Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/02/2008 - RESOLUTION 2008-116 AUTHORIZING A TWO-YEAR EXTENSI ITEM NUMBER: 22 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: December 2, 2008 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: John Stokes Daylan Figgs SUBJECT Resolution 2008-116 Authorizing a Two-Year Extension of the Grazing Lease with Folsom Grazing Association on Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board reviewed and recommended approval of the lease extension at its regularly scheduled meeting on October 8, 2008. FINANCIAL IMPACT The lease extension authorized by this Resolution will generate an annual sum of$26,700($10.68/ animal unit month) or $53,400 over the life of the lease through grazing fees paid by the Folsom Grazing Association. A ranch manager,employed by Folsom Grazing Association,will live on site during the duration of the lease and will be responsible for site security, maintenance of fences and stock tanks, participation in rangeland monitoring programs, gathering information on weather patterns, and participating in up to six public tours of the ranch annually. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Soapstone Prairie Natural Area is currently leased to the Folsom Grazing Association for livestock grazing;the existing lease will expire in December 2008. The lease extension will continue grazing on the property through 2010 with modifications to the current lease. The lease modifications were made in order to manage for the conservation targets identified in the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan (adopted September 2007). Modifications include essentially limiting grazing to the eastern portion of the property, combining all cattle into a single herd, and reducing the allowed number of animal unit months (AUMs) from 3,600 to 2,500 (2,500 AUMs is approximately equivalent to 500 cows with calves grazing over a 5-month period). Grazing management will utilize high intensity, short duration grazing to more closely mimic historic grazing patterns of native ungulates (e.g., elk, deer, pronghorn antelope and bison). BACKGROUND In 2005 City Council approved a three-year livestock grazing lease for Soapstone Prairie Natural Area between the City of Fort Collins and Folsom Grazing Association (authorized by Ordinance No. 160, 2005). That lease will expire in December 2008. December 2, 2008 -2- Item No. 22 In April 2008, Natural Areas Program staff presented a series of long-term and short-term grazing alternatives for Soapstone Prairie Natural Area(SPNA)to the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board (LCSB) for discussion (these alternatives are summarized in the paper included as Attachment 2). Through that effort, the LCSB agreed with the staff recommendation to pursue a short-term (two year) grazing lease extension with Folsom Grazing Association. The grazing extension is modified from the current approach in order to better manage for conservation of key plant and animal species and communities identified in the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan (adopted in September 2007). Five of these key conservation targets are reliant on, and influenced by, grazing management on the property and include: shortgrass prairie/ grasslands systems, wetland/ riparian systems, rare and threatened plants, foothills shrublands system, and birds of prey. Major modifications to the grazing lease include: • Focusing cattle grazing on the shortgrass habitat on the eastern side of the property: Shortgrass prairie evolved with grazing and many species (e.g., grassland birds) require grazing to succeed. See Attachment 3 for a map depicting the portion of the property where grazing will be focused. The western portion of the property, dominated by mountain mahogany shrublands, requires less grazing to manage for conservation targets. Cattle grazing will be minimized on this portion of the property. If needed, prescriptive grazing utilizing sheep and/or cattle will occur to address invasive plants. • One herd of cows: Under the current system, cattle are spread across Soapstone in three herds. Combining all cows into a single herd will allow for increased rotations, or movement of cattle across the landscape. This approach constitutes a high intensity, short duration grazing system which more closely mimics historic grazing patterns by native ungulates. It will allow for longer rest periods during the growing season,thereby allowing increased time for vegetation species to complete growth and reproduction cycles. • Reducing the number of animal unit months from 3,600 to 2,500: An animal unit month (AUM)refers to the amount of forage consumed by livestock and is equivalent to the forage required by one cow and calf over a month. The 2,500 AUMs allowed by the lease extension is approximately equivalent to 500 cows with calves grazing over a 5-month period. The allowed AUMs in the lease are based on Natural Resources Conservation Service(MRCS)forage production estimates,Natural Areas Program(NAP)staff vegetation monitoring efforts, and NAP staff experience in managing the property for several years. The AUMs allowed in the new lease are greater than half the previous amount allowed by the lease even though only approximately half the property will be grazed under the new grazing plan. This is due to several factors: (1)the eastern portion of the property produces more forage than the western portion and this is where grazing will be focused; and(2)the total amount of forage has not been a limiting factor in previous AUM allowances; rather, livestock were not distributed to effectively graze an entire pasture and remote areas of the pasture were underutilized. The new grazing approach will allow for better livestock distribution, allowing them to more effectively consume forage throughout the pastures. In addition to changed grazing practices, additional improvements are being made at SPNA to facilitate management for conservation. This includes reducing access to riparian and wetland areas through the use of temporary fence. December 2, 2008 -3- Item No. 22 Several of the long-term alternatives for grazing management on SPNA require additional time to fully understand and explore, and the two-year lease extension allows the Natural Areas Program to work towards meeting its conservation targets while also continuing to explore the following opportunities. ■ Possible cooperative management of Soapstone Prairie Natural Area and Meadow Springs Ranch: Soapstone Prairie Natural Area borders the Meadow Springs Ranch, owned and managed by the City of Fort Collins Utilities Department. The existing grazing lease on Meadow Springs will expire in 2010. The two-year lease extension on SPNA may allow SPNA and Meadow Springs to synchronize their grazing lease cycles and may offer an opportunity to jointly manage a larger landscape. ■ Wildlife Services bison herd: One of the long-term alternatives for grazing management at Soapstone could involve a small, genetically pure herd of bison owned by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). In order to learn more and continue to explore this possibility, Daylan Figgs, Senior Environmental Planner, attended a conference of the American Bison Association in November, where he had an opportunity to discuss Soapstone's potential role in this effort with professionals involved in bison conservation. A copy of the lease is on file at the City Clerk's office and available for public inspection. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Meeting Minutes, October 8, 2008. 2. Discussion of grazing management on Soapstone Prairie Natural Area(April 9,2008 memo to Land Conservation and Stewardship Board.). 3. Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease (map). ATTACHMENT Land Conservation& Stewardship Board October 8, 2008 Page 2 of 4 Great Outdoors Colorado Trail Grant Award • Erica: In July 2008 Natural Areas Program staff submitted a joint application with Larimer County for a special cycle trails grant offered by Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO). The grant would provide funding for trails and trailhead features at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area and Red Mountain Space. Due to regional nature of the project, Larimer County was the primary applicant the City of Fort Collins was the partner agency. GOCO staff and the GOCO project committee have recommende ding this project in its full amount, which will award $210,000 to the C' f Fort Collins and $340,000 to Larimer County for a total award of$550 On October 3, 2008 the entire GOCO board formalized this decision. Anything that we construct with the money needs t in place for 25 years. • Gaughan: Are you ok with the plan of the area, that 25 year period is comfortable? • Sears: Our long range financial model t us through 2021. • Erica: Daylan Figgs was in charge of Management Planning Process, and there was a lot of careful thought. echnical Advisory Group made up of resource experts from the Div' . n of Wildlife, CSU, and Jason Label with the Laboratory of Public Arch gy gave a lot of expert input in the plan. • Figgs: We surveyed all alignments, and we will continue to do that while constructing the tr ' Grooms motioned the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board to recommend that City Council appro 1. Th ergovernmental agreement(IGA) with Latimer County. 2. contact with Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) Ga second. It was unanimously approved. Soapstone Grazing • Figgs: Soapstone Prairie Natural Area is currently leased to the Folsom Grazing Association for livestock grazing; the existing lease will expire in December 2008. The lease extension will continue grazing on the property through 2010 with modifications to the current lease. The lease modifications were made in order to manage for the conservation targets identified in the Soapstone prairie Natural Area management Plan. Modifications include focusing grazing to the shortgrass prairie system reducing the allowed number of animal unit months from 3,600 to 2,500 and combining all cattle into a single herd. Grazing management will utilize high intensity, short duration grazing to more closely mimic historic grazing patterns of native ungulates. Folsom will pay an annual sum of$26,700 or $53,400 over the life of the lease. A ranch manager, employed by Folsom will live on site during the duration of the lease and will be responsible for site security, maintenance of fences and stock Land Conservation & Stewardship Board October 8, 2008 Page 3 of 4 tanks, participation in rangeland monitoring programs, gathering information on weather patterns, and participating in up to six public tours of the ranch annually. • Gaughan: Do you have a contractor for the sheep? • Figgs: We are working with a contractor John Bartman, who is a local sheep producer. • Boyd: Do goats eat toadflax? • Figgs: Yes they will. We have talk about incorporating some goats into the sheep herds. • Stanley: Do you need to have someone watch over the sheep? • Figgs: John Bartman hires Chilean/Peruvian sheep herders. They herd the sheep 24/7. We give John maps, and we will meet with him to talk about herding. • Haines: What will they do with the rest of their cattle? • Figgs: Some will sell their cattle, and some will find other pasture. • Gaughan: Along these lines there might be an opportunity for the education team to explain the working dog vs. the pasture dog. The public should know what ranchers deal with on day to day bases, which are a part of living in the West. • Figgs: One of our educations plans is to talk about working landscapes and why we graze part of the property. We are also working with Folsom, our grazing tenants, to think about locally produced feed and marketing it that way. It's a way to connect Soapstone with Fort Collins. Gaughan motioned for The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board to recommend that City Council approve a two year extension to the Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease between the City of Fort Collins and the Folsom Grazing Association (Ordinance 160, 2005). Grooms second. It was unanimously approved. LCSB 2009 Work Plans • Stanley: We will review the 2008 LCSB work plan and revise it for The Board discussed each item of the 2008 work plan; Stanley will in e revisions for the 2009 LCSB work plan, and send it to the Board members mail for final comments. New Business: Announcements: • Stanley: Vicky McLane has gned from this Board. We now have two openings for this Board. • Sears: - At the ember LCSB meeting we should have a discussion on how we age prairie dogs at Prairie Dog Meadows. Prairie Dog Meadows s become a vacant dirt lot with the exception of a few weeds. The only control work we do there is to put buffers near the homes. Would ATTACHMENT -`W • Natural Resources Department 215 N. Mason St PO Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 Cilyof Fort Collins 970.221,6600 FAX 970.224.6177 tcgov,com DATE: April 9, 2008 TO: Land Conservation and Stewardship Board THROUGH: John Stokes, Director of Natural Resources Mark Sears, Natural Areas Program Manager FROM: Daylan Figgs, Sr. Environmental Planner RE: Discussion of grazing management on Soapstone Prairie Natural Area EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Soapstone Prairie Natural Area was purchased by the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program in 2004 and has been grazed since that time. At the end of 2008 the existing grazing lease on Soapstone Prairie Natural Area(SPNA) with the Folsom Grazing Association will expire. Staff has been working to determine suitable grazing management alternatives, and has been considering eight long-term alternatives. These include: 1. No change in grazing management 2. No livestock grazing 3. Modified grazing with cows on the entire property 4. Modified grazing with sheep on the entire property 5. Modified grazing with cows on the east side and sheep on the west side 6. Commercial bison production 7. Wildlife Services bison herd 8. Grassbank These alternatives were each evaluated by the Natural Areas Program for their ability to meet NAP conservation targets for the property (based on the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan, adopted in September 2007), financial implications, and additional benefits. Several of the long-term alternatives have outstanding questions that need to be answered before determining their feasibility. Additionally, the Natural Areas Program has a possible opportunity to cooperate with Meadow Springs Ranch, which neighbors Soapstone to the southeast and is owned by the City of Fort Collins Utilities Department. This cooperation may allow the Natural Areas Program and Utilities Department to manage the two properties as a larger landscape. The Meadow Springs Ranch has a grazing lease which will expire in 2010. Page I of 16 PROPOSED DIRECTION In order to allow time to further explore the long-term alternatives and potentially synchronize SPNA's grazing timeframe with that of Meadow Springs Ranch, a short term plan should be implemented. Staff s preferred direction is to extend the lease with the Folsom Grazing Association with modifications for the calendar years 2009 and 2010. This extension will require a formal Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommendation and City Council action. During this time period, staff intends to continue to explore outstanding questions regarding the Wildlife Services bison herd, continued sheep and/or cattle grazing on the property, and the possibility of local food production. Staff will also continue to work with the Utilities Department to discuss opportunities for joint management of SPNA and Meadow Springs Ranch. At this point, commercial bison production on SPNA is a very low priority. Staff believes that no change in grazing management and no livestock grazing on the property are not suitable long- term alternatives as they would not enable the NAP to meet its conservation targets for the property. BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION Soapstone Prairie Natural Area was purchased by the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program in 2004 from the Soapstone Grazing Association. At the time of purchase, several members of the Soapstone Grazing Association re-formed into the Folsom Grazing Association. When the Natural Areas Program(NAP) issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) soliciting a tenant to graze the property, the lease was awarded to the Folsom Grazing Association. That lease expires in 2008, and the NAP has several options for grazing management of the property once this lease expires. Staff has been working to determine suitable alternatives for grazing management. This document describes the role of grazing in grassland health and conservation targets for management of Soapstone, in addition to long-term alternatives for grazing management and short-term options to transition to the long-term alternatives. THE ROLE OF GRAZING IN GRASSLAND HEALTH Most of Soapstone Prairie Natural Area consists of a grassland habitat type. Grassland ecosystems evolved with three primary influences: climate, fire and mammalian grazers. In North America, grasslands began developing approximately 6 million years ago, and since that time have been associated with a diversity of grazing animals. Research demonstrates that moderate grazing increases productivity and diversity of grasslands, and plants produce more biomass than could be decomposed in order to compensate for consumption by grazing (Anderson 2006). Grazing animals reduce excessive litter accumulation. While some litter is necessary to help reduce soil erosion, excessive litter inhibits seed germination, increases light resources for seedling plants, and binds nutrients including nitrogen and carbon, making those nutrients unavailable to living plants. Grazing animals also provide nutrients through their excrement that are beneficial to plants. Additional benefits of grazing include increased photosynthesis, increased tillering, reduced shading, reduced transpiration losses, introduction of growth-promoting substances (Holchek, Pieper& Herbel 1994, p. 126), and turning of the soil Page 2 of 16 surface to incorporate seeds. By providing these benefits, grazing can help improve plant vigor, facilitate plant reproduction, and reduce competition between grasses and shrubs. From approximately 10,000 years ago to European colonization of the western United States, bison were one of the dominant grazers and arguably a keystone species of the prairie. Large herds of bison (as well as other mammals) created a mosaic of habitat types with patches of heavily grazed areas with sparse grass cover and lightly grazed areas (Anderson 2006). This diversity of habitat types is essential for grassland bird diversity because many birds use different grass structures for different periods in their life cycle (e.g., nesting, foraging, etc). Because of the large herd sizes bison traveled in, animals rapidly grazed an area, consuming vegetation and covering other unconsumed vegetation with excrement,then quickly moved on to another area. The general pattern was that animals grazed areas with high intensity and in great numbers but only for a short duration of time. Often bison would not return to graze the same area for a year or several years. Through commercial and subsistence hunting, diseases and forage competition, plains bison populations were reduced to only a few hundred by the mid-1800s (Freese et al. 2007). Domestic livestock (primarily cattle and sheep) replaced bison as the dominant grazers of the prairie, and as the"free range"period of the west ended, property was increasingly fenced. When animals are confined with fences, there is the potential for overgrazing. Two major causes of overgrazing include overstocking and grazing for too long of a duration. Overstocking means that more animals are kept in an area than can be supported by forage resources. In this scenario, typically animals graze all types of vegetation without preference because competition for forage is high. This type of grazing often results in pastures with high percentages of bare ground, low species diversity and many weeds. Grazing for too long of a duration occurs when animals are kept in one area for a long period of time and allowed to repeatedly graze the same plants over and over again. This can occur with only a few grazing animals. This is problematic because the favored or most palatable species are selected first and repeatedly grazed and defoliated, which reduces plant vigor and lessens seed production, ending in plant death. The space previously occupied by palatable species is often invaded by less desirable species, and weeds may encroach (Heady& Child 1994,p.5). Many plants are not able to withstand being grazed multiple times (more than 3 times) during a single growing season. This results in a shift in plant community composition to include a higher percentage of plants that are grazing-tolerant(e.g., buffalograss and blue grama). This scenario often looks better than an overstocked pasture because there is still vegetation, but there are similar problems of low species diversity and weed encroachment. In either type of overgrazing, riparian and wetland areas typically deteriorate the most noticeably. As a result of their high productivity, proximity to water and availability of shade, livestock tend to congregate in these areas, resulting in overgrazed vegetation, loss of woody plants, destruction of banks, and other problems. Range management principles and practices have developed that try to mimic the natural processes that historically occurred on grasslands through livestock grazing. The basic premise Page 3 of 16 is to rotate animals so that they only graze any particular area for a short period of time. This can be accomplished by creating smaller pastures or by physically moving animals by herding or through prescribed fires. The timing of grazing should also be varied annually so that, for example, one area of a ranch is not always grazed at the beginning of the growing season. CONSERVATION TARGETS Overall management of Soapstone Prairie Natural Area is guided by the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan (adopted in September 2007). The plan identifies eight "conservation targets," or natural and cultural resources of the highest conservation value. These conservation targets include: shortgrass prairie/grasslands system, wetland/riparian system, rare and threatened plants, foothills shrubland system, birds of prey, geological features system, cultural resources, and viewshed/sense of place. Five of the conservation targets are directly related to, and influenced by, grazing management on the property. These conservation targets and grazing-related management goals are listed below: • Shortgrass prairie/Grasslands system o Natural Areas Program goal: Provide high quality habitat for grassland birds, black-tailed prairie dog communities, pronghorn and swift fox. o Grazing role: Livestock grazing can help the shortgrass prairie system by providing a diversity of grass structure (necessary for many of the bird species), increasing health and vigor of plants, and helping incorporate seeds into the soil through hoof action. o Current status: Areas of the shortgrass prairie are in good condition, but overall, the community has shifted from the historic climax community to a typical "over-grazed" community dominated by blue grama. Many cool season grasses have been reduced. Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) similarity indices indicate that the range is approximately 40% similar to historic conditions. • Wetland/Riparian systems o Natural Areas Program goal: Maintain or restore functioning riparian systems in order to provide high quality habitat for northern leopard frog, native fish, and birds of prey. o Grazing role: The wetlands and riparian areas on the ranch are highly productive and good sources of forage for livestock. They can benefit from livestock grazing by increasing plant vigor and helping open soils for seed germination (also see comments under Rare and threatened plants, below). However,there is also the potential that livestock can over-use riparian areas. o Current status: The wetlands and riparian areas have been degraded because of over-use by livestock. Woody vegetation has been lost, and in locations banks have been de-stabilized and denuded where cattle have congregated. They are also experiencing invasion by weeds (thistle in wetlands, cheatgrass and dalmation toadflax in drainages). Water developments in the LR Pasture pump water out of Cedar Canyon to fill 6(?) tanks. Cedar Canyon is a unique area of the property which receives significant wildlife use, and it is unclear what the Page 4of16 natural hydrology of this drainage would be if water was not pumped so extensively. • Rare and threatened plants o Natural Areas Program goal: Maintain populations of rare and threatened plants, including the Colorado butterfly plant and Rocky Mountain blazing star. o Grazing role: We believe these rare plants, which exist in wet meadows on the property, exist because of the historic grazing system where the meadows were grazed in late spring and/or fall. Grazing may be necessary to help create open soils for seed germination. o Current status: These rare plants are generally occurring in wetland areas, which are experiencing invasion by weeds, primarily thistle. • Foothills shrublands system o Natural Areas Program goal: Maintain high quality of foothills shrubland system. o Grazing role: The mountain mahogany shrublands with a mixed grass understory can benefit from grazing through weed management efforts. While the Natural Areas Program does extensive chemical weed control on the property,the timing and type of grazing can help reduce weeds (e.g., cheatgrass, Dalmation toadflax). o Current status: This community is in relatively good condition, but there is some weed invasion, particularly in the drainages. • Birds of prey o Natural Areas Program goal: Provide future nest locations for birds of prey. o Grazing role: Soapstone Prairie Natural Area is home to many raptors including golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, Swainson's hawks, red-tailed hawks,prairie falcons and American kestrels. Big cottonwoods along riparian areas often serve as nest sites for these birds. Appropriate grazing management can help ensure recruitment of tree and shrub species to provide future nest locations for birds of prey. o Current status: On the eastern side of the property, many of the large cottonwoods along drainages provide nest locations for birds of prey. Many of these trees have been girdled by cattle, and there is little recruitment of trees suitable for future nest locations. ALTERNATIVES- OVERVIEW A series of grazing management alternatives were developed for consideration. NAP staff divided these into long-term and short-term alternatives. The short-term (2008 through 2010) provides staff with an opportunity to further explore and answer questions related to some of the long-term alternatives. In developing the alternatives, the NAP considered everything beyond 2010 to be long-term, but in reality, a transitional period or"mid-term" of approximately five years (2010 through 2015) may be needed to prepare for implementation of the ultimate long- term plan (see Figure 1 below). The year 2010 was chosen as the end of the short-term partially because the grazing lease on the Meadow Springs Ranch expires that year. Meadow Springs Ranch neighbors Soapstone on the southeast and is owned and managed by the City of Fort Collins Utilities Department as their biosolids facility (see attached map). Discussions with Utilities personnel have generated some interest in more joint management of the properties. Page 5 of 16 Figure]. Timeline or Soapstone Grazing Management Alternatives Timeline for Soapstone Grazing Management Alternatives Folsom lease expires Soapstone opens to the public Meadow Springs lease expires l 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Short-term Mid-term Long term 2008 - 2010 2010 - 2015 Long-term alternatives generally describe differences between types of grazing animals and describe in only limited detail the grazing system(pasture rotation,timing and duration of grazing, etc). These details would be worked out in the future by NAP staff and grazing managers (e.g., the grazing lessee), in consultation with range management experts from the NRCS and Colorado State University. The alternatives focus on grazing animal because the animal of choice will be particularly relevant for infrastructure requirements. The alternatives do describe changes in infrastructure that would be needed to create a more ecologically beneficial grazing system based on the grazing animal. In all cases where grazing is involved, Soapstone would be grazed by livestock owned by another party. The NAP is not interested in becoming livestock owners. It is therefore critical in these cases that the NAP is able to work with individuals who share the NAP's conservation goals and philosophy. Without their assistance, the NAP will be unable to meet its conservation targets. Many of the alternatives involve grazing with the intent of raising livestock for commercial purposes. The NAP is exploring opportunities to work with local livestock producers to market livestock raised on NAP property to the local community and thus contribute to the local food economy. In all alternatives with commercial livestock production, this movement toward local food production is the direction the NAP will pursue. With respect to bison, in no case would the NAP be replicating the free-roaming bison of historic times, as Soapstone is simply too small to effectively re-create large-scale bison movements. Additionally, the State of Colorado does not currently recognize bison as wild animals; they are classified as livestock. In both of the bison alternatives described below, bison would need to be intensively managed and monitored, routinely rounded up, vaccinated, culled or harvested, etc. Page 6 of 16 Another point to keep in mind is that disease transmission can occur between domestic sheep and bison. Long-term Alternatives: 1. No change in grazing management 2. No livestock grazing 3. Modified grazing with cows on the entire property 4. Modified grazing with sheep on the entire property 5. Modified grazing with cows on the east side and sheep on the west side 6. Commercial bison production 7. Wildlife Services bison herd 8. Grassbank Evaluation Criteria: Each of the alternatives was qualitatively evaluated using three criteria. 1. Conservation targets: Would the NAP be able to meet our conservation targets (as outlined in the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan)? Alternatives were ranked either Yes,No, or Maybe. 2. Financial impact: How much would each option cost? Alternatives were ranked on a scale of Low, Medium or High. 3. Beyond our borders -Additional considerations: Does this alternative provide additional benefits for local, regional or national conservation interests beyond the conservation targets for the property? Alternatives did not receive a ranking for this category, only a description. LONG-TERM ALTERNATIVE I —NO CHANGE IN GRAZING MANAGEMENT Background Under this alternative, livestock would be managed under the current grazing system. (See attached map of grazing-related infrastructure.) A grazing tenant would manage livestock operations on the property. Cattle (cow-calf pairs) would be grazed in a simple rotation system during the period from June through November(every pasture would be grazed every year continually for several months of the year). Conservation Targets Ranking:No Staff believes that the NAP would not be able to meet its conservation targets by continuing with the current grazing system (specifically the shortgrass prairie/grassland system, riparian/wetland system, and birds of prey conservation targets). Grazing monitoring surveys and rangeland health surveys conducted by NAP staff and Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) personnel indicate that portions of Soapstone are overgrazed. The large pasture sizes (the LR pasture is over 4,600 acres) lead to uneven distribution of animals so that favored areas (riparian areas, wetlands, areas surrounding stock tanks) are overused and areas at greater distances from these water sources are underused. In particular, riparian and wetland areas need improvement. There is limited recruitment of trees and shrubs to stabilize banks and to serve as suitable future raptor nest sites. Page 7 of 16 Financial Impact Ranking.Low The NAP currently spends very little on grazing-related maintenance, occasionally needing to fix wind mills or water pumps. The tenants typically maintain fences and other infrastructure. The NAP generates $15,000 annual income in grazing fees, and this typically exceeds the expenditures for grazing-related infrastructure. Beyond our borders—Additional considerations Leasing the property to local ranchers helps keep them in business; many of the Folsom Grazing Association members own nearby ranches. Keeping them in business helps prevent their properties from being sold or subdivided and helps maintain large contiguous tracts of open space in the Laramie Foothills region. LONG-TERM ALTERNATIVE 2—NO LIVESTOCK GRAZING Background Under this alternative, all livestock would be removed from the property. Wildlife would be the only grazers on the property. Conservation Targets Ranking.No The NAP likely would not be able to meet its conservation targets, or not on a consistent basis (specifically the shortgrass prairie/grassland system, riparian/wetland system, and rare and threatened plants conservation targets). Grassland systems evolved with grazing and plants benefit from moderate grazing. Rare and threatened plants on the property appear to need hoof action for seed germination. Grassland nesting birds need a habitat mosaic created by grazing. A few years of rest can help improve degraded range conditions, but additional rest often leads to an over-abundance of litter material and reduced plant vigor. Depending on the year and conditions, prairie dogs and ungulates may be able to provide these benefits in certain areas of the property. However, typically wildlife grazing pressure is not sufficient to mimic the historic grazing pressure of bison. On a positive note, interior fencing could be removed from the property, allowing easier wildlife movement, and stock tanks in the LR pasture could be shut off, potentially restoring natural hydrologic patterns in Cedar Canyon. Financial Impact Ranking.Low The financial impact of this alternative would be minimal. The NAP would incur very few expenses; it would also generate no income from grazing fees. Beyond our borders—Additional considerations Soapstone Prairie Natural Area is a component of the Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains Project, a partnership effort to conserve over 200,000 acres of land along the Front Range and provide a corridor from the Rocky Mountains out onto the Great Plains. Part of the mission of this project is to conserve working landscapes. Removing Soapstone from agricultural production would not help to further this mission and would likely generate poor relationships with area ranchers. Page 8 of 16 LONG-TERMALTERNATIVE 3—MODIFIED GRAZING WITH COWS ONENTIRE PROPERTY Background Under this alternative, the NAP would modify the grazing system, shifting from a simple rotation to a rest rotation or High Intensity— Short Duration(HISD) system. Staff would create smaller pastures and move animals through them in a faster rotation. This would allow pastures to rest from grazing pressure and give plants an opportunity for re-growth. NAP staff anticipates creating smaller permanent pastures on the east side of the property with 3 strand, high tensile fence and using temporary electric fence to graze the west side. Additional water sources would be developed on the property to help achieve better grazing distribution throughout pastures. Under this option Soapstone would provide summer pasture for a grazing tenant. Conservation Targets Ranking: Yes The NAP could likely meet its conservation targets. Modifying the pastures and moving to a more intensive rotational system would allow for greater control over grazing pressure and distribution. This would help improve overall grassland health, and allow for recovery of riparian and wetland areas. Continuing to graze cows on the entire property requires a tenant to continue to pump water out of Cedar Canyon to fill tanks in the LR Pasture, so there would not be the opportunity to restore natural hydrologic flow to this drainage. Additionally, small isolated springs and seeps are scattered throughout the western half of the property. These provide important wildlife and native plant habitat, but it is difficult to minimize cattle use of these areas. Financial Impact Ranking:Medium The basic infrastructure for this alternative is in place (perimeter fence, some interior fence, corrals and sorting facilities, water developments), but major changes would be needed to create more pastures, including additional fence and water developments. The estimated cost of these developments is approximately $50,000 to $75,000. Annual income would be generated through grazing fees, and the NAP could likely recover the cost of developments in less than 10 years. This infrastructure needed for this alternative may be difficult to manage on the west side of the property. The NAP does not want additional permanent fence created on this portion of the property, so managing that side may be a continuous resource sink. Beyond our borders-Additional considerations A local rancher or grazing association would benefit from grazing Soapstone, and he/she may be able to contribute to the locally produced beef market. LONG-TERM ALTERNATIVE 4—MODIFIED GRAZING WITH SHEEP ON ENTIRE PROPERTY Background Under this alternative the NAP would lease the property to a sheep grazer. Sheep would have a herder with them at all times and could move them as frequently as every day to distribute grazing pressure across the property. This would generally provide summer pasture for the sheep, but early season or late season grazing could be included to target weeds. The success of this alternative would be dependent upon a well-trained shepherd. Page 9 of 16 Conservation Targets Ranking: Yes The NAP could likely meet its conservation targets with this alternative. Overall, there would be increased control over grazing timing, duration and intensity because a herder would be with the sheep all the time. This could lead to improvements in grassland health, and a herder could guide sheep out of riparian and wetland areas to avoid deterioration. Interior fences could be removed from the property, which would allow for easier wildlife movement. Sheep tend to be able to graze on slopes better than cattle do, allowing for better distribution in some of the steeper portions of the west side of the property. Sheep are often used as a tool to manage weeds because their diet consists of a larger percentage of forbs compared to the diets of cattle or bison (Johnson-Nistler& Knight 2006). When grazed early or late in the growing season, sheep grazing is also effective at reducing cheatgrass infestations. One issue that would need to be addressed is ensuring that sheep coming onto the property are not transporting weed seeds. Financiallmpact Ranking:Low The financial impact of this alternative would be minimal—the NAP would not need any additional infrastructure such as fencing or water developments. Annual income would likely be generated through grazing fees and would likely exceed any expenditures. Beyond our borders-Additional considerations A local rancher or grazing association would benefit from grazing Soapstone, and he/she may be able to contribute to the locally produced mutton or lamb market. LONG-TERM ALTERNATIVE 5—MODIFIED GRAZING WITH COWS ON THE EAST AND SHEEP ON THE WEST Background This is a combination of Alternatives 3 and 4 and recognizes that the east and west sides of Soapstone are inherently different, with the east side being shortgrass prairie and the west side transitioning into foothill shrublands. Cows would graze the east side of Soapstone and sheep the west side. This would provide summer pasture, but we could potentially include early season or late grazing to target weeds. Conservation Targets Ranking: Yes The NAP could likely meet its conservation targets with this alternative. Using cows on the east side in a modified rotation system would graze the shortgrass to provide a habitat mosaic and a more intensive rotation would help restore grassland health and rest the riparian areas. Using sheep on the west side would help target weeds in the foothill shrublands system and allow for more effective grazing on steeper slopes. Also, by using sheep on the west side, it allows the opportunity to shut off some of the water tanks pumping water out of Cedar Canyon and potentially restore the natural hydrology of that drainage. Similar to Alternative 4, a system needs to be in place to ensure that sheep coming onto the property are not transporting weed seeds. Page 10 of 16 Financial Impact Ranking:Low-Medium The financial impact of this alternative would be less expensive than Alternative 3 (using cows on the entire property). Additional fencing and water development would need to occur on the east side of the property to facilitate smaller pasture sizes. However, there would be minimal need for improvements on the west side. Estimated cost of development is approximately $50,000. Annual income would be generated through grazing fees, and the NAP could likely recover the cost of developments in less than 10 years. Beyond our borders-Additional considerations A local rancher or grazing association would benefit from grazing Soapstone, and he/she may be able to contribute to the locally produced beef, mutton or lamb market. LONG-TERM ALTERNATIVE 6—COMMERCL4L BISON Background This would be similar to cattle management on the property, except that the NAP would need to upgrade its infrastructure to support bison rather than cows. A rotational system similar to the scenario described in Alternative 3 would be used. The NAP would lease the property to a tenant who would run the operations. Most likely the NAP would lease this out only as summer pasture. Conservation Targets Ranking: Yes The NAP could likely meet its conservation targets. Bison are the historic natural grazers of the plains, and although their presence alone could not replicate historic grazing, many benefits could still be gained by using them as a grazing animal. Bison tend to stay out of riparian areas better than cattle do, so it may be easier to restore these areas. However, commercial bison typically contain a percentage of cattle genes and this natural tendency is more limited. It would still be necessary to move bison through pastures to ensure they did not overgraze. Bison require taller fencing than is currently on the property, and this may inhibit movement of some wildlife. Financial Impact Ranking:High The infrastructure currently in place on Soapstone is inadequate for bison. Fencing, watering tanks, and sorting facilities would all need to be upgraded. Estimated cost of development is approximately $500,000. Annual income would be generated through grazing fees, but it is unlikely that the NAP would ever recover the costs of development. Beyond our borders-Additional considerations A local bison rancher or grazing association might benefit from grazing Soapstone, and he/she may be able to contribute to the locally produced bison market. There may be some increased tourism and public enjoyment benefits due to bison presence on the property. However, commercial bison are often treated very similarly to cattle, and this poses ethical questions for the NAP because bison have a dual role of being wild animals as well as livestock. Commercial bison operators typically breed bison for characteristics that make them more cattle-like both behaviorally and physically. Page 11 of 16 LONG-TERMALTERNATIVE 7— WILDLIFE SERVICES BISON Background Wildlife Services, which is a division of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has 17 genetically pure bison. They currently reside in a small pen at the National Wildlife Research Center, a facility on CSU's Foothills Research Campus. These animals are part of a nation-wide effort aimed at conservation of plains bison and restoration of bison as a free-range wildlife species (Freese et al. 2007). The animals are intended to be a source population that is used to supplement the genetics of wild bison herds in national parks and other reserves. One of the major challenges facing bison conservation is that herds in parks and preserves are introgressed with domestic cattle genes. Translocation of the genetically pure bison would help increase the pure bison genes in that population. Wildlife Services is looking for a place to keep these bison so that they can form social groups in a natural setting before translocating those groups into herds needing additional bison genes. Soapstone is one of several possibilities they are looking into to serve this purpose. However, at this time it is unclear if Soapstone would ultimately be selected by APHIS as the appropriate location for these animals, exactly what changes would need to be made to the property to accommodate APHIS's needs, what the expectations for the NAP and staff would be, what timeframe this project may happen in, etc. Conservation Targets Ranking:Maybe Initially, the NAP would not be able to meet our conservation targets with 17 bison—they would not effectively graze Soapstone. Over time the herd could conceivably get large enough to help the NAP achieve its grazing-related conservation targets. However, at this point it is still unclear what influence the NAP would have over grazing management and what would be determined by APHIS. One concern is that bison require taller fencing than is currently on the property, and this may inhibit movement of some wildlife. Financial Impact Ranking:High If this opportunity were to come to fruition, infrastructure would need to be upgraded to accommodate bison. Unlike having an agricultural tenant lease the property and graze livestock for several months of the year, bison would live at Soapstone year round. APHIS has indicated that they would assist with vaccinations and testing for brucellosis, but NAP staff may be required to handle overall management. This would require a substantial input of staff time and Program resources. At this point it is also unclear what financial responsibilities the NAP would incur and what APHIS would provide. Beyond our borders-Additional considerations This represents a unique opportunity to contribute to nation-wide bison conservation efforts. As a high-profile project, this would likely generate some tourism as well as press coverage. There would likely also be confusion about brucellosis if animals from wild herds (such as Yellowstone) were brought into Soapstone. LONG-TERMALTERNATIVE 8— GRASSBANK Background Grassbanking is a system where a ranch's forage would be made available at a reduced fee or for free to another rancher's cattle so that the home ranch could be rested. Conservation measures Page 12 of 16 on the rancher's home ranch are also often used as part of the exchange (Harper 2006). With this type of system, Soapstone would be used as the grassbank, and local ranchers could graze Soapstone (particularly in dry years) so that they could rest their own land, or so that they would not have to reduce their herd size to accommodate less forage production in dry times. Another option is to informally work with the Utilities Department and allow the Meadow Springs Grazing Association (tenants on Meadow Springs Ranch)to periodically graze the property. Conservation Targets Ranking:Maybe At this point it is unclear if the NAP could meet its conservation targets with this alternative. Grazing is not guaranteed as it would be if the NAP leased the property to a grazing tenant. However, grassbanking would allow the NAP the opportunity for greater flexibility in grazing management and increased rest periods. Financial Impact Ranking:Low-Medium Grassbanking typically has a high administrative cost associated with it because there are multiple parties involved and a new situation every year, rather than having the stability of a permanent tenant. Most neighboring ranchers (and likely candidates for grazing under this system) are cattle operations, so to make ecological grazing feasible, additional fence and water developments may be necessary (similar to Alternative 3 or 5, with developments costs of approximately $50,000). Grazing fees are usually reduced or waived in this system so little income would be generated. The costs of infrastructure developments may never be recovered. Beyond our borders—Additional considerations This type of system would allow for conservation practices to be extended beyond the borders of Soapstone. Typically with a grassbank system, conservation practices on a rancher's property are exchanged for grass, so the NAP may have some ability to increase conservation efforts on surrounding private lands. There is also an opportunity to reach more stockgrowers than by having a single grazing tenant. However, there may not be as much of an opportunity to affect the local food economy without developing a consistent, dependable relationship with a tenant. LONG-TERMALTERNATIVES-SUMMARY Table 1 below summarizes the eight long-term alternatives based on the three evaluation criteria. Table 1. Matrix of long-term alternatives Alternative Conservation Financial Additional benefits 1 -No change No Low Local ranch economy 2 -No grazing No Low None 3 - Cows Yes Medium Local ranch economy 4 - Sheep Yes Low Local ranch economy 5 - Cows and sheep Yes Low-Medium Local ranch economy 6 - Commercial bison Yes High Local ranch economy 7 - Wildlife Services bison Maybe High Bison conservation 8 - Grassbank Maybe Low-Medium Local conservation Page 13 of 16 NAP staff believes that no change in grazing management and no livestock grazing are not acceptable long-term alternatives. No grazing can work for a short period of time (a few years) but shortgrass prairie evolved with grazing, and the condition of the range will deteriorate if it is not grazed. However, changes need to be made to the grazing system (rotation, timing, duration of grazing)to improve rangeland health and achieve the NAP's conservation targets. In order to make these changes, sheep, cows, bison or some combination thereof could be used as the grazing animal. All are workable from a standpoint of meeting the conservation targets. They have much different implications in terms of financial impact. Sheep would be the least costly option, then cows then bison at the very high end. Because of the very high cost of infrastructure for bison and ethical questions associated with commercial bison production, staff prefers that if the NAP brings bison onto Soapstone, it is through the Wildlife Services herd. However, staff needs more information about the Wildlife Services bison(and the grassbanking option)to determine if the NAP would be able to meet its conservation targets. Until the NAP learns more about these alternatives, using sheep on the entire property seems to be the best alternative—the NAP can meet its conservation targets and it would cost very little money. Realistically, there are not many local sheep producers, so the NAP may not be able to find a tenant with the ability to graze the entire property and may have to go with an alternate (a combination of sheep and cows). This question could be answered by issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP)which allows for either option. SHORT-TERM OPTIONS In order to allow time to further investigate several of the alternatives and associated issues (understanding the market for local food production, understanding Wildlife Services bison needs, etc), as well as allow time for the Meadow Springs lease to expire, implementation of any of the long-term alternatives will not begin until after 2010. NAP staff feels that there are two good options for grazing management on the property until that time. 1. OPTION 1 —EXTEND LEASE WITH FOLSOM GRAZING ASSOCIATION WITH MODIFICATIONS NAP staff will attempt to work with the Folsom Grazing Association to negotiate an extended lease agreement with modifications to the grazing system. Cows will only be used on the east side of the property and duration of time in the pastures will be adjusted. Staff will explore the possibility of altering the grazing system to include other animals (e.g., sheep on the west side). This lease extension would be brought before the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board for recommendation and City Council for action. 2. OPTION 2—REST WITH PRESCRIBED GRAZING AS NEEDED If a lease extension cannot be negotiated with Folsom Grazing Association, once the current lease expires, the NAP would essentially rest the property through 2010. Staff will consider the possibilities of prescribed grazing to focus on weed control. SUMMARY Over the next two years, NAP staff will work to gather information and resolve outstanding questions regarding long-term alternatives. Grazing management during that time will occur Page 14 of 16 through either an extended lease with Folsom Grazing Association or through rest with prescribed grazing as needed. As the short-term period draws to an end, staff will re-evaluate the long-term alternatives. Figure 2 below depicts the timeline and associated questions that need to be answered regarding grazing management of Soapstone. Figure 2. Timeline and Questionsfor Grazing Management of Soapstone Folsom lease expires Soapstone opens to the public Meadow Springs lease expires 1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Short-term Mid-term Long term 2008 - 2010 II 2010 - 2015 �Y „t t LITERATURE CITED Anderson, R.C. 2006. Evolution and origin of the Central Grassland of North America: climate, fire, and mammalian grazers. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 133: 626-647. Freese, C.H., K.E. Anne, D.P. Boyd, J.N. Derr, S.C. Forrest, C.C. Gates, P.J.P. Gogan, S.M. Grassel,N.D. Halbert, K. Kunkel, and K.H. Redfort. 2007. Second chance for the plains bison. Biological Conservation 136(2): 175-184. Harper, C. 2006. The Grassbankrm Movement, 2001: The status of grassbank initiatives in the West. The Conservation Fund. Heady, H.F. and R.D. Child. 1994. Rangeland ecology and management. Westview Press: Boulder, CO. 519 pp. Holchek, J.L., R.D. Pieper and C.H. Herbel. 1994. Range management: Principles and practices, 3rd Edition. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River,NJ. 542 pp. Page 15 of 16 Johnson-Nistler, C.M. and J.E. Knight. 2006. Noxious weed control with livestock to enhance wildlife habitat. Pages 6-12 in Nistler, C.M., J. Boren and D. Rollins, eds. Proceedings Symposia: Prescribed livestock grazing to enhance wildlife habitat; a symposium presented at: Society for Range management(SRM) 59th Annual Meeting and Trade Show"Rangelands to Rainforests." Vancouver, British Columbia. February 15, 2006. Page 16 of 16 Attachment 3 : Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 1 of 1 Legend City of C3 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Boundary Miles F6 t it 0 0 . 250 . 5 1 1 . 5 2 Natural � } ® Grazing Plan Focus N Areas Program" RESOLUTION 2008-116 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING A TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE GRAZING LEASE WITH FOLSOM GRAZING ASSOCIATION ON SOAPSTONE PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA WHEREAS, the City is the owner of approximately 18,726 acres of land known as Soapstone Prairie Natural Area(the "City Property") in northern Larimer County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, in 2005, in order to continue grazing as a habitat management tool while the management plan for the City Property is being completed, staff proposed leasing portions of the City Property to a local grazing association; and WHEREAS, after requesting and reviewing proposals for a grazing lease arrangement, City staff selected as a tenant Folsom Grazing Association, the then-current lessee on portions of the City Property; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2005, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 160, 2005, authorizing a grazing lease with Folsom Grazing Association on portions of the City Property from January 2006 through December 2008 (the "2006 Lease"); and WHEREAS, the 2006 Lease is about to expire, and staff would like to continue to lease part of the City Property to Folsom Grazing Association for up to two additional years, with new limits on the number of animal units and the area that can be grazed; and WHEREAS, a copy of the negotiated grazing lease agreement, dated November 19, 2008 (the "Grazing Lease Agreement'), is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and available for public review; and WHEREAS, staff anticipates that the proposed Grazing Lease would generate an annual revenue of$26,700, based on rental of$10.68 per animal unit per month; and WHEREAS, the portion of the City Property that would be the subject of the Grazing Lease Agreement is described on Exhibit "A", attached and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Lease Property"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 23-114 of the City Code, the City Council is authorized to lease, for a definite term of two years or less, any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by resolution, that the lease is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the proposed lease of the Lease Property to Folsom Grazing Association is in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement in a form substantially similar to the Grazing Lease Agreement and consistent with the terms of this Resolution, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including any necessary changes to the legal description of the Lease Property, so long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the Lease Property. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 2nd day of December A.D. 2008. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk EXHIBIT"A" Legal Description of Leased Premises on Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Township 11 North Ranee 68 West of the 6th P.M.,Larimer County,CO Section 4: ALL Section 5: ALL Section 6: ALL Township 12 North, Ranee 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, CO Section 19: All in State of Colorado Section 20: All in State of Colorado Section 21: All in State of Colorado Section 28: ALL Section 29: ALL Section 30: ALL Section 31: ALL Section 32: ALL Section 33: ALL Township 11 North,Range 69 West ofthe 6th P.M.,Larimer Count Section 1: ALL Section 2: ALL Section 3: ALL Section 4: SW4 ofNW4 and S2, NE 1/4 Section 11: A PORTION OF THE E 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE SE CORNER OF THE E 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE N O1' 13'41" W, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 11, A DISTANCE OF 485.68 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 541 15'46" W, A DISTANCE OF 211.52 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING 470.00 FEET, THE CENTRAL ANGLE OF SAID CURVE BEING 220 06' 28", THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE BEARS N 43° 12, 32" W, A DISTANCE OF 180.23 FEET, THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 181.35 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 32' 09' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 262.96 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING 530.00 FEET, THE CENTRAL ANGLE OF SAID CURVE BEING 120 44' 34", THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE BEARS N 38° 3 F 35" W A DISTANCE OF 117.63 FEET, THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 117.87 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING 470.00 FEET, THE CENTRAL ANGLE OF SAID CURVE BEING 43° 30' 56", THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE BEARS N 230 08' 24" W, A DISTANCE OF 348.44 FEET, THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 356.96 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N O1' 22' 56" W, A DISTANCE OF 891.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE, BEING 530.00 FEET, THE CENTRAL ANGLE OF SAID CURVE BEING 11° 05' 14", THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE BEARS N 060 55' 33" W A DISTANCE OF 102.40 FEET, THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 102.56 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 12' 28' 10" W, A DISANCE OF 270.73 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING 530.00 FEET, THE CENTRAL ANGLE OF SAID CURVE BEING 04° 44' 56", THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE BEARS N 140 50' 38" W A DISTANCE OF 43.92 FEET, THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 43.93 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE E 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 11; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 618 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NW CORNER OF THE E 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE E 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, 2676 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SW CORNER OF THE E 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE E 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, 1320 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Township 12 North, Ranee 69 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, CO Section 20: All in State of Colorado Section 21: All in State of Colorado Section 22: All in State of Colorado Section 23: All in State of Colorado Section 24: All in State of Colorado Section 25: ALL Section 26: ALL Section 27: ALL Section 28: ALL Section 29: ALL Section 32: ALL Section 33: ALL Section 34: ALL Section 35: ALL Section 36: ALL