Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/12/2023 - Land Conservation And Stewardship Board - Agenda - Regular Meeting Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting/Hybrid in person/ Zoom 1745 Hoffman Mill Road/Main Office Conference Room April 12, 2023 April 12, 202 3 Participation for this Land Conservation & Stewardship Board meeting will be available online, by phone or in person. Public Participation (Online): Individuals who wish to address the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board via remote public participation can do so through Zoom, see below. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 5:30 pm, April 12, 2023. For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Board. In order to participate: Join Zoom Meeting https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/91700016759?pwd=eEhENDB4NWY3WFVkaTc3V0V0SjZlQT09 Meeting ID: 917 0001 6759 Passcode: 09T%FxYH One tap mobile +17209289299,,91700016759# US (Denver) +13462487799,,91700016759# US (Houston) Dial by your location +1 720 928 9299 US (Denver) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) Meeting ID: 917 0001 6759 Find your local number: https://fcgov.zoom.us/u/afVQUFc76 Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). You need to have access to the internet. Keep yourself on muted status. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting/Hybrid in person/ Zoom April 12, 2023 April 12 , 202 3 1. CALL TO ORDER: 5:30 PM 2. ROLL CALL & INTRODUCTIONS 3. AGENDA REVIEW 4. COMMUNITY MEMBER PARTICIPATION 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. ACTION ITEMS Natural Areas 2022 Reappropriations Barb Brock 15 min Draft 1041 Regulations LCSB 10 min Future of Hughes Stadium site LCSB 10 min Public Participation (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, call the Board Staff Liaison, Katie Donahue, at 970-416-8067. Please indicate that you want to participate in the Board public participation by phone and give your name and phone number. If you get a voicemail message, please leave the same information. Once you have given this information (in person or by message), a staff person will provide you with the phone number and code that will allow you access to the Zoom meeting. As listed above, the meeting will be available beginning at 5:30 pm . For public comments, the Chair will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time – phone participants will need to hit *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address the Committee. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. Documents to Share: If residents wish to share a document or presentation, the Staff Liaison needs to receive those materials via email by 24 hours before the meeting. Individuals uncomfortable or unable to access the Zoom platform or unable to participate by phone are encouraged to participate by emailing general public comments you may have to Katie Donahue, kdonahue@fcgov.com. The Staff Liaison will ensure the Board receives your comments. If you have specific comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email and send 24 hours prior to the meeting. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting/Hybrid in person/ Zoom April 12, 2023 April 12 , 202 3 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS Board retreat LCSB 10 min 8. BOARD UPDATES BAC Scott Mason 5 min 9. DEPARTMENT UPDATES Katie Donahue 10 min 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION * Land Conservation Quarterly update Tawnya Ernst 20 min 11. ADJOURNMENT *Executive Session will be held at the end of the meeting, for Board members only Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting | 1745 Hoffman Mill Road March 8, 2023 Members: Ross Cunniff, Chair Holger Kley, Member Scott Mason, Vice Chair Elena Lopez, Member Andrea Elson, Member Joe Piesman, Member Denise Culver, Member 3/8 /20 2 3 – MINUTES Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 5:31 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: Holger Kley, Ross Cunniff, Joe Piesman, Andrea Elson, Denise Culver, Scott Mason, Elena Lopez NAD Staff: Katie Donahue, Julia Feder, Rachel Steeves, Zoë Shark, Matt Parker 3. COMMUNITY MEMBERS: Ellis Carpenter, Ray Watts, Mike Weber 4. AGENDA REVIEW: No changes to the agenda. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Katie Donahue and Mary Boyts corrected minor typographic errors to the minutes. Member Elson made a motion to approve the February LCSB meeting minutes with changes. Member Kley seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. 6. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION: Ray Watts introduced himself noting his 8 years of service on the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board. He thanked the Board for their work and said he was present to speak about the City’s Draft 1041 Regulations. He has been examining the Colorado Revised Statutes covering 1041 powers and has written a 10-page summary, which he is happy to share with any interested board members. Ray Watts explained the two types of 1041 designations a municipality can take: area designation and activity designation. He is supportive of the memos the LCSB sent to Council, specifically that 1041 Regulations should be applied to the entire City. The current Draft 1041 Regulations cover two activities of interest: water systems and highway expansion, but no areas of interest. Because the Cache la Poudre National Heritage Area has been designated as a historical area by the United States Congress, it is wholly qualified to be an area of State interest, “Consideration is to be given to the protection of those areas essential for wildlife habitat development in areas containing historical or geological or natural resources shall be conducted in a manner which will minimize damage to those resources for future use”. Ray Watts stated the “area of state interest” designation and accompanying guidelines can be made by Council without adopting detailed regulations and would provide more comprehensive 1041 applicability to 18 natural areas, sections of the Poudre River Trail and portions of Lee Martinez Park. Ray Watts will send the summary to Chair Cunniff to distribute to the LCSB. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 3/8 /2023 MINUTES Page 2 Ellis Carpenter stated he is a resident of Fort Collins and has a personal interest in local land conservation. Mike Weber stated he is just observing the meeting. 7. ACTION ITEMS: 1041 Regulations Katie reported Council postponed the first reading of the third version of Draft 1041 Regulations until May 2, 2023. Postponement of the first reading will allow staff additional time to reengage with stakeholders and to further develop the draft. The first reading of the ordinance to extend the moratorium regarding 1041 passed on consent. A date for the second reading has not been posted. Discussion Chair Cunniff opened the discussion asking if members had a response to the statement regarding 1041 Regulations made by Ray Watts. Member Piesman stated his support of the proposed area designation. Several members stressed the importance of citing the state statute in communication with Council. Member Kley's understanding of the January version of the Draft 1041 Regulations was that it is very narrow in scope with no movement toward expansion of applicability, which was the recommendation of the LCSB. He stated LCSB is not able to provide specific input without seeing the latest draft. Chair Cunniff agreed and suggested they reiterate the previous recommendation with the addition of the area designation as described by Ray Watts. Member Culver voiced her understanding that the area designation would broaden the scope of 1041 Regulations to include the river. Chair Cunniff proposed the LCSB make a brief motion now to share with Council with the intent to follow up with a more detailed memo next month. Member Culver thanked Ray Watts for his research and hard work, and expressed her hope it will lead to a positive outcome for the Poudre River and its environs. Member Piesman reminded everyone 1041 Regulations can evolve; the City can amend and/or add areas and activities in the future. Chair Cunniff made a motion that the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommend that City Council designate the Cache la Poudre River National Heritage Area as an area of statewide interest, with respect to 1041 Regulations consistent with Colorado Revised Statutes 24-65.1. Member Elson seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously 7-0. Draft Oil and Gas Regulations Chair Cunniff stated there was no staff presentation and opened the topic for discussion. Chair Cunniff reported that Council may be considering expanding the regulations and asked if the LCSB wanted to amend their previous recommendation to Council to protect natural areas to the greatest extent possible. Chair Cunniff suggested the Board encourage Council to look at other municipalities that have adopted similar expansive oil and gas regulations. Member Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 3/8 /2023 MINUTES Page 3 Piesman said the LCSB has been very adamant in their recommendation to protect natural areas from oil and gas exploration. Several members expressed the importance of protecting the natural areas located outside of City limits. Member Kley asked if there is a summary or list of mineral rights on natural areas outside of the City. Julia Feder responded that mineral rights are a part of all acquisitions and staff have detailed documentation and an understanding of mineral rights. Julia Feder offered to share the section of the Energy by Design Report with the LCSB detailing the mineral rights at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. 8. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Urban Zone Update Rachel Steeves, Environmental Planner opened her presentation by acknowledging the other staff members of the project team, Kelly Smith, Sr. Environmental Planner and Jenny Roberts, Environmental Planner. She then provided LCSB with a brief review of Conservation and Stewardship Planning and zone management. Rachel Steeves shared the project timeline, including public engagement and the progress to date. The project team is gathering existing ecological data, talking with various NAD work teams about their goals, examining visitor use, and planning for extensive public engagement to guide the development of the draft plan. Several board members commented about wildlife and habitat in the Urban Zone properties. Member Piesman highlighted the bird mecca that is Tanglewood Natural Area and member Culver stated there is quite a diversity of birds at Goose Hollow. Rachel Steeves described the 13 Urban Zone properties noting many of the properties serve a stormwater function and are comanaged with the City Utilities Department. She also cited the partnership with the Parks Department because the paved Spring Creek trail passes through five of the Urban Zone properties. The myriad of “green spaces” within the urban zone that are not natural areas offer opportunities for partnerships and influence, prompting the outreach question #3 What do you enjoy or appreciate about the natural spaces throughout Fort Collins (i.e., detention ponds, HOA open space, xeric/native gardens, as well as natural areas)? Rachel Steeves then briefly described the planned outreach activities for gathering public feedback about the Urban Zone to be conducted March-June 2023. Discussion The LCSB was invited to submit responses to three questions to be used during the public engagement process. Member Culver suggested a change to question #2; survey participants may not know meaning of “community.” Chair Cunniff commented when visiting an Urban Zone property, it often does not feel urban, it feels like a sanctuary. Board members responded to the questions in writing, and via the Mentimeter website, and engaged in a brief discussion of the word cloud that was generated in real time. Member Piesman suggested engaging the community on a nice Saturday as they enter Tanglewood from the adjacent neighborhood. Julia Feder reminded the LCSB that their input here tonight and during last month’s presentation on the Poudre Zone will help staff in establishing priorities for conservation and people in the natural areas. Several members expressed their desire for a different name to describe the urban zone Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 3/8 /2023 MINUTES Page 4 properties. Chair Cunniff stated the urban label may mislead the public expectations of permitted uses. Member Lopez urged staff to include a definition of “urban zone” in the survey to eliminate potential confusion. Member Kley asked for clarification on the type of responses staff would collect from the public. Rachel Steeves explained all three questions will allow for long answers. Member Kley pointed out the first two questions ask for comments that can be positive or negative, while the third question is only asking for positive feedback; it’s always interesting to hear both sides. Chair Cunniff asked if there are other properties in the Urban Zone under consideration for acquisition. Julia Feder explained the Land Conservation team maintains an extensive priority list for acquisitions and conservation easements and evaluates the list on a rolling basis in conjunction with the zone updates. She stated the importance of recognizing there are very few vacant land opportunities left within the City limits. Member Lopez reported she is asked why Fort Collins tax dollars are spent outside the City. Julia Feder replied that the most recent natural area to open to the public was Puente Verde, soon to be followed by Kestrel Fields, and then the properties along Dry Creek. Member Lopez reiterated her passion for habitat connectivity. Julia Feder explained that engaging private landowners and encouraging public- private partnerships, including Nature in the City (NIC), can be part of the connectivity solution. Julia reminded the LCSB that NIC grants are funded by the Community Capital Improvement Project (CCIP). Chair Cunniff pointed out the properties in the urban zone are located where property values are the highest and conservation easements would provide protection from development pressures in perpetuity. Julia Feder explained most conservation easements are sought on properties of 20-30 or more acres. Land Conservation staff is examining how other agencies are approaching conservation easements. 9. BOARD UPDATES Board Retreat Chair Cunniff led the board in a brief discussion of their upcoming retreat stating it would be beneficial to go over the work plan and prioritize items and do some brainstorming. Both Chair Cunniff and member Piesman stated holding the retreat at Primrose or Buckhorn would be nice. Katie Donahue explained the Buckhorn facility does not currently support a hybrid meeting, although staff is working towards that. Chair Cunniff asked for input from board on location, topics other than current work plan, and meeting times. Member Culver supported holding the meeting in a location that would allow for walking, birding, etc. as part of brainstorming activities. The LCSB agreed to meeting on Friday afternoon in May. Bicycle Advisory Committee Member Mason provided an update on the combined meeting with Transportation Board on February 15th. The Transportation Demand Management Master Plan for Colorado State University (CSU) and the City’s Travel Demand Management plan were the focus of the meeting. CSU is conducting a comprehensive data analysis including parking demand, transit Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 3/8 /2023 MINUTES Page 5 ridership, bicycle counts, crash data, campus housing, land use, and modes of transportation. Melina Dempsey, Sr. Planner, Transportation presented the City’s Travel Demand Management goals and strategies to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips and trip length; shift towards clean transportation. Member Mason reported there are 695,000 daily trips in/to Fort Collins. He also shared several other statistics from the City’s transportation needs analysis and reported on how the City is addressing those needs. Member Mason offered to email the presentation materials to those interested. 10. DEPARTMENT UPDATES Katie Donahue Land Conservation There is a lot of great stuff happening in Land Conservation that will be covered during next month’s executive session. Tawnya Ernst and staff have been doing incredible work over the last couple of months. Poudre River Forum The annual forum was held last week, and a number of NAD staff attended. Among topics covered were housing affordability and water, agriculture and water, and how to make the Poudre River a healthy working river. Katie stated it was great opportunity to connect with partners both upstream and downstream of the City. Videos of the program are available on CSU’s website. Staffing Update There are several vacancies on the Public Engagement team. NAD is working to fill those positions and acknowledge this may impact summer programming. NAD is coordinating with volunteers and other staff groups to help support Zoë and her team. The Environmental Planner candidate interviews are scheduled for Friday, March 10. There was a great response to the job announcement. Julia reported 60 applications were submitted with five finalists to be interviewed in person. Citywide Equity Meeting The City’s Equity Office held a meeting with Native American community last weekend to build informal tribal consultation and well as establish formal processes. Natural Areas was a participant and is working to be engaged with the Native American/Indigenous community. Board and Commissions Recruitment Because the Council election cycle has moved to November it makes it difficult to recruit and fill Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 3/8 /2023 MINUTES Page 6 board positions in November and December. They Clerk’s Office plans to change the timing for next year but will allow a special recruitment this year to fill vacancies and accept applications April 1-28, 2023. Katie will contact persons who have expressed an interest. Hopefully, there will be two new board members this summer. She also shared Cole Kramer’s announcement of his resignation due to scheduling commitments of his new job. Staff is excited for him and his new position with the City of Loveland and look forward to working with him on regional conservation efforts. Council Update The City has a purchase and sale agreement with CSU for the former Hughes Stadium site. Next week’s Council work session includes future considerations of the former Hughes property. A second survey was conducted and additional conversations with stakeholder groups took place to further inform Council about the community’s expectations. A large number of people came to last night’s regular Council meeting to express their opinions on future use of the site. There were lots of different perspectives shared with Council, including a substantial number advocating for a mountain bike park. Katie explained the work session provides staff an opportunity to check in with Council and perhaps get some additional guidance. There will future opportunities for LCSB to weigh in on specific plans for the site. Rocky Mountain Raptor Program Natural Areas received the Freedom Flight Award for its conservation and stewardship for birds of prey. The award was presented during the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program 30th Gala event. 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Ross Cunniff, Chair Date 1745 Hoffman Mill Road PO Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 MEMORANDUM Date: April 12, 2023 To: Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Through: Katie Donahue, Natural Areas Director From: Barb Brock, Natural Areas Financial Analyst II Subject: Annual Appropriation of Prior Year Reserves Suggested LSCB Recommendation/Motion The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends that City Council approve the proposed 2023 appropriation of prior year Natural Area reserves. Executive Summary Funding for the Natural Areas Department (NAD) for purposes, other than capital projects, lapses each year if not spent. Unspent prior year funds and unanticipated revenues need to be appropriated into the following year’s budget before they can be used. The purpose of this item is to appropriate $12,102,550 in unspent funds and unanticipated revenues in the Natural Areas Fund to fund land conservation, restoration of wildlife habitat, trails and visitor amenities, special projects and other NAD needs to benefit the residents of Fort Collins. Of the total appropriation, $10,100,000 will be used for land conservation. With over $10,000,000 in land acquisitions under negotiation there is a reasonable likelihood that most of these funds will be spent in 2023. The funds for NAD come from the following designated sources of revenue, including: The City - Open Space Yes! ¼ Cent sales tax; the Larimer County - Help Preserve Open Space ¼ cent sales tax; and miscellaneous anticipated and unanticipated revenues. All these funds are restricted to the purposes of the NAD, including unanticipated revenues, which consist generally of income from sales tax revenues, sale of easements, leases, and grants. The prior year reserve funds being appropriated in this Ordinance are more specifically described: $ 8,788,361 Unspent 2022 Budgeted Funds – appropriated for same purpose. $ 3,314,189 Unanticipated Revenues & Unspent Funds – appropriated for new purposes. ======== $12,102,550 Total Appropriation from 20 22 Prior Year Reserves City of Fort Collins Anticipated Use of Funds Land Conservation - $10,100,000: $7,034,186 in unspent land conservation funds plus $3,065,814 in new funds for land conservation efforts per the Natural Areas Master Plan. Resource Management - $400,700: $55,700 to carryover the unspent donation from the West Vine Neighborhood for the restoration of Kestrel Fields, $100,000 for demolition of structures, when needed, for new acquisitions, $40,000 for additional fencing needs, $145,000 restoration seed, and $60,000 breeding bird data analysis. Planning and Special Projects - $816,850: $804,000 in carryover for future major restoration projects and $12,850 in undistributed Enhancement Grant funds from 2022. Trails and Visitor Amenities (TVA) - $660,000: in unspent TVA funds for Kestral Fields and Gateway improvements and other minor TVA projects. Rangers - $100,000: Communication equipment replacing seven Motorola pac set radios, and eight mobile mounted Motorola radios no longer supported for service and one DVRS repeater to allow radio communication to and from Gateway Natural Area for the first time. Department Management - $25,000: Additional furniture for reconfigured workspaces Financial Impacts The Appropriation Ordinance increases 2023 appropriations in the City’s Natural Areas Fund by $12,102,550. The requested total appropriation of $12,102,550 in the Natural Areas Fund represents 2022 appropriations that were unspent and unencumbered at year-end in addition to 2022 unanticipated revenues and new appropriations from the Natural Areas Fund Balance. These funds are restricted to the purposes of the Natural Areas Department. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed motion. LCSB Urban Zone Engagement Notes From the 3/8/2023 meeting Map exercise with sticky notes – board members answered “How was your experience visiting any of the Urban Natural Areas? “ Kestrel Fields • Really enjoyed the tour during public outreach! Puente Verde • Needs some signage to explain why it is a Natural Area Goose Hollow • Numerous homeless camps (per 1/2023) - • Great waterfowl! Redwing Marsh • Great birding & have seen leopard frogs! Coterie • Signage on how important prairie dogs are Tanglewood • Great-horned owls and other raptors frequently seen • Excellent birding, especially songbirds Fisher/Ross • Always a sanctuary away from street noise Red Fox Meadows • Almost always a redtail around • Enjoy seeing it start to recover from the huge construction project • Experienced the solar eclipse here – very fun! West side/Spring Creek sites (Red Fox, Fisher, Ross and Tanglewood) • All have enough size and trees to “get lost” in the good sense – temporarily lose track of the fact that you’re in the city Spring Creek Trail area • Love all the Natural Areas along Spring Creek Trail • I enjoy riding the Spring Creek trail, but I never stop to enjoy the Natural Areas Urban Zone General • Trails not closed during muddy events • The air feels different – smells, temperature, humidity • Negative experiences are all human-caused: off-leash dogs, aggressive bikers, people playing loud music • Wonderful trails for walking and running – great interconnection with ditches, parks, etc. • Would really like a different name for the Urban Zone – Canopy Zone? When you are in them, they don’t feel urban Photo by Val a r i e C o tten 4 2022 Grant projects increased habitat and access to nature by That is the size of three football fields! 4Support the installation of Fort Collins Rain Gardens in collaboration with the Colorado Stormwater Center 1,400 Contacts at outreach events 2,000 Plants given away at the Xeriscape Garden Party "The new landscaping changes the whole feel of the community area. We can't wait to see more flowers in the spring when they bloom again." - Evelyn C Implementation Grant Community Member 173,000 Square Feet! GRANTS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT fcgov.com/natureinthecity A connected open space network accessible to the entire community that provides a variety of experiences and functional habitat for people, plants and wildlife. VISION NATURE IN THE CITYANNUAL REPORT 2022 GOALS ACCESSCONNECTIVITYSTEWARDSHIP A huge thank you! to our amazing volunteers who: Volunteers contributed over 186hours keeping Sugar Beet Park Pollinator Garden beautiful.404and completed biodiversity surveys. Partnering with City of Fort Collins departments, native gardens and trees were distributed to the community: Wow that’s a lot of trees! VOLUNTEERS 2,038counted over birds, 1,233 butterflies, over Enhance community stewardship with fun volunteer opportunities. Support native Northern Colroado gardens and yards with a Design Guide. Support 9 communty led planning grant projects. Urban Natural Areas Plan update- community feedback opportunities comming soon Work with you to bring even more nature to the city. Plans for 2023 51 Xeriscape Incentive Program projects received support for planting native gardens. Garden in a Box 90 Photo by Ka r e n S e llins 1,000 trees fcgov.com/natureinthecity NATURE IN THE CITY Project locations Laramie Foothills Partnership Larimer County and Fort Collins continued to build on their successful partnership to conserve an additional 428 acres of wildlife habitat in the Laramie Foothills wildlife corridor near Red Mountain Open Space and Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. Since 2020 more than 3,000 acres encompassing four acquisitions were conserved by this partnership. The County acquired a conservation easement on the 428-acre QCLH ranch with financial support from the City and Great Outdoors Colorado. Asociación Laramie Foothills El condado de Larimer y Fort Collins continuaron con la consolidación de la fructífera asociación para preservar otros 428 acres de hábitat de vida salvaje en el corredor de vida salvaje de Laramie Foothills, cerca del espacio abierto Red Mountain y el área natural Soapstone Prairie. Desde el 2020, esta asociación ha preservado más de 3,000 acres en cuatro adquisiciones. El condado adquirió una servidumbre de conservación en la hacienda QCLH, la cual cuenta con 428 acres, con el apoyo financiero de la ciudad y la asociación Great Outdoors Colorado. Natural Areas Annual Report 2022Informe anual sobre las áreas naturales 2022 HIGHLIGHTS LO MÁS DESTACADO DE 2022 30th Anniversary Celebration On November 30, 2022, Natural Areas celebrated 30 years since the first ballot measure was passed establishing a quarter-cent sales tax supporting the conservation of natural areas. Over 300 people attended the event to celebrate this incredible milestone. The celebration began with Jan Iron and members of the Native and Indigenous community sharing a land acknowledgment and song. A video created by FCTV shows how four members of the community connect to Natural Areas from conservation to volunteering to health. Thanks to all who joined the celebration and continue to support the conservation of local natural areas. The 30th Anniversary of Natural Areas celebration continues through October 2023 including events where Mountains to Plains Dark Lager by Horse and Dragon Brewing Company is available. More activities will be announced in June in the Natural Areas Explorer publication, Natural Areas Enews, and on fcgov.com/register. Celebración del 30º aniversario El 30 de noviembre de 2022, el Departamento de Áreas Naturales celebró 30 años desde que se aprobó la primera medida electoral para apoyar la preservación de las áreas naturales, la cual establecía un impuesto de un cuarto de céntimo sobre las ventas. Para celebrar este hito increíble, asistieron al acto más de 300 personas. La celebración comenzó con la participación de Jan Iron y los miembros de la comunidad nativa e indígena, quienes compartieron un agradecimiento y una canción para la tierra. A través de un video creado por la Televisión de Fort Collins (FCTV), se muestra cómo cuatro miembros de la comunidad unen la preservación de las áreas naturales al voluntariado y a la salud. Gracias a todos los que asistieron a la celebración y continúan apoyando la preservación de las áreas naturales locales. La Celebración del 30º aniversario de las áreas naturales continuará hasta octubre de 2023 e incluirá eventos en los que se podrá adquirir la cerveza Mountains to Plains Dark Lager de la cervecería Horse and Dragon Brewing Company. En junio, se anunciarán más actividades en la publicación Natural Areas Explorer, en Natural Areas Enews y en fcgov.com/register. The Inaugural Natural Areas Conservation Award The first-ever Natural Areas Conservation Award winner is Councilmember Kelly Ohlson. The award recognizes truly exemplary and outstanding efforts in local land conservation. Going forward, the recognition will bear the name of Fort Collins City Councilmember, Kelly Ohlson, a hero of conservation. Ohlson was a key leader of the eight citizen ballot measures that make natural areas conservation possible. He served on the Natural Resources Advisory and Land Conservation and Stewardship boards for 16 years. Future Kelly Ohlson Natural Areas Conservation award recipients will be honored for truly extraordinary achievements with a positive impact on the natural world and future generations. El Premio inaugural a la preservación de las áreas naturales El primer galardonado con el Premio a la preservación de las áreas naturales es el concejal Kelly Ohlson. El premio reconoce aquellos esfuerzos por la preservación del territorio local que son verdaderamente ejemplares y sobresalientes. A partir de ahora, el reconocimiento llevará el nombre del concejal municipal de Fort Collins, Kelly Ohlson, un héroe de la preservación. Ohlson fue uno de los principales promotores de las ocho medidas ciudadanas que hacen posible la preservación de las áreas naturales. Durante 16 años, Ohlson formó parte de las juntas de Asesoramiento sobre recursos naturales y de las de Preservación y administración de las tierras. El premio Kelly Ohlson a la preservación de áreas naturales servirá para honrar los logros realmente extraordinarios de los futuros ganadores, lo que causará un impacto positivo en el mundo natural y en las futuras generaciones. Printed on recycled paper with soy-based ink. Impreso en papel reciclado con tinta a base de soja. 22-24792 | Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities. Se ofrecen servicios y apoyos auxiliares a las personas con discapacidades. Buckhorn Addition Expands Bobcat Ridge This 675-acre acquisition adjacent to Bobcat Ridge Natural Areas, has been a top conservation priority for nearly two decades and boasts significant resource values including high quality habitat and scenic views. The Natural Areas Department, in partnership with Larimer County Department of Natural Resources, had conserved 261 acres by early 2023. The Buckhorn Addition is within the City’s Foothills/Buckhorn/Redstone Priority Conservation Area as designated in the 2014 Master Plan. This acquisition protects an important wildlife corridor in the area and is vital habitat for elk, mule deer, moose, black bear and turkey. In exchange for their financial contribution, the County will hold a conservation easement on the completed 675-acre acquisition as well as the entirety of Bobcat Ridge, ensuring that the conservation values found on these Natural Areas will be protected in perpetuity. Bobcat Ridge se amplía con la incorporación de Buckhorn Esta adquisición de 675 acres adyacentes a las áreas naturales de Bobcat Ridge ha sido una de las principales prioridades de preservación durante casi dos décadas y cuenta con valores de recursos importantes que incluyen hábitats de alta calidad y vistas panorámicas. El Departamento de Áreas Naturales, en colaboración con el Departamento de Recursos Naturales del condado de Larimer, había preservado 261 acres a principios de 2023. Tal y como se designó en el plan maestro de 2014, la incorporación de Buckhorn se encuentra dentro del área de preservación prioritaria de Foothills, Buckhorn y Redstone de la ciudad. Esta adquisición protege un corredor importante de fauna salvaje de la zona y constituye un hábitat vital para ciervos canadienses, ciervos mulos, alces, osos negros y pavos. A cambio de la contribución financiera, el condado mantendrá una servidumbre de conservación sobre la adquisición completa de los 675 acres, así como sobre la totalidad de Bobcat Ridge. Esto garantizará que los valores de preservación que se encuentran en estas áreas naturales se protejan de manera indefinida. CITY COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER CONCEJO MUNICIPAL/ADMINISTRADOR MUNICIPAL Jeni Arndt, Mayor / alcalde Susan Gutowsky, District 1 / distrito 1 Julie Pignataro, District 2 / distrito 2 Tricia Canonico, District 3 / distrito 3 Shirley Peel, District 4 / distrito 4 Kelly Ohlson, District 5 / distrito 5 Emily Francis, Mayor Pro Tem, District 6 / alcaldesa provisional, distrito 6 Kelly DiMartino, City Manager / administradora municipal COMMUNITY SERVICES Natural Areas Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 fcgov.com/naturalareas 970.416.2815 Laramie Foothills Partnership Larimer County and Fort Collins continued to build on their successful partnership to conserve an additional 428 acres of wildlife habitat in the Laramie Foothills wildlife corridor near Red Mountain Open Space and Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. Since 2020 more than 3,000 acres encompassing four acquisitions were conserved by this partnership. The County acquired a conservation easement on the 428-acre QCLH ranch with financial support from the City and Great Outdoors Colorado. Asociación Laramie Foothills El condado de Larimer y Fort Collins continuaron con la consolidación de la fructífera asociación para preservar otros 428 acres de hábitat de vida salvaje en el corredor de vida salvaje de Laramie Foothills, cerca del espacio abierto Red Mountain y el área natural Soapstone Prairie. Desde el 2020, esta asociación ha preservado más de 3,000 acres en cuatro adquisiciones. El condado adquirió una servidumbre de conservación en la hacienda QCLH, la cual cuenta con 428 acres, con el apoyo financiero de la ciudad y la asociación Great Outdoors Colorado. Natural Areas Annual Report 2022Informe anual sobre las áreas naturales 2022 HIGHLIGHTS LO MÁS DESTACADO DE 2022 30th Anniversary Celebration On November 30, 2022, Natural Areas celebrated 30 years since the first ballot measure was passed establishing a quarter-cent sales tax supporting the conservation of natural areas. Over 300 people attended the event to celebrate this incredible milestone. The celebration began with Jan Iron and members of the Native and Indigenous community sharing a land acknowledgment and song. A video created by FCTV shows how four members of the community connect to Natural Areas from conservation to volunteering to health. Thanks to all who joined the celebration and continue to support the conservation of local natural areas. The 30th Anniversary of Natural Areas celebration continues through October 2023 including events where Mountains to Plains Dark Lager by Horse and Dragon Brewing Company is available. More activities will be announced in June in the Natural Areas Explorer publication, Natural Areas Enews, and on fcgov.com/register. Celebración del 30º aniversario El 30 de noviembre de 2022, el Departamento de Áreas Naturales celebró 30 años desde que se aprobó la primera medida electoral para apoyar la preservación de las áreas naturales, la cual establecía un impuesto de un cuarto de céntimo sobre las ventas. Para celebrar este hito increíble, asistieron al acto más de 300 personas. La celebración comenzó con la participación de Jan Iron y los miembros de la comunidad nativa e indígena, quienes compartieron un agradecimiento y una canción para la tierra. A través de un video creado por la Televisión de Fort Collins (FCTV), se muestra cómo cuatro miembros de la comunidad unen la preservación de las áreas naturales al voluntariado y a la salud. Gracias a todos los que asistieron a la celebración y continúan apoyando la preservación de las áreas naturales locales. La Celebración del 30º aniversario de las áreas naturales continuará hasta octubre de 2023 e incluirá eventos en los que se podrá adquirir la cerveza Mountains to Plains Dark Lager de la cervecería Horse and Dragon Brewing Company. En junio, se anunciarán más actividades en la publicación Natural Areas Explorer, en Natural Areas Enews y en fcgov.com/register. The Inaugural Natural Areas Conservation Award The first-ever Natural Areas Conservation Award winner is Councilmember Kelly Ohlson. The award recognizes truly exemplary and outstanding efforts in local land conservation. Going forward, the recognition will bear the name of Fort Collins City Councilmember, Kelly Ohlson, a hero of conservation. Ohlson was a key leader of the eight citizen ballot measures that make natural areas conservation possible. He served on the Natural Resources Advisory and Land Conservation and Stewardship boards for 16 years. Future Kelly Ohlson Natural Areas Conservation award recipients will be honored for truly extraordinary achievements with a positive impact on the natural world and future generations. El Premio inaugural a la preservación de las áreas naturales El primer galardonado con el Premio a la preservación de las áreas naturales es el concejal Kelly Ohlson. El premio reconoce aquellos esfuerzos por la preservación del territorio local que son verdaderamente ejemplares y sobresalientes. A partir de ahora, el reconocimiento llevará el nombre del concejal municipal de Fort Collins, Kelly Ohlson, un héroe de la preservación. Ohlson fue uno de los principales promotores de las ocho medidas ciudadanas que hacen posible la preservación de las áreas naturales. Durante 16 años, Ohlson formó parte de las juntas de Asesoramiento sobre recursos naturales y de las de Preservación y administración de las tierras. El premio Kelly Ohlson a la preservación de áreas naturales servirá para honrar los logros realmente extraordinarios de los futuros ganadores, lo que causará un impacto positivo en el mundo natural y en las futuras generaciones. Printed on recycled paper with soy-based ink. Impreso en papel reciclado con tinta a base de soja. 22-24792 | Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities. Se ofrecen servicios y apoyos auxiliares a las personas con discapacidades. Buckhorn Addition Expands Bobcat Ridge This 675-acre acquisition adjacent to Bobcat Ridge Natural Areas, has been a top conservation priority for nearly two decades and boasts significant resource values including high quality habitat and scenic views. The Natural Areas Department, in partnership with Larimer County Department of Natural Resources, had conserved 261 acres by early 2023. The Buckhorn Addition is within the City’s Foothills/Buckhorn/Redstone Priority Conservation Area as designated in the 2014 Master Plan. This acquisition protects an important wildlife corridor in the area and is vital habitat for elk, mule deer, moose, black bear and turkey. In exchange for their financial contribution, the County will hold a conservation easement on the completed 675-acre acquisition as well as the entirety of Bobcat Ridge, ensuring that the conservation values found on these Natural Areas will be protected in perpetuity. Bobcat Ridge se amplía con la incorporación de Buckhorn Esta adquisición de 675 acres adyacentes a las áreas naturales de Bobcat Ridge ha sido una de las principales prioridades de preservación durante casi dos décadas y cuenta con valores de recursos importantes que incluyen hábitats de alta calidad y vistas panorámicas. El Departamento de Áreas Naturales, en colaboración con el Departamento de Recursos Naturales del condado de Larimer, había preservado 261 acres a principios de 2023. Tal y como se designó en el plan maestro de 2014, la incorporación de Buckhorn se encuentra dentro del área de preservación prioritaria de Foothills, Buckhorn y Redstone de la ciudad. Esta adquisición protege un corredor importante de fauna salvaje de la zona y constituye un hábitat vital para ciervos canadienses, ciervos mulos, alces, osos negros y pavos. A cambio de la contribución financiera, el condado mantendrá una servidumbre de conservación sobre la adquisición completa de los 675 acres, así como sobre la totalidad de Bobcat Ridge. Esto garantizará que los valores de preservación que se encuentran en estas áreas naturales se protejan de manera indefinida. CITY COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER CONCEJO MUNICIPAL/ADMINISTRADOR MUNICIPAL Jeni Arndt, Mayor / alcalde Susan Gutowsky, District 1 / distrito 1 Julie Pignataro, District 2 / distrito 2 Tricia Canonico, District 3 / distrito 3 Shirley Peel, District 4 / distrito 4 Kelly Ohlson, District 5 / distrito 5 Emily Francis, Mayor Pro Tem, District 6 / alcaldesa provisional, distrito 6 Kelly DiMartino, City Manager / administradora municipal COMMUNITY SERVICES Natural Areas Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 fcgov.com/naturalareas 970.416.2815 Explorer Wins National Award The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department won a 2022 Interpretive Media Award for the 2021 Explorer publication. The Explorer is a catalog of free events provided to the community which also contains community-submitted art and writing, important information, self-guided activities, and much more. The Natural Areas Department was honored as the first place winner from entries across the nation in the Site Publication category. El Explorer gana un premio nacional El Departamento de Áreas Naturales de la ciudad de Fort Collins ganó el premio Interpretive Media Award de 2022 por la publicación de 2021 en el Explorer. El Explorer es un catálogo de eventos gratuitos ofrecidos a la comunidad que también contiene obras de arte y escritos que la comunidad presenta, información importante, actividades auto-guiadas y mucho más. Se galardonó al Departamento de Áreas Naturales con el primer premio nacional en la categoría de Publicación de sitios. Celebrating the 5th Year of Club Outdoors Natural Areas is celebrating a successful 5th season of Club Outdoors. Club Outdoors’ mission is to inspire the next generation of environmental stewards by offering a variety of outdoor experiences while incorporating tools for mental health and wellness to the community of underserved youth at the Boys & Girls Club of Larimer County. This year the program served over 200 middle and high schoolers and over 50 adults with a variety of activities throughout the summer months. Activities ranged from nature art and journaling, career panels, dip netting in the Poudre River, and stewardship projects. Participants were able to explore six natural areas in Fort Collins and learn more about the natural world. Thank you to all who assisted with Club Outdoors this season! Celebración del 5º aniversario del Club Outdoors Áreas Naturales celebra con éxito la 5ª temporada del Club Outdoors. La misión del Club Outdoors es inspirar a la próxima generación de guardianes del medio ambiente al ofrecer una variedad de experiencias al aire libre, al tiempo que incorpora herramientas para la salud mental y el bienestar de la comunidad de jóvenes desfavorecidos en el Boys & Girls Club del condado de Larimer. Este año, el programa brindó actividades diversas para más de 200 estudiantes de la escuela primaria y secundaria y para más de 50 adultos, a lo largo de los meses de verano. Las actividades abarcaron el arte natural y la redacción de diarios, los paneles de profesiones, el lanzamiento de redes en el río Poudre y los proyectos de administración. Los participantes pudieron explorar seis áreas naturales de Fort Collins y así aprender más sobre el mundo natural. ¡Gracias a todos los que han colaborado con el Club Outdoors esta temporada! Heaven’s Door This partnership with Larimer County Department of Natural Resources and the City of Loveland helped conserve a 1,547-acre ranch due west of Loveland. The property offers an abundance of wildlife habitat with numerous natural springs and is adjacent to State Land Board and USFS lands, which adds to the contiguous landscape to promote wildlife movement. Natural Areas and Loveland will co-hold a conservation easement on the property. La hacienda Heaven’s Door La asociación entre el Departamento de Recursos Naturales del condado de Larimer y la ciudad de Loveland ayudó a preservar una hacienda de 1,547 acres localizada al oeste de Loveland. La propiedad cuenta con una gran cantidad de hábitats de vida silvestre con numerosos manantiales naturales y se encuentra contigua a State Land Board y a las tierras del Departamento de Servicio Forestal de Agricultura (USFS). La propiedad se suma al paisaje adyacente para promover el movimiento de la fauna silvestre. El Departamento de Áreas Naturales y Loveland serán cotitulares de una servidumbre de conservación sobre la propiedad. Fort Collins Designated Bird City The City of Fort Collins was recently designated a Bird City by Environment for the Americas for actions that support avian species and their habitats. The City of Fort Collins and its partners are the third official Bird City in Colorado and the first to achieve High Flyer status. This designation signifies the city’s commitment to conservation across multiple categories and to further action to help birds and their habitats. Environment for the Americas plans to use Fort Collins as an ideal Bird City model for stakeholder participation, community engagement, and impactful conservation of birds and their habitats. Fort Collins: Ciudad de las aves Recientemente, la organización Environment for the Americas ha nombrado a la ciudad de Fort Collins como la Ciudad de las aves debido a las medidas tomadas a favor de las especies de aves y sus hábitats. La ciudad de Fort Collins y sus socios son la tercera Ciudad de las aves oficial de Colorado y la primera en alcanzar la categoría de High Flyer. Este nombramiento muestra el compromiso que la ciudad tiene con la preservación en varias categorías y con la adopción de medidas nuevas para ayudar a las aves y sus hábitats. La organización Environment for the Americas planea utilizar Fort Collins como un modelo de Ciudad de las aves ideal para lograr la participación de las partes interesadas, el compromiso de la comunidad y una preservación de las aves y sus hábitats que provoque un gran impacto. Puente Verde AdditionPuente Verde Addition Seventeen acres of land was acquired adjacent to Puente Verde Natural Area, securing additional habitat for wildlife as well as an opportunity for Utilities to construct a detention pond in conjunction with the West Vine Basin Outfall project. This acquisition also has the potential to provide a trail connection from Vine Street to Laporte Avenue, and two acres may be set aside for affordable housing to be developed in partnership with the Social Sustainability/Land Bank Program. Incorporación de Puente VerdeIncorporación de Puente Verde Se adquirieron 17 acres de terreno adyacentes al área natural de Puente Verde, lo que asegurará un hábitat adicional para la vida silvestre, así como permitirá una oportunidad para que Utilities construya un estanque de detención junto con el proyecto de desagüe de la cuenca de West Vine. Esta adquisición también podrá brindar una conexión de senderos desde Vine Street hasta Laporte Avenue. En asociación con el Programa de Sostenibilidad Social/Banco de Tierras, se podrían reservar dos acres para que se construyan viviendas asequibles. Dry CreekDry Creek Two additional acquisitions to the Dry Creek corridor in 2022. The newly acquired 10.3 acres bring the conserved area to 47.3 acres. Dry Creek is in the northwest quadrant of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area and has long been identified as a conservation priority for wildlife values, a potential trail corridor, and providing access to nature for a currently underserved section of the community. Dry Creek Dry Creek Se realizaron dos adquisiciones adicionales al corredor de Dry Creek en 2022. Los 10.3 acres recién adquiridos aumentan la superficie preservada a 47.3 acres. Dry Creek se encuentra en el cuadrante noroeste del Área de Gestión del Crecimiento (GMA) de Fort Collins y, desde hace tiempo, se lo ha considerado una prioridad de preservación por contar con diversos valores de vida silvestre y un corredor potencial de senderos y por brindar acceso a la naturaleza para un sector de la comunidad que está desatendido en este momento. Laramie Foothills Partnership Larimer County and Fort Collins continued to build on their successful partnership to conserve an additional 428 acres of wildlife habitat in the Laramie Foothills wildlife corridor near Red Mountain Open Space and Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. Since 2020 more than 3,000 acres encompassing four acquisitions were conserved by this partnership. The County acquired a conservation easement on the 428-acre QCLH ranch with financial support from the City and Great Outdoors Colorado. Asociación Laramie Foothills El condado de Larimer y Fort Collins continuaron con la consolidación de la fructífera asociación para preservar otros 428 acres de hábitat de vida salvaje en el corredor de vida salvaje de Laramie Foothills, cerca del espacio abierto Red Mountain y el área natural Soapstone Prairie. Desde el 2020, esta asociación ha preservado más de 3,000 acres en cuatro adquisiciones. El condado adquirió una servidumbre de conservación en la hacienda QCLH, la cual cuenta con 428 acres, con el apoyo financiero de la ciudad y la asociación Great Outdoors Colorado. Natural Areas Annual Report 2022Informe anual sobre las áreas naturales 2022 HIGHLIGHTS LO MÁS DESTACADO DE 2022 30th Anniversary Celebration On November 30, 2022, Natural Areas celebrated 30 years since the first ballot measure was passed establishing a quarter-cent sales tax supporting the conservation of natural areas. Over 300 people attended the event to celebrate this incredible milestone. The celebration began with Jan Iron and members of the Native and Indigenous community sharing a land acknowledgment and song. A video created by FCTV shows how four members of the community connect to Natural Areas from conservation to volunteering to health. Thanks to all who joined the celebration and continue to support the conservation of local natural areas. The 30th Anniversary of Natural Areas celebration continues through October 2023 including events where Mountains to Plains Dark Lager by Horse and Dragon Brewing Company is available. More activities will be announced in June in the Natural Areas Explorer publication, Natural Areas Enews, and on fcgov.com/register. Celebración del 30º aniversario El 30 de noviembre de 2022, el Departamento de Áreas Naturales celebró 30 años desde que se aprobó la primera medida electoral para apoyar la preservación de las áreas naturales, la cual establecía un impuesto de un cuarto de céntimo sobre las ventas. Para celebrar este hito increíble, asistieron al acto más de 300 personas. La celebración comenzó con la participación de Jan Iron y los miembros de la comunidad nativa e indígena, quienes compartieron un agradecimiento y una canción para la tierra. A través de un video creado por la Televisión de Fort Collins (FCTV), se muestra cómo cuatro miembros de la comunidad unen la preservación de las áreas naturales al voluntariado y a la salud. Gracias a todos los que asistieron a la celebración y continúan apoyando la preservación de las áreas naturales locales. La Celebración del 30º aniversario de las áreas naturales continuará hasta octubre de 2023 e incluirá eventos en los que se podrá adquirir la cerveza Mountains to Plains Dark Lager de la cervecería Horse and Dragon Brewing Company. En junio, se anunciarán más actividades en la publicación Natural Areas Explorer, en Natural Areas Enews y en fcgov.com/register. The Inaugural Natural Areas Conservation Award The first-ever Natural Areas Conservation Award winner is Councilmember Kelly Ohlson. The award recognizes truly exemplary and outstanding efforts in local land conservation. Going forward, the recognition will bear the name of Fort Collins City Councilmember, Kelly Ohlson, a hero of conservation. Ohlson was a key leader of the eight citizen ballot measures that make natural areas conservation possible. He served on the Natural Resources Advisory and Land Conservation and Stewardship boards for 16 years. Future Kelly Ohlson Natural Areas Conservation award recipients will be honored for truly extraordinary achievements with a positive impact on the natural world and future generations. El Premio inaugural a la preservación de las áreas naturales El primer galardonado con el Premio a la preservación de las áreas naturales es el concejal Kelly Ohlson. El premio reconoce aquellos esfuerzos por la preservación del territorio local que son verdaderamente ejemplares y sobresalientes. A partir de ahora, el reconocimiento llevará el nombre del concejal municipal de Fort Collins, Kelly Ohlson, un héroe de la preservación. Ohlson fue uno de los principales promotores de las ocho medidas ciudadanas que hacen posible la preservación de las áreas naturales. Durante 16 años, Ohlson formó parte de las juntas de Asesoramiento sobre recursos naturales y de las de Preservación y administración de las tierras. El premio Kelly Ohlson a la preservación de áreas naturales servirá para honrar los logros realmente extraordinarios de los futuros ganadores, lo que causará un impacto positivo en el mundo natural y en las futuras generaciones. Printed on recycled paper with soy-based ink. Impreso en papel reciclado con tinta a base de soja. 22-24792 | Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities. Se ofrecen servicios y apoyos auxiliares a las personas con discapacidades. Buckhorn Addition Expands Bobcat Ridge This 675-acre acquisition adjacent to Bobcat Ridge Natural Areas, has been a top conservation priority for nearly two decades and boasts significant resource values including high quality habitat and scenic views. The Natural Areas Department, in partnership with Larimer County Department of Natural Resources, had conserved 261 acres by early 2023. The Buckhorn Addition is within the City’s Foothills/Buckhorn/Redstone Priority Conservation Area as designated in the 2014 Master Plan. This acquisition protects an important wildlife corridor in the area and is vital habitat for elk, mule deer, moose, black bear and turkey. In exchange for their financial contribution, the County will hold a conservation easement on the completed 675-acre acquisition as well as the entirety of Bobcat Ridge, ensuring that the conservation values found on these Natural Areas will be protected in perpetuity. Bobcat Ridge se amplía con la incorporación de Buckhorn Esta adquisición de 675 acres adyacentes a las áreas naturales de Bobcat Ridge ha sido una de las principales prioridades de preservación durante casi dos décadas y cuenta con valores de recursos importantes que incluyen hábitats de alta calidad y vistas panorámicas. El Departamento de Áreas Naturales, en colaboración con el Departamento de Recursos Naturales del condado de Larimer, había preservado 261 acres a principios de 2023. Tal y como se designó en el plan maestro de 2014, la incorporación de Buckhorn se encuentra dentro del área de preservación prioritaria de Foothills, Buckhorn y Redstone de la ciudad. Esta adquisición protege un corredor importante de fauna salvaje de la zona y constituye un hábitat vital para ciervos canadienses, ciervos mulos, alces, osos negros y pavos. A cambio de la contribución financiera, el condado mantendrá una servidumbre de conservación sobre la adquisición completa de los 675 acres, así como sobre la totalidad de Bobcat Ridge. Esto garantizará que los valores de preservación que se encuentran en estas áreas naturales se protejan de manera indefinida. CITY COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER CONCEJO MUNICIPAL/ADMINISTRADOR MUNICIPAL Jeni Arndt, Mayor / alcalde Susan Gutowsky, District 1 / distrito 1 Julie Pignataro, District 2 / distrito 2 Tricia Canonico, District 3 / distrito 3 Shirley Peel, District 4 / distrito 4 Kelly Ohlson, District 5 / distrito 5 Emily Francis, Mayor Pro Tem, District 6 / alcaldesa provisional, distrito 6 Kelly DiMartino, City Manager / administradora municipal COMMUNITY SERVICES Natural Areas Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 fcgov.com/naturalareas 970.416.2815 Explorer Wins National Award The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department won a 2022 Interpretive Media Award for the 2021 Explorer publication. The Explorer is a catalog of free events provided to the community which also contains community-submitted art and writing, important information, self-guided activities, and much more. The Natural Areas Department was honored as the first place winner from entries across the nation in the Site Publication category. El Explorer gana un premio nacional El Departamento de Áreas Naturales de la ciudad de Fort Collins ganó el premio Interpretive Media Award de 2022 por la publicación de 2021 en el Explorer. El Explorer es un catálogo de eventos gratuitos ofrecidos a la comunidad que también contiene obras de arte y escritos que la comunidad presenta, información importante, actividades auto-guiadas y mucho más. Se galardonó al Departamento de Áreas Naturales con el primer premio nacional en la categoría de Publicación de sitios. Celebrating the 5th Year of Club Outdoors Natural Areas is celebrating a successful 5th season of Club Outdoors. Club Outdoors’ mission is to inspire the next generation of environmental stewards by offering a variety of outdoor experiences while incorporating tools for mental health and wellness to the community of underserved youth at the Boys & Girls Club of Larimer County. This year the program served over 200 middle and high schoolers and over 50 adults with a variety of activities throughout the summer months. Activities ranged from nature art and journaling, career panels, dip netting in the Poudre River, and stewardship projects. Participants were able to explore six natural areas in Fort Collins and learn more about the natural world. Thank you to all who assisted with Club Outdoors this season! Celebración del 5º aniversario del Club Outdoors Áreas Naturales celebra con éxito la 5ª temporada del Club Outdoors. La misión del Club Outdoors es inspirar a la próxima generación de guardianes del medio ambiente al ofrecer una variedad de experiencias al aire libre, al tiempo que incorpora herramientas para la salud mental y el bienestar de la comunidad de jóvenes desfavorecidos en el Boys & Girls Club del condado de Larimer. Este año, el programa brindó actividades diversas para más de 200 estudiantes de la escuela primaria y secundaria y para más de 50 adultos, a lo largo de los meses de verano. Las actividades abarcaron el arte natural y la redacción de diarios, los paneles de profesiones, el lanzamiento de redes en el río Poudre y los proyectos de administración. Los participantes pudieron explorar seis áreas naturales de Fort Collins y así aprender más sobre el mundo natural. ¡Gracias a todos los que han colaborado con el Club Outdoors esta temporada! Heaven’s Door This partnership with Larimer County Department of Natural Resources and the City of Loveland helped conserve a 1,547-acre ranch due west of Loveland. The property offers an abundance of wildlife habitat with numerous natural springs and is adjacent to State Land Board and USFS lands, which adds to the contiguous landscape to promote wildlife movement. Natural Areas and Loveland will co-hold a conservation easement on the property. La hacienda Heaven’s Door La asociación entre el Departamento de Recursos Naturales del condado de Larimer y la ciudad de Loveland ayudó a preservar una hacienda de 1,547 acres localizada al oeste de Loveland. La propiedad cuenta con una gran cantidad de hábitats de vida silvestre con numerosos manantiales naturales y se encuentra contigua a State Land Board y a las tierras del Departamento de Servicio Forestal de Agricultura (USFS). La propiedad se suma al paisaje adyacente para promover el movimiento de la fauna silvestre. El Departamento de Áreas Naturales y Loveland serán cotitulares de una servidumbre de conservación sobre la propiedad. Fort Collins Designated Bird City The City of Fort Collins was recently designated a Bird City by Environment for the Americas for actions that support avian species and their habitats. The City of Fort Collins and its partners are the third official Bird City in Colorado and the first to achieve High Flyer status. This designation signifies the city’s commitment to conservation across multiple categories and to further action to help birds and their habitats. Environment for the Americas plans to use Fort Collins as an ideal Bird City model for stakeholder participation, community engagement, and impactful conservation of birds and their habitats. Fort Collins: Ciudad de las aves Recientemente, la organización Environment for the Americas ha nombrado a la ciudad de Fort Collins como la Ciudad de las aves debido a las medidas tomadas a favor de las especies de aves y sus hábitats. La ciudad de Fort Collins y sus socios son la tercera Ciudad de las aves oficial de Colorado y la primera en alcanzar la categoría de High Flyer. Este nombramiento muestra el compromiso que la ciudad tiene con la preservación en varias categorías y con la adopción de medidas nuevas para ayudar a las aves y sus hábitats. La organización Environment for the Americas planea utilizar Fort Collins como un modelo de Ciudad de las aves ideal para lograr la participación de las partes interesadas, el compromiso de la comunidad y una preservación de las aves y sus hábitats que provoque un gran impacto. Puente Verde AdditionPuente Verde Addition Seventeen acres of land was acquired adjacent to Puente Verde Natural Area, securing additional habitat for wildlife as well as an opportunity for Utilities to construct a detention pond in conjunction with the West Vine Basin Outfall project. This acquisition also has the potential to provide a trail connection from Vine Street to Laporte Avenue, and two acres may be set aside for affordable housing to be developed in partnership with the Social Sustainability/Land Bank Program. Incorporación de Puente VerdeIncorporación de Puente Verde Se adquirieron 17 acres de terreno adyacentes al área natural de Puente Verde, lo que asegurará un hábitat adicional para la vida silvestre, así como permitirá una oportunidad para que Utilities construya un estanque de detención junto con el proyecto de desagüe de la cuenca de West Vine. Esta adquisición también podrá brindar una conexión de senderos desde Vine Street hasta Laporte Avenue. En asociación con el Programa de Sostenibilidad Social/Banco de Tierras, se podrían reservar dos acres para que se construyan viviendas asequibles. Dry CreekDry Creek Two additional acquisitions to the Dry Creek corridor in 2022. The newly acquired 10.3 acres bring the conserved area to 47.3 acres. Dry Creek is in the northwest quadrant of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area and has long been identified as a conservation priority for wildlife values, a potential trail corridor, and providing access to nature for a currently underserved section of the community. Dry Creek Dry Creek Se realizaron dos adquisiciones adicionales al corredor de Dry Creek en 2022. Los 10.3 acres recién adquiridos aumentan la superficie preservada a 47.3 acres. Dry Creek se encuentra en el cuadrante noroeste del Área de Gestión del Crecimiento (GMA) de Fort Collins y, desde hace tiempo, se lo ha considerado una prioridad de preservación por contar con diversos valores de vida silvestre y un corredor potencial de senderos y por brindar acceso a la naturaleza para un sector de la comunidad que está desatendido en este momento. Explorer Wins National Award The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department won a 2022 Interpretive Media Award for the 2021 Explorer publication. The Explorer is a catalog of free events provided to the community which also contains community-submitted art and writing, important information, self-guided activities, and much more. The Natural Areas Department was honored as the first place winner from entries across the nation in the Site Publication category. El Explorer gana un premio nacional El Departamento de Áreas Naturales de la ciudad de Fort Collins ganó el premio Interpretive Media Award de 2022 por la publicación de 2021 en el Explorer. El Explorer es un catálogo de eventos gratuitos ofrecidos a la comunidad que también contiene obras de arte y escritos que la comunidad presenta, información importante, actividades auto-guiadas y mucho más. Se galardonó al Departamento de Áreas Naturales con el primer premio nacional en la categoría de Publicación de sitios. Celebrating the 5th Year of Club Outdoors Natural Areas is celebrating a successful 5th season of Club Outdoors. Club Outdoors’ mission is to inspire the next generation of environmental stewards by offering a variety of outdoor experiences while incorporating tools for mental health and wellness to the community of underserved youth at the Boys & Girls Club of Larimer County. This year the program served over 200 middle and high schoolers and over 50 adults with a variety of activities throughout the summer months. Activities ranged from nature art and journaling, career panels, dip netting in the Poudre River, and stewardship projects. Participants were able to explore six natural areas in Fort Collins and learn more about the natural world. Thank you to all who assisted with Club Outdoors this season! Celebración del 5º aniversario del Club Outdoors Áreas Naturales celebra con éxito la 5ª temporada del Club Outdoors. La misión del Club Outdoors es inspirar a la próxima generación de guardianes del medio ambiente al ofrecer una variedad de experiencias al aire libre, al tiempo que incorpora herramientas para la salud mental y el bienestar de la comunidad de jóvenes desfavorecidos en el Boys & Girls Club del condado de Larimer. Este año, el programa brindó actividades diversas para más de 200 estudiantes de la escuela primaria y secundaria y para más de 50 adultos, a lo largo de los meses de verano. Las actividades abarcaron el arte natural y la redacción de diarios, los paneles de profesiones, el lanzamiento de redes en el río Poudre y los proyectos de administración. Los participantes pudieron explorar seis áreas naturales de Fort Collins y así aprender más sobre el mundo natural. ¡Gracias a todos los que han colaborado con el Club Outdoors esta temporada! Heaven’s Door This partnership with Larimer County Department of Natural Resources and the City of Loveland helped conserve a 1,547-acre ranch due west of Loveland. The property offers an abundance of wildlife habitat with numerous natural springs and is adjacent to State Land Board and USFS lands, which adds to the contiguous landscape to promote wildlife movement. Natural Areas and Loveland will co-hold a conservation easement on the property. La hacienda Heaven’s Door La asociación entre el Departamento de Recursos Naturales del condado de Larimer y la ciudad de Loveland ayudó a preservar una hacienda de 1,547 acres localizada al oeste de Loveland. La propiedad cuenta con una gran cantidad de hábitats de vida silvestre con numerosos manantiales naturales y se encuentra contigua a State Land Board y a las tierras del Departamento de Servicio Forestal de Agricultura (USFS). La propiedad se suma al paisaje adyacente para promover el movimiento de la fauna silvestre. El Departamento de Áreas Naturales y Loveland serán cotitulares de una servidumbre de conservación sobre la propiedad. Fort Collins Designated Bird City The City of Fort Collins was recently designated a Bird City by Environment for the Americas for actions that support avian species and their habitats. The City of Fort Collins and its partners are the third official Bird City in Colorado and the first to achieve High Flyer status. This designation signifies the city’s commitment to conservation across multiple categories and to further action to help birds and their habitats. Environment for the Americas plans to use Fort Collins as an ideal Bird City model for stakeholder participation, community engagement, and impactful conservation of birds and their habitats. Fort Collins: Ciudad de las aves Recientemente, la organización Environment for the Americas ha nombrado a la ciudad de Fort Collins como la Ciudad de las aves debido a las medidas tomadas a favor de las especies de aves y sus hábitats. La ciudad de Fort Collins y sus socios son la tercera Ciudad de las aves oficial de Colorado y la primera en alcanzar la categoría de High Flyer. Este nombramiento muestra el compromiso que la ciudad tiene con la preservación en varias categorías y con la adopción de medidas nuevas para ayudar a las aves y sus hábitats. La organización Environment for the Americas planea utilizar Fort Collins como un modelo de Ciudad de las aves ideal para lograr la participación de las partes interesadas, el compromiso de la comunidad y una preservación de las aves y sus hábitats que provoque un gran impacto. Puente Verde AdditionPuente Verde Addition Seventeen acres of land was acquired adjacent to Puente Verde Natural Area, securing additional habitat for wildlife as well as an opportunity for Utilities to construct a detention pond in conjunction with the West Vine Basin Outfall project. This acquisition also has the potential to provide a trail connection from Vine Street to Laporte Avenue, and two acres may be set aside for affordable housing to be developed in partnership with the Social Sustainability/Land Bank Program. Incorporación de Puente VerdeIncorporación de Puente Verde Se adquirieron 17 acres de terreno adyacentes al área natural de Puente Verde, lo que asegurará un hábitat adicional para la vida silvestre, así como permitirá una oportunidad para que Utilities construya un estanque de detención junto con el proyecto de desagüe de la cuenca de West Vine. Esta adquisición también podrá brindar una conexión de senderos desde Vine Street hasta Laporte Avenue. En asociación con el Programa de Sostenibilidad Social/Banco de Tierras, se podrían reservar dos acres para que se construyan viviendas asequibles. Dry CreekDry Creek Two additional acquisitions to the Dry Creek corridor in 2022. The newly acquired 10.3 acres bring the conserved area to 47.3 acres. Dry Creek is in the northwest quadrant of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area and has long been identified as a conservation priority for wildlife values, a potential trail corridor, and providing access to nature for a currently underserved section of the community. Dry Creek Dry Creek Se realizaron dos adquisiciones adicionales al corredor de Dry Creek en 2022. Los 10.3 acres recién adquiridos aumentan la superficie preservada a 47.3 acres. Dry Creek se encuentra en el cuadrante noroeste del Área de Gestión del Crecimiento (GMA) de Fort Collins y, desde hace tiempo, se lo ha considerado una prioridad de preservación por contar con diversos valores de vida silvestre y un corredor potencial de senderos y por brindar acceso a la naturaleza para un sector de la comunidad que está desatendido en este momento. Explorer Wins National Award The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department won a 2022 Interpretive Media Award for the 2021 Explorer publication. The Explorer is a catalog of free events provided to the community which also contains community-submitted art and writing, important information, self-guided activities, and much more. The Natural Areas Department was honored as the first place winner from entries across the nation in the Site Publication category. El Explorer gana un premio nacional El Departamento de Áreas Naturales de la ciudad de Fort Collins ganó el premio Interpretive Media Award de 2022 por la publicación de 2021 en el Explorer. El Explorer es un catálogo de eventos gratuitos ofrecidos a la comunidad que también contiene obras de arte y escritos que la comunidad presenta, información importante, actividades auto-guiadas y mucho más. Se galardonó al Departamento de Áreas Naturales con el primer premio nacional en la categoría de Publicación de sitios. Celebrating the 5th Year of Club Outdoors Natural Areas is celebrating a successful 5th season of Club Outdoors. Club Outdoors’ mission is to inspire the next generation of environmental stewards by offering a variety of outdoor experiences while incorporating tools for mental health and wellness to the community of underserved youth at the Boys & Girls Club of Larimer County. This year the program served over 200 middle and high schoolers and over 50 adults with a variety of activities throughout the summer months. Activities ranged from nature art and journaling, career panels, dip netting in the Poudre River, and stewardship projects. Participants were able to explore six natural areas in Fort Collins and learn more about the natural world. Thank you to all who assisted with Club Outdoors this season! Celebración del 5º aniversario del Club Outdoors Áreas Naturales celebra con éxito la 5ª temporada del Club Outdoors. La misión del Club Outdoors es inspirar a la próxima generación de guardianes del medio ambiente al ofrecer una variedad de experiencias al aire libre, al tiempo que incorpora herramientas para la salud mental y el bienestar de la comunidad de jóvenes desfavorecidos en el Boys & Girls Club del condado de Larimer. Este año, el programa brindó actividades diversas para más de 200 estudiantes de la escuela primaria y secundaria y para más de 50 adultos, a lo largo de los meses de verano. Las actividades abarcaron el arte natural y la redacción de diarios, los paneles de profesiones, el lanzamiento de redes en el río Poudre y los proyectos de administración. Los participantes pudieron explorar seis áreas naturales de Fort Collins y así aprender más sobre el mundo natural. ¡Gracias a todos los que han colaborado con el Club Outdoors esta temporada! Heaven’s Door This partnership with Larimer County Department of Natural Resources and the City of Loveland helped conserve a 1,547-acre ranch due west of Loveland. The property offers an abundance of wildlife habitat with numerous natural springs and is adjacent to State Land Board and USFS lands, which adds to the contiguous landscape to promote wildlife movement. Natural Areas and Loveland will co-hold a conservation easement on the property. La hacienda Heaven’s Door La asociación entre el Departamento de Recursos Naturales del condado de Larimer y la ciudad de Loveland ayudó a preservar una hacienda de 1,547 acres localizada al oeste de Loveland. La propiedad cuenta con una gran cantidad de hábitats de vida silvestre con numerosos manantiales naturales y se encuentra contigua a State Land Board y a las tierras del Departamento de Servicio Forestal de Agricultura (USFS). La propiedad se suma al paisaje adyacente para promover el movimiento de la fauna silvestre. El Departamento de Áreas Naturales y Loveland serán cotitulares de una servidumbre de conservación sobre la propiedad. Fort Collins Designated Bird City The City of Fort Collins was recently designated a Bird City by Environment for the Americas for actions that support avian species and their habitats. The City of Fort Collins and its partners are the third official Bird City in Colorado and the first to achieve High Flyer status. This designation signifies the city’s commitment to conservation across multiple categories and to further action to help birds and their habitats. Environment for the Americas plans to use Fort Collins as an ideal Bird City model for stakeholder participation, community engagement, and impactful conservation of birds and their habitats. Fort Collins: Ciudad de las aves Recientemente, la organización Environment for the Americas ha nombrado a la ciudad de Fort Collins como la Ciudad de las aves debido a las medidas tomadas a favor de las especies de aves y sus hábitats. La ciudad de Fort Collins y sus socios son la tercera Ciudad de las aves oficial de Colorado y la primera en alcanzar la categoría de High Flyer. Este nombramiento muestra el compromiso que la ciudad tiene con la preservación en varias categorías y con la adopción de medidas nuevas para ayudar a las aves y sus hábitats. La organización Environment for the Americas planea utilizar Fort Collins como un modelo de Ciudad de las aves ideal para lograr la participación de las partes interesadas, el compromiso de la comunidad y una preservación de las aves y sus hábitats que provoque un gran impacto. Puente Verde AdditionPuente Verde Addition Seventeen acres of land was acquired adjacent to Puente Verde Natural Area, securing additional habitat for wildlife as well as an opportunity for Utilities to construct a detention pond in conjunction with the West Vine Basin Outfall project. This acquisition also has the potential to provide a trail connection from Vine Street to Laporte Avenue, and two acres may be set aside for affordable housing to be developed in partnership with the Social Sustainability/Land Bank Program. Incorporación de Puente VerdeIncorporación de Puente Verde Se adquirieron 17 acres de terreno adyacentes al área natural de Puente Verde, lo que asegurará un hábitat adicional para la vida silvestre, así como permitirá una oportunidad para que Utilities construya un estanque de detención junto con el proyecto de desagüe de la cuenca de West Vine. Esta adquisición también podrá brindar una conexión de senderos desde Vine Street hasta Laporte Avenue. En asociación con el Programa de Sostenibilidad Social/Banco de Tierras, se podrían reservar dos acres para que se construyan viviendas asequibles. Dry CreekDry Creek Two additional acquisitions to the Dry Creek corridor in 2022. The newly acquired 10.3 acres bring the conserved area to 47.3 acres. Dry Creek is in the northwest quadrant of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area and has long been identified as a conservation priority for wildlife values, a potential trail corridor, and providing access to nature for a currently underserved section of the community. Dry Creek Dry Creek Se realizaron dos adquisiciones adicionales al corredor de Dry Creek en 2022. Los 10.3 acres recién adquiridos aumentan la superficie preservada a 47.3 acres. Dry Creek se encuentra en el cuadrante noroeste del Área de Gestión del Crecimiento (GMA) de Fort Collins y, desde hace tiempo, se lo ha considerado una prioridad de preservación por contar con diversos valores de vida silvestre y un corredor potencial de senderos y por brindar acceso a la naturaleza para un sector de la comunidad que está desatendido en este momento. Laramie Foothills Partnership Larimer County and Fort Collins continued to build on their successful partnership to conserve an additional 428 acres of wildlife habitat in the Laramie Foothills wildlife corridor near Red Mountain Open Space and Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. Since 2020 more than 3,000 acres encompassing four acquisitions were conserved by this partnership. The County acquired a conservation easement on the 428-acre QCLH ranch with financial support from the City and Great Outdoors Colorado. Asociación Laramie Foothills El condado de Larimer y Fort Collins continuaron con la consolidación de la fructífera asociación para preservar otros 428 acres de hábitat de vida salvaje en el corredor de vida salvaje de Laramie Foothills, cerca del espacio abierto Red Mountain y el área natural Soapstone Prairie. Desde el 2020, esta asociación ha preservado más de 3,000 acres en cuatro adquisiciones. El condado adquirió una servidumbre de conservación en la hacienda QCLH, la cual cuenta con 428 acres, con el apoyo financiero de la ciudad y la asociación Great Outdoors Colorado. Natural Areas Annual Report 2022Informe anual sobre las áreas naturales 2022 HIGHLIGHTS LO MÁS DESTACADO DE 2022 30th Anniversary Celebration On November 30, 2022, Natural Areas celebrated 30 years since the first ballot measure was passed establishing a quarter-cent sales tax supporting the conservation of natural areas. Over 300 people attended the event to celebrate this incredible milestone. The celebration began with Jan Iron and members of the Native and Indigenous community sharing a land acknowledgment and song. A video created by FCTV shows how four members of the community connect to Natural Areas from conservation to volunteering to health. Thanks to all who joined the celebration and continue to support the conservation of local natural areas. The 30th Anniversary of Natural Areas celebration continues through October 2023 including events where Mountains to Plains Dark Lager by Horse and Dragon Brewing Company is available. More activities will be announced in June in the Natural Areas Explorer publication, Natural Areas Enews, and on fcgov.com/register. Celebración del 30º aniversario El 30 de noviembre de 2022, el Departamento de Áreas Naturales celebró 30 años desde que se aprobó la primera medida electoral para apoyar la preservación de las áreas naturales, la cual establecía un impuesto de un cuarto de céntimo sobre las ventas. Para celebrar este hito increíble, asistieron al acto más de 300 personas. La celebración comenzó con la participación de Jan Iron y los miembros de la comunidad nativa e indígena, quienes compartieron un agradecimiento y una canción para la tierra. A través de un video creado por la Televisión de Fort Collins (FCTV), se muestra cómo cuatro miembros de la comunidad unen la preservación de las áreas naturales al voluntariado y a la salud. Gracias a todos los que asistieron a la celebración y continúan apoyando la preservación de las áreas naturales locales. La Celebración del 30º aniversario de las áreas naturales continuará hasta octubre de 2023 e incluirá eventos en los que se podrá adquirir la cerveza Mountains to Plains Dark Lager de la cervecería Horse and Dragon Brewing Company. En junio, se anunciarán más actividades en la publicación Natural Areas Explorer, en Natural Areas Enews y en fcgov.com/register. The Inaugural Natural Areas Conservation Award The first-ever Natural Areas Conservation Award winner is Councilmember Kelly Ohlson. The award recognizes truly exemplary and outstanding efforts in local land conservation. Going forward, the recognition will bear the name of Fort Collins City Councilmember, Kelly Ohlson, a hero of conservation. Ohlson was a key leader of the eight citizen ballot measures that make natural areas conservation possible. He served on the Natural Resources Advisory and Land Conservation and Stewardship boards for 16 years. Future Kelly Ohlson Natural Areas Conservation award recipients will be honored for truly extraordinary achievements with a positive impact on the natural world and future generations. El Premio inaugural a la preservación de las áreas naturales El primer galardonado con el Premio a la preservación de las áreas naturales es el concejal Kelly Ohlson. El premio reconoce aquellos esfuerzos por la preservación del territorio local que son verdaderamente ejemplares y sobresalientes. A partir de ahora, el reconocimiento llevará el nombre del concejal municipal de Fort Collins, Kelly Ohlson, un héroe de la preservación. Ohlson fue uno de los principales promotores de las ocho medidas ciudadanas que hacen posible la preservación de las áreas naturales. Durante 16 años, Ohlson formó parte de las juntas de Asesoramiento sobre recursos naturales y de las de Preservación y administración de las tierras. El premio Kelly Ohlson a la preservación de áreas naturales servirá para honrar los logros realmente extraordinarios de los futuros ganadores, lo que causará un impacto positivo en el mundo natural y en las futuras generaciones. Printed on recycled paper with soy-based ink. Impreso en papel reciclado con tinta a base de soja. 22-24792 | Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities. Se ofrecen servicios y apoyos auxiliares a las personas con discapacidades. Buckhorn Addition Expands Bobcat Ridge This 675-acre acquisition adjacent to Bobcat Ridge Natural Areas, has been a top conservation priority for nearly two decades and boasts significant resource values including high quality habitat and scenic views. The Natural Areas Department, in partnership with Larimer County Department of Natural Resources, had conserved 261 acres by early 2023. The Buckhorn Addition is within the City’s Foothills/Buckhorn/Redstone Priority Conservation Area as designated in the 2014 Master Plan. This acquisition protects an important wildlife corridor in the area and is vital habitat for elk, mule deer, moose, black bear and turkey. In exchange for their financial contribution, the County will hold a conservation easement on the completed 675-acre acquisition as well as the entirety of Bobcat Ridge, ensuring that the conservation values found on these Natural Areas will be protected in perpetuity. Bobcat Ridge se amplía con la incorporación de Buckhorn Esta adquisición de 675 acres adyacentes a las áreas naturales de Bobcat Ridge ha sido una de las principales prioridades de preservación durante casi dos décadas y cuenta con valores de recursos importantes que incluyen hábitats de alta calidad y vistas panorámicas. El Departamento de Áreas Naturales, en colaboración con el Departamento de Recursos Naturales del condado de Larimer, había preservado 261 acres a principios de 2023. Tal y como se designó en el plan maestro de 2014, la incorporación de Buckhorn se encuentra dentro del área de preservación prioritaria de Foothills, Buckhorn y Redstone de la ciudad. Esta adquisición protege un corredor importante de fauna salvaje de la zona y constituye un hábitat vital para ciervos canadienses, ciervos mulos, alces, osos negros y pavos. A cambio de la contribución financiera, el condado mantendrá una servidumbre de conservación sobre la adquisición completa de los 675 acres, así como sobre la totalidad de Bobcat Ridge. Esto garantizará que los valores de preservación que se encuentran en estas áreas naturales se protejan de manera indefinida. CITY COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER CONCEJO MUNICIPAL/ADMINISTRADOR MUNICIPAL Jeni Arndt, Mayor / alcalde Susan Gutowsky, District 1 / distrito 1 Julie Pignataro, District 2 / distrito 2 Tricia Canonico, District 3 / distrito 3 Shirley Peel, District 4 / distrito 4 Kelly Ohlson, District 5 / distrito 5 Emily Francis, Mayor Pro Tem, District 6 / alcaldesa provisional, distrito 6 Kelly DiMartino, City Manager / administradora municipal COMMUNITY SERVICES Natural Areas Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 fcgov.com/naturalareas 970.416.2815 Laramie Foothills Partnership Larimer County and Fort Collins continued to build on their successful partnership to conserve an additional 428 acres of wildlife habitat in the Laramie Foothills wildlife corridor near Red Mountain Open Space and Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. Since 2020 more than 3,000 acres encompassing four acquisitions were conserved by this partnership. The County acquired a conservation easement on the 428-acre QCLH ranch with financial support from the City and Great Outdoors Colorado. Asociación Laramie Foothills El condado de Larimer y Fort Collins continuaron con la consolidación de la fructífera asociación para preservar otros 428 acres de hábitat de vida salvaje en el corredor de vida salvaje de Laramie Foothills, cerca del espacio abierto Red Mountain y el área natural Soapstone Prairie. Desde el 2020, esta asociación ha preservado más de 3,000 acres en cuatro adquisiciones. El condado adquirió una servidumbre de conservación en la hacienda QCLH, la cual cuenta con 428 acres, con el apoyo financiero de la ciudad y la asociación Great Outdoors Colorado. Natural Areas Annual Report 2022Informe anual sobre las áreas naturales 2022 HIGHLIGHTS LO MÁS DESTACADO DE 2022 30th Anniversary Celebration On November 30, 2022, Natural Areas celebrated 30 years since the first ballot measure was passed establishing a quarter-cent sales tax supporting the conservation of natural areas. Over 300 people attended the event to celebrate this incredible milestone. The celebration began with Jan Iron and members of the Native and Indigenous community sharing a land acknowledgment and song. A video created by FCTV shows how four members of the community connect to Natural Areas from conservation to volunteering to health. Thanks to all who joined the celebration and continue to support the conservation of local natural areas. The 30th Anniversary of Natural Areas celebration continues through October 2023 including events where Mountains to Plains Dark Lager by Horse and Dragon Brewing Company is available. More activities will be announced in June in the Natural Areas Explorer publication, Natural Areas Enews, and on fcgov.com/register. Celebración del 30º aniversario El 30 de noviembre de 2022, el Departamento de Áreas Naturales celebró 30 años desde que se aprobó la primera medida electoral para apoyar la preservación de las áreas naturales, la cual establecía un impuesto de un cuarto de céntimo sobre las ventas. Para celebrar este hito increíble, asistieron al acto más de 300 personas. La celebración comenzó con la participación de Jan Iron y los miembros de la comunidad nativa e indígena, quienes compartieron un agradecimiento y una canción para la tierra. A través de un video creado por la Televisión de Fort Collins (FCTV), se muestra cómo cuatro miembros de la comunidad unen la preservación de las áreas naturales al voluntariado y a la salud. Gracias a todos los que asistieron a la celebración y continúan apoyando la preservación de las áreas naturales locales. La Celebración del 30º aniversario de las áreas naturales continuará hasta octubre de 2023 e incluirá eventos en los que se podrá adquirir la cerveza Mountains to Plains Dark Lager de la cervecería Horse and Dragon Brewing Company. En junio, se anunciarán más actividades en la publicación Natural Areas Explorer, en Natural Areas Enews y en fcgov.com/register. The Inaugural Natural Areas Conservation Award The first-ever Natural Areas Conservation Award winner is Councilmember Kelly Ohlson. The award recognizes truly exemplary and outstanding efforts in local land conservation. Going forward, the recognition will bear the name of Fort Collins City Councilmember, Kelly Ohlson, a hero of conservation. Ohlson was a key leader of the eight citizen ballot measures that make natural areas conservation possible. He served on the Natural Resources Advisory and Land Conservation and Stewardship boards for 16 years. Future Kelly Ohlson Natural Areas Conservation award recipients will be honored for truly extraordinary achievements with a positive impact on the natural world and future generations. El Premio inaugural a la preservación de las áreas naturales El primer galardonado con el Premio a la preservación de las áreas naturales es el concejal Kelly Ohlson. El premio reconoce aquellos esfuerzos por la preservación del territorio local que son verdaderamente ejemplares y sobresalientes. A partir de ahora, el reconocimiento llevará el nombre del concejal municipal de Fort Collins, Kelly Ohlson, un héroe de la preservación. Ohlson fue uno de los principales promotores de las ocho medidas ciudadanas que hacen posible la preservación de las áreas naturales. Durante 16 años, Ohlson formó parte de las juntas de Asesoramiento sobre recursos naturales y de las de Preservación y administración de las tierras. El premio Kelly Ohlson a la preservación de áreas naturales servirá para honrar los logros realmente extraordinarios de los futuros ganadores, lo que causará un impacto positivo en el mundo natural y en las futuras generaciones. Printed on recycled paper with soy-based ink. Impreso en papel reciclado con tinta a base de soja. 22-24792 | Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities. Se ofrecen servicios y apoyos auxiliares a las personas con discapacidades. Buckhorn Addition Expands Bobcat Ridge This 675-acre acquisition adjacent to Bobcat Ridge Natural Areas, has been a top conservation priority for nearly two decades and boasts significant resource values including high quality habitat and scenic views. The Natural Areas Department, in partnership with Larimer County Department of Natural Resources, had conserved 261 acres by early 2023. The Buckhorn Addition is within the City’s Foothills/Buckhorn/Redstone Priority Conservation Area as designated in the 2014 Master Plan. This acquisition protects an important wildlife corridor in the area and is vital habitat for elk, mule deer, moose, black bear and turkey. In exchange for their financial contribution, the County will hold a conservation easement on the completed 675-acre acquisition as well as the entirety of Bobcat Ridge, ensuring that the conservation values found on these Natural Areas will be protected in perpetuity. Bobcat Ridge se amplía con la incorporación de Buckhorn Esta adquisición de 675 acres adyacentes a las áreas naturales de Bobcat Ridge ha sido una de las principales prioridades de preservación durante casi dos décadas y cuenta con valores de recursos importantes que incluyen hábitats de alta calidad y vistas panorámicas. El Departamento de Áreas Naturales, en colaboración con el Departamento de Recursos Naturales del condado de Larimer, había preservado 261 acres a principios de 2023. Tal y como se designó en el plan maestro de 2014, la incorporación de Buckhorn se encuentra dentro del área de preservación prioritaria de Foothills, Buckhorn y Redstone de la ciudad. Esta adquisición protege un corredor importante de fauna salvaje de la zona y constituye un hábitat vital para ciervos canadienses, ciervos mulos, alces, osos negros y pavos. A cambio de la contribución financiera, el condado mantendrá una servidumbre de conservación sobre la adquisición completa de los 675 acres, así como sobre la totalidad de Bobcat Ridge. Esto garantizará que los valores de preservación que se encuentran en estas áreas naturales se protejan de manera indefinida. CITY COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER CONCEJO MUNICIPAL/ADMINISTRADOR MUNICIPAL Jeni Arndt, Mayor / alcalde Susan Gutowsky, District 1 / distrito 1 Julie Pignataro, District 2 / distrito 2 Tricia Canonico, District 3 / distrito 3 Shirley Peel, District 4 / distrito 4 Kelly Ohlson, District 5 / distrito 5 Emily Francis, Mayor Pro Tem, District 6 / alcaldesa provisional, distrito 6 Kelly DiMartino, City Manager / administradora municipal COMMUNITY SERVICES Natural Areas Department P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 fcgov.com/naturalareas 970.416.2815 of trails were in good condition 96% Land Conservation 51.7% Planning and Special Projects 10.5% Resource Management 8.5% Trails and Visitor Amenities 6.6% Department Management 6.7% Rangers 5.8% Facility Operations 6.2% Public Engagement 4.0% 22-24792 | Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities. To conserve and enhance lands with natural resource, agricultural and scenic values, while providing meaningful education and appropriate recreation opportunities. EXPENDITURES $16,619,769 THE NATURAL AREAS DEPARTMENT MISSION Open Space Yes!Fort Collins Sales Tax 65% Help Preserve OpenSpace Larimer County 1/4 Cent Sales Tax 38% Miscellaneous Revenue -3% REVENUES $16,757,166 759 Volunteers 11,459 Hours HOME FOR SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED AmphibianBirds FishMammals1Species that breed or spend their life in natural areas as listed in the Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan 20 6 10 345 activities for 13,324 people provided by Natural Areas sta and volunteers Did you know? In Larimer County, Natural Areas are home to the only known populations of: • Colorado butterfly plant (Oenothera coloradensis) • American black currant (Ribes Americanum) • Ute lady’s tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) • 6 more plants COMMUNITY FEEDBACK 372 people shared input to influence how natural areas are managed LAND CONSERVATION 6 acquisitions totaled 2,415 acres 113 mi Rain Gardens installed in partnership with Colorado Stormwater Center 4 1,000 14 420 Community Implementation Grants trees sponsored in partnership with Forestry volunteer hours bird and butterfly monitoring, and gardening at Sugarbeet Park NATURAL AREASRANGERS made 4,717 cordial contacts and provided 101 first responder or community safety assists ¿Sabía que... ...en el condado de Larimer, las áreas naturales son el hogar de especies únicas? Entre ellas se encuentran: • la planta mariposa de Colorado (Oenothera coloradensis) • la grosella negra americana (Ribes Americanum) • las orquídeas de trenzas de dama Ute (Spiranthes diluvialis) • 6 especies de plantas más de los senderos estaban en buenas condiciones 96% La conservación de la tierra 51.7% Planificación y proyectos especiales 10.5% Gestión de recursos 8.5% Senderos y diversos servicios para visitantes 6.6% Gestión del Departamento 6.7% Guardaparques 5.8% Funcionamiento de las instalaciones 6.2% Participación pública 4.0% 22-24792 | Se ofrecen servicios y apoyos auxiliares a las personas con discapacidades. GASTOS $16,619,769 ¡Vamos por más espacios abiertos! Impuesto a las ventas de Fort Collins 65% Para ayudar a preservar el espacio abierto del condado de Larimer 1/4 de centavo de impuesto sobre las ventas 38% Ingresos varios -3% INGRESOS $16,757,166 1 20 6 10 NATURAL AREASRANGERS made 4,717 cordial contacts and provided 101 first responder or community safety assists LOS COMENTARIOS DE LA COMUNIDAD 372 personas compartieron aportes para implementar en la gestión de las áreas naturales LA PRESERVACIÓN DE LAS TIERRAS 6 adquisiciones que sumaron un total de 2,415 acres 113 4 Cuatro jardines de lluvia instalados en asociación con Colorado Stormwater Center 1,000 14 420 Subvenciones comunitarias de implementación árboles financiados en asociación con de ingeniería forestal horas de monitoreo voluntario de aves y mariposas, y de jardinería en Sugarbeet Park. Preservar y mejorar las tierras con recursos naturales y valores agrícolas y paisajísticos, mientras se brindan una educación significativa y oportunidades de recreación apropiadas. LA MISIÓN DEL DEPARTAMENTO DE ÁREAS NATURALES millas LOS GUARDAPARQUES DE LAS ÁREAS NATURALES establecieron 4,717 contactos amistosos y colaboraron con 101 asistentes de servicio de emergencia o de seguridad comunitaria 345 actividades brindadas por el personal y por los voluntarios de Áreas Naturales para 13,324 personas HOGAR DE LAS ESPECIES DE MAYOR NECESIDAD DE PRESERVACIÓN AnfibiosPájarosPecesMamíferosEspecies que se reproducen o pasan la vida en áreas naturales como se enumeran en el Plan de Acción de Vida Silvestre del Estado de Colorado: 759 voluntarios 11,459 horas GRACIAS LA NATURA L E Z A EN LA C I UDAD Feedback Channels Input was collected in English and Spanish through web-based and paper forms, online and at events, March-June 2022. Outreach included: • Irish Elementary Day of the Child • Kestrel Fields Drop-In • Poudre River Drop-In • Soapstone Prairie Drop-In • Consultant-led Accessibility Assessment at Soapstone Prairie • Natural Areas E-news • Land Conservation and Stewardship Board • Social Media • Trailhead Signs • Mailing to Neighbors • Volunteer Coffee Talk • Presentations to Poudre School District Teachers and a PSD English Language Learners Group Each year, community members give feedback and answer questions to shape how Fort Collins’ natural areas should be managed. Feedback comes in many forms, all of which are valued and heard by the Natural Areas Department. 2022 Engagement Topics • Kestrel Fields Natural Area • Mountains to Plains Zone Update: Soapstone Prairie Natural Area • Poudre River Natural Areas Zone Update Community Voices • Revised the trail alignment and picked the entrance sign art at Kestrel Fields • Identified signage improvement opportunities at Soapstone Prairie and choose the signage style that will be installed. • Influenced the draft tactics in the Poudre River Zone, with further engagement in 2023. Natural Areas is Listening fcgov.com/naturalareas/feedback Race Feedback Form Fort Collins American Indian/Alaska Native 0.7%.9% Asian 0.3%3.6% Black/African American 0.3%1.5% Two or more races/Other 7.6%13.2% White 91.1% 80.8% Household Income Feedback Form Fort Collins Less than $10K per year 2%6% $10K-$34.9K per year 9%14% $35K-$74.9K per year 31%31% $75K-$149.9K per year 42%29% $150K+ per year 17% 20% Feedback Demographics The Natural Areas Department strives to conduct inclusive public engagement that matches the demographics of our community and is always evolving its processes to meet this goal. The demographics of the 372 respondents were generally older, wealthier, and more educated than the general population. Six percent of feedback form respondents self-identified their ethnicity as hispanic/latinx compared with 14% city-wide. Feedback FormFort CollinsFeedback FormFort Collins22-24792 | Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities. Áreas Naturales escucha Cada año, los miembros de la comunidad dan su opinión y responden preguntas para determinar cómo deben gestionarse las áreas naturales de Fort Collins. El Departamento de Áreas Naturales valora y escucha todos los comentarios, sin importar de dónde provengan. Temas de participación de 2022 • Área natural de Kestrel Fields. • Novedades acerca de la región Mountains to Plains: área natural de Soapstone Prairie. • Novedades acerca de la región de áreas naturales del río Poudre. Voces de la comunidad • Se controló la alineación del sendero y se eligió el letrero de entrada en Kestrel Fields. • Se identificaron las posibilidades de mejora de la señalización en Soapstone Prairie y se eligió el estilo de señalización que se instalará. • Se desarrolló un borrador de estrategias para llevar a cabo en la región del río Poudre, para una mayor participación en 2023. Vías de comunicación de los comentarios Los comentarios se recopilaron en inglés y en español a través de solicitudes impresas y electrónicas y de eventos virtuales y físicos que se desarrollaron entre marzo y junio de 2022. Se recopilaron los comentarios de: • la celebración del Día del niño de Irish Elementary; • la visita informal y espontánea a Kestrel Fields; • la visita informal y espontánea al río Poudre; • la visita informal y espontánea a Soapstone Prairie; • la evaluación de accesibilidad dirigida por consultores en Soapstone Prairie; • las novedades electrónicas sobre las áreas naturales; • la junta de Conservación y administración de tierras; • las redes sociales; • los letreros de los senderos; • los correos dirigidos a los vecinos; • la charla de café para los voluntarios; • las presentaciones para los maestros del Distrito Escolar Poudre (PSD) y un grupo de estudiantes de inglés del PSD. fcgov.com/naturalareas/feedback Raza Solicitud de comentarios Fort Collins Indígena norteamericano/Nativo de Alaska 0.7% 0.9% Asiático 0.3%3.6% Negro/Afroamericano 0.3%1.5% Dos o más razas/Otros 7.6%13.2% Blanco 91.1% 80.8% Estadísticas demográficas de los comentarios El Departamento de Áreas Naturales se esfuerza por llevar a cabo una participación pública inclusiva que se adapte a la demografía de nuestra comunidad y siempre está mejorando los procedimientos para cumplir con este objetivo. Las estadísticas demográficas de los 372 encuestados muestran que, por lo general, estos eran mayores, más adinerados y más educados que la población general. El seis por ciento de los encuestados identificaron su origen étnico como hispano/latino, en comparación con el resultado del 14% que se mostró en toda la ciudad. Ingresos del grupo familiar Solicitud de comentarios Fort Collins Menos de $10,000 al año 2%6% $10.000 a $34,900 al año 9%14% $35,000 a $74,900 al año 31%31% $75,000 a $149,900 al año 42%29% Más de $150,000 al año 17% 20%Solicitud de comenta rio s Fort CollinsSolicitud de comentario s Fort Collins22-24792 | Hay ayudas y servicios auxiliares disponibles para personas con discapacidad. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mountains to Plains Energy by Design Report to the Colorado State Land Board January 10, 2013 Red Mountain Open Space © Meegan Flenniken 2 Prepared by: Megan Kram, Energy Projects Director/Natural Resources Planner Jamie Robertson, GIS Manager The Nature Conservancy in Colorado (Boulder, Colorado) Core Team (in alphabetical order by organization and individual):  City of Fort Collins: Daylan Figgs, Natural Areas Senior Environmental Planner; and Justin Scharton, Environmental Planner.  Colorado Natural Heritage Program: Renee Rondeau, Conservation Planning Team Leader/Ecologist.  Colorado State Land Board: Bill Gaertner, Inventory Manager/GIS; Mindy Gottsegen, Conservation Services Manager; Pete Milonas, Minerals Director; and Melissa Yoder, External Affairs Officer.  Larimer County: Jeffrey Boring, Resource Specialist; and Meegan Flenniken, Resource Program Manager.  The Nature Conservancy: William Burnidge, Grasslands Program Director; Megan Kram, Project Manager; Chris Pague, Senior Scientist; and Jamie Robertson, GIS Manager. The Nature Conservancy completed this project with and for the Colorado State Land Board, pursuant to Contract #38818 / PO PCA C152179, and in close cooperation with Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. Citation: The Nature Conservancy. 2013. Mountains to Plains Energy by Design. Report to the Colorado State Land Board pursuant to Contract #38818 / PO PCA C152179. i EXECUTIVE S UMMARY INTRODUCTION In 2011, the State Land Board (SLB) began seeking a strategy to lease and develop its oil and gas holdings underlying three large, publicly-owned properties in northern Larimer County: Red Mountain Open Space (owned by Larimer County) and Soapstone Prairie Natural Area and Meadow Springs Ranch (owned by the City of Fort Collins). These properties are highly valued by the public for their vast open space and many sensitive resources and unique values, from rare species to ancient cultural artifacts. The City and County properties are considered “split estate” in that the surface is o wned by the City and County, while the underlying mineral estate is owned by separate entities including, but not limited to, the SLB. Not only do the SLB and other mineral owners have the right to develop their mineral estate, but the SLB also is charged with generating revenue from its minerals throughout Colorado, primarily to help fund K-12 education. In keeping with its responsibilities to the citizens of Colorado, yet acknowledging the sensitivities of the Project Area, the SLB sought a process to design an oil and gas leasing plan that would allow for reasonable energy development while achieving the biological, cultural, scenic and recreational resource conservation goals of local governments. The SLB contracted with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to employ its “Energy by Design” (EBD) process (also known as Development by Design) to develop a science-based plan that would identify strategies to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the potential impacts of oil and gas development to biological, cultural, and scenic values. The SLB intends to use this information to create an Oil and Gas Leasing Plan. This project is also a pilot effort for the SLB to explore possible application of the EBD or a similar process to its other holdings in the state. The SLB, TNC, the City, and the County comprised the “Core Team” that completed the majority of the work on this project. They also solicited input from a “Technical Team” of experts fro m federal, state, and local government agencies and natural resource management science-based conservation organizations including: Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW), Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University (CSU), Legacy Land Trust, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Platte River Power Authority, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. By involving the surface owners, regulatory authorities, and other stakeholders in this surface use planning process prior to leasing, SLB staff believes this project will streamline leasing and generate revenue from the mineral estate underlying a highly visible asset. The SLB also is supportive of responsible development and stewardship of surface natural values when developing its mineral estate. Soapstone Prairie Natural Area © Charlie Johnson Archaeological dig at the Lindenmeier site @ Unknown Pronghorn antelope on Soapstone Prairie © Meegan Flenniken ii SITE OVERVIEW The three properties in the Project Area are contiguous and cover over 60,000 acres north of Fort Collins, along the Wyoming border (Map 1). The City and County, together with Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO; the state lottery-funded open space program), spent several million dollars to acquire the properties as part of a regional conservation effort called the Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains Project, through which partners are creating a corridor of protected lands to link the Rocky Mountains with the Great Plains. The properties are well- known amongst residents of the City and County and contain many important values:  Biological values: From west to east, elevation decreases and vegetation shifts from woodlands up high to grasslands down low. Creeks and streams traverse the area and host a rare fish, the Iowa darter, while wetlands provide habitat for waterfowl and many rare species, including the federally-threatened Colorado butterfly plant. Golden eagles, swift fox, pronghorn, and many other sensitive species inhabit the area too. Meadow Springs surrounds the National Black-footed Ferret Conservation Center owned and managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Although a variety of existing roads (mostly unimproved natural surface roads) cross the landscape and buildings, corrals, and other infrastructure dot it, the biological values throughout the Project Area remain relatively intact and high quality.  Cultural values: Soapstone Prairie boasts a National Historic Landmark - the Lindenmeier Archaeological Site - which is more than 12,000 years old and is the most extensive Folsom culture campsite known on the planet. In addition, stone tools, cooking hearths, and other cultural artifacts can be found throughout the Project Area.  Scenic and recreational values: In keeping with the objectives of GOCO, Red Mountain and Soapstone Prairie are open to public use and are popular destinations for hiking, biking, horseback riding, and other recreation activities. Visitors to the Project Area enjoy extraordinary views of rolling grasslands, textured shrublands, and the “Big Hole,” a broad sandy wash surrounded by multicolored cliff bands.  Other values: Meadow Springs is not open to public use and while protecting important biological and cultural attributes, also serves as the City’s bio-solid application facility, which is a critical component in the City’s wastewater program. All three properties are also managed as working cattle ranches. Map 1. Location of the Project Area iii OIL AND GAS DEVELOPM ENT POSSIBILITIES Energy development is booming in eastern Colorado. Although the plains have been the target of oil and gas development activities for decades, the 2009 discovery of the Jake Well near the Wyoming border (due east of the Project Area by approximately 30 miles) prompted a new explosion of oil leasing and exploration throughout the eastern half of Colorado in a geological layer called the Niobrara Formation. Technological advances in the capture of oil and gas in the Niobrara and other shale formations have further catalyzed leasing and development. The eastern part of the Project Area lies within the Niobrara Formation. The oil and gas development potential of the Project Area is unproven, but is predicted to increase from west to east, with Meadow Springs having the highest potential based on at least one analysis. According to the Colorado Geological Survey, there may only be one place in the Soapstone Prairie – southeast of Round Butte – where energy companies could successfully explore for oil. Also, oil and gas exploration is not new to this landscape. Over the last 60 years, a number of wells in the area have been drilled (and subsequently plugged and abandoned) according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). Activity is ramping up once again, as evidenced by oil and gas companies contacting the City with an interest in exploring and developing the area. For example, in March 2012, a seismic company approached the City to study 20,000 acres covering much of Meadow Springs and part of Soapstone Prairie. In May 2012 and pursuant to previous leasing activity, Marathon Oil received approval from the COGCC to expand and establish new drilling and spacing units for 32 wells within and near the Project Area, several of which lie within Soapstone Prairie and Meadow Springs. Marathon also has successfully completed a producing well just a few miles south of the Project Area. In addition, the SLB has received numerous requests to lease its minerals underlying the Project Area, but has refrained from auctioning these tracts to develop a more comprehensive leasing and development strategy. As stated above, the City and County do not appear to own any of the mineral estate underlying the Project Area. Major mineral owners include the SLB and Anadarko, with the SLB holding approximately 15,000 acres in trust, primarily in the eastern half of the Project Area. Several additional owners/lessees have less substantial mineral holdings throughout the parcels, with Marathon Oil being the major leaseholder at present. The Core Team solicited participation from several operators throughout the project. Marathon participated in one of the Technical Team workshops and hosted a well site visit mid-project. The SLB also has conducted outreach to the Colorado Oil and Gas Association. The Core Team may continue to solicit input and participation from oil and gas companies in subsequent phases of the project (see Implementation of Results). Well site © Gary Buffington iv PLAN RESULTS: SURFAC E OCCUPANCY AREAS The goal of the project is to create a comprehensive plan for oil and gas development in the near term while maintaining important biological, cultural, scenic, and recreational values. To this end, the Core Team (with input from the Technical Team) created a series of recommendations designed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts, with a goal of achieving “no net loss” or “net zero impact” to the conservation values of the project area. Surface Occupancy Areas for biological and cultural values – Based on known locations of biological and cultural values, the Technical Team defined and mapped four types of “surface occupancy areas:” No Surface Occupancy (NSO), Limited Surface Occupancy (LSO), Controlled Surface Occupancy (CSO), and Preferred Surface Occupancy (PSO)(Map 2). The main differences between the areas are (1) the sensitivity of the biological and cultural values for which they were created and (2) compensatory mitigation provisions for biological values. The goal of these tiered areas is to protect key biological and cultural values by providing incentives to operators to develop in the areas where development has the least impact. Examples of NSO areas include wetlands plus a 300’ buffer, golden eagle nests plus a ¼ mile buffer, and the Lindenmeier Archaeological Site plus a one-mile buffer. PSO areas, at the other end of the spectrum, are preferred for development from a biological perspective due to previous and existing disturbances such as roads and utility lines. The precise designation of the surface occupancy areas will be based on site-specific, on-the-ground surveys conducted by the operator prior to development. Map 2, Surface Occupancy Areas, is a result of an intensive process of identifying and prioritizing key biological and cultural areas for short and long-term protection. This map is intended to guide both surface and mineral owners in the leasing and development of their mineral estate. For the Project Area as a whole, new surface disturbance is prohibited for 44% (NSO) of the land while the remaining 56% falls within the other three categories (LSO, CSO, and PSO). For the SLB mineral ownership, new surface disturbance is prohibited for 27% (NSO), while the remaining 73% falls within the other three categories. Three sections in the northern portion of Soapstone Prairie are designated entirely as NSO due to the Lindenmeier site. Several other sections in the western and northwestern parts of the Project Area fall entirely into NSO designations for biological reasons. All other sections provide access to minerals. Map 2. Surface occupancy areas for biological and cultural values v PLAN RESULTS: SUPPL EMENTARY RECOMMENDAT IONS Timing limitations for biological values – Some species need seasonal restrictions from construction or general human disturbance to support their life cycles. For example, Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) recommends timing limitations of no human encroachment within ½ mile radius of golden eagle nests from December 15-July 15 to prevent nest abandonment, and no post-development well-site visits within critical winter range for mule deer from December 1-April 15 (from 3 p.m.-10 a.m.). The Technical Team incorporated all timing limitations from the COGCC Rules, CPW’s best practices and other sources to identify both legal requirements for timing limitations and additional recommendations as appropriate. As with surface occupancy areas, pre- development surveys must be completed to determine whether timing limitations will apply. Surface development standards and mitigation – The combination of surface occupancy areas and timing limitations identify sensitive natural values, with the ultimate goal of guiding surface development away from these areas. But the mere identification of these areas is not likely to achieve complete avoidance of impacts to the biological and cultural values in the project area. The Core Team created a suite of complementary recommendations for incorporation into the SLB leasing package and the City and Cou nty’s Surface Use Agreements. These tools work together like a three-legged stool to support the surface occupancy areas by creating incentives to achieve the plan’s overarching goal: To avoid, minimize, and mitigate the short - and long- term impacts of new disturbance in the Project Area.  Disturbance caps – The Core Team identified two disturbance caps: A long-term disturbance cap of 3% per section (or lease holding) to allow for production on up to four well pads per section, and a temporary disturbance cap of an additional 1.25% per section to allow for the development of one well pad per section before reclamation success is achieved and development of a subsequent well pad can begin.  Compensatory mitigation fees – An operator must participate in a compensatory mitigation program with the Surface Owners by contributing to a mitigation fund. Fees apply to long-term impacts only (not to temporary impacts), and vary based on the number of well pads and surface occupancy areas, ranging from $2,200/acre in Preferred Surface Occupancy up to $13,200/acre for a fourth well pad in a section and in a Limited Surface Occupancy area. Mitigation projects will ensure “ecological equivalency” by completing projects that benefit the same conservation values that are impacted. Potential projects include land protection, habitat improvement, or mineral/water rights acquisitions.  Reclamation provisions – Prior to development, an operator must create a reclamation plan and provide a bond of $10,000 per acre of surface disturbance. Operators must reclaim both temporary and long term impacts over time, according to specified standards. The City and County will return the bond, or applicable portions thereof, to the operator upon successful reclamation of impacts. To complement these tools, the City and County are also developing a series of Best Management Practices to address the resources on the property and their importance, by expanding on the COGCC Rules as a basis. Scenic and recreational values and cultural resource potential – To guide energy companies in the placement of well pads and other infrastructure in locations that would have the least visual impact possible, the Technical Team prioritized scenic values from important viewpoints and trails, and CSU developed a predictive model and map showing potential sites for cultural resources such as tools and cooking hearths. These maps can be used in combination with the biological and (existing) cultural resource maps to help select alternative locations for development. However, they do not replace on-the-ground surveys for the final selection of sites. vi IMPLEMENTATION OF RE SULTS This report and its recommendations constitute the first of three phases toward the potential development of oil and gas in the Project Area (Figure 1). Figure 1. Project phases. This report addresses Phase I only. In Phase II, the SLB will use the Phase I recommendations to create an Oil and Gas Leasing Plan for the SLB minerals in the Project Area. In Phase III, the City and County will create a Surface Use Agreement, which will build on Phases I and II and will be used with all potential operators in the Project Area, including but not limited to those associated with the SLB minerals. Operators can use all of this information in their planning for oil and gas development. The SLB, City, County, and TNC envision continuing to work together on Phases II and III, and may solicit additional input from the Technical Team as needed. As was the case with Phase I, representatives from the oil and gas industry are welcome and encouraged to participate in the remaining phases of the project. Given the checkerboard subsurface ownership, the plan will only be as effective as the implementation of its recommendations. This plan provides reasonable access to minerals while protecting biological and cultural resources. The implementation of this plan will provide reasonable assurance that if mineral development occurs at Red Mountain Open Space, Soapstone Prairie Natural Area, or Meadow Springs Ranch, critical cultural and biological resources and extraordinary scenic and recreational values will be protected. FOR MORE INFORMATION  City of Fort Collins: Daylan Figgs, Natural Areas Senior Environmental Planner, 970-416-2814, dfiggs@fcgov.com.  Larimer County: Meegan Flenniken, Resource Program Manager, 970-679-4562, mflenniken@larimer.org.  State Land Board: Pete Milonas, Minerals Director, 303-866-3454 x3324, pete.milonas@state.co.us, and Melissa Yoder, External Affairs Officer, 303-866-3454 x3330, melissa.yoder@state.co.us.  The Nature Conservancy: Megan Kram, Project Manager, 303-257-0430, mkram@tnc.org. Soapstone Prairie Natural Area © Meegan Flenniken Phase I: Energy by Design Plan (Led by TNC) Phase II: Oil and Gas Leasing Plan (Led by SLB) Phase III: Surface Use Agreement (Led by the City/County) 1 Mountains to Plains Energy by Design Report to the Colorado State Land Board January 10, 2013 Red Mountain Open Space ©Meegan Flenniken 2 Prepared by: Megan Kram, Energy Projects Director/Natural Resources Planner Jamie Robertson, GIS Manager The Nature Conservancy in Colorado (Boulder, Colorado) Core Team (in alphabetical order by organization and individual):  City of Fort Collins: Daylan Figgs, Natural Areas Senior Environmental Planner; and Justin Scharton, Environmental Planner.  Colorado Natural Heritage Program: Renee Rondeau, Conservation Planning Team Leader/Ecologist.  Colorado State Land Board: Bill Gaertner, Inventory Manager/GIS; Mindy Gottsegen, Conservation Services Manager; Pete Milonas, Minerals Director; and Melissa Yoder, External Affairs Officer.  Larimer County: Jeffrey Boring, Resource Specialist; and Meegan Flenniken, Resource Program Manager.  The Nature Conservancy: William Burnidge, Grasslands Program Director; Megan Kram, Project Manager; Chris Pague, Senior Scientist; and Jamie Robertson, GIS Manager. The Nature Conservancy completed this project with and for the Colorado State Land Board, pursuant to Contract #38818 / PO PCA C152179, and in close cooperation with Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. Citation: The Nature Conservancy. 2013. Mountains to Plains Energy by Design. Report to the Colorado State Land Board pursuant to Contract #38818 / PO PCA C152179. i CONTENTS ACKNOWELDGEMENTS ABSTRACT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ i PART I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................. 1 A. Purpose and history ....................................................................................................................................... 1 B. Process overview and timeline ....................................................................................................................... 2 C. Benefits to parties .......................................................................................................................................... 3 i. Surface owners (City of Fort Collins and Larimer County) .................................................................................. 3 ii. State Land Board ................................................................................................................................................ 3 D. Principles ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 E. Project Area ................................................................................................................................................... 5 i. Surface ownership and values ............................................................................................................................ 5 ii. Subsurface ownership and values ..................................................................................................................... 7 F. Participants .................................................................................................................................................. 10 PART II. RESULTS: SURFACE OCCUPANCY AREAS ................................................................................................ 13 A. Cultural values and surface occupancy areas ................................................................................................ 13 i. Targets ............................................................................................................................................................. 13 ii. Surface occupancy areas .................................................................................................................................. 14 B. Biological values and surface occupancy areas .............................................................................................. 14 i. Targets .............................................................................................................................................................. 14 ii. Surface occupancy areas .................................................................................................................................. 24 C. FINAL SURFACE OCCUPANCY AREAS, DEFINITIONS, AND STANDARDS ........................................................... 33 PART III. RESULTS: SUPPLEMENTARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 39 A. Timing limitations for biological values ......................................................................................................... 39 B. Surface development standards and mitigation ............................................................................................ 41 i. Disturbance caps ............................................................................................................................................... 41 ii. Compensatory mitigation fees ......................................................................................................................... 42 iii. Reclamation standards ................................................................................................................................... 44 C. Scenic and recreational values ...................................................................................................................... 46 D. Cultural resource potential ........................................................................................................................... 51 PART IV. DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................................................... 53 A. Use of results in next steps ........................................................................................................................... 53 B. Strengths and limitations of Mountains to Plains Energy by Design ............................................................... 53 BIBLIOGRAPHY ii GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix 1. Biological Targets Appendix 1a. Ecological system targets: reclassification of potential targets into new target types Appendix 1b. Ecological system targets: final list Appendix 1c. Plant community targets Appendix 1d. Species targets Appendix 2. Existing disturbances - Available data and inputs to the Preferred Surface Occupancy layer Appendix 3. Surface occupancy recommendations and timing limitations, including justification Appendix 3a. SUMMARY TABLE: Surface occupancy recommendations and timing limitations Appendix 3b. Sources considered Appendix 3c. Inputs to categorizing targets into Surface Occupancy Areas Appendix 3d. Target-specific tables: Surface occupancy recommendations and timing limitations and including justification Appendix 4. Methods used for calculating the compensatory mitigation fee Appendix 5. Maps Map 1. Location of the project area within the broader Mountains to Plains region Map 2. Subsurface ownership and mineral leases Map 3. Oil and gas development potential in the project area and the surrounding vicinity Map 4. Biological values - Ecological system targets Map 5. Biological values – Species and plant community targets Map 6. Biological values – Legal and additional recommended areas warranting year-round avoidance (input to No Surface Occupancy and Restricted Surface Occupancy maps for biological values) Map 7. Biological values – No Surface Occupancy (input to final biological map) Map 8. Biological values – Limited Surface Occupancy (input to final biological map) Map 9. Biological values - Existing infrastructure impacting biological values (input to Preferred Surface Occupancy map for biological values) Map 10. Biological values – Preferred Surface Occupancy (input to final biological map) Map 11. Biological values - Preferred Surface Occupancy (input to final biological map) Map 12. Biological values - final surface occupancy recommendations for biological values ONLY Map 13. FINAL MAP OF SURFACE OCCUPANCY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL VALUES Map 14. Timing limitations – Legal and additional recommended timing limitations affecting surface occupancy Map 15. Timing limitations - Seasonality of timing limitations affecting surface occupancy Map 16. Scenic values – Surface occupancy areas that are visible from the Lindenmeier Archaeological Site Map 17. Scenic values – Surface occupancy areas that are visible from public trails in the Project Area Map 18. Scenic values – Decline in visibility analysis from the Lindenmeier Archaeological Site Map 19. Scenic values – Decline in visibility analysis from all public trails in the Project Area Map 20. Scenic values – Cumulative viewshed analysis from the public trails in the Project Area iii Appendix 6. Cultural Resources Maps Cultural Resources Map 1. No Surface Occupancy (input to final cultural map) Cultural Resources Map 2. Limited Surface Occupancy (input to final cultural map) Cultural Resources Map 3. Final map of surface occupancy for CULTURAL VALUES ONLY Cultural Resources Map 4. Inputs to map of cultural resource potential Cultural Resources Map 5. Final map of cultural resource potential iv v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is with deep appreciation that The Nature Conservancy wishes to recognize the contributions made to the Mountains to Plains Energy by Design project by the members of the Core and Technical Teams. First and foremost, Pete Milonas, Melissa Yoder, Mindy Gottsegen, and Bill Gaertner of the Colorado State Land Board (SLB) all shaped the vision for the project, provided key technical input, and helped guide the management of the project to ensure its success as members of the Core Team. They demonstrated a commitment to the goals and responsibilities of the SLB, as well as an understanding of and sensitivity to the issues faced by the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County as they represented their constituents and the unique open space investments previously made in the area. Daylan Figgs and Justin Scharton at the City of Fort Collins (the City), and Meegan Flenniken and Jeffrey Boring at Larimer County (the County), also stepped up for their respective units of local government to pursue a collaborative approach to honoring the mandate and property of the SLB by taking the best account possible of City and County interests. Under their leadership, the City and County also provided a tremendous amount of technical information about their properties. Their knowledge of their lands, awareness of their constituents’ concerns, and long-term stewardship approach added immense value to the project. Renee Rondeau with the Colorado Natural Heritage Program also contributed invaluable scientific expertise and data, helping to ensure that the recommendations were grounded in scienc e. In addition to these Core Team members, the organizations and individuals that comprised the Technical Team also deserve great credit for all of the data that they brought to the table, as well as interpretation of that data, relative to the oil and gas development activities under consideration. The members of the Technical Team participated on behalf of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado Parks & Wildlife, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Larimer County, Legacy Land Trust, Marathon Oil, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Platte River Power Authority, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The ideas they shared greatly strengthened the products herein. Finally, we wish to thank the members of the Colorado Board of Land Commissioners and the senior staff at the SLB for their leadership in working with local units of government and for their initiative in exploring tools like Energy by Design in order to enable all parties to better serve the collective constituent interests. We recognize that Energy by Design projects may require more up-front time and resources than organizations typically put into energy development projects, but our hope is that the SLB will benefit from the reduction in risks to successful mineral development and to nature. We therefore very much appreciate the commitment of the SLB to this effort and its proactive initiative to set the stage for success as development moves forward. vi vii ABSTRACT Based on The Nature Conservancy’s Energy by Design methodology, this report identifies priority biological, cultural, scenic, and recreational resource values within 60,000 acres in northeastern Colorado and recommends strategies to avoid, minimize, and offset the potential impacts of oil and gas development to these values. It provides an example of collaborative energy planning between federal, state, and local governments, a mineral owner (Colorado State Land Board), and nonprofit organizations. The Colorado State Land Board (SLB) established this project as a strategy to lease and develop its oil and gas holdings underlying three large, publicly-owned properties in northern Larimer County: Red Mountain Open Space (owned by Larimer County), and Soapstone Prairie Natural Area and Meadow Springs Ranch (owned by the City of Fort Collins). The SLB sought a process to design an oil and gas leasing plan that would consider energy development with the conservation goals of local governments. Under contract with the SLB, The Nature Conservancy led this project working closely with the SLB, the City of Fort Collins (the City), Larimer County (the County), and with input from a Technical Team. This report identifies recommendations to the SLB for surface restrictions across the Project Area (for lands including but not limited to those where the SLB owns minerals), including areas for avoidance, minimization of impacts, and preferred areas for oil and gas development. It also provides guidance for timing limitations for biological resources, restoration standards, and possible compensatory mitigation to aid the SLB in its creation of an Oil and Gas Leasing Plan. It may also be used by operators and the City and County to identify provisions of Surface Use Agreements for oil and gas development. viii i EXECUTIVE S UMMARY MOUNTAINS TO P LAINS ENERGY BY DESI GN (JANUARY 10, 2013 ) INTRODUCTION In 2011, the State Land Board (SLB) began seeking a strategy to lease and develop its oil and gas holdings underlying three large, publicly-owned properties in northern Larimer County: Red Mountain Open Space (owned by Larimer County) and Soapstone Prairie Natural Area and Meadow Springs Ranch (owned by the City of Fort Collins). These properties are highly valued by the public for their vast open space and many sensitive resources and unique values, from rare species to ancient cultural artifacts. The City and County properties are considered “split estate” in that the surface is owned by the City and County, while the underlying mineral estate is owned by separate entities including, but not limited to, the SLB. Not only do the SLB and other mineral owners have the right to develop their mineral estate, but the SLB also is charged with generating revenue from its minerals throughout Colorado, primarily to help fund K-12 education. In keeping with its responsibilities to the citizens of Colorado, yet acknowledging the sensitivities of the Project Area, the SLB sought a process to design an oil and gas leasing plan that would allow for reasonable energy development while achieving the biological, cultural, scenic and recreational resource conservation goals of local governments. The SLB contracted with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to employ its “Energy by Design” (EBD) process (also known as Development by Design) to develop a science-based plan that would identify strategies to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the potential impacts of oil and gas development to biological, cultural, and scenic values. The SLB intends to use this information to create an Oil and Gas Leasing Plan. This project is also a pilot effort for the SLB to explore possible application of the EBD or a similar process to its other holdings in the state. The SLB, TNC, the City, and the County comprised the “Core Team” that completed the majority of the work on this project. They also solicited input from a “Technical Team” of experts from federal, state, and local government agencies and natural resource management science-based conservation organizations including: Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW), Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University (CSU), Legacy Land Trust, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Platte River Power Authority, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. By involving the surface owners, regulatory authorities, and other stakeholders in this surface use planning process prior to leasing, SLB staff believes this project will streamline leasing and generate revenue from the mineral estate underlying a highly visible asset. The SLB also is supportive of responsible development and stewardship of surface natural values when developing its mineral estate. Soapstone Prairie Natural Area © Charlie Johnson Archaeological dig at the Lindenmeier site @ Unknown Pronghorn antelope on Soapstone Prairie © Meegan Flenniken ii SITE OVERVIEW The three properties in the Project Area are contiguous and cover over 60,000 acres north of Fort Collins, along the Wyoming border (Map 1). The City and County, together with Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO; the state lottery-funded open space program), spent several million dollars to acquire the properties as part of a regional conservation effort called the Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains Project, through which partners are creating a corridor of protected lands to link the Rocky Mountains with the Great Plains. The properties are well- known amongst residents of the City and County and contain many important values:  Biological values: From west to east, elevation decreases and vegetation shifts from woodlands up high to grasslands down low. Creeks and streams traverse the area and host a rare fish, the Iowa darter, while wetlands provide habitat for waterfowl and many rare species, including the federally-threatened Colorado butterfly plant. Golden eagles, swift fox, pronghorn, and many other sensitive species inhabit the area too. Meadow Springs surrounds the National Black-footed Ferret Conservation Center owned and managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Although a variety of existing roads (mostly unimproved natural surface roads) cross the landscape and buildings, corrals, and other infrastructure dot it, the biological values throughout the Project Area remain relatively intact and high quality.  Cultural values: Soapstone Prairie boasts a National Historic Landmark - the Lindenmeier Archaeological Site - which is more than 12,000 years old and is the most extensive Folsom culture campsite known on the planet. In addition, stone tools, cooking hearths, and other cultural artifacts can be found throughout the Project Area.  Scenic and recreational values: In keeping with the objectives of GOCO, Red Mountain and Soapstone Prairie are open to public use and are popular destinations for hiking, biking, horseback riding, and other recreation activities. Visitors to the Project Area enjoy extraordinary views of rolling grasslands, textured shrublands, and the “Big Hole,” a broad sandy wash surrounded by multicolored cliff bands.  Other values: Meadow Springs is not open to public use and while protecting important biological and cultural attributes, also serves as the City’s bio-solid application facility, which is a critical component in the City’s wastewater program. All three properties are also managed as working cattle ranches. Map 1. Location of the Project Area iii OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT POSSIBIL ITIES Energy development is booming in eastern Colorado. Although the plains have been the target of oil and gas development activities for decades, the 2009 discovery of the Jake Well near the Wyoming border (due east of the Project Area by approximately 30 miles) prompted a new explosion of oil leasing and exploration throughout the eastern half of Colorado in a geological layer called the Niobrara Formation. Technological advances in the capture of oil and gas in the Niobrara and other shale formations have further catalyzed leasing and development. The eastern part of the Project Area lies within the Niobrara Formation. The oil and gas development potential of the Project Area is unproven, but is predicted to increase from west to east, with Meadow Springs having the highest potential based on at least one analysis. According to the Colorado Geological Survey, there may only be one place in the Soapstone Prairie – southeast of Round Butte – where energy companies could successfully explore for oil. Also, oil and gas exploration is not new to this landscape. Over the last 60 years, a number of wells in the area have been drilled (and subsequently plugged and abandoned) according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). Activity is ramping up once again, as evidenced by oil and gas companies contacting the City with an interest in exploring and developing the area. For example, in March 2012, a seismic company approached the City to study 20,000 acres covering much of Meadow Springs and part of Soapstone Prairie. In May 2012 and pursuant to previous leasing activity, Marathon Oil received approval from the COGCC to expand and establish new drilling and spacing units for 32 wells within and near the Project Area, several of which lie within Soapstone Prairie and Meadow Springs. Marathon also has successfully completed a producing well just a few miles south of the Project Area. In addition, the SLB has received numerous requests to lease its minerals underlying the Project Area, but has refrained from auctioning these tracts to develop a more comprehensive leasing and development strategy. As stated above, the City and County do not appear to own any of the mineral estate underlying the Project Area. Major mineral owners include the SLB and Anadarko, with the SLB holding approximately 15,000 acres in trust, primarily in the eastern half of the Project Area. Several additional owners/lessees have less substantial mineral holdings throughout the parcels, with Marathon Oil being the major leaseholder at present. The Core Team solicited participation from several operators throughout the project. Marathon participated in one of the Technical Team workshops and hosted a well site visit mid-project. The SLB also has conducted outreach to the Colorado Oil and Gas Association. The Core Team may continue to solicit input and participation from oil and gas companies in subsequent phases of the project (see Implementation of Results). Well site © Gary Buffington iv PLAN RESULTS: SURFAC E OCCUPANCY AREAS The goal of the project is to create a comprehensive plan for oil and gas development in the near term while maintaining important biological, cultural, scenic, and recreational values. To this end, the Core Team (with input from the Technical Team) created a series of recommendations designed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts, with a goal of achieving “no net loss” or “net zero impact” to the conservation values of the project area. Surface Occupancy Areas for biological and cultural values – Based on known locations of biological and cultural values, the Technical Team defined and mapped four types of “surface occupancy areas:” No Surface Occupancy (NSO), Limited Surface Occupancy (LSO), Controlled Surface Occupancy (CSO), and Preferred Surface Occupancy (PSO)(Map 2). The main differences between the areas are (1) the sensitivity of the biological and cultural values for which they were created and (2) compensatory mitigation provisions for biological values. The goal of these tiered areas is to protect key biological and cultural values by providing incentives to operators to develop in the areas where development has the least impact. Examples of NSO areas include wetlands plus a 300’ buffer, golden eagle nests plus a ¼ mile buffer, and the Lindenmeier Archaeological Site plus a one-mile buffer. PSO areas, at the other end of the spectrum, are preferred for development from a biological perspective due to previous and existing disturbances such as roads and utility lines. The precise designation of the surface occupancy areas will be based on site-specific, on-the-ground surveys conducted by the operator prior to development. Map 2, Surface Occupancy Areas, is a result of an intensive process of identifying and prioritizing key biological and cultural areas for short and long-term protection. This map is intended to guide both surface and mineral owners in the leasing and development of their mineral estate. For the Project Area as a whole, new surface disturbance is prohibited for 44% (NSO) of the land while the remaining 56% falls within the other three categories (LSO, CSO, and PSO). For the SLB mineral ownership, new surface disturbance is prohibited for 27% (NSO), while the remaining 73% falls within the other three categories. Three sections in the northern portion of Soapstone Prairie are designated entirely as NSO due to the Lindenmeier site. Several other sections in the western and northwestern parts of the Project Area fall entirely into NSO designations for biological reasons. All other sections provide access to minerals. Map 2. Surface occupancy areas for biological and cultural values v PLAN RESULTS: SUPPL EMENTARY RECOMMENDAT IONS Timing limitations for biological values – Some species need seasonal restrictions from construction or general human disturbance to support their life cycles. For example, Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) recommends timing limitations of no human encroachment within ½ mile radius of golden eagle nests from December 15-July 15 to prevent nest abandonment, and no post-development well-site visits within critical winter range for mule deer from December 1-April 15 (from 3 p.m.-10 a.m.). The Technical Team incorporated all timing limitations from the COGCC Rules, CPW’s best practices and other sources to identify both legal requirements for timing limitations and additional recommendations as appropriate. As with surface occupancy areas, pre- development surveys must be completed to determine whether timing limitations will apply. Surface development standards and mitigation – The combination of surface occupancy areas and timing limitations identify sensitive natural values, with the ultimate goal of guiding surface development away from these areas. But the mere identification of these areas is not likely to achieve complete avoidance of impacts to the biological and cultural values in the project area. The Core Team created a suite of complementary recommendations for incorporation into the SLB leasing package and the City and County’s Surface Use Agreements. These tools work together like a three-legged stool to support the surface occupancy areas by creating incentives to achieve the plan’s overarching goal: To avoid, minimize, and mitigate the short - and long- term impacts of new disturbance in the Project Area.  Disturbance caps – The Core Team identified two disturbance caps: A long-term disturbance cap of 3% per section (or lease holding) to allow for production on up to four well pads per section, and a temporary disturbance cap of an additional 1.25% per section to allow for the development of one well pad per section before reclamation success is achieved and development of a subsequent well pad can begin.  Compensatory mitigation fees – An operator must participate in a compensatory mitigation program with the Surface Owners by contributing to a mitigation fund. Fees apply to long-term impacts only (not to temporary impacts), and vary based on the number of well pads and surface occupancy areas, ranging from $2,200/acre in Preferred Surface Occupancy up to $13,200/acre for a fourth well pad in a section and in a Limited Surface Occupancy area. Mitigation projects will ensure “ecological equivalency” by completing projects that benefit the same conservation values that are impacted. Potential projects include land protection, habitat improvement, or mineral/water rights acquisitions.  Reclamation provisions – Prior to development, an operator must create a reclamation plan and provide a bond of $10,000 per acre of surface disturbance. Operators must reclaim both temporary and long term impacts over time, according to specified standards. The City and County will return the bond, or applicable portions thereof, to the operator upon successful reclamation of impacts. To complement these tools, the City and County are also developing a series of Best Management Practices to address the resources on the property and their importance, by expanding on the COGCC Rules as a basis. Scenic and recreational values and cultural resource potential – To guide energy companies in the placement of well pads and other infrastructure in locations that would have the least visual impact possible, the Technical Team prioritized scenic values from important viewpoints and trails, and CSU developed a predictive model and map showing potential sites for cultural resources such as tools and cooking hearths. These maps can be used in combination with the biological and (existing) cultural resource maps to help select alternative locations for development. However, they do not replace on-the-ground surveys for the final selection of sites. vi IMPLEMENTATION OF RESULTS This report and its recommendations constitute the first of three phases toward the potential development of oil and gas in the Project Area (Figure 1). Figure 1. Project phases. This report addresses Phase I only. In Phase II, the SLB will use the Phase I recommendations to create an Oil and Gas Leasing Plan for the SLB minerals in the Project Area. In Phase III, the City and County will create a Surface Use Agreement, which will build on Phases I and II and will be used with all potential operators in the Project Area, including but not limited to those associated with the SLB minerals. Operators can use all of this information in their planning for oil and gas development. The SLB, City, County, and TNC envision continuing to work together on Phases II and III, and may solicit additional input from the Technical Team as needed. As was the case with Phase I, representatives from the oil and gas industry are welcome and encouraged to participate in the remaining phases of the project. Given the checkerboard subsurface ownership, the plan will only be as effective as the implementation of its recommendations. This plan provides reasonable access to minerals while protecting biological and cultural resources. The implementation of this plan will provide reasonable assurance that if mineral development occurs at Red Mountain Open Space, Soapstone Prairie Natural Area, or Meadow Springs Ranch, critical cultural and biological resources and extraordinary scenic and recreational values will be protected. FOR MORE INFORMATION  City of Fort Collins: Daylan Figgs, Natural Areas Senior Environmental Planner, 970-416-2814, dfiggs@fcgov.com.  Larimer County: Meegan Flenniken, Resource Program Manager, 970-679-4562, mflenniken@larimer.org.  State Land Board: Pete Milonas, Minerals Director, 303-866-3454 x3324, pete.milonas@state.co.us, and Melissa Yoder, External Affairs Officer, 303-866-3454 x3330, melissa.yoder@state.co.us.  The Nature Conservancy: Megan Kram, Project Manager, 303-257-0430, mkram@tnc.org. Soapstone Prairie Natural Area © Meegan Flenniken Phase I: Energy by Design Plan (Led by TNC) Phase II: Oil and Gas Leasing Plan (Led by SLB) Phase III: Surface Use Agreement (Led by the City/County) 1 PART I. INTRODUCTIO N AND OVERVIEW A. P URPOSE AND H ISTORY In 2011, the State Land Board (SLB) began seeking a strategy to lease and develop its oil and gas holdings on state trust lands underlying three large, publicly-owned properties in northern Larimer County: Red Mountain Open Space (owned by Larimer County Open Lands), Soapstone Prairie Natural Area (owned by the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department) and Meadow Springs Ranch (owned by the City of Fort Collins Utility). These properties are valued by the public and contain many sensitive and unique values, from rare species to ancient cultural artifacts to vast views. At the same time, the SLB has a constitutional mandate to generate revenue from its mineral estate which primarily helps fund K-12 education in Colorado. In recognition of the potentially conflicting uses of the property, the SLB sought a thorough, transparent, and science-based process to design an oil and gas leasing plan that would take into consideration biological, cultural, scenic, and recreational resource conservation. The SLB contracted with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to employ its “Energy by Design” (EBD) tool1 to identify strategies to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the potential impacts of oil and gas development to biological, cultural, scenic, and recreational values. To date, TNC has applied EBD to approximately 20 projects in the U.S. and around the world, with the first being the Jonah Project in Wyoming in 2006. The Mountains to Plains EBD project differs from other EBD projects in several ways:  It addresses biological, cultural, scenic and recreational values. Other EBD projects have addressed biological values only;  It includes more detailed recommendations about how to avoid and minimize oil and gas-related impacts than have other EBD projects; and  It provides guidance for compensatory mitigation, but does not provide maps of preferred locations for mitigation projects. Other EBD projects have done the opposite. The SLB, TNC, the City of Fort Collins, and Larimer County comprised the “Core Team” that completed the bulk of the work on this project. They defined the project scope in terms of potential impacts stemming from surface disturbances and the construction and operation of surficial oil and gas infrastructure. The scope did not directly analyze or otherwise consider potential risks posed by the subsurface oil and gas development or extraction activities or infrastructure, including hydraulic fracturing (aka, “hydro -fracking” or “fracking”). The Core Team also solicited input from a “Technical Team” of experts from federal, state, and local government agencies and science-based conservation organizations (see Part I-F, Participants). By involving the surface owners and the regulatory authorities in this surface use planning process prior to leasing, the SLB believes this project will lower the risk for oil and gas companies, proactively address the concerns of the local jurisdictions, and increase the likelihood of oil and gas development for the state’s mineral holdings. 1 TNC’s official and more commonly used term for this methodology is Development by Design. However, because those involved with this project, including the media, have called this project Energy by Design from its outset, this project will continue to use the EBD term. 2 B. PROCESS OVERVIEW AND TIMELINE This report describes the methods and results for the Energy by Design Plan, which is the first of three phases of this project (Figure 1). Figure 1. Project phases. This report addresses Phase I only. Phase I (Energy by Design Plan) – Identify priority areas and strategies to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts: This phase began in November 2011 with the execution of a contract between the SLB and TNC and ended in January 2013 with the completion of this report (Table 1). TNC led this phase, working closely with the SLB, the City, and the County and with input from the Technical Team (see Part I-F, Participants). This phase provided an “onsite analysis” of priority biological, cultural, scenic and recreational resource values prior to the SLB’s lease sale. It identified recommendations to the SLB for surface restrictions across the Project Area (for lands including but not limited to those where the SLB owns minerals), including areas for avoidance, minimization of impacts, and preferred areas for oil and gas development. It also provided disturbance caps, reclamation standards, and guidance for possible compensatory mitigation to aid the SLB in its future creation of an Oil and Gas Leasing Plan (Phase II) and the City and County in their creation of a Surface Use Agreement (Phase III). The results are based partially on the concepts in the documents associated with oil and gas development on the Lowry Range Oil and Gas Lease, which the SLB completed in April 2012 (Colorado State Land Board, 2012).2 TNC built the work for Phase I around three workshops with the Technical Team (see Part I-F, Participants). Prior to each Technical Team workshop, TNC first drafted materials with input from the TNC Science Team, and then met with the Core Team to review the draft materials and workshop agendas. Table 1. Phase I milestones and dates Phase I Milestones Dates Contract signed between the SLB and TNC November 23, 2011 Technical Team workshop #1 January 23, 2012 MOU signed between the SLB, the City, and the County January 24, 2012 Technical Team workshop #2 March 29, 2012 2 This lease consists of a series of documents: (1) A general Lease Agreement, (2) Exhibit A - Premises description, (3) Exhibit B – Lease Stipulations, (4) Maps, and (5) a Surface Use, ROW and Damages Agreement. Prior to the approval of these documents, the Lowry Range Integrated Management Plan was developed and adopted. To complement these materials, ConocoPhillips is developing an oil and gas development plan and a map of an “Oil and Gas Operations Area” that will eventually define where and when the infrastructure will be constructed. Phase I: Energy by Design Plan (Led by TNC) Phase II: Oil and Gas Leasing Plan (Led by SLB) Phase III: Surface Use Agreement (Led by the City/ County) 3 Phase I Milestones Dates Technical Team workshop #3 May 23, 2012 Draft report to Core Team (SLB, City, County) June 30, 2012 Draft report to Technical Team August 10, 2012* Final deliverables to the SLB January 9, 2013 * Between August 10 and January 9, the Core Team primarily worked on creating the supplementary recommendations for surface disturbance and mitigation. Phase II (Oil and Gas Leasing Plan) – Identify a leasing plan for the SLB mineral ownership area: The SLB will lead this phase in consideration of the Phase I recommendations and with input from the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, TNC, and ideally other mineral owners and potential lessees. Phase III (Surface Use Agreement; SUA) – Create a draft agreement between the City, the County, and future operators: The City and County will lead this phase with input from the SLB and TNC. This document will be developed in consideration of the results from Phases I and II. It will identify provisions to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impacts of oil and gas development to surface features. The City and County will use this SUA as the basis for negotiations with future operators within the Project Area, including but not limited to those associated with the SLB mineral estate. C . BENEFITS TO PARTIES i. Surface owners (City of Fort Collins and Larimer County)  Gives the City and County an opportunity to participate in mineral development planning;  Helps protect the important biological , cultural, scenic, and recreational values of the site to the extent possible;  Allows the City and County to forge relationships with the SLB and oil and gas companies, explain the purpose for acquiring these lands, and provide reasonable access to privately held minerals in an environmentally, culturally, visually, and recreationally sensitive manner;  Provides the City and County the opportunity to share with the public the reality of their surface ownership and severed minerals interests and build public support for in the use of the “mitigation hierarchy” (i.e., first avoid, then minimize, then reclaim/restore, and lastly mitigate for unavoidable impacts);  Allows the City and County adequate time to compile available data and consult with experts to develop conservation strategies such as science-based buffer widths, timing requirements for specific species, etc. ii. State Land Board  Reduces uncertainty for the SLB oil and gas lessees and other owners and operators in the Project Area by identifying critical natural value concerns prior to leasing;  Provides and potentially expands the surface access for reasonable development of the SLB mineral estate;  Reduces potential regulatory and planning conflicts with the jurisdictional entities through developing collaborative relationships and cooperative agreements; 4  Provides coordination for an impressive panel of local and regional subject matter experts, supporting a science-based methodology with considerable stakeholder input;  Streamlines development of the oil and gas resource by providing comprehensive biological, cultural, scenic, and recreational assessments prior to leasing;  Demonstrates to the public a thoughtful, cooperative approach to developing severed state-owned minerals;  Establishes a solid rapport and relationship with the City and County for long-term project management;  Provides strategies to reduce surface impacts of oil and gas development and considers objectives for other state and federal agencies; and  Provides model approach to the creation of minerals development plans for large trust assets as outlined in current strategic plan. D . PRINCIPLES  This report provides recommendations only to the State Land Board (SLB), the City of Fort Collins (the City), and Larimer County (the County): o The SLB, the City, and the County are the ultimate decision-makers and will decide how to use the information in this report. o The SLB, the City, and the County will use common sense and flexibility to address unforeseen circumstances when making decisions on the ground and may need to deviate from the recommendations herein to do so.  Be consistent with the SLB’s constitutional mandate to provide “reasonable and consistent income” from mineral extraction while “protecting and enhancing the natural values.” The project will consider the impacts of natural resource extraction on biological, cultural, scenic, and recreational values: o Provide legally-required and reasonable access for resource extraction. o Avoid or minimize surface impacts (especially roads and other new impacts) in the places that are most important to biological, cultural, scenic, and recreational values while directing surface impacts to the areas that are less important or not important to these values. o Propose restrictions to surface impacts only where they are absolutely needed to protect biological and cultural values and that are proportional to the anticipated impact and to the ability to reverse it.  Provide transparent and science-based recommendations with documentation of rationale. o Provide oil and gas surface occupancy recommendations along a continuum from “no surface occupancy” to “preferred surface occupancy,” with the intent to protect biological and cultural resources o Prioritize scenic values and predict locations of cultural resources to inform and influence the final siting of individual wells and infrastructure.  Avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to biological, cultural, scenic, and recreational values, striving to achieve “no net loss” or “net zero impact” to these values, 3 through the period of minerals extraction and 3 It may not be possible to achieve no net loss for all cultural values because they are irreplaceable. In some cases, losses may be unavoidable and compensatory mitigation impossible. Unlike the majority of biological values which can be reclaimed or restored, cultural values occur only in the places they are found. Damage or destruction to cultural resources is permanent. 5 subsequent restoration of the site (i.e., in 30-50 years) by applying the mitigation hierarchy to surface impacts: o Avoid irreplaceable biological and cultural values; o Minimize fragmentation and disturbance of biological and cultural values through direct and indirect impacts. Minimize the impact to scenic and recreational resources by siting well pads and infrastructure in the least visible locations possible while protecting biological and cultural resources; and o Mitigate biological values within biologically meaningful timeframes through reclamation and compensatory mitigation. Where possible, improve the site functionally from biological, cultural, scenic and recreational perspectives.  Respect related government entities and investments of significant public resources in the conservation of important natural, cultural, scenic, and recreational values. E . PROJECT AREA i. Surface ownership and values The Project Area includes three publically-owned properties with severed mineral estate. The properties are contiguous and cover over 60,000 acres north of Fort Collins, along the Wyoming border (Map 1, Table 2). The Project Area excludes several large inholdings within the broader boundary. These properties are well-known amongst residents of Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. Red Mountain and Soapstone are open space properties that are open to public use and are popular destinations for hiking, biking, horseback riding, and other recreation activities. Meadow Springs is not open to public use and serves as a bio-solid application facility, which is a critical component in the City’s wastewater program. All three properties are also managed as working cattle ranches. Meadow Springs surrounds a 40-acre black-footed ferret recovery center owned and managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The properties are part of a regional conservation effort called the Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains Project, through which partners are creating a corridor of protected lands to link the Rocky Mountains with the Great Plains.4 The City and County, together with Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO; the state lottery-funded open space program), invested several million dollars to purchase the properties in the Project Area as part of the Laramie Foothills project. The EBD project compliments the efforts of the broader Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains Project by ensuring that the conserved properties retain their key values, even if energy development proceeds. 4 The Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains Project should not be confused with the Mountains to Plains EBD Project, which this report describes. 6 Map 1. Location of the Project Area within the broader Mountains to Plains region Sources: Land ownership/management (Lavender, Fink, Linn, & Theobald, 2011) Table 2. Parcels in the Project Area Parcel Ownership Acres* % of Project Area Open to public Red Mountain Open Space County 15,000 24% Yes Soapstone Prairie Natural Area City 22,000 35% Yes Meadow Springs Ranch City 26,000 41% No Total 63,000 100% * Rounded to the nearest 1,000; acres calculated in GIS (i.e., not based on surveys). The properties have significant biological, cultural, scenic, and recreational values identified through years of surveys. Examples include:  One known federally-threatened species, the Colorado butterfly plant, is present on Soapstone and Meadow Springs (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2011);  “Restricted Surface Occupancy Areas” and “Sensitive Wildlife Areas” as defined by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rules, including mule deer critical winter range, elk production areas, and pronghorn winter concentration areas (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008);  The properties are located entirely within TNC’s “Mountains to Plains” site as identified in the Central Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregional Plan (Neely, et al., 2006); and  They lie within Colorado Natural Heritage Program “Potential Conservation Areas” that have been ranked as having “very high” and “high” biodiversity significance (Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 2011). Furthermore, the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County have developed recreational infrastructure such as a trail network, public access, restrooms, parking lots, an entrance station, and picnic areas on two of the parcels. Most famously, Soapstone Prairie boasts a National Historic Landmark, the Lindenmeier Archaeological Site, which is 7 more than 12,000 years old and is the most extensive Folsom culture campsite known. Visitors to the Project Area enjoy vast vistas, in many places limited only by how far the eye can see. Lindenmeier Archaeological Site © Unknown ii. Subsurface ownership and values The City and County do not appear to own any of the subsurface rights beneath the project site. Major mineral owners include the SLB and Anadarko. Several additional owners/lessees have less substantial mineral holdings throughout the parcels, with Marathon Oil being the major leaseholder at present (Table 3). The SLB holds approximately 15,000 acres in trust, primarily in the eastern half of the Project Area. The SLB’s mineral ownership lies in a checkerboard pattern, with other ownerships interspersed amongst the SLB’s parcels. This non-contiguous ownership pattern prompted the SLB to support a comprehensive analysis of the entire planning area, as it would be difficult to make recommendations for the SLB parcels without considering other mineral ownership. The SLB also wanted to foster potential collaboration with other mineral owners and operators regarding future minerals development. 8 Table 3. Mineral ownership and leases in the Project Area (in acres, rounded to the nearest 1,000) Subsurface minerals ownership and leases are combined from (Colorado State Land Board, 2012) and (City of Fort Collins, 2012). Mineral Owner or Lessee Ownership Acres of minerals leased Comments SLB 15,000 0 Federal 2,000 0 Spencer Winn Trust 6,000 0 Anadarko 12,000 7,000 According to the data used in this analysis, some of Anadarko leases overlap its mineral ownership. This appears to be an error in the data. Chesapeake 0 12,000 Marathon 0 9,000 Cirque Res Noble 0 3,000 DJ Resources 0 2,000 Slawson Exploration 0 2,000 Ichor St. Croix 0 <1000 Rubicon 0 <1000 Thru Line 0 <1000 Other interests 16,000 0 Unknown 12,000 n/a Total 62,000 n/a** ** Mineral leasing overlaps on some sections because more than one company can hold a lease on the same section. Therefore, the acres of minerals leased would not necessarily total 63,000 acres. The oil and gas development potential of the Project Area is unproven. The development potential of the Project Area is believed to increase from west to east, with Meadow Springs having the highest potential based on at least one analysis (Map 3) (Copeland, Dougherty, Naugle, Pocewicz , & Kiesecker, 2009). This is not surprising given that the eastern portion of the project may lie within the Niobrara Formation,5 which has received significant attention from oil and gas companies in the last few years due to technological advances in the capture of oil and gas in shale formations. According to the Colorado Geological Survey, there may only be one place in the Soapstone Prairie area – southeast of Round Butte - where energy companies could successfully explore for oil (Magill, 2012). That being said, oil and gas companies have recently demonstrated interest in developing the area. For example, in March 2012, a seismic company approached the City to study 20,000 acres covering much of Meadow Springs and part of Soapstone. Two months later and pursuant to previous leasing activity, Marathon Oil received approval from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to expand and establish new drilling and spacing units for 32 wells in the vicinity of the Project Area, several of which lie within Soapstone Prairie and Meadow Springs (Magill, 2012). In the future, technological advances and shifting global economics may allow resource capture in locales where it is currently uneconomic (Staub, 2012) (Haggerty, 2012). 5 The boundary of the Niobrara Formation varies depending on the source and map consulted. 9 Map 2. Subsurface ownership and mineral leases This map includes known mineral owners and lessees. Accuracy may vary; it is unclear why some parcels both show ownership and leasing by Anadarko. If parcels are blank, mineral ownership and leases are unknown. Sources: Subsurface minerals ownership and leases combined from (Colorado State Land Board, 2012) and (City of Fort Collins, 2012). Map 3. Oil and gas development potential in the Project Area and the surrounding vicinity Sources: Oil and gas development potential: (Copeland, Dougherty, Naugle, Pocewicz , & Kiesecker, 2009). Oil and Gas Wells in Colorado: (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2012). Oil and gas wells in Wyoming: (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2012). Niobrara formation boundary: (Energy Information Administration, 2010). 10 F . PARTICIPANTS TNC worked collaboratively with the SLB as its client, project partners including the City and County, and a technical team comprised of experts from government agencies (federal, state, and local) and conservation organizations (Table 4). The SLB formalized its relationship with TNC through a contract and with the City and County with a Memorandum of Understanding. To complete the work of the project, TNC formed several teams:  TNC Project Management & Science Team – Megan Kram (Project Manager) and Jamie Robertson (GIS Manager) led the work for this project. Chris Pague (TNC Colorado Lead Scientist) and Renee Rondeau (Ecologist with the Colorado Natural Heritage Program and under contract to TNC) provided the vast majority of initial science input to the project. William Burnidge (Grasslands Program Director) provided significant input throughout. TNC’s Development by Design lead, Joe Kiesecker, provided oversight. Other TNC employees stayed abreast of the project and contributed science input as well.  Core Team – Thirteen representatives from the City, the County, the SLB, and TNC formed the Core Team, which provided ongoing guidance and decision-making and reviewed draft materials prior to each workshop (Table 4).  Technical Team – This group of science and management experts included 41 representatives from 13 organizations (Table 4). These individuals received all Technical Team communications, volunteered their time at one or more of the Technical Team workshops, and provided input into draft methods and results for the surface occupancy areas and timing limitations. There were a total of 80 participants in three Technical Team workshops (Table 5). The Core Team obtained industry review from a company with no vested interest in the Project Area. The review focused on the plan’s implications to the SLB’s ability to lease its holdings. The Core Team modified certain elements of the plan in consideration of this review, primarily the sections on compensatory mitigation and the disturbance cap. The Core Team also shared information with and solicited input from the following entities:  SLB Commissioners and staff  Elected officials and citizen boards for the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County – The City and the County held meetings with their respective councils and commissioners to update them on the planning effort and provide opportunity for feedback.  General public in Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins – The City of Fort Collins and Larimer County held a public open house on 9/10/2012 to share information about the planning effort with interested parties and to solicit their input. Participants were asked specifically about their preferences between locating wells out of sight of recreational amenities (trails, trailheads, etc.) or locating wells to best protect biological and natural resources. Given the choice, they unanimously supported the conservation of biological values as the top priority, followed by cultural and then recreational/scenic values, in that order. 11 Table 4. Core Team and Technical Team Members This table includes all members of the Technical Team, which includes all individuals who participated in at least one Technical Team workshop unless otherwise noted and received all communications to the Technical Team. Core Team members are in bold. Organization Name Title or Role City of Fort Collins Chris Metz Land Management Tech Courtney Bennett Land Management Program Assistant Crystal Strouse Natural Areas Botanist Daylan Figgs Natural Areas Senior Environmental Planner Jennifer Ward GIS Mapping Specialist Justin Scharton Environmental Planner Ron Russell Technical Services Supervisor, Water Reclamation Colorado Parks & Wildlife Celia Greenman NE Region Energy Coordinator Mark Leslie* Area Wildlife Manager Nancy Howard District Manager Colorado Natural Heritage Program Pam Smith Field Botanist/Ecologist Renee Rondeau Team Leader and Ecologist Colorado State University Jason LaBelle Director, Center for Mountain and Plains Archaeology. Provided the cultural data for the EBD project. Larimer County Jeffrey Boring Resource Specialist Gary Buffington Natural Resources Director Charlie Johnson Land Agent Meegan Flenniken Resource Program Manager Legacy Land Trust Hanna Wilbur Intern K-Lynn Cameron Director of Conservation Marathon Oil** Scott Park HES Professional Greg Ralston Land Professional Melissa Reeves HES Supervisor Natural Resources Conservation Service John Fusaro Rangeland Management Specialist Platte River Power Authority David Ussery Environmental Services Manager Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory Arvind Panjabi* International Program Director David Hanni* Science Division Director Erin Youngberg Wildlife Biologist State Land Board Bill Gaertner Inventory Manager/GIS. Completed the scenic values analysis for the EBD project. Melissa Yoder External Affairs Officer Mindy Gottsegen Conservation Services Manager Pete Milonas Minerals Director The Nature Conservancy (global organization) Joe Kiesecker Global lead for Development by Design. Provided oversight for this project Kei Sochi Spatial Ecologist, Development by Design Team. The Nature Conservancy in CO Chris Pague Senior Scientist Heather Knight Laramie Foothills Project Director Jamie Robertson GIS Manager Megan Kram Project Manager for this EBD project William Burnidge Grasslands Project Director and project oversight U.S. Fish & Wildlife Paul Marinari Fish and Wildlife Biologist 12 Organization Name Title or Role Service Sandy Vana-Miller Wildlife Biologist/Platte River Specialist Tyler Abbott* Deputy Field Supervisor *Did not participate in any of the Technical Team workshops, but received all Technical Team communications. ** Marathon Oil contributed background information, including a field tour, to provide input to the Technical Team. Table 5. Technical Team organizations and numbers of participants for each workshop Organization Workshop #1 (January 11) Workshop #2 (March 29) Workshop #3 (May 23) Total attendees all workshops City of Fort Collins 6 7 7 20 Colorado Parks & Wildlife 2 2 2 6 Colorado Natural Heritage Program 2 2 1 5 Colorado State University 1 1 1 3 Larimer County 2 4 2 8 Legacy Land Trust 2 0 0 2 Marathon Oil 0 3 0 3 Natural Resources Conservation Service 1 0 1 2 Platte River Power Authority 1 0 0 1 Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory 1 1 1 3 State Land Board 4 3 4 11 The Nature Conservancy 4 5 4 13 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1 2 0 3 Total 27 30 23 80 13 PART II. RESULTS : SURFACE OCCUPANCY AR EAS The Technical Team defined and mapped four categories of “surface occupancy areas” for oil and gas development on a spectrum from No Surface Occupancy to Preferred Surface Occupancy, based on known locations of biological and cultural values. The main differences between the occupancy categories are the sensitivity and needs of the biological and cultural values and the amount and type compensatory mitigation necessary to achieve “no net loss” of biological values. The lowest sensitivity and standards are for Preferred Surface Occupancy and the highest sensitivity and standards are for No Surface Occupancy. This approach will incentivize operators to develop within occupancy categories that are least impactful to biological and cultural resources. To create these areas, the Technical Team identified and identified and mapped cultural values and biological values, and mapped surface occupancy areas for each. The biological and cultural maps were then combined to produce the final map of surface occupancy recommendations. Definitions and standards were developed for this combined map. A . CULTURAL VALUES AND SURFACE OCCUPANC Y AREAS Creating the surface occupancy recommendations for cultural values was much easier than doing so for biological values. Thus, this report describes the cultural values first, in order to orient the reader to the methods with a simpler example. The cultural maps are provided separately to the SLB due to the sensitivity of the information. i. Targets Colorado State University (CSU) provided all maps of cultural resources based on archaeological surveys by CSU and other researchers. To date, CSU has surveyed approximately 25% of the Project Area. These surveys were conducted in an intensive manner, with archaeologists walking the ground 30 meters (~90 feet) apart from each other. Surveys have unearthed an abundance of cultural resources including but not limited to arrowheads and other tools, cooking hearths and other heat-related features, and stone circles (tipi rings). Given the number of cultural sites discovered, CSU identified each cultural site as very high, high, medium, or low priority based on the type, condition, sensitivity, and rarity of the resources found there. Examples of very high priority cultural resources include the Lindenmeier site and those sites containing fire pits and other features that could be used to date the site as well as provide solid evidence of past ways of life. Examples of low priority cultural resources include “lithic scatters,” which represent simple stone tool manufacturing locales, revealing little more about the ancient past. Under the advice of CSU, the Technical Team included all very high and high ranked cultural sites as NSO targets. Of the 518 mapped cultural sites in the Project Area, CSU ranked 158 as very high priority, 23 as high priority, 134 as medium priority, and 203 as low priority. Most of the high-ranked sites include stone circles, hearths or fire pits, or other types of artifacts that would likely yield significant information for detailing the ancient “prehistoric” Native American record of the region. 14 ii. Surface occupancy areas The Technical Team identified four categories of surface use for cultural values:  No Surface Occupancy: The Lindenmeier site plus a one-mile buffer around it, and all surveyed, very high and high priority sites plus a 50 meter buffer around each. The Technical Team included the one-mile buffer around Lindenmeier because only a small part of the area has been surveyed. The full extent of the resources in this area is unknown.  Limited Surface Occupancy: Areas not surveyed but that contain known sites with undetermined importance.  Controlled Surface Occupancy: Areas not surveyed or surveyed areas/sites with lower importance (i.e., all areas not otherwise designated as NSO, LSO, or PSO)  Preferred Surface Occupancy: None (determined by disturbance only) No Surface Occupancy determined by cultural values comprises 7.5% of the Project Area, with the Lindenmeier site plus its one-mile buffer accounting for 3,675 acres (77%) of the NSO. Limited Surface Occupancy comprises less than 2%. Controlled Surface Occupancy covers all the remaining land within the Project Area. No portion of the Project Area was identified as Preferred Surface Occupancy because cultural resources are unknown in most locales (Table 6). Table 6. Surface occupancy map for cultural priorities ONLY: Acres and % Project Area by occupancy type Surface Occupancy Type Acres % Project Area PSO 0 0 CSO 57,924 90.7 LSO 1,153 1.8 NSO 4,765 7.5 TOTAL 63,842 100.0 B . BIOLOGICAL VALUES AND SURFACE OCCUPANC Y AREAS Creating the surface occupancy recommendations for biological values was much more complicated than doing so for the cultural values. The Project Area has been well-surveyed for biological values. The wealth of available biological data came from many sources and differences between data sources needed to be resolved. Furthermore, different species, plant communities, and ecological systems respond differently to oil and gas development and therefore have different needs for avoidance and minimization. All of this information was considered to form this science-based plan. i. Targets The TNC Project Management & Science Team drafted an initial set of biological values based on available GIS data layers from sources including: City of Fort Collins, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado Parks & Wildlife (formerly Colorado Division of Wildlife), Larimer County, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Southwest ReGAP, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. From these sources, there were 126 unique data layers that could be used 15 to develop targets for protection. The Technical Team narrowed this list to 45 targets including 10 ecological systems, 2 plant communities, and 33 species (Figures 2 and 3, Maps 4 and 5) using the following methods:  Ecological systems – Created a simple and manageable set of 10 ecological systems, including three aquatic systems and seven terrestrial systems, by reclassifying or combining 21 unique ecological systems from the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (Southwest ReGAP) landcover dataset (U.S. Geological Survey, 2004); ponderosa pine systems data from the City and County; and aquatic systems from the City, County, and National Hydrological Dataset Plus (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). For example, Inter Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub and Inter Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub Steppe were each reclassified as Salt Desert Scrub.  Plant communities – Plant communities tracked by CNHP were considered as potential targets. Tracked plant communities generally occupy less than 1,000 acres, represent a relatively unique combination of plant species, and often include high-quality occurrences within a common system. Of the 16 tracked plant communities in the Project Area, plus two that CNHP does not track (a pinyon pine site and choke cherry/plum thickets) the list was narrowed to two targets (Rondeau, 2012).  Species – All species represented by a spatial data layer were considered as possible targets, from common species and habitats such as geese winter range, to rare species and habitats such as the Colorado butterfly plant. The list was reduced from 87 potential targets to 33 chosen targets. In general, the Technical Team selected species as targets if they met at least one of the criteria below: o Included in the Colorado Oil & Gas Rules (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission) (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008); o Included in the State Wildlife Action Plan as Tier 1 or Tier 2 species (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2006); o City/County priority or conservation target in applicable management plans (City of Fort Collins, 2007) (Larimer County, 2007); o Rare as ranked by NatureServe (NatureServe); and/or o Included as a target in The Nature Conservancy’s Central Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregional Plan (Neely, et al., 2006). In some cases, the Technical Team deviated from these criteria, either by including species that did not meet the above criteria or vice-versa. For example, Red Mountain Open Space has a small population of extremely rare canyon ferns that were added as a target, even though they did not meet the criteria. Similarly, the Technical Team excluded the roosting habitat for the fringed myotis (a bat species) because none have been found in the Project Area through mist-netting surveys, although the Project Area lies within the bat’s habitat range. See Appendix 1 for more information about each of these targets, including justification for their selection. A map was created to spatially represent each target based on the best available data (Maps 4 and 5). Map data sets were combined or modified to make each target map as complete as possible, and/or to narrow the habitat extent to the most important places. For example, ponderosa pine data sets from Southwest ReGAP and the County were combined; seeps and springs were added to the Southwest ReGAP layer based on historic topographic maps; and the chestnut collared longspur habitat layer from Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory was narrowed to include only the breeding areas. The only data layers that were modeled were for the McCown’s longspur and lark bunting core areas, which Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory created based on survey observations. 16 Figure 2. Biological targets The Technical Team identified 45 targets including 10 ecological systems, 2 plant communities, and 33 species. ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS Aquatic Creeks and streams Seeps and springs Wetlands Terrestrial Cliffs and outcrops Foothills grasslands Mountain mahogany [aka Foothills (Montane) Shrublands] Ponderosa pine woodlands Riparian woodlands and shrublands Salt desert scrub Shortgrass prairie PLANT COMMUNITIES Foothills ponderosa pine savannas (Pinus ponderosa / Leucopoa kingii Woodland) Western slope grasslands (Krascheninnikovia lanata / Pascopyrum smithii - Bouteloua gracilis Dwarf-shrub Herbaceous Vegetation) SPECIES Amphibians Northern leopard frog Birds – Raptors Bald eagle nests and winter roosts Ferruginous hawk nests Golden eagle nests Prairie falcon nests Swainson's hawk nests Owls and other raptor nests Western burrowing owl nests SPECIES, CONTINUED Birds - Other Chestnut-collared longspur breeding areas Lark bunting core areas McCown's longspur core areas Mountain plover staging areas and nests Fish Iowa darter Fungus Smithiomyces crocodilinus Insects Aquatic insects Colorado blue (butterfly) Mammals Black-footed ferret (captive population) Black-tailed prairie dog Swift fox dens Elk production areas Elk winter concentration areas Mule deer critical winter range Mule deer severe winter range Pronghorn winter concentration area Rare Plants Agrimonia striata Colorado butterfly plant (Oenothera coloradensis ssp. Coloradensis) Hops (Humulus lupulus subsp. neomexicanus) Large Indian breadroot (Pediomelum esculentum) Pale blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchum pallidum) Prairie goldenrod (Oligoneuron album) Purple spikerush (Eleocharis atropurpurea) Rare canyon ferns Slender wildparsley (Musineon tenuifolium) 17 Map 4. Biological values - Ecological system targets Sources: Aquatic ecological systems: Creeks and streams (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006); seeps and springs (Larimer County Natural Resources Department, 2011) and (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2011) – based on ground-truthed observations from topographic maps; wetlands (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006) as modified by the City and County. Terrestrial ecological systems: All from (U.S. Geological Survey, 2004) except ponderosa pine, which was from (Larimer County Natural Resources Department, 2007) and (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2007). 18 Map 5. Biological values – Species and plant community targets This map shows all species and plant communities for which mapped data was available. No maps were available for the following targets: aquatic insects, northern leopard frog, bald eagle nests and winter roosts, owls and other nesting raptor nests, and plants including Agrimonia striata and purple spikerush. Mountain plover nests are represented as repeat detection areas, within which the nests themselves are found. Sources: Plant communities: (Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 2012). Mammals: Black footed ferret captive population (The Nature Conservancy, 2012); black-tailed prairie dogs (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2007) and (Larimer County Natural Resources Department, 2007) - the City used its 2007 maximum extent layer before plague reduced acreage, the City has data through 2012 and the colonies are nearly back to the 2007 acreage; swift fox dens (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2007-2012) (Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 2012); elk production area and elk winter concentration area (Colorado Parks & Wildlife , 2011); mule deer critical winter range and mule deer severe winter range (Colorado Parks & Wildlife , 2011); pronghorn critical winter range - updated by the City from (Colorado Parks & Wildlife , 2011); birds-raptors – combined data from (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2007-2012) (Larimer County Natural Resources Department, 2011) (Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 2012) (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 2012); birds-other - (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 2012); fish - Iowa darter (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2008, 2010); rare plants – all combined from (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2007-2011) and (Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 2012); Fungus (Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 2012); Colorado blue butterfly (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2007) – City conducted surveys in 2004 and 2007, but the Colorado blue were found only in 2007. 19 Figure 3. Photos of Select Biological Targets Photos were taken from within the Project Area where noted. Ecological systems Shortgrass prairie in Project Area ©Meegan Flenniken Salt desert scrub ©CNHP Foothills grasslands ©CNHP Wetland in Project Area © Crystal Strouse Mountain mahogany ©CNHP Ponderosa pine woodlands ©CNHP 20 Ecological systems, continued Cliff and outcrops in Project Area ©Meegan Flenniken Riparian woodlands and shrublands ©Joel Nystrom Rare plant communities Ponderosa pine savannas in Project Area © Crystal Strouse 21 Birds Bald eagle © Scott Copeland Swainson’s hawk © Flickr/USFWS Mtn. Prairie Lark bunting © Magill Weber/TNC Burrowing owl © Paul Berquist Ferruginous hawks © Jim Watson/ Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 22 Mammals Swift fox © Flickr/USFWS Mountain Prairie Black-tailed prairie dog © Rurik List Black-footed ferret in Project Area (captive population) © Erik Rudolph Pronghorn antelope in Project Area © Meegan Flenniken Mule deer © Scott Copeland Elk © John Morrow II 23 Amphibian Fish Northern leopard frog Iowa darter © Flickr/ Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Rare plants Colorado butterfly plant in Project Area © Crystal Strouse Slender wildparsely in Project Area © Crystal Strouse Fungus Smithiomyces crocodilinus © Rob Hallock 24 ii. Surface occupancy areas The Technical Team mapped the biological values into the surface occupancy categories as described below, using the decision tree shown in Figure 4:  No Surface Occupancy: Targets and surrounding buffers (as needed) that warrant permanent, year-round protection from new surface disturbance except for temporary low impact uses such as geophysical studies because impacts to them cannot successfully be mitigated through restoration or land protection. The ability to “successfully mitigate” a target is defined by its irreplaceability (whether it is possible to restore or recreate the target); financial practicality (whether it is possible to recreate, restore, or conserve the target elsewhere with reasonable funding relative to the conservation benefits); and timeframe (whether it is possible to recreate, restore, or conserve the targets elsewhere, within biologically-meaningful timeframes of 30-50 years).  Limited Surface Occupancy: Targets and surrounding buffers (as needed) that warrant year-round protection, but not necessarily permanent protection from new surface disturbance because they can be mitigated -- they are not irreplaceable, mitigation is financially feasible, and they can be restored within biologically reasonable timeframes.  Controlled Surface Occupancy: All areas that do not fall into one of the other categories. Biological values also exist throughout CSO areas, but they do not need year-round protection from new surface disturbance and can be mitigated.  Preferred Surface Occupancy: Areas in which surface occupancy is preferred from a biological perspective due to previous and existing disturbances such as roads and transmission lines. Figure 4. Decision tree for assigning surface occupancy to biological targets 25 a. No Surface Occupancy and Limited Surface Occupancy Areas for biological values Mapping NSO and LSO areas for biological resources entailed two steps: 1. Identifying targets and surrounding buffers (as needed) warranting year-round avoidance of oil and gas activities; 2. For each target warranting year-round avoidance, identifying feasibility of compensatory mitigation success and categorize as NSO or LSO accordingly. Both steps are described below. In order to explain these steps as simply as possible, this section includes results for a subset of the targets including wetlands, mountain mahogany, shortgrass prairie, ferruginous hawk nests, swift fox dens, and the Colorado butterfly plant. Appendix 3 includes results for all targets. Step 1. Identify targets and surrounding buffers warranting year-round avoidance from oil and gas activities. Aquatic systems, plant communities, and some of the species were buffered to capture areas warranting some degree of year-round avoidance of oil and gas activities. The TNC Project Management & Science Team first documented possible avoidance buffers and identified any inconsistencies amongst them from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rules (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008), various Best Management Practices pertaining to Colorado or nearby surrounding states, and expert opinion from members of the Technical Team. The Technical Team resolved any inconsistencies and made recommendations to the SLB. In many cases, sources were consistent. For example, none of the sources consulted recommended year-round avoidance for swift fox dens. In other cases, sources consulted differed in their recommendations. For example, ferruginous hawk avoidance recommendations ranged from 1/5 mile - 1/2 mile from nests. Wetland avoidance recommendations also varied widely in terms of where to measure the buffer (i.e., from legal edge vs. ordinary high water mark) and how large the buffer should be (i.e., distances ranging from 50 ft-300 ft.). Additionally, the Technical Team differentiated between buffers established by legal requirements and those established by technical recommendations, termed “recommended avoidance” within this document. Legal requirements and organizational policies included Restricted Surface Occupancy Areas from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rules (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008) and SLB Procedures for Rare Plant Environmental Review for Development Projects and Land Use Changes (Colorado State Land Board, 2012). Recommended avoidance refers to any avoidance areas above and beyond the legal requirements that the Technical Team determined to be biologically necessary and scientifically justifiable (Map 6). 26 Map 6. Biological values – Legal and additional recommended areas warranting year-round avoidance (input to No Surface Occupancy and Limited Surface Occupancy maps for biological values) Source: “Legal” areas are Restricted Surface Occupancy areas from the COGCC rules (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008). “Recommended” areas are from the Mountains to Plains Energy by Design Technical Team. Step 2. For each target warranting year-round avoidance, identify feasibility of mitigation success The feasibility of compensatory mitigation refers to the potential to successfully achieve no net loss of a target through re-creation, restoration, or conservation activities. Feasibility of mitigation was based on the following criteria:  Irreplaceability – Due to their rarity or sensitivity, some targets cannot be restored or recreated, no matter how many resources are dedicated to the effort. Such values can be deemed “irreplaceable.” For example, golden eagle nests are irreplaceable. One could create an artificial nest for an eagle and attempt to fledge offspring in it, but the likelihood of success is extremely low and the likelihood of failure extremely high.  Financial practicality – It may be possible to recreate, restore, or conserve some targets elsewhere, but only with exorbitant resources relative to the conservation gains. For example, it may not be financially practical to buy senior water rights to protect rare fish.  Reasonable timeframe – It is possible to recreate, restore, or conserve elsewhere but not within a reasonable timeframe. Conservation actions must be predictably permanent within a specified timeframe. For the purpose of this analysis, we chose 5-20 years as the “reasonable timeframe.” As an example, it may take 50-100 years to restore mountain mahogany – thus, by definition, replacement of mountain mahogany cannot occur within a reasonable timeframe and therefore it cannot be mitigated (Rondeau, 2012). Targets warranting avoidance were then classified as No Surface Occupancy or Limited Surface Occupancy depending on the likelihood of mitigation success. If a target warranted avoidance and could not be mitigated, it 27 was classified as No Surface Occupancy (Map 7). If a target warranted avoidance but could be mitigated, it was classified as Limited Surface Occupancy (Map 8). If a target did not warrant avoidance, it was classified either as Controlled Surface Occupancy or Preferred Surface Occupancy (see next two sections). See examples in Table 7. Map 7. Biological values – No Surface Occupancy (input to final biological map) Map 8. Biological values – Limited Surface Occupancy (input to final biological map) 28 Table 7. Identification of No Surface Occupancy and Limited Surface Occupancy for sample biological targets Target Is year-round avoidance warranted? Can the target be mitigated? NSO - avoidance warranted but cannot be mitigated LSO - avoidance warranted and can be mitigated ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS Wetlands Legal: No Recommended: Yes - 0-300 ft. (0- 100 m.) from the legal edge should be true avoidance. 300- 600 ft. (100-200 m.) should generally be avoided, but negotiation may be possible. No6 0-300 ft. (0-100 m.) from the legal edge 300-600 ft. (100-200 m.) from the legal edge. Surface occupancy within this area is contingent on survey findings. Mountain Mahogany Legal: No Recommended: Yes – avoid large and intact patches No All but 300 ft. (100 m.) from existing disturbance 0-300 ft. (0-100 m.) from existing disturbance Shortgrass Prairie Legal: No Recommended: No Yes No No SPECIES Ferruginous hawk nests Legal: 1/2 mile from active nests (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008) Recommended: Yes - 1/2 mile from alternate nests (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2012) and other sources. Yes – some tree nests could be “replaced” elsewhere No 1/2 mile from active and alternate nests Swift fox dens Legal: No Recommended: No Yes –could protect and manage elsewhere No No Colorado butterfly plant and other rare plants Legal: Yes - Avoid federally listed species and those that CNHP has rated as globally or critically imperiled (G1 or G2) (Colorado State Land Board, 2012) Recommended: Yes - Avoid all rare plants (incl. but not limited to those addressed by the SLB policy) by 0-300 ft. (0-100 m.) as true avoidance and by 100-200m. (300-600 ft.) as avoid, but negotiation may be possible (Elliott, et al., 2009) (Colorado State Land Board, 2012) No – Easily avoided and the Colorado butterfly plant is a federally listed species 0-300 ft. (100 m) 300-600 ft. (100-200 m) 6 While it is possible to create new wetlands elsewhere, restoration to achieve no net loss including the soils, microbiota, etc. is not feasible within a reasonable timeframe (5-20 years). Also, wetlands harbor a disproportionately large portion of the fauna and flora of any area. 29 b. Controlled Surface Occupancy for biological values CSO areas include all of the places that were not categorized as NSO, LSO, or PSO. These areas are still relatively intact in the Mountains to Plains Project Area, but are less sensitive than NSO and LSO areas based on known biological values. c. Preferred Surface Occupancy for biological values Preferred Surface Occupancy areas for biological resources are the locations where oil and gas development is preferred from a biological perspective due to the presence of previous and existing disturbance. The TNC Project Management & Science Team gathered available mapped layers of disturbance features such as roads, buildings, and corrals from the City and County and in consultation with the Technical Team, decided which to include in the analysis (Figure 5, Map 9). For example, existing roads were included in the analysis as they fragment ecological systems and their use for oil and gas development eliminates habitat fragmentation caused by new roads. By contrast, recreational trails were excluded from the analysis based on the Technical Team’s determination that they did not significantly impact ecological systems and were not appropriate for oil and gas development because of scenic and recreational impacts. Appendix 2 contains detailed information about data sources and rationale for including/excluding existing disturbances in the analysis. Figure 5. Existing Infrastructure and disturbance in the Project Area and its inclusion or exclusion in the impact analysis Included in the impact analysis Activities outside Project Area (e.g. homes, power plant) Buildings Cell or radio tower Corrals Historic buildings Irrigated areas Parking lots Quarry Roads Sheep barns Sludge headquarters facilities/building Stock water piping Stock/water tanks Trailheads Transmission lines (above ground) Transmission lines (buried) Not included in the impact analysis Buried gaslines Water diversions Fencelines Gates Invasive species Pastures Reservoirs Recreational trails Stock water valves Windmills The PSO category is based on direct and indirect impacts of existing infrastructure to biological values. In the Project Area, the direct impact (i.e., footprint) totals 1.8% of the Project Area (Table 8). The footprint is the 30 approximate spatial extent of the direct disturbance caused by infrastructure, such as the paved or cleared area for a road or the outline of a building. Infrastructure can also cause indirect impacts beyond the footprint. For example, invasive species are more likely to be found along roads than in areas without roads. As another example, a natural surface road may have little vehicle traffic, but windblown dust can impact biological targets away from the actual road bed. Two ways can be used to assess indirect impacts to biological values: Assessing the impact to individual species and particular ecological systems (e.g., the impact of a road on a wetland vs. on a bald eagle nest) or adopting assumptions about impacts to species and systems as a whole. For this project, the Technical Team chose the latter option. To quantify the indirect impacts, the following assumptions were made:  Impacts decrease as distance from the infrastructure increases. In other words, the farther the distance is from the footprint (i.e., direct impact), the lesser the impact. For example, the impacts from Interstate-25 (I-25) will be far greater 10 feet away from the road footprint than one mile away.  Different infrastructure impacts biological values at varying distances and to varying degrees beyond their footprint. For example, I-25 has far greater direct and indirect impacts than rarely used ranch roads.  Where multiple infrastructure impacts overlap, the cumulative impact is the sum of those overlapping impacts.7 Based on these assumptions, cumulative impacts were mapped across the Project Area. Over eighty percent (80%) of the Project Area was either subject to low impacts or free from impacts to biological values. Eleven percent (11%) of the Project Area was moderately impacted, while five percent (5%) was highly impacted (Table 8, Map 10). The high and moderate impacts were used as potential Preferred Surface Occupancy areas (Map 11). Table 8. Existing infrastructure and associated impacts Impact Level Acres % Project Area Notes Direct impacts total (i.e., (footprint) 1,151 1.8% This is the area of the actual disturbances, not including their biological impacts beyond their direct footprint. Indirect impacts High 3,164 5.0% High and moderate impacts were designated as Preferred Surface Occupancy areas. The high indirect impacts include the direct impacts. Moderate 7,362 11.5% Low 19,231 30.1% None or Negligible 34,086 53.4% Indirect impacts total 63,843 100% 7 Methods developed for the Central Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregional Assessment (CSP) were used to calculate the spatial extent of indirect impacts using a distance decay function (Neely, et al., 2006). This decay function required input variables describing maximum distance of impacts, type of curve (i.e. whether impacts decrease abruptly or gradually), and a weight (i.e. maximum impact value). For each infrastructure type, results of the decay functions were represented spatially in rasterized continuous values with a 5 meter cell resolution. The rasters were then added together to create a final raster of cumulative impacts of all infrastructure. The final cumulative impact scores were categorized into four groups (None or Negligible, Low, Moderate, and High/Very High) equivalent to those in the CSP. 31 Map 9. Biological values – Existing infrastructure and disturbances (input to Preferred Surface Occupancy) Sources: Roads - outside of the Project Area boundary (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006); within the Project Area boundary (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006) (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2012) (Larimer County Natural Resources Department, 2011). Infrastructure – cellular tower, evacuated dam, historic buildings, home sites, powerplant, and quarry (The Nature Conservancy, 2012) (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2012) (Larimer County Natural Resources Department, 2011); hayfields (Larimer County Natural Resources Department, 2007). Map 10. Biological values - Cumulative impacts based on existing infrastructure and disturbances (input to Preferred Surface Occupancy) Source: The Nature Conservancy based on methods from the Central Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregional Plan (Neely, et al., 2006). 32 Map 11. Biological values – Preferred Surface Occupancy (input to final biological map) This map combined the moderate and high cumulate impacts from the previous map to create the final potential Preferred Surface Occupancy Areas. “Potential” is used because these areas could be “trumped” by No Surface Occupancy and Limited Surface Occupancy areas once combined. d. Combined Surface Occupancy for biological values The resulting map of surface occupancy areas for biological priorities shows 42% as No Surface Occupancy, with the remaining 54% open to oil and gas development as Preferred Surface Occupancy (5%), Controlled Surface Occupancy (22%), and Limited Surface Occupancy (31%) (Table 9, Map 12). Table 9. Surface occupancy map for biological priorities ONLY: Acres and% Project Area by occupancy type Surface Occupancy Type Acres % Project Area PSO 3,465 5% CSO 13,940 22% LSO 19,700 31% NSO 26,737 42% TOTAL 63,843 100% 33 Map 12. Biological values - combined surface occupancy recommendations for biological values ONLY C . FINAL SURFACE OCCUPA NCY AREAS, DEFINITIONS, AND STA NDARDS The TNC Project Management & Science Team created the final surface occupancy map by combining the individual maps of biological and cultural surface occupancy recommendation (Map 13). Differences in occupancy categories revealed by this effort were resolved by selecting the most restrictive category. For example, an NSO area for cultural resources overlapping a CSO area for biological resources was re-categorized as an NSO area in the combined map. For the Project Area as a whole, 56% is categorized as PSO (5%), CSO (21%) and LSO (30%). Surface disturbance is prohibited in the remaining forty-four percent (44%), classified as No Surface Occupancy. For the SLB parcels specifically, surface disturbance is prohibited on a much smaller area – NSO totals 27%, whereas the remaining 73% is comprised of 5% as PSO, 24% as CSO, and 44% as LSO (Tables 10 and 11). Table 10. Acres in each occupancy type for combined recommendations for biological and cultural resources SLB mineral ownership Total for Project Area Surface Occupancy Type Acres % Project Area Acres % Project Area PSO 654 5% 3,255 5% CSO 3,434 24% 13,533 21% LSO 6,184 44% 19,118 30% NSO 3,828 27% 27,936 44% TOTAL 14,100 100% 63,841 100% 34 Table 11. SLB mineral ownership - acres of each surface occupancy type Township Range Section (Meridian 6) NSO LSO CSO PSO Total 0110N 0670W 18 0 302 0 0 302 0110N 0670W 30 46 157 10 1 215 0110N 0670W 32 72 72 15 0 159 0110N 0670W 6 60 97 17 116 289 0110N 0680W 10 113 195 2 0 310 0110N 0680W 12 48 217 214 155 634 0110N 0680W 16 255 116 237 25 633 0110N 0680W 18 165 173 288 0 626 0110N 0680W 2 83 119 437 4 644 0110N 0680W 22 118 172 307 36 634 0110N 0680W 24 2 151 0 0 153 0110N 0680W 28 65 93 128 31 317 0110N 0680W 34 90 69 0 0 159 0110N 0680W 36 129 382 19 102 632 0110N 0680W 4 153 484 0 0 637 0110N 0680W 6 182 222 179 41 624 0110N 0680W 8 142 220 278 2 643 0110N 0690W 16 213 224 198 3 637 0120N 0670W 20 0 4 1 47 52 0120N 0670W 30 159 192 193 66 610 0120N 0680W 20 224 151 36 0 411 0120N 0680W 26 199 366 75 0 640 0120N 0680W 28 118 302 20 0 439 0120N 0680W 30 123 272 73 1 468 0120N 0680W 32 146 461 28 0 635 0120N 0680W 34 96 342 195 2 634 0120N 0680W 36 209 186 233 3 631 0120N 0690W 36 202 368 70 8 648 0120N 0700W 36 416 75 181 11 684 Total 3,827 6,184 3,434 655 14,101 35 Map 13. FINAL COMBINED MAP OF SURFACE OCCUPANCY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL VALUES The Technical Team identified and defined the four categories of surface occupancy areas: No Surface Occupancy, Limited Surface Occupancy, Controlled Surface Occupancy, and Preferred Surface Occupancy for biological and cultural values. All of these areas may be modified to accommodate existing surface uses, surveys, and compliance with the final lease, stipulations, and Surface Use Agreement (SUA). DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS FOR SURFACE OCCUPANCY AREAS Requirements for all surface occupancy areas  All surface occupancy shall be consistent with existing regulations, lease terms and stipulations (including but not limited to Best Management Practices), and surface use agreements.  The surface occupancy area map is a starting point. On-the-ground surveys prior to oil and gas development will be used to verify or identify the presence/absence of biological and cultural targets, and associated surface occupancy requirements. The map reflects biological and cultural priorities only; it does not include scenic and recreational priorities, which may affect the design of oil and gas infrastructure.  Based on surveys, the operator may petition the surface owner and the SLB to change the designation of any surface occupancy category at a given locale to another category. Any changes require advanced written approval of the Board, the Lessee, and the Surface Owner. For example, an NSO for a rare plant may shift to LSO, CSO or even PSO if inventories demonstrate that the plant no longer exists in that area and habitat is no longer suitable for the plant. Similarly, a CSO could shift to LSO if lark bunting habitat moves from one location to another.  No permanent facilities.  All lands impacted by oil and gas development will be reclaimed.  Biological targets subject to long-term impacts from oil and gas development will require compensatory mitigation. 36  Timing limitations related to construction activity and/or human disturbance may cover portions of any of these surface occupancy areas. No Surface Occupancy (NSO)  Definition: Mandated no surface occupancy except for temporary low impact uses such as geophysical studies, due to the unprecedented biological or cultural values in these areas, that are either irreplaceable or would take decades or centuries to restore. Species and ecological systems impacted here may not recover. – Cultural values: The Lindenmeier site plus a one-mile buffer around it, and all surveyed, very high and high priority sites plus a 50 meter buffer around each. The Technical Team included the one- mile buffer around Lindenmeier because only a small part of the area has been surveyed. The full extent of the resources in this area is unknown. – Biological values: Targets and surrounding buffers (as needed) that warrant permanent, year- round protection from new surface disturbance because impacts to them cannot successfully be mitigated through restoration or land protection. Examples include wetlands plus a 300 ft. buffer, golden eagle nests plus a ¼ mile buffer, and rare plants plus a 300 ft. buffer.  Standards: – No permanent O&G operations or facilities conducted or installed. – Minimum intrusion may be permitted in connection with seismic exploration operations, temporary access, emergency response access and other limited purposes for effective ongoing surface owners’ management of the surface resources. The surface owner, in consultation with the SLB and others entities as appropriate, may deny such access (i.e., surface owner has final decision). – Existing roads may provide access through NSOs depending on the amount of construction that is needed to upgrade the road, the amount of traffic, and the impact associated with viable alternatives. New roads will not be allowed, unless to avoid perverse outcomes. – Should accidents occur during oil and gas exploration and development that destroy or damage NSO areas, extensive and immediate reclamation will be required along with payment of the highest fees for compensatory mitigation. Limited Surface Occupancy (LSO)  Definition: Areas that are subject to stringent restrictions on surface use due to the presence and sensitivity of the biological and/or cultural values. – Cultural values: Unsurveyed areas that have known sites whose values are undetermined. – Biological values: Targets and surrounding buffers (as needed) that warrant year-round protection, but not necessarily permanent protection from new surface disturbance because they can be mitigated elsewhere through restoration or land protection. Examples include lark bunting core areas plus a 450 ft. buffer and mountain plover nests plus a ¼ mile buffer. • Standards: – Limited oil and gas operations are permitted on these lands after consultation with the surface owner and the SLB, and approval of specific strategies and physical plans that will minimize (or eliminate) any permanent surface impact. – No new roads are allowed unless the Lessee demonstrates that there is no technologically or economically feasible alternative. 37 – Requires higher fees for compensatory mitigation than Controlled Surface Occupancy and Preferred Surface Occupancy as it is more difficult to restore and/or mitigate the biological values in LSO areas. Controlled Surface Occupancy (CSO) • Definition: Areas which are generally suitable for O&G development. While biological and cultural resources are present throughout the CSO areas, they are less sensitive than in Limited Surface Occupancy areas: – Cultural values: Unsurveyed areas and surveyed areas/sites identified as having lower value. – Biological values: Values that do not need year-round protection from new surface disturbance because they are less sensitive than those in LSO and NSO areas. Examples include swift fox dens and important winter habitat for elk, mule deer, and pronghorn. • Standards: – Oil and gas operations are permitted on these lands after consultation with the surface owner and the SLB, and approval of specific strategies and physical plans that will minimize (or eliminate) any permanent surface impact. – Undeveloped lands may become subject to additional limitations imposed to address wildlife habitat, nesting or fawning grounds based on on-site surveys completed prior to oil and gas development. – Require lower fees for compensatory mitigation than Limited Surface Occupancy areas, but higher fees than Preferred Surface Occupancy. Preferred Surface Occupancy (PSO) • Definition: Areas where surface occupancy is preferred from a biological perspective due to previous and existing disturbances such as along roads, buildings, and transmission lines. – Cultural values: none – the Technical Team identified the entire project site as NSO, LSO, or CSO for cultural resources because cultural resources are unknown in most locales. – Biological values: This area includes the combined footprints and indirect impacts to biological values from existing infrastructure (e.g., roads, historic agricultural areas and transmission lines) that have a negative impact on biological values. The extent of the indirect impacts varies based on the type of infrastructure; for example, the impacts from I-25 are much greater in intensity than those of the many 4WD roads in the planning area. • Standards: – Oil and gas operations are permitted on these lands after consultation with the surface owner and the SLB, and approval of specific strategies and physical plans that will minimize any permanent surface impact. – Requires lowest (i.e., baseline) fees for compensatory mitigation compared to the other surface occupancy areas and as defined by the Technical Team. 38 This page intentionally left blank. 39 PART I II. RESULTS: SUPPLEMENTARY RECOMMENDATIONS A. T IMING LIMITATIONS FO R BIOLOGICAL VALUES The Technical Team identified timing limitations for each target based on the sources used for avoidance buffers. The TNC Project Management & Science Team documented possible timing limitations from a variety of sources, resolved any inconsistencies amongst them, and made recommendations to the SLB. As with the surface occupancy area buffers, the Technical Team identified legal and additional recommended timing limitations. The source of “legal timing limitations” was any area identified as Sensitive Wildlife Habitat under the Colorado Oil and Gas Rules (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008). While the rules themselves do not require timing limitations for Sensitive Wildlife Habitat, they require consultation with Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) in order to identify opportunities to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to this habitat. CPW has created a document entitled Actions to Minimize Adverse Impacts to Wildlife Resources (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2012), which identifies timing limitations and other activities that oil and gas operators can take to reduce impacts to select wildlife species. The TNC Project Management & Science Team thus used this document as the basis for “legal” timing limitations (Map 14). The Technical Team identified seasonal timing limitations related to surface occupancy, human encroachment, noise, and lights and mapped those affecting surface occupancy areas (Maps 14 and 15). Examples of timing limitations include:  Ferruginous hawk nests - From 2/1-7/15, no human encroachment or construction activity within 1/2 mile of active or alternate nests.  Swift fox dens – From 3/15-6/15, avoid surface disturbance while young are den-dependent within 1/4 mile of active den sites:  Pronghorn winter concentration area - Legal: From 1/1-3/31, avoid surface disturbance to and construction activities within winter concentration areas west of I-25 See Appendix 3a for a full list of timing limitations by target. 40 Map 14. Biological values – Legal and additional recommended timing limitations affecting surface occupancy Map 15. Biological values - Seasonality of timing limitations affecting surface occupancy 41 B. SURFACE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND MITIGA TION The Surface Occupancy areas and timing limitations identify sensitive natural values and their associated important seasons, with the ultimate goal of guiding surface development away from these areas. But the mere identification of these areas is not likely to achieve complete avoidance of impacts to the biological and cultural values in the project area. The Core Team created a suite of complementary recommendations for incorporation into the SLB leasing package and the City and County’s Surface Use Agreements: Disturbance caps, compensatory mitigation fees, and reclamation standards. These tools work together like a three-legged stool to support the surface occupancy areas by incentivizing operators to achieve the plan’s overarching goal: To avoid, minimize, and mitigate the short- and long-term impacts of new disturbance in the Project Area. The City and County have also produced Best Management Practices which will be used in creating the Surface Use Agreement and which are also important to achieving the plan’s goal. The City, County, and SLB may need to modify the recommendations herein based on unforeseen circumstances, opportunities to avoid “perverse outcomes,” and reasonable efforts to achieve the goals of this Energy by Design plan. i. Disturbance caps While the surface of the Project Area is owned by just two entities – the City and the County – the mineral estate is owned by at least five entities. The development of the project area is therefore likely to involve numerous operators with different timelines and buildout footprints, and occur over an extended period of time. This reality underscores the importance of viewing the total surface impact by oil and gas development activities on a planning area scale to ensure the development by all respective operators is reasonably allowed, while minimizing the overall impact to the surface in the Project Area. A second consideration is that little exploration has occurred within the region to date, and only a limited portion of the Project Area has been subject to a seismic survey. Due to the unproven nature of mineral resources in the Project Area, it is difficult to predict the number of wells and well pads that may be necessary to meet the goal of providing reasonable access to the mineral estate. Where minerals are determined to exist, this number has been estimated to be as few as 1 to 2 well pads per section to as high as 16 well pads per section (1 per 40 acres) or more. It is also expected that some sections will not be developed at all. The intent of Core Team is to provide for the minimum number of well pads in order to balance reasonable access to the mineral estate while maintaining the conservation values of the site. No one well density cap will achieve this result a priori. As such, a maximum well density and disturbance threshold was identified to control impacts associated with the high well density potential in some parts of the Project Area. The allowance of 4 well pads per section is not expected to be the well density across the entire Project Area but rather the maximum allowed on portions of the project area where significant mineral resources are determined to be available for extraction. Ultimately, SUAs with individual developers will identify the maximum well pad density allowed within any given portion of the Project Area. 42 The Core Team identified two maximum disturbance caps:8  Long-term impact cap (3% for up to 4 well pads) – The maximum surface area of a section that can be occupied for more than two years. For one section of 640 acres, 3% is rounded to 19 acres. This cap includes all long-term surface impacts to the site including the production well pad, new roads, and any other long-term surface impacts.  Temporary impact cap (1.25%) – The additional surface area cap, beyond the long-term impact area cap, that can be impacted for less than two years for activities like well pad development or hydraulic fracturing of a well. For one section of 640 acres, 1.25% is 8 acres. This cap will allow development of one well pad at a time. Reclaiming temporary impacts will then enable an operator to develop any additional well pads. The following provisions will guide implementation of the disturbance caps:  Both temporary and long term surface impacts will count towards the operator’s allotted acres until the Surface Owner issues notice of reclamation clearance (see reclamation standards). Once reclamation of temporary or long term impacts is complete, the acreage will again be available for the operator to use for other development. In other words, once an operator reclaims any acre in its entirety, that acre goes back into their 19 (long term) plus 8 (temporary) total acreage available.  To incentivize operators to work together on the landscape, if more than one operator cooperates in sharing infrastructure (new roads, well pads, etc.), the acres disturbed will only be counted as 50% of the acreage actually disturbed. This incentive will be applied to both temporary and long term disturbance. The Surface Use Agreement (SUA) will detail any co-locating of roads and other infrastructure by operators, and subsequent operators will be bound to continuing that colocation. ii. Compensatory mitigation f ees An operator must participate in a compensatory mitigation program with the Surface Owners by contributing to a mitigation fund through a fee structure described below. The Surface Owners will administer the fund, holding the funds and protecting or restoring lands as opportunities arise. The intent of the mitigation program is two-fold:  To generally encourage development in less sensitive areas over more sensitive areas; and  To secure the necessary funds to achieve no net loss (i.e., net zero impact) of biological values for biological values that are subject to long-term impacts, where avoidance and minimization will not do so on their own. 8 The disturbance caps were based on the following assumptions about the development associated with one well pad: Long-term impacts - Impacts may total 4.5 acres per well pad, including an estimated 1 mile of new road per well pad at 20’ wide = approximately 2.5 acres, plus 2 acres per well pad (at 4 wellpads = 8 acres total) for production. Temporary impacts - Impacts may total an additional 8 acres per well pad (beyond the 2 long-term acres for a well pad production for drilling and hydraulic fracturing, for a total of 10 acres per pad during well development and completion). 43 Payment for compensatory mitigation will be based on per-acre fees for each of the surface occupancy types (Table 12). The fees are based on a combination of best available science and practical professional judgments made by the Core Team. See Appendix 4 for the methods used for calculating the mitigation fees. Table 12. Compensatory mitigation fees per acre on any given section in the Project Area 1 well pad 2 well pads 3 well pads 4 well pads Surface occupan- cy area General per- acre rate Surface occupan- cy area multiplier Surface occupan- cy area base rate Multi- plier Final fee Multi- plier Final fee Multi- plier Final fee Multi- plier Final fee PSO $2,200 1.0 $ 2,200 1.0 $2,200 1.0 $2,200 1.0 $2,200 1.0 $2,200 CSO $2,200 1.5 $ 3,300 1.0 $3,300 1.0 $3,300 1.5 $4,950 2.0 $6,600 LSO $2,200 3.0 $ 6,600 1.0 $6,600 1.0 $6,600 1.5 $9,900 2.0 $13,200 IMPORTANT:  Payment will be made in cash or an equivalent, if agreed to by the Surface Owners (e.g., mineral or water right values transferred to the Surface Owners for conservation purposes).  Up to four well pads per section are allowed in the project area at any one time. Fully reclaimed well pads (i.e., Surface Owner has issued final reclamation clearance, see reclamation standards), including temporary and long-term impacts, will not count toward the well pad total.  Dollar amounts are established based on recent (2006-2012) land values and other estimates of mitigation costs. Final amounts may need to be adjusted as land values or other cost factors rise in the future.  Fees apply to long-term impacts only; operators will not be responsible for mitigating for temporary impacts.  Operators will pay as they go. Recognizing that operators may not know their full development plans (e.g., 1 well pad or 3 well pads) at the outset, operators will pay compensatory mitigation fees by the time physical activity begins.  Fees will be based on the number of well pads constructed over time, and will be calculated to provide the highest benefit for conservation such that a well pad in a more restrictive zone (CSO or LSO) would always incur mitigation fees as if it were the last well built. In other words, the construction of a third well pad and associated infrastructure in a section would increase the fee for a previously-constructed well pad and associated infrastructure in LSO to the 3-wellpad fee level, regardless of whether it was built first or second. For example, if Well pad #1 (year 1) is in PSO, Well pad #2 (year 5) is in LSO, and Well pad #3 (year 10) is in PSO, an operator will pay $2,200/acre in year 1; another $6,600/acre in year 5; and another $2,200/acre for the PSO well + $3300/acre. The $3,300/acre is equivalent to the fee for a third pad in LSO ($9,900) less the fee already paid for that LSO pad when it was the second pad for which $6,600 was paid originally in year 5.  For a well pad that includes two or more types of surface occupancy areas, the fee for the most restrictive are will apply to the entire acreage. For example, for a five-acre well pad including two acres of LSO and three acres of CSO, an operator would pay for five acres of LSO. 44  If there is more than one operator in a section, each operator must pay fees according to the total number of well pads that have already been developed. In other words, well pad development is cumulative for the purpose of calculating compensatory mitigation fees, regardless of the number of operators. Using the example from above, if Operator A develops a well pad in PSO in year 1; Operator B develops a well pad in LSO in year 5, and Operator C develops another well pad in PSO in year 10, then Operator A will owe $2,200/acre in year 1; Operator B will owe $6,600/acre in year 5; and Operator C will owe $2,200/acre for the PSO well plus an additional $3,300/acre for the LSO well (to account for the difference in the LSO third well cost of $9,900 minus the $6,600 already paid) for the LSO acreage paid for in Year 5 (i.e., the LSO well would be treated as if it were the third well).  The Surface Owner may also require operators to cover additional mitigation-related costs through the Surface Use Agreement. For example, the surface use fee does not cover Surface Owner costs of implementing the Surface Use Agreement. Surface Owners will apply the mitigation funds within the Project Area as defined by the EBD Core Team. Mitigation projects will ensure “ecological equivalency” by completing projects that benefit the same conservation values that are impacted. Mitigation projects can include one or more of the following actions:  Land conservation. The preferred method of compensatory mitigation will be to conserve lands with similar natural resource values (focused on “in-kind” replacement). This could include placing formal legal protections on Meadow Springs or other lands within the Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains project area.  Restoration projects. The second option for mitigation is to complete resource management (such as restoration of degraded lands) within the mitigation area. This is a secondary option because all three properties are in good condition and most ongoing resource management activities are already funded.  Mineral/Water Rights acquisition. On-site mineral or water rights procurement and donation to the Surface Owners with stipulations that such mineral rights would be retired and water rights would be tied to conservation values. (Note: Although SLB is not legally able to donate its development rights to the Surface Owners, other mineral owners may be able to do so.) It may not be possible to complete mitigation projects at the same time impacts occur. Therefore, the mitigation fund will enable the Surface Owners to identify and complete the best mitigation projects within the Project Area as close in time as possible to the impacts. iii. Reclamation standards This section includes the reclamation provisions identified by the Core Team. The Core Team started with the reclamation language in the Lowry Range plan (which was based on the Colorado Oil and Gas Rules) and modified it for the Mountains to Plains project. As with all the other components of this report, the City, County, and the State Land Board will build these provisions into the SLB Leasing Package and the Surface Use Agreement as they see fit. It is assumed that the operator will also comply with the Colorado Oil and Gas Rules and the Surface Owners’ Best Management Practices for reclamation. 1. Responsibility. In addition to any responsibilities under the Oil and Gas Rules, the operator is responsible for reclamation, monitoring, and submitting required documentation to the Surface Owner. The Surface Owner reviews and approves the final Reclamation Plan and will determine when reclamation standards have been met. 45 2. Reclamation plan. The Lessee will develop a reclamation plan for approval by the Surface Owner to fulfill the reclamation standards. This plan will detail measures to restore disturbed sites based on application of the BMPs (see above). The reclamation plan will include the following: a. Identification of the reference and reclamation sites, including baseline photographs, GPS coordinates and GIS shapefiles of each. b. Description of the soil conditions of the reference and reclamation sites and ensure they are consistent. See below for descriptions of reference and reclamation sites. c. Documentation of the vegetation and functional group dynamics of the reference site per the monitoring methods below. d. Description and map(s) of temporary and long-term impact areas to the extent practicable. e. Interim and final reclamation actions, per the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission Rules and the City and County Best Management Practices. 3. Reclamation site. This is the area disturbed by oil and gas activities and within which reclamation is needed. The reclamation site includes both temporary and long-term impact areas. 4. Reference site. The Surface Owner will identify a reference site for each pad or disturbed area. The reference site will be used for restoration quality control as it will provide a baseline for the ecological conditions that the reclamation and monitoring of the reclamation site are intended to achieve. In other words, the reference site is what the reclamation site should look like post-reclamation, subject to standards (see below). This reference site will contain the same soil types, slope, and aspect as the reclamation site. In choosing the reference site, the Surface Owner will determine if the reclamation site is highly altered to begin with. If the reclamation site is not highly altered, the Surface Owner will select a reference site to generally match the pre-construction condition of the reclamation site. If the reclamation site is highly altered (e.g., dominated by cheatgrass), reclamation should seek to establish a native plant community typical of the area. 5. Reclamation bond. The Lessee must provide a reclamation bond to the Surface Owners for anticipated temporary and long-term impacts at a rate of $10,000/acre, for acreage equal to the maximum amount of disturbance possible under the disturbance caps (i.e., 4.25% of the lease area). For example, for a lease of one section (640 acres), the bond amount would be 4.25% * 640 acres * $10,000, for a total of $272,000. This amount will cover all costs of reclamation, including seed collection, seed storage, irrigation (if necessary), labor, and management and monitoring to assure success.9 The bond will be released upon approval of the reclaimed site by the Surface Owner (Section 9). 6. Monitoring schedule and methods. Monitoring will occur annually between June 15 and September 15 and include both quantitative and qualitative methods. The reference and reclamation sites will be monitored within 30 days of each other, annually, using the same methods. The point intercept method will be used along at least three permanent transects per acre. The transects must be at least 50 meters long and provide at least 100 points per transect. Photographic documentation will also be collected from each cardinal direction at a designated point at each reclamation site. 9 Costs are based on actual costs accrued on a 2012 project in Pueblo County (Rondeau, 2012) 46 7. Annual report. By November 1 of each year, operators must submit an annual report to the Surface Owner identifying reclamation activities and monitoring results. Any deviations from the location and extent of temporary impacts, as identified in the reclamation plan, will be delineated in the annual report and will include maps, GPS coordinates of the boundaries and GIS shapefiles of these changes. 8. Reclamation standards. Lands shall be considered reclaimed when the standards are met by the end of the second growing season after establishing vegetative cover (and watering, if applicable) or any subsequent set of two consecutive years within a five-year period. Standards include: a. Topography and soils: Replicate the original topography of the site following the Site Preparation standards described in the Surface Owners’ Best Management Practices. b. Vegetative composition and cover – Achieve at least 80% vegetative cover as compared to the reference site, and reflecting the structure and vegetative composition (i.e., trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs) of the reference site, excluding Larimer County noxious weeds. For example, plant communities dominated by certain shrub species in the reference site must be dominated by the same shrub species in the reclamation site. c. Non-native plants are not considered when calculating the performance criteria. 9. Reclamation approval. The Surface Owner will return the bond, or applicable portions thereof, once reclamation of temporary and/or long-term impacts is complete according to the following criteria: a. All reclamation standards are met by the end of the second growing season after establishing vegetative cover (including watering if applicable) or after any subsequent set of two consecutive years within a five-year period; and b. Operator provides to the Surface Owner an annual report documenting that all performance criteria have been met for two consecutive years and requesting release of the bond or portions thereof, based on the acreage successfully reclaimed. Following receipt of the annual report, the Surface Owner will complete an inspection between June 15 and September 15 to confirm report findings. If applicable, within 30 days of the site inspection and report confirmation, the Surface Owner will provide written clearance of operator responsibility, along with the bond fees for acreage successfully reclaimed. If reclamation standards are not met within 5 years, operators must continue attempts to reclaim and the Surface Owners will continue to hold the bond, or the operators must relinquish the reclamation bond to the Surface Owners such that they can undertake alternative reclamation or restoration actions. C . SCENIC AND RECREATIO NAL VALUES Impacts to priority scenic and recreational values were considered in the planning process. To help minimize the visual impact related to oil and gas development, the viewsheds from the public trail system and the Lindenmeier site were analyzed. The viewshed maps are intended to be used as a supplementary tool to the biological and cultural resource maps assist with the final siting of development in the least visually impactful locations possible. They are not intended to replace on-the-ground scouting to find the best locations for oil and gas development within individual sections. The Technical Team considered creating surface occupancy recommendations (e.g., no surface occupancy) for scenic priorities and combining them with the cultural and 47 biological analyses, but decided the most appropriate use of the viewshed tool would be to aid in the City and County‘s efforts in working with operators when siting a specific well pad or other infrastructure. The Core Team completed three scenic priority analyses and associated maps with data from the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County, as described below. All public trails in the Project Area and the Lindenmeier site were used as the viewpoints.  Visible/not visible analysis (Maps 16 and 17) – This analysis simply shows all places visible from the trail system and the Lindenmeier site, assuming visibility to 3.5 miles. This analysis did not differentiate between the visibilities of locations close to the viewpoints versus ones that lay farther away. This analysis was completed for the public trails and for the Lindenmeier site.  Decline in visibility analysis (Maps 18 and 19) – The visible/not visible map was revised to show the decline in visibility as distance from viewpoints increased. As the distance from a viewpoint increased, the visibility decreased to a point at approximately 3.5 miles where the impact became negligible. The decline in visibility analysis was completed for the public trails and for the Lindenmeier site.  Cumulative viewshed analysis (Map 20) – Building on the decline in visibility analysis, the Core Team completed a cumulative viewshed analysis for the trail system only. This map combines the decline in visibility from the trail network with the reality that some places in the Project Area are of higher scenic priority than others due to the frequency with which they can be seen from each step along the trails. The Core Team assumed the following to complete these analyses:  Distance from which one could see an oil rig/pump jack structure: 3.5 miles. Based on research (Upadhyay, 2010) the Core Team decided that the maximum visible distance from any one viewpoint would be 3.5 miles. For reference, the Project Area is 16 miles across.  Height of observer at viewpoint: 6 feet. The Core Team ran the analysis from the viewpoint of a 6’ tall person.  Height of object viewpoint: 20 feet. The Core Team decided to use the 20-25-foot height of a typical pump jack as the height of the object viewpoint. While much taller at 125 feet, the drilling rig is only in place for about 2 weeks while the pump jack could be in place for many years.  Distance at which visibility starts to decline: 0.5 miles. The Core Team assumed that visibility is clear from the observer to 0.5 miles, beyond which the visibility is reduced.10  Distance at which visibility drops to 50%: 1.75 miles. The previously described maximum distance was 3.5 miles, so the distance at which visibility drops to 50% would be half of that, or 1.75 miles. The resultant suite of scenic priorities maps show many areas where drilling pads could be built that would minimally impact scenic values. Conversely, there are key areas that will be important to protect. As previously mentioned this analysis is intended to be used as a guide and to inform large scale planning. Site-specific viewshed analyses could be created during siting of an individual drilling pad. Field visits and ground truthing will be vital during the siting of individual drilling pads. When making decisions about where to locate oil and gas infrastructure, operators should work with the City and County to consider these scenic priority maps alongside existing Management Zone maps that are available for 10 This assumption was influenced by (Fisher, 1994), who had a suggested value of 1 km, or 0.62 miles. The technical team rounded to 0.5 miles for simplicity. 48 Red Mountain Open Space and Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. In the respective management plans for both properties, Management Zones have been designated to inform development of infrastructure, signage, and other management concerns. The Management Zones range from a Developed Zone where parking lots and other major infrastructure exist, to a Primitive Zone where development would be minimal and the opportunity for solitude is the highest on the properties. During the Open House held for this planning process, the attendees were asked about viewsheds as a priority in the Project Area and where they would prefer development. The attendees unanimously preferred that development be directed when possible to more developed zones of the properties, even if it was more or very visible, and to make any development in Backcountry or Primitive Zones as invisible as possible. Thus, both the scenic priorities map in this report and the Management Zone in which any given development may reside should be taken into consideration when siting oil and gas infrastructure. 49 Map 16. Scenic values – Visible/not visible analysis from the Lindenmeier Archaeological Site. This map shows the surface occupancy areas that are visible from the Lindenmeier site, assuming a sight distance of 3.5 miles. Source: (Gaertner, Robertson, & Scharton, 2012) Map 17. Scenic values – Visible/not visible analysis from public trails in the Project Area. This map shows the surface occupancy areas for biological and cultural resources that are visible from the public trail system in the Project Area, assuming a sight distance of 3.5 miles. Source: (Gaertner, Robertson, & Scharton, 2012) 50 Map 18. Scenic values – Decline in visibility analysis from the Lindenmeier Archaeological Site Source: (Gaertner, Robertson, & Scharton, 2012) Map 19. Scenic values – Decline in visibility analysis from all public trails in the Project Area Source: (Gaertner, Robertson, & Scharton, 2012) 51 Map 20. Cumulative viewshed analysis from the public trails in the Project Area This map shows the scenic priorities of the Project Area based on two inputs -- the decline in visibility from the trail network (to a distance of 3.5 miles away) and the frequency with which any one location within the Project Area can be seen from each step along the trails. Source: (Gaertner, Robertson, & Scharton, 2012) D . CULTURAL RESOURCE PO TENTIAL Approximately twenty-five percent (25%) of the Project Area has been surveyed for cultural resources. To help predict the chances of finding cultural resources on the remaining 75% of the Project Area, CSU created a predictive map of cultural values across the Project Area that lies in Larimer County. The cultural resource potential maps are provided separately to the SLB due to the sensitivity of the information. CSU used its knowledge of known locations for cultural resources to statistically predict where cultural resources could be found elsewhere throughout the site. CSU mapped likely locations for finding 40 or more “flakes,” tools, hearths and other thermal features, stone circles, and rock piles based on the elevation, slope, topography, distance to water, aspect, landcover, and soil characteristics of known sites for these cultural resources. CSU created a predictive map of each cultural value and combined them to create the final map of cultural resource potential. Importantly, this predictive model only addresses sites that might be present on the surface. The area contains many buried archaeological sites that are more difficult to detect and will likely only be found during construction and archaeological monitoring. Pre-survey of construction areas would obviously examine areas of deep exposure, such as arroyos, where soil sequences might yield cultural remains dating back thousands of years and buried meters below the present day surface. 52 This page intentionally left blank. 53 PART I V . DISCUSSION A. USE OF RESULTS IN NEXT STEPS The information provided in this report completes the first of three phases in the EBD process for the Mountains to Plains project. The information about priority biological and cultural resource values, the recommendations for surface occupancy areas, and the supplementary recommendations are intended to aid in its creation of an Oil and Gas Leasing Plan (Phase II) and in the City and County’s creation of a Surface Use Agreement (Phase III). The SLB will use this report to develop a leasing plan for SLB holdings that respects the goals and values of the surface owners and includes an oil and gas lease. The plan may include a leasing plan and lease stipulations. It may also set expectations for surface use agreements with the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. To develop the plan, the SLB may engage the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, TNC, and ideally other mineral owners and potential lessees. The plan would be predicated on the rigorous scientific approach taken by this project to understand the kinds and distribution of resources on the site and potential impacts from oil and gas development. Implementation of the plan will rely on the commitment of the project partners to utilizing the findings in the report and to support the recommendations made herein. B. STRENGTHS & LIMIT ATIONS OF MOUNTAINS TO PLAINS E NERGY BY DESIGN Energy by Design is not a one-size-fits-all solution to energy or development planning. The context of any given energy development project may or may not lend itself to EBD. In the case of the Mountains to Plains Energy by Design Project, several factors supported the EBD approach. The surface overlaying the minerals estate were largely publicly-owned and were acquired for a variety of natural, cultural, and recreational values at a time when there was little expectation of any recoverable resource under the property. The outstanding biological, cultural, scenic, and recreational resource values and their ownership by public entities merit greater care when planning minerals development. Additionally, the high value that the residents of the County and City place on the subject properties attracted scrutiny of and opposition to mineral development. Finally, the full recognition by local government and other stakeholders of the SLB’s right to develop minerals underlying the property for their beneficiaries and their desire to work with the SLB to reach a mutually agreeable plan for their extraction set the stage for a successful collaboration based on respect for each organization’s rights and obligations, strong science, and a robust process. By virtue of its scientific rigor and the engagement of credible stakeholders in the analysis and planning process, Energy by Design requires a significant commitment of time and resources to complete. The benefit of this investment is several-fold. First and foremost, the stakeholder engagement engenders strong, broad based support for project outcomes. In the context of this project, this means that minerals owners and developers will have higher than normal confidence that their leasing operations can proceed smoothly. This certainty in the context of public open space in northern Larimer County should be of real value to owners and lessees. Second, broad support by stakeholders provides for public agency endorsement and recommendation of the plan to constituents and prepares them to answer questions from other groups based on solid science and thorough analysis. This should enhance the public profile of participants and smooth the leasing and development process. Finally, successful implementation of Energy by Design can raise the standard for mineral development by other owners and lessees, contributing to an optimal mix of resource development and natural resource protection throughout the state. 1 GLOSSARY ACCESS: The right of ingress to and egress from a privately owned tract of land from a public way without trespassing on privately owned property.1 AQUATIC: Growing, living in or frequenting water; occurring or situated in or on water.2 AVOID: The act of taking a specific action (including no action) that will result in no disturbance to a biological or cultural value.3 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (BMPs): Practices that are considered the optimum way to conduct certain activities designed to prevent or reduce impacts caused by oil and gas operations to air, water, soil, or biological resources, and to minimize adverse impacts to public health, safety and welfare, including the environment and wildlife resources.4 BIOLOGICAL VALUES: For the purpose of this report, includes ecological systems; plant communities; and rare, imperiled, or otherwise sensitive species.5 BUFFER: An area designated to be undisturbed by an industrial activity. It is the transitional area between two different land uses that mitigates the effect of one land use on the other. In the case of biological resources, the buffer is often considered part of an occurrence of a species or system due to ecological or behavioral characteristics (e.g., feeding areas of a species that breeds in an adjacent area or adjacent areas in which a disturbance may cause a species to flee or abandon a nest).6 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION: Measures that compensate for adverse impacts (intended or unintended) to biological, cultural, and/or scenic and recreational values, including, as appropriate, habitat enhancement, on-site habitat mitigation, off-site mitigation, or mitigation banking.7 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION, FEASIBILITY OF: The potential to successfully achieve no net loss of a target through re-creation, restoration, or conservation activities based on irreplaceability, financial practicality, and reasonable timeframe.8 COMPENSATION, IN-KIND: Replacement of lost resources with the same resources; emphasizes providing for or managing resources which are physically and biologically the same as those resources lost.9 1 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 2 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 3 (Pague, 2012) 4 Adapted from (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008). The Mountains to Plains Energy by Design Core Team added the language, “that are considered the optimum way.” 5 (Pague, 2012) 6 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) and (Pague, 2012) 7 Adapted from (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008). The Mountains to Plains Energy by Core Technical Team replaced the original COGCC term “wildlife resources” with the language “biological, cultural, and/or scenic and recreational values” in order to match the resources of interest for this project. Also, the COGCC rules use the term “mitigation” – not “compensatory mitigation.” Finally, (Pague, 2012) added the language “intended or unintended.” 8 (Pague, 2012) 9 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 2 CONTROLLED SURFACE OCCUPANCY: One of four types of surface occupancy areas used for the Mountains to Plains Energy by Design project. See also No Surface Occupancy, Limited Surface Occupancy, and Preferred Surface Occupancy. Areas which are generally suitable for O&G development. While biological and cultural resources are present throughout the CSO areas, they are less sensitive than in Limited Surface Occupancy areas. Undeveloped lands may become subject to additional limitations imposed to address wildlife habitat, nesting or fawning grounds based on on-site surveys completed prior to oil and gas development. Require lower fees for compensatory mitigation than Limited Surface Occupancy areas, but higher fees than Preferred Surface Occupancy. Oil and gas operations are permitted on these lands after consultation with the surface owner and the SLB, and approval of specific strategies and physical plans that will minimize (or eliminate) any permanent surface impact.10 CULTURAL VALUES: Artifacts, features, and sites (locales) providing evidence of human occupation dating older than 50 years before present. Cultural sites listed as “significant” contain attributes that are judged to meet the four criteria of the National Register of Historic Places.11 ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM: Ecological systems are dynamic assemblages or complexes of plant and/or animal communities that 1) occur together on the landscape; 2) are tied together by similar ecological processes, underlying abiotic environmental factors or gradients; and 3) form a readily identifiable unit on the ground.12 ENERGY BY DESIGN: Also known as Development by Design, Energy by Design is an approach that The Nature Conservancy uses to help guide sustainable mineral development decision-making by looking beyond individual project locations to identify the cumulative impacts of development on natural areas across the landscape (whole ecosystems). Energy by Design blends conservation planning with the “mitigation hierarchy” —first avoid, then minimize/restore, and finally offset impacts to resources.13 FRAGMENTATION: Process by which habitats are increasingly subdivided into smaller units, resulting in their increased insularity as well as loss of total habitat area. The process of reducing the size and/or connectivity of an ecosystem or habitat type. A result is that for each smaller patch, there is an increasing proportion of edge compared to core, a trait that can be deleterious to ecosystems or habitats.14 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS): A computer-based tool for mapping and analyzing geographically related locales that exist and events that occur on Earth. GIS technology integrates common database operations such as query and statistical analysis with the unique visualization and geographic analysis benefits offered by maps. These abilities distinguish GIS from other information systems and make it valuable to a wide range of public and private enterprises for explaining events, predicting outcomes, and planning strategies.15 HABITAT: The place occupied by an organism, population, or community. It is the physical part of the community structure in which an organism finds its home, and includes the sum total of all the environmental conditions 10 Mountains to Plains Energy by Design Core Team 11 (Labelle, 2012) 12 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 13 Adapted from (The Nature Conservancy, 2012) 14 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) and (Pague, 2012) 15 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 3 present in the specific place occupied by an organism. Often a habitat is defined to include a whole community of organisms.16 IMPACT, CUMULATIVE: The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of the age of such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.17 IMPACT, DIRECT (Primary Impact): Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.18 IMPACT, INDIRECT (Secondary Impact): Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.19 IMPACT, LONG-TERM: Reclamation activities are initiated beyond the second growing season after impact.20 IMPACT, TEMPORARY: Vegetative cover is established in the first or second growing season after impact. The growing season is considered to be April-October. For example, if impacts occur in April of year 1, vegetative cover must be established by October of year 2 by the latest for impacts to be considered “temporary.”21 INTERIM RECLAMATION: Any interim or concurrent reclamation of land undertaken during, following or in connection with construction/development and ongoing operations associated with an active disposition.22 INTERMITTENT (TEMPORARY) STREAM: Streams where the presence of water ceases for a time due to climatic conditions, including snow melt/spring runoff, seasonal storms and drought conditions. These changes are considered part of a natural cycle. These water bodies can remain dry for many years and may be fully restored after prolonged precipitation.23 IRREPLACEABILITY: A characteristic of a biological value that represents its inability to be restored, to be replicated, or to persist in another geographical location. The factors used to characterize a resource as irreplaceable include but are not limited to: rarity, sensitivity, resiliency, and geographic extent.24 LEASE: Any contract, profit-share arrangement, joint venture, or other agreement issued or approved that authorizes exploration for, extraction of, or removal of oil or gas. See also surface lease.25 LIMITED SURFACE OCCUPANCY AREA (LSO): One of four types of surface occupancy areas used for the Mountains to Plains Energy by Design project. See also No Surface Occupancy, Controlled Surface Occupancy, and Preferred 16 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 17 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 18 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 19 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 20 (Pague, 2012) 21 (Pague, 2012) 22 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 23 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 24 (Pague, 2012) 25 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 4 Surface Occupancy. LSO areas are subject to stringent restrictions on surface use due to the presence and sensitivity of the biological and/or cultural values. Limited oil and gas operations are permitted on these lands after consultation with the surface owner and the SLB, and approval of specific strategies and physical plans that will minimize (or eliminate) any permanent surface impact. No new roads are allowed unless the operator demonstrates that there is no technologically or economically feasible alternative. Requires higher fees for compensatory mitigation than Controlled Surface Occupancy and Preferred Surface Occupancy areas as LSO is more difficult to restore and/or mitigate. 26 MINIMIZING: To limit to the smallest possible amount or degree of magnitude of the action or its implementation.27 MINIMIZE ADVERSE IMPACTS:28 Wherever reasonably practicable, to avoid adverse impacts to resources or significant adverse impacts to the environment from oil and gas operations, minimize the extent and severity of those impacts that cannot be avoided, mitigate the effects of unavoidable remaining impacts, and take into consideration cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility with regard to actions and decisions taken to minimize adverse impacts. MITIGATION: See compensatory mitigation. MONITORING: The periodic observation and orderly collection of data to evaluate the effects of management actions and their effectiveness in meeting management objectives (43 C.F.R. § 4100.0-5).29 NATIVE PLANT: A species, subspecies, or lower taxon, occurring within its historic range.30 NATIVE SPECIES: One that evolved in a particular region or that evolved nearby and migrated to the region without help from humans.31 NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY: Pertains to timing limitations. The following activities are prohibited during specified times of the day or year: Exploration for oil and gas (including the conduct of seismic operations and the drilling of test bores); the siting, drilling, deepening, recompletion, reworking, or abandonment of an oil and gas well, including the installation of flowlines and gathering systems; and any construction (including but not limited to road construction), site preparation, or activities associated with such operations. Production, routine maintenance, repairs and replacements, emergency operations, reclamation activities, or habitat improvements are not prohibited.32 NO HUMAN DISTURBANCE: Pertains to timing limitations. Off-road activities are prohibited during specified times of the day or year, including but not limited to travel by foot, horseback, or vehicle. On existing roads, necessary driving is allowed under these conditions: Drivers must travel at consistent speeds not to exceed 25 26 Mountains to Plains Energy by Design Core Team 27 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 28 (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008) 29 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 30 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 31 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 32 Adapted from COGCC’s definition of oil and gas operations (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008) 5 mph; drivers must not stop and start unnecessarily; and drivers must not use horns except in emergency situations (e.g., no beeping to colleagues when passing them).33 NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY (NSO): One of four types of surface occupancy areas used for the Mountains to Plains Energy by Design project. See also Limited Surface Occupancy, Controlled Surface Occupancy, and Preferred Surface Occupancy. NSO areas are mandated no surface occupancy except for temporary low impact uses such as geophysical studies, due to the unprecedented biological or cultural values in these areas, that are either irreplaceable or would take decades or centuries to restore. No permanent O&G operations or facilities may be conducted or installed. Minimum intrusion may be permitted in connection with seismic exploration operations, temporary access, emergency response access and other limited purposes for effective ongoing surface owners’ management of the surface resources. Existing roads may provide access through NSOs depending on the amount of construction that is needed to upgrade the road, the amount of traffic, and the impact associated with viable alternatives. New roads will not be allowed, unless to avoid perverse outcomes. Should accidents occur during o il and gas exploration and development that destroy or damage NSO areas, extensive and immediate reclamation will be required along with payment of the highest fees for compensatory mitigation.34 OIL AND GAS FACILITY: Equipment or improvements used or installed at an oil and gas location for the exploration, production, withdrawal, gathering, treatment, or processing of oil or natural gas.35 OIL AND GAS LOCATION: A definable area where an operator has disturbed or intends to disturb the land surface in order to locate an oil and gas facility.36 OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS: Exploration for oil and gas, including conducting seismic operations and the drilling of test bores; the siting, drilling, deepening, recompletion, reworking, or abandonment of an oil and gas well, underground injection well, or gas storage well; production operations related to any such well, including the installation of flowlines and gathering systems; the generation, transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of exploration and production wastes; and any construction, site preparation, or reclamation activities associated with such operations.37 OFFSET IMPACTS: See compensatory mitigation. OPERATOR: Any person who exercises the right to control the conduct of oil and gas operations. 38 PATCH: A relatively homogeneous area that differs from its surroundings. Patches are the basic unit of the landscape that change and fluctuate, a process called patch dynamics. Patches have a definite shape and spatial configuration, and can be described compositionally by internal variables such as number of trees, number of tree species, height of trees, or other similar measurements.39 PLANT COMMUNITY: The constituent elements of terrestrial ecological systems – any one ecological system is comprised of multiple types of plant communities. Assemblages of species that exhibit similar composition and 33 (Pague, 2012) 34 Mountains to Plains Energy by Design Core Team 35 (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008) 36 (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008) 37 (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008) 38 (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008) 39 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 6 structure and that occur under similar habitat conditions. They co-occur in defined areas and have the potential to influence one another.40 PREFERRED SURFACE OCCUPANCY (PSO): One of four types of surface occupancy areas used for the Mountains to Plains Energy by Design project. See also No Surface Occupancy, Limited Surface Occupancy, and Controlled Surface Occupancy. Areas where surface occupancy is preferred from a biological and cultural values perspective due to previous and existing disturbances such as roads, buildings, and transmission lines. Requires lowest (i.e., baseline) fees for compensatory mitigation compared to the other surface occupancy areas and as defined by the Technical Team. Oil and gas operations are permitted on these lands after consultation with the Surface Owner and the SLB, and approval of specific strategies and physical plans that will minimize any permanent surface impact.41 RECLAMATION: The process of returning or restoring the surface of disturbed land as nearly as practicable to its condition prior to the commencement of oil and gas operations or to landowner specifications with an approved variance under Rule 502.b.42 RESTORATION: The process of assisting recovery and management of ecological integrity.43 REFERENCE AREA: An area either (1) on a portion of the site that will not be disturbed by oil and gas operations, if that is the desired final reclamation; or (2) another location that is undisturbed by oil and gas operations and proximate and similar to a proposed oil and gas location in terms of vegetative potential and management, owned by a person who agrees to allow periodic access to it by the Director (COGCC) and the operator for the purpose of providing baseline information for reclamation standards, and intended to reflect the desired final reclamation. See Undisturbed Area.44 RESTORATION: The process of reconstructing environmental conditions and characteristics as they were prior to the land or water disturbance.45 RESTRICTED SURFACE OCCUPANCY AREA (RSO): In the Colorado Oil and Gas Rules, an RSO is a requirement in an APD or Comprehensive Drilling plan that restricts an operator from physically placing any equipment or material on the surface of a particular tract of land or disturbing wildlife habitat within those identified areas and in Colorado shall mean the following: 46  Rocky mountain bighorn sheep production areas;  Desert bighorn sheep production areas;  Areas within 0.6 miles of any greater sage-grouse, Gunnison sage-grouse, and lesser prairie chicken leks (strutting and booming grounds);  Areas within 0.4 miles of any Columbian sharp-tailed grouse or plains sharp-tailed grouse leks (strutting grounds);  Areas within 1/4 mile of active Bald Eagle nest sites, Golden Eagle nest sites, or Osprey nest sites;  Areas within 1/2 mile of active Ferruginous Hawk nest sites, Northern Goshawk nest sites, Peregrine Falcon nest sites, or Prairie Falcon nest sites; 40 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 41 Mountains to Plains Energy by Design Core Team 42 (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008) 43 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 44 (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008) 45 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 46 (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008) 7  Areas located within 300 feet of the ordinary high-water mark of any stream segment located within designated Cutthroat Trout habitat; and  Areas within 300 feet of the ordinary high-water mark of a stream or lake designated by the Colorado Division of Wildlife as “Gold Medal.” SENSITIVE WILDLIFE HABITAT: In the Colorado Oil and Gas Rules, Sensitive Wildlife Habitat requires consultation with Colorado Parks & Wildlife and includes the following habitat: 47  Bald eagle nest sites and winter night roost sites; and  Bighorn sheep winter range;  Black-footed ferret release areas;  Columbian sharp-tailed grouse and plains sharp-tailed grouse production areas (being an area that contains 80% of nesting and brood rearing habitat for any identified population);  Elk production areas (being that part of the overall range occupied by the females for calving) (west of Interstate 25 and excluding Las Animas County);  Elk winter concentration areas (west of Interstate 25 and excluding Las Animas County);  Golden eagle nest sites.  Greater sage-grouse and Gunnison sage-grouse production areas (being an area that contains 80% of nesting and brood rearing habitat for any population identified in the Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan or the Gunnison Sage-Grouse Range-Wide Conservation Plan (May 2005), respectively);  Lesser prairie chicken  production areas (being an area that includes 80% of nesting and brood rearing habitat);  Mule deer critical winter range (being both mule deer winter concentration areas (that part of the winter range where densities are at least 200% of the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter range in 5 out of 10 winters), and mule deer severe winter range (that part of the winter range where 90% of the individuals are located during the average 5 winters out of 10 from the first heavy snowfall to spring green-up)) (west of Interstate 25 and excluding Las Animas County);  Pronghorn antelope winter concentration areas (west of Interstate 25); SPECIES COMPOSITION: The species (or other units), their numbers, and their distribution within a specified area or ecological unit. Species composition is often represented as the number of species occurring in an area (species richness) or as one or more indices of the frequency and or relative abundance of those species. Most classification systems use the dominant species and or unique species in an area to define the species composition.48 SPECIES DISTRIBUTION: Where the various species in an ecosystem are found at any given time. Species distribution varies with season.49 SCENIC VALUES: The values related to the intrinsic worth of open viewsheds, vistas and points of interest in a largely natural/historical/original condition.50 47 (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008) 48 (Pague, 2012) 49 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 50 Mountains to Plains Energy by Design Core Team 8 SEISMIC OPERATIONS: All activities associated with acquisition of seismic data including but not limited to surveying, shothole drilling, recording, shothole plugging and reclamation. 51 SPECIES DIVERSITY: The number of different species and their abundance within a defined area. Provides a measure of the variation in number of species in a region, depending on the variety of habitats and resources, and the degree of specialization of the species with respect to the habitats and resources.52 SURFACE LEASE: Any agreement entered into by an owner or occupant with an operator under which the surface of the land may be used and which provides for the payment of compensation (rental or otherwise). See also lease.53 TARGET: For the purpose of this report, a target refers to a biological or cultural resource that provides the basis for surface occupancy decisions, and/or warrants the application of Best Management Practices.54 THREATENED SPECIES: 1. Federally threatened species: "any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." 2. State threatened species: "Any species or subspecies of wildlife which, as determined by the [Colorado Parks & Wildlife] Commission, is not in immediate jeopardy of extinction but is vulnerable because it exists in such small numbers or is so extremely restricted throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered." 55 TERRESTRIAL: Growing, living in or frequenting land; occurring or situated in or on land. 56 TIMING LIMITATION: Requirement placed on a lease or APD that limits activities to certain times of the year. These stipulations usually are adopted to protect important wildlife migrations or breeding cycles. For this project, timing limitations mean no construction activity and/or no human disturbance during specified time periods (seasonal or daily) depending on the wildlife species. See no construction activity and no human disturbance.57 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS: Negative impacts to biological or cultural values that cannot be avoided if an action or disturbance is implemented. Such effects do not have to be avoided by the planning agency, but they must be disclosed, discussed, and mitigated, if possible. 58 UNDISTURBED AREA: An area that is in a largely undisturbed condition, characterized by plant and animal species native to the area. 59 VIEWSHED: The area or view that can be seen from a certain location. For the purpose of this report, a viewshed is considered the area that it visible from certain strategic areas of the properties including areas such as the access road, recreational trails, parking lots, and significant cultural locations. 60 51 (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008) 52 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 53 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 54 Mountains to Plains Energy by Design Core Team 55 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 56 Adapted from (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009). Modified the definition of aquatic for terrestrial. 57 Adapted from (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009). Instead of timing limitation, CDOW names the term seasonal (or timing) stipulation. 58 Modified from (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) and [40 CFR 1500.2(e)] 59 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) 60 Mountains to Plains Energy by Design Core Team 9 WELL: When used alone, shall mean an oil or gas well, a hole drilled for the purpose of producing oil or gas, a well into which fluids are injected, a stratigraphic well, a gas storage well, or a well used for the purpose of monitoring or observing a reservoir. 61 WELL SITE: The areas which are directly disturbed during the drilling and subsequent operation of, or affected by production facilities directly associated with, any oil well, gas well, or injection well and its associated well pad. 62 WINTER RANGE: That portion of the overall range that is available to and used by a wildlife species through all or nearly all of the winter season. Winter ranges of sufficient quality and quantity are critical for a number of reasons: (1) they are frequently so restricted in area that they limit the size of an animal population over its entire range; (2) intensive use by the animals makes the land more susceptible to overuse; (3) these ranges are often in proximity to human settlements and activities so that the species involved are adversely affected, or the species may adversely affect real and personal property.63 61 (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008) 62 (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008) 63 (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2009) BIBLIOGRAPHY Advanced Resources International, Inc. (2001). Federal lands analysis natural gas assessment - southern Wyoming and northwestern Colorado. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Energy: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/publications/fla/fed_lands_analysis.pdf Author unknown. (2007, March 9). Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) biological evaluation. Retrieved from U.S. Bureau of Land Management: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/wildlife/mtnplover.Par.18192.File.dat/finalMtnPlover BE.pdf Center for Watershed Protection. (n.d.). Wetlands and watersheds article series. Retrieved from Center for Watershed Protection: http://www.cwp.org/documents/cat_view/73-wetlands-and-watersheds-article- series.html City of Fort Collins. (2007, September 25). Soapstone Prarie Natural Area management plan. Fort Collins, Colorado. Retrieved from http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/soapstone-management-plan.pdf City of Fort Collins. (2012). Subsurface ownership and lease data. Real estate services department. City of Fort Collins. (n.d.). Fort Collins land use code, Article 3 general development standards. Retrieved from Colorado Code Publishing Company: http://www.colocode.com/ftcollins/landuse/article3.htm City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department. (2007). City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department. (2007-2011). Rare plant collection data. City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department. (2007-2012). Field observations for swift fox dens and raptors. City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department. (2008, 2010). Iowa darter - Reports compiled by Colorado State University chapter of American Fisheries Society for the City of Fort Collins. City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department. (2011). City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department. (2012). Colorado Division of Wildlife. (2012, March 16). Actions to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife resources. Colorado Division of Wildlife. (2006, November 2). Colorado Wildlife Action Plan. Retrieved from Colorado Division of Wildlife: http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/ColoradoWildlifeActionPlan/Pages/ColoradoWildlifeActionPlan. aspx Colorado Division of Wildlife. (2008). Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptors. Retrieved from http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/WildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/RaptorBuff erGuidelines2008.pdf Colorado Division of Wildlife. (2008, February). Recommended survey protocol and actions to protect nesting burrowing owls. Retrieved from Colorado Parks & Wildlife: http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/WildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/Recommen dedSurveyOwls.pdf Colorado Division of Wildlife. (2009). Working glossary for H.B. 1298 implementation - working draft. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. (2011, July 26). Potential Conservation Areas. Retrieved from Colorado Natural Heritage Program: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/gis/L4_PCA_Map07_2011.pdf Colorado Natural Heritage Program. (2012). Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System. Fort Collins, Colorado: Colorado State University. Retrieved Data exported 2012. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. (2008). Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rules. Retrieved from http://cogcc.state.co.us/RR_Docs_new/Rules_new2.html Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. (2012). GIS downloads - well surface locations. Retrieved from Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: http://cogcc.state.co.us/ Colorado Parks & Wildlife . (2011, July). Natural Diversity Information Source Data Downloads. Retrieved from http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/ftp/ftp_response.asp Colorado Renewables and Conservation Collaborative. (2011). Priority resource concerns in Colorado. Retrieved from Southern Plains Wind & Wildlife Planner: http://www.pljv.org/windandwildlife/co/index.php Colorado State Land Board. (2012, April 1). Lowry Range Oil and Gas Lease, OG 1960.12. Colorado State Land Board. (2012). Mineral estate ownership and leases. Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners State Asset Management System . Colorado State Land Board. (2012, April 19). Procedures for rare plant environmental review for development projects and land use changes. Retrieved from Colorado State Land Board: http://trustlands.state.co.us/Sections/FieldOperations/Documents/RarePlant.pdf Copeland, H., Dougherty, K. E., Naugle, D. E., Pocewicz , A., & Kiesecker, J. M. (2009). Mapping oil and gas development potential in the US Intermountain West and estimating impacts to species. PLOS One, 4(10), e7400. Elliott, B., Panjabi, S. S., Kurzell, B., Neely, B., Rondeau, R., & Ewing, M. (2009, April 2). Recommended Best Managment Practices for rare plants of concern. Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/documents/2009/Plant_BMPs_FINAL_May_6_2009.pdf Energy Information Administration. (2010). Major tight gas plays, Lower 48 states. Retrieved November 15, 2012, from Natural gas maps: Exploration, resources, reserves, and production: http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/maps/maps.htm Environmental Law Institute. (2008, March). Planner's guide to wetland buffers for local governments. Retrieved from Environmental Law Institute: http://www.elistore.org/reports_detail.asp?ID=11272 Fisher, P. (1994). Probable and fuzzy models of the viewshed operation. Innovations in GIS: selected papers from the First National Conference on GIS Research UK, 161-175. London, U.K.: Taylor and Francis. Gaertner, W., Robertson, J., & Scharton, J. (2012). Viewshed analyses for the Mountains to Plains Energy by Design Project. Gillihan, S. W., & Hutchings, S. W. (n.d.). Best management practices for shortgrass prairie birds - a landowner's guide . Retrieved from Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory: http://www.rmbo.org/pubs/downloads/bmp.pdf Haggerty, M. (2012, June). The status of Colorado's oil and gas industry: Activity continues to reflect Colorado's overall share of nation's fossil fuel reserves. Retrieved from Headwaters Economics: http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wp-content/uploads/colorado_energy_analysis.pdf Ingelfinger, F. (2001). The effects of natural gas development on sagebrush steppe passerines in Sublette County, Wyoming. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Wyoming. Knopf, F. (2012, August). Emeritus USGS Scientist . (R. Rondeau, Interviewer) LaBelle, J. (2012). Unpublished data from the Red Mountain Open Space and Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Project. Colorado State University, On File, Center for Mountain and Plains Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, Fort Collins, Colorado. LaBelle, J. M. (2012). Unpublished Data from the Red Mountain Open Space and Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Project. On File, Center for Mountain and Plains Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. LaBelle, J.M. and B.N. Andrews. (2007). Class II Archaeological Survey of the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area, Larimer County, Colorado. Colorado State University, Laboratory of Public Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, Fort Collins, Colorado. LaBelle, J.M. and J. Bush. (2009). 2007 Class II Archaeological Survey of the Red Mountain Open Space, Larimer County, Colorado. Colorado State University, Laboratory of Public Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, Fort Collins, Colorado. LaBelle, J.M., B.N. Andrews, and C.C. Newton. (2007). Class II Archaeological Survey of the Red Mountain Ranch Open Space, Larimer County, Colorado. Colorado State University, Laboratory of Public Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, Fort Collins, Colorado. Larimer County. (2007, September 27). Red Mountain Open Space resource management and implementation plan. Fort Collins, Colorado. Retrieved from http://www.larimer.org/naturalresources/red_mountain_plan.pdf Larimer County Natural Resources Department. (2007). Larimer County Natural Resources Department. (2011). Larimer County. (n.d.). Part II land use code. Retrieved from Larimer County: http://www.larimer.org/planning/planning/land_use_code/land_use_code.htm Lavender, A., Fink, M., Linn, S., & Theobald, D. (2011, October 18). Colorado ownership, management, and protection v9 database. Retrieved September 30, 2012, from COMaP: http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/comap/ Linnen, C. (2008). Effects of oil and gas development on grassland birds. Calgary, Alberta: Unpublished report prepared for Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada. Magill, B. (2012, July 27). The bonanza hiding under Soapstone. Fort Collins Coloradoan, pp. A1-2. Marinari, P. (2012). Fish & Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (M. Kram, Interviewer) NatureServe. (n.d.). NatureServe explorer. Retrieved from http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ Neely, B., Steven, K., Horsman, J., Pague, C., Rondeau, R., Smith, R., . . . Klavetter, M. (2006). Central Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregional Assessment and Partnership Initiative. The Nature Conservancy of Colorado and the Shortgrass Prairie Partnership. Retrieved from http://www.conservationgateway.org/link/central- shortgrass-prairie-ecoregional-assessment-and-partnership-initiative New Mexico Wind & Wildlife Collaborative. (2012). Priority resource concerns in New Mexico. Retrieved from Southern Plains Wind & Wildlife Planner: http://www.pljv.org/windandwildlife/nm/index.php Pague, C. (2012, October 26). Director of Conservation Science, The Nature Conservancy in Colorado. (M.Kram, Interviewer) Parks, E.M. and J.M. LaBelle. (2008). 2007 Class II Archaeological Survey of the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area and Associated Access Roads, Larimer County, Colorado. Colorado State University, Laboratory of Public Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, Fort Collins, Colorado. Reaman, M. (2012, August 29). County votes to approve stringent oil and gas regs. Retrieved from The Crested Butte News: http://www.crestedbuttenews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4393&Itemid=40 Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory. (2012). Unpublished data for burrowing owl nests, chestnut collared longspur breeding area, mountain plover repeated detections, mountain plover staging area, and McCown’s longspur core area. All data is based on GPS locations recorded in the field between 2006-2012. Rondeau, R. (2012, October 24). Team Leader and Ecologist, Colorado Natural Heritage Program. (M.Kram, Interviewer) Shane. (2000). Lark Bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys). In A. P. Gill (Ed.), The Birds of North America, no. 542. Philadelphia, PA: The Birds of North America, Inc. Staub, J. (2012, June 27). Emerging oil & gas supplies: Future prospects for oil & gas production. Retrieved September 30, 2012, from Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/staub_06272012.pdf The Nature Conservancy. (2012). A science-based approach - Development by Design. Retrieved from The Nature Conservancy: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/smart-development/science-based- approach/index.htm The Nature Conservancy. (2012). Black footed ferret captive population site digitized from USFWS description. The Nature Conservancy. (2012). Data digitized from 2010 satellite imagery. U.S. Bureau of Land Management Colorado. (2004, November). Roan Plateau Planning Area Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement. Retrieved from Bureau of Land Management: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Programs/land_use_planning/rmp/roan_plateau/documents/draft_r mpa_eis.html U.S. Bureau of Land Management Colorado. (2008, July 25). Draft USFWS/BLM recommendations for avoiding adverse effects on threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate and BLM sensitive plants on BLM lease lands in Colorado. Retrieved from Intermountain Oil and Gas BMP Project: http://www.oilandgasbmps.org/browse.php?pagenum=1&sortby=id&sortdir=asc&mode=3&match=all&ti tleonly=&kw=&docid=31 U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wyoming. (2003, April). Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project. Buffalo Field Office. Retrieved from http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/prb- rod.Par.71614.File.dat/00rod.pdf U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wyoming. (2004, July 4). Record of Decision Desolation Flats Natural Gas Field Development Project, Sweetwater and Carbon Counties, Wyoming. Rock Springs and Rawlins Field Offices. Retrieved August 1, 2012, from http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/rfodocs/desflats.Par.77883.File.d at /00rod.pdf U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wyoming. (2006, January). Jonah Infill Drilling Project - Final Environmental Impact Statement . Retrieved from U.S. Bureau of Land Management: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/pfo/jonah.html U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wyoming. (2007, March). Record of Decision and Environmental Impact Statement for the Atlantic Rim Natural Gas Development Project. Retrieved from U.S. Bureau of Land Management: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/rfo/atlantic_rim.html U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). TIGER/Line® Shapefiles and TIGER/Line® Files (Roads data). Retrieved from U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/shp.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). NHDPlus Version 1 (NHDPlusV1). Retrieved from http://www.horizon-systems.com/NHDPlus/index.php U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2007, May). National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. Retrieved August 31, 2012, from http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2011, June 21). Colorado butterly plant. Retrieved from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service : http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/plants/cobutterfly/ U.S. Forest Service. (n.d.). Species Conservation Program: Species Conservation Assessments. Retrieved from U.S. Forest Service: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ U.S. Geological Survey. (2002). Effects of management pratices on grassland birds. Jamestown, North Dakota: Grasslands Ecosystem Initiative - Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. U.S. Geological Survey. (2004). Provisional Digital Land Cover Map for the Southwestern United States. Version 1.0. Utah State University, RS/GIS Laboratory, College of Natural Resources. National Gap Analysis Program. Retrieved from http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/landcover.html Upadhyay, S. (2010). Visual impacts of natural gas drilling in the Marcellus shale region. Cornell University, City and Regional Planning. Retrieved 2012, from http://cce.cornell.edu/EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/Documents/City%20and%20Regional%20Pla nning%20Student%20Papers/CRP5072_Visual%20Impact_Final%20Report.pdf VerCauteren, T., Panjabi, A., & Youngberg, E. (2012). Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory interviewees. (M. Kram, Interviewer) Wyoming Game and Fish Department. (2010, April). Recommendations for development of oil and gas resources within important wildlife habitats, version 6.0. Retrieved from http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1108/ML110810642.pdf Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. (2012). Downloads - Well files as of September 5, 2012. Retrieved from Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: http://wogcc.state.wy.us/urecordsMenu.cfm?Skip='Y'&oops=#oops# 1 APPENDIX 1. BIOLOGI CAL TARGETS Appendix 1a. Ecological system targets: reclassification of potential targets into new target types .................. 2 Appendix 1b. Ecological system targets: final list ................................................................................................. 3 Appendix 1c. Plant community targets ................................................................................................................. 4 Appendix 1d. Species targets ................................................................................................................................ 6 2 Appendix 1a. Ecological system targets: reclassification of potential targets into new target types This table shows the reclassification or “lumping” of the potential ecological system targets into new groupings for purposes of simplification. SW ReGAP was the data source for the potential list, with the exception of Ponderosa (open) and Ponderosa (woodland), which the County provided. Potential targets Acres in SW ReGAP Data source Reclassify as Inter Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub 3,449 SWReGAP Salt Desert Scrub Inter Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe 1 SWReGAP Mountain Mahogany Inter Mountain Basins Semi-Desert Shrub Steppe 2 SWReGAP Salt Desert Scrub Inter Mountain Basins Wash 251 SWReGAP Riparian Woodlands and Shrublands Invasive Perennial Grassland 1,752 SWReGAP Wetlands Open Water 16 SWReGAP Aquatic Systems Ponderosa (open) County Ponderosa Pine Woodlands Ponderosa (woodland) County Ponderosa Pine Woodlands Rocky Mountain Alpine-Montane Wet Meadow 5 SWReGAP Wetlands Rocky Mountain Cliff and Canyon 1 SWReGAP Cliff and Outcrops Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland 10,408 SWReGAP Mountain Mahogany Rocky Mountain Montane Dry-Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 2 SWReGAP Ponderosa Pine Woodlands Rocky Mountain Montane Mesic Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland 60 SWReGAP Ponderosa Pine Woodlands Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland 186 SWReGAP Ponderosa Pine Woodlands Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Riparian Shrubland 2 SWReGAP Riparian Woodlands and Shrublands Southern Rocky Mountain Montane-Subalpine Grassland 266 SWReGAP Foothills Grasslands Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop 70 SWReGAP Cliff and Outcrops Western Great Plains Floodplain Herbaceous Wetland 262 SWReGAP Wetlands Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont Grassland 8,052 SWReGAP Foothills Grasslands Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 45 SWReGAP Riparian Woodlands and Shrublands Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie 41,309 SWReGAP Shortgrass Prairie 3 Appendix 1b. Ecological system targets: final list Aquatic targets and notes  Creeks and streams - Includes streams, where they are on the surface. Includes perennial and intermittent streams. There are no true perennial streams on Meadow Springs; only perennial sections.  Seeps and springs  Wetlands - Wetlands are home to most of Soapstone’s 17 rare plants, including but not limited to the federally-threatened Colorado butterfly plant. Plants are being seen here which haven't been seen since 1898. The area between CO and WY is "a botanists dream." Things occur here said only found to occur in alpine and subalpine areas (City). These are also the areas containing the prehistoric ceramics (CSU). Terrestrial targets, acreages, and notes System targets Acres (approx.)* % Project Area Notes Cliff and Outcrops 102 0.2% Foothills Grasslands 8,252 13.5% Mix between mixed-grass prairie and Piedmont Grasslands. Most imperiled/least protected major terrestrial ecological system on the planet. Declining faster than any of the other systems in the project area. Mountain Mahogany 9,530 15.5% Red Mountain and Soapstone contain one of the least developed and most intact occurrences of this system along the Front Range. Important for towhees, jays, and some other bird species. Not as widespread as the grasslands. Follows the foothills of the Ft. Range primarily. Ponderosa Pine Woodlands 543 0.9% Also includes an aspen grove. Riparian Woodlands and Shrublands 290 0.5% Major species within this system include cottonwoods and willows. Salt Desert Scrub 3,419 5.6% Dominant plant is atriplex - saltbush. High quality forage for cattle. Blends in with the shortgrass. Birds change with structure - will see different birds, such as lark bunting and Cassin's sparrow. 2 -3x the cultural site density of any other ecological system type (sites are more visible). Shortgrass Prairie 39,196 69.9% North to south gradient in Colorado. The northern part is a little wetter than the southern part, thus the species diversity is higher. Can flux from shortgrass to mixed grass depending on the amount of rain. V. productive for cattle. Huge ecosystem, but we've lost more than any other ecosystem in the state – in Colorado, we have lost 48% of the shortgrass prairie. Many species of birds are associated with shortgrass prairie. The birds don't need much, but what they do need, they really need. Total acreage 61,332 * Acreages do not exclude developed areas except where they have been mapped in SWReGAP land cover data, and may include or overlap with some areas also mapped as aquatic systems. 4 Appendix 1c. Plant community targets This table shows all plant communities considered for identification as targets, and identifies whether or not the Technical Team included them as targets or not. Potential target list Include as Target? Rarity Comments Foothills Ponderosa Pine Savannas (Pinus ponderosa / Leucopoa kingii Woodland) Yes G3 High quality occurrence. This plant community is primarily found in older growth Ponderosa Pine forests that are maintained by infrequent fires (once/40 years) that maintains a lower density forest and allows for the Leucopoa kingii grass to thrive. Soils are mature and often have a good depth of organic material. Western Slope Grasslands (Krascheninnikovia lanata / Pascopyrum smithii - Bouteloua gracilis Dwarf-shrub Herbaceous Vegetation) Yes G4 Common, but this is a high quality area. This plant community occurs in wide basins or gently-sloping areas. The Krascheninnikovia lanata (winter fat) is an excellent forage plant for cattle and sheep and considered an indicator of a healthy range site. Beaked Sedge Montane Wet Meadows (Carex utriculata Herbaceous Vegetation) No G5 Covered by wetlands. Common. Choke cherry/plum thickets No n/a Mostly mixed with riparian, but can go up into the hills. Low risk for a placement of a well. Would be covered by riparian setbacks. Clustered Sedge Wetland (Carex praegracilis Herbaceous Vegetation) No G3G4 Covered by wetlands. Common. Foothills Shrubland (Cercocarpus montanus / Hesperostipa neomexicana Shrubland) No G2G3 Mixed Foothill Shrublands (Cercocarpus montanus / Hesperostipa comata Shrubland) No G2 Rare Mixed Mountain Shrublands (Cercocarpus montanus / Muhlenbergia montana Shrubland) No GU Montane Grasslands (Hesperostipa comata - Bouteloua gracilis - Carex filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation) No G5 Covered by foothills shrubland. Common. Mountain Mahogany/Griffith's Wheatgrass Shrubland (Cercocarpus montanus / Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus Shrubland) No GU Per CNHP, we can consider this plant community to be the same as the Foothills Shrubland ecological system and use SW ReGAP data. The County data isn't a plant community; it's a system. Narrowleaf Cottonwood/Common No G2Q Covered by riparian woodland and shrubland. Does not need to be pulled out specifically. 5 Potential target list Include as Target? Rarity Comments Chokecherry (Populus angustifolia / Prunus virginiana Woodland) Pinyon Pine site No n/a 2 trees. Shortgrass Prairie (Atriplex canescens / Bouteloua gracilis Shrubland) No G3 Probably almost one to one with Salt Desert Scrub ecological system Shortgrass Prairie (Bouteloua gracilis - Buchloe dactyloides Herbaceous Vegetation) No G4 Covered by shortgrass prairie ecological system. Common. Spring Wetland (Catabrosa aquatica - Mimulus ssp. Spring Wetland) No GU Covered by seeps and springs. Common. Western Slope Wet Meadows (Juncus balticus Herbaceous Vegetation) No G5 Covered by wetlands. Common Wet Meadow (Carex simulata Herbaceous Vegetation) No G4 Covered by wetlands. Common Wet Meadows (Carex nebrascensis Herbaceous Vegetation) No G4 Covered by wetlands. Common 6 Appendix 1d. Species targets This table includes all available data layers that the Technical Team found for species and identifies the factors involved in whether to include the species as a target. For state priorities, O&G Rules = targets identified as Limited Surface Occupancy and/or Sensitive Wildlife Habitat under the Colorado Oil and Gas Rules; SWAP = State Wildlife Action Plan priority (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2006). For City and County priorities, RMOS = Red Mountain Open Space target (Larimer County, 2007) and SS= Soapstone Prairie Natural Area target (City of Fort Collins, 2007). Ecoregional plan target = a target in the Central Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregional Assessment (Neely, et al., 2006). State priorities City/County priorities Type Targets Chosen target? O&G rules SWAP RMOS target SS target Ecoregi onal plan target Rarity rank (if known) Comments Amph. Northern leopard frog Yes Tier 1 yes G5/S3 Bird - raptor Bald eagle nests Yes Not mapped in planning area at present, but within habitat Bird - raptor Bald eagle winter roosts Yes yes ? ? ? ? ? Not mapped in planning area at present, but within habitat. Bird - raptor Ferruginous hawk nests Yes yes nests Tier 1 ? yes yes G4/S3 High priority for many planning efforts. Bird - raptor Golden eagle nests Yes yes Tier 1 ? yes There are a few in the planning area. Sensitive to disturbance (RMBO). Bird - raptor Prairie falcon nests Yes Tier 1 Bird - raptor Swainson's hawk nests Yes Tier 1 G5/S5 Bird - raptor Western burrowing owl nests Yes Tier 1 G4/S4B The protection of the larger prairie dog towns may not necessarily protect the owls. They seem to favor small, isolated prairie dog towns that we can identify and map. Bird - raptor Owls and other nesting raptor nests Yes yes nests Short-horned owl, great- horned owl, etc. Bird - other Mountain plover nests and staging area Yes Tier 1 ? yes G2/S2 Specific to pdogs because they prefer almost bare ground, can also be found in recently burned areas or heavily grazed areas. Bird - other Chestnut- collared Yes Tier 2 ? yes G5/S1 Area is esp. important, some of the only places in 7 State priorities City/County priorities Type Targets Chosen target? O&G rules SWAP RMOS target SS target Ecoregi onal plan target Rarity rank (if known) Comments longspur breeding areas N.America that they nest (RMBO) Bird - other Lark bunting core areas Yes Tier 1 G5 80% population decline over the last 40 years, the steepest of many grassland obligates (RMBO). Bird - other McCown's longspur core areas Yes Tier 1 ? yes G4/S2B Very important area (RMBO). Population is declining (CNHP). Fish Iowa darter Yes Tier 2 yes G5/S3 Added to targets. Only a couple known locations. Similar situation to the Northern leopard frog. Fungus Smithiomyces crocodilinus Yes 1 known in world Only one location known. Depends on Mountain Mahogany ecological system. Insect Colorado blue Yes Tier 2 yes G3G4T2 T3 Fairly small range in the world. Just a couple known locations on site. Note, however, that it probably does not need special management; may not be location specific. Insect Aquatic insects Yes Mammal Black-footed ferret (captive population) Yes Tier 1 G1/S1 Ferret Center is surrounded by Meadow Springs and is one of the only areas in CO where FWS is managing for ferrets (FWS) Mammal Black-tailed prairie dog Yes Tier 1 yes yes G4/S3 Proxy for burrowing owls, and high priority in and of themselves. Mammal Swift fox dens Yes Tier 1 yes yes Mammal Elk production area Yes yes ? Mammal Elk winter concentration area Yes yes ? Mammal Mule deer critical winter range Yes yes ? Mammal Mule deer Yes yes ? 8 State priorities City/County priorities Type Targets Chosen target? O&G rules SWAP RMOS target SS target Ecoregi onal plan target Rarity rank (if known) Comments severe winter range Mammal Pronghorn winter concentration area Yes yes ? yes Plants Rare plants Yes Various, see below Plant Agrimonia striata Yes G5 Under consider ation for tracking. waiting on State Status from CNHP Located at the aspen grove. There are only about 19 current occurrences of this plant in CO. It is listed as a G5 S2 in Wyoming. There is a very small population at SSN, less than 5 plants. Waiting for CNHP to determine status. Plant Colorado butterfly plant (Oenothera coloradensis ssp. Coloradensis) Yes yes yes G3T2S1 Federally threatened species. This is the only known population in Larimer County. Plant Hops (Humulus lupulus subsp. neomexicanus) Yes G5 Infreque nt This species is listed as a G5 S3 in Wyoming and should be considered for tracking in CO. A majority of the herbaria collections for this plant are historic. A rare butterfly depends on this plant for survival. Plant Large Indian breadroot (Pediomelum esculentum) Yes G5 Under consider ation for tracking, waiting on State Status from CNHP Soapstone has the only Larimer County occurrence for this plant. According to CU, CSU and RM Herbaria there are only 6 current occurrences in the State. Plant Pale blue-eyed grass Yes yes yes G2G3 S2 Grows in same habitat as CO butterfly plant. Very 9 State priorities City/County priorities Type Targets Chosen target? O&G rules SWAP RMOS target SS target Ecoregi onal plan target Rarity rank (if known) Comments (Sisyrinchum pallidum) small population (118 plants in 2009) Plant Prairie goldenrod (Oligoneuron album) Yes G5 S2S3 The Soapstone Prairie occurrence is the only one in Larimer County. This plant has not been documented in Larimer County since 1898. This population also occurs in the same wet meadow as the Colorado butterfly plant. Plant Purple spikerush (Eleocharis atropurpurea) Yes G4G5 Under consider ation for tracking, waiting on State Status from CNHP The Soapstone Prairie occurrence is the only one in Larimer County. Also it is the second known occurrence for this species in the State of Colorado according to CU, CSU and RM Herbaria. Plant Rare canyon ferns Yes n/a Red Mountain has populations of extremely rare ferns growing in only a few canyons. Plant Slender wildparsley (Musineon tenuifolium) Yes G4 S2 This occurrence is at both Red Mountain and at Soapstone Prairie. There is only 1 other current occurrences of this species in Larimer County according to CU, CSU and RM Herbaria. Bird - raptor American peregrine falcon nests No Tier 1 Bird - raptor Bald Eagle winter range No yes nests Tier 1 ? See target for winter roosts Bird - raptor Northern harrier No Tier 2 G5 Bird - other Brewer's sparrow No Tier 1 G5/S5 Common Bird - other Broad-tailed hummingbird No Tier 2 G5/S5 Common 10 State priorities City/County priorities Type Targets Chosen target? O&G rules SWAP RMOS target SS target Ecoregi onal plan target Rarity rank (if known) Comments Bird - other Cassin's sparrow No Tier 1 yes G5/S4B Fairly numerous. No special mgmt needed. Tied to Salt Desert Scrub, of which there are relatively few acres in the project area. Bird - other Chestnut- collared longspur (general) No Tier 2 ? yes G5/S1 Habitat broad; narrowed by selecting breeding areas as a target Bird - other Geese foraging area No Covered by wetlands. Bird - other Geese production area No Covered by wetlands. Bird - other Geese winter concentration area No Covered by wetlands. Bird - other Geese winter range No Covered by wetlands. Bird - other Great blue heron foraging area No Covered by wetlands. Bird - other Grasshopper sparrow No Bird - other Greater prairie chicken historic range No Tier 1 Historic. Bird - other Lark bunting (general) No Tier 1 G5 Habitat broad; narrowed by selecting core areas as a target Bird - other Lazuli bunting No Tier 2 Bird - other Lewis's woodpecker No Tier 1 ? G4 RMBO has never recorded sightings in the area, and if they are present they are most likely to be in an area too difficult to access for drilling (RMBO). Bird - other Loggerhead shrike No Tier 1 G4 Bird - other Long-billed curlew No Tier 1 yes G5/S2 No special management needed. No confirmed nests, though big group on Soapstone last spring. Bird - McCown's No Tier 1 ? yes G4/S2B Habitat broad; narrowed 11 State priorities City/County priorities Type Targets Chosen target? O&G rules SWAP RMOS target SS target Ecoregi onal plan target Rarity rank (if known) Comments other longspur (general) by selecting core areas as a target Bird - other Plains sharp- tailed grouse No Tier 1 G4T4/S1 Project area is historically within the range. But no current known range. Bird - other Red crossbill No Tier 2 G5/S5 Bird - other Vesper sparrow No Tier 2 G5/S5 Bird - other Virginia's warbler No Tier 2 G5/S4 Insect Hops azure No Tier 1 G2G3/S2 Lumped with hops plant. Mammal Aberts squirrel overall range No Hard to find in this area. Covered by ponderosa pine. Mammal Black bear overall range No yes Widespread. Mammal Black-footed ferret (future released population) No Tier 1 G1/S1 Covered by prairie dogs (FWS). Mammal Elk summer range No ? Mammal Elk winter range No ? Mammal Fringed myotis roosting habitat No Tier 1 G4G5/S3 Done a bit of mist-netting. Project area is in the range, but no known roosting sites. Mammal Mountain lion human conflict area No ? Mammal Mountain lion overall range No ? Mammal Mule deer concentration area No ? Mammal Mule deer winter range No ? Mammal Olive-backed pocket mouse No Tier 1 yes G5S3 Only in high quality Piedmont grasslands. Mammal Pronghorn winter range No ? yes Included pronghorn winter concentration area as the target Mammal Pronghorn No ? yes Included pronghorn winter 12 State priorities City/County priorities Type Targets Chosen target? O&G rules SWAP RMOS target SS target Ecoregi onal plan target Rarity rank (if known) Comments concentration area concentration area as the target Mammal Pronghorn severe winter range No ? yes Included pronghorn winter concentration area as the target Mammal Townsend's big-eared bat roosting habitat No Tier 1 G4T4/S2 None found in mist-netting in the project area. Mammal White-tailed deer concentration area No ? Mammal White-tailed deer winter range No ? Mammal White-tailed jackrabbit No Tier 1 G4/S4B Common. Plant Carex crawei No G5 S1 Lumped into wetlands. The Soapstone Prairie occurrence is the only one in Larimer County according to CU, CSU and RM Herbaria. This plant occurs in the wet meadow with Colorado butterfly plant and in Spottlewood Creek. Plant Cirsium flodmanii No G5 Waiting on State status from CNHP Lumped into wetlands. In Wyoming this species is a G5 S3. There are only 3 current occurrences of this plant in Larimer County according to CU, CSU and RM Herbaria. Plant Fuzzy-tongue penstemon (Penstemon eriantherus) No G4SU Lumped into another target. The Soapstone Prairie occurrence is the only current record in LC. According to CU, CSU and RM herbaria there are only 2 current occurrences across the entire state of Colorado. Plant Jeweled No G3?S3? Lumped into creeks and 13 State priorities City/County priorities Type Targets Chosen target? O&G rules SWAP RMOS target SS target Ecoregi onal plan target Rarity rank (if known) Comments blazingstar (Mentzelia speciosa) streams. There are only 5 current occurrences of this species in Larimer County, not including Soapstone Prairie according to CU, CSU and RM Herbaria. Populations at Soapstone Prairie are few and spread out. Plant Rocky Mountain blazingstar (Liatris ligulistylis) No yes G5?S1S2 Lumped. According to CU, CSU and RM Herbaria there are only 14 current occurrences across the State and only 2 in LC not including the Soapstone Prairie population. Plant Rocky Mountain phacelia (Phacelia denticulata) No G3? S3? Lumped into mountain mahogany. According to CU, CSU and RM Herbaria there are only 17 current occurrences of this plant across the State. 5 of those are in Larimer County and include Soapstone. Plant Slender sedge (Carex lasiocarpa) No G5S1 Lumped into wetlands. According to CU, CSU and RM Herbaria there are only 16 occurrences of this plant in the State and only 5 in Larimer County. Plant Wyoming kittentails (Besseya wyomingensis) No G5S1 Lumped into mountain mahogany. According to CU, CSU and RM Herbaria there are only 8 current occurrences of this species in the State and Larimer County. Reptile Common garter snake No Tier 1 G5/S5 APPENDIX 2 . EXISTING DISTURBANCE S - AVAILABLE DATA AND I NPUTS TO THE PREFERRED SURFACE OC CUPANCY LAYER GIS Data availability* Infrastructure and other impacts to biological values PSO? Red Mountain Soapstone Meadow Springs Other source Comments Activities outside project area Yes Yes Yes Yes digitized by TNC includes power plant, homesites, tanks, and lots Buildings Yes None Yes Yes digitized by TNC Cell or radio tower Yes Yes Yes None Corrals Yes Yes None Yes Three sets of corrals exist on Soapstone Historic buildings Yes Yes None None Several buildings exist Irrigated areas Yes Yes None Yes Parking lots Yes (see trailheads) Yes (see buildings) Parking lots may be associated with trailheads or buildings when not explicitly mapped Quarry Yes Yes None None One small quarry exists on soapstone Roads (w/ classes) Yes Yes Yes Yes Sheep barns Yes None Yes None Sludge headquarters facilities/building Yes None None Yes Stock water piping Yes Not avail Yes Yes Stock/water tanks Yes Yes Yes Yes Trailheads Yes Yes (see parking lots) None Parking lots may be associated with parking lots when not explicitly mapped Transmission lines (above ground) Yes Not avail Yes Yes used where available. Minor impacts Transmission lines (buried) Yes Not avail Yes Yes used where available. Minor impacts Buried gaslines No Not avail Not avail Not avail data not available; gas lines on Meadow Springs may be available but not included in the report Diversions No Yes Yes Yes CDSS** impacts not uniform or consistently mappable Fencelines No Not avail Yes Yes not considered impactful in GIS Data availability* Infrastructure and other impacts to biological values PSO? Red Mountain Soapstone Meadow Springs Other source Comments this landscape in a comparable way to other infrastructure Gate No Not avail Yes Yes not considered impactful in this landscape in a comparable way to other infrastructure Invasives (large patches) No Yes Not avail Not avail point data, and not comprehensive Pasture (same as fences?) No None Yes Yes not considered impactful in this landscape in a comparable way to other infrastructure Reservoirs No Yes Yes Yes CDSS** impacts not uniform or consistently mappable Trails No Yes Yes Yes not considered impactful in this landscape in a comparable way to other infrastructure Valve No Not avail Yes associated with piping Windmills No None Yes Yes often considered roosting habitat. No longer impactful because no longer in use. * None = infrastructure or impact not present in the area. Not available = infrastructure or impact may be present, but mapped data is not available. ** Colorado's Decision Support Systems (CDSS) is a water management system developed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DWR) for each of Colorado’s major water basins. 1 APPENDIX 3. SURFACE OCCUPANCY RECOMMENDA TIONS AND TIMING LIMITATIONS, INCLUDI NG JUSTIFICATION Appendix 3a. SUMMARY TABLE: Surface occupancy recommendations and timing limitations ........................ 2 Appendix 3b. Sources considered ......................................................................................................................... 8 Appendix 3c. Inputs for categorizing targets into Surface Occupancy Areas ..................................................... 11 Appendix 3d. Target-specific tables: Surface occupancy recommendations and timing limitations and including justification........................................................................................................................................... 14 This appendix provides summary and target-specific tables related to the creation of the surface occupancy recommendations and timing limitations for biological values. The Nature Conservancy’s Project Management and Science Team assembled this information and facilitated agreement amongst Core Team members and relevant Technical Team representatives to make the final recommendations to the SLB. Various Core and Technical Team members participated in recommendation-making depending on their expertise. For example, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory was involved in recommendations for grassland bird species, while the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service drove the recommendations for the captive population of the black-footed ferret. 2 Appendix 3a. SUMMARY TABLE: Surface occupancy recommendations and timing limitations Surface occupancy Timing limitations (seasonal) Target Type Target No Surface Occupancy Limited Surface Occupancy Affecting surface occupancy Not affecting surface occupancy Notes Aquatic Systems Creeks and streams 300 ft. (100 m.) from the high water mark of perennial and ephemeral streams and rivers 100-200m (300-600 ft.) from the high water mark of perennial and ephemeral streams and rivers none none The O&G rules restrict surface water impacts in Public Water Systems (Rule 317B and Appendix VI). No such systems are in our project area.1 Aquatic Systems Seeps and springs 0-300 ft. (0- 100 m.) 300-600 ft. (100-200 m.) none none Small footprint on the landscape, but important. Chose same buffer distance as rivers and streams and wetlands. Aquatic Systems Wetlands 0-300 ft. (0- 100 m.) from the legal edge 300-600 ft. (100-200 m.) from the legal edge. Surface occupancy within this area is contingent on survey findings. none none Terrestrial Systems Mountain Mahogany All but 300 ft. (100 m.) from the edge of primary roads. 0-300 ft. (0- 100 m.) from primary roads traversing the MM. none none Terrestrial Systems All others none none none none Plant Plant 0-300 ft. (0-none none none 1 Also, for GIS, we used the centerline unless the edges were already mapped. In the field, measure the distance from the high water mark of the hydrologic feature. 3 Surface occupancy Timing limitations (seasonal) Target Type Target No Surface Occupancy Limited Surface Occupancy Affecting surface occupancy Not affecting surface occupancy Notes communities communities 100 m.) Amph. Northern leopard frog 0-300 ft. (0- 100 m.) from the legal edge of wetlands 300-600 ft. (100-200 m.) from the legal edge of wetlands none none Same as wetlands buffer. Bird - raptor Bald eagle nests 1/4 mile from active nests and historic nests none Legal: 1/2 mile from 11/15-7/31 - no human disturbance or construction activity. Restricted Surface Occupancy Area and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat under Colorado's Oil and Gas Rules. Used CPW guidelines as the legal timing limitations. Not mapped for planning area at present. Bird - raptor Bald eagle winter roosts 1/4 mile from winter roosts none Legal: Winter roosts: Within 1/2 mile from 11/15-3/15, no human disturbance except periodic visits such as maintenance and monitoring from 10:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m.2 none Sensitive Wildlife Habitat under Colorado's Oil and Gas Rules. Used CPW guidelines as the legal timing limitations. Not mapped for this planning area at present. Bird - raptor Ferruginous hawk nests none 1/2 mile from active and alternate nests 1/2 mile from active or alternate nests from 2/1-7/15 - no human disturbance or none Restricted Surface Occupancy Area and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat under Colorado's Oil and Gas Rules. Used CPW guidelines as the 2 Also, active winter night roosts: From 12/1-2/28, no human disturbance or construction within 1/4 mile where there is no direct line of sight to the roost, and within 1/2 mile where there is a direct line of sight. 4 Surface occupancy Timing limitations (seasonal) Target Type Target No Surface Occupancy Limited Surface Occupancy Affecting surface occupancy Not affecting surface occupancy Notes construction activity legal timing limitations. Bird - raptor Golden eagle nests 1/4 mile from active and alternate nests none Legal: 1/2 mile from active nests from 12/15- 7/15 - no human disturbance or construction activity none Restricted Surface Occupancy Area and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat under Colorado's Oil and Gas Rules. Used CPW guidelines as the legal timing limitations. Bird - raptor Prairie falcon nests 1/2 mile from active nests none 1/2 mile from active nests from 3/15- 7/15: No human disturbance none Restricted Surface Occupancy Area under Colorado's Oil and Gas Rules. Bird - raptor Swainson's hawk nests none 1/4 mile from active nests 1/4 mile from active nests from 4/1- 7/15 - No human disturbance none Bird - raptor Western burrowing owl nests none 1/4 mile from nests that have been active within the last 5 years 300 ft. from active nests from 3/1- 8/15 -- No construction activity none Used CPW guidelines for timing limitations. Bird - raptor Owls and other nesting raptors none 1/4 mile from active nests ??? none None are mapped in the planning area at present. Bird - other Chestnut- collared longspur breeding areas Breeding area plus a 300 ft. (100 m) buffer none none From 4/1- 6/30, ensure that noise levels within breeding areas are 49 dBA or less Bird - other Lark bunting core areas none Core area plus a 450 ft. (150 m) buffer none From 4/1- 6/30, ensure that noise levels within breeding areas are 49 dBA or less 5 Surface occupancy Timing limitations (seasonal) Target Type Target No Surface Occupancy Limited Surface Occupancy Affecting surface occupancy Not affecting surface occupancy Notes Bird - other McCown's longspur core areas none Core area plus a 450 ft. (150 m.) buffer none From 4/1- 6/30, ensure that noise levels within breeding areas are 49 dBA or less Bird - other Mountain plover staging area Staging area plus a 600 ft. (200 m) buffer none none none Bird - other Mountain plover nests none 1/4 mile from nests From 4/1- 5/15, 1/4 mile buffer around occupied nests - no construction activity . Set work schedules and shift changes to avoid periods 30 minutes before and after sunrise and sunset in June and July; Limit speed within 1/2 mile of nesting areas to 25 mph from March 15 and July 31. In GIS, mapped as repeated observation locations. Nests will be within these areas. Fish Iowa darter 600 ft. (200 m.) from the high water mark of creeks and streams none none none Fungus Smithiomyces crocodilinus 600 ft. (200 m.) none none none Treat it like a rare plant. Insect Colorado blue (butterfly) 300 ft. (100 m.) from mapped occurrences none none none Insect Aquatic insects 0-300 ft. (0- 100 m) buffer of all creeks and streams. 300-600 ft. (100-200 m) buffer of priority streams only. none 600 ft. (200 m.) from the high water mark of creeks, rivers, and wetlands - - in spring and 6 Surface occupancy Timing limitations (seasonal) Target Type Target No Surface Occupancy Limited Surface Occupancy Affecting surface occupancy Not affecting surface occupancy Notes summer (4/15- 10/1)- shine lights down toward the ground or ideally turn them off at night, to specific streams. Mammal Black-footed ferret (captive population) 0-1/2 mile buffer around the perimeter of the ferret center 1/2-1 mile to the south, east, and west. ??? none Mammal Black-tailed prairie dog none none 3/1-6/15 - No construction activity within and over colonies none Mammal Swift fox den sites none none 1/4 mile from active den sites from 3/15-6/15: No construction activity while young are den- dependent none Mammal Elk production area none none Legal: 5/15- 6/30 - no construction activity none Sensitive Wildlife Habitat under the COGCC rules. Used CPW guidelines as the legal seasonal timing limitations. Mammal Elk winter concentration area none none Legal: From 12/1-4/15, no post- development well-site visits from 3p.m.- 10a.m. none Sensitive Wildlife Habitat under the COGCC rules. Used CPW guidelines as the legal timing limitations. Mammal Mule deer critical winter none none Legal: From 12/1-4/15, no none Sensitive Wildlife Habitat under the 7 Surface occupancy Timing limitations (seasonal) Target Type Target No Surface Occupancy Limited Surface Occupancy Affecting surface occupancy Not affecting surface occupancy Notes range post- development well-site visits from 3p.m.- 10a.m. COGCC rules. Used CPW guidelines as the legal timing limitations. Mammal Mule deer severe winter range none none Legal: From 12/1-4/15, no post- development well-site visits from 3p.m.- 10 a.m. none Sensitive Wildlife Habitat under the COGCC rules. Used CPW guidelines as the legal timing limitations. Assumed that Severe Winter Range and Critical Winter Range would use the same stips (stips available only for the latter) Mammal Pronghorn winter concentration area none none Legal: 1/1- 3/31: No human disturbance or construction activity within winter concentration areas west of I-25 none Sensitive Wildlife Habitat under the COGCC rules. Used CPW guidelines as the legal timing limitations. Plants Rare Plants Occurrence plus a 300 ft. (100 m) buffer 300-600 ft. (100-200 m) buffer. none none Legal avoidance through SLB policy -- Procedures for Rare Plant Environmental Review for Development Projects and Land Use Changes 8 Appendix 3b. Sources considered This table provides the sources considered and cited in this appendix. Short name used in the tables Document Title Reference Sources reviewed for all targets COGCC Rules Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rules (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008) CDOW BMPs3 Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) Actions to Minimize Adverse Impacts to Wildlife Resources (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2012) CRCC BMPs4 Colorado Renewables & Conservation Collaborative (CRCC) BMPs (Colorado Renewables and Conservation Collaborative, 2011) Lowry Range O&G Lease5 Lowry Range Oil and Gas Lease, OG 1960.12 (Colorado State Land Board, 2012) Sources reviewed for select targets BLM - Mountain plover biological report Mountain Plover Biological Report to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (Author unknown, 2007) BLM Atlantic Rim BLM Atlantic Rim Natural Gas Development Project - Record of Decision and Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wyoming, 2007) BLM Desolation Flats BLM Desolation Flats Natural Gas Field Development - Record of Decision (U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wyoming, 2004) BLM Draft Recs for Plants BLM Draft Recommendations for Avoiding Adverse Effects on Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate & BLM Sensitive Plants on BLM lease lands in Colorado (U.S. Bureau of Land Management Colorado, 2008) BLM Jonah BLM Jonah Infill Drilling Project, WY - Final EIS (U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wyoming, 2006) BLM Powder River Basin BLM Powder River Basin O&G Project - Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan (U.S. Bureau of Land Management Wyoming, 2003) BLM Roan Plateau BLM Roan Plateau Draft Resource Management Plan (U.S. Bureau of Land Management Colorado, 2004) CDOW – Burrowing Owls CDOW Recommended Survey Protocol and Actions to Protect Nesting Burrowing Owls (Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2008) CDOW Raptor CDOW Raptor Guidelines (Colorado Division of 3 CDOW is now Colorado Parks & Wildlife 4 These BMPs pertain to wind energy development. They were developed collaboratively by a group of wind energy developers and science- based conservation groups. 5 State Land Board’s oil and gas leasing plan for the Lowry Range 9 Short name used in the tables Document Title Reference Guidelines Wildlife, 2008) City of Fort Collins Land Use Code City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (City of Fort Collins) Crested Butte water body setbacks (draft) Crested Butte water body setbacks (Reaman, 2012) ELI’s guide to wetland buffers Environmental Law Institute’s Planner’s Guide to Wetland Buffers for Local Governments (Environmental Law Institute, 2008) EPA wetlands and watersheds U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wetlands and watersheds: Adapting watershed tools to protect wetlands (Center for Watershed Protection) Expert opinion – C. Pague Expert opinion – Chris Pague (Pague, 2012) Expert opinion – F. Knopf Expert opinion - Fritz Knopf (Knopf, 2012) Expert opinion – P. Marinari Expert opinion – Paul Marinari (Marinari, 2012) Expert opinion – R. Rondeau Expert opinion – Renee Rondeau (Rondeau, 2012) Expert opinion – RMBO Expert opinion – Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (VerCauteren, Panjabi, & Youngberg, 2012) Federal Lands Analysis Natural Gas Assessment Federal Lands Analysis Natural Gas Assessment (Advanced Resources International, Inc., 2001) Inglefinger (2001) The Effects of Natural gas Development on Sagebrush Steppe Passerines in Sublette County, Wyoming (Ingelfinger, 2001) Larimer County Land Use Code Larimer County Land Use code (Larimer County) Linnen (2008) Effects of Oil and Gas Development on Grassland Birds (Linnen, 2008) NM Wind BMPs6 New Mexico Wind & Wildlife Collaborative BMPs (New Mexico Wind & Wildlife Collaborative, 2012) Rare Plant BMPs Recommended BMPs for Rare Plants of Concern (Elliott, et al., 2009) RMBO BMPs for Shortgrass Prairie Birds RMBO Best Management Practices for Shortgrass Prairie Birds (Gillihan & Hutchings) Shane (2000) (Lark bunting book chapter) (Shane, 2000) SLB Procedures for Rare Plant Review SLB Procedures for Rare Plant Environmental Review for Development Projects and Land Use Changes (Colorado State Land Board, 2012) USFS Species Assessments U.S. Forest Service Species Assessments (U.S. Forest Service) USFWS Bald Eagle USFWS National Bald Eagle Management (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 6 These BMPs built on the Colorado Renewables & Conservation Collaborative BMPs 10 Short name used in the tables Document Title Reference Guidelines Guidelines 2007) USGS Effects of Management Practices on Grassland Birds Effects of Management Practices on Grassland Birds (U.S. Geological Survey, 2002) WYG&F Recs Wyoming Game & Fish Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources within Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitats (Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2010) 11 Appendix 3c. Inputs to categorizing targets into Surface Occupancy Areas As Part II-B explains, the Technical Team mapped the biological values into surface occupancy categories using the decision tree shown below (Figure 1). Figure 1. Decision tree for assigning surface occupancy to biological targets For each target, the table below provides the answers to the questions, “Is year-round avoidance warranted?” and if so, “Can the target be mitigated?” Rationale for the latter question is provided below; for the former question, see Appendix 3d. Target type Target Is year-round avoidance warranted? Can the target be mitigated? Rationale for “Can the target be mitigated?” (Pague, 2012) (Rondeau, 2012) AQUATIC SYSTEMS System Aquatic systems Yes No System Wetlands Yes No While it is possible to create new wetlands elsewhere, restoration to achieve no net loss includes the soils, microbiota, etc. is not feasible within a reasonable timeframe (5-20 years). System Seeps and Springs Yes No TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS System Cliff and Outcrops Yes* No* System Foothills Grasslands No System Mountain Mahogany [aka Foothills Yes No Mountain mahogany is slow to recolonize disturbed areas, probably due to a symbiotic fungus relationship in its roots. The foothills 12 Target type Target Is year-round avoidance warranted? Can the target be mitigated? Rationale for “Can the target be mitigated?” (Pague, 2012) (Rondeau, 2012) (Montane) Shrublands] shrublands that were disturbed by the spring Creek flood in 1995 are still visibly scarred and mountain mahogany is just starting to come back. System Ponderosa Pine Woodlands No System Riparian Woodlands and Shrublands No System Salt Desert Scrub No System Shortgrass Prairie No PLANT COMMUNITIES Plant comms Foothills Ponderosa Pine Savannas Yes Yes Moderate-- could protect, manage, and restore/enhance habitat reasonably nearby Plant comms Western Slope Grasslands Yes Yes Moderate -- could protect, manage, and restore/enhance habitat reasonably nearby SPECIES Amph. Northern leopard frog Yes Yes Moderate -- could protect, manage, and restore/enhance habitat reasonably nearby Bird - raptor Bald eagle nests Yes No Creation of a new nest site is subject to too many variables. Bird - raptor Bald eagle winter roosts Yes No Creation of a new nest site is subject to too many variables. Bird - raptor Ferruginous hawk nesting sites Yes Yes Some tree nests could be "replaced" by creating conditions elsewhere Bird - raptor Golden eagle nesting sites Yes No Creation of a new nest site is subject to too many variables. Bird - raptor Prairie falcon nest sites Yes No Creation of a new nest site is subject to too many variables. Bird - raptor Swainson's hawk nest sites Yes Yes Some tree nests could be "replaced" by creating conditions elsewhere Bird - raptor Western burrowing owl No Bird - raptor Owls and other nesting raptors Yes Yes Some tree nests could be "replaced" by creating conditions elsewhere Bird - other Mountain plover nests Yes Yes Creation or expansion of prairie dog complexes with suitable protection and management could effectively mitigate for this species. Bird - other Mountain plover staging area Yes No Creation or expansion of prairie dog complexes with suitable protection and management could effectively mitigate for this species. Bird - other Chestnut-collared longspur breeding areas Yes Yes Protection and habitat management in other locations is possible Bird - other Lark bunting core areas Yes Yes Protection and habitat management in other locations is possible 13 Target type Target Is year-round avoidance warranted? Can the target be mitigated? Rationale for “Can the target be mitigated?” (Pague, 2012) (Rondeau, 2012) Bird - other McCown's longspur core areas Yes Yes Protection and habitat management in other locations is possible Fish Iowa darter Yes No It is possible to enlarge stream habitats but cost prohibitive Fungus Smithiomyces crocodilinus Yes No Irreplaceable Insect Colorado blue Yes No Insect Aquatic insects Yes Yes Most species will readily inhabit restored wetlands; however, restoration of most aquatic systems other than ponds and marshes is very difficult. Mammal Black-footed ferret (captive population) Yes No Impacts to this facility (Black-footed Ferret Conservation Center) cannot be mitigated in general Mammal Black-tailed prairie dog No Mammal Swift fox den sites No Mammal Elk production area No Mammal Elk winter concentration area No Mammal Mule deer critical winter range No Mammal Mule deer severe winter range No Yes Protection and habitat management in other portions of the same area or other locations is possible Mammal Pronghorn winter concentration area No Plants Rare Plants Yes No * The Technical Team identified cliff and outcrops as warranting year-round avoidance and not possible to mitigate, thereby warranting categorization as NSO. However, the system was not mapped as NSO based on the assumption that operators would not be able to develop it. In retrospect, it may have been better to map the cliffs and outcrops as NSO from the outset. 14 Appendix 3d. Target-specific tables: Surface occupancy recommendations and timing limitations and including justification The tables following this page provide the following information for each target: Sources considered, inconsistencies amongst the sources, and final recommendations to the State Land Board. Page 1 of 2 AQUATIC SYSTEMS: CREEKS & STREAMS Surface occupancy recommendations and timing limitations, including justification Sources Is year-round avoidance warranted? No Surface Occupancy (NSO) Limited Surface Occupancy (LSO) Affecting surface occupancy Not affecting surface occupancy Notes Recommendatio ns to SLB Yes. 300 ft (100 m.) from the high water mark of perennial and ephemeral creeks and streams = true avoidance. 100- 200m (300-600 ft.) = avoid, but negotiation may be possible. 300 ft (100 m.) from the high water mark of perennial and ephemeral streams and rivers 100-200m (300-600 ft.) from the high water mark of perennial and ephemeral streams and rivers none none The O&G rules restrict surface water impacts in Public Water Systems (Rule 317B and Appendix VI). No such systems are in our project area. For GIS, we used the centerline unless the edges were already mapped. In the field, measure the distance from the high water mark of the hydrologic feature. Inconsistences between sources 150 ft. (50 m.) for all rivers and streams to 0.3 miles (~1,600 ft.) for largers ones. Distance from center line vs. high water mark. Legal: COGCC Rules The O&G rules restrict surface water impacts in Public Water Systems (Rule 317B and Appendix VI). No such systems are in our project area. CDOW BMPs 300 ft.: Minimize activities and operations within 300 ft. of the ordinary high water mark of any reservoir, lake, wetland, or natural perennial or seasonally flowing stream or river" (p.4)Various (p.4-5) CRCC BMPs Timing limitations (seasonal)Surface occupancy recommendations Page 2 of 2 Sources Is year-round avoidance warranted? No Surface Occupancy (NSO) Limited Surface Occupancy (LSO) Affecting surface occupancy Not affecting surface occupancy Notes Timing limitations (seasonal)Surface occupancy recommendations Lowry Range O&G Lease 0.3 miles (~1,600 ft.) from the centerline of Box Elder Creek and Coal Creek (Tier 1) (p.2). 0.3- 0.5 mile buffer on either side of Box Elder Creek (Tier 2). 200-foot buffer on both sides of all tributary drainages (p.2) City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Varies from 100-300 feet depending on the stream. Requirements are not specific to O&G Crested Butte water body setbacks (draft) Inner buffer of 150 feet (unless installing a new well on an existing well pad or putting something like a pipeline across a creek). There’s also no way out of that restriction for gas companies, who previously had an option of a “technical infeasibility waiver” that could be considered on a case-by-case basis. The new setback is somewhere between the 300-foot setback recommended by High Country Citizens’ Alliance and the 100 feet asked for by Gunnison Energy Corporation. A second, 500-foot outer buffer could allow some development activity, depending on circumstances at the site. Larimer County land use code The minimum required setback from any stream, creek or river identified on a U.S.G.S. quadrangle map is 100 feet from the centerline of the water course unless a greater setback is required (p.LUC4-75) Requirements are not specific to O&G 1 APPENDIX 4 . METHODS USED FOR CALCULATING THE COMP ENSATORY MITIGATION FEE S This appendix describes the three inputs to the compensatory mitigation fees: The base per-acre cost of mitigation, the surface occupancy zone escalator, and the well pad density escalator. BASE MITIGATION FEE For the purpose of this project, the base cost of mitigation is the amount of funding needed to offset impacts to biological values using land protection as the mitigation tool. The Nature Conservancy calculated this amount to be $2,200 (rounded up from $2,168 to the nearest $100) based on a scientific methodology that the organization’s Development by Design Team created. This methodology involves multiplying the cost of land protection (i.e., land value) by a “mitigation ratio.” The mitigation ratio identifies the number of acres of land that must be protected to offset any one acre impacted by oil and gas development within the project area. For this project, the cost of land protection was calculated at $1,681 per acre while the mitigation ratio was calculated at 1.29:1 (i.e., 1.29 acres must be protected to offset every 1 acre impacted). $1,681 multiplied by 1.29 equals $2,168, or $2,200 after it is rounded to the nearest $100. It is important to note that the base mitigation fee for this project is calculated solely based on using land protection as the offset activity. The Core Team considered incorporating the cost of restoration offsets into the base rate, but decided against it for two reasons: (1) The City and County identified land protection as preferable to restoration projects and (2) preliminary analyses indicated that offsetting impacts using restoration would be much more expensive than doing so using land protection. Incorporating restoration costs would increase the base rate so much as to be potentially unworkable for operators. For example, we roughly calculated the per-acre cost of restoring riparian woodlands and shrublands to be $16,900/acre and salt desert scrub to be $45,900/acre. a. Land value justification This base land value of $1,681/acre is based on an average appraised land value of conservation easement projects completed in the Laramie Foothills over the last 7 years. The appraised unencumbered land values for the projects used in this analysis include:1  Red Mountain Open Space 2004 (14,928 acres) at $918/acre  Property A 2004 (4,557 acres) at $1,239/acre  Property B 2006 (11,971 acres) at $549/acre  Property C 2012 (244 acres) at $4,016/acre The differences among the per-acre values of the properties listed above can be attributed to factors like the size of the property, the date of the project, and the amount of infrastructure or development potential. The City and County anticipate using compensatory mitigation funds to protect lands that fall into a similar range of values 1 Note: Land protection may be accomplished through fee title acquisition or conservation easements. Conservation easements have been valued at between 50%-60% of the unencumbered fee value in the Laramie Foothills area in recent years. 2 based on development potential, size, etc. Over time, land values will change, most likely increasing but at a rate that cannot be accurately predicted at this time. b. Mitigation ratio justification and methods The primary assumptions include:  Years of impact – It is assumed the oil and gas wells in this project area will have a 30-year impact. So long as oil and gas well pads and infrastructure are in place, the land will not function in a natural state and thus warrants offsets elsewhere. We apply a temporal discounting factor over the years of impact in order to compare the impacts of the project to the benefits of the offset activity occurring during different time periods.  Additionality – Offset activities need to provide protection at a ratio of greater than 1:1 to adequately compensate for impacts and achieve no net loss of functional value. This is termed “additionality.” Functionally, if one acre is impacted and one is protected, one acre is still lost. However, the protection of the other acre compensates for that loss at some rate less than 100%, because the protection assures it will not be lost in the future. We use the background rate of loss of land from natural land cover in order to calculate the value that offsets provide and determine a mitigation ratio. The background rate of loss is the rate at which the lands of interest for protection are protected to be converted from their natural state to other uses. For example, an offset that protects 100 acres against an annual background rate of loss of 5% delivers an additional benefit of 5 acres in year one and a benefit of 10 acres in year two (undiscounted). For this project, TNC calculated the background rate of loss at 1.9%. More specifically, calculating the per-acre value of protection or restoration offsets against current development impacts involved three steps: (1) calculating the present value of the anticipated impact footprint summed in acre-years over the number of years that impact is expected to occur; (2) calculating the present value of potential benefits in acre-years following protection actions; and (3) calculating the quantity of offsets required to balance impacts with benefits accrued from protection activities. i. Calculate the value of anticipated impacts To calculate the acre-years of anticipated impact resulting from development, the following parameters were incorporated: (a) The extent of the anticipated footprint (in acres) of potential development activities; (b) The number years over which the impacts from oil and gas development are expected to occur; (c) The year that reclamation efforts are expected to begin and the number of years over which reclamation efforts are expected to last; and (d) A discount rate to calculate the present value of impacts and benefits accrued over time. It is common practice in environmental damage awards to use a discount rate of 3%, although it is possible to use a different discount rate based on different criteria. To illustrate how we sum the acre-years of impact over the life of a project, assume a scenario where there is an anticipated 1,000 acres of impact to last for 30 years, followed by 10 years of reclamation efforts within the Mountains to Plains project area. To calculate the present value of the impact in year 1 after impact occurs, the impact footprint (1,000 acres) was discounted by 3%. For example, in year 8 after the impact year the present value of an initial 1,000 acre footprint was calculated to be 789 acres: 3 where j = impact year. The per-year discounted value of impact acres were summed over the course of the project life to derive an estimated acre-years of impact. In the example above, the acre-years of impact totaled 22,267. ii. Calculate the value of anticipated benefits from protection activities To scale the anticipated benefits accrued from protection activities to the losses from impacts, the protection benefits in acre-years were also calculated. To do so, an additional parameter was incorporated: (e) Background rate of loss from conversion To calculate the background rate of loss for the Mountains to Plains project, first, areas within the county at risk of conversion were identified using the 2001 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) and the Colorado Ownership, Management and Protection Database (COMaP). These lands included 89,000 acres that were not already under protection from development (e.g., Research Natural Areas, Wilderness, private land with protection) or were not already developed. These lands at risk of conversion were then overlaid with the 2006 NLCD Land Cover Change Dataset to identify areas that had been developed from 2001-2006 (8,438 acres) to estimate a 1.9% annual background rate of loss for this 5-year period. The background rate of loss was incorporated to identify the additional value of the benefits resulting from protecting an area over time. To continue the example above, assuming an annual background rate of loss of natural cover to residential development or agricultural conversion of 1.9%, the value of protecting 1,000 acres in year one after impact year was calculated, to result in 19 acres of additional conservation benefit. This amount was further discounted to estimate the present value of future protection benefits and sum the resulting annual protection gains to produce an estimate of the total acre-years of protection benefits accrued. Again, in the example above, the acre-years of benefits accrued was estimated to be 17,318. iii. Calculate the offset ratio for protection or restoration Once the losses to anticipated impacts and benefits from protection were discounted and summed across the project’s life, the level of compensation required to offset anticipated impacts from a project was estimated based on the ratio of the present value of total impacts in acre years to the present value of total benefits expected. Returning once again to the scenarios above, the offset ratio for the protection example was calculated to be 1:1.29 (=22,267/17,318). In other words, it is estimated that it would take 1.29 acres under protection to deliver benefits equal to the loss of 1 acre to development. SURFACE OCCUPANCY AREA MULTIPLIERS It is a basic premise of this plan that development impacts to land across the Project Area are not equal. Disturbance in LSO has significantly higher ecological impact than the same scale of impact in a CSO or PSO area due to the higher relative rarity or sensitivity of the biological values in these places. Also due to this varying rarity or sensitivity, it is expected that the cost to offset impacts to LSO will be higher than in CSO, which in turn will be more than in PSO. Therefore, the Core Team created a “surface occupancy area multiplier” to account for the increasing degree of difficulty (i.e., cost of) securing the conservation of equivalent ecological values as impacts occur in LSO, CSO, and PSO respectively. The ratio multipliers are: 4  PSO: 1.0  CSO: 1.5  LSO: 3.0  NSO – No disturbance allowed2 The aim of using the multipliers is to capture the increased difficulty of successfully mitigating development impacts as biological values become increasingly rare or sensitive. To put it another way, the probability of success for mitigating impacts to LSO is lower than that for CSO, which is lower than that for PSO, and these probabilities must be accounted for to assure mitigation outcomes. This is true even when the mitigation strategy is legal protection such as acquiring a conservation easement because it is typically more costly or difficult to protect rarer or more sensitive species or ecological systems. WELL PAD DENSITY RATIO MULTIPLIERS In addition to the increasing cost of replacing more rare or sensitive resources, there is a cumulative impact factor that must be considered as well pad densities increase above a minimum threshold. To account for the cumulative impact of increasing well pad density, the following well pad density ratio multipliers have been established for each section to be developed:  One or two well pads per section: No additional multiplier  3 well pads per section: No additional multiplier for PSO; multiplier of 1.5 for CSO and LSO  4 well pads per section: No additional multiplier for PSO; multiplier of 2.0 for CSO and LSO Mitigation for well pad densities is difficult factor to quantify, but it is critical in order to address the cumulative impacts of development. Cumulative impacts can cause an ecological system to suffer “death by a thousand cuts,” so it must be considered in establishing mitigation ratios. It is well established that ecological systems and most species that depend on them are in better condition and more resilient if they are less fragmented. The Core Team decided not to exceed a combined mitigation ratio of 6:1 with the intent of achieving credible ecological equivalence while honoring the valid and existing rights of others. Using this 6:1 sideboard, a well pad multiplier of 2.0 was determined based on the already established surface occupancy zone multiplier of 3.0 for LSO. The Core Team applied the same well pad multiplier to both CSO and LSO because both have important biological values and it is assumed that fragmentation will significantly impact both of them. 2 Note: Surface Owners may consider making exceptions to allow development in NSO areas on a case-by-case basis in circumstances where small impacts to NSO would result in the avoidance of significant impacts to LSO or CSO zones. 1 APPENDIX 5. MAPS The Nature Conservancy created all maps using available data from a wide variety of sources as noted. The State Land Board completed the scenic values analyses with input from the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. Colorado State University created the cultural resource maps based on past surveys that it completed. The cultural resource maps are included as a separate appendix (Appendix 6) due to the sensitivity of the information. Map 1. Location of the project area within the broader Mountains to Plains region ........................................... 2 Map 2. Subsurface ownership and mineral leases ................................................................................................ 3 Map 3. Oil and gas development potential in the project area and the surrounding vicinity ............................... 4 Map 4. Biological values - Ecological system targets ............................................................................................. 5 Map 5. Biological values – Species and plant community targets ......................................................................... 6 Map 6. Biological values – Legal and additional recommended areas warranting year-round avoidance (input to No Surface Occupancy and Restricted Surface Occupancy maps for biological values) ................................... 7 Map 7. Biological values – No Surface Occupancy (input to final biological map) ................................................ 8 Map 8. Biological values – Limited Surface Occupancy (input to final biological map) ......................................... 9 Map 9. Biological values - Existing infrastructure impacting biological values (input to Preferred Surface Occupancy map for biological values) ................................................................................................................. 10 Map 10. Biological values – Preferred Surface Occupancy (input to final biological map) ................................ 11 Map 11. Biological values - Preferred Surface Occupancy (input to final biological map) .................................. 12 Map 12. Biological values - final surface occupancy recommendations for biological values ONLY................... 13 Map 13. FINAL MAP OF SURFACE OCCUPANCY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL VALUES ............................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Map 14. Timing limitations – Legal and additional recommended timing limitations affecting surface occupancy ............................................................................................................................................................ 17 Map 15. Timing limitations - Seasonality of timing limitations affecting surface occupancy.............................. 18 Map 16. Scenic values – Surface occupancy areas that are visible from the Lindenmeier Archaeological Site. . 19 Map 17. Scenic values – Surface occupancy areas that are visible from public trails in the Project Area. ........ 20 Map 18. Scenic values – Decline in visibility analysis from the Lindenmeier Archaeological Site ....................... 21 Map 19. Scenic values – Decline in visibility analysis from all public trails in the Project Area .......................... 22 Map 20. Scenic values – Cumulative viewshed analysis from the public trails in the Project Area .................... 23 2 Map 1. Location of the project area within the broader Mountains to Plains region The surface of the project area is owned by the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County and includes Red Mountain Open Space, Soapstone Prairie Natural Area, and Meadow Springs Ranch. The project area is an important component of a network of protected lands in the broader region, from conservation easements to state and federally-owned lands. They are also part of a regional conservation effort called the Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains Project, through which partners are creating a corridor of protected lands to link the Rocky Mountains with the Great Plains. Sources: Land ownership/management (Lavender, Fink, Linn, & Theobald, 2011) 3 Map 2. Subsurface ownership and mineral leases Most of State Land Board’s mineral trust lies in the eastern half of the planning area, on Soapstone Prairie and Meadow Springs. Anadarko is another major mineral owner in the project area. Leases change frequently over time. At present, Marathon is a major lease holder, mostly in the southern half of the planning area. Sources: Subsurface minerals ownership and leases combined from (Colorado State Land Board, 2012) and (City of Fort Collins, 2012). 4 Map 3. Oil and gas development potential in the project area and the surrounding vicinity The oil and gas development potential of the project area is unproven. The project area lies within the Niobrara formation, which has received significant attention from oil and gas companies in the last few years. The potential within the project area is believed to increase from west to east, with Meadow Springs having the highest potential based on this map in which scientists from The Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society, and the University of Montana modeled oil and gas development potential across six states, including Colorado. Sources: Oil and gas development potential: (Copeland, Dougherty, Naugle, Pocewicz , & Kiesecker, 2009). Oil and Gas Wells in Colorado: (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2012). Oil and gas wells in Wyoming: (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2012). Niobrara formation boundary: (Energy Information Administration, 2010). 5 Map 4. Biological values - Ecological system targets Sources: Aquatic ecological systems: Creeks and streams (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006); seeps and springs (Larimer County Natural Resources Department, 2011) and (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2011) – based on ground-truthed observations from topographic maps; wetlands (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006) as modified by the City and County. Terrestrial ecological systems: All from (U.S. Geological Survey, 2004) except ponderosa pine, which was from (Larimer County Natural Resources Department, 2007) and (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2007). 6 Map 5. Biological values – Species and plant community targets This map shows all species and plant communities for which mapped data was available. No maps were available for the following targets: aquatic insects, northern leopard frog, bald eagle nests and winter roosts, owls and other nesting raptor nests, and plants including Agrimonia striata and purple spikerush. Mountain plover nests are represented as repeat detection areas, within which the nests themselves are found. Sources: Plant communities: (Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 2012). Mammals: Black footed ferret captive population (The Nature Conservancy, 2012); black-tailed prairie dogs (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2007) and (Larimer County Natural Resources Department, 2007) - the City used its 2007 maximum extent layer before plague reduced acreage, the City has data through 2012 and the colonies are nearly back to the 2007 acreage; swift fox dens (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2007-2012) (Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 2012); elk production area and elk winter concentration area (Colorado Parks & Wildlife , 2011); mule deer critical winter range and mule deer severe winter range (Colorado Parks & Wildlife , 2011); pronghorn critical winter range - updated by the City from (Colorado Parks & Wildlife , 2011); birds-raptors – combined data from (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2007-2012) (Larimer County Natural Resources Department, 2011) (Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 2012) (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 2012); birds-other - (Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, 2012); fish - Iowa darter (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2008, 2010); rare plants – all combined from (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2007-2011) and (Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 2012); Fungus (Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 2012); Colorado blue butterfly (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2007) – City conducted surveys in 2004 and 2007, but the Colorado blue were found only in 2007. 7 Map 6. Biological values – Legal and additional recommended areas warranting year- round avoidance (input to No Surface Occupancy and Restricted Surface Occupancy maps for biological values) Source: “Legal” areas are Restricted Surface Occupancy areas from the COGCC rules (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008). “Recommended” areas are from the Mountains to Plains Energy by Design Technical Team. 8 Map 7. Biological values – No Surface Occupancy (input to final biological map) 9 Map 8. Biological values – Limited Surface Occupancy (input to final biological map) 10 Map 9. Biological values - Existing infrastructure impacting biological values (input to Preferred Surface Occupancy map for biological values) Sources: Roads - outside of the Project Area boundary (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006); within the Project Area boundary (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006) (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2012) (Larimer County Natural Resources Department, 2011). Infrastructure – cellular tower, evacuated dam, historic buildings, home sites, powerplant, and quarry (The Nature Conservancy, 2012) (City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2012) (Larimer County Natural Resources Department, 2011); hayfields (Larimer County Natural Resources Department, 2007). 11 Map 10. Biological values – Cumulative impacts (input to Preferred Surface Occupancy map for biological values) This map shows the cumulative impacts of existing infrastructure to biological values. Source: The Nature Conservancy based on methods from the Central Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregional Plan (Neely, et al., 2006). 12 Map 11. Biological values - Preferred Surface Occupancy (input to final biological map) This map combined the moderate and high cumulate impacts from the previous map to create the final potential Preferred Surface Occupancy Areas. “Potential” is used because these areas could be “trumped” by No Surface Occupancy and Limited Surface Occupancy areas once combined. 13 Map 12. Biological values - Final surface occupancy recommendations for biological values ONLY 14 Map 13. FINAL MAP OF SURFACE OCCUPANCY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL VALUES See next page for definitions and standards of each type of surface occupancy. Definitions and Standards for Surface Occupancy Categories Requirements for all categories  All surface occupancy shall be consistent with existing regulations, lease terms and stipulations (including but not limited to Best Management Practices), and surface use agreements.  The surface occupancy area map is a starting point. On-the-ground surveys prior to oil and gas development will be used to verify or identify the presence/absence of biological and cultural targets, and associated surface occupancy requirements. The map reflects biological and cultural priorities only; it does not include scenic and recreational priorities, which may affect the design of oil and gas infrastructure.  Based on surveys, the operator may petition the surface owner and the SLB to change the designation of any surface occupancy category at a given locale to another category. Any changes require advanced written approval of the Board, the Lessee, and the Surface Owner. For example, an NSO for a rare plant may shift to LSO, CSO or even PSO if inventories demonstrate that the plant no longer exists in that area and habitat is no longer suitable for the plant. Similarly, a CSO could shift to LSO if lark bunting habitat moves from one location to another. 15  No permanent facilities.  All lands impacted by oil and gas development will be reclaimed.  Biological targets subject to long-term impacts from oil and gas development will require compensatory mitigation.  Timing limitations related to construction activity and/or human disturbance may cover portions of any of these surface occupancy areas. No Surface Occupancy  Definition: Mandated no surface occupancy except for temporary low impact uses such as geophysical studies, due to the unprecedented biological or cultural values in these areas, that are either irreplaceable or would take decades or centuries to restore. Species and ecological systems impacted here may not recover. – Cultural values: The Lindenmeier site plus a one-mile buffer around it, and all surveyed, very high and high priority sites plus a 50 meter buffer around each. The Technical Team included the one- mile buffer around Lindenmeier because only a small part of the area has been surveyed. The full extent of the resources in this area is unknown. – Biological values: Targets and surrounding buffers (as needed) that warrant permanent, year- round protection from new surface disturbance because impacts to them cannot successfully be mitigated through restoration or land protection. Examples include wetlands plus a 300 ft. buffer, golden eagle nests plus a ¼ mile buffer, and rare plants plus a 300 ft. buffer.  Standards: – No permanent O&G operations or facilities conducted or installed. – Minimum intrusion may be permitted in connection with seismic exploration operations, temporary access, emergency response access and other limited purposes for effective ongoing surface owners’ management of the surface resources. The surface owner, in consultation with the SLB and others entities as appropriate, may deny such access (i.e., surface owner has final decision). – Existing roads may provide access through NSOs depending on the amount of construction that is needed to upgrade the road, the amount of traffic, and the impact associated with viable alternatives. New roads will not be allowed, unless to avoid perverse outcomes. – Should accidents occur during oil and gas exploration and development that destroy or damage NSO areas, extensive and immediate reclamation will be required along with payment of the highest fees for compensatory mitigation. Limited Surface Occupancy  Definition: Areas that are subject to stringent restrictions on surface use due to the presence and sensitivity of the biological and/or cultural values. – Cultural values: Unsurveyed areas that have known sites whose values are undetermined. – Biological values: Targets and surrounding buffers (as needed) that warrant year-round protection, but not necessarily permanent protection from new surface disturbance because they can be mitigated elsewhere through restoration or land protection. Examples include lark bunting core areas plus a 450 ft. buffer and mountain plover nests plus a ¼ mile buffer. • Standards: 16 – Limited oil and gas operations are permitted on these lands after consultation with the surface owner and the SLB, and approval of specific strategies and physical plans that will minimize (or eliminate) any permanent surface impact. – No new roads are allowed unless the Lessee demonstrates that there is no technologically or economically feasible alternative. – Requires higher fees for compensatory mitigation than Controlled Surface Occupancy and Preferred Surface Occupancy as it is more difficult to restore and/or mitigate the biological values in LSO areas. Controlled Surface Occupancy • Definition: Areas which are generally suitable for O&G development. While biological and cultural resources are present throughout the CSO areas, they are less sensitive than in Limited Surface Occupancy areas: – Cultural values: Unsurveyed areas and surveyed areas/sites identified as having lower value. – Biological values: Values that do not need year-round protection from new surface disturbance because they are less sensitive than those in LSO and NSO areas. Examples include swift fox dens and important winter habitat for elk, mule deer, and pronghorn. • Standards: – Oil and gas operations are permitted on these lands after consultation with the surface owner and the SLB, and approval of specific strategies and physical plans that will minimize (or eliminate) any permanent surface impact. – Undeveloped lands may become subject to additional limitations imposed to address wildlife habitat, nesting or fawning grounds based on on-site surveys completed prior to oil and gas development. – Require lower fees for compensatory mitigation than Limited Surface Occupancy areas, but higher fees than Preferred Surface Occupancy. Preferred Surface Occupancy • Definition: Areas where surface occupancy is preferred from a biological perspective due to previous and existing disturbances such as along roads, buildings, and transmission lines. – Cultural values: none – the Technical Team identified the entire project site as NSO, LSO, or CSO for cultural resources because cultural resources are unknown in most locales. – Biological values: This area includes the combined footprints and indirect impacts to biological values from existing infrastructure (e.g., roads, historic agricultural areas and transmission lines) that have a negative impact on biological values. The extent of the indirect impacts varies based on the type of infrastructure; for example, the impacts from I-25 are much greater in intensity than those of the many 4WD roads in the planning area. • Standards: – Oil and gas operations are permitted on these lands after consultation with the surface owner and the SLB, and approval of specific strategies and physical plans that will minimize any permanent surface impact. – Requires lowest (i.e., baseline) fees for compensatory mitigation compared to the other surface occupancy areas and as defined by the Technical Team. 17 Map 14. Timing limitations – Legal and additional recommended timing limitations affecting surface occupancy This map includes legal timing limitations from Colorado’s oil and gas rules (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2008), plus additional timing limitations that the Technical Team recommended based on the biological needs of the targets according to available Best Management Practices, scientific publications, and expert opinion. These timing limitations are applied seasonally to specific targets; for example, the timing limitation for ferruginous hawk is no human encroachment within ½ mile of nests from February 1-July 15. See Map 15 for the seasonality of the timing limitations. 18 Map 15. Timing limitations - Seasonality of timing limitations affecting surface occupancy 19 Map 16. Scenic values – Surface occupancy areas that are visible from the Lindenmeier Archaeological Site. This map shows the surface occupancy areas that are visible from the Lindenmeier site, assuming a sight distance of 3.5 miles. Source: (Gaertner, Robertson, & Scharton, 2012) 20 Map 17. Scenic values – Surface occupancy areas that are visible from public trails in the Project Area. This map shows the surface occupancy areas for biological and cultural resources that are visible from the public trail system in the Project Area, assuming a sight distance of 3.5 miles. Source: (Gaertner, Robertson, & Scharton, 2012) 21 Map 18. Scenic values – Decline in visibility analysis from the Lindenmeier Archaeological Site Source: (Gaertner, Robertson, & Scharton, 2012) 22 Map 19. Scenic values – Decline in visibility analysis from all public trails in the Project Area Source: (Gaertner, Robertson, & Scharton, 2012) 23 Map 20. Scenic values – Cumulative viewshed analysis from the public trails in the Project Area This map shows the scenic priorities of the Project Area based on the decline in visibility from the trail network (to a distance of 3.5 miles away) combined with the frequency with which any one location within the Project Area can be seen from each step along the trails. Source: (Gaertner, Robertson, & Scharton, 2012) 1 APPENDIX 6 . CULTURAL RESOURCE S MAPS Due to the sensitivity of cultural resources, these maps may be made available only upon request to the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. Cultural Resources Map 1. No Surface Occupancy (input to final cultural map) .................................................. 2 Cultural Resources Map 2. Limited Surface Occupancy (input to final cultural map) .......................................... 3 Cultural Resources Map 3. Final map of surface occupancy for CULTURAL VALUES ONLY .................................. 4 Cultural Resources Map 4. Inputs to map of cultural resource potential ............................................................ 5 Cultural Resources Map 5. Final map of cultural resource potential ................................................................... 6 2 Cultural Resources Map 1. No Surface Occupancy (input to final cultural map) Sources: Adapted from (LaBelle J. , 2012) (LaBelle, J.M. and J. Bush, 2009) (Parks, E.M. and J.M. LaBelle, 2008) (LaBelle, J.M. and B.N. Andrews, 2007) (LaBelle, J.M., B.N. Andrews, and C.C. Newton, 2007) 3 Cultural Resources Map 2. Limited Surface Occupancy (input to final cultural map) Sources: Adapted from (LaBelle J. , 2012) (LaBelle, J.M. and J. Bush, 2009) (Parks, E.M. and J.M. LaBelle, 2008) (LaBelle, J.M. and B.N. Andrews, 2007) (LaBelle, J.M., B.N. Andrews, and C.C. Newton, 2007) 4 Cultural Resources Map 3. Final map of surface occupancy for CULTURAL VALUES ONLY Sources: Adapted from (LaBelle J. , 2012) (LaBelle, J.M. and J. Bush, 2009) (Parks, E.M. and J.M. LaBelle, 2008) (LaBelle, J.M. and B.N. Andrews, 2007) (LaBelle, J.M., B.N. Andrews, and C.C. Newton, 2007) 5 Cultural Resources Map 4. Inputs to map of cultural resource potential Source: (LaBelle J. M., 2012) 6 Cultural Resources Map 5. Final map of cultural resource potential Source: (LaBelle J. M., 2012)