Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWildlife Assessment & Mitigation Plan 04.2006WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS PUD, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared for Westminster Swanson Land Partners, LLC 920 S. Waukegn Road Lake I Oji +!. Illinois 60045 APRIL, 2006 Ied &COValy &c4910p4:ra.L 9 dta/ ' 905 W4eG Voach' geoeu4 3attide i, &01 80302 f303) 442-614' WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE RESERVE AT ELK MEADOWS PUD, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared by: Richard W. Thompson, Certified Wildlife Biologist Western Ecosystems, Inc. 905 West Coach Road Boulder, Colorado 80302 Preparedfar• Westminster Swanson Land Partners, LLC 920 S. Waukegan Road Lake Forest, Illinois 60045 April, 2006 Copyright © 2006. Western Ecosystems, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author. C:\...\Reserve at Elk Meadows\Sketch Plan March 2006-/Apr2006 Wild Assess & Mit Plan Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION 1 3.0 ELK MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL 2 3.1 Four Mile Road 2 3.2 Residential Communities 2 3.3.1 East Meadow 2 3.3.1 South Meadow 3 3.3.1 Upper Meadow 3 3.3 Interior Roads 3 3.4 Mountain Park 4 3.5 Trails 4 3.6 Elk Meadows Barnyard 5 3.7 Heritage Ranch 5 3.8 Four Mile Creek Park 5 3.9 East Meadow Mountain Meadow Park 5 3.10 South Meadow Mountain Meadow Park 6 3.11 North Ridge Observation Shelter 6 3.12 Affordable Housing 6 3.13 Utilities 6 3.13.1 Water Supply 6 3.13.1 Sewer Services 7 4.0 HABITATS PRESENT 7 5.0 WILDLIFE ISSUES OF POTENTIAL CONCERN 9 5.1 Elk 9 5.2 Mule Deer 11 5.3 Black Bear 12 5.4 Greater Sage -grouse 12 5.5 Raptors 12 5.6 Fish 12 5.7 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Fish and Wildlife Species 13 5.7.1 Colorado Pikeminnow, Humpback Chub, Bonytail, and Razorback Sucker 13 5.7.2 Boreal Toad 14 5.7.3 Bald Eagle 14 5.7.4 Yellow -billed Cuckoo 15 5.7.5 Black -footed Ferret 15 5.7.6 River Otter 16 5.7.7 Canada Lynx 16 Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page 5.8 High Value Wildlife Habitats 17 5.8.1 Fourmile Creek Riparian Corridor 17 5.8.2 Mountain Shrublands 17 5.8.3 Mixed Mountain Park Habitats 13 5.9 Other Wildlife/Human Development Issues 18 6.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION AND ENHNCEMENT PLAN 18 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Liability Disclaimer 6.3 Preservation of High Value Wildlife Habitats 6.3.1 The Mountain Park 6.3.2 Fourmile Creek Riparian Corridor 6.3.3 Mountain Shrublands 6.4 Retaining and Enhancing Big Game Winter Range 6.4.1 Clustering 6.4.2 Selective Location of Development 6.4.3 Wildlife Movement Corridors 6.4.4 Establishing Building Envelopes 6.4.5 Fencing Restrictions 6.4.6 Dogs and Pet Control 6.4.7 Designating Open Space 6.4.8 Restoring Disturbed Winter Range 6.4.9 Open Space Use Restrictions 6.5 Landscaping 6.6 Bears and Trash Disposal 6.7 Mountain Lions 6.8 Big Game Management 6.9 Wildlife Mortality on Local Roads 6.10 Aquatic Issues 6.10.1 Water Depletions 6.10.2 Water Quality 6.11 CDOW Indemnification 6.12 Education 6.13 Enforcement 18 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 22 23 24 25 25 26 26 26 29 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 7.0 ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS 32 8.0 LITERATURE CITED 32 Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 11 J Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows 1.0 INTRODUCTION Westminster Swanson Land Partners, LLC (the Applicant) proposes to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) involving 189 single-family lots on 1,645 acres in Garfield County, Colorado. This report describes the development proposal, assesses wildlife use of the property, and presents a draft Wildlife Mitigation Plan for the Sketch Plan phase of the County planning process to demonstrate the Applicant's intent at avoiding and minimizing impacts to the wildlife community resulting from the development. The current development proposal represents a significant modification of a prior, conceptual development proposal. The current proposal is considerably more compatible with facilitating continued wildlife use of the property and surrounding properties, partly as a result of an analysis of wildlife habitat mapping, a discussion with the ranch owner (John Bershenyi), results of seasonal wildlife surveys, an analysis of the prior concept plan, a March 8, 2005 meeting with representatives of the CDOW (John Groves, District Wildlife Manager [DWM] and Sonia Marzec, DWM), discussions with, and feedback to, project planners, and the author's experience with wildlife issues and working with the CDOW on other subdivision developments in Colorado. 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION The Reserve at Elk Meadows (Elk Meadows) is located in unincorporated Garfield County, Colorado, south of Glenwood Springs, on the west side of the Roaring Fork River. The property is on the east and west sides of Four Mile Road about one mile south of the Midland Avenue and Four Mile Road intersection in South Glenwood Springs. Four Mile Ranch, a 58 -lot subdivision with a number of new homes currently under construction, is located adjacent to the north boundary of Elk Meadows. Four Mile Road has been recently improved and repaved south from Midland Avenue to the Bershenyi Ranch homestead. Construction of a sewer interceptor line is projected to be completed in the summer of 2006 up Four Mile Road to the Springridge development, located up -valley from the Elk Meadows site. The 1,645 -acre Elk Meadows property is composed of what has historically been known as the Bershenyi and Martino Ranches. The Bershenyi Ranch includes an eastern tract of 400 acres straddling both side of Four Mile Road and an unconnected 1,140 -acre western tract located at a higher elevation, separated from the eastern parcel by a quarter mile wide strip of BLM land with a single-track, dirt road. The 105 acre Martino Ranch lies adjacent to, and south west of, the Bershenyi Ranch and west of Fourmile Creek. Historically the properties have supported agricultural activities including beef cow/calf operations, a Holstein dairy herd, hayfields, and miscellaneous field crops. Elevations on the subject parcels range between approximately 5,920 feet, near the Roaring Fork River, and 8,160 feet, on the west end of the upper parcel. Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 1 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows 3.0 ELK MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The 505 acres composing the east tract of the Bershenyi Ranch and the Martino Ranch are included within the boundary of the proposed PUD zone district. Those properties are zoned as Agriculture / Residential / Rural Density by Garfield County. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment included with the Planned Unit Development (PUD) application request the 505 acres within the PUD to be reclassified as High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Land Use categories. The majority of the acreage of the westerly Bershenyi tract (1,140 ac.) is proposed to be preserved for use by the public, but is not part of the PUD. 3.1 FOUR MILE ROAD A realignment of Four Mile Road is proposed to improve driving conditions through the Bershenyi barn area and create a well functioning entry into the Elk Meadows community. The improvements to the road would require relocation of the Bershenyi "log barn" to a site east of the existing frame barn, which would be preserved by the project. The realignment would flatten road grades, increase curve radii, and add safe shoulder widths through this area. The project would pay significant traffic impact fees to the County at final subdivision plat and at building permit, although the applicant would likely request, during processing of the preliminary plan, a credit for a portion of the cost of the Four Mile Road improvements. 3.2 RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES The proposed Elk Meadows community plan is composed of three distinct groupings of single-family residential lots totaling 189 units. For reference purposes, these neighborhoods are referred to as the East Meadow, including the fields east of Four Mile Road, the South Meadow, located west of Four Mile Road and south of the Elk Meadows entry, and the Upper Meadow, the higher, south facing field west of Four Mile Road and north of the entry drive. All residential building sites would be located in areas where native habitats have been previous altered by agricultural activities allowing for the preservation and restoration of the native vegetation on the steeper hillsides throughout the site and the riparian areas along Fourrnile Creek. Approximately 380 acres, representing 75% of the 505 -acre PUD, is designated as one of two open space districts. The second district, including approximately 960 acres of the west Bershenyi Ranch parcel, is proposed to be dedicated to a public or private entity for the purpose managing the property for public use. The. remaining 180 acres of the west parcel (i.e., the northwest corner) would be retained by the owners. Designated open space would total 1,340 acres, leaving approximately 125 acres in actual residential lot development. Additional undeveloped acreage on the backs of residential lots abutting open space would be overlain by open space easements, prohibiting disturbance of the native vegetation, and functioning as additional de facto open space. 3.2.1 EAST MEADOW The East Meadow community would compose 72 residential lots, typically 13,000 to 20,000 square feet Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 2 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows in area. All lots would back up to open space, including an area located internal to the lot configuration which would be landscaped in a manner characteristic of a high mountain park and include maintained turf areas for open lawn recreation activities. A 20 -acre hayfield would be preserved along Four Mile Road buffering the home sites by distances of 400 to 800 feet. Lots on the east would be pulled back away from the ridgeline above the Roaring Fork River and specific tree planting requirements will be incorporated into the protective covenants, which will reduce the visibility of residential structures is this area as viewed from Hwy 82 and buffer residences from continued wildlife use of the native hillside. Where lots extend on to steeper undisturbed slopes, open space easements protect native vegetation from disturbance. 3.2.2 SOUTH MEADOW Two lot clusters totaling 62 lots would comprise the South Meadow community. Eighteen lots would be located in the area of the Martino and Bershenyi homesteads and an additional 44 lots encircle a second "mountain park" to the south across an incised drainage from the homesteads. As in the East Meadow, all lots back out onto open space and range typically in size from 13,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. Rear lot open space easements are also utilized on many South Meadow lots. Unstable slopes to the south have been avoided and a rock fall hazard on the northwest has been mitigated by building sites being located at the very end of the mapped rock fall run -out and with the proposed construction of a moderate-sized rock fall catchment berm. 3.2.3 UPPER MEADOW The Upper Meadow is a southeast -oriented open field located north of the Martino and Bershenyi homesteads. Although the field is in excess of two miles from Hwy 82, the proposed configuration of 55 lots would preserve a central and very visible portion of this field as open space, which would be restored and maintained as native meadow. All of the Upper Meadow would back out to dedicated open space. Lots would typically range from 17,000 square feet to well over 30,000 square feet in size. The ridgelines to east and north of the Upper Meadow are protected from homesite development. Also, the large meadow (Far North Meadow) located north over the ridge from the Upper Meadow would be preserved as open space. These two ridgelines and the Far North Meadow are sensitive visual areas as viewed from Glenwood Spring, Hwy 82, and view corridors from upper reaches of Four Mile Road are protected by this plan. Avoidance of these areas primarily for visual reasons also preserves large effective blocks of native habitat important for the local wildlife community. All lots are proposed to be platted with specific building envelopes, which in the case of the rear setback is typically more restrictive than called for by the PUD zone regulations. Protective covenants would include limitations and guidelines to control landscaping and site improvements within and outside of the building envelope. On lot parking requirements range from four to six parking spaces depending on the size of the residence constructed. 3.3 INTERIOR ROADS The entry roads, both to the east and to the west, are proposed as boulevard style channelization drives to control and slow traffic, assure access by emergency vehicles, and to provide opportunity for Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 3 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows landscape treatments. To the east, the boulevard street cross section is continued to the first intersecting street to assure emergency ingress and egress to the East Meadow lots. The typical road section throughout the community is two eleven foot asphalt paved lanes with a one foot wide flush concrete curb to preserve the asphalt edge. A 10 -foot wide asphalt emergency access and pedestrian trail is provided from the Upper Meadow to the lower main access road along the alignment of the existing ranch road. Additional controlled access gravel surfaced drive / pedestrian trails are located in the Upper Meadow and South Meadow to assure access by emergency vehicles. The emergency access drives serve as important links in the pedestrian trail system. Supplemental parking is provided throughout the community with bays of three to five parking spaces positioned perpendicular to the roadway. Covenants will restrict the length of time autos may be parked in these areas such that they truly serve as guest parking. This application requests the ability to dedicate the interior roads to the Elk Meadows HOA, which would also maintain all roadways. 3.4 MOUNTAIN PARK As described earlier, approximately 960 acres of the west parcel of the Bershenyi Ranch (Mountain Park) are proposed, as a condition of the first phase final plat, to be dedicated to some type of public or private entity (county, city, special district, non-profit corporation, home owners association, etc.) for the purpose of managing this parcel for use by the public. The Mountain Park is anticipated to be used for hiking, biking, cross country skiing and snowshoeing. Access to the west parcel would be via the existing ranch road through BLM lands, which BLM officials have confirmed may be used for non - motorized access by the public. A variety of funding mechanisms are being researched to support maintenance of the property. The remaining 180 acres of the west parcel (i.e., the northwest corner) would be retained by the owners. Access easements over appropriate interior Elk Meadows road right-of-ways -:vould be dedicated with the phase one final plat to provide public access to a public parking area located at the north endof the Upper Meadow (north of Lot 26 on the PUD Plan). Public pedestrian access would also be available to the Mountain Park over the interior pedestrian trails from the Four Mile Valley Public Trail located on the east side of Four Mile Road in the area of the Elk Meadows Community Center. 3.5 TRAILS The Four Mile Valley Public Trail, an eight -foot -wide asphalt path currently ending at the south boundary of the Four Mile Ranch Subdivision, would be continued up valley through the Elk Meadows community, bridging across Fourmile Creek and ending at the south boundary of the Elk Meadows PUD. The trail would remain east of Four Mile Road and be located in a twenty foot easement dedicated to the public. The trail connecting the Elk Meadows Community Center with the Mountain Park would be a six-foot asphalt trail typically located at the backside of the one -foot flush curb at the edge of the interior roads. In some areas this trail would be removed from the road edge and in some areas the trail would coincide with an emergency access drive. A six -foot -wide gravel trail is proposed along the north side of Fourmile Creek, downstream from the Four Mile Valley Public Trail, and continuing up through the East Meadow, connecting again with the pubic trail near the Four Mile Ranch and Elk Meadows Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 4 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows common north boundary. Nature trails are anticipated to be identified south of the South Meadow utilizing portions of the old Midland Railroad grade, east and north of the Upper Meadow. 3.6 ELK MEADOWS BARNYARD The area east of Four Mile Road around the Bershenyi barns is currently being referred to as the Elk Meadows Community Center (see heritage ranch discussion below) and is intended to be the administrative, social and visual focal point of community. This area is proposed to include: - the relocated Bershenyi log barn, which would be stabilized and preserved; - the Bershenyi frame barn, which is proposed to be cleaned up and preserved; - vehicular parking for activities at the Barnyard and Four Mile Creek Park; and - children's play equipment and typical park furnishings, including - attractive landscaping to enhance the appeal and character of the Elk Meadows community; - some additional small Bershenyi Ranch structures may also be preserved in this area; - the Four Mile Valley Public Trail would pass through this area. 3.7 HERITAGE RANCH The applicant has offered to cooperate in the creation of a "Heritage Ranch" at the Elk Meadows Community Center site if there is public support for the creation of a non-profit corporation for that purpose. The earlier described 20 -acre hayfield could also be included as an element of the Heritage Ranch. The proposed Community Facilities Open Space Zone District regulations have been written to accommodate a heritage ranch use and associated activities. 3.8 FOUR MILE CREEK PARK The Four Mile Valley Public Trail would provide access from the Community Center down to Fourmile Creek where a modest park facility would be created including the following: - small turf grass areas that serve as collection nodes along the creek; - one small picnic shelter at one of the grassy nodes; - gravel trail described earlier connecting the grassy nodes; - park furnishings such as benches and picnic tables. Efforts would also be made assist the riparian vegetation recover from years of cattle grazing. 3.9 EAST MEADOW MOUNTAIN MEADOW PARK The interior open space area surrounded by East Meadow lots is proposed to be developed in a character similar to a high country park surrounded by aspen /spruce. The proposal is to create a couple of irregularly shaped irrigated areas maintained as turf grass to allow for casual open field recreation and to surround these lawn areas with long grass areas planted with scattered groupings of deciduous and evergreen trees and masses of large shrubs. Gentle earthen berms may be included, particularly if large boulders from on-site construction activities can be incorporated into the berms to Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 5 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows create an exciting, creative and unstructured environment for child play. All landscaping would be supported by irrigation. The earlier described gravel trail would flow through the fringes of this Mountain Meadow Park connecting it and the East Meadow lots to the Four Mile Creek Park and the Four Mile Valley Public trail. 3.10 SOUTH MEADOW MOUNTAIN MEADOW PARK The large open space in the interior of the South Meadow would be developed similarly to the Mountain Park in the East Meadow except that there would be a large pond and much less lawn area. The pond would serve as the pumping basin for a proposed raw water irrigation system that would deliver pressurized irrigation water to all lots. The nature of the raw water supply should allow for minimal fluctuation of the pond's water level during most of the irrigation season. There would also a small interior open space area in the northern section of the South Meadow, which would be developed as a small scale Mountain Park. 3.11 NORTH RIDGE OBSERVATION SHELTER The ridge line at the north edge of the Upper Meadow commands spectacular views of the Roaring Fork Valley, the Four Mile Valley, and the Flat Tops to the North. A low profile observation platform and shelter are proposed on the ridgeline, up slope from the Mountain Park parking lot, to take advantage of these views and to create a destination point on the pedestrian trail system. 3.12 AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Elk Meadows community is a few miles from the closest commercial and social services and public transportation and is, therefore, not a desirable location for affordable housing units. The applicant proposes to comply with Garfield County affordable housing regulations at a location within Glenwood Springs or other area community. Details of how the applicant would satisfy the affordable housing regulations will be presented at the time of preliminary plan. 3.13 UTILITIES 3.13.1 WATER RIGHTS AND SUPPLY Domestic and irrigation water rights protection is provided by a combination of senior rights on Fourmile and Three Mile Creeks that require the completion of a court approved augmentation plan prior to preliminary plan. The complete water rights program also includes a Basalt Water Conservancy District Contract. Water rights are further described in the PUD application. The domestic water physical supply would be provided by wells located along Fourmile Creek just east of Four Mile Road with a building for chlorination facilities located near the wells. In the early phases of community development, water would be pumped to a storage tank located on the east edge of the Upper Meadow to provide gravity feed back to all lots and to fire hydrants located in the East and South Meadow neighborhoods. Development of the Upper Meadow would include an additional water storage tank located up slope from and northwest of Lot 23. The water storage would be sized to accommodate domestic demands, 2,500 square feet of irrigation on each lot, and fire protection. The Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 6 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows tanks are anticipated to be above ground, terraced into the hillside and painted a dark, receding color to minimize their visual presence. Irrigation water from Fourmile and Threemile Creeks would be delivered to the irrigation pumping pond in the South Meadow Mountain Park via existing ditches and new pipe lines. A raw water delivery system would be installed to serve all residential lots with pressurized irrigation water. The irrigation system pump house would be constructed in the South Meadow Park. 3.13.2 SEWER SERVICES Two alternatives are available for sewage treatment services. The preferred alternative is to construct a collection system and discharge all effluent into the existing sewer interceptor in Four Mile Road for delivery to the City of Glenwood Springs treatment plant. The City of Glenwood Springs has issued a conditional Can and Will Serve letter offering to provide service for up to 200 units. This count covers the proposed 189 lots plus miscellaneous needs at the Barnstead. However, the conditions of the Can and Will serve letter involve issues that may not be resolved for a few months and, therefore, the letter does not suffice, at this time, as reliable proof of available sewer service. The proposed alternative is to construct a wastewater treatment plant on the Elk Meadows site near Fourmile Creek south of the Barnyard. The effluent would be treated to a high level of quality and discharged into Fourmile Creek. This option is financially viable and would actually result in enhanced flows in Fourmile Creek, but with the interceptor sewer line already in place, an agreement with the City still remains the preferred solution. It is anticipated that before approval of an Elk Meadows PUD Preliminary Plan, the conditions of the Can and Will Serve letter can be satisfied and sewer treatment services achieved with the City. 3.13.3 WATER QUALITY' During construction, sediment control will be maintained on-site through a series of "Best Management Practices" (BMP's) as required by the State of Colorado "Stormwater Management Practices". These BMP's consist of silt fences, stabilized construction entrances, straw bale dikes, straw bale inlet protection, desiltation ponds, and possibly some slope stabilization matting, if required. Once the project is nearing completion all disturbed areas will either be re-established with the natural surrounding vegetation seed mixes or landscaped with the proposed groundcover as depicted on the landscape plan. 4.0 HABITATS PRESENT Native habitat east of Four Mile Road was originally dominated by big sagebrush (Seriphidium tridentata). This community persists east of Four Mile Road on the east -facing terrace that drops down to the river from the large hay meadow, where associates include small Gambel oak (Quercusgambeliz) clumps, sparse, seedling to mature pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) and junipers (Junperus osteosperma), and sparse mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus). Cattle have limited access to this community, but use it little as a result of this slope's steepness. Because of more gentle slopes, cattle use the Fourmile Creek drainage on the property more frequently and have influenced its community composition and wildlife Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 7 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows values. The Fourmile Creek drainage primarily supports an oakbrush stand, on south -facing slopes, and a mixed big sagebrush/ oak stand with other mountain shrub associates on the lower opposing slope. Above the irrigation ditch on the north -facing side of the drainage, pinyon -juniper woodland dominates, with little herbaceous or shrub species in the understory. The riparian corridor between the opposing slopes consists of a decadent narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) community with little cottonwood regeneration because of historic cattle grazing. High densities of standing and down coarse woody debris are present. Other common riparian associates include chokecherry (Prunus americana), red -osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), water birch (Betula fontinalis), willow (Salix sp.), oak, hawthorn (Crataegus rivularis), and box -elder (Negundo aceroides). Fourmile Creek is perennial, averaging 12-14 feet wide (range 10-28 feet) east of Four Mile Road. It flows over a silt/mud and boulder substrate over a mild to moderate gradient. Cattle have unrestricted access to the creek and historic ranching operations have affected the creek's bank stability, water quality, and its riparian community. The remainder of the property east of Four Mile Road consists of a sprinkler -and flood -irrigated hayfield/pasture, with peripherally located ancillary ranching facilities (barns, holding corrals, equipment storage, feed areas, etc.) on the south. Mr. Bershenyi gets two cuttings from this hayfield each year G. Bershenyi, rancher, pers. comm., Mar. 7, 2005). This hayfield is located on a nearly level terrace approximately 240 vertical feet above the Roaring Fork River. Habitats west of Four Mile Road transition from those east of the road to upper elevation forests more representative of the montane life zone. Habitats along Fourmile Creek, west of the road, are the same as those east of the road, with the addition of several breached beaver (Castor canadensis) ponds and broader flanking willow stands. Houses, barns, corrals, and other ancillary ranching structures and facilities are present within several hundred yards of Four Mile Road. Outside of the Fourmile Creek corridor and ranching facilities, habitat is dominated by mountain shrub and pinyon -juniper (P J) stands. These native habitats are innervated by a flood -irrigated hay meadow on the Martino Ranch, non -irrigated meadows, and intermittent creeks and draws supporting Gambel oak and more vigorous mountain shrub communities. The mountain shrub and P -J stands extend through the intervening strip of BLM land, approximately one-half way into the upper parcel. On the upper parcel, the oak and mountain shrub communities are innervated by approximately 2-40 acre meadows (some supporting big sagebrush, but most cleared of native vegetation and planted with non-native cultivars to increase livestock forage [formerly sheep and now cattle]) and a powerline corridor, before transitioning into aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands generally codominated and well interspersed with rnixed conifers. Mountain shrub community composition varies with soil type and depth, aspect, moisture and light penetration thorough any overstory. On rocky, xeric sites, Gambel oak dominates, but all other communities generally have chokecherry, serviceberry, oakbrush, and snowberry. Big sagebrush and rabbitbrush are also present and locally dominant, particularly in deeper soil areas. Aspen stands generally support a chokecherry, serviceberry, and snowberry understory with a relatively lush herbaceous component. Engelmann spruce (Picea enSelmanniz) is the most common conifer interspersed in most aspen stands, but subalpine fir (Abies bicolor) and Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga men iesiz) are also common components. Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) is even present as individuals and junipers also extend into the aspen/ mixed conifer stands. Conifer density in aspen stands is low (< 40% canopy coverage) allowing sufficient light penetration to the understory to support a relatively lush and diverse mountain shrub, forb, and graminoid community. On only a few localized, north - facing slopes conifer stands occur without aspen, but even there Rocky Mountain maple (Acerglabrum) and other mountain shrub species are common in the understory. An upper reach of Threemile Creek, Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 8 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows as well as a number of intermittent creeks, flow across the upper parcel. Water quality in the creeks varies with cattle access. Beaver are occasionally present on the property as a result of their dispersal from larger water bodies (e.g., Hughes Reservoir) on adjacent properties, however, aquatic habitats on the parcel are inadequate to support any beaver lodges or bank dens. 5.0 WILDLIFE ISSUES OF POTENTIAL CONCERN The 1,645 -acre Elk Meadows property supports a wide variety of wildlife species because of habitats present, the property's large size and physiographic location, topographic relief, and current land uses on and adjacent to the property. This section identifies significant wildlife species, groups, and ecological communities associated with the property that have been considered in the conceptual planning stage of the property's proposed development. This section provides the basis for the subsequent mitigation section, which described how the developers propose to retain and enhance wildlife values to the maximum extent possible. "Significant wildlife use of the property" refers to those wildlife species and issues that will be of high biological, political, and public interest as a result of proposed Elk Meadows development. Individual wildlife species and groups not specifically mentioned in this assessment are not "insignificant", they are just not presently at issue because the conceptual development plan would avoid or minimally impact those species and their habitats. Furthermore, if the extensive habitats required to preserve big game values, riparian corridors, and wetlands can be considered and protected during project planning, then the habitat values of virtually all other species with smaller home ranges will also be protected. Many of the life history requirements of these unmentioned species, and the protection of biodiversity values, will be accommodated through the designation of open space or protected wildlife habitat and the implementation and enforcement of protective covenants and deed restrictions. 5.1 ELK Natural Diversity Information System (NDIS) maps (successors of the CDOW's Wildlife Resource Information System [WRIS] maps, updated by the CDOW, but now maintained by Colorado State University for the CDOW), updated March 14, 2006, indicate that all of the Elk Meadows property below the approximate 7,700 -foot elevational contour (i.e., roughly below the "edge" of the upper parcel where it drops down toward the lower parcel) is designated as elk (Cereus elaphus) winter range. The CDOW defines elk winter range as that portion of the herd's home range where 90% of the individuals are located during a site-specific period of winter [generally December 15 -April 1] during the average 5 winters out of 10. That winter range polygon extends east to the river. A band of severe winter range extends north -south across the property approximately from the 7,700 foot contour to the 6,200 foot contour, just above (i.e., west of) Four Mile Road. The CDOW defines elk severe winter range as that part of the range of a species where 90% of the individuals are located when the annul snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the worst two winters out of ten. The winter of 1983-84 was a good example of a severe winter. No other winter range delineations (i.e., winter concentration area) occur in the vicinity of the subject property. Based on the above delineations, all proposed development on the property would occur in elk winter range, with most development west of Four Mile Road also in severe winter range. Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 9 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows However, although the non-native pastures, hay fields, and meadows on the property may be used by elk during winter, such artificial habitats, when large enough to delineate, are not included in NDIS mapping by CDOW policy. In this case, these agricultural habitats were too small to exclude from winter range delineations. Furthermore, the development proposal would reduce impacts to elk (and deer) winter range, by purposefully locating and clustering residential development pods into these non- native habitats in order to avoid and minimize loss of the more valuable native habitats, that are important not only for elk, but for the entire suite of wildlife species they support. The winter range designations and delineations west of Four Mile Road were confirmed by elk tracks observed during March 7 and 8, 2005 field surveys and during my conversation with Mr. Bershenyi. The surveys were conducted when snow depths just above the topographic break on the western parcel (roughly corresponding to upper winter range polygon boundary) ranged from 3-5 feet deep. No elk where present or had been using those areas. Elevations above the 7,600 foot contour support excessive snow depths, although those areas might be used during early winter (i.e., after Dec. 15) during years with limited early winter snowfall. However, lower portions of the property below the BLM strip and west of Four Mile Road ranged from being snow free to supporting 1-2 feet of snow. Low numbers of elk were using that elevational band, mainly under cover of darkness. Mr. Bershenyi also indicated that elk rarely descend and cross Four Mile Road, except during severe winters, the last of which occurred in 1983-84. While this historic rancher best knows how wildlife use his property, elk pellets were detected on the sagebrush cover hillside dropping down to the Roaring Fork River beyond the eastern end of the hayfield. Those elk may have taken a circuitous route to access that hillside that didn't involve crossing the open hay meadow and surrounding fences. NDIS maps also identify an elk migration corridor crossing Four Mile Road where the road crosses Fourmile Creek. The CDOW defines elk migration corridors as a specific mapable site through which large numbers of animals migrate and loss of which would change migration routes. That corridor is centered on an elk highway crossing several hundred yards on each side of where the creek crosses under the road. The CDOW defines elk highway crossings as an area where elk movements traditionally cross roads, presenting potential conflicts between elk and motorists. In other areas of Colorado, the CDOW defines highway crossings as those areas where six or more elk are killed per mile of road/ highway per year. There are a number of inconsistencies associated with the delineations and designations of this corridor and road crossing. The area north of the where the creek crosses contains some of the densest concentrations of fencing, barns, homes, and ancillary ranch structures on the entire property and elk would avoid that complex. Based on Mr. Bershenyi's experience, few elk cross the road in front of his home other than during extreme winters. There is virtually no fence repairs needed along the road and those that are needed can be attributed to deer damage (see below). The section of road identified as a highway crossing does not fit the definition for road -kill numbers. However, for argument sake, it is possible, if not likely, that elk occasionally cross Four Mile Road during some portions of some winters and those movements could occur across broad portions of the road, including across sections bisecting the Elk Meadows property. NDIS maps do not show any other seasonal elk ranges overlapping, or in the vicinity of, the Elk Meadows parcels. The closest elk calving habitat occurs several miles south of Hughes Reservoir in the Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 10 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows headwaters of Threemile Creek. Habitats on the upper portion of the property are suitable for elk calving, but such use has been historically precluded or limited by sheep and, more recently, cattle grazing beginning before the start of the calving period. 5.2 MULE DEER NDIS maps, updated March 14, 2006, indicate that all of the 505 -acre PUD and most of the upper western parcel, are designated as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) winter range. The CDOW defines mule deer winter range as that portion of the overall range where 90 % of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green -up, or between December 1 and April 15 for Data Analysis Unit D-13, which contains the project area. According to this definition, the NDIS delineation is valid for the Elk Meadows properties. This definition identifies a broad period of winter range use. Inherent in that definition is the contraction of the winter range polygon as winter snowfall accumulates and deer are forced to lower elevations and more south- and west -facing slopes. Based on March 2005 field surveys (conducted when winter snowpack was near maximum depth at upper elevations, but lands were nearly snow free east of Four Mile Road) and my conversation with Mr. Bershenyi, deer were present throughout the property up to the top of the ridge (i.e., the approx. 7,600 foot contour) on the east end of the upper western parcel. NDIS maps also show mule deer severe winter range and winter concentration area (i.e., winter range subsets) overlapping the Elk Meadows property south of Fourmile Creek, along the steep sagebrush - covered hillside sloping down the Roaring Fork River beyond the east end of the East Meadow, and in a narrow band west and north of the creek. The CDOW's severe winter range definition is the same as that provided for elk, above. Severe winter range cannot be definitively validated in the absence of severe winter conditions. The CDOW defines mule deer winter concentration area as 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 (Dec. 1 to Apr. 15) in the average five winters out of ten. Based on March 2005 field surveys, the NDIS winter concentration area delineations are fairly accurate. The Fourmile Creek drainage containing native cottonwoods and mountain shrub supported a moderate number of deer, many of which were probably concentrated into the area for the cover and seclusion provided for day bedding. Areas to the south of the creek do not meet the winter concentration area definitions because those areas are north -facing and support 1-2 feet of snow when adjacent areas are snow free. The steep sagebrush hillside dropping down to the river is moderately used, as are lower elevations of the property west of Four Mile Road. The winter concentration area polygon west of the road is inaccurate in that it includes the concentration of homes, corrals, extensive fencing, and other ancillary facilities associated with the Bershenyi and Martino ranch headquarters. Excluding those areas, the winter range polygon should extend to the south, as shown on NDIS maps, and extend further north beyond the current polygon to include the steep juniper and sagebrush hillside west of the road. Deer bedding diurnally in the above areas move into the hayfields east of Four Mile Road at night. Some of those daily movements between bedding and foraging areas require deer to cross the road. Most of the hayfields are excluded from mule deer severe winter range and winter concentration area delineations, but not the winter range polygon. The active agricultural habitats should be excluded from winter range mapping, as described above for elk. Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 11 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows NDIS maps show a mule deer migration corridor extending north along Four Mile Road from Fourmile Creek, and a spur of that corridor extending east down the creek channel from the road. The CDOW migration corridor definition for mule deer is the same as that provided above for elk. Deer may use those identified areas for spring and fall migratory movements. However, that definition is misleading because deer routinely cross the road in and beyond the area identified for daily movements extending over the entire winter range period. NDIS maps do not show any other seasonal mule deer ranges overlapping, or in the vicinity of, the Elk Meadows parcels. It is likely that deer fawn on most parcels associated with the property, with the larger, higher quality upper western parcel providing the best fawning habitat. 5.3 BLACK BEAR NDIS maps indicate that the Elk Meadows property is within the overall range of black bears (Ursus americanus), but that no other black bear seasonal ranges (including, but not limited movement corridors, human conflict areas, or summer or fall concentration areas) overlap, or occur in close proximity to any of the subject parcels. Bears are occasional present on the elk meadows property from approximately April 1 through November 15, otherwise they are generally hibernating. Under some conditions, a few bears may be active year-round and/or active when most are normally hibernating. 5.4 GREATER SAGE -GROUSE NDIS maps indicate that the Elk Meadows property does not overlap, or occur in dose proximity to, any seasonal sage -grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) range. Sage -grouse would not be an issue associated with the proposed development. 5.5 RAPTORS A variety of raptors are seasonally present on the Elk Meadows property, including residents, spring and fall migrants, and winter residents. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are addressed below under Threatened and Endangered Species. An active great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) nest was present on or adjacent to the property in the Fourmile Creek riparian corridor east of Four Mile Road in 2005. This was the only raptor nest located on any of the Elk Meadows parcels during specific nest searches. Most of the Fourmile Creek riparian corridor east of Four Mile Road overlaps an active red-tailed hawk (Buteo jaraic'nsis) nest territory. Considering the high predation rate of great homed owls on red -tail nests located within 0.25 miles of each other, it is likely that the red -tails are nesting well south of the Elk Meadows property or that they did not have a high probability of successful fledging. Other raptors detected on the property during surveys included American kestrels (Falco sparverius), sharp - shinned hawks (Accipiter stricrtsis), and Cooper's hawks (A. coopere). It is likely that goshawks (A. gentilis) and golden eagles (Aquila chysaetos) may also forage over portions of the properties. Native habitats on the property are the most valuable for raptors. Such habitats are most extensive west of Four Mile Road. 5.6 FISH Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 12 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan , The Reserve at Elk Meadows Fourmile Creek is the only aquatic habitat on any of the Elk Meadows properties with the potential to support fish. No fish were detected in the creek on the property during March and June 2005 surveys. It is likely that fish occasionally move up out of the Roaring Fork River into Fourmile Creek and onto the property. When intact, the beaver ponds immediately west of Four Mile Road offer the best potential fish habitat on the property. However, the ponds were breached in 2005 and did not support active beaver activity. Historic cattle access to the creek has had minor degrading effects on the creek's ability to support trout. 5.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND CANDIDATE FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES Those federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate fish and wildlife species that occur in Garfield County, or that may be affected by actions in the County, that were initially considered in this assessment included: Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), bonytail (Gila elegans), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), humpback chub (Gila cypha), boreal toad (MO boreas boreas), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccus americanus), black -footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). The above fish and wildlife species are addressed below. River otter (Lutra canadensis) is also addressed herein as a state threatened species. Information on species status, distribution, and ecology was derived from scientific studies and reports, USFWS recovery plans, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) data base maps and reports, CDOW habitat mapping, White River National Forest (WRNF) geographic information system (GIS) lynx mapping (USFS 2002), the personal knowledge of USFS, CDOW, USFWS, and other wildlife biologists, prior correspondence with USFWS biologists, and field surveys of the project area. No portion of the project area or vicinity has been designated critical habitat by the Secretary of the Interior (PL -93-205, Section 4, 1978). However, critical habitat has been designated for the four endangered Colorado River fishes identified above. Those species and their critical habitat do not occur any closer to the project area than the main stem of the Colorado River near Rifle. 5.7.1 COLORADO PIKEMTNNOW, HUMPBACK CHUB, BONYTAIL, AND RAZORBACK SUCKER The Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, and razorback sucker, all federally endangered, are not found within the boundaries of the action area and do not occur any closer to the project area than the main stem of the Colorado River near Rifle, approximately 38 miles downstream from the Elk Meadows project area. The Colorado pikeminnow has been collected on the main stem of the Colorado River as high as just above Palisade and adults occur in the Gunnison River (USFWS 1991, CDOW WRIS maps). Reproduction is occurring in the Colorado River, but pikeminnows cannot move upstream past the Government Highline and Price -Stub Dams near Palisade. Programs are now under consideration that would allow movements past these structures (P. Schrader, USFWS, pers. comm.). The razorback sucker is present in the Colorado River well above DeBeque (CDOW WRIS maps). Critical habitat for the bonytail and humpback chub occurs further down the Colorado River. Bonytail and humpback chubs have not been recorded on the main stem of the Colorado River or any of its tributaries higher than the Black Rocks area below Grand Junction. Additional biological background information on these fish is contained in Woodling (1985), Osmundson and Kaeding (1989, 1991), and USFWS (1990a,b, 1991, Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 13 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows 1993). These big river fish are addressed together because they all occur far downstream from the project area and because water depletions, water quality degradation, and the effects of impoundments have been the major factors adversely affecting these species. The USFWS has determined that activities resulting in water depletion in the Upper Colorado River Basin may jeopardize the continued existence of the four endangered fish. As described in Section 6.10, below, the Elk Meadows project would have no effect on these big river fish or their critical habitats. 5.7.2 BOREAL TOAD The boreal western toad (a federal candidate species) inhabits marshes, wet meadows, and the margins of streams, beaver ponds, lakes, and glacial kettle ponds between 7,000 and 11,860 feet in Colorado (Hammerson 1999). They may be active both day and night, hiding beneath rocks, logs, or in rodent burrows when inactive. These toads emerge from winter chambers during May and begin moving back to the hibernaculum in late August and early September. By October, most toads have entered hibernation. Breeding begins in late spring as the winter snow pack recedes. Strings of eggs are usually deposited in shallow pools or along pond margins in late May to early June. Tadpoles metamorphose their first or second summer depending on elevation and water temperature. Post -breeding dispersal of adult toads may extend considerable distances into upland habitats from breeding sites. While males appear to have home ranges within an approximate 300 -meter radius of breeding sites, females generally disperse farther (up to 2.5 miles) and into drier habitats than males (Loeffler 1998). Although this toad was once widespread in Colorado's mountains, and while suitable habitat is still widespread, this species has declined dramatically in the last 20-25 years (Loeffler 1998). Reasons for the toads decline have not been clearly established. Habitat alterations from timber harvest, grazing, recreation, and water development have not likely been beneficial. However, none of these factors have been shown to be causative agents for the population decline in the southern Rocky Mountains (Loeffler 1998). The current working hypothesis is that the widespread boreal toad declines are attributable to stress-induced mortality from red -leg syndrome involving bacteria and fungal components (Loeffler 1998). Some environmental factor or factors cause sublethal stress, causing immune system suppression, leading to bacterial and other infectious diseases and subsequent widespread mortality (Carey 1993). The causative environmental factors are unknown (Loeffler 1998). Reference is hereby made to Goettl and Boreal Toad Recovery Team (B 1'RT, 1997), the Boreal Toad Conservation Strategy Team (BTCST 1997), and Loeffler (1998) for more detailed boreal toad life history information. March 2005 field surveys identified potential habitats to survey for toads and June 2005 surveys searched that short-list of habitats. No potential boreal toad breeding habitat was located that warranted follow-up replicated surveys. Habitats along Fourmile Creek are well below the elevational range this species is known to inhabit. Furthermore, there are no records of boreal toads and no known extant breeding sites within approximately 20 miles of the project area (Hammerson 1999). Boreal toads would not be an issue Associated with the proposed development. 5.7.3 BALD EAGLE Bald eagles (federally threatened) migrate through higher elevations in Colorado and are winter Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 14 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows residents along open portions of the Colorado and Roaring Fork Rivers in the vicinity of Glenwood Springs. During early winter, when open water is more available, they feed on fish and waterfowl. Throughout winter, they also range into open upland habitats (e.g., grasslands, sagebrush, pinyon - juniper habitats, etc.) where they occasionally feed on winter- or road -killed carrion. The CDOW Q. Craig, CDOW, pers. comm.) has indicated that along such rivers, fish represent a small portion of the bald eagle's winter diet, which is generally dominated by big game carrion. Although 600-800 bald eagles annually winter in Colorado, nesting is still rare. Most of the birds arrive in mid-November and depart between mid-February and mid-March. Nesting birds are thought to be members of the northern subspecies, which wintered here and found conditions suitable for reproduction. These nesting birds tend to become year-round residents. NDIS maps classify the adjacent reach of the Roaring Fork River and bordering lands as bald eagle winter range, with winter foraging habitat extending beyond that. Virtually the entire Elk Meadows properties, including most of the upper western parcel, are designated as bald eagle winter foraging habitat. Those designations are more important than in other areas because an active bald eagle nest is located on the Aspen Glen Golf Course, approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the East Meadow. Bald eagle winter foraging associated with the river would not be affected by the proposed residential development because the property does not extend to the river. Winter-, fence-, and road -killed deer are occasionally present on and adjacent to the subject property. Carrion that would be available to bald eagle scavenging would have to involve carcasses located in relatively open areas, hayfields, meadows, pastures, etc., where eagle would have ample horizontal sight -distances. 5.7.4 YELLOW -BILLED CUCKOO The two subspecies of the yellow -billed cuckoo (a federal candidate species) are separated by the Rocky Mountains. The western subspecies (C.a. occidentalis), whose range overlaps the project area, is associated with old-growth riparian woodlands with dense understories (Carter 1998). The limited numbers of West Slope records (n=3, Carter [1998]; n=4 [Andrews and Righter 1994]) were associated with cottonwoods (Populus spp.) along the Yampa and Uncompahgre Rivers (Carter 1998), although there is a record of a spring migrant along the Roaring Fork River near Carbondale (Andrews and Righter 1994). In Colorado, this species is usually found below approximately 4,400 feet, with rare occurrences to 6,000 feet (Andrews and Righter 1994). The highest of the four West Slope records was from approximately 8,300 feet (Andrews and Righter 1994). Potentially suitable habitat for this species may occur along Fourmile Creek east of Four Mile Road. While portions of that riparian corridor support a closed, mature cottonwood canopy, there does not appear to be an adequate density of understory vegetation because of historic cattle grazing. Cuckoos were not detected along this riparian corridor during June 7-8, 2005 breeding bird surveys. Yellow -billed cuckoos were never common in Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1994). If the limited amount of habitat along the Fourmile Creek riparian corridor is suitable for a pair of cuckoos. it is unoccupied. Proposed residential development would avoid impacting the corridor. The removal of cattle grazing and proposed riparian restoration could improve the habitat for this species, although it would remain an isolated and small habitat patch. 5.7.5 BLACK -FOOTED FERRET Black -footed ferrets (federally endangered) are associated with large prairie dog (Cynomys spp.) colonies (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). They were historically found throughout Colorado until they were Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 15 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows exterminated. Recent reintroductions have established ferrets in northwestern Colorado. Prairie dog colonies representing potential habitat are not found anywhere near the project area. Therefore, the proposed action would have no effect on black -footed ferrets and this species is dropped from further consideration herein. 5.7.6 NORTHERN RIVER OTTER Historically, river otters (Lutra canadensis) used relatively large rivers at low to moderate elevations in Colorado (Armstrong 1972). Otters were extirpated in Colorado by beaver trapping and water pollution incidental to early mining efforts (Bissell 1978, Torres et al. 1978, Fitzgerald et al. 1994), but have been restored to some major river systems (Colorado, Gunnison, Piedra, and Dolores) via reintroduction. Additional major river systems have been at least temporarily colonized by dispersal. Otters are currently listed as threatened by the CDOW. Otters require year-round open water (including suitable ice -free areas in winter) and minimum stream flows of around 10 cfs to support a sufficient year-round supply of fish, amphibians, and crustaceans (Bissell 1978, Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Habitats must have high water quality and contain an abundant supply of fish, amphibians, and crustaceans. Other relevant habitat features include water depth, stream width, and suitable access to shoreline. Home ranges have been reported from approximately 1-49 miles long (Melquist and Hornocker 1979, 1983), with a mean length of 20 miles for 13 Colorado otters (Mack 1985). Otters are active year-round. Those in the upper Colorado River were mostly diurnal in winter and more nocturnal in summer (Mack 1985). Otter habitat in Colorado can be envisioned as winter and summer ranges. Wintering areas are those large river and lake systems that provide suitable year-round habitat and represent core population areas. As aquatic systems open with the spring thaw, large areas of seasonally suitable habitat become available and may be used for dispersal and as temporary habitat. River systems and terrestrial habitat (including alpine passes) are used as dispersal corridors. Young otters may disperse up to 125 miles (Melquist and Hornocker 1983). Suitable year-round habitat that is colonized may be permanently occupied. Surnmer habitats occupied by a low density of dispersing individuals include year-round habitat and smaller aquatic complexes. As the availability of summer habitats are reduced by freeze-up, otter habitat in the state constricts back to suitable large river and lake systems. NDIS maps classify the adjacent reach of the Roaring Fork River as river otter overall range. The occasional otter use that might occur in the river would not be affected by the proposed residential development because the property does not extend to the river. otter habitat does not extend up Fourmile Creek onto the property, and water quality and quantity effects would not adversely affect otter habitat in the river. 5.7.7 CANADA LYNX Canada lynx are specialized predators that are highly dependent on snowshoe hares for food. Snowshoe hares prefer diverse, early successional, montane and subalpine conifer forests for cover and forage (Monthey 1986, Koehler and Aubry 1994). Canada lynx usually concentrate their foraging in areas where hare numbers are high, but they also require late successional forests with downed logs and windfalls to provide cover for denning sites, escape, and protection from severe weather (McCord and Cardoza 1982, USFWS 1997, Nordstrom 1998). The elevational distribution of native lynx in Colorado appears to have been above 9,000 feet and associated with spruce -fir forest (Halfpenny et al. 1982a,b). Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 16 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows This elevation should be used to indicate the general distribution of potential lynx habitat and not as an immutable barrier. Native lynx have also been located in other Colorado habitats within this zone (Thompson and Halfpenny 1991, 1989). Many of the CDOW's reintroduced lynx are exhibiting a broader selection of habitats as they continue to disperse from the release sites, although this may be strongly related to disoriented animals dispersing through an unfamiliar, heavily fragmented landscape. Elevations on the subject Elk Meadows parcels range between approximately 5,920 feet, near the Roaring Fork River, and 8,160 feet, on the west end of the upper parcel. All parcels occur below the subalpine and montane life zones and the conifer forests that lynx are associated with. If WRNF lynx habitat criteria (USFS 2002) were applied to the property, virtually the entire property would be classified as "non -habitat", with only the aspen/mixed conifer stands on the west end of the upper west parcel classified as "other" habitat (equivalent to summer foraging habitat). It is unlikely that any lynx would disperse through any portion of the property. Proposed residential development would have no meaningful effects on potential lynx use of the area. 5.8 HIGH VALUE WILDLIFE HABITATS The 1,645 -acre Elk Meadows property is dominated by largely native habitats. Although some of these native habitats have been removed for agricultural uses, and while livestock are seasonally present in all areas, the original wildlife values associated with the remaining native habitats are largely intact and would be largely retained intact. Preserving native habitats, and more important native habitats, by intentionally avoiding these areas and locating development in non-native habitats, would help retain wildlife use of the property. This section identifies and briefly addresses important native habitats on- site. 5.8.1 FOURMILE CREEK RIPARIAN CORRIDOR Fourmile Creek and its riparian zone support some of the highest wildlife diversity values on the property and function as a wildlife movement corridor. The issue associated with this riparian community is keeping development out of it, buffering it from development, and minimizing human use in the area that would conflict with its functions and values. The present conceptual development; plan largely accomplishes the first two objectives. The riparian and aquatic habitat (including water quality) through that corridor have been adversely affected by historic cattle grazing and ranching operations. The termination of cattle grazing and proposed riparian restoration would improve habitat values. The proposed recreational trail through the corridor would be largely, but not entirely, compatible with the wildlife values. Keeping the trail on the north side of the creek and following the existing ranch road though the corridor would minimize adverse effects. 5.8.2 MOUNTAIN SHRUBLANDS The mountain shrublands that occur over most of the property support important deer and elk winter range values and moderate year-round values for a moderate diversity of other wildlife species, mostly non -game. Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 17 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows 5.8.3 MIXED MOUNTAIN PARK HABITATS As described in Section 4.0, above, the 960 acres composing the west parcel of the Bershenyi Ranch (Mountain Park) supports a variety of highly interspersed, well-juxtapositioned habitats in an isolated setting. Although riparian habitats typically support the highest wildlife values of any single habitat in Colorado, the species lists developed during June 2005 surveys indicated that the western parcel supported a far greater diversity and abundance of wildlife species than the Fourniile Creek riparian corridor. That should not be surprising given the different sizes and habitat diversity of those two areas. 5.9 OTHER WILDLIFE/HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ISSUES In addition to those wildlife species, groups, and ecological communities associated with the property identified above that were considered in the conceptual planning stage of the proposed Elk Meadows development, other important, wildlife -related issues include, but are not limited to, retention of high value wildlife habitats, retaining and enhancing big game winter range, residential clustering, high value habitat setbacks, establishing building envelopes, fencing restrictions, designating open space, trails, seasonal access/ use restrictions, dogs and pet control/ enforcement, garbage disposal, mountain lions, nuisance wildlife, landscaping, big game management, reclamation/ landscaping, CDOW indemnification, wildlife mortality on local roads, resident education, enforcement of covenants, etc. 6.0 EFFECTS ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN 6.1 INTRODUCTION The above site-specific wildlife analysis has been used to refine the residential design associated with the proposed Elk Meadows conceptual development. Most high value wildlife habitats on-site would be avoided and preserved in perpetuity, while impacts to others would be minimized with the implementation of the measures contained within the following Draft Wildlife Mitigation Plan (see Section 8.0). The draft Wildlife Mitigation Plan, below, prepared for the proposed Elk Meadows residential development, proposes Westminster Swanson Land Partners, LLC's commitments to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts resulting from the proposed development, as described herein. The standards contained in this plan are consistent with, or exceed, those associated with other Wildlife Mitigation Plans developed for the surrounding area and other applicable Colorado developments. The specifics contained herein have evolved from existing wildlife information, results of field surveys, discussions and correspondence with Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) representatives, and meetings and discussions with staff and professionals representing the proponent. The former conceptual development plan associated with this project was then revised, in part, because of wildlife issues. Mitigation measures were then developed to avoid and minimize potential project effects, to the extent practicable. This plan is organized by wildlife issues. Where mitigation measures apply to more than one issue, they are discussed under the most appropriate issue and only mentioned under other issues. In the event of Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 18 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows conflicting guidelines, regulations, covenants, etc. within this Plan and/or between this Plan and PUD Guidelines, the most restrictive provisions shall apply. _ Westminster Swanson Land Partners, LLC, its successors or assigns, which might undertake some or all of the owner's commitments, as delineated below, propose to commit to the following wildlife mitigation measures. This Plan will be effective in phases upon Garfield County approval of each final plat development phase of the Elk Meadows project. In the event that the Elk Meadows project is -not approved and implemented, in whole or in part, Westminster Swanson Land Partners, LLC shall not be required to implement the respective component(s) of this Plan. 6.2 LIABILITY DISCLAIMER The enhancement and mitigation section of this document was prepared for the benefit of prospective residents, residents, guests, and operators of the Elk Meadows project, with review and comment by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). The contents are based on the most current professional wildlife data and theories. However, wildlife biology is as much an art as it is a science. Much is yet to be learned about the life history and behavior of most animals. Wildlife should always be treated for what they are, wild, unpredictable animals. Particularly with regard to bears and mountain lions, every situation is different with regard to the animal, the circumstances, the people involved, and their activity. There have been no definitive scientific studies conducted to determine precisely what should, and should not be done, in the event a human encounters a bear or lion. However, based on people who have encountered these animals, some patterns of human behavior and animal response have emerged. The suggestions in this document are based on those behaviors, but are only considered a guide. Westminster Swanson Land Partners, LLC and Western Ecosystems, Inc. take no responsibility for the actions taken by people who read this guide. 6.3 PRESERVATION OF HIGH VALUE WILDLIFE HABITATS Three high value wildlife habitats have been described on the Elk Meadows property, the Mountain Park, Fourmile Creek riparian corridor, and mountain shrublands. These habitats are described in detail in Section 5.8, above. These habitats would be largely avoided and retained, in large part, for continued wildlife use (described in following sections). However, although most of the acreage of these habitats would remain undeveloped and be retained as designated open space, it should be recognized that the proximity of human developments and activities within or adjacent to some of these areas would reduce the effectiveness of these habitats to a certain extent for some species such that the present numbers of some wildlife currently using these areas would not be retained in all circumstances. Of the 1,465 acres of land that are part of this project (not including the 180 acres of the west parcel that would be retained by the owners), 1,340 acres or 91.5% of the property would be dedicated as open space, leaving approximately 125 acres in actual residential lot development. This open space does not include a golf course, a large fenced equestrian facility, or soccer fields that meet open space definitions, but provide little value to wildlife. Most proposed Elk Meadows open space includes undeveloped, intact native habitats that provide highly effective year-round values to elk, deer, and the diverse suite of other wildlife species that would continue using these habitats, largely as they do now. Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 19 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows 6.3.1 THE MOUNTAIN PARK The centerpiece of the Elk Meadows open space system would be the isolated, 960 -acre western tract of the Bershenyi Ranch (the Mountain Park), which provides the highest wildlife diversity and abundance values on the property. Wildlife values associated with this parcel would likely improve with the termination of livestock grazing. Greater elk, deer, and other wildlife use of this parcel, surrounded by extensive tracts of similarly undeveloped habitats, would likely occur. As a condition of the first phase final plat, this tract would be dedicated to some type of public or private entity (county, city, special district, non-profit corporation, home owners association, etc.) for the purpose of managing this parcel as open space. Access to the west parcel would be via the existing ranch road through BLM lands, which BLM officials have confirmed may be used for non -motorized access. Use restrictions and enhancement measures recommended for the Mountain Park and other open space blocks are provided in Section 6.4.9, below. 6.3.2 FOUR MILE CREEK RIPARIAN CORRIDOR The entire Fourmile Creek riparian corridor and much of the flanking mountain shrub habitat outside the corridor would be entirely avoided by development and preserved as open space (Four Mile Creek Park, as described in Section 3.8, above). Historic cattle grazing and access to the creek has degraded the ecological value of this community. Cattle grazing would be terminated and efforts would be taken to restore this community. The proposed recreational trail through the corridor would be largely, but not entirely, compatible with the wildlife values. Keeping the trail on the north side of the creek and following the existing ranch road though the corridor would minimize adverse effects. 6.3.3 MOUNTAIN SHRUBLANDS Most of the mountain shrublands on the property would be retained in large effective blocks as designated open space as a result of clustering residential development and locating clusters in non-native hayfields, pastures, and meadows. The steep hillside dropping down to the Roaring Fork River on the east side of the East Meadow community would be left intact. Homes have been pulled back from the edge of that slope, in part so that animals on the slope would be largely unaffected by the human development above. The same is largely true for the mountain shrub habitat bin the Fourmile Creek draw south of the East Meadow community.IThe Upper and South Meadow communities are largely located in non-native, irrigated hayfields, meadows, and developed headquarters of the Bershenyi and Martino Ranches. Building envelopes, fencing restrictions, dog restrictions, and other mitigation measures associated with the proposed (see below) would minimize habitat loss and optimize the effectiveness of remaining habitat. 6.4 RETAINING AND ENHANCING BIG GAME WINTER RANGE NDIS maps indicate that the entire 505 acres associated with the Elk Meadows PUD and most of the proposed 960 -acre Mountain Park are designated as elk winter range and severe winter range and as mule deer winter range, severe winter range, and winter concentration area. As described in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, above, those designations are largely valid. As a result, itnpacts to those habitats could not Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 20 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows be avoided by development. However, big game winter range values on and adjacent to the subject property would be minimized and retained as effectively as possible by (1) clustering development into loca i7ed neighborhoods, (2) selectively locating development largely in non-native habitats, (3) providing for wildlife movements between and around development pods, (4) establishing building envelopes and open space easements within lots, (5) establishing and enforcing fencing and dog restrictions, (6) designating and otherwise protecting habitats outside of development areas as open space, (7) restoring winter range disturbed by construction activities, (8) implementing and enforcing use restrictions on portions of the open space system, and (9) terminating annual livestock grazing. Each of these measures is described below. 6.4.1 CLUSTERING Proposed Elk Meadows residential development would be clustered into three localized neighborhoods, concentrating development and minimizing the loss of wildlife habitat. Proposed development would affect approximately 125 acres, leaving 75% (380 ac.) of the 505 -acre PUD and 91.5% (1,340 ac.) of the 1,465 acres of land that is part of this project undeveloped as dedicated as open space. 6.4.2 SELECTIVE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT The three residential clusters would be selectively located largely in non-native habitats, composed of irrigated hayfields, pastures, meadows, and the two ranch headquarters that have been cleared of their original native vegetation. Although wildlife do use these non-native habitats, these agricultural and developed habitats do not support the wildlife diversity values of native areas. The highest value wildlife habitats on the property, the Mountain Park and the Fourmile Creek riparian corridor, have been completely avoided by development. 6.4.3 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS Clustering development, locating it in non-native habitats, away from the Fourmile Creek riparian corridor, away from the property boundary, and working with local landforms has allowed for wildlife movement corridors through the PUD, both between and around development pods in the PUD and between PUD development and homes on adjacent properties. The southern corridor, south of the South Meadow Community, is functionally over 1,500 feet wide, though it narrows down to approximately 810 feet wide between the closest building envelope in the southeast corner of the community and the closest nearby residence on a private property to the south. That corridor intersects and follows the Fourmile Creek riparian corridor, and elk and deer migration corridors designated on NDIS maps. This corridor would be the most functional of the three corridors for facilitating big game access to native habitats east of Four Mile Road. Deer movements through this densely wooded bottleneck would be largely unaffected by adjacent homes. Elk movements would be more likely to be constrained, but elk are using similarly -sized (and narrower corridors) designed for them through similar cover in other Colorado Subdivisions (e.g., Cordillera, eagle County). It should be recognized that a major attractant for big game, deer in particular, east of the road is the hayfield. Approximately two-thirds of that hayfield would no longer be available for foraging because of residential development. That may reduce the number of deer and elk crossing the road. However, it Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 21 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows is still important to maintain a viable movement corridor across the road because other native habitats used during winter would be available both on and off the property. Without adequate access, the effectiveness of those habitats would be reduced. While deer crossing signs may have little effectiveness at reducing road -kill, such signs should be installed on Four Mile Road north and south of the Fourmile Creek Crossing. Residents will also be educated about the road crossing (see Sections 6.9 and 6.12, below). The middle corridor, located between the Upper and South Meadow Communities, narrows to approximately 570 feet between the closest building envelopes. Deer will use this corridor year-round and elk may use it daring winter under cover of darkness, when human activity within the development ebbs. This corridor would also be functional for all other wildlife species. The value of this corridor is as a secondary corridor around the Upper Meadow Community to the steep, east -facing mountain shrub and juniper hillside above Four Mile Road. This habitat block melts out fast during winter and provides forage and an important bedding area for deer during the day. The primary corridor around the Upper Meadow Community occurs to the north. While this middle corridor would also provide deer access directly to the hayfield on the east side of Four Mile Road, deer use of that meadow will decline from its present use as a result of approximately two-thirds of the meadow being developed and the remaining portion being surrounded on tree sides by residential development associated with the East Meadow Community and the Four Mile Ranch development to the north. The northern corridor, located north of the Upper Meadow Community, is 690-1,920 feet across to the northern property line, but no development is located to the north all the way into Threemile Creek. This is considered a primary corridor around the development and would provide access to the east - facing mountain shrub and juniper hillside above Four Mile Road, mentioned above. Other narrower open space areas within (e.g., along the incised, intermittent drainage running through the South Meadow Community) and around the residential pods (e.g., the slope east of the East Meadow Community) will also function as effective movement corridor for most wildlife species. 6.4.4 ESTABLISHING BUILDING ENVELOPES Building envelopes, governing the location and distribution of all structures (e.g., residences, all fencing, dog runs, etc.), surrounding yards, and all disturbance to native vegetation, with the possible exceptions of utilities, driveways, and administration buildings, would be established to insure that development follows a design minimizing losses of native habitat and facilitating continued wildlife movements through, and use of, the property. Building envelopes on lots abutting open space containing native habitat have been pulled toward the front of lots and open space easements established along the back of the lots. This leaves undeveloped areas beyond the building envelope that would be retained in native habitat, functioning as additional, de facto open space and buffer zone. Prior to any ground disturbance, the residential building envelope on such lots should be delineated by snow fencing or sediment fencing to contain and limit ground disturbance outside of the open space easement. No native vegetative manipulation (non-agricultural) should be permitted and within the open space easement, except where manipulation is required as part of a valid winter range enhancement program, as may be required to revegetate those areas disturbed by construction (e.g., utility easements, etc.), as may be required to establish screening vegetation, for valid fire management mitigation, and for weed control. The objective of these measures is to minimize the amount of natural habitat loss and Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 22 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows maintain existing vegetation buffering visual and acoustic disturbances from adjacent habitats. Residential construction should implement Best Management Practices. Residents would also be educated (see Section 2.11, below) to appreciate and maintain the existing vegetative community, particularly shrubby areas, which provide important wildlife cover and forage values and allows wildlife to be more visible to residents from their homes. Residents would also be educated (see Section 2.11, below) to recognize that they have moved into wildlife habitat, that some wildlife will have strong compulsions to eat landscaping, and that the CDOW will not be liable for any wildlife damage. 6.4.5 FENCING RESTRICTIONS Fencing restricts big game movements, reduces habitat effectiveness, and can result in wildlife mortality through entanglement and road -kill. Fencing is currently widespread on the property because of the active agricultural operation. All interior livestock fencing on the property should be removed from wildlife movement corridors and designated open space (i.e., most of the property). Where needed and potentially needed to exclude livestock access from adjacent properties, existing perimeter fencing on the property could be maintained; otherwise it should also be removed. Fencing approval would be under the purview of the Design Review Board or Property Owners Association. All fencing should be discouraged on the property and restricted to within building envelopes on residential lots to facilitate local and migratory wildlife movements, optimize habitat availability, and reduce wildlife mortality. There shall be no fencing of perimeter lot lines. Considering the clustered density of residential pods, fencing the building envelope perimeter would be permitted. Decorative community fencing not designed to allow for wildlife movements is prohibited. No equestrian use is proposed on the property or on the Mountain Tract so no corrals or temporary boarding (i.e., overnight) fencing need be considered (that would otherwise be prohibited). Continuous buck & rail fencing is prohibited because it is not compatible with wildlife movements. However, discontinuous (e.g., decorative) buck & rail fencing may be used in local areas provided it meets the following specifications. (1) Buck & rail fencing is prohibited closer than 40 feet from the edge of any internal roads within the property. This space is the minimum required to prevent animals caught on the road side of the fence from panicking and attempting to run across the road in front of an oncoming vehicle. (2) Any buck & rail fencing along roads should be limited to the corners of entrance roads and property corners. In each of these areas, such fencing shall not exceed a single linear span greater than 40 feet (or 80 feet, where two 40 -foot spans are joined at a corner), with at least an effective 20 foot wide opening between fencing spans. Any fencing along both sides of any internal road shall have openings located opposite each other to facilitate safe wildlife crossing. (3) Within the property, spans of such fencing shall be 5 40 feet in length and there shall be a gap of at least 20 feet between any two spans of fencing to allow animals to move through the fence line. (4) In the event that (in the opinion of the CDOW) fencing restricts wildlife movements or results in increased road mortality, the Design Review Board or the Property Owners Association will work with the CDOW to resolve the conflict. Fencing may be subject to more restrictive provisions as stated in the Protective Covenants, Design Guidelines, or other documents related to the property. Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 23 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows 6.4.6 DOGS AND PET CONTROL Dog and pet control provisions are the same throughout the property because free -ranging pets could travel and pose hazards to wildlife throughout and beyond the property. Each residential lot will be permitted to have up to two dogs, two cats, and their offspring up to three months old. Residents will be prohibited from harboring dogs on their property unless they have adequate outdoor facilities (i.e., a fenced yard, dog run, or kennel, including community facilities) to contain the animals. Even if dogs are to be kept indoors at all times, an adequate fenced outdoor facility must be provided, because at some point it is sufficiently likely that a dog will be left unleashed outdoors. Enclosed runs must be located immediately adjacent to the home, within the lot's building envelope, and shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. Property Owners are encouraged to completely enclose runs (including tops and bottoms) to protect dogs from possible mountain lion predation and to prevent some dogs from digging their way out. If facilities are inadequate to contain the resident's dog(s), the animals will be immediately removed from the property until adequate structures can be built. Cats shall be kept indoors. Free -roaming cats are subject to becoming part of the local food chain. Great - homed owls, red fox, coyotes, and bobcats would benefit from free -ranging cats. At no time shall dogs or cats be allowed to run freely on the property. When dogs are outside of their residential facilities (i.e., fenced yards) on the Elk Meadows PUD, on BLM lands, or on the Mountain Tract, the dog must be controlled by a leash of no more than 12 feet in length and under the direct control of its owner or authorized representative. Visitors and guests of residents shall comply with all dog and pet control measures applicable to the PUD. Residents shall be responsible for the actions of their guests. Dog and pet owners should not feed their pets outside on the property to avoid attracting nuisance wildlife (e.g., skunks and raccoons) or predators (e.g., red fox, coyotes, bobcats, black bears). The Property Owners Association shall be responsible for enforcing dog and pet covenants. The County and CDOW may also control stray dogs. Such control may include the destruction of stray dogs under Colorado law. Property Owners not in compliance with these dog and pet restrictions shall be responsible for any and all costs incurred by the Property Owners Association, County, and/or CDOW for enforcing these provisions. Should the Property Owners Association knowingly failtoenforce these dog covenants, the County and/or CDOW may enforce the dog covenants and recover any and all costs incurred. Penalties for first, second, and subsequent violations by a homeowner, resident, guest, or employee will be a warning, a $100.00 fine, and a $200.00 fine. At any time after the first offense and warning that the dog owner fails to comply, the Property Owners Association may request removal of the dog from the Elk Meadows property. Non-payment of a fine or failure to remove the dog(s) from the property, shall be considered a separate violation for each day that a violation continues after notice, and shall be enforced (i.e., fined) accordingly. Contractors, subcontractors, employees, delivery people, etc. should be prohibited from bringing dogs onto the Elk Meadows property, even if dogs would be kept inside vehicles. Violation of the dog policy by a person(s) other than a resident of Elk Meadows may result in the immediate eviction of the dog and Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 24 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows the dog's owner or representative from Elk Meadows. In the event of a second violation by the same dog and/or the same dog's owner, the dog and the dog's owner or representative may be immediately evicted from the property, and the offending person in question shall be prohibited from the Elk Meadows property for the following seven (7) consecutive calendar days. In the event of a third violation, the offending person in question shall be prohibited from the Elk Meadows property for the following six (6) consecutive calendar months. The Property Owners Association, residents, employers, and employees of Elk Meadows will be educated (see Section 6.12, below) regarding the dog and pet policy for this property. 6.4.7 DESIGNATING OPEN SPACE Winter range outside of residential communities on the Elk Meadows property would be protected as designated or de facto open space, as described in Section 6.3, above. Proposed development would affect approximately 125 acres, leaving 75% (380 ac.) of the 505 -acre PUD and 91.5% (1,340 ac.) of the 1,465 acres of land that is part of this project undeveloped as dedicated as open space. With the exception of the relatively small areas of open space within the residential communities, virtually all of the open space supports important big game winter range values. No vegetative manipulation should be permitted outside of designated building envelopes, except where manipulation is required as part of a valid winter range enhancement program, as may be required to revegetate those areas disturbed by construction (e.g., driveways, access and utility easements, etc.), as may be required to establish screening vegetation, for valid fire management mitigation, and for weed control. While there could be passive human uses of open space areas resulting in diurnal disturbances that could be incompatible with periodic mule deer and elk use, the habitat values of those areas would remain largely intact and animals would be expected to continue to use those areas, particularly under cover of darkness. 6.4.8 RESTORING DISTURBED WINTER RANGE Reclamation is the process used to restore native wildlife habitats disturbed by construction activities that are outside of building envelopes and development areas in portions of the property that mule deer and elk would likely continue to use. Such areas would be reseeded or replanted with native plant species to maintain wildlife use and restore winter range values. Roads and driveway shoulders in such areas need not exclude shrubs or other plants palatable to big game to maximize vertical and horizontal sight - distances and reduce the probability of road -killed wildlife because posted speed limits would be slow enough to avoid road -kills. 6.4.9 OPEN SPACE USE RESTRICTIONS While the Elk Meadows open space system would preserve and protect 91.5% (1,340 ac.) of the 1,465 acres of land that is part of this project, most of which is native habitat, human activities within or adjacent to some of these areas would reduce the effectiveness of these habitats for some species. The following use restrictions are recommended to facilitate continued and enhanced wildlife use of protected habitats. Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 25 • Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows There should be no overnight use, including but not limited to camping, in the open space system, which, hereinafter, includes the Mountain Park. Open space should only be open to use from dawn to dusk (i.e., from one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset). The nocturnal non-use period would allow more sensitive wildlife species (e.g., elk and deer) to move into and use the open space system, maximizing habitat effectiveness and compatibility with the residential development. All access to the Mountain Park should be non -motorized, as required across BLM lands, unless required for valid management of that parcel. The existing locked gate on the access road at the lower BLM/ private property line should be maintained. Camp fires and any open flames should be prohibited, partly because of the wildfire hazard. Domestic livestock grazing on the open space system would be terminated, unless needed for valid, wildlife -oriented habitat management, and only as authorized by CDOW concurrence. Snowmobiling and equestrian use of open space should be prohibited because of potential wildlife conflicts, potential conflicts with other users, only non -motorized access allowed across BLM lands by the public, and/or- conflicts with such users accessing the Mountain Park through the Elk Meadows development (e.g., needing trailer parking areas, holding corrals, etc.) See Fencing, Dog and Pet Control, and Big Game Management provisions elsewhere in this document. 6.5 LANDSCAPING Landscaping is a vegetative restoration process taken within development areas and fenced yards that deer and elk are less likely to continue to use. Unlike reclamation oriented at restoring winter range values disturbed by construction activities, the primary goal of landscaping is not to provide forage for big game. The Elk Meadows community landscaping plan should exclude trees and shrubs highly palatable to big game that would inevitably be damaged by wintering big game. On residential lots, property owners are strongly encouraged to landscape with native plant species to minimize wildlife damage. The CDOW will not be liable for wildlife damage to landscaping. Fencing yards will not necessarily exclude big game. 6.6 BEARS AND TRASH DISPOSAL Elk Meadows is located in moderate quality black bear habitat. Bears will be attracted to the development and when they find a food source, problems may arise. Most bears do not cause damage where residential developments have encroached into bear habitat. The key is that if a bear doesn't find food it will move on. Black bears are omnivorous and while they mostly eat vegetation, they will eat almost anything. Bears will eat human food, garbage, hummingbird nectar, birdseed, pet food, grease off grills, suntan lotion, etc. Garbage generally provides the greatest attraction for bears to residential developments. Once a bear has found an easily accessible, consistent food source, it will often overcome its wariness of people and visit the site regularly. This increases the chance of a bear -human encounter. After repeated use of the food source, the bear may even act aggressively toward residents, their pets, or their unsuspecting neighbors. When this happens and wildlife authorities are notified, the bear is usually killed to protect human safety. Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 26 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows The following measures will be required to reduce potential bear problems at residences: A. Homeowners will be educated about bears and other local wildlife via the CDOW's brochure entitled "Living with Wildlife in Bear Country" and/or a homeowners' brochure that might be developed for the property. One copy of either brochure shall be provided to all residents at closing. The bear brochure is also available on the CDOW's website, which is, at the time of this writing: www. dnr.state. co.us /wildlife/Education/ coexisting_with_wildlifelhtm. B. Outside storage of any trash or garbage at any residence within the development, no matter how briefly (e.g., overnight), will be contained within individual or commercial -size, bear -proof containers, which meet North American Bear Society, CDOW, or U.S. National Park Service specifications, or are of a custom design approved by the CDOW. Most homeowners need at least two containers where trash collection is weekly. Each home shall have and use a sufficient number of bear -proof containers for the amount of trash normally produced between trash collections. Garbage should not be stored within homes, garages, or sheds because bears may break into these structures. Bags of refuse that might attract bears should be taken from the home directly to the bear -proof containers. The former, acceptable method of trash handling and disposal has been determined by the CDOW to be sufficiently ineffective to now require the use of bear -proof containers. Formerly, before the day of trash collection, it was acceptable to keep any refuse that might attract bears within the garage in a suitable receptacle with a tight -fitting lid. Temporarily keeping refuse within detached garages or sheds was discouraged because these structures were more likely to be broken into by bears. Trash containers were to be taken to the collection points (e.g., the end of driveways) the morning of collection, not the night before. However, following these recommendations did not eliminate bear problems, particularly during years in which mast crops (i.e., acorns and berries) failed. Some complacent homeowners put out trash the night before collection and bears ate the edibles, scattering trash all over. Other homeowners properly kept trash containers within attached garages, but left garage doors open. Bears that ate trash in open garages returned. When some bears returned and found the garage doors closed, they clawed and chewed their way through the garage door to access the trash. Bear -proof containers are now considered the only secure and acceptable approach to garbage disposal. D. There shall be no dumps or underground disposal of refuse on residential lots. Buried garbage will attract bears. E. Residents will be discouraged from using a garden compost pile, unless the compost pile is bear -proof, meeting North American Bear Society, CDOW, or U.S. National Park Service specifications. Household and garden waste contributions to compost piles compose the materials that can attract bears and create problems. Composted yard waste consisting of leaves, grass, small branches, etc. does not usually attract bears. F. Pets will not be fed outside. Bowls of pet food left on the back deck may attract bears and other predators (e.g., coyotes) and nuisance species (e.g., skunks) of wildlife. Some of these wildlife species may carry disease that can be transmitted to pets, which may be fatal to pets and humans. G. Residents are discouraged from using bird feeders of any design (e.g., mixed seed, sunflower, thistle Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 27 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows [niger], suet, fruit, mealworms, nectar [hummingbird], etc.) from April 1 to November 15, dates inclusive, the period of the year when bears are actively seeking food, unless the feeders and seed spillage from them are clearly inaccessible to bears. It will surprise residents what it takes to keep feeders and seed spillage inaccessible to bears. H. With the exception of bird feeders, as described above, the feeding, baiting, salting, or other means of attracting wildlife is prohibited. I. The planting of fruit/ nut bearing trees or bushes within building envelopes is discouraged because bears will be attracted to these plants in close proximity to homes. If flowering trees are desirable, consult with your landscape nursery to select a sterile variety that produces flowers, but no fruit. J. All residential construction sites shall install and use certified bear -proof trash receptacles for any refuse associated with food or drink from April 1 to November 15, dates inclusive, the period of the year when bears are actively seeking food. Such receptacles shall be in place before any ground disturbance occurs. All construction personnel associated with the project should be initially briefed about the bear issue and the need to properly handle and dispose of all materials that can attract bears within the above specified time period. At no time will any refuse, that has been associated with food or drink, be allowed to be available to any wildlife species. This regulation shall also apply to any and all work associated with the project as a whole. (e.g. road construction, utility installation, etc.) K. The Property Owners Association shall be responsible for enforcing the bear and trash disposal provisions in this Section. The County and CDOW may also enforce the above measures. Should the Property Owners Association knowingly fail to enforce the bear and trash disposal measures contained within this paragraph, the County and/or CDOW may enforce the measures and recover any and all costs incurred. Residents not in compliance with these bear and trash disposal measures shall be responsible for any and all costs incurred by the Property Owners Association, County, and/or CDOW for enforcing these provisions. Residents in violation of these bear provisions shall be fined according to the fine structure outlined in Section 6.4.6, above. Contractors not in compliance with these bear and trash disposal measures shall be responsible for any and all costs incurred by the Property Owners Association, County, and/or CDOW for enforcing these provisions. The first violation of this regulation will require a warning to the prime contractor and notification of the penalties for subsequent violations. The prime contractor shall then immediately correct the violation and renotify all project personnel regarding the bear issue and the need to properly handle and dispose of all materials that can attract bears. A second violation will cause ALL construction at the site (e.g., the home under construction) to cease with no further construction activity occurring for a 24-hour period. A third violation will cause all construction activity to cease for five consecutive days. Each subsequent violation shall result in a doubling of the days that construction at that home will be shut down. 6.7 MOUNTAIN LIONS Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 28 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows Mountain lions are occasionally present year-round in the vicinity of the Elk Meadows property, but may be more common from fall through spring when large numbers of deer and elk (prey species) are wintering and fawning/ calving at lower elevations. In other areas of Colorado, where developments have encroached upon mountain lion habitat containing high concentrations of prey species, encounters between lions, humans, and their pets have increased. The following measures will be implemented to minimize lion -human conflicts: A. All residents and prospective residents and lodge and suite guests will receive a copy of the CDOW's brochure entitled "Living with Wildlife in Mountain Lion Country" and/or a Property Owners' brochure that might be developed for the property containing a lengthy section explaining that the property is located in lion country, what residents should be aware of, what to do if a close encounter occurs, and measures they can take to increase their safety and that of their pets. One copy of either brochure shall be provided to all prospective residents and to all residents at closing. The lion brochure is also available on the CDOW's website at www. dnr.state.co.us /wildlife/Education/coexisting__with_wildli fe/htm. B. With the exception of bird feeders, the feeding, baiting, salting, or other means of attracting wildlife is prohibited. C. At no time shall dogs or cats be allowed to run freely on the property. D. Property Owners are encouraged to completely enclose dog runs (including tops and bottoms) to protect dogs from possible mountain lion predation and to prevent some dogs from digging their way out. E. Other dog and pet control measures in Section 6.4.6, above, would further reduce potential conflicts with mountain lions. 6.8 BIG GAME MANAGEMENT Big game populations are managed by the CDOW primarily by hunting. Hunting helps keep the size of local herds in balance with available habitat, particularly in the absence of, or with reduced densities of, large predators. Inadequate hunter access and/or hunter harvest allows populations to grow, increasing game damage to native habitats and residential landscaping. The amount of harvest is not as important as preventing the large private properties, such as Elk Meadows and the Mountain Park from becoming a refuge during the hunting seasons, where big game congregate to avoid hunters. When this occurs, herds can build up to where the population is controlled by widespread starvation during a severe winter. After which, the habitat is damaged and unable to support former balanced population numbers until it recovers. Hunting by authorized Elk Meadows residents or guests could continue on the properties as long as safety allowed. It would be up to the Property Owners Association to decide what type and level of hunting, if any, is compatible with their development, what areas may be safely hunted, and when all hunting on the property will be terminated. Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 29 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows 6.9 WILDLIFE MORTALITY ON LOCAL ROADS Interior roads within the Elk Meadows development would be posted with speed limits slow enough for motorists to avoid all big game mortality. However, the project is accessed I-70, Highway 82, and Four Mile Road, where vehicles kill dozens of deer and elk each year. Increased traffic generation associated with the Elk Meadows development would incrementally increase road kill probabilities. Obeying posted speed limits on local roads and regional highways would not only reduce wildlife mortality, but would also reduce the risks of damage to personal property and injury to motorists. Deer crossing signs are located where they are for a reason — because moderate to high numbers of big game regularly cross between the signs during certain seasons and animals have been killed by motorist's vehicles in those areas. Deer crossing signs may also mean that elk cross in that same area. If you hit a deer or elk on Four Mile Road, you will damage your vehicle and the animal will wander off to die if it is not killed on-site. If you hit a 600 pond elk when traveling 75 miles per hour on I-70, you will severely damage your vehicle and may incur severe injury to you and you passengers. Deer are present in habitats along Four Mile Road year-round. Elk may be present in winter. Dusk to dawn is when animals will be most active, most likely to be crossing roads, and when visibility from a moving vehicle is poorest. If an animal crosses the road in front of you, slow down and stop as safety allows and wait for the animal(s) to cross. Don't assume it is the only animal or the last one in a group. Don't watch the animal that has crossed the road. Look to where it came from and assume that there is another animal following it. 6.10 AQUATIC ISSUES 6.10.1 WATER DEPLETIONS There would be no water depletions that could adversely affect local or downstream fisheries. Fourmile Creek's physical flows would remain the same or improve (i.e., flows might be increased). Implementation of BMPs would improve the quality of water running off the property into local streams, compared to that now associated with the current agricultural operation. The project would have no adverse effect on water quality or quantity downstream of the Fourmile Creek/ Roaring Fork River confluence. 6.10.2 WATER QUALITY During construction, sediment control will be maintained on-site through a series of "Best Management Practices" (BMP's) as required by the State of Colorado "Stormwater Management Practices". These BMP's consist of silt fences, stabilized construction entrances, straw bale dikes, straw bale inlet protection, desiltation ponds, and possibly some slope stabilization matting, if required. Once the project is nearing completion all disturbed areas will either be re-established with the natural surrounding vegetation seed mixes or landscaped with the proposed groundcover as depicted on the landscape plan. Parking lot runoff s will be treated through a series of re -vegetated swales and detention ponds. Implementation of BMPs would improve the quality of water running off the property into local streams, compared to that now associated with the current agricultural operation. The proposed project has an extensive pedestrian path system throughout the project and landscaping Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 30 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows features which encourage pedestrians to stay on designated paths. The proposed pathways are planned to consist of a variety of surfaces some of which would prevent erosion from occurring in those areas. Other areas throughout the site are to be regenerated and or landscaped and watered via an irrigation system, which will help create fuller, healthier groundcover to prevent erosion. In addition, the erosion that takes place within the proposed project boundary will be directed to storm water detention ponds where sediment will settle out prior to being released to Fourmile Creek. All runoff and any short-term erosion would be contained and treated on-site. 6.11 CDOW INDEMNIFICATION The Applicant, the Elk Meadows Property Owners Association, and Elk Meadows residents shall indemnify the CDOW from any and all future wildlife damage claims and from any and all actions that might be taken to control free -ranging pets that could pose hazards to wildlife. There will be wildlife damage to landscaping planted on big game winter range. 6.12 EDUCATION Elk Meadows residents will purchase home sites, partly because of the natural setting and the wildlife values in the area. These residents may be unfamiliar with the wildlife of Colorado and its mountains and the responsibility that goes with living in this setting. Homeowners generally don't want to disturb, harass, or impact wildlife, but they often unwittingly do. Property owners will be educated about local wildlife issues by providing each prospective resident a signed copy of this Plan with initial contract documents and providing each resident a signed copy of this agreement and the CDOW bear and mountain lion brochures at the time of closing. Brochures are available on the CDOW's website: www.dnr.state.co.us/wildlife/Education/coexisting___with wildlife/htm. 6.13 ENFORCEMENT The Applicant and/or the Property Owners Association are responsible for enforcing the provisions of this Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan. Garfield County and the CDOW may also enforce these provisions. Should the Applicant and/or the Property Owners Association knowingly fail to enforce the provisions of this Plan, the County and/or CDOW may enforce the closure and recover any and all costs incurred. 7.0 ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS The wildlife provisions, as set forth above in this Plan, shall not be amended without the written consent of the County and any Property Owners Association. Prior to any amendments to this Plan, the CDOW shall be notified and offered an adequate opportunity to review and comment. The CDOW and/or County can also enforce this entire Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan. This Plan will be effective in phases upon County approval of a final plat for each development phase of the Elk Meadows project. Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 31 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows In the event that the Elk Meadows project is not approved and implemented, the Applicant shall not be required to implement the respective component(s) of this Plan. It is the intention of the Applicant that with full proposed development on this property, this Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan shall run with the land. Sincerely, Westminster Swanson Land Partners, LLC By: Name, Title of Authorized Representative Accepted and agreed to this day of , 200_. 8.0 LITERATURE CITED Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado birds: a reference to their distribution and habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History. Denver, CO. 442 pp. Armstrong, D.M. 1972. Distribution of maminals in Colorado. Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. Mono. 3. 415 pp. Bissell, S J. 1978b. River otter, Lutra canadensis Schreber. Pages 78-79. In Essential habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Div. Wildl., Denver, CO. 84 pp. Boreal Toad Conservation Strategy Team. 1997. Draft conservation strategy for the southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver, CO. Carter, M.F. 1998. Yellow -billed cuckoo. Pp. 204-205 in Kingery, H., ed. Colorado breeding bird atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership. Denver, CO. 636 pp. Cary, C. 1993. Hypothesis concerning the causes of the disappearance of boreal toads from the mountains of Colorado. Cons. Biol. 7:355-362. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Mus. Nat. Hist. and Univ. Press of Colorado. Niwot, CO. 467 pp. Goettl, J.P. and Boreal Toad Recovery Team. 1997. Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas) (southern Rocky Mountain population) recovery plan. Colorado Div. Wildl. Denver. 50 pp. Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 32 - Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadow: Halfpenny, J.C., S.J. Bissell and D. Nead. 1982a. Lynx verification program: history and status of the lynx in Colorado and its distributional ecology for western North America. Unpubl. Man. 23 pp. Halfpenny, J.C., S.J. Bissell, and D. Nead. 1982b. Southern limits of lynx distribution with special reference to Colorado. Univ. Colorado, Boulder and Colo. Div. Wildl., Denver. Unpubl. Man. 17 pp. Hammerson, G.A. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles in Colorado. Univ. Press of Colorado and Colo. Div. Wildl. Niwot, CO. 484- pp. Koehler, G.M. and K.B. Aubry. 1994. Lynx. Pages 74-98 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, tech. eds. The Scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -254. USDA For. Serv. Rocky Mountain Range and Exper. Stn., Ft. Collins, CO. 184 pp. Loeffler, C. (ed.) 1998. Conservation plan and agreement for the management and recovery of the Southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad (BO boreas boreas). Boreal Toad Recovery Team. 66 pp. + appendices. Mack, C.M. 1985. River otter restoration in Grand County, Colorado. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, 133 pp. (as cited in Fitzgerald et al. 1994) McCord, C.M. and J.E. Cardoza. 1982. Bobcat (Felis rufus) and lynx (F. lynx). Pp. 728-766 in J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild mammals of North America. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. Melquist, W.E. and M.G. Hornocker. 1979. Methods and techniques for studying and censusing river otter populations. Tech. Rep. Univ. Idaho For., Wildl. and Range Exper. Sta. 1:1-17. (as cited in Fitzgerald et al. 1994) Melquist, W.E. and M.G. Hornocker. 1983. Ecology of river otters in west central Idaho. Wildl. Monogr. 83:1-60. Monthey, R.W. 1986: Responses of snowshoe hares, Lepus americanus, to timber harvesting in northern Maine. Can. Field. Nat. 100: 568-570. Nordstrom, L.H. 1998. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: proposal to list the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx; proposed rule. Fed. Register 63(130):36993-37013. Osmundson, D.B. and L.R. Kaeding. 1989. Studies of Colorado squawfish and razorback sucker use of the "15 mile" reach of the upper Colorado River as part of Conservation measures for the Green Mountain and Ruedi Reservoir water sales. Final Report. USFWS, Grand Junction, Colorado. Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 33 Wildlife Assessment and Mitigation and Enhancement Plan The Reserve at Elk Meadows Osmundson, D.B. and L.R. Kaeding. 1991. Flow recommendations for maintenance and enhancement of rare fish habitat in the "15 mile" reach during October June. Final Report. USFWS, Grand Junction, Colorado. Thompson, R.W. and J.C. Halfpenny. 1989. Canada lynx presence on Vail Ski Area and proposed expansion areas. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Lafayette, CO. 29 pp. Thompson, R.W. and J.C. Halfpenny. 1991. Canada lynx presence on the proposed East Fork Ski Area. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 38 pp. Torres, J., S. Bissell, G. Craig, W. Graul, and D. Langlois. 1978. Essential habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Div. Wildl., Denver, CO. 84 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990a. Humpback Chub Recovery Plan. USFWS, Denver, Colorado. 43pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990b. Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan. USFWS, Denver, Colorado. 35pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan. USFWS, Denver, Colorado. 56pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Sept. 7 Biological Opinion from John L. Spinks, Jr. Deputy Regional Director (USFWS) to Elizabeth Estill, Regional Forester (USFS). USFWS Lakewood, CO. 24 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Twelve-month finding for a petition to list as endangered or threatened the contiguous population of the Canada lynx. Fed. Regist. 62:28653-28657. U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Lynx habitat parameters -White River National Forest. Unpubl. Forest Service document, White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs. CO. 3 pp. plus LAU spreadsheet (subject to further revision -last available update 01/29/2002). Woodling, J. 1985. Colorado's little fish: a guide to the minnows and other lesser known fishes in the state of Colorado. CDOW Denver, CO. 77 pp. Western Ecosystems, Inc. April, 2006 34