envelopes to contain disturbance to native vegetation
by indirect construction activities (i.e. trampling of vegetation by equipment, etc.).
F
, RoCKY MoUNTAIN ECoLoGIcAL SERvICES,INC.11
3.3.6 I-AliDscAPING Ar\D RnvecnrerroN
As the area is used as winter range (and critical winter range), reclamation of road cuts,
infrastructure routes and open spaces will need to occur using similar native plant species and
vegetiation 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 newly planted materials would likely be
biowied first,lnd plants with little time to set roots will likely be pulled up by grazing big game.
Additionally, 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.
Revegetation along roadsides should not include trees and tall shrubs (such as chokecherry or
willows) within 10 feet of the road to improve visual detection of wildlife along roadsides 9nd to
minimize road kill. Local native grasses, forbs and low shrubs may be planted along roadsides to
keep wildlife habitat conditions as viable as possible.
3.3.1 DouBstrcDocs
Domestic dogs, unless they are seeing-eye dogs or assistance dogs for the disabled, should be
prohibited ou-tside of fenced areas within winter forage areas. As this area is a very important big
game winter range habitat, it is inevitable that if dogs were allowed outside of fenced yards, even
under leash control, dogs would escape control and chase and likely iniure wildlife. Specifically:
o Dogs should be not be allowed outside of fenced yards during the winter months
(November 15 through March 15).
o 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 prefened
ranges. Controt of dogs is vitalwhen living within an elk migration corridor, and adjacent to
elk winter range. ln the past, CDOW has had numerous reporb of dogs brought to
construction siies by workers which chase and harass wildlife. Due to the location and
proximity of this parcel to sensitive wildlife habitat areas, construction workers should not
be allowed to bring dogs on site.
$ray or loose dogs may be controlled by CDOW or Garfield County, which could include destruction
of dogs chasing wildlife, as permitted by Colorado law. Under Colorado law, persons who are not in
compliance with this dog policy will be responsible for any and all costs the CDOW or Garfield
County may incur due to control of loose dogs on the property. lf home owners knowingly permi!
illegal dog activity on the property, those persons will be financially responsible for costs of
controlling dogs. CDOW and County representatives may be granted access to the property to
enforce ahy of the dog restrictions and other wildlife restrictions set within these recommendations.
CDOW enforcement may include the capture or destruction of any dogs running at large on the
property, regardless of where the dogs may have oilginated.
3.3.8 CDOWIT.DSMNTFIcATIoN
As the prop€rty occurs within mule deer and elk winter ranges, there will be damage and use of the
landscaping by foraging big game. The property owners should be informed of this and agree to
indemniiy COOW from wildlife damage and not seek funding for game damage reimbursement from
CDOW.
o Sa
f Rocrv MoUNTAIN EcoLoGICAL SERVICES,INC.
12
3.3.9 Bnens
Black bears are very common in the area from spring (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.
The following measures should be implemented to reduce potential bear problems:
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 ovemight prior to trash collection, and bears quickly become habituated to these
schedules.
o Because of the layout of the subdivision, there is an opportunity to install bear-proof
centralized trash stations which will decrease the number and availability of trash cans for
bears to rummage through.
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.9. skunks, racooon,
woodrats) of wildlife.
o Birdfeeders and hummingbird feeders need to be brought in during the evenings, and
removed altogether during the fall months (September through late November).
o Nut, fruit, or berry producing trees or shrubs should not be used in landscaping in order to
minimize an attractant for bears.
o Homeowners should be educated about bears and other local wildlife via a homeowner's
brochure, such as that produced by the CDOW
3.3.10 Brnos
Many Sensitive bird species utilize the area, including:
. Pygmy nuthatch. Western tanager. Various warbler species. Brewers'sparrow
o Therefore, 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.
o Bird feeders are discouraged due to the heavy 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 As the area can contain high numbers of cavity nesters, larger trees, and especially trees
with cavities (woodpecker holes) should be preserved if possible, or nest boxes may be
installed if many trees need to be removed.
$af Rocrv MoUNTATN Ecor-ocrc,n-SF.RvtcEs, INc"13
3.3.11 Frcunn 4: Map or Bracr BBen Huuex Cotrrrrrc"r AREA (CDOW)
Legend
ffi to*rValley Property
,_.1--. SLACr-BEAR-hll-concentration-sTATE
ffi, atec x-B EAR- hu ma n-co nfl ict_sTATE
r,l.
tr Rocky Mountaln
Ecologlcal Sorvlcas. lnc.
0222 Bobcet Lane. Redstfie. CO 81623
970.903.?190
eric.pellsson@stalband.net
Black Bear Conflict & Fall Concenkataon
Los Amigos- Phase 3
Gatfi eld Coungt. Colorado
Figure
4
Dlawn By: Eric PetErson
Dale: Aprll 2006
scale: 1:21,515
Se, RocKy MorrNTAnr Ecot-ocrcAt- SERvrcES,INC.14
:,.-#':,#'-
.if
{'
t ..-
"j-
.-r '*=tce*c,
'f, ,-' i
.,€
\.
;.)
\:
i
I
4 SAGEBRUSH HABITATS
At the southwestern corner of the property, an undisturbed sagebrush habitat exists. Although likelytoo small to be effective.habitat for big game, it does provide better habitat components f6r otherwildlife species such as birds, small mammals and reptiles.
4.I Frcunn 5: Hrcrr Querrrv SecrnnusH HABITATS oN PRoPERTY
Legend
C3 tor,ver valley Property
:
r0
r'
I.t
+
t
0
I
l
t,
1
i
,;l ..
'{L.
, r
}Ai
tr Rocky ilountaln
Ecologlcal Sorvlcos, lnc.
0221 Bocat Lane. Redstme. CO
9i0.953,?190
Sagebrush Habitats
Los Amlgos- Phase 3
Garfield Counv. Colondo
Figure
5
Drawn By: Eric PetElson
Dale: Aprll 2005
Scale: l:2.585
Sc, RoCKY MouNTAn r Ecol-ocrcAl- SERvIcns, INc.15
I
{
+
J
.i
tII 'llt
.,+
\
,qf
High Orality Sagehush Site
t.a .i{
,lF.
f
t I
I
. ".; .;
';' : '14 ' '*,,. ''. ,:a 'i ra-' r:rt 'r
ld.
.r,
a
u&.!,*
{.r
'-!{*
")
4.2 Ornen RncouuENDED MrrrclrroNs
As much of the area is also impacted by
OHV use, this motorized use further
decreases the suitability of the area forelk and mule deer winter range.
Restoration and closure of these areas to
OHV use would increase the effective
habitat in this area. The proponent may
wish to look into opening discussions
with BLM regarding the management
goals of the BLM parcel, and if the OHV
use is consistent with the goals and
management direction for that parcel.
Restoration of OHV sites on both the Los
Amigos parceland the BLM parcelwould
improve existing winter range, and would
help mitigate the large erosion issues
associated with the OHV use of the site.
One of the old car chassis in the gulch.
Hill climbing on the property, and on adjacent BLM lands.
The gulch running through the property also has
significant amounts of trash in it from apparent
illegal dumping that has occurred for quite some
time. Removing trash and improving bank stability
and revegetating eroding areas would improve
habitat for non-game species such as birds, small
mammals, and may also provide some refuge cover
for deer or elk passing through the subdivision.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this property. Please feel free to call if you have any
questions regarding this report.
Eric Petterson
Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, lnc.
cc: KellyVood, Colotado Division of Wildlife
Sa, RocKy MoUNTATN EcolocrcAr SERvrcES, INc.16
+
.-.\?-\
\-..\