DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper South Platte Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upper South Platte Watershed Volume 1 • Landscape Assessment Technical Report Page i LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT, UPPER SOUTH PLATTE WATERSHED Technical Report Page i LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT, UPPER SOUTH PLATTE WATERSHED Con tents Volume 1– Landscape Assessment Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1 Step 1. Characterization of the Watershed................................................................................. 3 Management Plans and Regulatory Constraints.................................................................................... 8 Step 2. Issues and Key Questions .............................................................................................. 10 Issue A. Landscape Pattern of Vegetation................................................................................ 11 Step 3. Current Condition ................................................................................................................... 12 Variation in Vegetation Structure and Composition ...................................................................................12 Disturbance Processes and the Current Condition ......................................................................................16 Fire Hazard Patterns ....................................................................................................................................17 Risk of Catastrophic Disturbance ................................................................................................................18 Existing Distribution of Invasive Plants......................................................................................................19 Existing Terrestrial Species, Sensitive Vegetation and Wildlife.................................................................20 Step 4. Reference Condition................................................................................................................ 24 Pre-European Disturbance Processes and Patterns......................................................................................24 Step 5. Synthesis ................................................................................................................................. 26 Differences Between Existing and Historical Conditions ...........................................................................26 Habitat for Terrestrial Wildlife....................................................................................................................28 Issue B. Soil Development and Movement................................................................................ 30 Step 3. Current Condition ................................................................................................................... 31 Step 4. Reference Condition................................................................................................................ 33 Step 5. Synthesis ................................................................................................................................. 36 Issue C. Water Quality and Quantity and Aquatic Habitat ................................................... 39 Step 3. Current Condition ................................................................................................................... 40 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................40 Channel Dynamic Equilibrium....................................................................................................................40 Critical Sediment Sources and Water Quality.............................................................................................42 Existing Water Quality ................................................................................................................................45 Aquatic Habitat............................................................................................................................................46 Limiting Factors for Sediment Transport ....................................................................................................47 Step 4. Reference Conditions.............................................................................................................. 48 Pre-European Sediment Yield, Transport and Deposition ..........................................................................48 Pre-European Aquatic Habitat and Fish Populations ..................................................................................48 Step 5. Synthesis Questions for Water Quality, Quantity and Aquatic Habitat.................................. 49 Landscape Synthesis ................................................................................................................... 52 Synthesis of Issue A ............................................................................................................................ 52 Synthesis of Issue B ............................................................................................................................ 52 Synthesis of Issue C ............................................................................................................................ 52 Landscape Recommendations ................................................................................................... 62 Watershed Targets............................................................................................................................... 62 Technical Report Page ii LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT, UPPER SOUTH PLATTE WATERSHED Landscape Considerations................................................................................................................... 62 Restoration Activities.......................................................................................................................... 63 Hydrology and Soils Recommendations............................................................................................. 65 Wildlife Recommendations................................................................................................................. 65 Plants ................................................................................................................................................... 65 Secondary Considerations................................................................................................................... 65 References.................................................................................................................................... 66 List of Preparers and Contributors........................................................................................... 70 Exhibits Exhibit 1. Colorado Location Map ........................................................................................................... 3 Exhibit 2. Project Location Map............................................................................................................... 4 Exhibit 3. Aerial View of the Mosaic Forest Condition at Cheesman Lake............................................. 5 Exhibit 4. Buffalo Park circa 1900 and 1999............................................................................................ 6 Exhibit 5. Deckers circa 1900 and 1999 ................................................................................................... 7 Exhibit 6. Management Areas and direction in the Assessment Area...................................................... 9 Exhibit 7. Vegetation Types in the Assessment Area............................................................................. 13 Exhibit 8. Selected Crown Closure Classes by Watershed..................................................................... 14 Exhibit 9. Fire Hazard Class for the Assessment Area Watersheds ....................................................... 18 Exhibit 10. Noxious Weeds of Concern in the Assessment Area............................................................. 19 Exhibit 11. Target Species ........................................................................................................................ 22 Exhibit 12. Degree of Departure of the Existing Condition from the Reference Condition .................... 27 Exhibit 13. Population Trends from Current to Reference Conditions in Assessment Area.................... 29 Exhibit 14. Risk by Watershed for Sustaining Long-Term Health and Natural Disturbance................... 38 Exhibit 15. Erosion Rating Breakdown by Watershed ............................................................................. 42 Exhibit 16. Sediment/Water Trends–Station Name: Buffalo Creek at Mouth at Buffalo Creek.............. 44 Exhibit 17. Watershed Restoration Priority.............................................................................................. 50 Exhibit 18. Conceptual Fish Population Sensitivity to Disturbances ....................................................... 51 Exhibit 19. Overall Watershed Restoration Ranking................................................................................ 53 Exhibit 20. Issue A Synthesis ................................................................................................................... 54 Exhibit 21. Issue B Synthesis.....................................................................Error! Bookmark
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Profiles of Colorado Roadless Areas
    PROFILES OF COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS Prepared by the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region July 23, 2008 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST ......................................................................................................10 Bard Creek (23,000 acres) .......................................................................................................................................10 Byers Peak (10,200 acres)........................................................................................................................................12 Cache la Poudre Adjacent Area (3,200 acres)..........................................................................................................13 Cherokee Park (7,600 acres) ....................................................................................................................................14 Comanche Peak Adjacent Areas A - H (45,200 acres).............................................................................................15 Copper Mountain (13,500 acres) .............................................................................................................................19 Crosier Mountain (7,200 acres) ...............................................................................................................................20 Gold Run (6,600 acres) ............................................................................................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado's 303(D) List of Impaired Waters
    COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 5 CCR 1002-93 REGULATION #93 COLORADO'S SECTION 303(D) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS AND MONITORING AND EVALUATION LIST 93.1 Authority These regulations are promulgated pursuant to section 25-8-101 et seq C.R.S. as amended, and in particular, 25-8-202 (1) (a), (b), (i), (2) and (6); 25-8-203 and 25-8-204. 93.2 Purpose This regulation establishes Colorado’s Lists of Impaired Waters. These waters include Water- Quality-Limited Segments Requiring Total Maximum Daily Loads (“TMDLs”), impaired waters that do not require a TMDL, and Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation List: (1) The list of Water-Quality-Limited Segments Requiring TMDLs fulfills requirements of section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act which requires that states submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a list of those waters for which technology-based effluent limitations and other required controls are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards. These segments are included in Section 93.3 with parameters included in the Clean Water Section 303(d) Impairment column. (2) Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation List identifies water bodies where there is reason to suspect water quality problems, but there is also uncertainty regarding one or more factors, such as the representative nature of the data. Water bodies that are impaired, but it is unclear whether the cause of impairment is attributable to pollutants as opposed to pollution, are also placed on the Monitoring and Evaluation List. This Monitoring and Evaluation list is a state-only document that is not subject to EPA approval.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Biological Data, Guanella Pass Area, Clear Creek and Park Counties, Colorado, Water Years 1995-97
    Evaluation of Biological Data, Guanella Pass Area, Clear Creek and Park Counties, Colorado, Water Years 1995-97 By Jennifer R. Cox-Lillis U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 00-54 Prepared in cooperation with the FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Denver, Colorado 2000 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Information Services Box25046, Mail Stop 415 Box 25286 Denver Federal Center Federal Center Denver, CO 80225-0046 Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Abstract.................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction................................................. 2 Purpose and Scope....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Description of Study Area........................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Short History of the Abyss Lake Trail by Ralph Bradt
    PO Box 3431 Evergreen, CO 80439 www.fomelc.org COVID-19 PRECAUTIONS: Chairman: Peter Vrolijk The safety of our community is our top priority, and we are [email protected] committed to doing our part to limit the spread of COVID-19 Trail Projects Coordinator: (aka coronavirus). We are closely monitoring guidelines Steve West from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Colorado [email protected] Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE), and how these might impact our programs. We are also Weed Projects Coordinator: coordinating with our US Forest Service partners to remain in Alan Rockwood [email protected] compliance with their COVID-19 response guidelines. Secretary: John Kruse Table of Contents: [email protected] (Click link to jump to article) Treasurer: Forest Service COVID-19 Information Matt Komos [email protected] Fire Restrictions for Mt Evans & Lost Creek Wilderness Areas Guanella Pass Road Closure Webmaster/Weeds Team Lead: FOMELC Event Status [email protected] Note from the Chairman Marketing/Education Team Lead: Gordon Brown From The Weed Patch [email protected] History of the Abyss Lake Trail Membership: Kay Hoisington Survey 123 Trail Patrol App [email protected] Marketing & Education: Changes to State Wildlife Area Access Newsletter: Trails & Mud – Spring Hiking Dee Lyons [email protected] Hiking on Mother’s Day – Story by Dave Forest Service Liaison FOMELC Mission Statement Ralph Bradt [email protected] Page 4 of 15 Recreation Area Closures Through May 31, 2020, all developed recreation sites and facilities on both the Pike and San Isabel, and Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests are closed to all use.
    [Show full text]
  • C Lear Creek GIS C Ounty
    Creek G ilpin C o unty D D D 12147 D Jefferson County G ty Gilpin County rand Coun ICE LAKE D OHMAN LAKE STEUART LAKE D D REYNOLDS LAKE D D 13391 LAKE CAROLINELOCH LOMAND ST MARYS GLACIER Fox Mountain ST MARYS DLAKE FALL RIVER SILVER LAKE D D LAKE QUIVIRA 11239 13130 FALL RIVER RESERVOIR SLATER LAKE D SILVER CREEK SHERWIN LAKECHINNS LAKE Witter Peak D D 12884 D D James Peak Wilderness MEXICAN GULCH D ETHEL LAKEBYRON LAKE D D BILL MOORE LAKE HAMLIN GULCH D D 13132 CUMBERLAND GULCH D MILL CREEK D D Russell Peak Breckinridge Peak Berthoud Pass D D 12889 G D D ilp D in D C D ou n ty D Grand C D D ounty D MAD CREEK LION CREEK D Stanley Mountain YORK GULCH D D FALL RIVER 12521 BLUE CREEK Cone Mountain D D HOOP CREEK 12244 SPRING GULCH Red Elephant Hill D 10316 D ¤£US 40 D CLEAR CREEK This map is visual representation only, do not use Bellevue Mountain URAD RESERVOIR (LOWER) for legal purposes. Map is not survey accurate and ¨¦§I 70 D WEST FORK CLEAR CREEK 9863 Seaton Mountain may not comply with National Mapping Accuracy Red Mountain D D GUANELLA RESERVOIR 9105 12315 EMPIRE n County Standards. Map is based on best available data as Gilpi RUBY CREEK Ball Mountain Douglas Mountain of October, 2018 . BUTLER GULCH CENTRAL CITY D D VIRGINIA CANYON Lincoln Mountain GEORGIA GULCH 12529 9550 OHIO GULCH WOODS CREEK D GILSON GULCH Engelmann Peak 10363 TURKEY GULCH D IDAHO HASSELL LAKEURAD RESERVOIR (UPPER) 13362 BARD CREEK LAKE SILVER CREEK TRAIL CREEK J e US 6 f f ¤£ e r s o BARD CREEK SPRINGS n Flirtation Peak C Robeson Peak Columbia Mountain o ty
    [Show full text]
  • Water-Quality Characteristics of Selected Streams in Park County, Colorado, September 1999
    USGS science for a changing world Prepared in cooperation with Park County Government and the Center of Colorado Water Conservancy District Water-Quality Characteristics of Selected Streams in Park County, Colorado, September 1999 INTRODUCTION In 1998, Park County had 13,330 residents and was one of the fastest growing counties in Colorado based on percentage of change in population. With increasing population and development comes an increased demand for water resources and the potential to affect the quality of the resource. Local entities in Park County are interested in obtaining current information on the status of water quality in the county. This information can be used to improve land-use and water-management strategies and to help identify current (1999) and future water-quality concerns. The Middle Fork South Platte River Basin north of Alma Park County encompasses about 2,210 square miles in central Colorado and is adjacent to the eastern side of the Continental Divide. Most of Park County is situated in the headwaters area of the South Platte River Basin; major tributaries are Tarryall Creek and the South, Middle, and North Forks of the South Platte River (fig. 1). The southern part of the county is drained by streams in the Arkansas River Basin, including Badger, Currant, and West Fourmile Creeks (fig. 1). During September 13-16, 1999, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with Park County Government and the Center of Colorado Water Conservancy District, conducted a EXPLANATION Xfci ^ense'8 T^ reconnaissance sampling of stream-water c go1 jjm~"-' O^k °O Sampling site Salt Creek Q^Antero quality at several sites throughout the county.
    [Show full text]
  • April 30, 2010 A
    WATER QUALITY INFORMATION BULLETIN Highlights For May 2010 Agenda: No WQCC meeting in May 2010 http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/Meetings/wqag.html Notice of Public Rulemaking Hearing Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations (5 CCR 1003-1) http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/RulemakingProceedings/CPDWR/CPDWR.html Notice of Final Adoption Classifications and Numeric Standards for South Platte River Basin, Laramie River Basin, Republican River Basin, Smoky Hill River Basin, Regulation #38 (5 CCR 1002-38) http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/wqccregs/index.html Summary of Proceedings/Motions (DRAFT) Water Quality Control Commission Regular Meeting, April 12, 2010 http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/Meetings/meetingsummaries/1004SUM.pdf Water Quality Control Commission Long-Range Schedule http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/Meetings/LRSandNotes/Aprsch2010.pdf Explanatory Notes regarding Water Quality Commission Long-Range Schedule http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/Meetings/LRSandNotes/10noteApr.pdf PUBLICATION DATE: April 30, 2010 A. PERMIT ACTIONS 1. PERMITS SENT TO PUBLIC NOTICE ON APRIL 23, 2010 – COMMENTS DUE BY MAY 23, 2010 The website to view public notices and drafts: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit/PUBLICNOTICE/publiccommentnewpage.html 2. DISCHARGE PERMITS ISSUED – MARCH 2010 PERMITTEE PERMIT NO. COUNTY DATE ISSUED Big Elk Meadows Water Assn CO-047724 Larimer 03/12/2010 Town of Milliken CO-042528 Weld 03/23/2010 Seneca Coal Co, LLC (A) CO-000221 Routt 03/31/2010 Spring Valley Sanitation Dist CO-046124 Garfield 03/31/2010 Town of Mead (A) CO-046876 Weld 03/31/2010 Spring Valley Ranch (A) CO-046965 Elbert 03/31/2010 Arapahoe County Water & Wastewater Auth (A) CO-047589 Arapahoe 03/31/2010 Sage Creek Coal Co LLC CO-048275 Routt 03/31/2010 (A) Denotes Amendment 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Mount Evans Herd
    RBS-4 Bighorn Sheep Management Plan 2016 BIGHORN SHEEP MANAGEMENT PLAN DATA ANALYSIS UNIT RBS-4 Mount Evans Herd GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS S3, S4, and S41 Prepared for: Colorado Parks and Wildlife By: Lance M. Carpenter Wildlife Biologist Northeast Region RBS-4 Bighorn Sheep Management Plan 2016 DAU-RBS 4 (Mount Evans and Peru Creek) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GMUs: S3, S4 and S41 Tier Status: 1 (large, native population that has been supplemented with ≤ 50 animals) Land Ownership: 66% USFS, 26% Private, 4% City/Counties, 2% CPW, 2% Other Entities Posthunt Population: Previous Objective 200-225; 2013 Estimate 270; Current Objective 200-300 3-Year Average Age of Harvested Rams: Previous Objective not applicable; 2013 Estimate 7 years; Current Objective 6-8 years 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 Population Estimate Population 50 0 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 Posthunt - S3/S4 Population Estimate Posthunt - Population Estimate with S41 Population Objective Figure 1. DAU RBS-4 bighorn sheep posthunt population estimates from 1978 to 2013 and objective range from 1992-2013. Estimates based on annual summer surveys assuming a 0.70 sighting probability. i RBS-4 Bighorn Sheep Management Plan 2016 14 12 10 8 Years 6 4 2 0 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 Rings 3-Year Average Figure 2. DAU RBS-4 age and 3-year average age of harvested rams from 1987 to 2013. 15 12 9 6 3 Number Removed Number 0 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 Rams Ewes Figure 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Guanella Pass Scenic and Historic Byway Corridor Management Strategy
    GGUUAANNEELLLLAA PPAASSSS SCENIC AND HISTORIC BYWAY CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT STRATEGY PREPARED BY: The Guanella Pass Scenic Byway Committee IN ASSOCIATION WITH: The U.S. Forest Service December 2001 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Guanella Pass Scenic and Historic Byway Corridor Management Strategy was collaboratively developed by a diverse group of stakeholders who together made up the Scenic Byway Committee. This plan would not have been possible without the support, time, energy and continued enthusiasm of the following Scenic Byway Committee members and some of the other individuals, partnering organizations and agencies listed below. Scenic Byway Committee Members Chris Allen, Town of Georgetown Resident Barbara Boyer, Scenic Colorado Sally Guanella Buckland, Clear Creek County Resident Stephanie Donoho, Clear Creek County Tourism Board Scott Dugan, Tumbling River Ranch Julie Holmes, Clear Creek County Resident Lynda James, Park County Resident Phil Kummer, Colorado Mountain Club Cindy Neely, Town of Georgetown Paul Nisler, Town of Georgetown Resident Jo Ann Sorenson, Clear Creek County Commissioners Peggy Stokestad, Clear Creek County Economic Development Corporation D’Arcy Straub, Citizen-at-Large – Town of Dillon Elizabeth Wessling, Park County Property Owner Tom Wilson, Town of Georgetown Business Owner Frank Young, Clear Creek County Open Space Commission United States Forest Service Rick Dustin, Arapaho Forest Landscape Architect Mark Forgy, Document Editor Daniel Lovato, Clear Creek District Ranger Randy Hickenbottom, South Platte District
    [Show full text]
  • 2001 Strategic Plan
    trategic S Plan Protection Association Adopted February 2001 Upper South Platte Watershed Vision A Healthy Watershed—Now and in the Future Mission The Upper South Platte Watershed Protection Association seeks to protect the water quality and ecological health of the Upper South Platte Watershed, through the cooperative efforts of watershed stakeholders, with emphasis placed on com- munity values and economic sustainability. articipants in PPlanning Process Members of the General Public and Representatives from: Alma Aurora Water Resources Bureau of Land Management Centennial Water & Sanitation District Center of Colorado Conservancy District Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment Colorado Department of Transportation Colorado Division of Water Resources Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado State Forest Service Colorado State Trust Land Board Colorado Trout Unlimited Denver Regional Council of Governments Denver Water Department Douglas County Environmental Protection Agency (US) Fairplay Fairplay Sanitation District Forest Service (US) Jefferson County Jefferson County Soil Conservation District Park County Park County Advisory Board on the Environment Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments Sierra Club Teller Park Soil Conservation District United States Geological Survey Upper South Platte Conservancy District USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service History Two issues contributed to the initial Source Water Assessment Programs interest in getting this group together. First, (SWAP) require water providers to in 1994/95, the USFS did a study of seg- look at areas that impact their water ments of the South Platte within Forest quality. Service boundaries to assess whether any Based on these two issues, Denver river segments within the boundaries might and Aurora pulled together interested qualify for designation under the Wild and parties to assess if there were ways to Scenic Rivers Act, based on Outstandingly protect the ORVs without Federal des- Remarkable Values (ORVs).
    [Show full text]
  • Business Plan Upper South Platte Watershed
    Business Plan Upper South Platte Watershed PROTECTION AND RESTORATION PROJECT June 2000 Business Plan June 2000 UPPER SOUTH PLATTE WATERSHED Restoration and Protection Project Contents I. Executive Summary 1 II. The Land, the Water, & the Ecosystem 3 III. The Customers and The Public Benefit 9 IV. The Controversies 10 V. The Competitive Strategy 13 VI. Marketing and Sales 15 VII. Partnerships 18 VIII. Operational Plan 22 IX. Governance 30 X. The Project Implementation Team 31 XI. Measurement and Accountability 32 XII. Assumptions and Risks 33 XIII. Financial Plan 35 XIV. Our Concerns 36 Appendix A: Project Timeline 37 Appendix B: Synthesis of Landscape Assessment Issues, 39 Findings, and Recommendations 39 Appendix C: Target Audiences 47 Appendix D: Five-Year Summary of the Revenues Available and Needed to Fund the Upper South Platte Project 50 Appendix E: Project Financing Summary 56 Appendix F: Denver Water Vegetation Management Program 57 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Upper South Platte Watershed is critical to Colorado. Eighty percent of the water used by 1.5 million Denver metropolitan residents comes from or is transmitted through this river drainage. Most of the Watershed is located within the Pike National Forest southwest of the city of Denver. The South Platte River is a major recreation area in Colorado and is highly regarded for its trout fishery. Water quality issues have become a major concern in recent years. The Colorado Unified Watershed Assessment identified the Upper South Platte River as a high priority watershed in need of restoration. The Buffalo Creek Fire burned approximately 12,000 acres within the Watershed in 1996, resulting in the loss of several homes and essential forest cover on highly erodible soils.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquilegia Spring 2014 38-1
    Newsletter of the Colorado Native Plant Society Aquilegia Over 45 Field Trips! See inside! FIELD TRIP ISSUE Advocacy! Conservation Corner Reports Survey Results Taking Native Plants to School Meet the North American Native Plant Society Volume 38, No. 1 Spring 2014 Aquilegia Volume 38, No. 1 Spring 2014 1 Aquilegia: Newsletter of the Colorado Native Plant Society Dedicated to furthering the knowledge, appreciation, and conservation of native plants and habitats of Colorado through education, stewardship, and advocacy Volume 38 Number 1 Spring 2014 ISSN 2161-7317 (Online) - ISSN 2162-0865 (Print) Message from the President Inside this issue Please welcome our first Field Trips......................................................................3-12 advertiser, Harlequin’s Gardens. Chapters & Committees News............................13-14 Their color ad can be found on News & Announcements......................................15-17 the back cover of Aquilegia. Located in Boulder, Harlequin’s Articles.........................................................................17-24 Gardens is a name that is sure Increased Advocacy Efforts Favored..................18 to come up when someone asks where to find a good The North American Native Plant Society........22 selection of native plants. It is a family business owned Taking Native Plants to School............................23 by Mikl Brawner and Eve Reshetnik. Mikl is a long time Phylogenetics Simplified.......................................26 CoNPS and Boulder Chapter member who has promoted Calendar.............................................................................29 conservation and been successful in propagating CoNPS & the Board of Directors.................................30 Physaria bellii. Membership Application.............................................31 Enter the CoNPS Annual Photo Contest! The deadline for the 2014 Colorado Native Plant Society Photo Contest is August 15, 2014. There are two categories: Colorado Native Plants. and Colorado Native Plant Landscapes/Habitats.
    [Show full text]