The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2008-08-26.. ~%4i#. STUDY SESSION TOWN BOARD Tuesday, August 26,2008 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Rooms 201/202/203 170 MacGregor Ave. AGENDA 1. 2009 Capital Improvement Projects. Administrator Halburnt. 2. Wildlife Habitat Assessment. Director Joseph Jackie Williamson From: EP Administration [ir3045@estes.org] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:27 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Job Done Notice(Send) ***************************** *** Job Done Notice(Send) *** ***************************** JOB NO. 0599 ST. TIME 08/18 15:21 PGS. 1 SEND DOCUMENT NAME TX/RX INCOMPLETE ----- TRANSACTION OK 5869561 KEPL 5869532 Trail Gazette 5861691 Channel 8 6353677 Reporter Herald 5771590 EP News ERROR ----- 1 Administration Memo To: Honorable Mayor Bill Pinkham and Board of Trustees From: Jacqueline Halburnt, Town Administrator Date: August 21,2008 Subjed: Capital Improvement Projeds Planning BACKGROUND: Two pre-budget planning sessions have been held, at which 2009 Capital Improvement Projects were discussed and prioritized through a ranking system. This exercise was designed to allow the town board as a group to place priority on potential projects. The final prioritization is attached for one final board review. The multi-use barn facility at Stanley Park continues to be the highest ranked priority. A suggestion was made by Trustee Homeier to consider the feasibility of constructing the multi-use barns, hockey ice, parking lot and landscaping as one project. Finance Officer Steve McFarland has investigated that possibility and staff has come up with several different scenarios for the board to consider. BUDGET: Staff utilizes a spreadsheet that projects cash flow into the General Fund beyond published budgets. A by-product of this spreadsheet is projected available funds which can be transferred into the Community Reinvestment Fund, the fund out of which capital improvement projects have been built. In past years, random amounts have been transferred into the CRF based upon what project was chosen and what money was available. We recommend making an annual transfer of $500,000, a reasonable and safe amount of money. Without a new revenue source, staff does not anticipate this amount will be able to increase. There are potential revenue sources, such as the sale of Lot 4 or the approval of a Local Marketing District; however, we cannot rely on these sources unless they become a reality. ACTION: None. We bring this information before you for discussion. Some financing options are attached, keeping in mind that financing would come out of the $500,000 annual transfer. This leaves little money for future projects without new funding. .. Options A. Barns & ice & parking/landscaping = $5,800,000 B. Barns & ice = $5,000,000 C. Barns only = $4,000,000 Finance all 10 years 15 years 20 years 4.75% 5% 5.25% A. 5.8 M 740,000 560,000 475,000 B. 5 M 640,000 480,000 410,000 C. 4 M 510,000 385,000 330,000 Other * 3M 435,000 310,000 255,000 Other ** 2M 360,000 235,000 180,000 Hybrid of cash & finance Cash Finance A. 5.8 M 2M 3.8 M 1M 4.8 M B. 5 M 2M 3 M* 1M 4M C. 4 M 2M 2M ** 1M 3 M* Pay as you go using 2 M A. 5.8 M 8 years to build B. 5 M 6 years to build C. 4 M 4 years to build 2 M cash =1 M from CRF and lM from Catastrophic Loss to be paid back when Lot 4 sells. l M cash =1 M from CRF 2 S 0 000 000 000 000 000 Â§*o 000 0 0 in d O Lo 5dd GÂ· B - .4.13 295 2 S; R M " i.6 16 0 in in (.4 inin 8 iA a. 2 B2 5 -2 8 2 4.71 Multi-use barns - 2009/2010 - RP 000,000 60,000 sq. ft. barn/recreation facility ice rink plumbing 4.71 Transportation System / Mobility Lease or buy buses to continue summer transit Pocket Park Reconstruction - Annual Peacock Park, Riverside Park irrigation, tables, landscaping 4.14 Moraine Avenue Streetscape & Safety - 2009 EPURA participation / traffic signal @ crosswalk 4.14 Downtown Traffic Flow Realignment Force traffic down Rockwell, one-way on Moraine, grant potential 3.67 Bond Park P se Il - 2010/2011 Phase 11 structures design through construction 3.43 Fall River Road Trail Extension - 2009/2010 Paid out of open space funds, eventually connection to RMNP 40*el.U %OZ 'UO!1)asialu! aiesun 01 SlualuaAOidull uoipasialui sneH Inuoa 6Z'E SJeaA lejaAes 153!1 041 u! Vklnd) 01 Aauow pual u!IN 000'007$ VUnd3 Joi Buipund IL'E taieds uado Joi puel eupinboe u!. 1SaJawl aoeds uado Joi uo! lisinbov pue-1 -[L'I UOIS!.Aa.1 JOJ SUO!1135 JO apO0 33!JUG Mal/\33 Ma!AaJ apOD luawdolaAaa AaiieA salsEl LI'P Allenuue slualsAS 34} loadsu! 01 apoo aJIJ e jualuaidlul apOD aJ!3 LI'E 149!Ions u,104 ju!.ed pajoid / qi,-0 41.lou u~ PodieD jual.UUedaa a)!lod 6Z'Z slualuaAoidl.u! peoJ JOJ uoileuluapuo] aJnln:1 p!.oAe ol Aijado.id aj!nbov aA!Ja ap!5JaA!H uo uo!01!5!nbov puel 6Z'Z 4.33 Phase 1 - 2008/2009 Phase I design through construction 3.71 Multi-use barns hockey ice - 2011 - RP $1,000,000 Complete installation of ice rink 3.71 Fairgrounds arking lot and landscaping - 2014 Lot and storm drainage suieq alod AJelodulal asalll opay 000'000'IS dH - â€žAâ€ž pue â€žnâ€ž IIiâ€ž suieq aoeidabl LS'Z SJajOA UallION\ JO an9eal Aq palsaBBns 000'5L$ 600Z - Ja lua 0 BU!.PA,ak' 98.E 21.loddns lepueug Je41JnJ u! ;SaJall.I! Auv dkI - xalduloo suV Su!UIJOJ.led E gaA:eM aa, pue aoeds Auunwwoo 000'058$ dU - 600Z/BOOZ - uo!1nq!31UOO Ja/a) 00!leaJO@H OdhIA3 Â£8'I ueld dwoo JO 31!JAAaJ ajaidluoj 000'00IS ueld amsuall@Jdwoo alepdn k Project Description Grandstands/Office/Tickets/Concession - 2013/2014 - RP 00 Improve/expand 4 110!jeinsu! 'u!>Isaw 000'ooz$ dU - TIOZ - â€žAAâ€ž uieq aleAouabl 6Z'E isanbaJ JadolaAao 000'000'I$ ssed-Ag peokl lu13 98'I Estes Park Pote Capital Improvement Projects 4=A near term need exists in the next 2-3 years 3=A long term need exists in the next 3-5 years 2 = A future need exists in the next 6+ years SJ0410/Al!Unwl.UOD 041 U.104 sisanbakl RP = Revenue Producing Project 5 = An immediate need exists 1 = A need does not exist Quality of Life Issues 53!0!lod saaisnjl LUOJJ sisanbaw Community I Development Memo To: Honorable Mayor Pinkham and Board of Trustees From: Bob Joseph CC: Jacquie Halburnt Date: August 26,2008 Re: Wildlife Habitat and Open Space issues A joint study session with the Town Board, County Commissioners and the Planning Commission was held last January to discuss wildlife and open space / density issues in the Estes Valley. At that meeting the following options were discussed: Open Space Protection--a valley-wide inventory and ranking of existing open space could be produced to provide recommendations for open space protection and acquisition (an Open Space Plan). Although the town receives a portion of sales tax collected by Larimer County for open-space programs, the public's appetite for open space is greater than the available funding. A focused plan would be needed to protect high-priority, high-value, open-space lands. Wildlife Protection-a valley-wide inventory and ranking of existing wildlife habitat could be produced to provide recommendations for habitat protection and acquisition (a Wildlife Plan), which would be incorporated into the open-space acquisition plan. The Planning Commission and town planning staff feel strongly that there is a need to revisit and rewrite the wildlife section of the EVDC. A wildlife study would help inform the adoption of revised land-use regulations regarding development impact on wildlife. Density (In-Fill/Visual Character/Floor Area Ratio (FAR)/Bulk)-Over the past year, the Planning Commission has been faced with growing discontent expressed by neighboring property owners who have seen projects build out at allowable densities under the EVDC. Consideration should be given as to whether the development code is too permissive and whether the regulations should be reconsidered. Property rights must be kept in mind. Five possible options are A) reduce density allocations in EVDC; B) tighten FAR & bulk standards in EVDC; C) rezone environmentally sensitive lands; D) prohibit residential-only use in A-Accommodations district; and/or E) adopt design guidelines. Property Rights-Pursuit of any of the outlined options should be tempered by the recognition that individual property rights will be affected. Any viable new regulation of land use must strike a reasonable balance between individual property rights and wider community values. The Wildlife Habitat study referenced above has been completed and is ready for adoption into the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code (attached). This sets the stage for a revision to the section of the Development Code that addresses wildlife habitat and related impact studies. In short, the habitat mapping and ranking should be used to identify lands that have significant habitat and are therefore subject to Wildlife Conservation Plans under section 7.8 of the Development code. This will remove the role of the Division of Wildlife in 1 making a finding of significant negative impact. The completed study identifies Stream and River corridors as the highest value habitat in the valley. Therefore staff will be recommending a roll back of the 30ft. river setback standard on developed properties to 50ft. Other standards addressing the preservation of these riparian zones may also be considered. Staff is ready to take this code revision to Planning Commission in September with possible adoption by Town Board and County Commission in October or November. So we are seeking guidance from the Town Board on this matter at the study session this Tuesday. Staff also recommends engaging EDAW to'prepare the Open Space study also referenced above. A scope of services and study out line is ready for Town Board review and approval (attached). The basic purpose of the study is to identify which open spaces have the values and characteristics that qualify them for protection. One objective with this study is to make clear to the community that open space has a cost associated with it whether it is through purchase of land or easements. Therefore the community should be prepared to fund the acquisitions. Staff is ready to present the EDAW proposal to the Community Development Committee on September 49, Finally, staff is prepared to identify options for regulatory revisions to existing density and floor area standards if this is requested. We will be seeking some guidance on this question at the study session. â€¢ Page 2 l Proposed Scope of Services for Open Space Study (EDAW) Introduction Efforts to protect open space and develop trails in the Estes Valley are at an important point in their evolution. With ongoing growth and a diminishing amount of candidate areas for protection, the Town faces some important choices. For these and other reasons, it's an opportune time to review the direction of the Town's programs, reaffirm goals and objectives, and develop a program that meets existing and future needs of the residents of the Town. The scope of work defined in the next section is intended to assist in defining an overall vision and program for open space and trails, focusing on implementation and ensuring meaningful public involvement. Using this focus, we anticipate addressing a number of key issues. Some of these key issues include: â€¢ What types of projects have the highest priority? More specifically, what is the relative importance of projects focused on wildlife habitat protection as compared to lands that provide recreational opportunities? What geographic areas of the Town should be considered as priorities? â€¢ What types or categories of open space does the community desire? What is the appropriate level of emphasis on public access? â€¢ What are the trail needs of the community? What connections should be made to other areas and what type of trails are most needed? How do we plan trails that are compatible with the natural environments we are trying to protect? â€¢ What are the needs and level of public support for additional funding mechanisms? What is the long-term funding source for the program? Combined with an opportunity to implement new initiatives, the Town's open space and trails programs face a number of challenges. Rapidly escalating land costs is one of the primary challenges. The public outreach efforts will be used to address these issues and help define an overall vision and implementation strategies. The plan will also address opportunities for partnerships with land trusts and other organizations, as well as the level of contribution to open space protection that can reasonably be expected from land use regulations and other special programs. KEY ASPECTS OF OUR APPROACH A Clear Planning Process EDAW will approach the plan as a series of tasks that can be tracked on the project schedule, with products associated with each task. The plan is built sequentially, with a clear and defensible basis for decisions. â€¢ Page 3 Citizen-Driven Plan One of the best ways to make sure that a plan is successful is to get all the various interest groups together in the same room, including environmental and recreation advocates, trails users and citizens-at-large. We recommend that representatives from such interest groups participate in a series of workshops to provide input into the development of the plan and have open discussions. This process is successful because everyone gets to hear each other's point of view and develop an understanding of the community needs as a whole, rather than dwelling entirely on their own point of view. The group will help to develop a common vision statement and through the process, each individual will have both successes and concessions. Lastly, the appointed and elected officials must have confidence that the plan represents their constituents. Through the first two techniques mentioned above, plus public open houses and work sessions with various boards and commissions during development of the plan, we believe the recommendations will truly represent the broad community. GIS Applications Our firm is very comfortable using the latest technology in GIS to document conditions and opportunities, analyze population data and levels of service, and prepare master plan maps. We have full-time GIS staff who continually apply this technology to similar assignments and consider it a basic element of planning work. All products will be available digitally and compatible with the Town's system. Community Integration We understand the importance of integrating this plan with the annexation, master planning and subdivision approval processes of the Town and other ongoing activities. Preparing an Implementable Action Plan The grandest vision is just a vision if it is never realized. We pride ourselves on matching goals, projects and priorities to specific actions and implementation tools. This includes identifying elements such as new programs; staffing and budget needs; changes to development policies; funding sources and partnerships; and specific timetables for implementation. The following text describes, in detail, each task and deliverable that we propose for your project as well as the schedule. Task 1 - Project Start-Up It is essential to clearly establish, at the very outset of the planning effort, an understanding of what the plan will accomplish and identify the respective responsibilities between the staff and the consultant team. Upon notification to proceed, key members of the project team will coordinate with Town staff to refine the proposed scope of work, collect data, set key meeting dates and identify preliminary issue areas. A final scope of work and schedule will be prepared. â€¢ Page 4 Task 1 Products â€¢ Schedule â€¢ Final Scope of Work Task 2 - Team Communication and Public Involvement Process It is important to include a diverse array of individuals and interest groups in the planning process. Without this involvement, the plan may drift into controversy, be driven by special interests, and never achieve the support that is needed to make it effective for the entire community. We have crafted a flexible proposal. In this planning approach, the planning team will work directly with Town staff, while having the benefit of input from technical advisors, Town boards and commissions, and the public. 2.1 Staff / Technical Advisory Committee The planning process will be supported through working meetings with Parks, Open Space and Recreational Services Department staff. These meetings may include other Town departments and interested agencies at strategic points, including Larimer County and other state and federal agencies as appropriate. This group will ensure coordination between the various agencies, and will provide technical assistance to the data collection and analysis phases. It is anticipated that the consultant team will meet with this group on at least four occasions during the planning effort. 2.2 Meetings with Boards and Commissions We will provide information for Town staff to utilize in presentations to update the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission and Town Council throughout the process. 2.3 General Public Input and Open Houses We will help organize and facilitate a minimum of two public open houses/workshops that will feature visual information about the project, and provide multiple ways for people to offer their comments and suggestions. We envision a meeting format consisting ofa 2-hour event, which would be held in the early evening following a meeting earlier that day with staff. The first public meeting would be held during the initial vision development and inventory and needs assessment phase. The second would focus on the overall plan and the direction and actions that are proposed. The events should be well publicized, with individual notification made to known interested parties and organizations. Town staff and other Town representatives should be on hand to interact with participants. EDAW staff will help to facilitate the event and provide graphics and technical materials. 2.4 Town Board Meeting In addition to progress briefings, the plan will be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and Town Council for adoption. Each of these meetings would include a public hearing. Task 2 Products â€¢ Meeting Agendas and Handouts â€¢ Presentation Graphics â€¢ Meeting Minutes â€¢ Page 5 Task 3 - Inventory This task involves data collection and documenting the existing policy framework; protected areas, trails and public use facilities; and priority resource areas that merit consideration for additional protection efforts. This effort will build upon the recent habitat evaluation study. 3.1 Existing Plans, Reports and Studies A review of other plans and policies related to the provision of open space and trails will be performed in this task. The existing policy framework in these documents will be reviewed and summarized as they relate to the provision of open space, resource protection, trails and other relevant topics. It is anticipated that this information will be summarized and reviewed at a work session with staff, and will be the basis for the development of more specific goals and policies for this plan. We will ensure that this plan and the Town's Comprehensive Plan contain consistent language and a mutual vision. 3.2 Existing Parks, Open Lands and Trails The Town will provide available inventory and data on existing parks, open space and trails. Although the emphasis of this effort is open space, parks may contribute to meeting certain types of community open space needs. The EDAW team will visit selected parks, trails and open lands, and will prepare an assessment of their existing condition and potential contribution to the overall system. Improvements that could be made to the properties to improve their accessibility or environmental sustainability will be noted. Potential secondary trail connedions to key parcels will also be identified. A GIS database will be constructed using data provided by the Town, Larimer County and other agencies, which compiles information on open lands, trails and other properties that contribute to community open space needs. The inventory will be compiled into tables and summarized in text form. One of the aspects of this task is to determine the contribution that various types of properties play in meeting community needs. This analysis will form the basis for subsequent efforts directed at defining a classification system that defines the types of open space that should be included within the overall framework, and how each of these types requires differing guidelines for public access, resource protection and management, facility development and other considerations. 3.3 Other Jurisdictions, Non-Profit and Private Resources This phase of the inventory is concerned with resources provided by other jurisdictions that have an important bearing on determining the needs of Town residents, and may also influence the location of trail connections and future protection efforts. U.S. Forest Service, NPS, and Larimer County lands, in particular, play a role in meeting the open space needs of Town and area residents. The inventory will document these resources that identify gaps where additional protection efforts or enhancements are needed. 3.4 Potential Open Space and Trail Resources This task is concerned with an analysis of vacant, undeveloped and underutilized community resources, and identifying potential lands for open space and trail â€¢ Page 6 connections. Site visits will be made to promising areas, and a photographic record will be maintained. As previously mentioned, existing plans and data will be an important source of information. Much of this data has already been compiled as part of ongoing and previous planning efforts. If any missing data is identified during review of this information, it will be compiled and relevant information extracted for inclusion in the GIS database. A meeting with staff will be held at the end of this task to review the results of the information gathering process. An extensive database has already been developed for the Estes Park area as part of ongoing and recent planning projects. This data will be integrated with the Town's existing information. Other data sources that will be reviewed include the resource information maintained by organizations such as the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado Division of Wildlife and other agencies. Data that we consider important to the analysis include: â€¢ Existing land uses. â€¢ Planned land use, including zoning, subdivisions, current development activities. â€¢ Existing public lands. â€¢ Other protected lands, including lands that have a protected designation (such as covenants and easements). â€¢ Existing and proposed parks, open lands and trails. â€¢ Landforms, including areas of prominent topography (such as outcropping rock formations), are important visual and environmental elements of the landscape. â€¢ Important wildlife habitat, as defined by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and other available sources. â€¢ Wetlands. â€¢ Natural heritage sites, including ra re plant locations, intact communities and other sites included within the inventory. â€¢ Important viewsheds, including scenic areas, view corridors, highway corridors and other key elements of the landscape. â€¢ Historic sites, including historic trails and other cultural resource sites that contribute to the importance of a potential open lands area, and whose location can be disclosed without undue risk of resource damage or other problems. â€¢ Floodplains. A composite map showing opportunities will be developed using available digital information from the Town, county and other sources. We are familiar with the primary sources of natural resource and other data in the region and can easily incorporate the latest resource mapping into the database. The maps will be used during the course of the planning process to understand the availability of land resources for open space and trail connections. 3.5 Existing Development Requirements This task involves summarizing the existing regulatory environment in the Town and adjacent county lands. This is critical to understanding the framework within which new or modified policies, regulations and financing mechanisms can be developed. Among other items, the plan update contained recommendations for adopting a â€¢ Page 7 local wetlands protection ordinance and increased buffer distances from riparian corridors. Task 3 Products â€¢ Summary Memorandum of Inventory and Analysis, including tables, graphs and Arc GIS maps â€¢ Summary of Existing Development Requirements Task 4 - Needs Assessment A needs assessment for open lands and trails will be conducted to determine the level of demand from current and future residents. The needs assessment, in association with the inventory of existing conditions, will highlight potential areas of shortfall, which in turn will give direction to the master planning process. Identifying levels of satisfaction, perceptions, use patterns and priorities for open lands protection and trails through contact with the public will be an important part of this process. Recent community survey results will also be reviewed. The needs assessment will draw information from a variety of sources. 4.1 Community Comparisons and Trends This subtask involves reviewing what other communities are providing as well as documenting trends, both regionally, statewide and nationally. This database will document each community's standards, if any, and existing level of service for open space, trails and specific activities that occur on and are compatible with natural areas. 4.2 Demographic Data, Population Projections and Development Patterns Analysis This task is critical to understanding the future needs of the community. It involves documenting the characteristics of existing and future residents of the Town and the land use patterns that influence the demand for open lands and trail linkages. The Comprehensive Plan should serve as the basis for this, supplemented with recently developed or approved subdivision plans and population projections. We will work directly with the Planning Department to document the growth areas in the Town. Task 4 Products â€¢ Summary Memorandum of Needs Assessment with tables and graphs Task 5 - Vision, Goals and Policies Using existing Town policy documents, the Comprehensive Plan, regulatory framework and the needs assessment as a reference point, a vision statement, goals and policies will be formulated to guide the direction of the plan. These will be drafted and refined through the planning process. The policies may include statements about desired types of open space, priorities for preservation of the natural environment, funding mechanisms, partnerships and other topic areas. They will be revisited and further refined as needed throughout the process. Task 5 Products â€¢ Memorandum of Vision, Goals and Policies â€¢ Page 8 . Task 6 - Open Space Plan This task involves developing specific recommendations regarding the types, quantity and location of open space properties and trails. 6.1 Open Lands Classifications and Prioritization Methodology An initial classification system will be developed for open space. This task will start with the framework established in prior planning efforts, and will include consideration of natural areas, special resource areas, and other classifications of open space. This framework will be reviewed for its appropriateness with respect to current needs and practices. To the extent practical, guidelines for management of the different types of open lands will also be defined. This effort will not be a substitute for the development of property-specific management plans, but will facilitate their preparation and provide useful guidance. Issues such as the types of allowed uses, facility development and management emphasis will be addressed. EDAW will work with the Town to apply this classification to existing open space and potential protection areas identified as part of the open space planning process. A set of criteria for prioritizing open lands will also be developed and used to target key areas for protection. These may include the presence of natural resource values, contribution to meeting recreation needs, or other characteristics of value as determined by the public and members of boards and commissions. A more detailed set of criteria will be developed to assist Town decision-makers in prioritizing candidate projects for protection when they are actually considered for implementation. 6.2 Priority Open land Areas This is a synthesis task that identifies specific areas targeted for protection efforts. Information from the inventory will be combined with the criteria for prioritization developed in Task 6.1 to identify priority lands for protedion. The initial identification of priority areas can be done through a GIS weighting process, or through workshops where participants identify the key areas that should be protected. The recommended set of projects should not be based solely on the technical prioritization process or work sessions with staff and the public. Prioritized projects will also be based on community needs, implementation, funding and other community considerations. This task will focus on further refinement of the program and the projects necessary to complement existing open lands efforts. It is anticipated that potential priority areas will be identified generally, i.e., as target areas rather than specific parcels, but with enough detail to provide a framework for future efforts. In addition, the task will focus on a review of existing policies, including dedication and other development requirements, to determine the effectiveness of current Town policies in contributing to the protection of environmentally sensitive areas and other community conservation needs. This will also include a review of practices in other communities and recommendations for revisions to the Town's current pradices. â€¢ Page 9 , I Task 6 Products â€¢ Memorandum of Open Lands Classifications, Key Open Lands Areas Identification and Project Prioritization Criteria â€¢ Map of Targeted Open Lands Protection Areas â€¢ List of Potential Open Lands Protection Projects Task 7 - Trails Plan This task involves developing specific recommendations regarding the quantity and location of primary and secondary off-street trails through the community. 7.1 Trail Classifications An initial trails classification system will be developed based on type of use, level of use, and whether or not they will be provided by the public or as a requirement of private development. 7.2 Preliminary Trails Master Plan Preliminary Trails Master Plan. The plan will show general existing and proposed trail alignment, locations of bridges and crossings, connections to other trails or recreation features, and access points or trailheads. Text accompanying the trails master plan will be incorporated into a report format and will include general descriptions for each section of trail improvements. This text will describe the trail location, relationship to adjacent properties, level of improvements required to construct the trail, and relative level of trail construction priority. The report will include recommendations on trailhead facilities, rest stops, underpasses, bridges, signage, crossing signals and markings, grade, cross slope and design speeds. For standard trail sections, typical unit costs will be provided for design, engineering, geotechnical services, construction and maintenance. This information will be incorporated into the overall open space and trails master plan. Task 7 Product â€¢ One full-size Site Analysis Map Task 8 - Implementation Strategies and Action Plan This task involves identifying the necessary departmental structure, maintenance program and tools for acquiring, developing and managing open lands and trails. One of the key components will be identifying preferred funding methods. Another key component is a review of the current organizational strudure, and recommendations regarding the changes needed to implement the actions items and other recommendations contained in the plan. 8.1 Department Organization, Staffing and Budget Needs The future structure of the department will be defined through work sessions with staff and others. Specific work sessions on maintenance requirements, including staffing levels, will be conducted to define the maintenance implications associated â€¢ Page 10 . with implementing the master plan. Triggers for changing the departmental structure will be identified and staffing and facility needs generally defined. 8.2 Financing and Implementation Tools EDAW will compile information regarding current and potential financial practices and policies used by the Town. This discussion of the various funding sources and implementation tools may include: â€¢ Subdivision regulations and dedication requirements for trails and open space â€¢ Town General Fund â€¢ Additional funding to acquire and maintain open space, including sales or property taxes (including special districts), if applicable â€¢ Grants, especially those available through GOCO â€¢ Partnerships â€¢ Foundations â€¢ Conservation Funds â€¢ Donations â€¢ User Fees â€¢ Other 8.3 Action Plan The action plan will identify specific projects, policy changes and other actions that are necessary for implementing the plan. High priority projects will generally include those needed within the next 5 years, while lower priority projects may happen in years 6-10. Each action will include budgetary costs, identification of responsible parties and potential funding/implementation sources. The subtasks involved with the action plan include: â€¢ Work with Town staff to prepare capital cost estimates for each recommendation in the Master Plan. â€¢ Conduct a prioritization workshop with staff and others as appropriate, with the immediate focus on the next 5 years. â€¢ Identify responsibilities of the Parks, Open Space and Recreational Services Department and other Town departments, and the cooperative roles of various agencies involved in the implementation of the projects and other action items. Task 8 Products â€¢ Summary Implementation Strategies, Financing and Action Plan Memorandum Task 9 - Plan Production and Adoption The purpose of this task is to communicate the vision of the plan in a form that is easily understood. A draft master plan will be prepared that documents the process, shows how the recommendations were formulated, and displays the results in a concise format. This task will shape the results of the prior analytical process into a master plan for guiding the short- and long-term future of open space and trails in the Town of Estes Park. â€¢ Page 11 The preliminary administrative draft will be for staff review. Comments will be incorporated and a public draft master plan prepared. Comments will be incorporated into the final master plan report, as applicable. The format of the report and the depth of comment revisions will be mutually agreed upon by the Town and the consultant team prior to their inclusion in the final master plan document. Task 9 Products â€¢ Administrative Draft Master Plan â€¢ Draft Master Plan Report â€¢ Final Master Plan Report, plus Digital Files and Maps â€¢ Page 12 1. 1 . 11.1 1. ~ 4 4 - ilip= 2~k . 4 1, 1-W ki 1-4--i--I k ./ 01 . --2> 02*2 , i k "26-4 ke. :11!"11 'L lilli! 1111.1 1 i le . 6 1,11'rp~ 4 ...2,6,-1/1:Mid,2 . _~,3.lzedÂ· - 1-11 ., f 'f, r. 1 ga.Evir 1 1 1 1 .p/ . /4 .il 4 ..is rf,11,,,.1 1 ' 4 4#$*CE.eva - - T ..r :TIA < 11 r - -1 - 4.- â‚¬,4 0 % 1 e Estes I = .al,e , f t 6 y ablt V 'e 1 40. .r . .p . - 2?Â«Â». I - 'Assessment '01- p 9 '~4* 98 w - ,~ I - r 1 N , I r 1 1 -I .Il,10* 1 4 44 .Ja I -f August+2008 Litg *~ Ill, 04 lili f ':o ' /+I 4 4 I'~-r , 116 4 .149, 1. .2 - .10111': . 11 1 4 i' 1!1 ~-- 1 -41-Â¥- - 1 .i Â·C. . 0 -6 '. .,4, U. I i - 5 - Â· A , 4 114 k lit- ~ . 1-4 IN 14 6 0 - 4.-1 te k: '4Â·|i,~Ii" : I ::: a 1-9|4Â·,1' 11 1 -11 -~ 1 q" 2 1 1 k 1 . +9111.11 r' 1, i . I . 11 2 2 6.., p. 1 r 111 1 1 3 4 - 4 , -1- .lili 4 ' %1 . 2. I â‚¬1 1 1. . 1- ft + 11111't'111,1 . P %*â‚¬ 11*1 %* % - ' ./ .- ./ I . i Â· I 21Â·,1 lilli .4 - 0 1 -111 ./ i . TÂ· 4 'â€¢ 111 B 11 4 , & r ' '/ . 4% 1 4/ Â· 1 1 . + 1 16.' - 11 6/. V 444 1 - > :11. *<Ile ./,4 - 4 1 - Lilli 1, 11 +1 21 944 4 - 11. I . 1 -111,1 I. . ./. *7111611% 4 4 11 / 4 â‚¬f--10 -1 '4-Iii .. N f MI 1111* . r 1 4 .1, ./ 6 . 1 % 4,2 Alk .4 .. 04 1- R"*3% PU ..29.akt 1, t, g *t *ti y - t, . '' , 4.a 4, 1.Â»- leÂ¢ ' / 1- 1114- 11 Â¥1 +A I - A ..N@% 6 4 4!. 2% 7 -, k.1 4 .111 -11 1 . 111 I r --74 4 5 . . 1 40..r: r4 '4, . -... . .j, I . . *11 lili 1 1 : 4 . . 1 lili.. 11 11. . 3EtÂ· Ib . 4 - 2 4.. . 011 - .1. 1. 1 f//,w . 4 ./ I 0" â‚¬, -â€¢ ' <44"//4 1 2, 94 1 1 1.. 1 W - . 3 f .6 .....al r 'L./ I J & I. "A 5- 13.- 9. , 4 ~~. A i , .... 44.5 4. 2 ki'RE# 71..~- I . ...1.21 I ....../.r71 9 % Cd/MI' .1 0 - - 4,1.~1 W ~-~ ... -5-ar- -r/ , ...%,- 74:1 /Wel/// /6 7 2~~. 1, 0 64.L.. AL' -4 L -. I. - bor ~~â€ži>Wi~~~kL~ *~9444*-' '.3.4 D. 4 0 I 1 7 1 -7 Â· J I 46 A~Ne =qi)/b, 4 ' ..' "~<m<Mi,WEL 4 i r, I te Â·t I . Â·"722 (Uâ‚¬ k. 0 11//I// CTU.- a!4Ifidt Â» 24 - %$- * 21 4*1~9Â£/.41/. 0 /Cesi; ment ..b 21 ty,{ 4 9. t,6,thn 1 Ir 1. P-- . 14 A, 1 -1 4 11*t~ 61/)RAFT7///~// i 4 r ugust 51200& + 47 I & : .- M 1X-:.IM :* 0 141 --rl - 4 1.4 or :t t 1,2 . -$ i. 1 3 \ .V Ub ** '. , 2 , 13/ t . 7- 4 6 I .-1/ I .. .1 I -/ ;+ D 4.47 1 .t/ * /0/. ./ 04: 49, Â¥ - '. dll _ Ir--fl . 4/ ..41! 1 5-4 fa--11 1 1 - f. 4.: Â¥ . .1- 2 Â· C, i '.0 in'. --* J.Â¢ . - .6 r. 13;jÂ¥ a 3 1Â·f I - 41"35. I . 1-4 â‚¬:AP .2 . -1 9%.T'i,' ,Â·:414 3 4 2 - 5.,4,#441: Â·40. + 4.-'h' ..4 Y Aff . 1Â· - 4 4.- V /33/W I .il,x 4,444*:trti'' N~Â¥31& Â£. *Â· 2,86-'731 1 /2 % 5 9 t... I *' i : *76:t . 02.. .il; 4 r, ., 6 - e 4 A ' . 9.. , %9;Ar 4/- 1,44 '- a..Z:ge. 2 t.. ....1 ' * r Â¥0 . 1. : f * 0 ,â€¢,c Zip Â¥,-Iliall'liti .Sh a . --ral e ': 3*1 53 jairt 14'ty J. i 21Â·r . ./ - Â·Â¥7 - -- .4 NL-14*49 93:*; 21 1 , . 1 4 47- i.,3~ .4.7 4, 1 ' ' . w ly * 01 10.- 1 , f... 4 4 7 6 9 6 . 44 I .... - .5, . 4- 9 1 / :, 1* .:PL *:1 1 4Â» 'SAP . 4,0 4.45 4% 7 - 4 ..' 4 . Â¢ Preparedrfor'the Town 2*Oes.Park â‚¬ ,& ; 9 -62* 0 K Prepared by E DAW, Inc,j,K*Wr:Â¥.Al ~ Cover photo credits (I-r): A.J. Hand; Scott Roederer, A.J. Hand, A.J. Hand ..Â£'.* 1.3.'â€ž',*. Jable of Contents ~ Chapter 1.introduction......... 4 Overview of the Estes Valley 1 Study Objectives f Study Participants {* Process 4 Chapter 2. Planning Context i Background i Climate j Hydrology & Water Resourceq f Vegetation 1 Wildlife Sperier D Contribution of Elk to the Current Economic Conditions t Protected Areas and Ownership in the Valley ~ Chapter 3. Approach {~ Target Resourreq 1 Riparian Corridors ...... ] Rare Vegetation Communitieq 1 Table 1. Target Resources 1 Table 2. High Value Vegetation Communities ~ Rare/Sensitive Plant Species from CNHP 1 Areas Identified as Potential Conservation Areof 1 Wildlife ~ Table 3. CDOW Recommended Raptor Bufferq ~ Chapter 4. Priorities for an Ecological Network 4 Ecological Network ~ Table 4. Conditions that Can Increase Buffer Widths } List of Maps 1 Map 1. Land Ownership in Estes Valley 4 Map 2. Vegetation Communities (NPS) i~ Map 3. Composite Analysis Map ~ Map 4. Ecological Network Prioritier ~ Referenrec hapter 1. Introduction Overview of the Estes Valley 1 a The Estes Valley ranges in elevation from 7356 feet Â¥ ./ , to over 9757 feet within the town boundaries of ~ . 7 Estes Park. The center of the valley is punctuated 1-619 R Â«lrke %" ' I by 8891 foot Prospect Mountain, which is located g ' south of the downtown. The town is ringed by steep mountains and cliffs including Gianttrack Mountain and Rams Horn Mountain in the south- \1 It F west portion of the valley. It is traversed by five riv- 64 er drainages, the most significant of which are the Big Thompson, Fall River, and Fish Creek, and it is primarily surrounded on all sides by either Roosevelt National Forest or Rocky Mountain National Park. 1.42 1 The valley also contains two recreation-accessible y reservoirs fed by mountain tunnels: Lake Estes, and the smaller Mary's Lake south of Prospect Moun- tain. The Estes Valley Area, including public land ~ .rillairk ownership, is shown in Map 1. Typical vegetation found in the valley includes riparian corridors along Study Objectives rivers and streams, open meadows, gently sloping The study area, which focuses on the joint plan- ' shrub and wooded transitions, and steeply sloping, ning area boundary for Estes Park, is shown in Map heavily forested hillsides interspersed with bare rock 1. Estes Valley is admired for its abundant wildlife, ~ formations. natural vegetation, scenic vistas, and rich history: however, the steady growth here has lead to The year-round resident population in Estes Park habitat loss and increased human-wildlife confiicts. is approximately 8900 people. The increase in The Town's land use code refers to a Wildlife Habi- i growth from 2005 to 2006 was slightly greater than tat Map (dated December]996), which currently 'i 11%. The town has limited growth area for the serves as a basis for the review of planned devel- ; future due to its setting in a valley surrounded by opments and to assist in the preparation of appro- steep terrain and extensive public lands. Nonethe- priate mitigation strategies. This study and associ- 6 less, the community is a desirable place to live and ated mapping is intended to update the 1996 map i the demand for second homes, retirees seeking and enhance an understanding of wildlife resourc- to relocate, and other factors result in continuing es within the Estes Valley. Furthermore, the results demands for new residential development. Sum- may be used in the future to identify specific lands mer months bring an influx of tourism to the valley. within the Estes Valley that could be considered for i Estes Park is an ideally-situated mountain town for some form of protection, in cooperation with willing outdoor recreation in the area, and the town is es- landowners, and to evaluate planned develop- pecially popular in the summer months as a major ment activities. I gateway to the National Park. Accommodations I and services constitute an average of 23% of the Geographic information systems (GIS) were used ; town's employment, with construction work close as the primary method of analysis for this habitat , behind at 17%. Concessions are minimal within the assessment, which was supplemented by existing Park and the town provides tourists with the ameni- research studies and professional opinions. ties they are seeking. Estes Valley Habitat Assessment Study Participants ~ Several outside sources provided data and guid- ance for the project, including the Town of Estes Park, Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Estes Park Bird Club, and biologists with Rocky Mountain Na- ' tional Park. EDAW, Inc., an environmental planning firm in Fort Collins, was hired by the Town to com- plete the study. Process The Estes Valley Habitat Assessment was carried out over four months, between May and August t. 2008. Two meetings were held with the study + participants to discuss methodology and prelimi- Photo courtesy of A.J. Hand nary results. The Final Report was presented to the public of Estes Park on August 19"1,2008. A.6 4 A 4 '' - ? . * 4, , 0Â». ...l & , . 4 4. -I. r. :f 2 1 . ..6 3.J 1 . I h . . ## 4. 4 - e -- , ..2 4,7 ' .. 1 I /4 ' 39. . - I e - I August 2008 2 Chapter 2. Planning Context Background ,,051"-p The vegetation and wildlife species found in the a Estes Valley are inextricably tied to the its rugged L topography, climate, and natural processes. The ~, f .39% W f area's dramatic variance in elevation, which , ranges from 7,522 feet above sea level in the Town 1. $ .Â« K. Â£ of Estes Park to over 14,259 feet at the summit of <i. Long's Peak, contributes to its ability to support a ' 1 - variety of ecological systems and species. In light of rapid growth and development along the Front , Range, the Estes Valley has become a year-round * ~ ittogu~ifadlgl and|i mEknlefor 1[Jo'ncdhaobi- 4/ .11#m i tat conservation. A 4*â€¢_ U Climate functions of Lake Estes are to provide regulation > The Continental Divide runs north-south through and storage of irrigation and municipal water, and 1 Rocky Mountain National Park, creating two dis- to serve as an afterbay for hydroelectric power ' tinct climate patterns. The east side of the Divide generation. Current recreation use of the 160-acre i receives about half the amount of precipitation the reservoir and surrounding property includes golfing, west side of the Divide receives, resulting in a more hiking, fishing, boating, bird-watching, and pic- arid environment. In the Town of Estes Park, the nicking. These activities are supported by existing average temperature ranges from 27Â°F in January facilities, including a nine-hole golf course, picnic and 62Â°F in July, and average precipitation peaks tables, playground, marina, trails, restrooms, and ) in July at 2.2 inches. Snow can occur from Septem- fishing access. i ber through June, with heaviest average snowfall being in March with 8.6 inches (NOAA, National Vegetation Climatic Data Center). The vegetation found within and around the study area is best characterized through worked com- Hydrology & Water Resources pleted in 2005 by the National Park Service, U.S. , Four major river basins begin in Rocky Mountain Na- Geological Survey, and Bureau of Reclamation, tional Park, one of which is the Big Thompson River. and in cooperation with NatureServe and Colo- 4 Smaller rivers that flow into the Big Thompson River rado Natural Heritage Program 1. The extensive 1 include Fall River and Fish Creek, as well as smaller mapping effort was completed as part of the Â£ drainages such as Mill Creek, Glacier Creek, Bea- National Park Service's national inventory and ver Brook, Aspen Brook, Black Canyon Creek, and monitoring program to provide baseline informa- ~ Dry Gulch. These rivers are primarily charged by tion to park resource managers. While the project , snowmelt and many provide potential habitat for was specifically focused on the Park, research , i native species such as the federally endangered included a 1 -mile buffer of surrounding areas to ' i greenback cutthroat trout. the North, South, and West, and 4-miles to the East, which encompasses the study area for the Estes ~ Two major water bodies, Lake Estes and Mary's Valley Habitat Assessment. Vegetation classes are Lake, exist in the Estes Valley. Lake Estes was cre- based on the National Vegetation Classification ated in 1948 by the construction of the Olympus 1) U.S. Geological Survey and the National Park Service, 2005, Dam on the Big Thompson River. The primary Vegetation Mapping Program, Rocky Mountain National Park- Final Report. ~~~~2008~- Estes Valley Habitat Assessment 3 (Nve) standard, which was developed in the early 52 mammals, 11 fish, four amphibians, and one * 1990s by ecologists with the Nature Conservancy, reptile.' ~ state Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation 1 Data Centers, as well as partners in the academic, Amphibians and Rept#es * conservation and government sectors. NVC is 1~ now managed by NatureServe and is the adopted Amphibians and reptiles found within the study 1 standard of the Federal Geographic Data Com- area include the boreal toad (Bufo boreas, tiger ~ mittee for use by all federal agencies. Map 2 is an salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), western chorus ~* overall vegetation map for the Estes Valley and frog (Pseudacris triseriata), and wood frog (Rana ~ vicinity. sylvatica), and the western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans). ~ The study area falls within the montane zone, which , il generally occurs at less than 9,800 ft, and include Fish :~ mixed and single species forests and woodlands, ' ~: shrublands, some grasslands on hillsides and ridges, Native fish species found within the study area ~. and riparian areas in valleys and drainages. include: greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki stomias), western longnose sucker (C. catos- ; Ponderosa pine woodlands and shrublands are tomus griseus), and mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi). ,~ prevalent throughout the study area, and can in- Non-native species include brown trout (Salmo 4 clude understory species such as shrub (bitterbrush) trutta).eastern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). 3 and dry grasslands. South facing slopes within rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus gairdneri), and Yel- { , Rocky Mountain National Park are often cornprised lowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki 4 of shrubs and herbaceous species mixed with bouvieri). 3 Ponderosa pine and / or Juniper. The north facing Â£L slopes often are dominated by Ponderosa pine, Birds 11 Douglas-fir, Juniper, or a mixture of these. Lodge- The area is home to more than 300 bird species, of 3 pole pine and aspen can also be found within i which approximately 26 are year-round residents. * these communities. 3 2 I Mammals 4 Riparian areas and wetlands are also common ~ throughout the study area and are rich in biodi- Smaller mammals include the deer mouse, mon- 3 versity. Dominant species found along rivers in tane vole, least chipmunk, Uinta chipmunk, chicka- Â·; the Valley include Picea pungens (Colorado blue ree, Wyoming ground squirrel, golden-mantled ~ spruce) or a mixture of tall willows, aspen and ground squirrel, Abert's squirrel, northern pocket ~ alden Lakeside meadows and glacial valleys also gopher, Nuttall's cottontail, snowshoe hare, pika, ~ provide riparian habitat, and are comprised of wil- and yellow-bellied marmot. ~ lows and graminoid species. ~ Wildlife Species concolor), coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx Larger mammals include mountain lion (Felis t~ The Estes Valley is abundant with wildlife, much of rufus), and black bear (Ursus americanus). g which is highly sensitive, regionally important, or * serves an important purpose for the local commu- Ungu/ates 3 nity. Much work has been done in Rocky Mountain Elk and mule deer play greatly contribute to the j National Park to record and understand the wildlife area's ecology, as well as the Valley's character. 3 found there and in the surrounding area. Recently, Because this habitat assessment cannot duplicate ~ the National Park Service completed the Elk and the level of detail that is included in the EIS, ex- ~ Vegetation Management Plan, Final Environmen- cerpts from that document are used extensively in 1 tai Impact Statement (December 2007) for Rocky this sectionE D Mountain National Park. This EIS states that 'nearly .' 350 vertebrates are found in the Rocky Mountain 2) National Park Service. 2007. Elk and Vegetation Management National Park area, including 276 species of birds, Plan, Rocky Mountain National Park, Final Environmental Impact Statement. August 2008 -~ râ‚¬94 : .3"~ *=~~~ 4~~ 111.- ./ Estes Valley Habitat Assessment ~ In the last 40 years, the elk population in the Estes - J- --- A Valley and adjacent RMNP areas has more than 4 tripled. Although population levels have recently , ./.Al - - 1.4 9,4 ... h i 4 declined, between 1,700 and 2,200 elk are estimat- -(larl 1 -b :to-1 7 ed to currently winter in the Estes Valley, including t'~ f., , - â‚¬ adjacent park areas. Historically, elk did not winter ~ .. in the Town of Estes Park in notable numbers but the wintering population steadily increased begin- %*r 1 ning in the middle 1970s. RK The elk population in the Estes Valley area consists * : of three distinct groups, which includes the Mo- %4-3% , raine Park/Beaver Meadows, Horseshoe Park, and j f[,04 Town of Estes Park populations. . 1 .1 .4 2. 4, rf / ;4* ./ * f 4 7'll , Each population group generally remains distinct, but it is estimated that approximately 15% of the , . 41''L. total population regularly moves between groups. The elk population density in some areas of the coileus hemionus), bighorn sheep (Ovis canaden- Estes Valley and vicinity is very high, reaching 260 sis), and moose (Alces alces). Each of these spe- elk/square mile in core winter range areas, which cies is briefly discussed in the remainder of this is the highest population density known to oc- section. f cur within the Rocky Mountains for a free-ranging i , population. In the Town itself, elk density is estimat- Mule deer occur throughout the Estes Valley and 4 ed to average 74 per square mile, with very high adjacent areas, but their numbers are probably ; concentrations in areas with excellent forage, such limited by the availability of winter range. It is esti- as the golf courses, and lower in less favorable ar- mated that there are approximately 500-600 mule i eas. Virtually all of the Estes Valley area is used to deer in the Estes Valley during the winter, which < some extent by elk. In addition to the golf courses, represents a decline in numbers from a peak that i concentrations are higher in the area between Dry was reached around 1938. Mule deer populations I Gulch and Devil's Gulch Road, along US Highway have declined throughout much of their range 4 34, the Crocker Ranch area, and between Fish due to chronic wasting disease. Further, elk have ~ Creek and Colorado Highway 7. a competitive advantage over mule deer and are able to displace them from preferred feeding I It is estimated that the elk population spends ap- areas by virtue of their greater size. The increase proximately 7 months of the year on lower, winter in elk numbers may have contributed to a decline ~ range areas, three months on summer range and in the mule deer population, though several other f the remaining two months in transitional areas as factors are likely involved. f they move from one area to the other. Elk move- F ments are influenced by several factors, including Bighorn sheep, a species that is highly sensitive I weather conditions, and hunting pressure, often to human disturbance, has declined in the Estes I concentrating in areas closed to hunting during Valley since the late 1800s. It is estimated that the the main hunting season. Despite the strong migra- Mummy Range population on the east side of the 4 , tory patterns that normally characterize elk popu- national park totals about 80 animals. Bighorns pri- lations, it is estimated that as many as 550 elk stay marily utilize higher elevation areas within the park, 3 on winter range within the Town of Estes Park on a but an important winter range area extends into : ~ year-round basis. Most of this year-round popula- the planning areas along Fall River Road. ' tion uses the Meadowdale Ranch and 18-hole golf course. Although observations of moose were recorded in the 1800s, including a killing in Moraine Park in In addition to elk, three other ungulates occur in 1860, this species was not common in the Estes Rocky Mountain National Park: mule deer (Odo- Valley prior to their reintroduction in North Park in *M:iÂ¥- y-,//*/1/9/* August 2008 5 15-'.1.1.6 Estes Valley Habitat Assessment > the late 1970s. It is estimated that approximately 100 moose live in the national park, mostly on the .M:.Â·A, ze west side in the vicinity of the Kawuneeche Valley. , j.... Lis. /441''Pl - Â· u.-4/2 .'. 26 .1.... ~, However, they are occasionally observed east of p the Continental Divide in the Estes Valley vicinity. '. 7 ': P . 1 1 1, 1 1 -%1 mA : Contribution of Elk to the Current Economic . .1 1 -1.,1 11 11 Â»-1. 11.1.11 .,1 1. 1,16 1, Conditions h -. ~ -4*.77*I- * 1 2.11 1: 1*1- Wildlife in the Estes Valley is not only important eco- I ,., <i;-+ -11 1 - .4 :11 4.if~ ' I = = - X I Â¢ logically, but also important to the local commu- .Val..4 'Â· ':4.~~~'. 5~~ *I't~~Sb)29.-f.Â·2 - i -I#Â·.k::..-N -1 nity. Elk especially have helped identify the area ~1...144...(.44- Â¥J-~1 1..>.I~.~ 1, fit,-j. t.*ftÂ¢t~ : and draw intouristsand hunters. Most notably, elk =~% f.'1:--t,(,I,Â·.:~Â·:Â·14-Â·, , contribute to the draw that brings visitors to Rocky i.~ i Mountain National Park and the surrounding areas. Valley. Larimer County is the largest landowner 1 As reported in the elk management EIS, visitor sup besides the federal government, with over 1,400 veys indicate that the opportunity to view elk is a acres within 5 miles of Estes Park. The Twin Sisters ' powerful draw for visitors to the National Park with State Wildlife Area is 619 acres, which is owned : as many as 70% of visitors stating that elk viewing 4 was one of their primary reasons for visiting the park by the State Land Board and managed by the (Cordova, 2000). Colorado Division of Wildlife; the Town of Estes Park owns 480 acres; and nearly 200 additional acres are owned or managed by the Estes Valley Land Elk also affect the economy through landscaping Trust, the School District, or other non-governmen- damage and repair on private and public prop- erty, including agricultural lands; traffic congestion tai organizations. and accidents; property values; and quality of life for local residents. These economic effects are f~ therefore both positive and negative. 1 Protected Areas and Ownership in the Valley ~ The Estes Valley is nearly encompassed by protect- ed lands, contributing to its role as a year-round * habitat refuge for many species and as a contribu- * tor to the region's ecological health. Rocky Moun- 4@ tain National Park runs contiguous to this project 1 study area's boundary for approximately 25 miles. f~ The park is protected from development, with very ~ limited road access and existing tourism opera- 1 tions. Uses in the park are primarily recreational or 1 research-oriented. Much of the remaining bound- {3 at'y of the study area is contiguous to the Arapa- 1 hoe-Roosevelt National Forest (ARNF). Ownership ~ information was obtained from Colorado Owner- * ship Management and Protection dataset3. 1 In addition to the park and ARNF, there are many 3 other entities that contribute to the collection of 4 public lands or conservation lands in the Estes + 3) Wilcox, G., D. M. Theobald, J. Whisman. 2007. Colorado Ownership, Management, and Protection V6. http://www.nrel. colostate.edu/projects/comap/contact.html August 2008 6 :4*.#.&/.-ey:*AU. ... A .. .. The Estes Valley Habitat Assessment is aimed at ~0~~~ ha .7 identifying the resources that are most important to sustaining the wildlife resources of the Valley. As , J discussed in the previous chapters, the landscape , ".**3 surrounding the Valley and some portions of the ./ , 4 i Valley itself remain somewhat intact, however, the 1 2 area is facing steady growth pressures. To efficient- 244:* ' ly identify the areas of the Valley that contain the , 1+- .1 # highest wildlife resource values, a rapid assessment , AP , 1 approach was used that utilized existing public , .,1. I datasets, previous studies and reports, and expert . advise from scientists with the Colorado Division of w â€¢ Wildlife and the National Park Service. A r ' It should be noted that nearly all the data present- .* ' b ed in this report is from available published sources, much of which was prepared at a regional or ' Valley-wide scale. The use of this information is Rare Vegetation Communities therefore subject to site specific verification and potential refinement. The Natural Heritage Ranking System is a standard- ized element imperilment ranking system used by Target Resources Natural Heritage Programs throughout the country. ' While it would be ideal as part of a comprehensive Element imperilment ranks are assigned in terms of + study of the Estes Valley to inventory its entire ar- state (S) and global (G) status. Its relative degree of imperilment follows a 1 -5 scale, with 1 = "criti- ray of ecological resources, the intent of this study cally imperiled" and 5 - "demonstrably secure". 9 was to focus in quickly on key habitat areas. To > do this, we identified a list of target wildlife species, In 2004 the Colorado Natural Heritage Program ecological systems, and vegetation communities. assessed each element occurrence in Larimer ' Table 1 summarizes the target resources that were County, assigning each a global and state score. i included in this study. For the purpose of this habitat assessment, all ele- ments that were identified by CNHP as being Gl, Riparian Corridors G2, S 1 or S2 were noted. Then, since there isnot a These areas are widely recognized as one of the vegetation dataset that directly refiects those ele- most productive and important habitat types ments, they were correlated to the Rocky Moun- in Colorado. The distribution of riparian areas is tain National Park 2005 vegetation dataset (ROMO shown in Map 3. Each of the major drainages that Veg). Each vegetation community that had at run through the Estes Valley forms a riparian cop least one imperiled element associated with it was ridor, including the Big Thompson, Fall River and classified as 'high value'. The results of that exer- Fish Creek drainages. Numerous other secondary cise are summarized in Table 2. drainages also support riparian vegetation. In ad- dition to providing important habitat, those areas ' serve as movement corridors for many species. August 2008 7 Estes Valley Habitat Assessment / Table 1. Target Resources Target Resource Significance Many plant and animal species are dependent on these habitats. Ripar- Hydrologic Resources, including ian areas also serve as important wildlife movement corridors, connect- Riparian Corridors and Wetlands ing diverse habitat types and areas. Rare Plants and Vegetation Estes Valley has several rare plant species and vegetation communities; Communities their rarity makes them critical to protect. These are areas designated by CNHP for their biological significance. Potential Conservation Areas Each area in and near the Estes Valley is discussed later in this chapter. Some plant and animal species are listed as endangered or threatened Regulated (protected) Plant and on the federal or state endangered species list, and protected by the Animal Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or Colorado Division of Wildlife, respectively. Montane grasslands support several rare plant and animal species. Very Montane Grasslands few quality native grassland habitats remain in the Estes Valley. While rock formations are somewhat abundant in the Estes Valley vicin- Rock Formations ity, they provide habitat for many niche species. Estes Valley is an important component of a large landscape that sup- ports multiple wide-ranging animal species. Steep topography, busy Wildlife Movement Corridors roads and development limit the corridors that animals can migrate through to meet their habitat needs. Most raptors and raptor nests are protected under state, federal and Raptor Nests some international laws, due to their susceptibility to human disturbance. Â· Critical Migratory and Water bodies and riparian habitats are important to migratory birds as ; Resident Bird Habitat they travel through the area and for many resident bird species. Big Horn Sheep are one of the most endangered animal species in the Big Horn Sheep Winter Habitat Valley due to habitat loss and disease from domestic sheep. The Valley provides important winter habitat for water and forage. In winter, elk migrate from higher elevations into the Valley in search of forage and shelter. Winter is a critical period for elk and their available Elk Winter Habitat habitat area is sharply limited by deep mountain snows and the frigid temperatures that prevail in the mountains. As with elk, mule deer migrate from higher elevations into the Valley in search of forage and shelter. Winter is a critical period for deer and their Mule Deer Winter Habitat available habitat area is sharply limited by deep mountain snows and the frigid temperatures that prevail in the mountains. 1,~7 1,"m.*7 August 2008 . 14 ~'AK .1 Estes Valley Habitat Assessment Table 2. High Value Vegetation Communities # Vegetation RMNP Vegetation Map CNHP Imperiled Element Occurrences* Status * Community Unit Name 4 Riparian Herbaceous vegetation wetland-cross zone- wetland E/eocharis quinquefora Herbaceous Vegetation S2 02/G3, Shrub - riparian- cross zone < Salix (mon#cola, lucida, ligulifolia) Shrubland S2/S3 9600 ft Betula occidentalis / A/lesia Graminoids Shrub/and S'2 Popu/us angustifolia / Betula occidentalis Cottonwood 63, S2 Woodland G2, Sl/ Riparian Aspen Popu/us tremuloides / Acer glabrum Forest S2 . Shrub upland- Shrub upland- lower Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana - (Purshia tri- Sl/S2 lower montane montane- big sagebrush dentata) / Muh/enbergia montana Shrubland* Shrub upland- lower Purshia Mdentata / Muh/enbergia montana G2, S2 Di montane- bitterbrush Shrubland Shrub upland- lower Cercocarpus montanus / Muhlenbergia montana G2/G3, montane- undifferentiated Shrubland S2/S3 Juniper Juniperus scopulorum / Purshia tridentata Juniper Woodland G2, S2 woodland Ponderosa Pinus ponderosa / Cercocarpus montanus pine shrubland Ponderosa pine shrubland G2, S2 Woodland i , Subalpine . Subalpine mixed conifer Picea engelmannii / Trifolium dasyphyllum Forest G2, S2 2 mixed conifer g * Note that there is not a direct correlation between the RMNP map unit and CNHP elements in all cases. If 4~ one or more of the species identified by CNHP as imperiled occurred within a RMNP map unit, it was mapped 4% and included in this table. â€¢444*0/4*249% ;3..:493* ''Â·tz".I ta*0~ Â·â€¢Â·#340,I#7gl##L~*#M,1##Sigrv'Â· ,;4 -t *4.:'Â·,Â· Â»420 Â« Â« p Estes Valley Habitat Assessment Rare/Sensitive Plant Species from CNHP Se/kirk violet (Viola se/kirkilj f â€¢ General locational information is provided â€¢ Associated NPS Vegetation Community: below on rare plant species that may occur in Riparian Upper Montane Mixed conifer>8500 the Estes Valley vicinity. Specific locations are ft; Subalpine Mixed Conifer; Subalpine Limber 1 not available for any of these species and the Pine; Riparian Aspen; Upper Montane Aspen: identified associations are probable and only Blue Spruce f include the most likely association based on â€¢ Ranked G5?/Sl: globally secure (possibility of t known descriptions. inexact rank), locally critically imperiled â€¢ Likely included in riparian or wetland habitat: Â· Listed as a USFS Sensitive Species â€¢ Habitat: Cold mountain forests, moist woods i Tweedy's rush (Juncus tweedyi) and thickets. Elev. 8500-9100 ft. â€¢ Associated NPS Vegetation Community: Her- Lavender hyssop (Agastache foeniculum). aka baceous Wetland Cross Zone; Natural Lakes- b/ue giant hyssop: Ponds (margins); Reservoirs-Stock tanks (mar- gins); Streams-Rivers (margins); Shrub Riparian â€¢ Associated NPS Vegetation Community: Cross Zone. Herbaceous Upland Montane; Shrub Upland Â· Ranked G3Q/S 1: globally vulnerable (ques- Lower Montane; Upper Montane Aspen; tionable taxonomy), locally critically imperiled. Mixed Conifer with Aspen; Ponderosa Pine: Â· Habitat: Wet areas around mountain bogs Lodgepole Pine-Low Elevation; Montane and margins of rivers and lakes. Douglas Fir â€¢ Ranked G4G5/Sl: globally apparently secure, Vasey bulrush (Juncus vaseyi) locally critically imperiled â€¢ Habitat: Dry upland woods, open woods, prai- â€¢ Associated NPS Vegetation Community: Her- ries, and uplands in sandy, loamy soils with full baceous Wetland Cross Zone; Natural Lakes- to partial sun and dry to moderate moisture. Ponds (margins); Reservoirs-Stock tanks (mar- Can also be found along roadsides. r girls); Streams-Rivers (margins); Shrub Riparian Cross Zone; Riparian Lower Montane Mixed American yellow lady's slipper (Cypripedium cal- 4 Conifer<8500 ft; Riparian Aspen. ceolus ssp.parviftorum) â€¢ Ranked G5?/Sl: globally secure (possibility of inexact rank), locally critically imperiled. â€¢ Associated NPS Vegetation Community: â€¢ Habitat: Wet areas, seasonally saturated or Mixed Conifer with Aspen (Douglas-fir); Upper inundated sites, river edges, many wetland Montane Aspen; Mixed Douglas Fir; Mixed Co- habitat types. In Wyoming, found on moist, nifer with Aspen (Ponderosa Pine); Montane sandy soils, often at the edge of lodgepole Douglas Fin Riparian Aspen. pine or blue spruce woods, or in hummocky â€¢ Ranked G5/S2: globally secure, locally imper- wet meadows with rich organic soils. Elev. iled. 7300-8040 ft (in WY). Â· Listed as a USFS Sensitive Species and CNHP Sensitive. ~ Broad-/eaved twayb/ade (Listera conva//arioides) â€¢ Habitat: Aspen groves and ponderosa pine/ Douglas fir forests. Elev. 7400-8500 ft. ~ â€¢ Associated NPS Vegetation Community: Her- 70 baceous Wetland Cross Zone; Riparian Aspen; James' telesonix (Te/esonix jamesii) . Streams-Rivers (margins): Riparian Lower, and t~ Upper, Montane Mixed Conifer; Blue Spruce. â€¢ Associated NPS Vegetation Community: Pon- 1 â€¢ Ranked G5/32: globally secure, locally imper- derosa Pine Rockland; Unvegetated Surface; Rock (Foothill-Lower Subalpine); Sub-Alpine iled. ~ â€¢ Habitat: Spruce/aspen forests in very grassy, Limber Pine; Sub-Alpine Mixed Conifer herby wet areas including open running wa- â€¢ Ranked G2/S2: globally imperiled, locally ten Elev. 7000-11,000 ft. imperiled August 2008 y 10 1 Estes Valley Habitat Assessment t. â€¢ Habitat: Boulderfields, cliff faces, and rocky -- 3 outcrops in tundra and mixed coniferous forests. Elev. 6800-13,600 ft. -located on -1 McGregor Ranch or just east of it. * Areas Identified as Potential Conservation Q Areas f* The CNHP Report for Larimer County identifies three * potential conservation areas within and adjacent . 1 * to the Estes Valley. Each is discussed below, using j excerpts form the CNHP report. * It J I f 4* Eagle Cliff Mountain PCA: f* This PCA is a prominent granite mountain near the * entrance of Rocky Mountain National Park. Only a also contains hybrid individuals (P. rupincola x P. * small portion of the site extends into the Estes Val- g ley Planning area. effusa). The cinquefoil is endemic to Colorado and is found in Boulder, Larimer, and Clear Creek f Rank is 83: High Biodiversity Significance counties. 1. M , Rank is based on an excellent to good (AB- Â¥ ranked) occurrence of a globally vulnerable (G3/ ~ S 1 S2) pla nt community, Artemisia tridentata spp. Wildlife vaseyana/Leucopoa kingii, which is mountain big Rare/ Sensitive Animal Species from CNHP i . sagebrush with spike fescue, also known as west- Â¢ ern slope sagebrush shrublands. Other associated Borea/ Toad (1-151) Â¢ biodiversity elements within the PCA includes Pinus One occurrence adjacent to or on YMCA of the ponderosa/Leucopoa kingii woodland (G3/S3), Rockies property (probably on NPS land and out also known as foothills ponderosa pine savannas. of the study area). This species is associated with lakes, ponds or wetlands which are regulated Li/y Mountain PCA: areas. The Lily Mountain PCA is located on Roosevelt High Value Habitats National Forest near the southern edge of the plan- ning area. Rocky Mountain cinquefoil (Potentilla Each of the following High Value Habitats is shown ~ rupincola) occurs on the east and south side of the in Map 3. * site numbering 1,000 or more individuals. Rank is B2: ~ Very High Biodiversity Significance Bighom Sheep * The site contains an excellent (A-ranked) oc- This important habitat area is located along the Â¢ currence of a globally rare (G2/S2) plant, Rocky Fall River drainage, primarily on south facing slopes * Mountain cinquefoil (Potentilla rupincola). that serve as important winter habitat for this spe- cies. 14 Hermit Park PCA Elk Severe Winter Habitat * The Hermit Park site is located outside of the plan- As previously discussed, elk winter throughout the ~ ning area, but is directly adjacent to the eastern Estes Valley. Some of the key winter areas are 9 boundary. Some of this site's resource significance shown in Map 3, which include a large area along 4 may extend into the adjacent area, including the the north boundary of the study area that includes . f occurrence of Rocky Mountain cinquefoil (Poten- i. 9 . a series of south-facing slopes. Other defined win- ':Â¥ NIla rupincola). Rank is B2: Very High Biodiversity ter habitat areas include an area between High- * Significance Rank is based on a good (B-ranked) ways 34 and 66 as well as an area east of Highway occurrence of the globally imperiled (G2/S2) Rocky 7 near the southern edge of the study area. Mountain cinquefoil (Potentilla rupincola). The site August 2008 11 ~ Estes Valley Habitat Assessment 3 Elk Movement Corridors. A series of movement cop Migratory Bird Habitat ridors are depicted in Map 3. These are not intend- These areas provide important habitat for migra- ~ ed to suggest that these are the only areas where tory waterfowl, shorebirds and other species. The & elk movements occur, but they represent areas of primary occurrence of this type of habitat in the 1, concentrated use. Some of the most important of Estes Valley is Lake Estes and the adjacent riparian 4 the movement corridors are locations where elk areas extending along the Big Thompson and Fish ~ move from the national park into the Estes Valley, Creek drainages. ' - which primarily occur just south of Highway 34 and north of Highway 36. Several movement corridors Herbaceous Up/and Montane p Q within the Estes Valley are also shown on Map 3, These areas often overlap with elk winter range. i including an area connecting Lake Estes to the One of the most extensive area of this habitat type E winter range lying north of Highway 34 as well as a occurs in the northeast portion of the study area, corridor that extends into the national forest lands extending along the Dry Gulch Road. to the east. An additional movement corridor is I shown through a largely urban area where elk Rock Formations ~ move between the golf course and undeveloped Cliffs and rock outcrop areas provide nesting Â£ areas on Prospect Mountain. An additional area habitat for several species, including raptors such B ' ' is shown in the southern portion of the study area, as golden eagles and peregrine falcons. As shown Â© ? which connects winter range with undeveloped in Map 3, cliff areas on Prospect and Rams Horn ~ areas on Rams Horn Mountain. Mountains are known raptor nesting sites. Mute Deer Raptor Nests This habitat type overlaps with elk winter range at Map 3 provides the general locations of known > some locations, including the area south of US 34 raptor nest sites, which include a variety of species. 4 and north of Highway 66. Other locations include Recommended buffer distances for various raptors x an area on the east fiank of Prospect Mountain are shown in Table 3. It should be noted that not i and another area south and east of the golf all of these species are known to nest in the Estes : course. Valley. Table 3. CDOW Recommended Raptor Buffers Species Buffer Distance Critical Periods Osprey 0.25 Miles April 1 - Aug 31 Ferruginous Hawk 0.25 Miles Feb 1 - July 15 0.11 -0.33 Red-tailed Hawk Feb 15- July 15 Suburban - Remote 0.06 - 0.25 Miles Swainson's Hawk April 1 - July 15 Suburban - Remote Peregrine Falcon 0.5 Miles March 15- July 31 Goshawk 0.5 Miles March 1 - Sept 31 i,, ~, Bald Eagle 0.25 Miles Nov 15- July 31 ~ Golden Eagle 0.25 Miles Dec 15- July 15 11,1 + August 2008 12~ ~riorities for an Ecological VI~ Network e:Â§~:~.,~=6,2=~~MaU~4~~&;G2?22&,h&~*kg~M~=1=t=~2=m&2â€ž1,4=,=et,La.~~b-~52-~m~~S~6~41~i~BAS~~~~d~~~~~~%~L~!h.~'~2AiN~a~ea~ .- .*..47;'â€¢ ' This study defines a vision for an ecological network for Estes Valley that will make it more probable for native plants and animals and physical processes to be healthy and even improve over time. The ecological network proposes a series of habitat ' patches and linkages that collectively create a healthier ecosystem. Objectives for the proposed ecological network ' . * include: , Â· Conserve habitat parches (large areas) to A, 4 sustain a broad diversity of plants and animals . â€¢ Conserve and restore ecological linkages (corridors) to allow for wildlife movement, p ecological processes, genetic interchange and an interconnected ecosystem. This is â€¢ Aquatic habitat (springs, seeps, streams, riv- especially important along riparian/ stream ers, open water) buffered by 100 feet corridors. â€¢ Riparian Vegetation â€¢ Allow for movement of wildlife such as big â€¢ Wetlands horn sheep, elk, mule deer and other wide- â€¢ Big Horn Sheep Critical Winter Habitat ranging species through both natural and sub- . urban landscapes High Va/ue Habitat â€¢ Protect rare plant and animal species â€¢ Strive for a highly diverse ecosystem with no Habitats ranked as high value are those that extinction of species have rare or sensitive resources. The following â€¢ Protect raptor nests and important bird habi- list shows the resources that are ranked as high tat from encroachment and disturbance â€¢ Maintain ecological process for a high quality value. local environment (water filtering, air quality, â€¢ Rare Vegetation Communities air temperature, etc.) â€¢ Vegetation Communities with rare or endemic plant species including areas identified by Ecological Network Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) as potential conservation areas (PCA) In order to distinguish the relative value of the habi- â€¢ Severe winter range for elk 4 tats in Estes Valley, the different target resources â€¢ Severe winter range for mule deer have been grouped into a few categories. This â€¢ Migratory bird habitat (associated with ripar- ; ranking helps distinguish which habitats are most ian vegetation and open water) important and urgent to conserve. The resulting â€¢ Raptor nests and vicinity 5 network is shown in Map 4. â€¢ Stream corridors â€¢ Elk movement corridors Highest Value Habitat â€¢ Other important ecological linkages , The habitats that have been ranked as highest val- ue are the ones that are regulated by laws or poli- Other Valuable Habitat . cies, or are extremely important to specific species. There are many other extensive habitat areas in ~ Most of these resources are currently protected, the Valley that do not rank as high or highest value but may need more protection or better manage- habitats. These are typically forested or shrubland ment. The following list shows the resources that are areas with steep slopes. While these habitats are ranked as highest value. Estes Valley Habitat Assessment , not considered to be of high value they do play an generally on parcels ranging from 0-5 acres in 2 important role as large patches of habitat, shelter size. Rural land that may be 5 - 20 acres in size I and refuge for mobile wildlife, help filter air and generally has more habitat value but is still some- water, and other functions. The following list shows what diminished by the presence of the same the resources that are ranked as other valuable manmade infrastructure but at a low density. The value. quality of the rural land can vary dramatically de- â€¢ Rock outcroppings for raptor nests, wildlife pending on how natural vegetation is managed 9 shelter and some plant species and if it is adjacent to larger undeveloped parcels â€¢ Large patches of intact habitat (forest or of land. other) that have these values: o Serve as a refuge/ shelter for wildlife A review of the network shown in Map 4 suggests Â¤ Are important to the hydrologic systems of several conclusions: the valley Â¤ Are important to some wildlife species Â· Some of the key high value habitat areas . Protect soils on steep slopes from erosion within the Estes Valley are already under some form of protection. This includes an extensive area north of US 34 associated with I Disturbed Habitat the McGraw Ranch and an area of National Forest just west of Highway 7. While it is important to identify high value habitats, However, in addition to many smaller areas along f it is also important to identify habitat that has been riparian corridors and smaller parcels distributed lost, fragmented or has barriers such as highways throughout the project area, several larger areas ~ with high traffic volumes. Development in Estes Val- with higher habitat values remain that appear to , ley has concentrated around the downtown area, have no form of conservation easement or other i along riparian corridors and on relatively flat areas protection in place. These areas include the fol- I that were once montane grassland. Development lowing: close to riparian areas has a large impact on the Â· An area adjacent to Rocky Mountain Nation- Â£ ecology of the area because of the importance of al Park and south of US 34. This area provides f riparian areas as a source of food, water and shel- important winter range for both elk and mule ter for many wildlife species. The steep topography deer. p in the Valley also makes the relatively flat riparian , One of the largest areas extends along Devil's corridors the preferred migration route for many Gulch Road. This area contains a series of I wildlife species. smaller riparian corridors and also provides im- portant elk winter range. Juniper woodlands 0 While many urban and suburban areas in the val- occur in the northern portion of the area, a 6 ley still have some habitat value, it is lower quality plant community rated G2/32 by CNHP. . due to the presence of buildings, roads, parking, â€¢ East of the golf course and Fish Creek there's 1 fencing, lighting, noise. domestic animals, and an area that provides winter range for mule ; other negative infiuences. Many wildlife species deer. The area also provides opportunities for , including elk, deer, big horn sheep, raccoons, fox animals to move between the riparian corri- e and even bear have been able to adapt to using dor along Fish Creek and other habitats in the i these lower quality habitats. While they use these Estes Valley to the adjacent national forest. f habitats, it is usually for reasons that are not natural â€¢ In the southern portion of the study area, to them such as the availability of non-native food including portions of the upper Fish Creek sources (i.e. blue grass, garbage) and the fact that drainage east of Highway 7, lies an extensive , they have no choice but to move through these area with multiple habitat values, including i areas to get to the resources they need. elk winter range, riparian areas, and a raptor nest. Disturbed habitat has been classified into two r categories. Urban and suburban areas are parcels p of land (private or public) that are dominated by manmade structures and landscaping and are August 2008 i -1 14 - Estes Valley Habitat Assessment * Principles of Landscape Ecology which natural habitats within an ecosystem be- come separated from each other without connec- * The network shown in Map 4 defines a vision for an tion, have been changed or degraded to a point * ecological network. In approaching implemen- that areas of the habitat are no longer functional * tation of this vision, the principles of landscape or viable, or have become isolated from other * ecology provide a useful framework. These are habitat remnants. Fragmentation is a natural oc- 1 discussed below. currence over time which has been an important factor in evolutionary processes; however, human ~ Connectivity activity has sped up the process and has caused fragmentation to occur faster than species can * Structural connectivity, or the degree of physical adapt, often leading to loss. This accelerated * connectivity, describes the amount and arrange- process has occurred in the valley from multiple 2 ment of resources within an ecological system and types of actions including road and structure build- ~ how the arrangement increases or decreases im- ing, river and creek damming or diverting, land pedance to movement of species between habi- clearing, and chemical, noise, and light pollu- tats in that system. Within the Estes Valley eco- tion. Habitat fragmentation can often be partially system, several different habitat types exist which are used by multiple species. Habitats range from remediated through the creation and protection steep mountain areas to rolling valley bottoms and of multiple and ample habitat pathways that con- nect the remaining habitats together. riparian systems, and some species use many of these habitats and the resources in between them Corridors during their movements. For example, elk travel from one habitat type to another based on their Corridors are typically linear or sinuous columns biological requirements, and the degree of con- of native or remediated habitat that are wide nectivity for elk would refer to how well those mi- enough to allow passage of the organisms that gration routes are preserved in a natural state, the would use it. The width of corridors depends on number of different pathways connecting patches the species of concern and the biological forces ' of used habitat, and the ease of movement be- that act on the habitat within the corridor. In the tween patches. Within the valley, there are multi- Estes Valley, corridor widths to accommodate elk, ; pie habitat types and often many migration routes bighorn, bear, and other large animals should typi- ' between them, including river and riparian cop cally be wider than corridors established for smaller ridors, minimally-altered landscapes such as open animals due to the animals' sizes, but the type of spaces and agricultural areas, and aerial connec- habitat within the corridor, the surrounding land- tions. The level of use of each of these habitat scape, and the use of the habitat by species, and types varies by species, but when multiple resource the fragmented patches the corridors connect patches are used by one species, a connected also play a role in the critical widths of the corridors , way for that species to move between them must themselves. Corridors play an essential role by by maintained for the health of the species and connecting fragmented but important patches of the system. When important resources have more habitat within the ecosystem across and through than one connection to other resources, the de- the developed valley. gree of structural connectivity goes up because there are multiple pathways for species to choose Patch size , to move through. Increased connectivity within an {~ ecosystem benefits the species that inhabit it by Patch size refers to the amount of area or 9 reducing other types of biological limitations such resource available to species within a het- 4 as grazing pressure, predation, intraspecific con- erogeneous landscape or ecosystem. In ~ flict, exposure to disturbance, and a reduction of an unaltered system, patches in ecological 1 resource availability. literature refer to the distribution of a particular ~ Habitat fragmentation resource of interest to the species in question. For example, clumps of aspen spaced across Habitat fragmentation is a process of physical a rolling mountain meadow are the patches change to the land which describes the degree to of interest to an aspen tree obligate species, 98/4//*6778*lill""**li*"1'll 4 04 Estes Valley Habitat Assessment i~ and the size of those patches may be a de- * terminate factor in the continuation of the ' 6~ species. In altered systems, such as within the @ Estes Valley where overall landscape function L d ill=.... -0 1,1 1 - - 1 was the issue, patch size would usually refer 0 -â‚¬...,11.rL a {* to the remaining areas of unaltered lands, . 4 Â·s.2Â· ~ regardless of the resources they contain. Typi- -66- {* cally, increasing habitat fragmentation leads Â·L~ET -1. .t.. 7 * to smaller patch sizes and may reduce the I:~ available resources in a patch below a func- Â°* ~ tional level for almost all species. The main- . 4- 21' 4 4 tenance and protection of larger patch sizes - -:. 4,-4 f with multiple connections to additional patch- es through corridors would be the best situa- Photo courtesy of A.J. Hand tion for protection of species in a fragmented and pressured environment. Resource Buffers The Town of Estes Park currently provides for buffers along stream corridors. In most instances the land I use code defines a buffer zone that extends 50' ? from the high water mark, although exceptions are ~ made for lots created prior to the adoption of the ; ordinance and locations in the downtown district. 4 Certain resources may require an area greater than this distance to separate them from distur- bances such as development, landscaping, noise, i human activity, soil erosion, pollution, light and 4 other infiuences. These considerations include i considerations such as high resource quality, size, rarity or sensitivity. Some of these considerations i are noted in Table 4. i Table 4. Conditions that Can Increase Buffer Widths Conditions thal Can Increase Buffer Widths : High Wetland/ Wa- 100 Feet For areas with high water quality such as springs or seeps. From ter Quality extent as mapped. 2 Steep Slopes 100 Feet From centerline where adjacent slopes are over 15% 1 Other High Value 200 Feet Areas with sensitive or rare species. From extent of suitable habi- 2 Habitat tat for the species. ( Important Wildlife 300 Feet Riparian habitat that serves as an important corridor for wildlife 1 Movement movement. From extent of riparian habitat. f Important Ecologi- 100 Feet From stream/river centerline on both sides (200ft total) or extent cal Linkage as mapped August 2008 : . 16 ##*244:A=*.4*Ali:U*TAR 1 -â‚¬11:% .f - 4 -ai~ -~ .. -Il! 1 ~,~t > . .. ..3.1 4. 3 0 e--~ -~arbâ€¢. -- I :>1921-6'-- 07 -EF - d..mE - % .,541 372Â£~ Roosevelt a ~- Â·Â· ..4'F A. 4/24-- 0... 14 ./ National 1,1 r.:../7 Forest , 1 -1 I - 1Â¥T-U.' 2%#t:4?%0Â·Â¥j- af'~: . I .:m 1/........4 4'..1. Se 4 ... 4<.' --------- 4 Uki Â¥fli 191//9,Â·Â· - .F.* ..2 ' :30Â·'â€¢C-' , -e - ~'Â· 1- I .. 1, Â£ w .; Rocky Mountain National Park - ~ ' Il/ 4 Mac AR: zLC-Â· Â· W.N: 1 I---f-- . ..ilip - \ 4 I ' -=. Roosevelt ---- National \ . a Forest - <*ip 1--'n--A<122N--. $/2<. All'W- -d#.I,#i~7&4- .*f~ ,/*W N 1 5 . E--)-1- 1 ...4 1 #14 ta --==== I 34 h J I /4 1 .A-,S" fÂ«Â· i Pl ! 2 St *ar i I IF J ./ JAS=~" I 1 Downtown 34 2 0 1 Estes Parkr 1:;C j /& -Jud: . - . J *N-- ---F '14 L.%&Estes k , 1, , 1 11 r * - â‚¬20&=- - f 1Â· 4 r 3.- 9:%93 -Nie='+,p1.'.- 2 h. - 41+ te 64 - 1 \ U I W 18 Hole a.. 1 ~ Golf . L. 1 36 1 urse 1 1 43 /4. ~ - 1 . 114 0, I. L h 14*344 . 24*WFL , .0 1-----1 41 e, 1 1 - 1, Hermit Park L *r Roosevelt ~tgNational ---40 -40'k Â« 4 - %-. |* Forest A 2--16 L \ 1 1 L- 1 9/ 0 1 3 1 t : 2 , .1 - -- -* -de.\2 . I. /- i -i- ~ 1 Roosevelt ->la-=0- 11/1- 0. 0 2/ 6- 1 National ~U*Â· ~Liz ....# / 3Â» 1 Roosevelt ~p 1-1 1 Forest 402 L 1 1 National ,,p --irâ‚¬, M, f Rocky Mountain National Park ~- 1. 44 7 Forest Lfi i 11 -0 *trf 1.-2-1 -- . 99- h Â·tl - 1-1 - 9 =Fr Ill .0.Â·Â·t,Â·Â· .; Â·"- 'T.,i: -- 1661 O -2-Â·.. 4 ? 9-11 2 4 '4-1 4 af â‚¬0* AL - 4 % : Â¢ 1 4////"///6.M , U 9. 3 #2V3 Study Area 1 I Land Ownership in Estes Valley Larimer County Open Space YMCA of the Rockies ~Estes Valley Planning Area & Study Area Bureau of Reclamation ~ Bureau of Land Management Private Conservation Land CO Estes Park Town Limits Map 1 ~ Town of Estes Park I Rocky Mountain National Park Other Private Land Estes Valley Habitat Assessment School District O% Roosevelt National Forest I Other Public Land EDAW 0.0 0.5 1 Miles 7/30/08 WI Map 1. Land Ownership in Estes Valley 1 .- . , . --1 .il- R. -./.$ IM q Roosevelt Natiohal Forest -4 .. t ..2 4 L.. . /Â· r 1 4 I .0..- .- J A .// ,. , 38, 4 . itit f jÂ·. - 49< I { 0 I 4-4 44* -1. , h{ --a - 4.Â·I. â€¢Â·*L Ropky Mountain National Park nÂ·- i ''Gr ~ * = Â«~ J . 4-Â«..5 4 â€¢ > 1 -i r.ill ' 1 â‚¬ . -4 1.4..8 ... i, .'*/' MH ir Â·~ ~ / , til 1 4..1 I. .- j 1, '. . 3Â» Â· - 14 &7 7*ark- t. - EMP =# --- 1 ek j , 6 g -*" \ 34 P I :- + 4 I % ..Â£re r ----2 1 14< 4*4 ** %Q,1 r 6 / 4 , 1 ..0 bÂ¢ 6 . 00 2 . f ) ' I 3 Of ~ 4 1 1 344 L---- . ,- M 7 142* $ 1 + 14.*. Â· 4 / 5 I I - 1. ' I, f . - I " r-/ 1 46.- I. - ........ 1 -At 4%- . . , lili ...... , 1 . 1 . a- 1 ' .. 34 '4.. , Roosevet 4 * 4 1 /4 . National - Forest i.. 1 v..., Â·Â· 7.+ . Lake Estes 52%2 1 4 .... 4 - . +./4 , 1 *7*- . < 36j .. Â¥ 1 . : 2 1 1 i 36 .. 47 . r 1- . / I . . '1 . I % I . i : 44 . . A -#-- : h 4 . . â‚¬.4Â« ., I j A. I .S.1 1 / 1 2 I . : * 0 .r ..10 I -~:Â·r.- . 6 .7#r: 32 1 - 1 ... e /#"- \ 1 1 7..Vamm:) :-7 -- .. - ... 4 Q r#/4 I. 3,34= '.4, . ' ..' 0/ ., 66 - 2 .fat -I i= Roosevelt *. . 0 f.- . : 1.......13 1-i...2.:411.0 National 14 **C:e '14 - . < . 4.. 4 ' 4,1. . Forest JÂ· , ' 1 1.. 1 *1" ".La ~~f.ff-:/ /Il i' , *.d / ~~~'LÂ·~1.'..t~~v i~,r~T~Â·' ~ UlbN:0'.3,4 2/. 1 4.;- /+ 1 - -r t# .ly---7/F 1/ * f I I , .... 1 30 1 - 6- 0- . , -r . 1/ ~6 -llli/l. ~ /--4.-1 I . I I. . :/ t Â· 1. g rf-, Roosevelt , 7 A'0~ * :d ...{.44.:\A 4 . . Ir 0 / 1 1 i National / 1476 j. J f 1-9 %* -P' '...f ..Â· N~Â·' Forest -3% Â· 1 1 , + I. Rocky>Mountain Nationa[Park fl 1 -1 '1.4 '4. / 0:'Fri 7.4:' 4 . A %07: 42 9 - *. -1 --7.2 1 -1 1 1 7.. 11 6 1%.- .. 2 // r 74/1 ./' 1 4 0 - P ,\ LJ 1----7 . I I /1, 1 1 1 t.-- , 12 0 4 *0 .ti - 1 1 m. r-1 = . li ./5 . %* 94 Roosevelt \ * , ,+11!k r. --3 National 4 2 *N@k-1 , 1. Â·. Forest 1 4 %4.Â«ft :4 4 / a 30*: . lA 4 ~/ . ..11& Vegetation Communities (NPS) O Mixed Conifer with Aspen Developed Areas Aspen/Cottonwood Herbaceous Upland / Buildings Vegetation Communities Riparian/ Wetland ~ Shrub/ Juniper Study Area Talus/Rock .17'10 Disturbance-Dead and Down*l~/ Map 2 Open Water Non-Native Grass Conifer Land with Limited Habitat Estes Valley Habitat Assessment EDAW ..0 0.5 1 Miles Map 2. Vegetation Communities (NPS)* 7/30/08 OI i * Mapped data was obtained from available sources and is subject to site-specific verification and refinement. 0 000 x vu P. $<CQ,~7 7<i~/~~~~ J , 06.--Â· i:I'Ji :.4 6 / I ./~4/1/ .- . ' 1 I / M ; 1.,5,Â£, , f2 4- 1 - --Ill -- - - 924*. ...... I I .-I'll ... 'Fl i'Bi~.ip , - k - /2. ... lip* /* :j./W. -.-r-1 141 ./.1,9....t '-- ...Â¥ 414*12, /,i,22'. 1, P Â» ,Â£,rt:. ,1/ 9'.a 11 1 4.* . 9 I . . ../.0 1 1%..1 - . . Â£ - 99/. 11.*1 W -1 * I 1' 44 = /2 47 7 t St / - 44 f Â©11:.. 44Â£. , 1 i--- 1 -4 )8* MA c < . 41-; j.. ' 41 '42.- 4 411 .- ~/ 4 3 t Â·i"- . 0 -W,1/ r .Ck ' - + 371 7, g. L -- 1 ' C' $ 2 35 .4. I -- : *1 44 7 4 , P ..c 1,01 - . 4 -2 41 - .4 -3 4 Xzj itÂ·!..3,/, a , It, - 1 1 -4- 7- + . 0+ **ip FIL --1.. .-4-41 , ific _LL.*Ll-- 0 .1, . . 4- 1 Â¥ 31 1 *PA K - -3 Wi -/ .. /34 f# p: '4- 44/-* - 1,#f Ar T- j,tk I / 19. .r 7.- 1 b. . 4,4Â£,M,4ik~ ff- .i 2-1~1~1 1 .* ~, 491 et . 1 y 1 - . 3= XIi /r :-. - L_ *Ar â€¢ -2/mt/m 4 -41 r ir h. . 24,2 4/ .-â€ž - . f 1 34 \ .- â‚¬/1 ... *4*. 1 - 4: .9 1 * l 4 flts i f i i :1 - 1.Zb 1 . 1, .77- . 1 .- Ir: , . I Jt /36 -6 7 ' IV -$ 3//89/&'i f.x-~ P ..66, 6 5 - LEGEND Composite Analysis Map - Elk Movement 35 Bighorn Sheep Critical Habltat ~ Rock Formations /-~ Ponderosa Pine Shrubland Raptor Nests ~ Mule Deer Concentration Area Land wtth Limited Habttat ~ Juniper Woodand Map 3 Â£~ Migratory Bird Habitat yi~ Elk Severe Winter Habitat Shfub Uplarid Lower Montane 19*t Rgarian Vegetation Estes Valley Habitat Assessment Â£3 Potential Conservation Areas ~ Subalpine Mixed Conifer 0 0.5 1 Miles Map 3. Composite Analysis Map* 08/04/08 ~ I , * Mapped data was obtained from available sources and is subject to site-specific verification and refinement. .. . I It } 11 4 Ill' /,77-4-0944%44-fâ‚¬34 ;f t. 9 L Ill 14+f1- 11 1.1 1 111 4 l 1 1 1.11 til ' 4 : T /17- â€¢ 4 <7. 1 .:4 /.1 I - . 2 0 \ .f + , h 4, ./ 1, / 34% ./2 34 4: . 1 1 7 4- /4- PM 1 4Â«/4 I 5 4 / 2/ 1 11,1 40 - . -i,/14 / k ,#AJ , Pu/k,9~~. / i ~~ ~ - .~ -. ef ~ 11 k=~ 1,44 = ..r- rv , /- 4 1 /42 -1 f~'r. Â· -~~ ~~ Â· . %- . \ 342 i / / 4417 / i 19- #. A - 9 <*Â©, " W. 7- Lake Estes eâ€¢. Li 440". 5 . . .. . .... , F:.%-.:,493~;:.i:<2-0.16 -- ...... 9*fi -4> 9 4 x 14*f â‚¬/ 36 .--... ,/ . .-44 lo .45< * . 7 :# 9..r / / #. . .). f -.11 Â· t,~ ~Â©~~~~:1 fri-. .- \-Jr .Â». Y ."6.' _ . --*' IGA' ~\1 .. 1. I ./ 4--4* 4- 64Iffif~â‚¬,4~ 1Â« 0 /14;Â»mitt~..''J....(f-f-/94/ 4 aic - . -i,~8[:tÂ» tk 4 * .1 4 / L~Â· 3.--:16 -:i..~.E,\ Â·n, 1149Â»* ...,42)7~&\ . *1::~ ,. 62 :. Â·.?1: 4:il:Â·IÂ·<0~Â· 1'. 1.41*tl I Im Fui,/ ,;'Â·.--.U#*, * : 114;<1 r d / 1-- t--1 -ji1 i-- //l / // Lt 14.Â».*Â»Â·. .. 1 1 F-.1 1 1 1 Illy' lili ' ' 1111111\11 42,--16 141.-f + lj / / 1 1 1 1 + Â·t Â·i// .. A / ~Â»32..3 . / , 11 /. /,LL 1 . "977= . 2 AL r //1 99 1 ~ =3 + 1/934 497/ 1 111111111 Ecological Network Priorities ~ Highest Value Habitat ~ Important Elk/Deer Movement Corridors Builldings d~ High Value Habitat Raptor Nests/ Migratory Bird Habitat ~ Ur'ban,/ Suburban Land (0 - 5 acre parcels) Map 4 Other Valuable Habitat ~ Rock Formations Rural Land (5-20 acre parcels) Estes Valley Habitat Assessment //1 Existing Conservation Lands (public and private) C, Study Area ~ 0 0.5 1 Miles EDAW AKohl 8/21/08 ~ 1 . - 4 ./ ~eferences Armstrong, D. 1987. Rocky mountain Mammals: A handbook of Mammals of Rocky Mountain National Park and Vicinity. Colorado Associated University Press, in cooperation with Rocky Mountain Nature As- sociation. NOAA, National Climatic Data Center. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html National Park Service. 2007. Elk and Vegetation Management Plan, Rocky Mountain National Park, Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Geological Survey and the National Park Service. 2005. Vegetation Mapping Program, Rocky Moun- tain National Park - Final Report. Beidleman, Linda H., Biedleman, Richard G., & Willard, Beatrice E. 2000. Plants of Rocky Mountain Na- tional Park. Helena, MT: Falcon Publishing, Inc. Cordova, K.P. 2000b. Preliminary Results of Park Visitor Survey Regarding Elk Management in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado: Park Visitor's Attitudes and Preferences for Elk Management at Rocky Mountain National Park. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132:652-661. Stevens, D.R. 1980. The Deer and Elk of Rocky Mountain National Park: a 10-year Study. National Park Service Report ROMO-N-13. Wilcox, G., D.M. Theobold, J. Whisman. 2007. Colorado Ownership, Management, and Protection V6. http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/comap/contact.html %6*W - I. - I. August 2008 21