The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2004-05-05\ WEDNESDAY, MAY 5,2004 9-0->4 5:00 - 9:00 P.M. ROOMS 201, 202, 203, Second Floor, Municipal Building AGENDA (*Revised 4/26/04) l. CVB and Annexation Plan Status Tom Pickering 2. Fire District Update Greg White 3. EPURA Wil Smith 4. Municipal Building Remodel Bill Linnane 5. Financial Review Pete Brandjord 6. Wiest Theatre Rich Widmer 7. Stanley Park Quiet Title Greg White 8. Short Term Rentals Bob Joseph 9. *Elk Management EIS Widmer/Joseph 10. Retreat Briefing Rich Widmer Business Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Town Trustees From: Tom Pickering, Director of Business Development ~~ Date: 4/23/2004 Re: Estes Park Convention & Visitors Bureau Background: The Town Board has instructed staff to create and implement a Convention & Visitors Bureau for The Town of Estes Park. It was directed that the new "CVB" will begin operation on October 1, 2004. The mission of the CVB is to offer to the businesses in the prescribed area the following: 1. A comprehensive marketing program that sells Estes Park as a year round vacation, recreation destination through effective and efficient use of media, communications, group sales, special events, and visitor's services. 2. Provide a menu of services to all the businesses in the area at a fair, equal, and reasonable price. Services include phone and computer leads, rack brochure and outdoor advertising at the Visitors Center. Fees for all the services will be the same for all the businesses in the designated area. This area includes Aliens Park, Meeker Park, Drake, Pine Wood, and Glen Haven. 3. Build one marketing face for the community. Brand the community with a common message and look that maximizes the visitors' experience and creates return visits. Work with other state, regional, and local organizations to efficiently promote our community. 4. Provide the visitors, businesses, and citizens a very high level of customer service and satisfaction as we work cooperatively as a community to build the economy and preserve the natural surrounding. Budget: The CVB will combine the existing marketing department with new roles and responsibilities of a traditional CVB. It is the intention that the CVB will create revenues from sale of its menu of services to offset the new operating expenses of a CVB. The 2005/2006 budgets will reflect those expenses and revenues. The 2004 start-up phase of the CVB will require a one-time draw from the fund balance to plan, equip, and staff the fourth quarter of 2004. The request is for $195,000. (See attached Budget.) Action: Request consideration, at the next board meeting, of the transfer and funding of the CVB. 1 Fourth Quarter 2004 CVB Cost Estimates Operating One Time or Income 4/23/2004 pwm Expense Capital Costs 1) Operator and AT&T costs for 3 months Project AT&T costs: 3,900 calls at $0.39/call 1,521.00 Project 2 operators @ 40 hour weeks @ $10/hr and 33% benefits 13,832.00 15,353.00 Projected Fulfillment budget offset -10,230.00 Shortfall 5,123.00 * 2) Visitors Center Coordinator 5 months (@ Grade 40 + 3 3% benefits 19,950.00 3) Communications Coordinator 8 months @ Grade 40 + 33% benefits 31,920.00 Projected Media Relations budget offset -10,000.00 Total Additional Staff Payroll 2004: 46,993.00 * 4) Director of Communications increase 8 months @ 1,500/mo 12,000.00 * 5) Furniture and Equipment (see separate list) 47,336.00 * Check 6) Nortel Telephone system installed & training (Qwest) 12,750.00 * 7) 3 months miscellaneous operating expense (see budget) 10,916.00 * 8) Building Improvments ?'?? 9) Web Site Creation (250 hours @ 100) 25.000.00 * Project Manager 10,000,00 * 10) Advertising Free Lure Brochure 120M at $186.71/M 22.500.00 * Bring in Creative Review funding from Ad program -20,000.00 * 11) Contingency 23,000.00 * 12) Income: Leads 0.00 Counter Sales 0.00 Brochure Racks 0,00 Web Links 0.00 Outdoor Advertising 0.00 Prop Tax Equivalent 0.00 Total 2004 75,032,00 120,586.00 0.00 Visitors Center Need List 11/03 Peter Rev 4/23/04 Note: Office furnishings were priced at Office Depot web site & catalog Note: Prices do not include or usual Office Depot discount Note: Office furnishings, computers, etc. for Tom, Peter, Julie will be moved from Town Hall or are coming from a different funding source Quantity Price Total Notes 1. Color Laser Printer ? 1 0 2. Black & White Laser Printer 1 0 0 Epson EPL 8000 Peter's office 3. Lateral File Cabinets 2-drawer 5 221 1,105 4. Fax machine 1 0 Purchase - no contract 5. Copier (color copier/fax/printer) 1 8,000 8,000 duplex, sort/staple/hole punch 6. Bookshelves 4 159 636 7. Coordinator's Office Suites 2 1,600 3,200 Global "Correlation" 8 Coordinator's Office chairs 2 388 776 9. Coordinator's Guest chairs 2 78 156 Global "Comet" 10. Operator Workstations 4 750 3,000 Maxon 11. Seaonal Operator Workstatiions 0 0 Maxon 12. Operator Task Chairs 2 338 676 5-8 hour computer time Global "Verse" 13. Seasonal Op. Task Chairs 3 240 720 5-8 hr computer time 14. Coordinator's Computers 2 2,500 5,000 15. Operator Computers 2 2,500 5,000 16. Seasonal Op. Computers 3 2,500 7,500 17. Conference table for 8 - 10 1 1,576 1,576 Flexible tables 18. Conference room Manager's chairs 10 161 1,610 Global "Enterprise" 19. Hi Res Scanner w/35 mm adapter 1 300 300 Use existing but get adapter? 20. Cases of copy paper 6 28 168 21. Miscellaneous office supplies 1 500 500 guess 22. Miscellaneous Networking equip 1 2,000 2,000 guess 23. 24. Computer file backup system 10 200 2,000 guess 25. Internet Connection 1 1,000 1,000 Don't know options yet - guess 26. Softw'are licenses 7 250 1,750 27. Printer Stand 1 213 213 28. Cash Register 1 50 50 Used 29. Credit Card processor 1 400 400 Sub Total: 4/23/2004 $47,336.00 Business Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Town Trustees From: Tom Pickering, Director of Business Development~IC-- Date: 4/23/2004 Re: Town of Estes Park Annexation Plan Background: The Town of Estes Park has had an on going philosophy towards commercial annexation. The ultimate goal is to make programs and services available to as many businesses as possible while also bolstering local sales tax receipts. The Business Development Department has solicited individual businesses in our annexation corridors and offered our commercial annexation program. The program consists of the own offering to pay for the annexation expenses of the individual businesses in order to bring them into the Town limits. Of the approximately 30 businesses that qualify, potential new tax revenues could range between $250,000 to $500,000 new sales tax dollars if 50% join. The cost per annexation is approximately $7,000 per property. Currently we have presented the plan to 10 of these businesses. We have had a request to be annexed by 5 businesses, 3 are under consideration, and 2 have opted out. One of the major reasons for this program is to provide a positive alternative to the 25 year old problem of in-town vs. out of town issues. The annexation corridors are highways 34,36, and 66. Budget: The cost of these annexations can be absorbed in Public Works' 2004 operating budget. There are no new on going expenses to the Town for plowing, maintenance etc. all of the businesses are on State Highways. The time frame for total payback from each annexation is between one to two years. Action: Formal action is not required by the Board. Staff will continue the solicitation of these businesses, addressing their needs and individual concerns on a business to businesses basis. For those properties that choose not to annex at this time, we will pursue a course being sensitive and positive to their position, and leave the availability of joining the town open for a later date. 1 TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION MAY 5,2004 ESTES PARK FIRE DISTRICT The Service Plan for the proposed Estes Park Fire District was filed with Larimer County on April 1,2004. The Service Plan was reviewed by the Estes Valley Planning Commission on April 20,2004 and the Larimer County Planning Commission on April 21, 2004. On May 3,2004, the Larimer County Commissioners will set a public hearing on the Service Plan. That hearing date is expected to be June 1, 2004 If the County Commissioners approve the Service Plan, then a Petition may be filed with the Larimer County District Court asking for approval to form the District. If the Petition is found to be in accordance with the Colorado State Statutes, the District Court judge will order that the question of formation of the Fire District be placed on the General Election ballot of November 2,2004. Also on the ballot will be the election of five (5) directors. If a majority of the eligible electors vote in favor of the formation of the Fire District at the election, the Fire District will be formed by the District Court and the five (5) persons who receive the most votes will constitute the Board of Directors. FIRE DISTRICT TIME LINE Service Plan - Completed 04/01/04 File Service Plan Larimer County Commissioners 04/01/04 Hearing Service Plan County Commissioners 06/01/04 File Petition Larimer County District Court (200 signatures) 06/18/04 Notify Assessor regarding District (last day) 07/01/04 Notice to Clerk and Recorder regarding Election (last day) 07/23/04 Court Hearing on Petition (20-40 days after filing) 07/28/04 Certify Ballot Questions 09/08/04 Last day for filing TABOR comments 09/17/04 TABOR Notice to County 09/21/04 Election 11/02/04 Memorandum April 23,2004 To: Rich Widmer From: Wil Smith Re: Summary Description of EPURA as Background for Town Board Study Session The Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) is a special purpose governmental entity, created by the Town of Estes Park, whose purpose is to achieve community improvement and enhance the downtown economy. EPURA operates within a well-defined area known as the Urban Renewal Area (URA). The URA includes the central business district, the Stanley Historic District and extends to include the Conference Center. EPURA gets its money from tax increment financing relative to both sales tax and property tax. The tax increment is the increase over and above that of the base year of 1982, the year EPURA was created. The property tax increment will expire in 2008, unless the Town Board chooses to take the appropriate steps to re-create the URA. The tax increments have increased steadily over the years. The sales tax increment is currently nearly $3,000,000 and the property tax increment is about $500,000. Through its Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town, EPURA retains about one-third of the tax increment money, the remaining two-thirds being transferred to the Town general fund. The monies retained by EPURA are used to pay off the bonded indebtedness on the Conference Center and the continued implementation of the West Corridor Plan. EPURA's current primary focus is the implementation of the West Corridor Plan, consisting of the completion of the Riverwalk and its amenities through the west end and connecting with the Fall River Trail at Performance Park. Components of this work include continuation ofthe kayak course, development of Wiest Plaza, parking improvements and redevelopment of the Bob's Amoco site. Major accomplishments of EPURA over the past two decades include the streetscape along Elkhorn Avenue, the Riverwalk, multiple parking improvements, Riverside Plaza and the Conference Center. The Town of Estes Park, primarily through EPURA, has transformed itself into one of the most attractive and vibrant communities in Colorado. Not only is the Town far more attractive, but the investment has been a good one. The increase in sales taxes is more than double the cost of the improvements. During the Study Session, we will look in more detail at the specifics of past, current and future projects and address any questions the Town Board might have. Suggestions will be welcomed. TOWN of ESTES PARK Inter-Office Memorandum April 14, 2004 TO: Rich Widmer FROM: Bill Lin:nanQ<~Â£21 SUBJECT: Town Board Study Session - Municipal Building Remodel Project Update Background: Last year Thorp Associates prepared a Municipal Building Remodel Multi-Year Master Plan for the Town. The remodel master plan proposes a multi-year, three- phased approach to construction, with the end result being the total remodeling of both floors of the Municipal Building. Phase I has been budgeted this year and is currently under construction (see the attached Phase I plans and sketches). Future phases include the remodeling of the second floor and the moving of the Police Department to an off-site location and are contingent upon future budgets. â€¢ Master Plan and Phase I Phase I involves: 1) construction of a new public restroom with interior access, as well as public access 24 hours per day; 2) construction of a new Finance Department workspace; 3) new and improved customer service lobby facility; 4) miscellaneous items, including a remodeled women's restroom; a smaller (Background continued on page 2) CosUBudget: Budget: $478,000 Cost: $478,000 NOTE: Remaining contingency balance: $11,620 Action: This is an update only; no action is requested. BL/lb Attachments 1-1 (Background continued from page 1) employee-use room; a new computer room that houses all of the Town's equipment in one area; and 5) improved building and computer security. . Phase I Schedule 1) 50 percent of the project is completed and includes underground sewer and power; plumbing; concrete slab; framing; temporary Finance offices; Executive Women's Restroom; sidewalk; insulation; half of the sheetrock; Computer Room; and I.T. office. Relocation of all computer servers and mainframes has also been completed by staff. - - p ---- 2) Target Dates (revised) A) Re-open Executive Women's Restroom Complete B) Open new Staff Room April 16th C) Relocate Finance employees April 20th - 23rd D) Close existing restrooms April 20th E) Open new restrooms May 26th F) Complete new offices June 30th G) Complete project July 14th 2-1 t- liu.-- -- 13Â¥d 93152 40 N/Â¢\01 Ill'll'llillibgo Z Â£ 906 00Â¥301(D 5(3Â¥d 52153 3196 witiy l.!.,0 5 u u I ONIaling 1VdIDINAW Â¢11Â·Ii ji@PÂ·'1 ia 1 -- 1==L '/ Wl g 1 7----5 . C Er Â¥ 1 l 85 Bi 4 1 . i- g .J 1,1 - Â«3 i--Ip o===~~ > 0 .41 ... r - J '11 2-01 F 11 g IN tio--0 1 -3 u trl?11 zaa ell--J \.1 w 3 - 12.14 0 n. - f===d 0 -791. ' ia 1 uill m 1 . 11 5 51:- W 1 k- I - 0 > . . 1 > 1 8 6 21- 0. =Â® I r . . 22Mf . r f l, . - 5 r----7 J j â€¢ 11': â€¢4 :u j t: - 11/ -1 k ,-1 0 ..9 -C er LE_V < E ..4 1.-Ke-,-1-,2 1- P ..~.1 4 N r- M , r-r-7-1 , Â· Â· .1 1<1:/ _ "1 11 3 n pa ~1- r I~~~Fib[JlitÂ·* 1_31 1.1- 8 lili . Pa Â»21~~ 6- 0 jill L LU Â·P ; I lf-- r U rf,\ 1 h. El < 4-1-1 If 1 JE21 4#1 Iza - -2<1 -7 7=Â«-3 2. 1.40 ?1 2:1=-Al>ih# 1' Â· i - D ] = IiI ~ Il & U Â£ i| 11-1 ~4 4% L- W -1 1 1 29-1 11 V 1 - 211 11 I../.I I X 04 . t= w k; I 39 8 _- 7, UL:j'Â£19 Lt.. N.il Ll-11:31 1 tilit:-91 :33*3~ I E - df33* Â· loccoco b 1 1 ~="t, A 51Â¤cojocri] 1 * St il U - :Ii i 0= 11 1 35 -- 3/ i e. - ,-6 5 r---1 - a. 3 -g >IliVd 93193 30 NAAO1 8 lol Z'.909 03Â¥Q012 ble fd S3L.53 ---I---li-~---~ ONIallail 1*dIDINAW F.'pi'Ille'ld:'Etill i ji I E-ah:1*-:~-' 4--4 1 18 1 3 1 74 1 .4 4_ -4--1-Â»~ ' 8 0 1 ki 1 3 - 1 - Cd e 1 ~ 811 3 iii 1 3 ';c E E: J ~} L-~ 9. . W H E.9 111 = - / f 11 <" Uj m *EET Â° 1'11. 1 111 1-1 p n 8 1-~ E -- . - 2 + n-1- *44*4 > 9 N n .t pka{ N-451'111.11 -- m j A /2 8 :re 31 F!-'ly-'92;=Â·' VVLL a- H ?& 1 ~18 1 + 2 E .4 r & E-F .C-~- i== - 7.2 1; D r. i 1 23 i = : ~11] -J -0 ---'vvv ===12-ip- - . E Aft - Cy, IJ' E-1 : r' i: Q "2 .65 . 3 97 1 â‚¬ 4 + r -1. .-ti, 01010[nini *- E72.! D MML (1- 11 1 - . n 1 0 -:n F --6~ecee-F, -- 7,1/.dy-/7(1 11 I e C:~:~:F~Fa -C===, co : r~_29 rÂ·n-tal>0 .VA : 17 -- - --1 1 r .1 00.30 u kirBXâ‚¬: 14 11- -1 1 4 f! i 1 E.tiol 1 lit*4[u 1.-'- 2/2 1 11 Â£ 13 2-j /:12/JE, ill I L111;1* /11*-:8 .111+111 -11Â¥111 il I 1 911.:AULL-:-13:f:-111i -1 i --- i'Fa* - -J Ip LI 10 2 1 9 - I p i *rrnq ! IJ 1 000 Z Cat J 1 !11 1 35 1 32 41 1 u - . 1 'Z . V.0-6566Eg W 11 4 L----------P==tuhz~--_-_Â£:ZE21 - f ..u7 Phase I 1 12:41 ueld JODEr-i~.mae Z l508 00920103 '>Â»Â¢d 52,53 >11Â¥d 531S2l 30 NAAO-1 ONIaliAg 1*dIDINAW Â¢:t!,1.'i,".1.,1.'."!p'~1 1 0, 1 k il' ' t 4 .1- 11 14\ 11---- - 3, .41. /e==Eli 11.4 1 2 8 Z // 3 1 1. . CE U 39-- 2 0 8 1 Q O.k- - j < er.- /~7 1 0 2 & Id _ D A 1 24 i U > A j==:C Ov- -El i .'2Â« 71 -=-=b Â© I .1 ) 1# i NE: H i 211 -f 4 t=% Al -11 2: -r z .._1 3 - 1 -= 1- 41 di- I . â€¢ Â® 8 8 .lul -- -- u (Ial lili.t ' -- - 8 9 - ==lf.37- 1* 9. / IL==3 - _., r ~11_~' , 1 --;t--7 1 1 dll- 1 3 - , 1. - J "L ..L. k -E D : O -4 / F == 1- -,4. r-1 t 1 L - All/Al . cr=Â·=-1-1 0=- 5 A t.-nÂ· L L- / '' 0 ia ribl I i.1 r- i R T 61 L L 982- - 13 --F, 57 g -b I 1 F=iZF,12}i:IbtlÂ· Â·!_mig - -Â¤ 211 C:7. (71 - me .1 C ~ R<4~: -F~ 1 -[9 i- r 1-94 yr F1 r Litj / E a i -36 1 24 -- A- - 7Â£=&*73 TO ~ 1 -Ult:*11 1/m ux, 1 I - 1 r--4 1 : An 1 1 Il-801 3 - 11- , d t! W 1 13 1 L * --4 0 71 n r-=Ee, ,. y .i . 9, . ' 1 - ,Â¥ ..d. ... 1 1 --: 6-10 11*!150Â»L \A . -1 .44- I . 1 .=22.-MI N j b -111.a 3 1 1 9 21 4 !77 =* 1 B~=J rul___... 1 7000 2 035 1 1 451 1 31 1 1- . 0~0-0*bug~ 1- 1 ---*4# 1 Phase I -El-3#6f&20 ' ll; 09 0'0'VZO-103 )292 %319 444*ill IM l~l,c~ 28Â¥2 93193 30 NA+01 0 ~*, inli "1.7 0 Â©NIC]ling 1*dIDINAW t./1.1.Ml m#"1111.1 1 Q t.r ~. % 1 04 1 1 .. ' Â£398. '45411 1 3 - ~ - 7- U.--- __L -1(~-1 hi I J A,-1 7F -: 0-1 - ~ 1 1 1 1 r / 1 T v 2# 1 j I) 411 a Â°iÂ«E~ L l n 3 I f 14 ,..s I > 0 h?9 26& J j - = 19 tâ‚¬ EL -~1 2 lault==- 1 0 ---4 i~ 12171 0 L 1.6 0 - - A- 1 .4, W Uff il - Y ~ill % 0 U:. A A 4 b r 35 m E -1 % " V.2 'r Le 6 4 1/0 1 5 0 c r\.1--7 L L I a IQ f--301 V 0 5-2 94 W 'r, % * - J <Fl~ITL- 0 41 .4 1 -*fir -2 1.1, ~ r, 1.- 1 MA/P___4~ ~ mr- r<~iliCKA lu: Â£ Bi I - 1, 02 Ill I f liFL--1 ?41. 4 E r 2 7-4.-1 leÂ»25 3/i - - -1.72 u 'hi CE 11 4 4 0 f Ci f - 1 1 -10 1 11 6 1 5(1 E- 1 1 .U ' 4-1/ 63 C/FU==~07 --- U= â€¢ fr- Â£1 rt. rt Mpt I i r T - 1 [-4 E 'fl - A - --ti=9643 . I Tr 97:=r.1 0 .4 1/3934 4 CO Cd N U f â€ž11-1 9 P. J I. :u 11 /1 -0=nu c 11 Â¢ 11= L.-1Â¥1111, 04: il St/;F~/I'li= 8 1 .94*Ari-t d + 1 ~p:DOZIE:D ; 61 '3 F it' .. 4-5 1 CD . O/n 3 CL__n 2 boo Z 0213 i 1 1, -3 Lid %01=-fj 11 =3-9 5 74-"343 < 1 J 1 L_-- - - .N- -- 1 1 9 311 L// t. j." OLV lIli Catt. .er..pt. 23.-9 I.V.Slle'. Wa,44% . e.-*1.1 W ':Mimag~141-...v'~R'. .."U&.-*.- I -4 59Â»12Â»-MYUL ~â€¢2,i~029mM2e5Â¥92â„¢~52e~t'S~- This is what *3Â«-grfi<.' 6 b: 4.-- 0Mg/'ir'")/&/. ~ i.~ If>2g#-Ma CIP=73/1/./Y.--- .iZE-?22*-*1Â£ 6432 --'-.=. 0Gm...,.2- '92Â¥- ..4.23 several other I Y.a ~11:-.1.:' / ;bl--1--= ~ Â·124*f.Â«f ' -,1.*17-21~ -1*Ed,'tw,2.91?Â» 4: Front Range , 2 - , 1.-11-.13~7]Z *.:Lp,poi :33Â«,3 - 33}57 6118 **,3 4 i,AF,i 'lbll -2-'--,I -r j.---' *tt-' ---- t.-ff,72--i<itl -Â·.-92 9*it@*frd:9933%~i 1 1 :- ~f t.,3 2 i F .2:452- r -V- t .62 -2.~ u - , . Â» . z'-ji -F-' - z#6Y.---1-4 99,1 PufÂ»21(C441*4 24ift,t-:*~4~64 municipalities , .. j. 1111-31"~RJ.:~ itttft:},(-ti 5 Â·--{~~I.JAVE d,FO'MUR:14 L= have done 14 ~. ' ~- + 1 11.2 . . .1.1 , --1 '. 43Xqt 1.1,;4 . : ., = <,-- '-, :-:- Â·., 4.f .i - 0#01-; 0' ~ ..,Â· Â·:I,0 Â· ;.:' , 1 - i/3,4,,~,-,-J--L ~ 1 to become more - 1, - 12 'r:, .- s" 6. 1 . f 09*09< di*C I s Â· o ~ customer-friendly, , 04. W . + .rel . , 2-- ':Zi~ 33-4Â»94 .4 !43% ..of--ill;:Â·l &9$9le 011. N 6-341.?fREU_ .FC..--1- i-.:*I.:--1 11,- improve efficiency A 1 -13-22=1-"- 1-'*- fr . ..1 I/Ilifi 2 ,~1,-2@Â·Â« *'-UTONCRUE>tit?49 : 2 1.~ M.93, 1 li-.341â‚¬24%9 0--*4 i i-i-i!17~ & at the same time h P 2--3.t - 3251< 344:tiffi?Yt"fit - :*..fi tie 91'34%4 -t 1 - 2.--r i.ir , V~LIC-j~fff-%~i)6913 provide security. + ' Â· ' - ----- $ a.-.-p---WÂ·=i- =121 1,=22 5.71Â£* -al--r-Â£1 2. Vill...................M#NMMZ:. - 2.....754 24Â»e- . 4 4 2/1/7. ' 5/.e~/r- - ly WlÂ·41--/ .. . 4 24 4/1 - i -I>.Â«a .,>i- 4 -r. = s; - - - L Wagmr ' 'g , .': - - 11: . 1 -/t ....... '-* v'/1 .Â·â€¢ - U.9/ -I . , 8-1 - 9:Â·UÂ·,re-FR>tÂ·K:2,1 - v 4201~â‚¬%39%30.:-,~4 --1&*m_'-2/Nk.-,1 -: :' - 7-,7 j.-- /.121.3 .554- PFEif2521:42'43-45,9 ~f i' 2:.- .4.91 i [Â£19 !*4- .iti,41â‚¬411 ry.. - .. Â·r .-11 0 1341 Fwil 14%34*2 14,4 h :% f r , '.14 ..L. 121 Employees of Estes Park's Finance Department - " ,.4 visited other Front Range government buildings to , ..el. f ' i a. 1 f 4 4 \ ...4 . th see how their Finance Departments are set up. , f .1 Li '-,7-'.A_17 ..P e . I I NV 1 ALÂ»-- \X -r- i .- /// ~ c:Â«:r-t\Y//-//54 -//// 0 F 0 1 PhÂ« 0/ i / .2 -A /bt.....\\\ \49/ Off \ ./5 / k 1 .i /4 \00\ 1. / 04 / 4/ \1/1 / /\ i // \6 V \34, 1 /4//421 11 \ \7, / 11 \ I Vi *96) /\ t,/ 269//6=LI.81 , l 1\\\ \ f -, A / f 1\ 4 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO. RICHARD W[DMER, TOWN ADMINISTRATOR FROM: PETE BRANDJORD, FINANCE OFFICER SUBJECT: FINANCIAL UPDATE FOR MAY 5 STUDY SESSION DATE: 4/22/2004 CC: MAYOK TRUSTEES For the upcoming study session, the following charts are for presentation and discussion to summarize financial activities and trends. For comparison, the fiscal years 2001 through 2003 are presented, and the source of data for 2001 and 2002 are the audited financial statements. The source for 2003 data is the most recent draft of the audited financial statements, AS the audit for 2003 has not been presented. The focus is on the General Fund and utility funds. 1. General Fund a. Comparison of revenues, transfers, expenditures and fund balances b. Detail of General Fund revenues c. Detail of General Fund expenditures d. Comparison of General Fund expenditures per capita with similar size Colorado conlmunlties 2. Light & Power Fund a. Comparison of revenues, expenses and fund balances b. Detail of L&P Fund revenues c. Detail of L&P Fund expenses 3. Water Fund a. Comparison of revenues, expenses and fund balances b. Detail of Water Fund revenues c. Detail of Water Fund expenses 4. Comparison between L&P and Water utilities of the number of accounts billed and the average revenue per customer 1 1 1 244 :. 4 toal ' IN ~4>ff, *. 994 U 2001 ZOOE I Â»- - -- 000'0009 Foot m 600UETEE[ pulld Sginl!pugdxll UI +19+UU.Il loN SantIOAO-H General Fund 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 - -- 000'000't 000'000'E 000'000'E 000'000' I Cri m n i i't, 1 1 1 /0 0 i ~040004/404 1% 14 044 %44 / 1 0 E /6 #t 8 14Â» 1444 9702 Â¢3 40 1 if) 0% 40 9 %46 0, 00000000 Ch A A A A A A 00000000 Ch A A A A A F A oÂ© r-V;Mrt er) 01 + -- - â€¢ 2002 4/ #2120 1 1 *a .W A 0 00 42 0 .%'5 t.'I).y â€¢** 4 *k: I W. EV'' I 41"Â«*st, i : â€¢,Â· ~ /'â€¢ C. Â·79 Ye-@ .imt : .1/223. , . .... ZONdÂ·02., . : Â·, 0Â·11, . 1 2,000,000 i m 2001 ZOOE I Â£002 m 9 0.Inl!110 )!Iqnd [1310UDD uo!}Boloo-ZI X10.JES }UOUILLIJAOg General Fund Expenditures 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 000'009'I 000'000'1 000'009 44 .- 144 L : 0 .~ . M . A 1, b .': -4 1 1 . 4 4 %* r .O 1 79*444 1 l ! 1 1 p> ~~3 : ;~ i Â·4'~ 31*i>' i 1 9 9 340 1 , 1 4 1- 1 .6 4 1 9/j 1 + ri '9/05Â·9 1 .0 ' i * 1 1 1 1- 412 ''fl 64, 4477 . Uft. 49 90 1 4 i 41 9/4 1 1 % M t. j 0 General Fund Expenditures per capita & Gain or Loss (in 1000's) for 2002 2500 -- - -= 2000 1500 ----- --- 009 009- -- - 000 1 -ly':J~1=7'..,7, 7 //3,4* U 2001 ZOOE' 000'000'9 Â£002 m DouCIES Pund So.Inl!pugdxiI SOnUOADN Light & Power 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 000'000't 000'000'E - 1 44 Iblt Vet, VO con I 01 46 19 I. 1,9:/ ./.: 4,&Â£..ip./.3:b . I J - ': 4Â·â‚¬-*tgfi I 31 C*9% - -- 1 11 ytt1 C CLE=A=fEE=AÂ© ' 99999=99 9 0% 00 r-Vivirtme4 U 2001 â€¢2002 U 2003 L&P Revenues 1 1 â€ž 7% Upt. 0 42\ 0/ 7 . 1.t> 1-3 + 2 =p *** 1 90 4 j'..: ulâ‚¬44,8 t?R,~1:.>1Â© t ' 9 LF /94 0 \ 44 0% 0 t,/ 9 0/ 740 ./4 1 Ch Uk 45', 1-4.Â£69=i jEC1712 -Â·- -4-M,Â£,BjuM:il.Â» VA C.~~~~~ 1 Â« Vt 94 90 47 .9 14 {p > Oro 01 Â¢4% Â£ A A A Ch A A A Ir>OMOLOOLOOM RAAR Ank mi-=1-corneNO] -~ p-4 U 2001 ] â€¢ 2002 m 2003 Light & Power Expenses .- t# }*14>i ~.>Â·4442*I ?{Ati:. '1.j~49 ~ . Mati 1$A -I. &0%1'116/M.#) L#/.: _i.i~~/9 -1. 4 I ' 41 Au . *s' ~p- .Et .1 . t m 2001 Eooz U Dout?Ifil pund so.Inl!puodxiI SOnUOADM Water 6,000,000 ZOOE' - 000'000'E 5,000,000 4,000,000 000'000'E 000'000' 1 'aÂ¢k: *3 V .1~4404 -fiAÂ¢44 Â©2 ' i:, '. ~ 1 :Â·14 ' 808 ell' 1 000 . . 11 1 1 1 lili 11 92, /13 1 + 1 4 4 9 /% 1 46 0 9640 6 %>41 01<%4% t)1>* 4 O 0%> Rt . 45% 0 1% . v/> TO, 9, 06 + 040 00000000 0 00000000 1 0 F F A A A A A 00000000 S CLACHOMOM A # A A .1 A A =1-ener)0101 04 m 2001 â€¢ 2002 m 2003 I,. AR<R 0 I 4 - 7 - - -I-Â» # .Â¥42.:r 1%''I ;Â¢40*1:t, 4 . 36134 f +1. .tjaip . 4(4.{.1.f 41 *., 1>431 i .- 94 21.*t. (Of 1 'f . ~Â·~ , )2~L 3 4,4 . '.. 1 EUJUp verage revenue 10[}BAX JoitIO}Sno i 02 FOOE 2002 1002 80 70 60 50 40 0I 6 22 8 < 4 K m . . 12. 1% , Ky fi# 142Â¢:0459â‚¬ r :. 2*; 1 ;21.4 sounts billed ounts billed JoleAA 000f FOOE ZOOE IOOE 00021 10000 8000 6000 0002 Town of Estes Park Interoffice Memo Date: April 23,2004 To: Honorable Mayor Baudek and Town Board of Trustees 12 <A From: Rich Widmer ~ * Town Administratdr CC: RE: Wiest Theatre Background In early 2003, the idea was born to buy the Park Theatre and adjacent River Shops and create a cultural arts facility. The idea for the Wiest Theatre was born about the same time. After several months of negotiations, it became apparent the Park Theatre portion was not considered "for sale" by the owners and the negotiations were put on hold. In mid April, 2003, EPURA and the Town announced plans to build the Wiest Theatre, the West Riverwalk improvements, and a parking deck in the Wiest parking lot. At the end of April, 2003, EPURA signed a contract with Thorp Associates to begin a conceptual design of the theatre. Also on the design team were Semple Brown Design and Greg Steiner Design Studio as theatre technical and design specialists. The conceptual design was presented to the Town Board October 28, 2003. It included a 525-seat theatre and associated parking structure. Costs for the theatre ranged from $8 - 10 million. At the same Town Board meeting, AMS Planning and Research was hired to produce a feasibility study that would look at operational costs of the theatre and also the associated economic benefits of the project. The Operating Pro Forma for the theatre prepared as part of the feasibility study shows for the stable year (about year three), operating revenues of $219,650 and operating expenses of $523,199, for an operating deficit of $303,549 per year. These calculations assume rental charges from non-profit uses of $75,000. The deficit would be in addition to the debt service for the theatre. Direct economic impact as result of the theatre would amount to approximately $36,000 in sales taxes per year. The consultant will present this study at a Town Board meeting in the near future. STANLEY PARK QUIET TITLE Attorney White will brief the Board on the status of this matter. ' Town of Estes Park Community Development Department Memo To: Honorable Mayor Baudek Board of Trustees Town Administrator Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Director 421*N Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk --040 [)ate: April 14, 2004 Subject: Short Term Rentals Background In 1998 the Town Board adopted a business license ordinance to permit short term vacation rentals (less than 30 days) in all residential zoning districts. This ordinance contains a complaint and enforcement procedure to address disturbances. (Very few complaints have been made.) It also sets limits on the number of cars and number of renters. In 2000 the Estes Valley Development Code referenced this municipal ordinance, categorizing the use as accessory rather than principal. This approach assumed a leveling of the playing field would occur through the license process; however not all short term rentals are licensed, due in part to advertising over the internet. Attempting to verify whether the properties were located inside Town Limits proved very difficult. Recommendation Staff now sees the need to address some new concerns and clarify the existing limitations, as follows: The municipal code should be amended to place a limit on the total number of guests to one family, or eight unrelated individuals (as one party). Also, efficiency kitchens and off site employees should be prohibited. The development code treats vacation rentals as an accessory use (see table 5-1, and 5.2.B.2.e) but this is neither defined nor enforced. Option A: Accessory use could be defined even if it is difficult to track and enforce. The period of vacation rental use should not exceed 6 months out of the year if it is intended to be accessory only. Option B: Provide for vacation rentals as a principal use with no regulation of duration. This option would also require elimination of current B&B restrictions in the EVDC. I. ' I Community Development Memo To: Rich Widmer From: Bob Joseph, Dave Shirk CC: Randy Repola Date: April 22,2004 Re: ELK EIS At the elk EIS meeting this week we had a discussion about possible locations for staging areas for intervention measures outside the park. Some of the alternatives (such as rounding up and culling, sterilizing, or trucking off) would require sizeable staging areas for baiting, penning and working. We discussed possible locations on both public and private land, well aware that this would require careful planning and negotiation. At this point in time there is a need for the Town to offer up the 18 hole golf course, or other suitable Town property, as a location of /ast resort, for some, if not all of these alternatives. The group doesn't want to propose an alternative without knowing that some site would in fact become available as contemplated. I think that the final public release would avoid identification of any particular location. Also, the group thinks the Town should now formally request the DOW to give consideration to the hazing and herding alternatives as the responsible agency outside the park. DOW is sort of on the sidelines at this point because these alternatives seem to conflict with their regulations that prohibit harassment of wildlife. Lastly, some of the alternatives involve extensive fencing of riparian areas along stream corridors, and large turf areas like the golf courses; and the group is hoping for some indication from the Town that it would seriously consider this measure. The schedule leading up to the public meetings is: April 30: Distribute Draft Alternative Development/Matrix to ET May 12: RMNP staff meeting May 14: IET comments due May 26: "Drop dead' deadline for IET comments, meeting if requested by IET June 2: Complete newsletter, get to printer June 7: Distribute newsletter Week of June 21 : Public meetings 1 WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT FROM YOUR INVESTMENT? VISITORS SERVICES â€¢ Better communications with the Ambassadors TOWN BOARD: â€¢ Better collateral for the visitors â€¢ Annual Marketing Plan â€¢ Better training â€¢ Annual year end report â€¢ Better equipment â€¢ Communications to all â€¢ More FAM trips Stakeholders (Businesses) â€¢ More regional involvement â€¢ One FACE on Marketing â€¢ Better facility â€¢ Adopt IACVB PMI â€¢ More revenues for the SPECIAL EVENTS Town of Estes Park â€¢ Same face on marketing COMMUNICATIONS/ P. R. â€¢ Increased visibility â€¢ More effective marketing â€¢ More travel writer contact â€¢ Consistent message BUSINESSES IN REGION â€¢ More reporter contacts â€¢ Visitor friendly Web site â€¢ Everyone is a stakeholder â€¢ Integrated Technology â€¢ Everyone shares in the â€¢ Inclusive approach communications â€¢ Close the fulfillment loop â€¢ Everyone shares in the â€¢ More State wide co-ops programs â€¢ International Program â€¢ Everyone is represented â€¢ We succeed together GROUP SALES & â€¢ Everyone is heard ! MARKETING VISITORS â€¢ More Trade Shows â€¢ ONE FACE- ONE â€¢ Group Leads to all CONTACT Stakeholders â€¢ Easy planning â€¢ More weddings & reunions â€¢ Superior service â€¢ More co-ops with meeting â€¢ Meet & Exceed properties Expectations! Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority Work Program 2004 - 2008 The primary mission of the Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority (EPURA) is to make community improvements to benefit the Town and community at large and to enhance the economy of the central business district. The immediate work focus of EPURA is to complete the implementation of the West Corridor Plan. In summary, the West Corridor Plan consists of the continuation of the Riverwalk and its related amenities to the west end of Town. Completed elements include: Performance Park The first phase of the kayak course The Riverwalk and riverbank improvements adjacent to the kayak course Elements being planned include: Wiest Plaza, consisting of the westward extension ofthe Riverwalk across Moraine Avenue along Wiest Drive and across West Elkhorn Avenue. The continuation of the kayak course through the Wiest Plaza area and eventually all the way through town to the Visitors Center. Improvements to the Wiest parking lot, the extent of which is dependent upon whether or not the performing arts theater will occur in this location. Redeveiopment ofthe Bob's Amoco property. Improved signage to establish an aesthetic consistency within the downtown area and beyond. Obligations relative to bonding: In an effort to implement the West Corridor Plan in a timely manner and before the property tax increment expires in 2008, EPURA issued bonds in the fall of 2003 to provide sufficient funding to complete the West Corridor Plan and to refinance the Conference Center debt at a more favorable rate. As a result, EPURA's work program is firmly established and there is little discretionary funding for other endeavor until 2008, at which time EPURA will either go away or be reconstituted to continue as a community improvement tool of the Town. ~. 1,~\ E.54....' s,' .,f>, 3:4 INF>-r 9, 4, b. - - .. , f* =---~5/-*7*Â· I . 13Â»-Â« b.. A-- . 0 0 ... .. - --4*9_ - .. -Â»1,0 "LA h i ...1 a i I . W./AF '. ./ I - . f ,~ 4 1 . :- , 0 . / 1: 40 . 1 $ PIt 1. '10 - r. 4 rf ''i' L ';;k â€¢ :Â·J f.Â· 02 'c h, r 11.1 r \ 1 2 1 lilli - ' 6 - .,1 i 4 + ' ... .. ... 1 .â€ž 0 Â®. ... PRSRT STD U.5. POSTAGE epura k PAID PLANNFI PROGRESS ) PERM IT #126 ESTES PARK, CO RO. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 80517 M it*=*'-UU=Ut r#I- -fu -0,9, A .1.. . .. Af. ' C-UJLWZ 6 Â¢tÂ«-29.,~. 04.1--LUO X .ebrZY#~ 2*@~22 + . J u - A CO - ' I m '0 0 Ei m 2:5 f - i I 0 0 M (101 Cl, f. - cO co m .O 0 8 ' 5 0- â€¢t - 0.9 a, 22Â· 0 1- 0 , 1, 9,1.- --3 'll Â¢)''' 'Â·Â·'':': 1/V, 1 3 5 .3 - - - E , r 7 9:,7 a.-12 . 10[ju 1.1. f 10, 11 a. 12 M 13 bo 10) , 111 ' 0 ' ~ gâ€¢i,di E 0 71" -W #ENMEYâ‚¬ . Â· f.#A;:..71'rE .1~1,11[1~WI, KÂ·t,ifÂ·Â·.... 751 8%32&% - i'Â«L < '; 4 4 1~ *Mrreprm , M Â· Â¥,0,.8 7 ...1. 11 .â€¢ , , I Â· I. ='.1 wl,Â·2!'!. '.Â·I 4 60 7 = il::i ~*~+I .........4,/Â·eâ€¢,iÂ·fÂ« I fi.~ I O Improving Estâ‚¬s Park Ec Q 0 2 2 40 (110 roh -E 8 W 2 0 *x K <11 2 abcâ‚¬(CM- JEC 9 5 4 M (0 3 4 10 0 .~ 1 E al * E & * S C - 0 0 O @ 9 0 1 5 .,A = 3] C O ,- - al' C *3 m 2 920 â‚¬3 S E W .22 h e bk 2 -2 w > 5 5 2 2 4Â· 4- m X a XE Â¤ E 4, M 2 v a a 410 6.0.h 2 U .d >' 0 N W a.1 - E - $ = 00 S.E Z Â· 00. c RCEE*row 0 â‚¬ 52 -O O.E a.) aÂ· E te 9 -3 -3- 2 2 ~ d -a 1< 2 3 4 1 E -% 2 2- 2 1 5 -2 f 3 3 & 2 U Â·5 E ~ 2 9 * m 1% r E 4,0 * gil'mli .--WA# f i.~ R B v U o Q, E f #: alyÂ§ ZE w (,1 0 + .- (0 -e < .C r- O cD bo a.1 -C (c E -= (L, mE = C O- 0 _ *4dpitololld lueJj gulel 0 0104d . Xl'deifiololld lueJW SallieF @ 01Ol~d 4,1. le = , a.1 C - ......1./ < E 5%0 *Wal. f ' 1''l 2 M E O > CD ,/4. . 1% 1 . J 2 < Nu K 1 % 5 1 49 3 El ; r 4 - h * i' 41 - 11' ' Â·6. 0 4@ ..2 4 f*.1. 11 -'\ 0.- 2 p , ' Ir ' j., I ; - % 7 ; ' 2 x ixe + 7 1 k 2 0 5 4 (10 , E 53 ..0 <,1 .1 1,11 j 3,4 I 2 1 i x g 2 2 2 (1.1 = ill M. 311 , :,r, 2 4,1 . 14Â· 1. e j. *4~ 34 6 + f . , 10..r .. ' C Â¢e: 0 3 i f i f i i a 2 i , I 14*.4 4 3/ I I, A/57 '* 1/t.< 1 11 Â¢ 0 3 , CL Â¥ 2 4% E *- & *3 2 1 E- Â£ 3 e. $ 'th. " 2 8 . 3, y I *2 41 Â£ ..t, 1, 44,9 .EAP 0 . , 0 I .1 1 . 1 2, +0 0 .e E 9 5 g 1 S Â£ 2 0 * E ~ - - - 1 -. . 4.4. , 10* Â» A H n ./1 j ls'I. , y 2 12. 5 litiz*:51-al W Ba,n=*muz i. + :~ ~Â«D- f=- -8 9 * ~* -~ -*~ ~ ~ ~~-- ~ Â£ 5.0 2 C k t - al; Co (lj . 0 (1 4.1%=ER -F E M .5 if Nt ~ I M U 95 65 2@Â§2~%@%2 ~f f '.fM\'.---eÂ»A X< , .;â€žEW>VIr~j~"0997. 5 E E.. a, m ro a. a ro b m l . ' 64 8 4 Xqde,60104<I MUeil fallief @ 0104d Elit e 2 %2 2= 89 U M 31 2 : Z 2 4 LI E X ..4- C = .c~ 2' 2 B. hi .. ro ro - 0 6 6 0 1- 2 ro c & - 6 2*2 .I 2 - 3 8 vE ~ EO.u= F E 4. (0 LA 4- 1 e SE ,-3-5 E -2 ~ 2 2* 0 Ck: ro 0 CD kit : 'C.K '~I C ro 0 -C /05. C c CD D 0 1 f , 0- m E % D -0 0 05 . unc 2 .22 L 61240/. O I.0 } - 1 0 CD W 1 . 1,-- r x 0,2/-2-8 Â© a-) E 0 42=210 W C=%245 ff, *5222 bio 0Â£ LI *."It : .1.: I u.6 ti EETEâ‚¬3 v .(12 a. E .9 5 - >-W kE . 2 @ 2.1 8 U (D V e /55â‚¬82*ENE M >4 <E=Qoc= <-ct.,Ic=ca;- <li E e ER<.21-: u w e ro Â·0 > E.*05.0.* 1.1 X. . 11 D u E. 2 2 r E c cu 13 C v b, 1~5 & 212&2 3 R E 32 63 * 5 2 La im & li li AM 0 0 0 41 2 f O. m EPURA cannot and does Estes Park. EPU As primary purp ~ Pr ojects are funded by tax based on their mill to achieve t s of the fl od of 1982, EPURA was the incremental lanner, augm - 4 created mainly by EPURA funds EPURA projects, includes >ped }saAA Jo Al U!)!A 341 01 P! [n fiscal year 2000,84% of EPURA n Renewal Area, w ch is h was paid by our visitors. Since paleduloD 'a:)mci pa/\Oidul! 4/nlu e s! OH al!=1 041 se Lpns spa SNU!41 Il!15 a.le 01041 'SSal@4110AaN tuals!5 UOD 'S!41 JO JUBLULISH 01 ill get their Jrease tax nues even more. The tax tax and sales tax (in the Urban ments in t e do m the sales tax increment, a [emallaM ueq.In alil u! %008 !UnLUUJO) U!21UnOLU lue.,1 sa!1!10!id pue sieoN lua.lin) 'auop idaiuo) e 'uoiled!)!ued )!Iqnd 13#Â¥ Nalual spaau A ; IllULUO) 134}O *000'0 0 ' 0 SpleAA nclude a performing arts center and aA! 1.03#a alolll 1 0 pue nel 341 Jo }no ai What is EPU Whâ‚¬râ‚¬ doâ‚¬s EPURA not levy taxes. EPURA build phys ical improvements im A increment financin community in general and meaning that the above the base 4 ~ tax revenue increases, ormed itself into one of th work, sales tax revenue has 041 Mle,VUaA !21 04j JO uoisualxa apnliu! 041 Nu pue anuaAÂ¥ au!elow le pleAAJSaAA e se Xueut se u 9!LU S UaluaAO ie bet.ajeS Al!unulluo) all; 01 WaltlaAO,I 39 01 s! JOAeap revenue wit goes to EPURA. er improvements, whic ~ melited04 IWiriswal 1595 uuo~~fraUYS '. 1:Â· 61,1 U. 414' Gft its Monâ‚¬y? cleanup. EPU o EPURA. These 1501 11! '>lieAA.laA!k] 1 b 0414 ! od u.laisaAA 041 286 L Â»uts >pod s3+S3 bu'Aoldull luaLIn) 04 M.le created by the o veming body of the Town ~~ The Estes Park Urban Renewal A of returning over 6 %0 (EPURA) is a special purpose gov venue to the Town, whi hhs central business district and the District and extends ter. In addition, EPUR ccur withi fine el 3 JO JualuaAOAdul! 341 pie Â· r w M U U 41 +W LA 41 u N C - 7 N I . â‚¬ u 2,2 7. 0 , .' - -tte ., L.4 30/ 2 i 3 0 2 4 E 1 3 0 0 Co t w .8 0 -0 . i 2*t 29 33 1 E-CO-, - 10 07 7 H 9 0 bo C Ek 't CL; 0/.4-4 .Eo ~ i.% 2 J ~ D 6 -M ~ ouuN 'C Â·> 8~~%0 44 8 -8 0 , _ 0.& Â£ 0-5-EE:2 2 al 7,8... . " 010 .C <12 , 830% Â£ t. 1- 1. kiz:i / a~ *m ~-2 cF C 4 4 4 - ..1...4... 25 24 Â· ~ -0 QLÂ· E YEZE .A, t 1,. 21/14 , hâ‚¬ 414 3 Â£22%~ ....., -Z -- ./. OÂ« , 3 igvw . . / e\.4 04 Z ... i ~. 59 23?.4 S < Cd d d ui 4.- t <r \/ e 4 - / i, .444*,te. 5- f N 04 N .. 4 Niv v'* .& 7,44... . 2. CU )--1 1 L. fo- I -4 I 1 *91: , .1 ' 4- 04= ... 2 W *4 ' â‚¬ 4. t'., 24 t. . '' .4,0 - - '1 0 ''% 3 - ye 4. , '.Â¥ 11. i - 04 04 Bl Â· C U . 0 04 2 51 (40 , ' % 34* r 4 f O 1-1 - . 4- Â· 2 -M %06 g CÂ© . 9.-14 24 .. 4 1 42, M -2 t 4 4 2 J f t. 2 .9 .,3 e i 04 1 ..f *liA i . :., 9 -- 00 we 0, v Z u Â£ R M O 6 A 9 ME Atomt .. . ..1.4 1.. , F 66 8 :* 9 1 1%. te . â€¢ C ./ U P . I .U 11 * \ ~ D --,4 iLL~ I Â©73 u Ug F . 1, f - A n I . : r , , 4~' .2- ' Q -1 ,# 2 < -I 4-, U Ea 1 0 M 8 * . 11.. -, Aot-. 2 4 . 1 4.7-4 . 9.= 2 j tfa U 6-4 < 1 ' ##r)* 45 N- k &** 4.2 8/ & 2 d 25 EM B k . I ' I r. 7 I.4 1 '6 93,~r.t ,/ ' 4 2 Â· A 7 '1'r ,.<,2 11(.}* " V E 1 4 ..1 ..:/ . i .4. ). k 3, 7 :* . 4 31( . Elkhorn Crossing/Gateway rfron po:rudg:rd 'ouI '1901 so SEt[ JUOIJ.TJArH 041 jO UOUEZI~UI pUB Uougnop '093134 3 stql 'IJAJAXOH TOnSSI Master Plan for AXOIUAXOCI JOJ 1 .....2 :WY i , phase of the E IpTAX SOBUOI-[1340 JO X13.JIB UB 41!1 '011:p 01 jUDDXO 1SOUI , imp siouds poluouo uumsopod -woo FjoI 041 Xq pokofig oq 4 q 01 sasnuoid uopoos Crossing Peacock Park SolsiI 01 SIO1!SLA SE I-[Om SE AltunUI 'DNI '153M SOIC]rUS NDISEC] retiv WEST PLAN ESTES 0 UOUBUIJOJUI @JOILI 10Â£[ 95 ........rvE 9/46Â·% alpe //Ir,1/vill/"F N H A 7 0 m M 0 Pr rp P . Fl 6 5, 6. 1 3 8 1 r .1 .1 Bil/K 0 1 ..2- D 2 0 4 8 1 2 & cr =r --4 11- - r. & --28 3:%*R An C- A' O CD g 60 0 5 @ & 3 & 4. 1 4.2 - $ R Â· cr O - p O S. 4 . ' 0 N $ 0 - v p 2-mM I . , oop :r eD J 8 0 X c. 8 R B P %1 R 4 'r, f . 1 r- 4 -. c 0 Cl. .O >r.0 . 3 0. O E-*3 i 3-2 2-" i *212 2, . =; 2 9 'friM' 1 i r a a A 9 2 5 g =SHâ‚¬t /1 4 OrD,1 A 8 3 M.2 *m 8 38 I 9. R &4 5 > Maa= 0 '71 0 4- Q 1/ p c. 68 0 O % r , L Â·1= M p ' - 12-4 . 4 C ifi ~2 9 . 122% 7. ./.- Z' . 41 ; 'AW:-4 --. 7 k Â· g 4\ br'â€¢ 7 -11 1 A R 4,0 â€¢ -.'".:1-7 ,- 111 . h. , te. â‚¬ -, 2. )~Ill//Les,- r' - - 1 4~21522#:9~.1Pm#I, â€¢4. -' . 1 C 1 1.. t ,1 =c- : /jÂ« 4 '/ I / 1/0 '~ 4 . /v OF \44 r R - I 'KN~ VT / 4. / '.. r .1 1 . 7 , â€¢ â€¢ 4 - 99 .... SII.p 024131IA 1 pUB ONJO~AUj end of dow t UI#160 es and la feature eater with a covered Performance Park is th e first roject to - ~ Major Projects Accomplished by EPURA E[Qi=t CQSt Streetscape 1 1983-84 818,211 Streetscape 2, Rockwell Bypass 1985-86 699,100 Streetscape 3 1987 1,195,691 Streetscape 4, W. Elkhorn Parking Lot 1988 498,444 Riverwalk 1, Riverside Plaza, P.O. & Dark Horse Parking g 1988 1,800,476 Riverwalk 2, P.O. Walkway 1989 1,109,036 Conference Center 1989 3,500,000 Bond Park 1992 224,475 Ice House Parking Lot 1990 131,313 Cleave Street Parking 1991 305,828 The Knoll, Lot 3 1990 160,000 Stanley Hotel Entrance Road 1993 286,338 Moraine Avenue Parking Lot, Entrance Road 1994 181,375 Stanley Historic District Master Plan 1994 71,000 Riverwalk 3 1994-95 195,407 Municipal Parking Lot 1997 472,948 Knoll Investment 1997-2001 750,000 Stanley Hotel Parking and Access Improvement 1999-2000 150,000 Performance Park, Phase I 2002 600,000 Total 13,149,642 Project Descriptions: Streetscape 1 - W. Elkhorn to water wheel, Streetscape 2 - 100 block E. Elkhorn to E. Riverside, Streetscape 3 - Elkhorn, E, Riverside to 34/36 intersection, Streetscape 4 - W. Elkhorn, water wheel to West Park Center, Riverwalk 1 - E. Riverside to Hwy 36 bridge, Riverwalk 2 - Wheel Bar 1 Park Theater Mall, Riverwalk 3 - west of Moraine improvements to Fall River channel. 1 1 -11' 4 111 - 111 '11 11 1, lili '11 1, 11111,11,11:1 11~ lili 11 4-+1 1 11. 1, 1,11 111 1 lilli 1Â¥ LIÂ»PIL 111, 1~1111411''ll'd,1~1 .1:1"g,~11#11? 1* 44'*1*UJ 1 1 11 1 11 1 1 r . 1 111'Mile /0.,pli . 1 , 11 11 1 11 =~~~~- 1, 61 11 1 1 Li '- Ii. ' ..I' ' Al ' ' 0, ' ' 1..'I"I"~."a, 'lilli ' 11-01 & 17 1 ' If .11,1 1 1,1 1.1 111 14 '1.1,111'111,11 11.1:41.11+11*11).LI'll'' 111,11&111,61: ~- 1 r 1 -1 1 ' 11 1 lili 1 1 1,11,111 0,1 11,1,1. :11,1,11.1 1.1. 0.# 1111,7,17 1,1" 41111'.1111112#11 11.1!..11.0,1,1- 1 ' 1 1 0 11 L=i21-1.brt:~22.- 1 11 1 ' , 1 lili 1 .1,11,11. . lili 1 1 , 1, 0 1 1 1 1 1 , 1, 1 1 '11 1 11 1 7 1 44 1 - 0 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1,1 11 1 1+4-1 12!i/1//1 ' 4 /1 11 1 1 1 1 11 0 sieiioa 0 Capital xel sales I EPURA Capital Investment and Sales Tax Revenues 1983 - 2002 ZOOZ L001 0001 666 1. 866 1. 266 10 966 1. 966 1. *6610 Â£66 1. 166 1. L66 1. 066 1. 680 10 886 10 Z86 1. 986 L 986 L *86 1. Â£86 1. jeex 3,500,000 3,000,000 - 2,500,000 - 2,000,000 - - - - - 000'009' L - 000'000' L - 000'009 Tax Increment by Year Within Estes Park Urban Renewal Area Mear Incremental Sales Tax Incremental Property Tax 2002 (est.) 2,542,834 588,748 2001 2,694,320 552,201 2000 2,478,520 496,650 1999 2,377,959 472,892 1998 2,286,297 394,677 1997 1,865,420 365,948 1996 1,773,008 335,855 1995 1,671,997 317,762 1994 1,614,835 291,537 1993 1,344,354 307,238 1992 1,292,265 307,633 1991 1,129,088 332,902 1990 834,649 352,151 1989 637,375 320,303 1988 682,736 239,971 1987 550,028 186,897 1986 368,429 133,763 1985 212,287 89,839 1984 88,732 72,446 1983 Total 26,445,133 6,159,413 THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND THE INCREMENT AREA g .â€ž144 - ~NOSSSA \%34 I %36 HOSPITAL 3-4 - 1 13.Â«t 1696 1 .Ch ./4- 1.100 1- l Legend F/7A Increment Area Redevelopment Area E 0 E 2 O O CD CE .g J E a O 1 O CD of z 1 1 4------------ ... . i ' * [-11 1 F-'LI -:j~ 1 2-li .1 -Â·.~_. P r-- 1 .1 1, I J N R 11 +71=rn-7- m|. .. 1 2 11 1 794-I .1 1-rl_ ~ i F Viu- --; 1 1 - !l Il l r- I . . . - - .1 4/ 1 1 1J 0 0 . I -17*Er- CD \ 44/IMLA., C#5~-96 '2~7--mk 51~3FER C) u) I 'rÂ·1 ir, -'9 -lil tt= *5 1 1 1. I -It . , 6.].-gIll . 1 4 1 1,.. I. M . 1 ~~ 7 2.0'Â· .91-=-ij 1,1 1 0 E . '11.1 ---Ti' 1 -7MB. ' Iv; Lviv, cl~d ir--J C.C -0 1 .0 -~-1 ire) J [ 1111 -71111 -3-rhi... ) lillillm . - --*2.1.=.i,+Â·..* -:*5/4 - -/ " t 11 F-71[1I 3 .2 4#1. 91.,i>'2' 9Et 4 &11'-'|4 1224.- 0 32 -0 02 1 . r Z 2 2 - 2 1 'Cl'Il=TL- r.111 1 B Z O 4 2 L - =1 Mr'G'*1 * 4,0 '. 2 / 00 22 8 1 L_- 1!1 u i a.i 1 , I ..1, -Yly, I.M. .Â£Aii,1 1 1 &111111 Ellnly E 1 :44.A l ~ 11- I lei. --0 1-1-17-7-7-TTTI-11 ~ ~ r r~-:M ~A u Â«n- jejnduloo pejeoolehl JeBeuel/\I ll 19 lejuelupedea-Jalul AAGN - 7+ Finance Offices >ped puos 9 LUOOM i)Jeog U.104 elqisseoov I 1 Temporary hi eouelailloj Estes Park Public Library -- 3 Results of Internal Scoping to date Interagency Vegetation/Elk Management Team Revised October 22,2003 Agency mandates The exact wording of each agency's legislated mandate is in italics and the interpretation of that mandate as it applies to this project is in regular text: Of the Core Planning Team... NPS- Lead agency "...to promote and regulate the use of the...national parks...which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpairedfor the enjoyment offuture generations." Maintain, restore, and protect the inherent integrity of the natural resources of the park. Ensure that ongoing NPS activities do not cause the impairment o f park natural resources. Maintain all components and processes of naturally evolving park ecosystems ('natural conditions' describe the condition ofthe resources that would occur in the absence of human dominance over the landscape). Provide for enjoyment of park resources and values by the people of the United States. Town of Estes Park "...to plan and provide reliable, high-value services for our citizens, visitors, and employees. We take great pride ensuring and enhancing the quality of life in our community by being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. " Provide for visitor and citizen safety. Help generate revenue through elk viewing. Follow city plan which emphasizes maintenance of elk habitat. EVRPD ...to provide, manage, direct, and organize leisure programs and opportunities for residents of the District and visitors to the community. Programs are designed to provide a variety of active " and passive leisure opportunities for all age groups with diversity in programming. 1 Provide for public recreation Provide for watchable wildlife Provide for safety of visitors and residents Of the Extended Planning Team... DOW " ...to preserve and protect Colorado wildlife for the people of Colorado and its visitors. " Manage wildlife for the people of Colorado using hunting and fishing as tools. Manage for healthy populations. Control of chronic wasting disease and other wildli fe diseases Set objectives (population, sex composition, etc.) for the elk herds. Manage nuisance wildlife situations outside RMNP and pay for damage where statutes allow USFS "...to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs ofpresent and future generations." Manage to achieve desired conditions in forest plan. Manage vertebrates for viable population. Maintain elk as indicator of habitat quality, impacts of management. Emphasize animals and habitat in forest zone adjacent to the park. Larimer County "...dedicated to delivering the services mandated by law and determined by the Elected Omcials to be necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Larimer County. " Town of Grand Lake " ...to ensuring an improved quality of lifefor all citizens and visitors of Grand Lake. ...to provide for the health and safety ofits citizens, generate a favorable climate in support of local business, and maintain the unique character and flavor ofthe community. ...to discharge these duties withfiduciary responsibility andfor the benefit of the taxpayer." U.S. Bureau of Reclamation "...to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public." Grand County (do not have this yet) 2 Planning Issues- Why action is needed at this time, or specific statements of need A. The elk population has increased in size over the past 30 years, and may still be increasing in the portion of the population that winters in and around the town of Estes Park. It's historic major natural predators, wolves, have been extirpated, and Native Americans who traditionally hunted elk in Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) no longer serve that role. Research indicates that as a result the population is now limited primarily by density dependent factors. Elk have also concentrated in "safe zones" where they cannot be hunted. This includes the Rocky Mountain National Park and Town of Estes Park. As a result: â€¢ Property damage in the Town of Estes Park from elk has increased. Elk eat gardens and lawns on private and public property, including the town golf course, its parks and school grounds. â€¢ Migratory and calving patterns have changed, with more elk calving in town. This has resulted in an increased safety risk for people in town who inadvertently or intentionally disturb cows and/or their calves. Increased concentrations may also increase risk of human contact with bull elk or other dangerous individuals outside of calving. Changes in migration patterns have also resulted in increasing numbers of individuals that spend the entire year on what traditionally was only winter range in both the park and town areas. â€¢ Increased concentrations of elk in town cause road jams (visitors seeking to view elk) and associated traffic congestion and accidents, as well as increased numbers of car/elk accidents. â€¢ Increased concentrations of elk are associated with increases in the rate o f transmission of chronic wasting disease in a population. â€¢ The NPS is obliged to maintain and/or restore natural ecosystem conditions and processes, such as the natural range ofvariation in the elk population size and distribution and associated habitat conditions. Modeling indicates that under natural conditions elk numbers in RMNP would have been limited by predators. Research and observations in similar ecosystems with a full complement of predators indicate that under natural conditions with an intact predator base, the elk distribution in RMNP likely varied more over time and space, with lower concentrations. Research in RMNP indicates that, without an intact predator base, the elk population size is maintained at or near food-limited carrying capacity. As a result, some plant species, such as willow and aspen, are browsed to the point that they cannot regenerate. This has altered some plant communities in the park, which can reduce the biodiversity of plants and animals. The changes in vegetation are exacerbated by reduced water levels and the significant decrease in the beaver population in the park, which helped contribute to changes in water levels. B. Estes Park and the region around the park are being increasingly developed for summer and year-round homes. Both the human population and the elk population have increased over recent years. This has the effect of displacing elk onto open areas in the town, or further increasing the chances of elk/human contact in the town and entire study 3 area. In addition to the issues stated above under A, this increase in contact can result in the following problems: â€¢ Elk may have become more habituated to humans and be less fearful of them. This can mean more safety risks, property damage, and perception o f elk as "pests." The requirement that dogs be leashed has helped make elk habituated to humans. â€¢ New residents may not be as tolerant o f elk as those who have lived "with them" for many years and ask that they be removed. â€¢ Some citizens want elk removed or the population reduced or restrained and others want to keep them as they are now. This is a difference in social values. â€¢ The Colorado Division of Wildlife is tasked with managing elk/human conflicts outside Rocky Mountain National Park. This takes staff time and money away from CDOW's other more primary management responsibilities. C. Elk are a major tourist draw for Estes Park as well as Rocky Mountain National Park. Because tourists do not live with the elk, they do not view them as pests. Town business owners depend in some large part on the dollars spent by tourists who come for the purpose of viewing elk to support their business. D. Hunting has traditionally helped to manage elk populations. However, problems with hunting include: â€¢ Elk are moving to areas where they are not hunted. These "free zones" include the park and Estes Park, but also may mean the displacement of some ofthe herd to areas outside Estes Park. â€¢ Without necessary restriction, hunting has the potential to reduce localized populations and not impact targeted populations, primarily due to hunter access issues. â€¢ Conflicting management needs make elk management through hunting more difficult. For example, hunting in the town of Estes Park is not allowed, although the town owns some parcels where it does allow hunting. Management priorities on neighboring USFS lands may mean road closures or area closures where hunting is usually allowed. Purpose and Need for Action Need is an overarching statement ofwhy action is required. It summarizes the most important points of the Planning Issues stated above. The team has agreed the Need for Action is: The National Park Service is obliged by law and policy to maintain and restore, to the extent possible, the natural conditions and processes in park units. The elk herd in the vicinity of RMNP and Estes Park is larger, less migratory, and more concentrated than it would be under natural conditions. As a result, aspen and willow communities, which support high levels ofbiodiversity, are declining on the winter range, and 4 grasslands are grazed at extremely high levels. The herd also concentrates in safe areas ofRMNP and Estes Park in the winter, where elk strip vegetation, cause property damage, and pose an increasing threat to tourists and residents as the numbers of encounters between elk and humans increase. Additional impacts include the drain on agency resources, as staff are called in to help manage human/elk conflicts. Purpose is an overarching statement of what the plan must do to be considered a success. The team has agreed that the Purpose of Action is: Reduce the impacts of elk on vegetation, as well as human/elk conflicts, and restore, to the extent possible, the natural range of variability in both the elk population and affected-plant communities, while providing for elk viewing opportunities, associated recreational opportunities, and economic benefits. Objectives- What must be accomplished to a large degree by any elk/vegetation management plan, or specific statements of purpose. 1. Address size and distribution of elk population. Maintain a wild and free-roaming elk population. Restore natural range of variability to the extent possible. Have specific commitments related to size, density, and distribution. 2. Ensure that strategies and objectives ofthis plan/EIS are not in conflict with those of chronic wasting disease management. 3. Coordinate the management of natural, social, cultural and economic values o f the affected agencies and tribes to the extent possible. 4. Reduce the risk of elk to public safety to the extent practicable. 5. Address the risk o f damage to private property by elk. 6. Provide for recreational opportunities associated with elk, such as viewing or hunting. 7. Restore the range of variation in vegetation conditions that would be expected under natural conditions in the park and select sites outside the park, to the extent possible. Make specific commitments regarding levels ofherbivory. Prevent loss of aspen clones from the core winter range until more information on the establishment of those clones is available. Restore and maintain sustainable willow stands, increasing willow cover within suitable willow habitat on the core winter range. Maintain sustainable upland shrub communities on the core winter range 8. Recognize the economic significance ofthe elk herd. 5 Management Tools Management tools are the means the agencies will use to accomplish the purpose and objectives, and resolve need for action. They will be packaged together in a reasonable way to create a set of alternatives. Each management tool may have specific legal, regulatory, logistic, financial or other constraints. Techniques will be dismissed from further analysis only if it is clear that there is not a reasonable expectation that constraints could be overcome. Management tools may also result in particular types of environmental impacts, both beneficial and adverse. These constraints and types of impacts are stated in the discussion of each tool. Barriers- The use ofbarriers would focus on preventing or deterring elk from using selected areas-such as patches of willow or aspen, the Estes Park bird sanctuary, recreation areas in Estes Park (golf course, parks, etc.), highways, the downtown central business district, heavily populated residential areas or planted areas. The types of barriers used could include fences of 8-foot or higher woven wire or high tensile wire, piles of logs or rocks or electronic means. Some constraints associated with this alternative include: â€¢ Experience has shown that drift fences will not significantly constrain elk movements. â€¢ To exclude elk from an area fences must be a minimum of 8 feet high using high tensile or woven wire. â€¢ Barriers that are not absolute may be ineffective. â€¢ Safety and effectiveness of electric fences are of concern â€¢ Estes Park does not currently allow electric fences â€¢ Repellents may be used as barriers, but have so far had limited success (at Golf Course, see below). â€¢ CDOW generally recommends against wildlife proof fences. The environmental issues or opportunities associated with these techniques include: â€¢ the anticipated quick regeneration of vegetation (a beneficial impact) i f elk are fully excluded â€¢ Fences or other barriers would also impede or exclude other large mammals, notably deer â€¢ The cost of some techniques might be quite high â€¢ Fences may be esthetically incompatible with the natural look of the park and some areas in Estes Park â€¢ Elk may be displaced from areas where they are now viewed. This could result in a loss of tourism or property devaluation â€¢ Recreational access might be restricted by barriers â€¢ Elk, deer or other wildlife might be injured trying to cross the barriers. 6 Direct Reduction- These techniques would focus on the use ofhunting or agency culling to kill elk in the study area. Live elk can not be transported out of the area due to chronic wasting disease (Colorado Wildlife Commission policy) and the transport ofportions of dead elk out of the established area is subject to restrictions. However, every effort would be made to remove carcasses because of disease concerns. The types of methods used could include changes in hunting regulations (permits, seasons, acceptable means, location restrictions), seeking legislation or policy to allow hunting in refuge areas (the park, Town ofEstes Park, etc.), agency staff shooting elk within their own areas of jurisdiction, and capturing (darting or trapping) and euthanizing elk. Constraints associated with this tool include: â€¢ Hunting of elk in the park would require Congressional action, in town it would require changes in existing policies and regulations as well â€¢ During the hunting seasons (outside the park) elk stay in areas that are closed to hunting (inside park boundaries and Estes Park). It would be difficult to force elk to move out of safe areas at those times. o Large numbers of carcasses can not be left to decompose naturally due to the presence of chronic wasting disease in the population. â€¢ Live elk can not be transported out of the area due to chronic wasting disease (Colorado Wildlife Commission policy) and the transport of portions of dead elk out ofthe established area is subject to restrictions. The environmental issues or opportunities associated with these techniques include: â€¢ Agency culling could result in more rapid or larger- decreases in the elk population size, when compared with other methods. â€¢ Increasing hunting licenses would provide economic benefits from license revenues â€¢ Hunting by Native Americans could be considered. â€¢ Native American hunting rights may also be an issue â€¢ Changes in hunting seasons or restricting hunting in specific areas could inconvenience hunters. â€¢ Public safety would have to be taken into account with regards to any increased hunting â€¢ Hazing could be used to move elk to areas where they could be hunted â€¢ Vegetation may be restored moderately quickly â€¢ Elk distribution and behavior may change, potentially having indirect impacts on viewing opportunities and the local economy. â€¢ The costs of agency culling may be high, including carcass disposal â€¢ Native Americans may want to have rights to collect antlers in rememberance of the actions taken (William C. Hair, Northern Arapahoe Tribe, 1/21/03) â€¢ Killing animals will go against the social values of those members of the public who do not want any wildlife killed. Indirect impacts could include boycotting and lost tourism revenues. 7 Indirect Reduction- These techniques would focus on reducing the herd through the application of fertility control. Several agents and methods are in various stages of development and testing. Constraints relevant to this management tool include: â€¢ Some prohibitions on contraceptive drugs (pending state or federal policies). â€¢ The success of fertility control agents has not been proven for elk in a free range environment, although research is ongoing. â€¢ Treating bull elk with fertility control agents is significantly less efficient that cow elk The environmental issues or opportunities associated with these techniques include: â€¢ A capture faciiity may be required, with its associated impacts â€¢ Capture may be ongoing, and may be offensive to area visitors â€¢ Elk would need to be visibly marked to identify treated animals; this may be an adverse impact to esthetics or social values â€¢ Hunting may decrease, with associated economic and social impacts to this user group â€¢ Various fertility control methods could alter elk behavior or physiology, including breeding behavior, antler growth, etc. â€¢ The long term effects of using fertility control agents are unknown â€¢ The application of fertility control agents could have an unknown effect on elk meat and consequently, on human health or wildlife who ingest it â€¢ The logistics of capture and application of fertility control on the scale required may limit its usefulness, and cost of delivery could be high. â€¢ The use of fertility control may be feasible only for maintaining numbers or resulting in a very slow decrease in the population size, corresponding to slow recovery o f targeted vegetation â€¢ Use of fertility control methods may be offensive to some social values â€¢ Indirect reduction could adversely affect hunters in that fewer animals would be available and there might be less migration, so fewer licenses might be issued. Reintroduce Wolves- This technique would reintroduce wolves to the area. It is likely that such introductions would take place inside RMNP boundaries, as legislation at the state level would be required to introduce them (or any federally listed species) in Colorado outside RMNP. The USFWS has already ranked areas in the state as possible reintroduction locations for wolves. The study area was rated quite low because of the number o f people, level of development and space for wolf packs in the area. Constraints relevant to this alternative include: â€¢ Reintroduction ofpredators requires legislative approval on non-NPS lands. 8 â€¢ DOW has o fficial policy against the reintroduction o f wolves that would require state Wildlife Commission approval to change. â€¢ A USFWS study found that the area in and around RMNP is less suitable for reintroduction ofwolves than other locations in Colorado, due primarily to the close proximity to dense human populations â€¢ Artificially increasing populations of existing predators (mountain lions, coyotes) would not be expected to be effective in significantly reducing elk numbers and would violate NPS policies. The environmental issues or opportunities associated with this technique include: â€¢ Short term reductions may be small until the wolf packs become established. â€¢ Wolves would also prey on deer, possibly resulting in a decrease in the deer population. â€¢ Wolves might outcompete coyotes, resulting in a decrease in the coyote population. â€¢ Wolves would likely take sick deer and elk, which may result in a decrease in the prevalence of chronic wasting disease. â€¢ Reintroduction ofwolves would restore the natural predator-prey relationship, rather than simulate it. â€¢ The reintroduction ofwolves would have different effects than would a natural wolf population in pristine conditions. â€¢ The social values o f those who wish to see natural processes returned would be beneficially affected. Those of individuals with more utilitarian attitudes toward elk would be adversely affected. â€¢ Livestock producers in the study area may lose some of their animals to wolf predation. â€¢ Wolves would likely not remain in the park, resulting in adverse effects to the perception ofpublic safety, as well as the possible loss of individual wolves. â€¢ The presence of wolves may cause more elk to concentrate in developed areas where wolves are less likely to go. â€¢ Wolves may prey on pets. â€¢ There is a possibility that wolves will not become established, or that even if established, will have no effect on elk population numbers or distribution. â€¢ A beneficial impact of an effective and relatively cost-free method of reducing the elk population over the long term Herding and hazing-These techniques would focus on the use of herding and hazing or other means to cause elk to leave or avoid specific areas. The same areas as identified above under technique 1 could be potential target areas. The specific means ofremoval could include the use of herding dogs (Border Collies or other similar species), riders on horseback, cracker shells or other noisemaking devices, rubber bullets, helicopters, golf carts, ultrasonic noises or elk sticks. Repellents might also be used. Constraints associated with this alternative include: 9 â€¢ Dogs can't harass wildlife (herding) without CDOW approval â€¢ CDOW approval is required to herd wildlife in areas outside RMNP â€¢ Repellents have been tried at the golf course with limited success. The only repellent working at present is a turkey manure/sand compost. Previous use of plastic coverings on the greens were effective for only one season before elk ignored them. Elk may adapt to current repellents as well. Repellents get washed away by irrigation or rain. â€¢ Artificial feeding as a redirecting tool would be restricted by CDOW and RMNP policy, which generally prohibit artificial feeding of wildli fe, with some exceptions â€¢ Hazing would require careful planning and areas outside RMNP in which to safely disperse animals The environmental issues or opportunities associated with these techniques include: â€¢ The effectiveness in achieving the desired objectives may be low, as elk movements would probably be limited in size and duration. With persistence, elk may come to associate hazing with feeding on aspen or inhabiting urban areas and move away for longer periods of time â€¢ Because o f logistics, herding elk away from one location may herd them toward another undesirable area. Hazing would need to be widespread and occur in several places at the same time. â€¢ Elk behavior may change, including the possibility o f increased aggressiveness. â€¢ Noise would adversely affect some tourists, while others might be quite interested in the actions taking place â€¢ Harassing wildlife would be offensive to some people's social values Habitat manipulation- These techniques would focus on improving habitat in areas where the agencies would like elk to locate. Specific techniques could include prescribed burning, timber sales and thinning to increase open areas and forage on USFS lands, creating open areas with grasses and forbs for elk in forested areas of Estes Park, on private lands, non-federal public lands, or in the park. Constraints associated with this alternative include: â€¢ It would be difficult to create habitat of better quality than that which exists in town, so redirecting elk would be tough â€¢ Past efforts by the USFS creating elk winter habitat through timber sales and prescribed burns have not brought elk in large numbers to the forest, probably because it is not a safe haven from hunters. (from meeting #2) â€¢ Prescribed fire may not be a useable tool in some areas due to safety considerations 10 â€¢ Habitat manipulation would probably not work alone, and would require fencing, hazing or other redirecting tools, particularly to move elk to a location where they could be hunted. â€¢ Because the park and town populations sometimes operate independently, creating high quality habitat in the park would not necessarily resolve high concentrations in town, and vice versa. The environmental issues or opportunities associated with these techniques include: â€¢ More habitat may simply produce more elk. â€¢ Financial and staff resources will be needed to institute mitigation measures (true of all management tools) â€¢ Elimination, via movement or euthanasia, o f nen-migratory elk in town would benefit vegetation regrowth, and depending on numbers of elk eliminated, may cause a drop in population. â€¢ The public might object to fencing the golf course â€¢ Fewer elk in town might mean fewer viewing opportunities in town Vegetation Management- Some ofthe objectives could be met through the manipulation of vegetation in the study area. For instance, woody riparian vegetation could be encouraged to grow over a large area through the use of fire, mechanical means etc. Cutting of older trees could stimulate young sucker growth which is attractive to elk. Constraints associated with vegetation management include: â€¢ Aspen stimulation would need to be combined with protection of the aspen (e.g. requires the use ofbarriers) or very low elk densities to have an effect. â€¢ In order to have an effect on aspen, suckers need to be encouraged by fire or mechanical means over a huge area Environmental issues or opportunities associated with vegetation management include: â€¢ Noise and human activity associated with mechanized equipment â€¢ Removing older aspen trees could have adverse effects on cavity nesting birds Management of Water Levels- At one time there were estimated to be more than 300 beavers in Moraine Park. Their activity helped maintain higher water levels in many of the streams in the study area, encouraging and nurturing willow growth. Water levels could be returned to their former levels to some degree by either reintroducing beavers or simulating beaver dams. Constraints include: â€¢ Studies suggest that the elk maintain the habitat in such poor condition that there is not enough food for beaver. â€¢ Because of the state of the current habitat, reintroduction would require supplemental feeding. â€¢ Beavers may not become established or may need to be controlled 11 â€¢ Artificial beaver dams or reintroduction would have to be combined with exclusions or low elk densities in order to stimulate willow regeneration or growth â€¢ Installing artificial dams could raise water rights issues â€¢ Artificial dams could be less effective than beaver dams Environmental issues or opportunities include: â€¢ This ties in with a total ecosystem view of the management plan as opposed to just elk. Land Use and Zoning- Land in the study area which is privately owned may be purchased and improved to attract elk. Or, critical areas in the study area (for migration or feeding) may be protected through zoning and/or purchase. Constraints include: â€¢ Options may be foreclosed through development. Environmental issues and opportunities identified: â€¢ Elk might move to attractive acreage which is adjacent to town, but the high- quality of the land might increase productivity of the herd unless population reduction was instituted concurrently. â€¢ The use of zoning could help preserve hunting opportunities outside town limits. â€¢ Land use planning or zoning could help preserve migration corridors 12 . JOINT TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION tES_EN>' THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2004 7:00 P.M. ROOMS 201, 202, 203, Second Floor, Municipal Building AGENDA ROUNDTABLE PARTICIPANTS: ESTES VALLEY RECREATION & PARK DISTRICT DIVISION OF WILDLIFE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PARSONS CONSULTANTS 1. PRESENTATION BY THERESE JOHNSON/RMNP 7:00 P.M. 2. QUESTIONS/ANSWERS 7:30 - - I Cljy-1-1/ 1 Â£-1- 1 -1 a.Y 9161 / fj ' e +41.3Â».~. 4 If ajl 1/ 160-41,0 4/vo./ botdo tut/ --- Ry UD I i -1 7 7. 3-0 7 , Fl aO/- 34 03 062 1 - 41Â»aÂ»Â·>Â« j . ~<2._ ~lu L Q) E *T..7 Al,04 -tllgme U/6-A.t.3-- 2, 0 01060 tAÂ« -t,6 5% B. 9 0 4 A 1 U 4 11\/ 1 1 ch\-. 1 Mon. Thurs. Mon. Tues. 6/14 6/17 6/28 6/29 Ken Czarnowski r- - Tony Paglia fi 5 (ve f/ 5 1/ 5 Jack Holmquist /#0 \~?E-5 ~/ 5 1\< /5 Mike Richardson 0 r 1 90 Joint meeting to cover elk management alternatives - Room 203 oi the Muni. Bldg. @ 7:00 P.M. Roundtable discussion with EVRPD Town of Estes Division of Wildlife / 3 1 National Park Service 0 Parsons Consultants doing environmental impact study - j Stan doesn't think a decision will be made that evening - Ken 4-4 #*9& -- u:n : ea#~41-fif- -r dQÂ» . : 3#40-- 4-' O -i- 0 9 *Â»~ - 91*- 'll/U -2-9 14':4* . 6 60(- U 90/ .1/11'A.A..'4--I'23:1:=:2;. 2:.. '. t....11 I ' 4 4 4 1.1 42 . ./* I ' 0. .; . 1, 4. - 72/ .3 'Im . :. 1 6 4 . 1 6.24 . , ' 0 --- . f . : - .1 r I .6 -2.1 J . i . 1- 7,/' . I ' E . , 9 1 A i f I , r I 4* 00 . I ". .4 l Z ./ , . .4 ... .A1 LLI ,... 1 .- : 2* 1 C Â¢g 4, 9/ ..: ..., ....1. *Â· ...: ... -h 7.9 .4 . 7 I 4. I I= Ir. , E ti a) -.07.:, 4 ./ (0 C m 142 s .7 /24&4 1 â‚¬ .:: â‚¬ O I. 4 5* i Â· L, m ' I 4 -' 1 1 A 4 1% 2 , .: '-.t.Â· Â· 2 +Ph S. .ty f ./. 4,. 6.1 . + J" 1 7,37 C '4 . h Â¢0 m ;it Rocky Mountain ~0~ * National Park 1 0. - r . + e - 0 .1 0 A.lit, 11/W$1 2. e . 3 Â·i O I 00#Ea 2 16 . 1:. .0--, 2/ 05 Â£ d - 7 . ~ lili 1Â£ 0. 8/4 4 Â· t ~~.T:,4 ., 5:; 0 -, 6 0 1, - CE C 1 . f.04 = a E 1 E E . 0 * UJ B 2 2 C ''f?';811 I :11,4 1 /9/0 0- a. . -2.2 6 - 1 2 mmi---' , a, -1 -11 11kth . h3 \- I . -.. 4.-.2 , .: A *r f.*91 Â¥2 - rn:/ 5-/ I if S 1.0 4, ic=4 ; C 0- f 0/ (0 . Â¥ -- El y, - CC r. r /1 1 . i i ~:, M 91 ~ , 24 ' 9'4 c 3 1 > 9. CL -----/7 2 1 a 82 tr- 0 \ 0 m e z LU 00!AJeS >ped leuoileN ep'Aql lejueulluos) US Forest Service uoilnquls!Cl/eBueti WI le,luelod 586ue40 E m L. LU 0 0 O E 1-6 Â® z 3 -:-M --li- m 20 //6317*\ a, e OZ 1- 4 .I 9 0 0, O 3 (DA X LU * .4, -Â® 4 \ SG FF#, 0 1/kipA \01 / UJ . r 6- 02 E .. W *. C EFI M 2. *~ E E =U 0 0 Â¢0 /0" 7/&//////#*rk/ fo tr C 1 ]UN b 4. tr b . g 4 - A~.: > FO 3% 42 F (D W 0-11.*16.Aex A ok . Imil *w, m :3 #JOF#im,MI. Rocky Mountain Natio nal Park ~ . a~..m M â‚¬ 0 C I Z -U~ 0- 1 0 4- 0 -00 12 - 2 0- 2 -6 2 ,Xtv,1 c LU % 2 -2 & 4- 0 In 4/ 03 OUL - Cal tu R C 0 LL g W -9, .- ~'M -,- (0 0 .0 6 .E? ~ /3. 5 c W > E 1 4- C m 0 LU Z *-2 . 0-fl $ i = C L O .tlt e U L -C 1- . 1 0 Â·The elk h es Park is larger, 344 U! MJDd Sits3 less migratory, a would be under nities and grasslands uD Bsod puD ' 36Dwop 4,ado.id Bsnoo ' UOUD.1.363A duts 4 stuaP!SaJ pUD sts! Jnot o.1. .ma./44 Ewsoadow snlnosal Xoll;360 uo Â«/a/p pasoa.lou! LID S! 3.1341Â· Elk and Vegetation natural conditions. Th ~|.~ Rocky Mountain National Park , 3 3J34M 'Ja*UIM f C 0 1.U +-cn 2 lf) + 01 CL 0, > 0 -6/ U 4- UJ 9 6 0 - 0 - (C U CL 0- F C Â¢0 df ~ 1 m Rocky Mountain 2* 1.14 MIa U! 4!1!qD!JDA &0 3 UDJ pan*DU 344 3 Issod SD '2.10#221. .se!+I nulwoo -1.UD~d p).1.03:UD pLID UO!.Windod 'Duo!.1.03,103.1 pal.DOOSSD 'S3!4!un.woddo 6uIM3!A >lia Â·Â·104 aP.ModdÂ· Â·Reduce human/elk conflicts. 'St!:1Â·auaq 3!WOUO)3 pLID 'S314!un-1.Joddo National Park Â·Reduce the im Mlair,11/ UJ 1/& 1. lu U C - .1-l. 1 OUJ m C 0 .&? U 10 1.11 FUS C 4 Â¢15 0 ray . 11,!E 6 CL 00 d ..iz -8 41.0 Ec 10 3 ~ C 14 + u 19 C â‚¬= a L 0 0 CL-- -0 0- 0 n > â‚¬ B 10 0 ro as Z - NU ~Yi k LU size and distribution of elk population. Ensure that stra s and objectives of this plan are not in 0/\AD pUD+SJapull 04 UO!*DU.IJOJÂ·u! 4013110 0 AliDO '3A!-1.DUJ34-ID U)A!6 D j.O MJOM3UADJjÂ· 34-1. u!4+IM M 0!WOU003 pUD 'pan.1.ln) 'p!DOS 'iDJn*DU 34-1. 3Ziu6003& ~.~ pUD 'psni.In) ' lopoS ' iDJn*Du J.0 1.Ualll36DUDU.1 344 3*DU!paoop g 344 04 539!34 pUD S3!Ou36D p,403440 34 4 40 3n DA 0!LUOUO03 onflict with those D management. pJ34 413 344 40 30UD)!JÂ·!u6!s missod tual.xa m Â¤ i -5/ L.. 9- 0 >~ L fl 0 O L + 0 0, 01 - i#59"Er; 2/. IJ.l +- > 07 > L C 2 9 9 0 07 4- 'Kt- E 01 0 0 0 L E Â¤ 0 > %4- oq C, 01 9, In 0 + a N Lt- 8 x k 4 1 U L A L 3 0 1 Whi: m _[Z N (D 4 ". 11 W -[: L -2 4- O L C 4- In 4- O 5 LL OD A, 01 (31 0 -* -& 5 2 2 1 2 C N O W v - I ac q: O fo 05 z 32. Â· V) ~0 1< 00 0 sk of elk to public safety to the extent practicable. LIons '>113 4-1.!AA pa.1.DioOSSD sa!4!unt.~oddo louo! 404-1. suo!4!puoo 1 3JO+534 6 d 344 u! su pUOD ~DJn+DU 3 39 p~nOM PROJECT OBJECTIVES (continued) eq!ssod tuap<3 344 04 '>1.lod 344 aP!S.I.nO S,1.!S p3403pS 4- 0 00 0 4- rn I 01 -U LO - 0.- I.M./ - 01 00 Â£ C -J + i~ A 1- 71 zz Grn -~~- 2 0 8 21-2 -0 9- - O boA )- M 1 22 EBE Z 22 6 * 5 3: k.g ~ Ii@ ?1-?Ef C a, 4*E* 0 Z -1 :E 2 2 a 03 4- 01 th: C ~ 4 g NE . 5 LU W 0 Â£ 1-1 0 E- 1.0 S OZO 21 9 21 2 - 1-, 0 - > U Â©v.1 L -. 9, 0, -C J-C C O P W m W W u M H DOD . a. . LAND USE LIons sanbiulpal. .1.UaU136DUD 04 SM II M 6UI spo443W lowl.WOO X4!1!*Jaj. 3SAÂ· ~D+SU! JO S.13AD39 30npOS+U!34. :I.J.D.1.S Xou,60 Aq 6u!UnD asn. SWDp JeADaq 3*D~nWIS *D44 SlUDp -04!904 3AOJdW! (S3A!*daiD.1.woo) Â·Install fencing or other barriers S.13.1.oollsdaolls Oilqnd pap!n6 asnÂ· dNWN 04 S,AIOM 33np0J+U!34. dNWN ap!su! *-46 C 3~ 52 0 VÂ·W 0 m e Z E Elk and Vegetation Management Plan EIS PRELIMINARy DRAFT ALTERNATIVES Alternative A: No Action (Continue Current Management) Alternative B: Minimum Elk Handling/Maximum Fencing uo!-lonpaa |D4431 lunwIXDW :3 3A!-I.DUJ).I.~y loswop X.I.!1!+Jid U.InWIXDW :Q 3A!*DUJ3*ly cINWEI u! S..13*004sd.IDLIS O!lqnd 6ulsn uo!.1.Onpati 34.0.13pow :d 3A!*DUJ)41Â¥ dINWN O.I.u! S3Ap/\A aonpoll.U!3%1 :3 3A!*DUJ3*ly 6ulouad/los.1.uop X.1.!11.1.Â·0138/UO!*Onpaa 104*31 :9 3A!-1.DUJ341y i. 4 I I ./ i4 I 6- fO CL 0 - 2 CO .g N -E= 16 LL E Z .r 'r (6 6 7,# -Â¤ Rocky Moun~in ililimilimilizill A: No Action 800-1,100 1,400-2,000 2,200-3,100 B: Maximum Fencing 400-700 1,200-1,400 1,600-2,100 C: Maximum Agency Culling 200-400 1,100-1,300 1,200-1,700 00I'2-009'I 00â‚¬'I-000'I 008-009 iOJ+UOp X4!11*Jad wnlll!XDW :Cl 008'2-008 000'2-009 008-002 Uo!+OnpOJ.1.U!3N NOAA :3 ALTERNATIVE PARK TOWN TOTAL OOI'2-009'I 00â‚¬'I-0004 008-009 O!Iqnd) uo!.1.0npitl 34.DJapoW :d 006' I -00*' I 00â‚¬'I-000' I 009-00* 411!.1.Ja:1/6u!lino/6u! Elk and Vegetation Management Plan EIS (cINWkI u! S..13.004Sd..IDLIS m 'l â€¢r - H Z LU UJ e C C 1 -2 41 0 0 U C 01 L *I</E 4, 01 C 3 U ro - 9 55 0 L (0 - EN m G > -19 0 4- 9- -:03 - L 00 ts- 0- -0 L 4- e C 4- 1 6, 2 0 N .-- L f0 > 0- IX 015 CL 66 9- â‚¬ a /0 k U .. 1- m (00 ILL 0 0 23 -r Au f LU Z D Mountain ~1=- Monitor elk population and vegetation conditions lents or erect fences for very localized S.I.U3W+D3,.14 uo!-1-Onp3:.l ianj. *U3U,laldl.U~ suosoas 6uitun4 JatuiM pUD liDJ. panu!*uo3 . 46!14 S! aouapald GAO 3.134M S3!4!Sll3p 33rlp3M . ALTERNATIVE A: CURRENT MA :MOOD $ 0, 0, , 4 14 O .- m -t 07 m 91 Â¤ E -0 L - 9 0 In 3 .9- . Ic E C -C O 01 m u L 0, 4- .. /~N i Lu -9 L C 1.971 > 0 a '0 +- ; 0 0 - NO C CJ- E ;E 0 Â¢0 Of . . M a L LU -1 Rocky Mountain MANAGEMENT (continued): ' Monitor elk and use local police to control people uo!+D.16!lu >113 +03.1.OJd O.1. Saououlp.10 6upu34 3OJOJÂ·U3 Â· snoixoll 344 44!M UO!*Duip.1000 1,1! UO!-1.D.1.363A 36DUDUI pUD SJOP!Â·Woo uo!.1.0,.16!U.1 >lia JOJ. aP!AO..Id ot ulutz Z{ 3~~i,sun . uo!*DJ6!1.U >~3 +0340.Id 04 saououip.' Town of Estes Park: National Park 60,.id ioJ* 00 paaM 1(1.4 1. . Actions Common to All Action Alternatives Â· Hunting outside the park (CDOW management) 3.1.D~WNS 04 S+U3111.1.D34 ID)!UD4O3111/SUJnq aq!JOS3Jd Â· Elk and Vegetation Management Plan EIS AJOSSaoau SI) sauo~ UadSD 3OUad Â· uo!*DJau)63.1 u adso/ oil'M Â· USFS fuels reduction papaau SD UO!.1.OnPOJ+U!3J JaADag . uo!*Don')3 0!Iqnd PaouD'418 Â· Rocky Mountain .. - ' ~44 National Park Â· Manage CWD SUO!*!pUOD JO*!UOVV ' APA!*dopy aEDUDW Â· 73* â‚¬* itt 1 a .: 1 4 In N -C h: 9 UU b + .i, O 04) > A E K /9- i C O Z No 0- 4- Â¤1 Â£ 0 CLC C â‚¬ 5- 0- ow U = M -1 W LL anagement Plan EIS B: Minimal Elk Handling/Maximum Fen 'MPA 34033UrIMD>~ U! pUD 36UDJ J3.1.UIM 3.100 UO MO~1!M uo!.1.034.0Ja .104 p3403135 SD,JD pUD SD,JD j.Jn* 3DJD1Â· MJDd 3 Jod 34* ap!su! 6upuad ? .. ---9 .1-9 5-2 E2 C *Fi ** E * 0.= 0 w 93,4 (0 & m 2 W kN 32 - e Â¤ E 9 , "14 C > Ji 2 I L ' :1 0 +4 U â‚¬ 4- IA 0 00 a, Pu > ac LE LU 14 0 C 00 K g -1 #19 Rocky Mo~ntain ged 44!M -1.D.1.!qDLI paAOJdu.I! 44!M s.punqns 'pap!A!Pqns 02 AWSÂ· SUO!+DJ.1.U30UOD 3AISSaoxa tuaAEId . alq!ssod SD 503JD gdS(1 04 Mi3 31.nquisip,J . suo!.1.Din63..1 ID!03ds >pod ap!s*no 6u!*un'-1 National ark 6u!pJaH 30Â»: 5 /54$%=20 07 0 .. 4- t. -3Â£ C L - a 42 0 2 w&2& 1 0 L 14 >08; CO N U) 1% 1 \ 1 1 Z 11* 2 2 N Rocky Moun ain Elk and Vegetation Management Plan EIS ALTERNATIVE C: Maximum Lethal Reduction of Elk rst 4 years :>pod ap!s*no AACKD Aq 6u!1'no Si3Aal -1.S,AJDLI UO *UDpuad3p S..13ql.UnN Â· 413 pallno liD uo 6u!*sat (]AAD National P Culling t, C Â¢0 CL C 0, *6' m C fo 1 A Vcs 1.4 4.0 5.-80 f 1& :~ 1- 0.1 0 0/ . O -8 >LU 5*5 1- 0. C -1 L d r d U.1 on if possible (when no chemicals are used and asnollÂ·13*46nDIS ,.10 4!1!ODj. 0!SDUDLI.I.na 04 -1.JodsuD.14 pl,ID 3Jn.1.dDO . TIVE C (continued): determination) 4! I! ODJ ajn*doo/DISDUDI,1.1Â·na suo!.pnpaJ 36JDI Joj. pap33U . papaau so pasn 6uipJ34 JO SaU!14!Dq . >tia Eu!.1.Jodsuo.u fG4 Rocky Mountain paplau J.! 9 0, National Park rm- Ifi/1 L LL I m CL -0 X Z .5 p.7*6 - C ;E--1 .1,4 FL,9 0(9-L - 0 C S E 0 0. *' E O UJ N 4- CD fl LO X, 0 Z 1â€¢Ar (0 4- 0 E C 0 2 1 1> L.6 WN= 0 m v -~ 2 L 9 0 01 h. f C â‚¬ 4- 3 =-0. â‚¬ m 4- â€¢ 4-..73 .. 0 9-9-9- CE a W LL U I ty Control Â· capture and ividuals 3qual.das 04 *Inf-P!W *Dail. . S+U3UJ+D34 36JD~ JOJ. pap p3p33U SD p3Sn 6ulpJ34 JO Sauil SUO!*DJ+U30UOO 3AISS30X3 -l.UaA) 36uDJ JallIU,InS 04 UO!*DJ 4!1!ODJ National Park in t IRâ€¢%59/4 C CD 4E X R a L W -0 I UX .1 14 la /- 0 71 C 1A .= C 0 - W > LU 1- E â‚¬ Â¢0 -3 U . E , w NATIVE b (continued): willow on core winter range and in Kawuneeche Valley (up to 3,000 acres) M.IDd 344 3Pis*no uO!.1.03*0.Id JOJÂ· pal.O3pS SDa..Iv . suo!.1.DJ+U3OUOO aA!ssaoxa *uaA,Jd 04 sanblut,1034 UO!SJ3Ay Rocky Mountain ~**:~~f,,; National Park >1.'Dd ap!s*no 6upug:1 D paoug#un U! C 0 U 0 L 4- C 4 im 4 0 9 ./. 14 .. c LU E UJ > M Z UJ 1- -1 D .. :dNW21 3Plsu! S,AIOAA 20np0J.1.U!2U 3JOJ.3q S31OM 3Z!.1.DU!!POD O.1. Sa.InSOpU3 XJDJOdlU34 3S palnpOJ.1.U!3J S34OM 02-#I U33M.1.38 Elk and Vegetation Manage Bil Al LU m *E C a, 1 0 g Li LU .62 C Â¢0 1- 3 .X -13 C a. U.1 Rocky Mountain ~ ~ National Park NATIVE F: Moderate Reduction of Elk Using Sharpshooters inside RMNP Public sharpshooting inside RMNP: Â·public sharpshooters guided by agency staff or contractors 6u!MD,.Ip Aq pal.03pS SJ)4OO45dJDLIS pahÂ·!pnb. X,.IDn.Iqad 46no.14* ,Â·13qW3AON-P!1.U p34)npuo) SUO!.1.Onpa,1. SJD3X 02/M13 001/ IÂ· (papaau SD 6u!lino sdi\1) 303*/413 0Â£- L gr Â¤O i a--Â¤ N 4- 2E 72 Q) L .M - 4- NE- .. m .. > 0 0- L -2 Q - u ..0 V) 32 L 9- 1 2-2 C Rf w ~ E r. 32 03 Â¢0 3 9 0 .11/ C C O . 01 C 1 1* 4- 14 m 71 .Il 8 2 Ti C fo L U U Rocky Mountain Sa 31qissod M uo! no Jo apis NEN= (uo!*Duiu.1.13.1.3p CIAAD 6uipuad puo pasn a..ID sio)!U'340 ou LIa Dqs 0!lqI=Id ALTERNATIVE F (continu d Culling by CDOW outside Â· Numbers depend on hu : IDsods!p ss ''- 4 ej 1 i t. I .Fl IE C Â¢0 CL C E u CD Â¢0 C m t. 1 e Â£ 1. :m t. '4 Â· > UJ . C ti m E F (continued): Eul-1.raanya:irice:NI:zllisv~11 22;l papaau sD pasn 6u!pJ34 JO sau!1 -1.!Dq. SUO!+DJ+UEUO) 3AISSE><3 -l.UaA3Jd . 6u !PJaH 4 L -1~U.74m~L.. Mkl m .. C 0 Fily E 4) i= Â¤ c 2â„¢ L .5 0 0 4- er./ 0 C O -. fl Q 31, 3 L E O. -/3 LL .. 5 xe 1 c UJ L O 0--0 f-7 '/ ' I- 11" 1 . Z LU 1- -1 e. Rocky Mo~untain 5.4 Â·Aspen and willow o r range and in Kawuneeche Vall 200 acres) aA!ssaoxa .1.uaAa.Id 0.1. sanb!Ull)34 UO!S.1,AD pa!iddy soaJO paoua#un u! SUO!*DJ+U30UOO Fencing inside park Elk and Vegetation Manage 340.Id ID!Dads. National ark aP!s*no 6upt,13:1 Ik -:I- rn 1*Ultal C L Â¤ 92816 1}*d I./ 07 >~ -1 LO .. C EL 01* E .L 4l m 'X L -C ')22 (C E O L UJ Ob . W O >Â£ 9,00 0 -b O 61 0 1.2 C 1,0 N .1Â£ m r- 0) adi E < 1.L 1 ir ZJ 2%0 L> 20 ,+ U pi fo -0 02 a. LU L 1 1-- t CIO . C 229 -1 o C h m V*Â·' . o ro <U =5 CC Z U Mountain , G: Lethal Reduction/ Fertility :>pDd )P! s.,no MOOD Acl u! lino +SeAJDV uo puadap saaqw Mia p3lino ip uo 6u!*sa.1. 0/VO â€¢ 4 f 1, ,"811 Q Q C E - 01 2 -la = 41- i . 2 U) 0 0 E m - O-0 -- 0-= - 2 E 4 1 0 5 * 4- 0 1 00- -8 U C .0 71 4- L >~ 3 0 4- 6 4.- J > 4- CL 01 CL.L 1= OLOO 9 0.0- 4- . . . . L Â¢0 0, U LL C%'Zzlc~in v if possible (when no chemicals are used and ALTERNATIVE G (continued): S.1.U)U.1403.14 36.101 JO:j. p)p33ll aq AD pap33U SD 6uipJ34 JO SaU!1 (SwID,X gI) 301,1 (UO!+DUILLIJ34 f U.1 .. C .... (0 77 0- 0, 3 03 9 9 01 0 4- a C E C 00 L 0 e Â¢0 6-0 .. LU x 0> 2 WI c 0 Isp C â‚¬ -5 4-3 b C E iDE 00 0 I Z m m O a 3} L Lt- 2 > Di DA R J UJ Â·5 E 07 v O 2,2 9.-C m L ' 0 O ro -1 = z M C f 1- 613*46nDIS Jo 4! POD; DISDUDLIJ.na 04 -I.JodsuD,14 pl 04 dn aouai u344 'tua!)!JÂ·JÂ·ns *ou uo!*nq!J.I.S!p3J/uo!40np33 MI, J.! Â· Â· prevent excessive concentrations Â·tt7 Mountain .* Villilillillit'llilieelillilli >pod apisu! 6upua:1 S3JOD 002'2 Ly'V 4*- .. f,- *- C 0 0 .. C 1% S m U) L 44: . * '.-L ...im Â¥4 A i{ %1=wa. - , f , 4. 93 L///4, 4.g - i :I 0:Â¥1 - ..419' . 1-- - - .0 t a-,Al 1 ga-/lif/'ll 1 . ~10 :Il:/6 . 44* V Â·40-2, *mt ~Â»:ir Â· . 't li'DE'.0 9 2 Si,fl. ~ I f~E.BA er 0 -- =Im..p#* I k - .. . . 4 '> ., *r . ...: 4 Â»U.f - 4 u. 4 464 4/* i... 6 4.*-W,-2 ..tr7./ . Â»911-1.'%*... 4 - I ./ .1-1372 .14 1 e r 2 â€ž 44 -kl*4:4 5 <%Â»%3*," 1 0 4 . *+ fit . . .: #: f . 1 1 t i. 4.=,Ae 4.11 . i.. . 4.r Â¢0 7/..t..u I . , 4;441* c 0 - 4 . 4 I Irtle I *.4. I .: : f . I. 4 . .. . I f r. 4,Â¢ .. .96aa..,.- 4:--2 ' 1~4 - 40 21 f %~-44% 1 A ''114.211Â·. Â·46Â· .40 1.~.,4. 0 4. 1 I ..~~.2 1 Aa:& -#(2*' ~~ - .6 t 4~ ~ 9,1 ' U{130'jf 4 7 *I. #I .ti .. . h . r \,0 R 4 * t Â· Â· .ly Ei * .. 4. Â¢Â¢ A. r - . I Â¥ 'ft,V , 8 +4 - IA .. kil 7 .6. * + ~, i,1 j?Ft.:HU ' 4.' I. 'i *Jmmn/- Â¢ff ' 99* r.. $ 7'f 1*9{~ ft . , -1,2 *M*J~ Â»k #Fl 44. I - r â‚¬ *%904*1 11 7942:EX f -4 \*. 2, I. i C 1 ... f Â¥ b , i .. i . . *U. .C l~415, .d d , * . ~90~~7 Â·~>~ 7.44 14 1 4 2 4.2.41 i A â‚¬4~%&.- h .1 4 I h jt 44, . 4 $ -A 144 . ./. 2.. 9Â·'' 47 + .. A Â»4. i 113 1.,. ' 4 59.-FL* JA i . I if f i- - , tyâ‚¬G I , 1 . 'b*: - 9 f . '4 ' :~~/' 24 : 1 20 al. '.M ./ a. 9 . f "9 , . Â· 1, 1. * tÂ».'' d. L 4 0 ..Fl.=i- 4- *L M k 2Â»- 1-n Im, Â¥ â‚¬ . *2:6-- 4. I 44/ . f . 1 Â» . . t* + 4 1 ... I 1 I '. r , 0 ... 4% - .1- 12 *9 1 +97 ,~ + 1 .: i I *j. ' 71 *i: atÂ·-9.12 - Â»2 A . Â»I . , Â¥ . J Â·Â· 4 j 49*D r. . . I I . 92. *a . 4. L /- ./ I /'< f.. r #40 * . 5 40 I I 1104 4.4 4, .... I ' v.- :rbti ~~ Â·Â· 4 :~ - i 3 /1,3 49, 04*1 k " 6, 11 i aq=:/./ ' ? 1' 1 . - - f- Â·,4*4' .**/ i 1 , 1 a ' 4, /2,â€ž 24*.r '.. 9.- ,.... Rocky Mountain National Park * .~ 19-