VEGETATION & WILDLIFE MONITORING REPORT UPDATE 2018 & 2019 GROWING SEASONS

Submitted: Sky Mountain Park Open Space February 2020 Pitkin County, Colorado

Prepared for: Pitkin County Open Space and Trails 530 East Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, CO 81611

Prepared by: Peak Ecological Services, LLC 301 Boulder Canyon Drive, PO Box 827 Nederland, Colorado 80466

Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC 0100 Elk Run Drive, Suite 128 Basalt, CO 81621

VEGETATION & WILDLIFE MONITORING REPORT UPDATE 2018 & 2019 GROWING SEASONS Sky Mountain Park Open Space Pitkin County, Colorado

revision date: April 2, 2020

Summary This report summarizes past actions and various studies that have occurred at Sky Mountain Park over the last decade and includes the results of several new studies conducted in 2018 and 2019. Specifically, this report finds:

1) The state rare silverleaf milkvetch populations (Astragalus argophyllus var. martini) are healthy and are not adversely affected by the new mountain bike trails. Additional populations of this plant were documented in 2018. 2) The oak mastication treatments conducted in 2014 were very successful. The result is greater age class diversity across the landscape with improved vegetation health, more palatable forage for elk and mule deer, and greater mast production for bears and small mammals. 3) Past efforts at restoring a decadent mountain big sagebrush – crested wheatgrass shrubland were largely unsuccessful. 4) There are opportunities for ecological enhancement at several aspen stands scattered throughout Sky Mountain Park. 5) There are additional opportunities for wetland and riparian restoration. 6) Noxious weeds, while present, are being controlled and the noxious weed treatment program should continue. Furthermore, the oak mastication treatment areas are relatively noxious weed free. 7) Baseline monitoring of vegetation and wildlife resources should continue.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 BACKGROUND ...... 1 3.0 SILVERLEAF MILKVETCH MONITORING ...... 2 3.1 Methods ...... 3 3.2 Results ...... 3 3.3 Conclusion ...... 4 4.0 GAMBEL OAK SHRUBLAND HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ...... 4 4.1 Monitoring Methods ...... 5 4.2 Results ...... 6 4.2.1 Vegetation Quantitative Data 2018 ...... 6 4.2.2 Vegetation and Wildlife Qualitative Observations 2016-2019 ...... 8 4.3 Conclusion ...... 9 4.4 Communication Graphic ...... 9 5.0 SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND RESTORATION ...... 10 5.1 BackgRound and Methods ...... 10 5.2 Results ...... 10 5.3 Discussion and Conclusions ...... 11 5.4 Sagebrush Shrubland Test Plot Design ...... 11 6.0 ASPEN FOREST HEALTH ...... 12 6.1 Background ...... 12 6.2 Aspen Ecology and Potential Management Actions ...... 13 6.3 Assesment Methods ...... 15 6.4 Results ...... 16 6.5 Project Design Criteria ...... 17 7.0 WETLAND AND RIPARIAN HABITATS ...... 18 8.0 NOXIOUS WEEDS ...... 19 9.0 BASELINE MONITORING ...... 21 9.1 Wildlife Monitoring ...... 21 9.2 Baseline Vegetation Transects ...... 23 9.3 Baseline Vegetation Type Mapping & Floristic Inventory ...... 23 10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 24 11.0 REFERENCES ...... 26 12.0 MAPS ...... 29 APPENDIX A. ASPEN FOREST HEALTH DATA TABLE ...... A1-A4 APPENDIX B. ASPEN FOREST HEALTH PHOTO LOG ...... B1-B25 APPENDIX C. SKY MOUNTAIN PARK VEGETATION TREATMENT PLAN COMMUNICATION GRAPHIC ...... C1-C2 APPENDIX D. REVISED VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES LIST...... D1-D11

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page i

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Results of the 2018 Silverleaf Milkvetch Monitoring ...... 4 Table 2. 2018 Vegetation Quantitative Data for Oak Mastication Treatments...... 6 Table 3. Aspen Stands Recommended for Management Actions ...... 16 Table 4. Noxious Weeds Identified at Sky Mountain Park Complex ...... 20

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Aspen Regeneration Triangle. Adapted from Sheppard (2004)...... 13 Figure 2. Aspen Condition Classification Chart (Oregon State, 2010)...... 15

LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1. Silverleaf milkvetch plant in good condition adjacent to the Skyline Ridge Trail (May 23, 2018)...... 3 Photo 2. Mastication treatment by Tigercat mulcher at Sky Mountain Park (October 7, 2014)...... 4 Photo 3. Gambel oak response to mastication. (September 24, 2015)...... 8 Photo 4.Mule deer does observed within a treatment area. (August 14, 2018) ...... 8 Photo 5. Decadent sagebrush, Seven Star Ranch...... 10 Photo 6. Aspen stand on Upper North Mesa. This stand has seen significant aspen regeneration following a mortality event. Note the dead mature trees. (September 20, 2019) ...... 16 Photo 7. Decadent aspen stand that shows very little aspen regeneration (September 20, 2019)...... 17 Photo 8. Fen invaded by cattails, Upper North Mesa (July, 2011)...... 19

LIST OF MAPS Map 1. Project Location ...... 30 Map 2. Silverleaf Milkvetch Populations ...... 31 Map 3. Gambel Oak Treatment Areas ...... 32 Map 4. Sagebrush Shrubland Restoration ...... 33 Map 5. Aspen Forest Health Recommendations ...... 34 Map 6. Recommendations for Wetland and Riparian Habitats ...... 35 Map 7. Noxious Weeds ...... 36 Map 8. Revised Vegetation Types ...... 37

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION This study was developed to aid Pitkin County Open Space and Trails (OST) in their upcoming Management Plan Revision for Sky Mountain Park. Since inception of Sky Mountain Park and the original biological resource surveys conducted in 2011 (WER and WS 2011, WER 2012), there have been additional studies and management actions that have taken place. This report summarizes the past actions and various studies that have occurred at Sky Mountain Park since inception and provides recommendations for OST to consider in future management plans.

Specifically, this report addresses the following questions:

1) Are new and expanded recreation trails adversely affecting the health and viability of the state rare silverleaf milkvetch populations (Astragalus argophyllus var. martini)? 2) Were the vegetation treatment/wildlife habitat improvement projects effective? More specifically, did the Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) mastication treatments conducted in 2014 meet the project goals and objectives? 3) Were the crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) elimination and reseeding efforts conducted in 2012 and 2013 in decadent sagebrush shrubland effective? 4) What is the current status of aspen stands at Sky Mountain Park and what management actions should be taken to ensure long-term resiliency? 5) Riparian and Wetland Health – What actions are necessary (if any) to restore and rehabilitate any degraded sections of Brush Creek as well as the fen on Upper North Mesa? 6) Are ongoing weed management activities keeping noxious weed populations at bay? 7) What is the status of the Wildlife and Vegetation Baseline Monitoring at Sky Mountain Park?

2.0 BACKGROUND Sky Mountain Park encompasses over 2,500 acres of public open space located between the Town of Snowmass Village and the City of Aspen and consists of two northeast to southwest trending ridges bisected by Brush Creek Road as well as agricultural lands along Highway 82 (Map 1). Vegetation types include mountain shrublands predominately dominated by Gambel oak with serviceberry, sagebrush shrublands, small stands of aspen forest, pockets of conifers, agricultural grasslands, shale badlands, and wetland and riparian habitats. Sky Mountain Park protects critical Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis nelsoni) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus) winter range and migration corridors, and provides important habitat for a variety of songbirds and small mammals. The elevation ranges from a high of 9,116 feet to a low of 7,340 feet.

The existing 2012 Management Plan includes several management actions which are summarized below and addressed in more detail in the following report:

1) Improve wildlife habitat a. Seasonal closure Dec. 1 – May 15 b. Eliminate noxious weeds. c. Mechanical treatments on 300 acres of oak/mixed shrubland to simulate typical disturbance by fire and monitor such treatments for efficacy and invasion by noxious weeds. d. Allow elk hunting on Pitkin County owned parcels.

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 1

2) Aspen regeneration a. Monitor each aspen stand and determine best management activities. 3) Sagebrush, Grassland, Former Agriculture, and Disturbed Area Restoration a. Develop a plan and test different methods for creating more species diversity in decadent sagebrush areas dominated by crested wheatgrass in the understory. b. Reclaim agricultural ponds and create a plan to restore the disturbed area and former agricultural pasture back to native grass and shrublands. c. When no longer needed for restoration or management, restore the old road on the former Droste parcel back to native vegetation. 4) Noxious Weed Control a. Develop and implement an Integrated Pest Management Plan to manage all state-listed noxious weeds. b. Engage the community through volunteer weed removal days. 5) Agriculture a. Continue agricultural uses on Cozy Point South and Cozy Point. 6) Surveys a. Complete a thorough inventory of the silverleaf milkvetch (Astragalus argophyllus var. martini). b. Continue avian point counts. c. Monitor vegetation transects and establish new transects in areas slated for vegetation manipulation. d. Work with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to determine need for a mule deer movement study. 7) Riparian and Wetland Restoration a. Functional at Risk rated wetland/riparian areas should be monitored and plans developed for restoration. b. Fen restoration, protection, and signage c. Realign existing trails and design new trails to be a minimum of 100 meters from wetlands and riparian areas where possible. 8) Recreation a. The plan includes details on creating new trails, trail heads, dog restrictions, and commercial and special use actions. 9) Signage and Education a. The plan includes recommendations for including more educational signage.

3.0 SILVERLEAF MILKVETCH MONITORING The silverleaf milkvetch (Astragalus argophyllus var. martinii) is ranked by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) as G5T4/S1, or globally secure but State critically imperiled. However, this state ranking is likely to change to S2, State imperiled, due in part to the 2012 findings in Pitkin County (Jill Handwerk, personal communication). Its overall range includes the mountains enclosing the Colorado Basin, from the Grand River north through northwest Colorado, west along the Uinta Range, and south along the east slope of the Wasatch Range to central Utah; also northwest along the Bear River and adjacent hill country into southwest Wyoming and southeast Idaho, and it is apparently disjunct in northern Arizona (Welsh et al. 2008). Throughout its range, silverleaf milkvetch occurs on dry, gravelly, sandy hillsides, stony ridges, mesas, and canyon benches,

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 2

in sagebrush, mountain brush, aspen, and spruce-fir communities from 5,500 to 10,000 feet (Welsh 2007). This plant is distinguished by its cespitose habit, basifixed (rather than dolabriform) hairs on its leaves, strigulose pods, and flowers that are whitish tinged with purple and a purple keel (Ackerfield 2015). On Sky Mountain Park, this plant species appears to be restricted to flat to moderate slopes of the upper member of the Mancos Shale Formation, which is a dark-gray shale common along the Skyline Ridge as well as North Rim Trail on Upper North Mesa.

Previous surveys for this plant were conducted by Rea Orthner in May of 2012 and the total population size was estimated to be around 3,000 plants (WER 2012). The objectives of the 2018 survey described herein were to answer questions directly related to the management of the property: (1) Are the PHOTO 1. SILVERLEAF MILKVETCH PLANT IN GOOD populations stable, increasing or decreasing? (2) What are the CONDITION ADJACENT TO THE SKYLINE RIDGE TRAIL effects of recreation pressures on this rare plant? (3) Are there (MAY 23, 2018). additional management actions that OST should be taking to protect this valuable resource?

3.1 METHODS

Surveys for silverleaf milkvetch were conducted by Rea Orthner of Peak Ecological Services, LLC and one field assistant. The surveys were conducted on May 21, 22 and 23, 2018, at the same time of year as the surveys conducted in 2012. Of the 38 sub-populations identified in 2012, 10 were chosen in 2018 for re-analysis. All of these 10 sub-populations occur along the Skyline Ridge Trail, which is heavily used by mountain bikers and hikers. This trail traverses the ridge from Snowmass Village to near Highway 82 separating the Brush Creek and Owl Creek Valleys. The trail is seasonally closed until mid-May. In addition, a new area along the North Rim Trail adjacent to the Upper North Mesa parcel was explored for the presence of silverleaf milkvetch. This area had not been previously visited.

Within each sub-population, the area was systematically searched for plants by walking closely spaced parallel transects and recording the total number of plants found. Waypoints were taken at representative locations which aided in more accurately defining the maximum extent of each polygon. This information was then downloaded into ESRI's ArcMap software and a GIS shapefile generated of the results. Representative photographs were also taken. A Garmin GPSmap 60CSx unit with differential correction technology and accuracies of 10-20 feet was used to take all plant location data. Map 2 illustrates the GPS survey tracks during the field reconnaissance.

3.2 RESULTS Of the 10 subpopulations resurveyed in 2018, 9 showed increases in the number of plants and one showed a small decrease. Overall, there was a net increase of 427 plants identified in 2018 over the 2012 count. See Table 1 and Map 2. However, while every effort was made to resample the exact same locations, most of the populations slightly increased in size; i.e., additional plants were found outside of the original 2012 survey area. During the 2018 survey, all plants encountered appeared healthy and no adverse impacts from increased recreation were observed.

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 3

TABLE 1. RESULTS OF THE 2018 SILVERLEAF MILKVETCH MONITORING Sub-Population Change in Number 2012 Plant Count 2018 Plant Count Number of Plants 1 646 615 -31 3 15 24 9 7 61 119 58 8 1 3 2 9 11 33 22 12 11 115 104 13 8 67 59 15 21 39 18 16 38 86 48 21 144 282 138 Total Count 956 1,383 427 Surveys were conducted in late May of 2012 and 2018

3.3 CONCLUSION The systematic re-count of silverleaf milkvetch along the Skyline Ridge Trail at Sky Mountain Park revealed that the population is stable and no adverse impacts from increased recreation were observed. Adverse impacts could potentially include trampling, increased dust, or erosion and sedimentation resulting from use of trails in adverse conditions. None of these impacts were observed in any discernable quantities. Hence, no additional management actions by OST are warranted at this time. However, we do recommend that OST maintain the seasonal closure in order to prevent trail widening during the muddy snowmelt runoff season.

4.0 GAMBEL OAK SHRUBLAND HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Oak shrublands and woodlands are disturbance-dependent plant communities. For example, fires burned pre- settlement oak dominated communities, on average, at least once every 10-20 years. Fire is part of Gambel oak’s evolutionary environment and multiple growth forms of the species persist in frequently burned shrublands as compared to the single age class conditions we observe currently throughout the Roaring Fork Watershed and the Western Slope of Colorado. In the fall of 2014, OST completed a treatment of 105 acres of decadent Gambel oak at Sky Mountain Park (Map 3). The treatment areas were selected on the basis of stand decadence (i.e., old and degenerate growth indicating a general lack of vigor and vitality) and where treatments would have the greatest possible improvement of ecological health and ungulate habitat. The treatments were implemented by Western Timber Management under PHOTO 2. MASTICATION TREATMENT BY TIGERCAT contract with OST. Mastication of targeted oaks was MULCHER AT SKY MOUNTAIN PARK (OCTOBER 7, 2014). completed using a single Tigercat M726E mulcher with a Fecon BH250 head (Photo 2). Mastication involved the reduction of vegetation into small chunks by grinding, shredding or chopping using a front-end or boom-mounted rotary blade or drum-type head. Although habitat

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 4

improvement was the primary objective of this effort, the benefits were many, including wildfire management through fuel reduction and breaking continuity, both horizontal (across the ground) and vertical (from the ground up into the vegetation crown).

As described above, treatment areas were chosen based on stand decadence through the selection of areas exhibiting the greatest degree of old, depauperate growth, and a general lack of vigor and vitality (Golder 2014). Decadent oak stands contain large amounts of dead material that present an increased fire danger and that produce a reduced number of acorns and palatable vegetation. Removal of decadent trees encourages the resprouting of young, vigorous oak and releases complimentary understory species such as mountain big sagebrush, Saskatoon serviceberry, and numerous graminoids and herbaceous dicots. An additional benefit of reducing the decadent oak in situ is the creation of mulch, which assists regeneration with favorable water relations when present in small amounts (under 3-in of vegetative cover). Finally, the removal of decadent oak, in some cases, also assists in the scarification of adjacent aspen stands, thereby inducing new aspen sprouts, further assisting in the recruitment of new cohorts, greater age diversity, and improved wildlife habitat. As part of Golder Associates’ (Golder) baseline assessment, they sampled 3 transects within the Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak – Mixed Montane Shrubland Community in order to establish a pre-treatment baseline for monitoring purposes (Golder 2015). Vegetation cover, species of special concern, and species richness data were collected using a “modified” point-intercept method (Mandel, personal communication).

4.1 MONITORING METHODS In order to determine the effectiveness of the Gambel oak mastication treatments, three 50-meter long vegetation transects were established within the post-treatment areas in July of 2018. The start and end points of the transects were recorded with a sub-meter Trimble Geo7x GPS unit and the aspect, slope, and orientation (i.e. compass direction relative to the start point) were also recorded. Each transect was photographed from both ends. Each transect end was marked with an 8-inch long metal spike as well as a 3- foot-tall orange fiberglass rod. This quantitative field work was conducted on July 24, 2018, by Rea Orthner and one field technician. See Map 3.

Vegetation cover data were collected by Rea Orthner as point-intercept data, using the Cover-Point optical scope (Buckner 1985). Point data were collected at each meter, with one point at 0.5m from the center line on both sides of the transect for a total of 100 points (2 points at each meter X 50 meters). Data were recorded as first-hit and second-hit data for vegetation; and ground cover hits were recorded separately for bare soil, rock, litter, standing dead, and water. Rock was considered to be any inorganic material greater than 1 cm. in diameter. Standing dead was considered to be any organic material that was still standing and was produced in the previous growing seasons. Data on species richness was collected by identifying and listing all plant species present in a two-meter-wide by 50-meter-long quadrat centered along the cover transect. The final species richness value is presented as the number of species per 100 m².

For each vegetation cover transect, the percent absolute cover of vegetation, rock, soil, litter, and standing dead was calculated using only first hit data. The relative cover of each plant species was calculated using both first and second hit data of vegetation. Species richness was calculated by counting the total number of vascular plants present in each 100 m² (2-meter by 50-meter) quadrat. The data were then summarized.by absolute cover (vegetation or non-vegetative cover), and relative cover of native versus non-native plants.

In addition, the project team conducted qualitative observations on the success of the treatment. These included several site visits in 2018 and 2019 by wildlife biologist Jonathan Lowsky of Colorado Wildlife Science (CWS).

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 5

4.2 RESULTS

4.2.1 VEGETATION QUANTITATIVE DATA 2018 As shown in Table 2, the mean absolute vegetation cover of the three transects is 61.0% with the non- vegetative cover comprised of litter (28.7%), soil (10.0 %) and standing dead (0.3%). Shrubs dominate the vegetation with a mean relative cover of 75.4%. The most common shrubs included Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii, 50.3%) and serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia, 13.7%), with a lessor amount of snowberry (Symphoricarpos rotundifolius, 8.7%). Perennial graminoids account for 14.8% of the vegetative cover with elk sedge (Carex geyeri, 8.7%), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis, 3.3%), and squirrel tail (Elymus elymoides, 2.2%) predominating. Finally, a diversity of forbs are present within the transects and make up 9.8% of the vegetative cover. Most common are flowery phlox (Phlox multiflora 4.4%), whiteflower pea (Lathyrus lanszwerti, 1.6%), ballhead sandwort (Eremogone congesta, 1.6%), and northern bedstraw (Galium boreale, 1.1%). Mule’s ears (Wyethia amplexicaule) and aspen fleabane (Erigeron speciosus) account for less than 1% each.

The results of the species richness (or diversity) sampling revealed a mean species diversity of 25.33 species for 100 m2 and ranged from a low of 21 species in transect T2 to a high of 29 in T1. All of the species documented are native with the exception of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), which is widely naturalized in the area. The average height of the shrubs was 2½ to 3½ feet.

When post-treatment data is compared to the pre-treatment data collected by Golder in 2014, there is a net increase in the number of species present in the post-treatment data. More specifically, the mean number of species in 2014 was 19.7, which is 5.6 species lower than the 2018 mean of 25.3 species per 100 m2. Overall, between the two monitoring periods, the species were very similar with only minor differences attributed to differences in location between the three transects.

TABLE 2. 2018 VEGETATION QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR OAK MASTICATION TREATMENTS.

SAMPLE# T-1 T-2 T-3 Date 7/24/2018 7/24/2018 7/24/2018 Number of Species 29 21 26 Number of Native Species 28 20 25 Number Non-Native Species 1 1 1 Total C 161 108 139 Mean C 5.6 5.1 5.3 Total Hits 100 100 100 Total Vegetation Cover 61 70 52 Total Non-Vegetation Cover 39 30 48 Mean Mean 1st Hit 1st Hit 1st Hit Absolute Relative Scientific Name Common Name Native Data Data Data Cover Cover Shrubs/Subshrubs Amelanchier alnifolia Serviceberry N 5 13 7 8.3% 13.7% Artemisia tridentata var. vaseyana Mountain big sagebrush N p 1 p 0.3% 0.5% Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Sticky rabbitbrush N 3 p p 1.0% 1.6% Mahonia repens Oregon grape N p 0.0% 0.0% Prunus virginiana var. melanocarpa Chokecherry N p 0.0% 0.0% Purshia tridentata Antelope bitterbrush N 1 p 0.3% 0.5% Quercus gambelii Gambel oak N 30 45 17 30.7% 50.3% Symphoricarpos rotundifolius (=S. oreophilus) Roundleaf snowberry N 4 7 5 5.3% 8.7% Shrubs/Subshrubs Total 43.0% 66.0% 29.0% 46.0% 75.4%

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 6

TABLE 2. 2018 VEGETATION QUANTITATIVE DATA FOR OAK MASTICATION TREATMENTS.

Mean Mean 1st Hit 1st Hit 1st Hit Absolute Relative Scientific Name Common Name Native Data Data Data Cover Cover Perennial Graminoids Achnatherum lettermanii Letterman's needlegrass N 1 p p 0.3% 0.5% Bromus ciliatus (=Bromopsis canadensis) Fringed brome N p p 0.0% 0.0% Carex geyeri Elk sedge N 3 2 11 5.3% 8.7% Elymus elymoides Squirreltail N 1 p 3 1.3% 2.2% Festuca saximontana Rocky Mountain Fescue N p p 0.0% 0.0% Festuca thurberi Thurber's fescue N p 0.0% 0.0% Koeleria macrantha Prairie Junegrass N p 0.0% 0.0% Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass [N] 5 1 p 2.0% 3.3% Pseudoroegneria spicata subsp. inermis Bluebunch wheatgrass N p p p 0.0% 0.0% Perennial Graminoids Total 10.0% 3.0% 14.0% 9.0% 14.8% Perennial Forbs Achillea lanulosa Yarrow N p 0.0% 0.0% Agoseris aurantiaca Orange agoseris N p 0.0% 0.0% Anaphalis margaritacea Pearly everlasting N p 0.0% 0.0% Antennaria parvifolia Small-leaf pussytoes N p 0.0% 0.0% Balsamorhiza sagittata Arrowleaf balsamroot N p p 0.0% 0.0% Boechera stricta (=B. drummondii) Drummond's rockcress N p p 0.0% 0.0% Castilleja integra Wholeleaf Indian paintbrush N p 0.0% 0.0% Eremogone congesta Ballhead sandwort N 1 2 1.0% 1.6% Erigeron divergens Spreading fleabane N p p 0.0% 0.0% Erigeron speciosus Aspen fleabane N 1 p p 0.3% 0.5% Eriogonum umbellatum Sulphur-flower buckwheat N p 0.0% 0.0% Galium boreale (=G. septentrionale) Northern bedstraw N p 2 0.7% 1.1% Heuchera parvifolia Littleleaf alumroot N p 0.0% 0.0% Lathyrus lanszwerti var. leucanthus (L. leucanthus) Whiteflower pea N 2 1 p 1.0% 1.6% Linum lewisii (=Adenolinum) Wild blue flax N 0.0% 0.0% Lupinus argenteus Silvery lupine N p p 0.0% 0.0% Petradoria pumila Rock goldenrod N p 0.0% 0.0% Phlox multiflora Flowery phlox N 4 p 4 2.7% 4.4% Potentilla pulcherrima Beautiful cinquefoil N p 0.0% 0.0% Pulsatilla patens subsp. multifida Pasque flower N p 0.0% 0.0% Symphyotrichum ascendens (=Virgulaster) Western aster N p 0.0% 0.0% Vicia americana American vetch N p p p 0.0% 0.0% Wyethia amplexicaulis Mule-ears N 1 0.3% 0.5% Perennial Forbs Total 8.0% 1.0% 9.0% 6.0% 9.8% TOTAL VEGETATION COVER 61.0% 70.0% 52.0% 61.0% 100.0% Non-Vegetative Cover Litter 27 27 32 28.7% Soil 11 3 16 10.0% Standing Dead 1 0.3% TOTAL NON-VEGETATION COVER 39.0% 30.0% 48.0% 39.0%

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 7

4.2.2 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE QUALITATIVE OBSERVATIONS 2016-2019 As stated in a 2016 Technical Memorandum (CWS 2016), although it is difficult to predict the ecological trajectory of the treatment areas, the mastication effort appears to have encouraged the resprouting of young, vigorous oak and encouraged and released complimentary species such as mountain big sagebrush and grass-forb communities by opening the canopy and reducing competition. The production of new oak suckers continues to be robust throughout the treated areas and oaks as small as 8 inches high produced acorns in 2015. Non- target plants such as serviceberry and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) persist and understory vegetation was largely preserved. Low shrubs such as mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata PHOTO 3. GAMBEL OAK RESPONSE TO MASTICATION. NOTE THE subsp. vaseyana) and mountain mahogany UNCUT OAKS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PHOTO FOR COMPARISON (Cercocarpus montanus) as well as woody ground (SEPTEMBER 24, 2015). cover such as Oregon grape (Mahonia repens) and fringed sage (Artemisia frigida) remained intact. Nearly 100% of the targeted Gambel oak were masticated within the treatment areas while healthy oak stands and those containing a strong serviceberry component were avoided. In accordance with the objectives of the project, the soil surface was relatively undisturbed to prevent the encroachment of noxious weeds and a layer of wood chips and fine woody debris was left behind to aid in the retention of soil moisture.

The primary reasons for the project were to improve habitat for Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis nelsoni) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus), as well as to improve the ecological conditions of Sky Mountain Park by stimulating new growth and creating a mosaic of multi-aged stands across the project area through stand manipulation of decadent Gambel oak (Golder 2014). Post-treatment observations showed that mule deer, in particular, have a clear preference for the treated areas as foraging habitat in the non-winter months. Individual and groups of deer were observed foraging within treated areas during each visit. Pellet groups and tracks were observed in greater density and oak browse was heavier within the treatment areas than in adjacent untreated areas. Apparently, elk have a preference for the treated areas as well. Elk pellets were frequently observed and although no formal pellet surveys were conducted, elk pellet groups also seemed to occur in greater density within the treated areas than adjacent untreated areas. Both species are likely attracted to the more palatable forage provided by the oak suckers and the interspersion of the open canopy with the denser shrublands which provide PHOTO 4.MULE DEER DOES OBSERVED WITHIN A TREATMENT AREA (AUGUST 14, 2018) thermal and hiding cover.

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 8

American black bears (Ursus americanus) have been encountered by CWS biologists foraging within the treated areas in the spring, and acorn and serviceberry seed laden bear scat was observed within treated areas on a number of occasions. Hungry bears are likely benefitting from the increased availability of herbaceous plants and/or insect larvae in the spring and increased production of acorns in the fall. Small mammals such as chipmunks (Neotamias spp.) and golden-mantled ground squirrels (Callospermophilus lateralis) have been commonly observed by CWS biologists within the mastication areas during field work since the 2014 treatments.

Unfortunately, avian monitoring has not been conducted since 2017 but monitoring that year revealed that the mastication effort has not had a negative effect on Gambel oak dependent species. Species such as Virginia’s warblers, green-tailed towhees, and plumbeous vireos were detected at similar densities to pre- treatment densities reported by Wildlife Specialties, LLC in 2011 (WER and WS, 2011).

4.3 CONCLUSION The oak mastication treatment proved to be extremely successful and resulted in healthy regenerating stands of oak with palatable fresh forage for wildlife. Increases in plant species diversity were also observed, which benefits a wide variety of wildlife species including many pollinators. The mechanical disturbance created a shrubland mosaic of different ages and canopy structure leading to a more resilient ecosystem and more productive wildlife habitat. Finally, fuels loads have been reduced, decreasing the risk of catastrophic wildfire.

The 2012 Management Plan called for mechanical treatments on approximately 300 acres of oak/mixed shrubland, yet only approximately 105 acres have been treated to date. Indeed, staggering treatments over time would create the desired mosaic of shrubland types in different age classes which in turn will support greater wildlife species richness and numbers of individuals. Field investigations in 2018 and 2019, however, revealed that:

1. Additional mechanical treatments, over time, would further introduce vegetational and habitat diversity across the Sky Mountain Park landscape. a. The only area where treatments are recommended is the former Droste/Seven Star Ranch side on northerly to easterly aspects. Other areas of Sky Mountain Park do not encompass areas of over-dense decadent oak shrublands. 2. Remaining areas where treatments are warranted are severely limited by topography. As such, any future treatments would have to be implemented by hand crews with chainsaws. See Map 3.

4.4 COMMUNICATION GRAPHIC Habitat treatment projects are often controversial to surrounding landowners and the public; therefore, a Communication Graphic was developed by DHM Design Inc. to promote OST’s ecosystem management. As illustrated in Appendix C, this graphic has before and after simulations of the oak mastication treatments and discusses the project in layman’s terms for use as a communication tool with the wider public. A full resolution copy of the graphic may be obtained directly from DHM.

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 9

5.0 SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND RESTORATION Sagebrush shrublands used to encompass approximately 156 million acres (63 million ha) of the Western United States, but little of this area has remained unaltered since Euro- American settlement. It has been estimated that 50-60% of sagebrush shrublands have been converted to nonnative grasslands and other tracts have been lost to agriculture, urbanization, and other human activities (Shaw et al. 2005). Furthermore, less than three percent of sagebrush shrublands are protected in National Parks or other federal reserves. The increasingly rapid and widespread degradation, fragmentation and, in some areas, near total loss of sagebrush has resulted in its being rated one of the most PHOTO 5. DECADENT SAGEBRUSH, SEVEN STAR RANCH (JULY 17, 2011). threatened ecosystems in North America (Finch et al. 2016). Sagebrush habitats support a unique biodiversity. Several bird species are closely associated with sagebrush and depend on this habitat type for breeding, nesting, and foraging. In Pitkin County sagebrush-dependent species include Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) and green-tailed towhee (Pipilo chlorurus), which are both management indicator species (MIS) for Sky Mountain Park (PCOST 2012). In addition, sagebrush is a very important forage species for wintering elk (also a MIS) and mule deer, and show a preference for mountain big sagebrush in more severe winters.

5.1 BACKGROUND AND METHODS In 2012 and 2013, Colorado Mountain College (CMC) implemented a series of 10-meter by 10-meter test plots in a stand of decadent mountain big sagebrush shrubland with a crested wheatgrass understory (CMC 2013). See Map 4. The objective of the project was to research various strategies to reduce the coverage of crested wheatgrass so that native understory could be reintroduced. To that end, the CMC crested wheatgrass elimination strategies incorporated a variety of physical (weed-whacker), chemical (glyphosate and/or salt brine), and biological controls, seeding with sanfoin (Onobrychis viciifoilia) either during the summer (June through August) or fall (September/October). The results showed a significant reduction in crested wheatgrass over the short monitoring period in the plots where glyphosate, or Round-Up was applied. However, the crested wheatgrass was not entirely eliminated. It should be noted that the study was conducted in 10-meter by 10-meter plots where it was relatively easy to apply test treatments with minimal field personnel. However, the implications of increasing the recommended treatment to over 200 acres and across a varied landscape may result in reduced treatment effectiveness (CMC 2013).

In 2018, the CMC test plots were visited to subjectively observe the floristic composition and density of crested wheatgrass. Site observations occurred on October 25, 2018 by Rea Orthner and one field technician. No quantitative sampling occurred.

5.2 RESULTS No apparent differences between treated plots and untreated areas were observed in 2018, approximately 5 years post-treatment. As previously documented, the most common herbaceous species observed in these areas was crested wheatgrass, however minor amounts of smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and Rocky

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 10

Mountain penstemon (Penstemon strictus) were also observed. No sanfoin, which was seeded by CMC, appears to have become established. While the crested wheatgrass may have been temporarily reduced in cover by the various CMC treatment methods, the crested wheatgrass recovered relatively quickly, so that 5 years post treatment, no discernable difference could be made.

5.3 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Crested wheatgrass is an introduced, cespitose grass that has been seeded on millions of acres of Western rangelands. Crested wheatgrass is a strong competitor with other species and a prolific seed producer (Gunnell et al. 2010), which hinders treatments to reduce its influence and improve conditions for establishment of desirable seeded species. As described in Strategies to Enhance Plant Structure and Diversity in Crested Wheatgrass Seedings (Pellant and Lysne 2005), there have been numerous methods aimed at restoring crested wheatgrass to native grasses and forbs. However, because crested wheatgrass is an extremely good competitor and prolific seed producer, chemical and mechanical treatments are sometimes ineffective unless control takes place for 3 to 5 years, until the seed bank is exhausted and all newly germinated plants can also be eradicated. While most chemical control will kill above ground plants, the seeds are rarely affected unless stronger pesticides are used.

Other studies also point to the difficultly in controlling or reducing the cover of crested wheatgrass. For example, in one study conducted in western Colorado on U.S. Bureau of Land Management lands where sagebrush-crested wheatgrass stands were first mechanically treated with a dixie harrow pulled behind a tractor and then reseeded with a native seed mix, the only significant trend was a reduction of native grasses (p<0.05) (Grant-Hoffman et al. 2012). These findings suggest that mechanical treatments coupled with seeding are not effective at reducing crested wheatgrass cover, or at increasing native and desirable species. In fact, Grant-Hoffman et al. (2012) caution that mechanical treatments may have more adverse effects on the remaining native components of the systems one is trying to improve than on the dominant crested wheatgrass. Therefore, they recommend that managers weigh the long-term costs of reduced vegetative diversity and the likely reduction of desirable native species, as there may be a risk of increasing the dominance of crested wheatgrass while reducing native grass species, and therefore vegetation diversity.

In conclusion, the 2012-2013 treatment by CMC on a decadent sagebrush-crested wheatgrass stand exemplifies how difficult it is to change the trajectory of this ecosystem. Furthermore, the research described above documents that even local land management agencies have had little success in promoting native grasses and forbs over crested wheatgrass. Therefore, we recommend that OST land managers take a passive management approach to these stands. Rather than trying to actively restore these areas to pre-human settlement conditions, efforts should be made to control any localized outbreaks of noxious weeds and ensure that the crested wheatgrass does not spread. If younger, more palatable sagebrush shrubs are desired for wildlife, OST could consider masticating the declining sagebrush to reset its successional trajectory, however it will be unlikely that any significant native herbaceous component will be established in these areas.

5.4 SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND TEST PLOT DESIGN Currently OST, in conjunction with the On-Call Ecological Consultant Team, is developing a strategy to investigate different methods of restoring sagebrush shrublands from abandoned agricultural fields such as those found on the Droste Parcel. The overall goal of the Sagebrush Shrubland Restoration Test Plot Design study is to develop a successful restoration strategy specifically tailored to OST desires that can be applied to other open space properties. Unlike the CMC study above, this project aims to restore abandoned non-native grasslands to sagebrush shrubland instead of converting non-native understory in existing sagebrush.

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 11

6.0 ASPEN FOREST HEALTH

6.1 BACKGROUND Aspen (Populus tremuloides) is an important species that provides an important role in maintaining biodiversity, sequestering carbon, providing valuable wildlife habitat, serving as a firebreak for wildfires, retaining soil moisture, and is widely viewed as a “keystone species,” meaning that it supports a plethora of dependent plants and animals (Rogers et al. 2019). For decades, forest managers have called attention to "aspen decline," a long-term reduction in the area of aspen forests which was considered to be the result of extended drought, fire suppression, human development, and chronic herbivory (Rogers and McAvoy 2018). Over the last decade or two, scientists have been observing a more rapid decline of aspens, dubbed “sudden aspen decline” (SAD). This is a novel decline disease which is distinguished from normal age-related decline primarily by how quickly it affects stands (Singer et al. 2019). Affected stands exhibit total stand-level collapse and mortality within a short period of time, typically two to five years. As described by Singer el al. (2019), there are various predisposing and contributing factors of SAD, which synergize to transform a healthy aspen stand to sudden decline. More specifically, those stands on south or southwest aspects, at a lower elevation, and young stands with relatively high stem density are more prone to an inciting factor such as drought. Several forest insects and diseases then prey upon the weakened aspen and contribute to the decline. Initial observations of the aspen stands in 2011 (WER and WS 2011) indicated many had significant dieback and not all stands were successfully regenerating. While the 2012 Management Plan directs “best management activities” to help promote aspen, there have been no subsequent actions. Therefore, in 2019, we commenced a detailed look at all of the aspen forests within Sky Mountain Park to ground-truth the condition and confirm stand decadence or other issues inhibiting regeneration or stand vigor. The overall goal is to promote ecological resilience within the aspen forests on Sky Mountain Park which will likely minimize losses considering future climate change.

Aspen stands across the Rocky Mountains comprise a small percentage of the landscape but support a disproportionate diversity of wildlife (DeByle 1985). This is true whether the aspen is represented by large, continuous stands or by small patches spread across the landscape. Most of the aspen stands at Sky Mountain Park fall into the latter category. Researchers have found that even small isolated aspen stands are important to the conservation of wildlife, especially avifauna, and should be maintained as a part of the larger vegetation matrix (Flack 1976, Winternitz 1980, DeByle and Winokur 1985, Johns 1993, Turchi et al. 1995). Avian communities respond with variations in total abundance, species richness, and species composition to physical and compositional changes across landscapes. Bird species respond to these cues with patterns of habitat distribution. For example, deciduous trees such as aspen in the shrubland matrix that occurs at Sky Mountain Park, may provide a unique set of resources and hence may support higher bird diversity and abundance due, in part, to the increased vertical and horizontal habitat diversity, increased feeding niches, etc. (Winternitz 1980, Turchi et al. 1995). Consequently, we expect these small aspen stands to support a higher bird species richness and abundance than similarly sized areas in the shrubland matrix. Similarly, a landscape consisting of a shrubland matrix with small patches of aspen will support greater avian richness and abundance than a shrubland matrix without those patches.

Not all small aspen stands, however, will contribute equally as wildlife habitat. Declining stands have been shown to provide less effective habitat than healthy stands with robust regeneration (Young 1973, Flack 1976, Griffis-Kyle and Beier 2003). For example, Griffis-Kyle and Beier (2003) found that avian species richness decreased with increasing density of saplings (all species) in aspen stands, and the size and number of trees had a significant impact on the avian community. Young (1973) and Flack (1976) noted similar patterns. It is interesting to note that Griffis-Kyle and Beier (2003) also found that the abundance of medium-sized Gambel oak within aspen stands was associated with higher species richness.

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 12

Aspen patches have also been found to disproportionately contribute to mammalian species richness and abundance. For example, Oaten and Larsen (2008) found that small mammal densities were most often higher within aspen stands than mixed aspen-conifer and Douglas-fir stands, as were species richness indices.

From the perspective of management of these stands as wildlife habitat, the higher bird abundance and richness in aspen demonstrates that even the smallest and most isolated aspen patches likely contribute substantially to increased vigor of bird populations across the Sky Mountain Park landscape. Thus, management actions (e.g., overstory thinning, burning, fencing against ungulates) to maintain several small stands of aspen can be at least as valuable as actions to conserve a single stand of the same total size.

6.2 ASPEN ECOLOGY AND POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Throughout the 20th century, forest scientists and land managers were guided by principles of succession with regard to aspen forests. The historical model depicted aspen as a "pioneer species" that colonizes a site following disturbance and is eventually overtopped by conifers. Aspen systems are more diverse, however, than previously described. Not only are there distinctive seral and stable aspen, but variations within these types require appropriate management (Rogers 2017). Stable aspen stands are those that remain dominated by aspen through time with little or no invasion by conifers. Seral aspen stands, on the other hand, follow a successional pathway in which aspen dominate early on and are eventually replaced by conifers. In stable stands, tree composition remains constant, though there is regular regeneration, recruitment, and mortality which is sometimes amplified by clone stressing events such as drought. In sum, stable stands remain in aspen cover after small and large disturbances, whereas seral stands are temporarily dominated by aspen and usually transition to alternative tree composition over time. The aspen forests at Sky Mountain Park are best described as stable type that are elevation/aspect limited and are sometimes called “marginal,” and are highly subject to drought impacts and may have originally established during wetter periods (Rogers 2017). Their presence in otherwise relatively dry environs has pros and cons; they provide diverse habitats and shade compared to adjacent communities, but they are frequently susceptible to rapid die-offs. Drought may accelerate mortality of whole clones and while mature trees are dying from a complex of insect and other pathogens, ungulates may consume young suckers. Per Rogers (2017), management should focus restoration on maintaining or restoring the structural diversity of aspen forest. If certain aspen recruitment age classes are absent, then vegetation manipulation should favor this. One tell-tale sign of degradation is ingrowth of sagebrush and other shrubs (Campbell Hormonal and Bartos 2001). Stimulation Environment Successful aspen regeneration requires three elements: hormonal stimulation, growth environment, and protection of the resulting suckers (Shepperd 2004). All three of these components must be present and any manipulation of aspen has to satisfy all three of these requirements to successfully regenerate the species; however, one or more of these elements may already exist. Below we summarize details of Protection each as described in Shepperd (2004) and discuss its applicability to stands on Sky Mountain Park.

Figure 1. Aspen Regeneration Triangle. Adapted from Sheppard (2004). Hormonal Stimulation. The vegetative regeneration of aspen requires the interruption of the auxin/cytokinin hormone balance between roots

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 13

and shoots. Several different techniques have been used to stimulate the roots and initiate root suckering. The first, clearfell-coppice harvest involves the complete removal of all aspen trees. However, this technique requires a large area of aspen to be applied successfully and does not always work well where aspen stands are small, unless they are fenced. In addition, clearfell-coppice harvest has the disadvantage of eliminating old trees which provide many ecological benefits including nesting sites for birds. Bulldozing has also been used to promote aspen regeneration (Shepperd 1996). However, leaving a cut or bulldozed overstory aspen on a site has been shown to inhibit aspen sucker establishment in some areas. Bulldozing, chainsaw felling, and clearfell coppice cutting are also risky. At Sky Mountain Park, with relatively few aspen stands, the elimination of numerous old mature trees without a guarantee of regeneration is not desirable. Another technique involves mechanical root stimulation using a tractor mounted ripper. Sheppard (2004) describes a project where they ripped along the edge of a small isolated aspen clone that was growing beside a meadow. The ripping treatment consisted of a single tractor pass to a depth of 8-inches about 1.5 tree heights away from existing aspen trees. This severed the roots, releasing the hormones necessary for successful sapling growth. This technique has the advantage of keeping the older trees as a component in the aspen stand and is recommended for Sky Mountain Park. Fire has also been used to promote aspen regeneration. Fire is a disturbance process that resets successional processes in upland aspen forest and favors the shade-intolerant aspen by initiating root suckering and seedling establishment and killing off competing vegetation. However, use of fire on Sky Mountain Park is problematic given the close proximity to the Aspen Airport and numerous homes in the surrounding area.

Growth Environment. Aspen regeneration requires full sunlight and warmer soil temperatures to allow new suckers to thrive. Therefore, some techniques involve removal of competing vegetation (commonly conifers) in the understory which allows full sunlight to reach the forest floor and enhance natural sucker production. While none of the aspen at Sky Mountain Park were observed to have regenerating conifers, which generally occurs at higher elevation, some of the stands did have a high density of understory shrubs which may be limiting sunlight. It is plausible that the lack of fire over the Sky Mountain Park landscape has favored the growth of a tall shrub layer comprised primarily of serviceberry and chokecherry which may be inhibiting sunlight reaching the forest floor and contributing to poor regeneration in these stands.

Protection from Browsing. In some cases, protecting new suckers may be the only factor necessary to achieve successful aspen regeneration. This could be the case in more decadent or open stands where the hormonal balance for new shoot production already exists. Here, fencing or protection from browsing may be the only necessary step to initiate good growth. Numerous scientists point out that where grazing pressure is high, browsing can result in complete recruitment failure and loss of aspen from a site within a few years (Kitchen et al. 2019). In fact, unchecked browsing is likely playing a central role in the decline of the supposedly largest living organism on earth—the “Pando” (Latin: I spread) clone which is over 100 acres in size and estimated to contain 47,000 genetically identical aspen ramets (Rogers and McAvoy 2018). Fencing is generally the recommended treatment in such situations; however, it can be expensive to install and annual maintenance and monitoring of the fence condition is necessary. Other researchers point to predator:prey relationships, and one study in Yellowstone National Park showed that following the 1995-1996 reintroduction of gray wolves (Canis lupus), browsing significantly decreased and aspen sapling recruitment increased (Painter et al. 2018).

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 14

6.3 ASSESMENT METHODS Prior to field reconnaissance, existing vegetation type maps and recent Pitkin County aerial photos were used to identify aspen stands occurring within Sky Mountain Park. Pedestrian surveys of the aspen stands were then completed on September 19 and 20, 2019 by Rea Orthner, plant ecologist with Peak Ecological Services, and Jonathan Lowsky, wildlife biologist with Colorado Wildlife Science, to ground truth conditions, classify stand decadence, and identify other issues inhibiting regeneration of vigor. In total, 17 aspen stands were ground truthed. Any areas proposed for treatment were delineated on the aerial photograph maps and by GPS and integrated into the final GIS shapefile layers. In order to consistently analyze each aspen stand, a Rapid Aspen Assessment Methodology was utilized (Oregon State 2010). Briefly, this methodology looks at both the overstory and understory density and vigor to determine if the aspen stand is healthy and capable of self-replacement. Stands with low levels of regeneration (suckers less than 6 feet tall) in aspen with open or declining canopies are generally an indication that stands are not self-replacing (i.e. Code 2B; see Figure 2). In other cases, the aspen overstory may be well stocked and healthy, but there is only light regeneration (Code 1B), which may be Figure 2. Aspen Condition Classification Chart (Oregon State, 2010). due to over browsing. However, some care in interpretation is needed, as regeneration for aspen stands with high canopy cover may be naturally suppressed by apical dominance and hence the low density of suckers is not necessarily indicative of problematic conditions (Kitchen et al. 2019).

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 15

6.4 RESULTS Of the 17 stands of aspen examined, only four showed significant declines and lack of regeneration to warrant intervention. See Table 3 and Map 5. These include aspen forests with mature to declining overstories and very little aspen regeneration. We surmise that that the lack of regeneration in these areas is due to a combination of browsing by ungulates as well as competition from a tall shrub layer. Appendix B contains a detailed data table of the results of the survey of each of the 17 stands and Appendix C contains a complete photo log. PHOTO 6. ASPEN STAND ON UPPER NORTH MESA. THIS STAND HAS SEEN

SIGNIFICANT ASPEN REGENERATION FOLLOWING A MORTALITY EVENT. NOTE THE DEAD MATURE TREES (SEPTEMBER 20, 2019).

TABLE 3. ASPEN STANDS RECOMMENDED FOR MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Classification Aspen Site ID Description Recommendation Code* Cut tall shrub layer to approximate Mature to declining overstory with ground level. Remove down AF-01B 2B very little regeneration. Deer beds aspens. Fence. Monitor. Consider throughout. mechanical treatment in future. Declining aspen forest with some Cut tall shrub layer to approximate regeneration on edges, but not in ground level. Remove down AF-02 2B center. >50% of aspen are aspens. Fence. Monitor. Consider dead/dying. Numerous tall shrubs. mechanical treatment in future Cut tall shrub layer to approximate Numerous juvenile aspen. Heavy ground level. Remove down AF-12A 2B shrub cover of serviceberry and aspens. Fence. Monitor. Consider chokecherry. mechanical treatment in future Declining aspen with numerous standing dead. Very limited Fence. Monitor. Consider AF-12B 2B regeneration on edges. Heavy mechanical treatment in future. browsing. Mature/decadent aspen trees with some standing dead. All Fence. Monitor. Consider AF-13B 2B regeneration is heavily browsed. Elk mechanical treatment in future. probably bed down here and browse the young saplings. *See Figure 2 for an illustration of classification codes.

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 16

In general, a phased management approach is recommended. The first step is to install fencing around the aspen stand of concern and remove most of the competing tall or dense shrub layer and then monitor for two years. In this treatment approach, we hypothesize that over-browsing by ungulates and lack of sunlight reaching the forest floor is inhibiting aspen regeneration. If, after 2 or 3 years, no significant regeneration is occurring, then mechanical treatment may be needed. However, rather than clearcut or bulldoze these relatively small aspen stands, a mechanical root separation is recommended. Cutting PHOTO 7. DECADENT ASPEN STAND THAT SHOWS VERY LITTLE ASPEN roots has been used successfully to REGENERATION (SEPTEMBER 20, 2019). THIS STAND WAS CHOSEN FOR stimulate suckering in some settings (e.g., MANAGEMENT INTERVENTION. isolated clones) and may be useful when the objective is to expand the area covered by smaller clones (Shepperd et al. 2006). One value of root separation is that mature trees are left relatively undisturbed and remain a potential resource for further action in case the treatment does not reach the stated objective (Kitchen et al. 2019). Clear cutting or bulldozing, on the other hand, which has been commonly used in the past to promote even-aged aspen stand regeneration (Shepperd et al. 2015), is not recommended at Sky Mountain Park, as standing (live and dead) trees that provide important ecological services (including potential seed trees and continued suckering) are eliminated.

6.5 PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA The following project design criteria are recommended to be incorporated into any future aspen treatments to ensure that the treatments are conducted in an ecologically sensitive manner.

• Complete treatments outside of bird nesting season, which is April 15 through August 31 in this area. • Conduct survey for active nests if work is planned between April 15 and August 31. If an active nest containing eggs or young birds is found, the tree or shrub containing the active nest shall remain undisturbed and protected until the nest becomes inactive. The nest shall be protected by placing plastic fencing a minimum distance of 50 feet from each nest to be undisturbed. • Conduct raptor nest surveys in May through June within 0.5 mile of the project site prior to the start of treatments and prior to each phase of work. No work may be conducted if active nests are found within 1,000 meters of a treatment site. If inactive raptor nests are found within a treatment area, the nest tree must be preserved. • Use hand equipment such as chainsaws and loppers to remove shrubby undergrowth as heavy machinery may increase soil compaction. Any slash or debris generated should be taken out of the aspen stand and disposed of in an upland area or hauled off site. The idea is to restore the sunlight hitting the forest floor to encourage additional aspen suckering and growth. • Fencing should be of adequate height (generally >8ft) to effectively exclude mule deer and elk. Fencing must be maintained in place for approximately 5 years or until aspen suckers reach a height that is relatively safe from browsing (approximately 20 feet). A tall woven-wire type of fencing has

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 17

been shown by many authors to be effective at keeping out deer and elk. However, fencing must be monitored annually to ensure that no breaches occur. Aspen regeneration can be quickly eliminated by browsing ungulates if allowed to penetrate the fence. See Oregon State (2010) for a comparison of different fence types. • If mechanical root ripping treatments are necessary, a single tractor pass to a depth of 8-inches approximately 1.5 tree heights away from existing aspen trees is recommended. This should sever the roots, releasing the hormones necessary for success sapling growth. • Implement appropriate monitoring to establish baseline conditions and detect changes related to treatment methods. Fixed photo points should be established and monitored annually. Qualitative and quantitative observations on average sucker height and density should also be taken. • Noxious weeds occur around several of the treatment units. These noxious weeds should be controlled prior to ground disturbing activities and post-construction for at least three years to ensure that they do not become more problematic.

7.0 WETLAND AND RIPARIAN HABITATS

In 2011, wetland and riparian habitats were mapped within Sky Mountain Park and additionally described as to their functional status using the Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Assessment Method (USDOI-BLM 1998, 2003). These resources include narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) – blue spruce (Picea pungens) riparian forests along the Roaring Fork River, dense willows (Salix spp.) and hawthorn (Crataegus spp.) riparian shrublands along Brush Creek, scattered herbaceous wetlands and one pond on the Upper North Mesa parcel, and an aspen riparian wetland surrounding a spring on the Droste parcel (WER and WS 2011). Those wetlands determined to be functional at risk (FAR) include areas along Brush Creek near the historic cabin on the Seven Star Ranch II parcel as well that portion of Brush Creek and an intermittent stream (Cougar Creek) on the Cozy Point Parcel through the equestrian center, and the wetland fen on Upper North Mesa. Among the management objectives identified by OST in its 2012 Management Plan is to monitor and develop restoration plans for functional-at-risk rated sections of Brush Creek. To that end, several additional studies have taken place including both an Ecological Integrity Assessment (PeakEco 2018) and a Geomorphic Assessment of Lower Brush Creek (Lotic Hydrological 2017) located between the Highline Drive roundabout and Highway 82. In addition, plans are currently underway to restore the irrigation ponds on the Droste parcel to a native riparian habitat (DHM Design, in prep.). Finally, a related study, the Concept Stream Restoration Plan for Cozy Point Ranch (WER and BCH 2016) was completed for the City of Aspen as part of their Cozy Point Ranch Management Plan.

The primary focus of the Lotic 2017 Geomorphological Assessment was to identify any physical condition or degraded functions that either endangered human infrastructure or negatively impacted the health and extent of riparian vegetation or the availability and quality of aquatic habitat. As a result of the study Lotic concluded that aggressive management is not warranted:

Although rapid geomorphic change on any stream system is generally undesirable from a human management and infrastructure protection perspective; the negative impacts of localized channel instabilities on Brush Creek through Sky Mountain Park appear to be balanced by several mitigating factors. These factors include: the limited geographic scope of instabilities, the presence of functional riparian and aquatic life communities that seem to be on stable or positive trajectories consistent with regionally similar ecosystems, the lack of significant threat to human infrastructure, and little evidence that localized degradation of channel form or sediment dynamics are transferring additional negative impacts to the greater watershed. To the extent that Brush Creek’s geomorphological condition continues to maintain functional sediment transport capacity, riparian habitat creation and

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 18

maintenance, and aquatic ecosystem support, aggressive management intervention is not warranted (Lotic 2017).

However, Lotic did recommend establishing a channel evolution and riparian condition monitoring for Brush Creek and perusing narrative histories to better understand the timelines of Brush Creek impacts.

The PeakEco (2018) Ecological Integrity Assessment focused not as much on geomorphology, but more on different metrics based on vegetation structure, composition, regeneration, woody debris, surrounding land cover and uses, hydrology, and physiochemistry. The results of the EIA showed that, overall, that Brush Creek riparian system is in excellent (A-rated) to good (B-rated) condition, despite widespread occurrence of the non-native reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). The study also showed several of the metrics were lower than desired and recommended that native riparian shrubs and trees be planted along Brush Creek on the Seven Star Ranch II parcel in an area of historic beaver activity where those vegetation structural elements are lacking. In addition, the study recommended improving the buffer habitat surrounding the riparian corridor by converting the abandoned agricultural pasturelands into natural vegetation communities such as native mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. vaseyana) or native riparian shrublands. Two projects are currently underway on the Droste Parcel to restore the old irrigation ponds to riparian shrublands and to complete a series of test plots in order to best determine methodology for restoration of sagebrush shrublands (PeakEco and DHM, in prep).

Finally, the 2011 Biological Resources Report (WER and WS 2011) makes note of a small wetland fen located along the Rim Trail on the Upper North Mesa Parcel which has a floating organic soil (Histosol) at least 36 inches deep and is likely thousands of years old. While relatively small, the fen is a unique resource that should continue to be protected. However, this fen is degraded due to the invasion of broadleaf cattails and was rated as Functional at Risk. Fens are formed by the slow accumulation of peat derived from sedges (Carex spp.) and mosses (e.g. Sphagnum sp). Cattails may not contribute to peat accumulation and instead choke out the native stands of beaked sedge that are PHOTO 8. FEN INVADED BY CATTAILS, UPPER NORTH MESA (JULY 2011). present. In addition, cattails lower overall plant species diversity which has negative impacts on wildlife. Although native to the state of Colorado, the broadleaf cattail is not likely native to the Upper North Mesa area, and instead has increased in abundance and geographic extent along with urbanization. We maintain the previous recommendation that this fen should be restored by eradicating the cattails and also protected from recreational use by a fence and educational signage. See Map 6.

8.0 NOXIOUS WEEDS

Noxious weeds continue to be present within the Sky Mountain Park complex. Noxious weeds are being controlled and do not appear to be spreading as the result of increased recreational use or habitat improvement projects. The current weed contractor, Paul Shreiner of Eco-Rx LLC, reports that the Brush Creek riparian zone hosts the most noxious weed species including wormwood, oxeye daisy, cinquefoil, houndstongue, chamomile, plumeless, bull, scotch and Canada thistles, hemlock, and burdock. In addition,

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 19

Mr. Shreiner reports a “stubborn” infestation of leafy spurge at the bottom of the Cozyline Trail and in several of the draws above Brush Creek, where yellow toadflax is also present. Finally, there is a small infestation of Russian knapweed near the old cabin on Brush Creek. Reconnaissance by Rea Orthner of Peak Ecological Services revealed additional populations of plumeless thistle and Canada thistle adjacent to several aspen stands. See Map 7.

Table 4 lists the noxious weeds most frequently encountered at Sky Mountain Park. Increased noxious weed control efforts should focus on any vegetation manipulation project and especially in areas of ground disturbance. While Sky Mountain Park will never be completely noxious weed free, the populations can be kept at acceptable levels. A GIS shapefile of noxious weeds encountered during the surveys has been also prepared.

TABLE 4. NOXIOUS WEEDS IDENTIFIED AT SKY MOUNTAIN PARK COMPLEX Noxious Scientific Name Common Name Comment Weed Class1 Perennial Graminoids Elytrigia repens Quackgrass B Occasional in agricultural areas Perennial Forbs Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed B* Reported on Seven Star (Centaurea) Artemisia absinthium Absinth wormwood B Infrequent Cardaria draba Hoary cress; Whitetop B Infrequent Cichorum intybus Chicory C Infrequent Cirsium arvense Canada thistle B Common in moist soil (Breea) Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed C Agricultural meadows and adjacent sagebrush Leucanthemum vulgare Ox-eye daisy B Common along Brush Creek (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) Linaria vulgaris Yellow Toadflax B* Infrequent Potentilla recta Sulphur cinquefoil B* Infrequent Tanacetum vulgare Common tansy B* Infrequent Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge B* Seven Star II & Droste parcels, in (Tithymalus) aspen and along irrigation ditch Annual/Biennial Forbs Arctium minus Common burdock C Infrequent Carduus acanthoides Plumeless thistle B* Common throughout project area. More common near wetlands/ riparian habitats Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle B* Infrequent Conium maculatum Poison hemlock C Infrequent Cynoglossum officinale Houndstongue B Present in low densities throughout project area

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 20

TABLE 4. NOXIOUS WEEDS IDENTIFIED AT SKY MOUNTAIN PARK COMPLEX Noxious Scientific Name Common Name Comment Weed Class1 Erodium cicutarium Redstem filaree B Infrequent Matricaria perforata Scentless chamomile B* Infrequent Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle B* Infrequent Verbascum thapsus Common mullein C Infrequent Annual Graminoids Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass C More common in lower elevation (Anisantha) habitats Poa bulbosa Bulbous bluegrass C Infrequent 1List B species designated for elimination in Pitkin County by the Colorado Department of Agriculture are noted with an “*”. See https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/agconservation/county-weed-programs for Pitkin County’s List dated 4/1/2017. Species List Source: 2011 Biological Resources Report (WER and WS 2011) and Paul Schreiner (Eco-Rx LLC), personal communication.

9.0 BASELINE MONITORING

9.1 WILDLIFE MONITORING

Wildlife monitoring was last implemented at Sky Mountain Park in 2017 via terrestrial visual encounter surveys (TVES), camera grids, breeding season avian point transects, nocturnal bird surveys, and diurnal raptor surveys. Based on the results of those surveys, in combination with past efforts (e.g., CWS 2011, WER and WS 2011, Golder 2014), the following conclusions were provided in the 2017 Sky Mountain Park Annual Wildlife Monitoring Report (CWS 2018):

• Fifty-one bird species were recorded at Sky Mountain Park during the 2017 breeding season by means of the various monitoring protocols and at least 66 bird species have been documented at Sky Mountain Park by OST or their consultants since 2000 (Lowsky 2001, CWS 2011, WER and WS 2011). • Twelve avian species of conservation concern (Table 6) were documented at Sky Mountain Park in 2017. • Four species of diurnal raptor (Cooper’s hawk [Accipiter cooperii], golden eagle [Aquila chrysaetos], red-tailed hawk [Buteo jamaicensis], turkey vulture [Cathartes aura]) were documented at Sky Mountain Park during the breeding season and two active nests (both Cooper’s hawk) were located.  Based on 2017 observations in combination with past observations, an active golden eagle nest is suspected in a cliff band approximately 250 meters north of the Upper North Mesa northwestern boundary. • At least two owl species have been confirmed at Sky Mountain Park during the breeding season: great horned owls (Bubo virginianus) and flammulated owls (Psiloscops flammeolus). To our knowledge, this was the first flammulated owl documented at Sky Mountain Park during the breeding season.

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 21

• Only 1 federally listed mammal species has the reasonable potential to occur on or around Sky Mountain Park: Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). Although Sky Mountain Park does not provide suitable denning or winter habitat, lynx are known to use the habitat types present on Sky Mountain Park as they disperse. No lynx or lynx sign has been identified at Sky Mountain Park historically or during formal surveys through 2017. • Three mammal species designated by a state or federal agency or of other conservation concern have the reasonable potential to occur at Sky Mountain Park: American marten (Martes americana), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). These species were not documented at Sky Mountain Park via sign or direct observation during the 2017 surveys1. • Sky Mountain Park is heavily used by elk throughout the year. Elk cows use Sky Mountain Park in the summer for rearing habitat and as part of their general summer range (bulls to a lesser extent). Monitoring has confirmed that Sky Mountain Park is used by elk as rearing habitat. Although spotted calves were photo-documented at Sky Mountain Park, parturition has not been confirmed2. The aspen woodlands on Upper North Mesa in particular, provide limited acreage of suitable calving habitat.  Sky Mountain Park lies within one of the most important migration routes and transition habitat for elk moving between winter and summer ranges. • Sky Mountain Park provides excellent summer mule deer habitat and a large number of mule deer continue to use Sky Mountain Park throughout the non-winter months. The greatest density of deer at Sky Mountain Park occurs in late fall and late spring as residents are joined by migrating animals. Sky Mountain Park, especially the north side (i.e., Upper North Mesa / Seven Star) provides important winter and transition range as well.  Sky Mountain Park is used by higher numbers of mule deer than elk as summer range. As with elk, young spotted fawns were repeatedly photo-documented at both camera grids, establishing that the Sky Mountain Park complex continues to be important mule deer rearing and (likely) fawning habitat.  Monitoring revealed that the 2014 Gambel oak mastication effort has resulted in a substantial benefit for mule deer. Throughout the 2017 monitoring effort, bands of deer ranging from 3 or 4 individuals up to as many as 18 were observed foraging in the treatment areas. Mule deer at Sky Mountain Park appear to be seeking out the young Gambel oak, serviceberry, and other shrubs that have sprouted in response to the treatments. • At least 9 mammalian predator species are known to use Sky Mountain Park as part of their home range, but only black bears and were recorded by the 2017 surveys. American badgers, bobcats, short-tailed weasels, long-tailed weasels, mountain lions, red fox, and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) were not observed or otherwise identified by CWS in 2017 at Sky Mountain Park. • Abundant small mammals (i.e., leporids and rodents) of a variety of species provide an excellent prey base for both mammalian and avian predators. Seven small mammal species (golden- mantled ground squirrel [Callospermophilus lateralis], least chipmunk [Tamias minimus], mountain cottontail [Sylvilagus nuttallii], northern pocket gopher [Thomomys talpoides], vole [Microtus spp.], white-tailed jackrabbit [Lepus townsendii], and Wyoming ground-squirrel [Urocitellus elegans]) were recorded during the 2017 surveys. Past small mammal surveys (Lowsky 2001) have documented the following additional species: bushy-tailed woodrat

1 Bat surveys have not been conducted at Sky Mountain Park. 2 Parturition can be confirmed by the presence of birthing beds or direct observation of calving activity.

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 22

(Neotoma cinerea), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatis), montane vole (Microtus montanus), shrew spp. (Sorex spp.), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), Uinta chipmunk (Neotamias umbrinus), and western jumping mouse (Zapus princeps).  White-tailed jackrabbits were documented on the Upper North Mesa property during the TVES. These large lagomorphs once thrived in the plant communities occurring at Sky Mountain Park and the Roaring Fork watershed at large, but as humans came to the Roaring Fork Valley, these areas offered the best prospects for agriculture and settlement. Soon after, most of the valley floors and other moderately sloped areas dominated by sagebrush shrublands and sagebrush-dominated montane shrublands were converted for human use. Consequently, white-tailed jackrabbit populations have significantly declined in the watershed. • American black bears (Ursus americanus) are abundant at Sky Mountain Park and the 2017 surveys indicate that Sky Mountain Park continues to be used by sows with cubs and solitary males. Bears (adults and cubs) were photo-documented 8 times in 2017. In addition, bears were directly observed by CWS biologists 4 times during the course of other survey work (e.g., avian point-transects).  As with mule deer, black bears seem to be a beneficiary of the Gambel oak mastication effort. Bears were observed foraging in the treatment areas on 3 occasions in 2017.

9.2 BASELINE VEGETATION TRANSECTS

In 2011, 30 permanent vegetation monitoring transects were established for quantitative data collection in order to document the existing vegetation conditions of the six major vegetation types present on Sky Mountain Park. Five transects were located in representative stands of each of the six vegetation types including aspen forest, mountain shrubland, native sagebrush shrublands, disturbed sagebrush shrublands, shale barrens, and riparian/wetland habitats. Vegetation cover along the 50-meter long transects were sampled using a cover point optical scope using the point-intercept method (Mueller-Dombois 1974) as described by (Buckner 1985). These same transects were then resampled by Golder in 2015 (Golder 2016). As reported by Golder (2016), mean absolute cover data showed similar patterns in 2015 and 2011. For shale barrens, disturbed sagebrush shrubland, and sagebrush shrubland, mean absolute cover was higher in 2015 than in 2011, which was attributed to annual variations in precipitation patterns. Cover was equal in aspen forests, and slightly lower for riparian and wetland areas in 2015. Mean species richness was lower in four out of five habitat types in 2015. The exception to this trend was riparian and wetland habitats. Finally, as reported by Golder (2016), the Floristic Quality Index (FQA) was similar when comparing both years. A notable exception was found in disturbed sagebrush shrubland, which was much higher in 2015 and may represent natural successional patterns.

9.3 BASELINE VEGETATION TYPE MAPPING & FLORISTIC INVENTORY Baseline vegetation mapping was conducted in 2011 utilizing 2010 digital ortho-rectified photos provided by Pitkin County. However, since that time more current aerial photography has become available, and therefore small changes to the vegetation types were made to better reflect the updated photography. See Map 8. Finally, the vascular plant species list originally developed in 2011 was revised to include additional species observed since that time and update the plant species nomenclature to be consistent with the Flora of Colorado (Ackerfield 2015). See Appendix D.

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 23

10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are based on the above review of past studies and projects on Sky Mountain Park over the last decade.

• Continue vegetation baseline monitoring and revise vegetation type map at approximate 10 year intervals. • Continue noxious weed control work. Priority should be given to any Colorado List A species, should they be found in the future, as well as any List B species that are currently designated for elimination in Pitkin County. See Table 4. • Implement aspen forest health projects to promote resiliency in the light of future climate change. • Implement the Irrigation Pond Riparian Restoration and Sagebrush Test Plot Design projects in order to enhance the Brush Creek Riparian habitat and surrounding landscapes. • Consider planting additional riparian shrubs and trees along Brush Creek near the historic cabin on Seven Star Ranch 2. The added structural diversity will complement the existing conditions downstream and provide continuity in riparian shrub habitat along the entire reach of the stream on Sky Mountain Park. • Eradicate cattails at the fen on Upper North Mesa. A wipe-on application of an aquatic rated herbicide such as Rodeo is recommended so that no overspray will occur. Work with the local noxious weed contractor and ecologist to determine the best method. • Consider restoring the disturbed pipeline corridors on Cozy Point South and Burlingame West as identified in the 2011 Biological Resources Report (WER and WS 2011). These pipelines should be restored to their native mountain shrubland (Gambel oak and serviceberry) vegetation community to reduce fragmentation. • Wildlife monitoring at Sky Mountain Park should be continued, in part, as a means to monitor the success and/or effects of habitat management and to determine the effects of recreation planning and management on wildlife.  Continue TVES, wildlife camera surveys, avian point transects, diurnal raptor surveys, and nocturnal bird surveys on a long-term basis to develop more comprehensive species lists, determine population trends, and evaluate the effects of management actions on MIS.  These surveys should be conducted at least every 3 years in order to produce data that will facilitate the adaptive management process in a cost-effective manner.  Surveys that produce statistically robust data (e.g., avian point transects) should be repeated more frequently than methods that merely produce observational data (e.g., TVES). • Avian monitoring should be implemented every other year. From an effective monitoring perspective, every other year is really the largest interval that should be used. If done at greater intervals, say every 3 years, and there is a “throw away” year similar to 2015 where late snowy/stormy weather altered migration timing and patterns, then the effective interval would be 6 years with 4 consecutive years of no data. • As recommended by Western Ecological Resource, Inc. in 2011 (WER and WS 2011), all old fencing should be removed. Although deer, elk, and moose are all capable of jumping fences, in a variety of situations they can become injured or entangled. Downed wire strands can readily snag animals and tangle legs, especially if wires are loose or spaced too closely together.

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 24

• Wherever possible re-align trails to be located 100 meters away from aquatic resources. The current alignment of the Equestrian Tail on the Upper North Mesa parcel is directly adjacent to a pond with a small wetland fringe. OST should consider realigning the trail to protect this resource. • Expand the Gambel oak treatments to slopes on the south side of Sky Mountain Park (former Droste/Seven Star) that the Tigercat Mulcher could not safely treat using hand crews. • Prior to implementation of major habitat or recreation development projects, targeted surveys should be conducted prior to implementation and for a few years following completion to determine effects on wildlife communities and MIS. • Continue the seasonal recreation closures to protect ungulate migration, winter, and reproduction activity on Sky Mountain Park. • Maintain the current dog restrictions. • Continue the elk hunting program at Sky Mountain Park. The risk of mortality from a predator, including humans during hunting season, can cause animals to change resource selection strategies to avoid risk. In the absence of natural predators, hunting pressure can increase elk movement rates so that they cannot congregate above carrying capacity in a given area. • The Sky Mountain Park Management Plan includes an action item that directs OST to work with CPW to determine the need for a mule deer movement study in and around Sky Mountain Park. Information provided by such a study remains pertinent and would provide useful data regarding mule deer use of the complex of properties that comprise Sky Mountain Park. Given the large-scale current elk study that OST and CPW are cooperating on now and for the next few years, it is unrealistic to pursue a such deer study at present.

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 25

11.0 REFERENCES Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado Brit Press Buckner, D. L. 1985. Point-Intercept Sampling in Revegetation Studies: Maximizing Objectivity and Repeatability. Paper presented at American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation meeting, Denver, CO. October 1985. Campbell, R. B., and D. L. Bartos. 2001. Aspen ecosystems: objectives for sustaining biodiversity Sustaining Aspen in Western Landscapes: Symposium Proceedings. Proceedings RMRS-P-18. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO.:10 pp. Colorado Mountain College (CMC). 2013. Seven Star Park. Native Plant Restoration Project. Pitkin County Open Space. Project Summary. Prepared by Colorado Mountain College, Natural Resource Management Program, Leadville, Colorado. Colorado Wildlife Science LLC (CWS). 2011. Avian Monitoring Report: 2000-08 Field Seasons. J. Lowsky, lead author. Unpublished technical report submitted to Pitkin County Open Space & Trails. Colorado Wildlife Science, Basalt, CO. 87 pp. Colorado Wildlife Science LLC (CWS). 2016. Technical Memorandum. Sky Mountain Park Habitat Treatment Update. To: Gary Tennenbaum, Assisstant Director, Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Aspen, Colorado. From: Jonathan Lowsky. Colorado Wildlife Science LLC:85 pp. Colorado Wildlife Science LLC (CWS). 2018. 2017 Sky Mountain Park Annual Wildlife Monitoring Report. Submitted to Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Aspen, Colorado. Submitted by Colorado Wildlife Science LLC of Basalt, Colorado.:55 pp.DeByle, N. V. 1985. Wildlife. Pages 135-152 in N. V. DeByle and R. P. Winokur, editors. Aspen : ecology and management in the western United States. General technical report RM-119. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station : For sale by the Supt. of Docs. U.S. G.P.O., Fort Collins, Colo. DeByle, N. V., and R. P. Winokur. 1985. Aspen ecology and management in the Westem United States. USDA For Serv Gen Tech Rep RM-119. Rocky Mountain Forest & Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. Finch, D. M., D. A. Boyce, Jr, J. C. Chambers, C. J. Colt, R. K. Dumroese, S. G. Kitchen, C. McCarthy, S. E. Meyer, B. A. Richardson, M. M. Rowland, M. A. Rumble, M. K. Schwartz, M. S. Tomosy, and M. J. Wisdom. 2016. Conservation and restoration of sagebrush ecosystems and sage-grouse: An assessment of USDA Forest Service Science. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-348. Fort Collins, CO; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 54 p. Flack, J. A. D. 1976. Bird populations of aspen forest in western North America. Ornithological Monographs 19:1-97. Golder Associates Inc. (Golder). 2014. Technical Memorandum. Sky Mountain Park Vegetation Managment. Prepared for Gary Tennenbaum. Prepared by Randy Mandel and Jonathan Lowsky. Golder Associates Inc. (Golder). 2015. Draft Report: 2014 Vegetation Assessment Summary - Sky Mountain Park. Report No. 1400717 008 R RevA. Prepared by Golder Associates Inc. of Lakewood, CO for Piktin County Open Space and Trails of Aspen, CO. Golder Associates Inc. (Golder). 2016. 2015 Vegetation Assessment - Sky Mountain Park. Report No. 140071715 003 R01 Rev0 200, Prepared by Golder Associates Inc. of Lakewood, CO for Pitkin County Open Space and Trails, of Aspen, CO.

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 26

Grant-Hoffman, M. N., A. Clements, A. Lincoln, and J. Dollerschell. 2012. Crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) seedings in Western Colorado: What can we learn? Management of Biological Invasions (2012) Volume 3, Issue 2: 89–96. Griffis-Kyle, K. L., and P. Beier. 2003. Small isolated aspen stands enrich bird communities in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Biological Conservation 110:375-385. Gunnell, K. L., T. A. Monaco, C. A. Call, and C. V. Ransom. 2010. Seedling Interference and Niche Differentiation Between Crested Wheatgrass and Contrasting Native Great Basin Species. RANGELAND ECOLOGY & MANAGEMENT 63(4) July 2010. Handwerk, Jill. Botanist with the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, Colorado. Email communication with Rea Orthner, 5/30/2018. Johns, B. W. 1993. The influence of grove size on bird richness in aspen parklands. Wilson Bulletin 105:256– 264. Kitchen, S. G., P. N. Behrens, S. K. Goodrich, A. Green, and J. Guyon. 2019. Guidelines for Aspen Restoration in Utah with Applicability to the Guidelines for Aspen Restoration in Utah with Applicability to the Intermountain West. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-390. Fort Collins CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.:55 p. Lotic Hydrological. 2017. Lower Brush Creek Geomorphological Assessment. Sky Mountain Park Open Space. Page 19 pp. Prepared by Lotic Hydrological LLC. Prepared for Pitkin County Open Space and Trails and Western Ecological Resource, Inc. Lowsky, J. 2001. Seven Star Management Plan - Wildlife Resources. Unpublished Technical Report. Pitkin County Open Space & Trails, Aspen, CO. Mandel, Randy. 2018. Personal communication with Rea Orthner. Former ecologist with Golder Associates, Inc. Mueller-Dombois, E. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. The point intercept method, page 84. John Wiley and Sons, publisher. Oaten, D. K., and K. W. Larsen. 2008. Aspen Stands as Small Mammal “Hotspots” Within Dry Forest Ecosystems of British Columbia. Northwest Science 82:276-285, 210. Oregon State. 2010. Land Manager's Guide to Aspen Managment in Oregon. Page 85 pp. Oregon State University Extension Service and Forest Restoration Partnership. Available online at http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/. Painter, L. E., R. L. Beschta, E. J. Larsen, and W. J. Ripple. 2018. Aspen recruitment in the Yellowstone region linked to reduced herbivory after large carnivore restoration. Ecosphere 9(8):e02376. 10.1002/ecs2.2376 PCOST. 2012. Sky Mountain Park Managment Plan. Prepared by Pitkin County Open Space and Trails, Town of Snowmass Village, and City of Aspen Parks and Recreation. Peak Ecological Services, LLC (PeakEco). 2018. Ecological Integrity Assessment. Brush Creek Riparian Habitat. Page 85 pp. Completed by Peak Ecological Services LLC of Nederland, Colorado for Pitkin County Open Space and Trails. Pellant, M., and C. R. Lysne. 2005. Strategies to Enhance Plant Structure and Diversity in Crested Wheatgrass Seedings. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-38. . Rogers, P. C. 2017. Guide to Quaking Aspen Ecology and Management with Emphasis on Bureau of Land Management Lands in the Western United State. Page 98 p. Logan, Utah, Western Aspen Alliance.

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 27

Rogers, P. C., and D. J. McAvoy. 2018. Mule deer impede Pando’s recovery: Implications for aspen resilience from a single-genotype forest. PLOS ONE 13:e0203619. Rogers, P. C., B. D. Pinno, J. Šebesta, B. R. Albrectsen, and G. Li. 2019. A Global View of Aspen: Conservation Science for Widespread A Global View of Aspen: Conservation Science for Widespread Keystone Systems. Global Ecology and Conservation 21:35 pp. Shaw, N. L., A. M. DeBolt, and R. Rosentrete. 2005. Reseeding Big Sagebrush: Techniques and Issues. In: Shaw, Nancy L.; Pellant, Mike; Monsen, Stephen B., comps. 2005. Sage grouse habitat restoration symposium proceedings; 2001 June 4–7; Boise, ID. Proceedings RMRS-P-38. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-38. 2005. Shepperd, W. D. 1996. Response of Aspen Root Suckers to Regeneration Methods and Post-Harvent Protection. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper RM-RP-324.:8 pp. Shepperd, W. D. 2004. Techniques to Restore Aspen Forests in the Western U.S. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 40: 52-60. Singer, J. A., R. Turnbull, M. Foster, C. Bettigole, and B. R. Frey. 2019. Sudden Aspen Decline: A Review of Pattern and Process in a Changing Climate. Forests 10:671:19 pp. Turchi, G., P. Kennedy, D. Urban, and D. Hein. 1995. Bird species richness in relation to isolation of aspen habitats Wildson Bulletin 17:463-474. USDOI-BLM. 1998 A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. USDA-NRCS Technical Reference 1737-15. Riparian Area Managment.:136 pp. USDOI-BLM. 2003. Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Lentic Riparian-Wetland Areas. U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Managment. Riparian Area Managment. Technical Reference 1737-16. Revised 2003:120 pp. Welsh, Stanley. 2007. A Flora of Utah. Brigham Young University Press Welsh, S. L., N. D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L. C. Higgins. 2008. A Utah Flora, Fourth Edition, revised. Pages 1,019 pp. Brigham Yound University, Provo, Utah. Western Ecological Resource, Inc. (WER). 2012. Silverleaf Milkvetch Plant Surveys Pitkin County & Town of Snowmass Village Open Space. Pitkin County, Colorado. Prepared by Western Ecological Resource, Inc. (WER) of Boulder, CO for Pitkin County Open Space and Trails of Aspen, CO. Western Ecological Resource, Inc. and Black Creek Hydrology, LLC (WER and BCH). 2016. Concept Stream Restoraton Plan. Cozy Point Ranch. City of Aspen Open Space. Page 36 pp. Prepared by Western Ecological Resource, Inc. of Boulder, Colorado and Black Creek Hydrology LLC of Northglen, Colorado. Western Ecological Resource, Inc. and Wildlife Specialties, LLC (WER and WS). 2011. Biological & Historical Resource Surveys. Pitkin County, City of Aspen & Snowmass Village Open Space. Pitkin County, Colorado. Prepared by Western Ecological Resource, Inc. (WER) or Boulder, CO and Wildlife Specialties, LLC (WS) of Lyons, CO. Prepared for Pitkin County Open Space and Trails, Aspen, CO. Winternitz, B. L. 1980. Birds in aspen. Pages 247–257 Management of western forests and grasslands for nongame birds. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-86. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. Young, J. 1973. Breeding Bird Populations and Habitat Utilization in Aspen Stands of Upper Logan Canyon. Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 28

12.0 MAPS

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page 29

332000 333000 334000 335000 336000 337000 338000 339000 340000 341000 COLORADO COLORADO Map 1. Project Location 9000 4 9000 3 4 Sky Mountain Park Complex and Vicinity 4 3 4 Pitkin County, Colorado

Project Location 8000 4 8000 3 4 4 3 4

Cozy Point

VicinityVicinity Map Map

Aspen Mass 7000 4 7000 3 4 4 3 4

Mills 6000 4 6000 3 4 4 3 4

Cozy Point South

Upper North Mesa 5000 4 5000 3 4 4 3 4 Seven Star Ranch 4000 4 4000 3 4 4 3

4 Droste

Seven Star Ranch II Ü 1:30,000

3000 1 inch = 2,500 feet 4 3000 3 4 4 3 4 Airport Bluff Background: 7.5 Minute USGS Quads Woody Creek - 1987 Ruedi Reservoir - 1987 Hidden Valley Highland Peak - 1987 Annie Mitchell Open Space Aspen - 1987 Grid: UTM NAD 83 Zone 13 North Burlingame Ranch - west parcel 2000 2000 34 4 Burlingame Ranch/Deer Hill 4 3 4

332000 333000 334000 335000 336000 337000 338000 339000 340000 341000 Page 30 Cozy Point Map 2. Silverleaf Milkvetch Mills Sky Mountain Park Open Space Pitkin County, Colorado

Brush Creek Cozy Pony Loop Legend Airport Ranch Open Space Properties Cozy Point South Brush Creek Silverleaf milkvetch 2018 Count

Upper North Mesa Silverleaf milkvetch (all sites) Trails Airport Ranch

42 39

Seven Star Ranch 41 Cozyline Note: Numbers refer to the silverleaf Rim Trail North milkvetch occurrence ID. See report 40 for number of plants counted.

Airline 19

21

Cozyline20 Rim Trail North

Horse Ranch 15 22 Droste 17 Airline 36 16 24 Brush Creek 28 Ü 18 26 23 1:19,200 Seven Star Ranch II 29 1 inch = 1,600 feet 13 February 2020 34 14 Ditchline 12 GRID: UTM NAD83 Z13 Viewline 8 9 BASE: World Imagery Clarity 33 7 32 6 10 11

Highline 4 31 35 3 1 38 37 Highline 2 East Brush Creek Nature Lowline

Deadline

Brush Creek 30 Peak Ecological Services LLC Hidden Valley Owl Creek Rd 301 Boulder Canyon Drive Nederland, CO 80466

Owl Creek Highline [email protected] Page 31 Map 3. Gambel Oak Treatment Areas Sky Mountain Park Open Space Cozy Point South Pitkin County, Colorado

Seven Star Ranch Legend

Brush Creek 2014 Completed Treatment Future Recommended Treatment

Cozyline 2014 Planned Treatment Open Space Properties Trails Cozyline

Skyline Ridge Airline

Droste

Seven Star Ranch II Ü 1:12,000 1 inch = 1,000 feet Skyline Ridge February 2020 BASE: ESRI World Imagery Clarity

Viewline Peak Ecological Services LLC 301 Boulder Canyon Drive

Deadline Nederland, CO 80466 [email protected] Page 32 Map 4. Sagebrush Shrubland Restoration Sky Mountain Park Open Space Pitkin County, Colorado

Legend Upper North Mesa Open Space Properties Sagebrush Restoration Areas Colorado Mountain College Vegetation Types Sage Enhancement Test Plots (2012-2013) Aspen Forest Douglas-Fir Forest Mountain Shrubland Seven Star Ranch Sagebrush Shrubland Sagebrush Shrubland - Disturbed Shale Barrens Grassland Future Sagebrush Grassland-Disturbed Restoration Test Plots Grassland-Active Agriculture Riparian/Wetland Aquatic Habitat Disturbed Unvegetated

Droste Ü 1:6,000 Seven Star Ranch II 1 inch = 500 feet February 2020 BASE: ESRI World Imagery Clarity

Peak Ecological Services LLC 301 Boulder Canyon Drive Nederland, CO 80466 [email protected] Page 33 Map 5. Aspen Forest Health W/J Area "D"/Jaffee Park Cozy Point Sky Mountain Park Open Space Mills Pitkin County, Colorado

AF-01A

Rio Grande - RF Gorge AF-05A Brush CreekCozy Pony Loop Airport Ranch Legend AF-02 AF-05B Cozy Point South Open Space Properties Upper North Mesa AF-03 Brush Creek Moore River Parcel Aspen Treatment Area (proposed) AF-04 Aspen Forest Stand and Number Trails

Airport Ranch

Seven Star Ranch

AF-06 Rim Trail North Cozyline

Airline

AF-15 AF-13A Skyline Ridge Rim Trail North AF-13B AF-13C AF-19 Droste Horse Ranch AF-18 AF-17 Airline

AF-11 Seven Star Ranch II Skyline Ridge Ditchline AF-10 Viewline AF-16 Owl Creek Ü AF-14 Rim Trail South 1:24,000

Highline 1 inch = 2,000 feet

Highline February 2020 AF-09 BASE: ESRI World Imagery Clarity East Brush Creek Nature

Brush Creek AF-12A AF-12B

AF-08B Deadline Melton Ranch AF-08A Lowline Owl Creek Rd Hidden Valley Burlingame Ranch

Snowmass Club Owl Creek Lowline Starks AF-07 Yarrow Park Village Way Peak Ecological Services LLC Owl Creek Owl Creek Rd Owl Creek 301 Boulder Canyon Drive Nederland, CO 80466 [email protected] Page 34 Map 6. Recommendations for Wetland and Riparian Habitats Sky Mountain Park Open Space Pitkin County, Colorado

Legend Fen Invaded Recommended Riparian/Wetland Treatments by Cattail Open Space Properties Vegetation Types Aspen Forest Upper North Mesa Douglas-Fir Forest Mountain Shrubland Sagebrush Shrubland Sagebrush Shrubland - Disturbed Shale Barrens Grassland Grassland - Disturbed Grassland - Active Agriculture Seven Star Ranch Riparian/Wetland

Upper North Mesa Equestrian Aquatic Habitat Proposed Irrigation Pond Brush Creek Riparian Restoration Disturbed Unvegetated Rim Trail North Trails

Rim Trail North Ü 1:12,000 Recommended Riparian Droste 1 inch = 1,000 feet Shrub Plantings February 2020 Seven Star Ranch II BASE: ESRI World Imagery Clarity

Horse Ranch

Ditchline Brush Creek Peak Ecological Services LLC 301 Boulder Canyon Drive Nederland, CO 80466 [email protected] Page 35 Cozy Point W/J Area "D"/Jaffee Park Map 7. Noxious Weed Locations .! Sky Mountain Park Open Space Mills Rio Grande - RF Gorge .! .! Pitkin County, Colorado .!

.! Legend .! .! .! .! .! .! Noxious Weed Locations .! .!.! .!.!.! ! .! .! Brush CreekCozy Pony Loop .!. .! .! Airport Ranch Open Space Properties .! .!.! .!.! .! .!! .!.! Cozy Point South .!.! . Trails .! ! .! Moore River Parcel .! . .! .! Brush Creek Upper.! North Mesa .!.!.!.!! .! .!. .! .!.! .! .! .! .! .! Airport Ranch .!.! .! .! .! .! .! .! .! Seven Star Ranch.! .!.! Rim Trail North

Cozyline .! .! .!.! .! .! .! .! .!.!.!.!.! .! Airline .! .!.!.!.! .! .! .! .! .! .! Skyline Ridge Note: Noxious Weeds as observed by Rim Trail North .! Peak Ecological Services 2011, 2018, .! .! and 2019. Additional occurrences of Droste noxious weeds likely occur.

Horse Ranch

Seven Star Ranch II Airline

Skyline Ridge Ditchline

Viewline

Rim Trail South .! !. Highline . .!.!.!.!

Highline

East Brush Creek Nature .! Ü Brush Creek .! 1:24,000 Hidden Valley .! 1 inch = 2,000 feet

Lowline February 2020 Owl Creek Rd ! BASE: ESRI World Imagery Clarity Snowmass Club . Melton RanchOwl Creek Lowline Deadline Starks Yarrow Park Village Way Mayfly Tom Blake Peak Ecological Services LLC Owl Creek Rd Owl Creek 301 Boulder Canyon Drive Nederland, CO 80466 [email protected] Page 36 Cozy Point W/J Area "D"/Jaffee Park Map 8. Revised Vegetation Types Mills Sky Mountain Park Open Space Pitkin County, Colorado

Brush CreekCozy Pony Loop Airport Ranch Rio Grande - RF Gorge Legend Cozy Point South Brush Creek Moore River Parcel Open Space Properties Upper North Mesa Trails Vegetation Types Aspen Forest Airport Ranch Douglas-Fir Forest Seven Star Ranch Mountain Shrubland Rim Trail North

Cozyline Sagebrush Shrubland Sagebrush Shrubland - Disturbed

Airline Shale Barrens Grassland Skyline Ridge Rim Trail North Grassland-Disturbed Grassland-Active Agriculture Droste Riparian/Wetland Horse Ranch Aquatic Habitat Seven Star Ranch II Airline Disturbed Skyline Ridge Ditchline Unvegetated

Viewline

Owl Creek

Highline

Highline

East Brush Creek Nature

Brush Creek Ü Hidden Valley 1:24,000 1 inch = 2,000 feet Lowline Owl Creek Rd February 2020 Burlingame Ranch Snowmass Club BASE: ESRI World Imagery Clarity Owl Creek Lowline Deadline Starks Village Way

Tom Blake Owl Creek Rd Owl Creek Peak Ecological Services LLC 301 Boulder Canyon Drive Nederland, CO 80466 [email protected] Page 37

APPENDIX A. ASPEN FOREST HEALTH DATA TABLE

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page A-1

Aspen Photo # & Recommended Site Acres Survey Date Notes Class Direction Actions AF-01A 2A 0.68 9/20/2019 Declining to dead overstory with vigorous 1534 (211 deg) None. regrowth especially on edges. Some browsing, but not overly browsed. AF-01B 2B 0.23 9/20/2019 Mature to declining overstory with very little 1535 (156 deg), Remove tall shrub regeneration. Deer beds throughout. Large 1536 (214 deg) layer. Fence. Monitor. patch of plumeless thistle, also houndstongue Consider mechanical here. treatment in future. AF-02 2B 0.45 9/20/2019 Declining aspen forest with some regeneration 1524 (66 deg) Remove tall shrub on edges, but not in center. >50% of aspen are layer. Fence. Monitor. dead/dying. Numerous tall shrubs. Also visited Consider mechanical 10/25/2018. treatment in future. AF-03 1A/1B 0.37 9/20/2019 Sparse aspen stand in swale as well as hillslope. 1525 (355 deg), None. Mixed heavily with oak, serviceberry, and 1526 (317 deg) juniper. Regeneration is occurring, but overall stand is fairly sparse. Very few mature trees. May be difficult to implement management actions. AF-04 2A 0.93 9/20/2019 Mature to declining aspen overstory with 1532 (202 deg) None. healthy growth of juveniles and saplings. Along bike trail. AF-05A 2A 1.32 9/20/2019 Mature to declining aspen overstory with 1527 (283 deg) None. numerous standing dead. Healthy regeneration of saplings and juveniles. Browsing is light. This grove is next to "fen" and bike trail.

AF-05B 2A 15.60 9/20/2019 Mature aspen with some dieback. Regeneration 1528 (176 deg), None. is healthy in all areas of aspen dieback. 1529 (131 deg), 1530 (338 deg), 1531 (97 deg)

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page A-2

Aspen Photo # & Recommended Site Acres Survey Date Notes Class Direction Actions AF-06 2B 0.42 9/20/2019 Mature to declining overstory with low 1533 (29 deg) None. regeneration. Next to wetland. Some browsing. Regeneration may be limited due to proximity to wet soils. Next to trail. AF-07 1A/2B 6.89 9/19/2019 Mature aspen with some standing dead. 1494 (97 deg), None. Regeneration is frequent on edges (1A), but 1495 (281 deg), little in interior (2B). Much barking and browsing 1496 (201 deg) on trees. In dense overstory, regeneration may be naturally limited due to apical dominance or tall shrub layer. AF-08A 2A 4.09 9/19/2019 Mature aspen with some declining, much young 1492 (133 deg), None. regeneration. 1493 (317 deg) AF-08B 1B 1.06 9/19/2019 Adjacent to Hidden Valley Cemetery. Mature 1490 (347 deg); None. healthy aspen stand with dense pasture grasses 1491 (328 deg). (Broine) and noxious weeds (Cirarv, Caraca). Regeneration is heavily browsed. Fencing may be difficult here due to cemetery. AF-09 1A 4.26 9/19/2019 Healthy aspen forest with mature individuals 1501 (313 dg), None. and young sprouts and juveniles. iRON station 1502 (358 deg), present. Some standing dead. Shrub layer of 1503 (241 deg), serviceberry and chokecherry. No significant 1504 (162 deg) browsing. AF-10 1A 1.29 9/19/2019 Healthy mature aspen forest with regeneration 1507 (208 deg) None. (mainly on edges). Strong tall shrub layer.

AF-11 1A 0.20 9/19/2019 Fairly small aspen stand with a few standing 1508 (40 deg) None. dead. Aspen regeneration on edges. One juniper present, but not a threat. AF-12A 2B 1.34 9/19/2019 Numerous juvenile aspen. Heavy shrub cover of 1497 (171 deg), Remove tall shrub serviceberry and chokecherry. 1498 (61 deg) layer. May be difficult to fence this area.

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page A-3

Aspen Photo # & Recommended Site Acres Survey Date Notes Class Direction Actions AF-12B 2B 0.89 9/19/2019 Declining aspen with numerous standing dead. 1499 (249 deg); Fence. Monitor. Very limited regeneration on edges. Heavy 1500 (77 deg) Consider mechanical browsing. treatment in future. AF-13B 2B 1.15 9/19/2019 Mature/decadent aspen trees with some 1510 (134 deg); Fence. Monitor. standing dead. All regeneration is heavily 1511 (318 deg), Consider mechanical browsed. Elk probably bed down here and 1512 (153 deg), treatment in future. browse the young saplings. 1513 (286 deg) AF-13A 1A 0.94 9/19/2019 Healthy aspen with adequate regeneration. 1523 (184 deg) None. AF-13C 1A 0.45 9/19/2019 Healthy aspen with adequate regeneration. none None. AF-14 1A 0.30 9/19/2019 Small stand, but all regeneration is adequate. 1505 (191 deg), None. Just a couple of older mature trees, nice cohort 1506 (199 deg) of medium size and younger saplings on edges. Tall shrub layer of serviceberry and chokecherry.

AF-15 1A/2A 2.53 9/19/2019 Variable aspen stand, with some mature/ 1514 (26 deg), None. decadent, medium size trees. Overall adequate 1515 (13 deg), regeneration. Some juniper encroachment on 1517 (6 deg), northeast. Wetland spring/ seep complex in 1520 (40 deg), center. Heavy browsing observed. 1522 (238 deg)

AF-16 1A 3.35 9/20/2019 Healthy aspen stand with mostly young trees 1539 (240 deg), None. <6-inch dbh, but some trees 8 (10)-inch dbh. 1540 (311 deg), Serviceberry, snowberry, and chokecherry 1541 (319 deg) understory. Very little standing dead. AF-17 N/A 0.48 Not visited N/A N/A AF-18 N/A 0.67 Not visited N/A N/A AF-19 1A 0.24 9/20/2019 Mid to young aspen forest, with a few standing 1538 (273 deg). None. dead trees. Serviceberry and snowberry understory. Trees < 6-inch dbh. Some browsing, but is limited.

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page A-4

APPENDIX B. ASPEN FOREST HEALTH PHOTO LOG

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-1

Photo 1. Site AF-01A ...... B-3 Photo 2. Site AF-01B ...... B-3 Photo 3. Site AF-02 ...... B-4 Photo 4. Site AF-03 ...... B-4 Photo 5. Site AF-03 ...... B-5 Photo 6. Site AF-04 ...... B-5 Photo 7. Site AF-05A ...... A-6 Photo 8. Site AF-05B ...... B-6 Photo 9. Site AF-05B ...... B-7 Photo 10. Site AF-05B ...... B-7 Photo 11. Site AF-05B ...... B-8 Photo 12. Site AF-06...... B-8 Photo 13. Site AF-07...... B-9 Photo 14. Site AF-07...... B-9 Photo 15. Site AF-07...... B-10 Photo 16. Site AF-08...... B-10 Photo 17. Site AF-08...... B-11 Photo 18. Site AF-08...... B-11 Photo 19. Site AF-08...... B-12 Photo 20. Site AF-09...... B-12 Photo 21. Site AF-09...... B-13 Photo 22. Site AF-09...... B-13 Photo 23. Site AF-09...... B-14 Photo 24. Site AF-10...... B-14 Photo 25. Site AF-11...... B-15 Photo 26. Site AF-12A ...... B-15 Photo 27. Site AF-12A ...... B-16 Photo 28. Site AF-12B ...... B-16 Photo 29. Site AF-12B ...... B-17 Photo 30. Site AF-13B ...... B-17 Photo 31. Site AF-13B ...... B-18 Photo 32. Site AF-13B ...... B-18 Photo 33. Site AF-13B ...... B-19 Photo 34. Site AF-13A ...... B-19 Photo 35. Site AF-14...... B-20 Photo 36. Site AF-14...... B-20 Photo 37. Site AF-15...... B-21 Photo 38. Site AF-15...... B-21 Photo 39. Site AF-15...... B-22 Photo 40. Site AF-15...... B-22 Photo 41. Site AF-15...... B-23 Photo 42. Site AF-16...... B-23 Photo 43. Site AF-16...... B-24 Photo 44. Site AF-16...... B-24 Photo 45. Site AF-19...... B-25

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-2

Photo 1. Site AF-01A. Class 2A. 211Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4345953 North, 334972 East. 9/20/2019

Photo 2. Site AF-01B. Class 2B. 156Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4345952 North, 334971 East. 9/20/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-3

Photo 3. Site AF-02. Class 2B. 66Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4345526 North, 334565 East. 9/20/2019

Photo 4. Site AF-03. Class 1A/B. 355Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4345334 North, 334354 East. 9/20/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-4

Photo 5. Site AF-03. Class 1A/B. 317Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4345333 North, 334355 East. 9/20/2019

Photo 6. Site AF-04. Class 2A. 202Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4345318 North, 333466 East. 9/20/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-5

Photo 7. Site AF-05A. Class 2A. 283Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4345603 North, 333210 East. 9/20/2019

Photo 8. Site AF-05B. Class 2A. 176Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4345570 North, 333208 East. 9/20/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-6

Photo 9. Site AF-05B. Class 2A. 131Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4345483 North, 333261 East. 9/20/2019

Photo 10. Site AF-05B. Class 2A. 338Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4345546 North, 333336 East. 9/20/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-7

Photo 11. Site AF-05B. Class 2A. 97Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4345546 North, 333336 East. 9/20/2019

Photo 12. Site AF-06. Class 2B. 29Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4344678 North, 333795 East. 9/20/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-8

Photo 13. Site AF-07. Class 1A/2A. 97Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4342375 North, 334758 East. 9/19/2019

Photo 14. Site AF-07. Class 1A/2A. 281Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4342364 North, 334919 East. 9/19/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-9

Photo 15. Site AF-07. Class 1A/2A. 201Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4342507 North, 334944 East. 9/19/2019

Photo 16. Site AF-08. Class 2A. 133Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4342645 North, 334572 East. 9/19/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-10

Photo 17. Site AF-08. Class 2A. 317Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4342587 North, 334723 East. 9/19/2019

Photo 18. Site AF-08. Class 1B. 347Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4342674 North, 334522 East. 9/19/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-11

Photo 19. Site AF-08. Class 1B. 328Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4342646 North, 334572 East. 9/19/2019

Photo 20. Site AF-09. Class 1A. 313Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4343000 North, 334898 East. 9/19/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-12

Photo 21. Site AF-09. Class 1A. 358Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4343045 North, 334858 East. 9/19/2019

Photo 22. Site AF-09. Class 1A. 241Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4343137 North, 334751 East. 9/19/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-13

Photo 23. Site AF-09. Class 1A. 162Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4343193 North, 334702 East. 9/19/2019

Photo 24. Site AF-10. Class 1A. 208Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4343515 North, 334580 East. 9/19/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-14

Photo 25. Site AF-11. Class 1A. 40Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4343559 North, 334609 East. 9/19/2019

Photo 26. Site AF-12A. Class 1B. 171Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4342894 North, 335231 East. 9/19/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-15

Photo 27. Site AF-12A. Class 1B. 61Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4342806 North, 335260 East. 9/19/2019

Photo 28. Site AF-12B. Class 2B. 249Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4342835 North, 335366 East. 9/19/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-16

Photo 29. Site AF-12B. Class 2B. 77Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4342835 North, 335365 East. 9/19/2019

Photo 30. Site AF-13B. Class 2B. 134Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4344151 North, 335086 East. 9/19/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-17

Photo 31. Site AF-13B. Class 2B. 318Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4344115 North, 335122 East. 9/19/2019

Photo 32. Site AF-13B. Class 2B. 153Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4344115 North, 335123 East. 9/19/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-18

Photo 33. Site AF-13B. Class 2B. 286Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4344114 North, 335187 East. 9/19/2019

Photo 34. Site AF-13A. Class 1A. 184Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4344272 North, 335094 East. 9/19/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-19

Photo 35. Site AF-14. Class 1A. 191Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4343412 North, 334665 East. 9/19/2019

Photo 36. Site AF-14. Class 1A. 199Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4343430 North, 334671 East. 9/19/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-20

Photo 37. Site AF-15. Class 1.5A. 26Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4344152 North, 335343 East. 9/19/2019

Photo 38. Site AF-15. Class 1.5A. 13Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4344187 North, 335359 East. 9/19/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-21

Photo 39. Site AF-15. Class 1.5A. 6Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4344221 North, 335410 East. 9/19/2019

Photo 40. Site AF-15. Class 1.5A. 40Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4344250 North, 335434 East. 9/19/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-22

Photo 41. Site AF-15. Class 1.5A. 238Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4344290 North, 335451 East. 9/19/2019

Photo 42. Site AF-16. Class 1A. 240Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4343615 North, 336482 East. 9/20/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-23

Photo 43. Site AF-16. Class 1A. 311Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4343342 North, 336111 East. 9/20/2019

Photo 44. Site AF-16. Class 1A. 319Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4343398 North, 336117 East. 9/20/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-24

Photo 45. Site AF-19. Class 1A. 273Deg, UTM NAD83 Z13: 4343965 North, 336880 East. 9/20/2019

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page B-25

APPENDIX C. SKY MOUNTAIN PARK VEGETATION TREATMENT PLAN COMMUNICATION GRAPHIC

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page C-1

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page C-2

APPENDIX D. REVISED VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES LIST

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page D-1

Vascular Plant Species List - Sky Mountain Park and Vicinity

Scientific Name Common Name Family Origin PLANTS Code Trees Abies lasiocarpa (=A. bifolia) Subalpine fir Pinaceae N ABLAL Juniperus osteosperma (=Sabina) Utah juniper Cupressaceae N JUOS Juniperus scopulorum (=Sabina) Rocky Mountain juniper Cupressaceae N JUSC2 Picea pungens Blue spruce Pinaceae N PIPU Pinus ponderosa subsp. scopulorum Ponderosa pine Pinaceae N PIPOS Populus angustifolia Narrowleaf cottonwood Salicaceae N POAN3 Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen Salicaceae N POTR5 Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir Pinaceae N PSME Robinia neomexicana New Mexico locust Fabaceae N RONE Shrubs/Subshrubs Acer glabrum Rocky Mountain maple Sapindaceae N ACGL Alnus incana subsp. tenuifolia Thinleaf alder Betulaceae N ALINT Amelanchier alnifolia Serviceberry Rosaceae N AMAL2 Artemisia tridentata var. vaseyana Mountain big sagebrush Asteraceae N ARTRV Berberis repens (Mahonia) Oregon grape Berberidaceae N MARE11 Betula glandulosa Bog birch Betulaceae N BEGL Betula occidentalis (=B. fontinalis) River birch Betulaceae N BEOC2 Cercocarpus montanus Mountain mahogany Rosaceae N CEMO2 Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Sticky rabbitbrush Asteraceae N CHVI8 Cornus sericea subsp. sericea Redosier dogwood Cornaceae N COSES Crataegus succulenta (=C. macrantha, C. Rocky Mountain hawthorn Rosaceae N CRER erythropoda) Ericameria nauseosa (=Chrysothamnus) Rubber rabbitbrush Asteraceae N ERNAN5 Ericameria parryi Parry's rabbitbrush Asteraceae N ERPAP10 Juniperus communis subsp. alpina Common juniper Cupressaceae N JUCOS2 Lonicera involucrata (=Distegia) Twinberry honeysuckle Caprifoliaceae N LOINI Lonicera morrowii Morrow's honeysuckle Caprifoliaceae I LOMO2 Lonicera tatarica Tatarian honeysuckle Caprifoliaceae I LOTA Paxistima myrsinites Mountain lover Celastraceae N PAMY Potentilla fruticosa ( =Pentaphylloides Shrubby cinquefoil Rosaceae N DAFRF floribunda) Prunus virginiana var. melanocarpa Chokecherry Rosaceae N PRVIM Purshia tridentata Antelope bitterbrush Rosaceae N PUTR2 Quercus gambelii Gambel oak Fagaceae N QUGA

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page D-2 Scientific Name Common Name Family Origin PLANTS Code Ribes cereum Wax currant Grossulariaceae N RICE Ribes inerme Whitestem gooseberry Grossulariaceae N RIIN2 Ribes lacustre Prickly currant Grossulariaceae N RILA Rosa woodsii Woods' rose Rosaceae N ROWO Rubus idaeus var. strigosus Red raspberry Rosaceae N RUIDS2 Salix bebbiana Bebb willow Salicaceae N SABE2 Salix drummondiana Drummond's willow Salicaceae N SADR Salix exigua Sandbar willow, coyote Asteraceae N SAEX willow Salix geyeriana Geyer willow Salicaceae N SAGE2 Salix lasiandra var. caudata Whiplash willow Salicaceae N SALUC Salix monticola Mountain willow Salicaceae N SAMO2 Salix planifolia Planeleaf willow Salicaceae N SAPL2 Sambucus microbotrys Red elderberry Adoxaceae N SARAR3 Sorbus scopulina Greene's mountain ash Rosaceae N SOSC2 Symphoricarpos rotundifolius (=S. Roundleaf snowberry Caprifoliaceae N SYRO oreophilus) Syringa vulgaris Common lilac Oleaceae I SYVU Tetradymia canescens Spineless horsebrush Asteraceae N TECA2 Perennial Graminoids Achnatherum hymenoides Indian ricegrass Poaceae N ACHY Achnatherum lettermanii Letterman's needlegrass Poaceae N ACLE9 Achnatherum nelsonii Nelson's needlegrass Poaceae N ACNE9 Agropyron cristatum (=A. desertorum) Crested wheatgrass Poaceae I AGDE2 Agrostis gigantea Redtop Poaceae I AGGI2 Alopecurus aequalis Shortawn foxtail Poaceae N ALAE Alopecurus arundinaceus Creeping meadow foxtail Poaceae I ALAR Alopecurus pratensis Meadow foxtail Poaceae I ALPR3 Bromelica spectabilis Purple oniongrass Poaceae N MESP Bromus carinatus (=Ceratochloa) California brome Poaceae N BRCA5 Bromus ciliatus (=Bromopsis canadensis) Fringed brome Poaceae N BRCIC3 Bromus inermis Smooth brome Poaceae I BRINI2 Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint reedgrass Poaceae N CACA4 Carex aquatilis Water sedge Cyperaceae N CAAQ Carex canescens Silvery sedge Cyperaceae N CACA11 Carex geyeri Elk sedge Cyperaceae N CAGE2 Carex microptera Smallwing sedge Cyperaceae N CAMI7

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page D-3 Scientific Name Common Name Family Origin PLANTS Code Carex nebrascensis Nebraska sedge Cyperaceae N CANE2 Carex occidentalis Western sedge Cyperaceae N CAOC2 Carex pellita (=C. lanuginosa) Woolly sedge Cyperaceae N CAPE42 Carex praegracilis Clustered field sedge Cyperaceae N CAPR5 Carex rossii Ross' sedge Cyperaceae N CARO5 Carex utriculata Beaked sedge Cyperaceae N CAUT Dactylis glomerata Orchardgrass Poaceae I DAGL Eleocharis palustris Creeping spikerush Cyperaceae N ELMA5 Elymus elymoides Squirreltail Poaceae N ELEL5 Elymus glaucus Blue wildrye Poaceae N ELGL Elymus repens (+Elytrigia) Quackgrass Poaceae I C ELRE4 Elymus trachycaulus Slender wheatgrass Poaceae N ELTR7 Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue Poaceae N FEID Festuca saximontana Rocky Mountain fescue Poaceae N FESA Festuca thurberi Thurber's fescue Poaceae N FETH Glyceria grandis American mannagrass Poaceae N GLGR Glyceria striata Fowl mannagrass Poaceae N GLST Hesperostipa comata Needle and thread grass Poaceae N HECO26 Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow barley Poaceae N HOBRB2 Hordeum jubatum Foxtail barley Poaceae N HOJUJ Hydrophyllum fendleri Fendler's waterleaf Hydrophyllaceae N HYFE Juncus arcticus var. balticus (=J. balticus) Baltic rush Juncaceae N JUARL Juncus ensifolius (=J. saximontanus) Swordleaf rush Juncaceae N JUEN Juncus longistylis Longstyle rush Juncaceae N JULO Koeleria macrantha Prairie Junegrass Poaceae N KOMA Leymus cinereus Basin wildrye Poaceae N LECI4 Nassella viridula (=Stipa) Green needlegrass Poaceae N NAVI4 Oryzopsis asperifolia Roughleaf ricegrass Poaceae N ORAS Pascopyrum smithii Western wheatgrass Poaceae N PASM Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass Poaceae I PHAR3 Phleum pratense Timothy Poaceae I PHPR3 Poa compressa Canada bluegrass Poaceae I POCO Poa palustris Fowl bluegrass Poaceae N POPA2 Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass Poaceae I POPR Poa secunda Sandberg bluegrass Poaceae N POSE Pseudoroegneria spicata subsp. inermis Bluebunch wheatgrass Poaceae N PSSPI

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page D-4 Scientific Name Common Name Family Origin PLANTS Code Schedonorus pratensis (=Festuca) Meadow fescue Poaceae I SCPR4 Schoenoplectus acutus Hardstem bulrush Cyperaceae N SCACA Scirpus microcarpus Panicled bulrush Cyperaceae N SCMI2 Thinopyrum intermedium Intermediate wheatgrass Poaceae I THIN6 Perennial Forbs Achillea lanulosa Yarrow Asteraceae N ACMIO Aconitum columbianum Monkshood Ranunculaceae N ACCO4 Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed, Asteraceae I B ACRE3 hardheads Actaea rubra Red baneberry Ranunculaceae N ACRUA8 Agastache urticifolia Nettleleaf giant hyssop Lamiaceae N AGUR Agoseris aurantiaca Orange agoseris Asteraceae N AGAU2 Agoseris glauca Pale agoseris Asteraceae N AGGL Alisma triviale Northern water plantain Alismataceae N ALTR7 Allium acuminatum Tapertip onion Alliaceae N ALAC4 Anaphalis margaritacea Pearly everlasting Asteraceae N ANMA Androsace septentrionalis Pygmyflower rockjasmine Primulaceae N ANSE4 Angelica ampla Giant angelica Apiaceae N ANAM Antennaria dimorpha Low pussytoes Asteraceae N ANDI2 Antennaria parvifolia Small-leaf pussytoes Asteraceae N ANPA4 Antennaria pulcherrima subsp. Pearly pussytoes Asteraceae N ANAN2 anaphaloides Antennaria rosea Rosy pussytoes Asteraceae N ANRO2 Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading dogbane Apocynaceae N APAN2 Aquilegia coerulea Colorado blue columbine Ranunculaceae N AQCO Artemisia absinthium Absinthium Asteraceae I B ARAB3 Artemisia frigida Fringed sage, prairie Asteraceae N ARFR4 sagewort Artemisia ludoviciana White sage Asteraceae N ARLU Astragalus alpinus Alpine milkvetch Fabaceae N ASAL7 Astragalus argophyllus var. martinii Silverleaf milkvetch Fabaceae N ASARM Astragalus convallarius Lesser rushy milkvetch Fabaceae N ASCO12 Astragalus tenellus Looseflower milkvetch Fabaceae N ASTE5 Balsamorhiza sagittata Arrowleaf balsamroot Asteraceae N BASA3 Boechera lignifera Desert rockcress Brassicaceae N ARLI Boechera retrofracta Second rockcress Brassicaceae N ARHOR Boechera stricta (=B. drummondii) Drummond's rockcress Brassicaceae N ARDR

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page D-5 Scientific Name Common Name Family Origin PLANTS Code Brassica elongata var. integrifolia Elongated mustard Brassicaceae I BREL2 Calochortus gunnisonii Mariposa lily Liliaceae N CAGU Campanula parryi Parry's bellflower Campanulaceae N CAPA10 Campanula rotundifolia Harebell Campanulaceae N CARO2 Cardamine cordifolia Heartleaf bittercress Brassicaceae N CACO6 Cardaria draba Whitetop; hoary cress Brassicaceae I B CADR Castilleja chromosa Red desert painbrush Orobanchaceae N CAAND Castilleja flava Yellow Indian paintbrush Orobanchaceae N CAFL7 Castilleja integra Wholeleaf Indian paintbrush Orobanchaceae N CAIN14 Castilleja linariifolia Narrowleaf Indian Orobanchaceae N CALI4 paintbrush Castilleja miniata Giant red Indian paintbrush Orobanchaceae N CAMI12 Chaenactis douglasii Douglas pincushion Asteraceae N CHDO Cichorium intybus Chicory Asteraceae I C CIIN Cicuta maculata (=C. douglasii) Spotted water hemlock Apiaceae N CIDO Cirsium arvense (=Breea) Canada thistle Asteraceae I B CIAR4 Cirsium clavatum var. americanum (=C. Rocky Mountain fringed Asteraceae N CICE centaureae) thistle Cirsium eatonii Eaton's thistle Asteraceae N CIEA Cirsium osterhoutii Osterhout's thistle Asteraceae N CIOS Claytonia lanceolata Lanceleaf springbeauty Montiaceae N CLLA2 Clematis grosseserrata (=Atragene Western blue virgin's-bower Ranunculaceae N CLOCO occidentalis) Clematis hirsutissima (=Coriflora) Sugar bowls, hairy clematis Ranunculaceae N CLHIH Comandra umbellata subsp. pallida Comandra, pale bastard Santalaceae N COUMP toadflax Conium maculatum Poison hemlock Apiaceae I C COMA2 Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed Convolvulaceae I C COAR4 Corallorhiza maculata Spotted coralroot orchid Orchidaceae N COMA25 Corallorhiza striata Striped coralroot orchid Orchidaceae N COST19 Crepis occidentalis (=Psilochenia ) Largeflower hawksbeard Asteraceae N CROCO2 Cymopterus lemmonii (Pseudocymopterus Moutain spring parsley Apiaceae N PSMO montanus) Cymopterus planosus Rocky Mountain Apiaceae N CYPL springparsley Delphinium nuttallianum Nuttall's larkspur Ranunculaceae N DENU2 Drymocallis arguta Tall cinquefoil Rosaceae N POARA4 Epilobium ciliatum American willowherb Onagraceae N EPCI

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page D-6 Scientific Name Common Name Family Origin PLANTS Code Eremogone congesta Ballhead sandwort Caryophyllaceae N ARCOC4 Erigeron divergens Spreading fleabane Asteraceae N ERDI4 Erigeron flagellaris Trailing fleabane Asteraceae N ERFL Erigeron speciosus Aspen fleabane Asteraceae N ERSP4 Eriogonum umbellatum var. umbellatum Common sulphur-flower Polygonaceae N ERUMU2 Eucephalus engelmannii Engelmann's aster Asteraceae N EUEN Euphorbia esula (=Tithymalus) Leafy spurge Euphorbiaceae I B EUESE Fragaria virginiana Mountain strawberry Rosaceae N FRVIG2 Frasera speciosa Monument plant, Elkweed Gentianaceae N FRSP Gaillardia aristata Gaillardia, blanketflower Asteraceae N GAAR Galium boreale (=G. septentrionale) Northern bedstraw Rubiaceae N GABO2 Geranium richardsonii Richardson's geranium Geraniaceae N GERI Geranium viscosissimum subsp. nervosum Sticky purple geranium Geraniaceae N GEVII Geum macrophyllum var. perincisum Largeleaf avens Rosaceae N GEMAP Geum triflorum (=Erythrocoma triflora) Prairie smoke Rosaceae N GETRT Helenium autumnale Mountain sneezeweed Asteraceae N HEAUM Helianthella quinquenervis Fivenerve little sunflower Asteraceae N HEQU2 Heliomeris multiflora Showy goldeneye Asteraceae N HEMU3 Heracleum maximum (=H. sphondylium Cow parsnip Apiaceae N HEMA80 subsp. montanum) Herrickia glaucus (=Eurybia glauca) Gray aster Asteraceae N EUGL19 Heuchera parvifolia Littleleaf alumroot Saxifragaceae N HEPA11 Hippuris vulgaris Common mare's-tail Hippuridaceae N HIVU2 Hydrophyllum capitatum Ballhead waterleaf Hydrophyllaceae N HYCA4 Ipomopsis aggregata Scarlet gilia Polemoniaceae N IPAG Iris missouriensis Rocky Mountain iris Iridaceae N IRMI Juncus dudleyi Dudley's rush Juncaceae N JUDU2 Lathyrus lanszwerti var. leucanthus (=L. Whiteflower pea Fabaceae N LALAL3 leucanthus) Lemna minor Common duckweed Araceae N LEMI3 Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye daisy Asteraceae I B LEVU Ligusticum porteri Osha, lovage Apiaceae N LIPO Linaria vulgaris Butter and eggs, toadflax Plantaginaceae I B LIVU2 Linum lewisii (=Adenolinum) Wild blue flax Linaceae N LILEL2 Lithospermum ruderale Western stoneseed Boraginaceae N LIRU4 Lomatium dissectum var. multifidum Carrotleaf biscuitroot Apiaceae N LODIM Lomatium grayi Gray's biscuitroot Apiaceae N LOGR

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page D-7 Scientific Name Common Name Family Origin PLANTS Code Lomatium triternatum subsp. platycarpum Great Basin desertparsley Apiaceae N LOSIS Lupinus argenteus Silvery lupine Fabaceae N LUAR3 Lupinus caudatus tailcup lupine Fabaceae N LUCA Machaeranthera bigelovii Bigelow's tansyaster Asteraceae N MABI Machaeranthera canescens Hoary tansyaster Asteraceae N MACA2 Maianthemum racemosum subsp. Large false Solomon's seal Ruscaceae N MARAA amplexicaule Maianthemum stellatum Starry false Solomon's seal Ruscaceae N MAST4 Malva neglecta Common mallow Malvaceae I MANE Medicago lupulina Black medic Fabaceae I MELU Medicago sativa Alfalfa Fabaceae I MESA Melandrium dioicum Red catchfly Caryophyllaceae I SIDI4 Mentha arvensis Wild mint Lamiaceae N MEAR4 Mertensia brevistyla Shortstyle bluebells Boraginaceae N MEBR Mertensia ciliata Chiming bells Boraginaceae N MECI3 Mimulus guttatus Monkeyflower Phrymaceae N MIGU Myosurus minimus Tiny mousetail Ranunculaceae N MYMI2 Nasturtium officinale Watercress Brassicaceae I NAOF Noccaea fendleri subsp. glauca (=N. Alpine pennycress Brassicaceae N NOMO2 montana) Oenothera caespitosa Tufted evening primrose Onagraceae N OECA10 Oenothera flava Yellow evening primrose Onagraceae N OEFL Orobanche fasciculata (=Aphyllon) Clustered broomrape Orobanchaceae N ORFA Osmorhiza depauperata Bluntseed sweet cicely Apiaceae N OSDE Osmorhiza occidentalis Western sweet cicely Apiaceae N OSOC Oxyria digyna Alpine mountain-sorrel Polygonaceae N OXDI3 Oxytropis lambertii Purple locoweed Fabaceae N OXLA3 Oxytropis sericea White locoweed Fabaceae N OXSE Packera pseudaurea Falsegold groundsel Asteraceae N PAPS5 Packera streptanthifolia Rocky Mountain groundsel Asteraceae N PAST10 Packera tridenticulata threetooth ragwort Asteraceae N PATR7 Pastinaca sativa Wild parsnip Apiaceae I PASA2 Pedicularis procera Giant lousewort Orobanchaceae N PEPR7 Penstemon caespitosus Mat penstemon Plantaginaceae N PECA4 Penstemon eatonii Firecracker penstemon Plantaginaceae N PEEA Penstemon osterhoutii Osterhout's beardtongue Plantaginaceae N PEOS Penstemon saxosorum Upland beardtongue Plantaginaceae N PESA2

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page D-8 Scientific Name Common Name Family Origin PLANTS Code Penstemon strictus Rocky Mountain penstemon Plantaginaceae N PEST2 Penstemon watsonii Watson's penstemon Plantaginaceae N PEWA Petradoria pumila Rock goldenrod Asteraceae N PEPU7 Phacelia heterophylla Varileaf phacelia Hydrophyllaceae N PHHE2 Phlox longifolia Longleaf phlox Polemoniaceae N PHLO2 Phlox multiflora Flowery phlox Polemoniaceae N PHMU3 Physaria floribunda Pointtip twinpod Brassicaceae N PHFL3 Plantago lanceolata Narrowleaf plantain Plantaginaceae I PLLA Plantago major Common plantain Plantaginaceae I PLMA2 Polemonium foliosissimum Leafy Jacob's-ladder Polemoniaceae N POFO Portulaca oleracea Common purslane, little Portulacaceae I POOL hogweed Potentilla hippiana Woolly cinquefoil Rosaceae N POHI6 Potentilla pulcherrima Beautiful cinquefoil Rosaceae N POPU9 Potentilla recta Sulphur cinquefoil Rosaceae I B PORE5 Pseudostellaria jamesiana Tuber starwort Caryophyllaceae N PSJA2 Psilochenia acuminata Tapertip hawksbeard Asteraceae N CRACA Pulsatilla patens subsp. multifida Pasque flower Ranunculaceae N PUPAM Ranunculus glaberrimus var. ellipticus Sagebrush buttercup Ranunculaceae N RAGLE Ranunculus macounii Macoun's buttercup Ranunculaceae N RAMA2 Rudbeckia occidentalis var. montana Montane coneflower Asteraceae N RUMO9 Rumex crispus Curly dock Polygonaceae I RUCR Rumex occidentalis Western dock Polygonaceae N RUAQF Rumex triangulivalvis (=R. salicifolius) Willow dock Polygonaceae N RUSAM Scrophularia lanceolata Lanceleaf figwort Scrophulariaceae N SCLA Sedum lanceolatum Stonecrop Crassulaceae N SELAL Senecio integerrimus Lambstongue groundsel Asteraceae N SEIN2 Senecio serra var. admirabilis Tall ragwort Asteraceae N SESEA Sidalcea candida White checkermallow Malvaceae N SICA3 Sidalcea neomexicana Rocky Mountain checker- Malvaceae N SINE3 bloom Silene antirrhina sleepy silene Caryophyllaceae I SIAN2 Sisyrinchium montanum Rocky Mountain blue-eyed Iridaceae N SIMO2 grass Solanum dulcamara Climbing nightshade Solanaceae I SODU Solidago gigantea Giant goldenrod Asteraceae N SOGI Solidago velutina subsp. sparsiflora Three-nerve goldenrod Asteraceae N SOVE6

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page D-9 Scientific Name Common Name Family Origin PLANTS Code Sparganium angustifolium Narrowleaf bur-reed Sparganiaceae N SPAN2 Sphaeralcea coccinea Scarlet globemallow Malvaceae N SPCO Symphyotrichum ascendens (=Virgulaster) Western aster Asteraceae N SYAS3 Symphyotrichum foliaceum (=Aster) Leafy bracted aster Asteraceae N SYFOF Symphyotrichum laeve var. geyeri (=Aster) Smooth blue aster Asteraceae N SYLAG Tanacetum vulgare Common tansy Asteraceae I B TAVU Taraxacum officinale Dandelion Asteraceae I TAOF Thalictrum fendleri Fendler's meadow-rue Ranunculaceae N THFE Trifolium pratense Red clover Fabaceae I TRPR2 Trifolium repens White clover Fabaceae I TRRE3 Typha latifolia Broadleaf cattail Typhaceae N TYLA Urtica gracilis California nettle Urticaceae N URDIG Valeriana edulis Tobacco root; Edible Valerianaceae N VAED valerian Valeriana occidentalis Western valerian Valerianaceae N VAOC2 Veronica americana American speedwell Plantaginaceae N VEAM2 Vicia americana American vetch Fabaceae N VIAM Viola adunca Hookedspur violet Violaceae N VIAD Viola scopulorum Canadian white violet Violaceae N VICAS2 Viola sheltonii Shelton's violet Violaceae N VISH Viola vallicola Sagebrush violet Violaceae N VIVA Wyethia amplexicaulis Mule-ears Asteraceae N WYAM Ferns and Fern Allies Cystopteris fragilis Fragile fern Dryopteridaceae N CYFR2 Equisetum arvense Field horsetail Equisetaceae N EQAR Equisetum hyemale subsp. affine Scouringrush horsetail Equisetaceae N EQHYA (=Hippochaete) Equisetum laevigatum (=Hippochaete) Smooth horsetail Equisetaceae N EQLA Pteridium aquilinum subsp. lanuginosum hairy brackenfern Pteridaceae N PTAQP2 Cacti Opuntia fragilis Brittle pricklypear Cactaceae N OPFR Annual/Biennial Forbs Matricaria perforatum Scentless chamomile Asteraceae I B TRPE21 (=Tripleurospermum) Amaranthus powellii Powell's amaranth Amaranthaceae N AMPO2 Arctium minus Lesser burdock Asteraceae I C ARMI2 Barbarea orthoceras American yellowrocket Brassicaceae N BAOR

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page D-10 Scientific Name Common Name Family Origin PLANTS Code Camelina microcarpa False flax Brassicaceae I CAMI2 Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd's purse Brassicaceae I CABU2 Carduus acanthoides Plumeless thistle Asteraceae I B CAAC Chenopodium album Lambsquarters Chenopodiaceae I CHAL7 Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Asteraceae I B CIVU Collinsia parviflora Blue-eyed Mary Plantaginaceae N COPA3 Collomia linearis Narrowleaf mountain Polemoniaceae N COLI2 trumpet Corydalis aurea Golden smoke Fumariaceae N COAU2 Cynoglossum officinale Houndstongue Boraginaceae I B CYOF Descurainia incana Mountain tansymustard Brassicaceae N DEIN5 Draba nemorosa Woodland draba Brassicaceae I DRNE Erodium cicutarium Redstem stork's bill Geraniaceae I C ERCI6 Gayophytum diffusum subsp. parviflorum Diffuse groundsmoke Onagraceae N GADIP Hackelia floribunda Manyflower stickseed Boraginaceae N HAFL2 Helianthus annuus Common sunflower Asteraceae N HEAN3 Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce Asteraceae I LASE Lepidium campestre (=Neolepia) Field pepperweed Brassicaceae I LECA5 Lepidium perfoliatum Clasping pepperweed Brassicaceae I LEPE2 Melilotus officinale Yellow sweetclover Fabaceae I MEOF Microsteris gracilis subsp. humilis Slender phlox Polemoniaceae N MIGRH Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle Asteraceae I B ONAC Orthocarpus luteus Yellow owl's-clover Orobanchaceae N ORLU2 Polygonum douglasii Douglas' knotweed Polygonaceae N PODO4 Ranunculus testiculatus (=Ceratocephala) Bur buttercup Ranunculaceae I CETE5 Sinapis arvensis Charlock mustard Brassicaceae I SIAR4 Thlaspi arvense Field pennycress Brassicaceae I THAR5 Tragopogon pratensis Meadow salsify Asteraceae I TRLA30 Turritis glabra Tower rockcress Brassicaceae I ARGL Verbascum thapsus Mullein Scrophulariaceae I C VETH Annual Graminoids Bromus tectorum (=Anisantha) Cheatgrass, Downy brome Poaceae I C BRTE Poa bulbosa Bulbous bluegrass Poaceae I C POBU

Notes: Nomenclature generally follows Flora of Colorado (Ackerfield 2015) with Weber and Wittmann (2012) synonyms in parantheses. Origin: N=Native; I=Introduced, I+A,B,C,W = Colorado Listed Noxious Weed and Rank. Plants Code: National Code from the NRCS PLANTS National database. Prepared by Rea Orthner of Peak Ecological Services, LLC, Nederland, CO. Date Created 12-Feb-20

February 2020 - Vegetation & Wildlife Monitoring Report Update – Sky Mountain Park Page D-11