Assessment of Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments Use of TCAPP in Developing a Long-Range Transportation Plan: Technical Evaluation (2013) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 5-232
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 5... ...
Contents 1 Executive Summary 4 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 4 Context 5 Planning Challenge and Key Issues 6 Partners/Stakeholders 8 CHAPTER 2 Description of the Pilot Test 9 CHAPTER 3 Stakeholder Involvement 10 CHAPTER 4 Assessment of TCAPP 10 Self-assessment 14 Benefits 14 Other Identified Issues 15 Technical Tool Use 18 Challenges and Recommendations 22 CHAPTER 5 Other (Non-TCAPP) Related Challenges and Recommendations Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C
|
From page 6... ...
1 Executive Summary Whether you are a practitioner, resource specialist or stakeholder - using Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) can improve how you develop, prioritize, and inform transportation plans and projects.
|
From page 7... ...
2 Assessment and Recommendations Although the TCAPP website was not used consistently for each step by everyone involved in the planning process, it was used by the leads on the planning process. One reason that it was not used consistently is that the collaborating agency staff expected that key information would be provided in e-mails; they did not think they needed to "look around" for the information they needed.
|
From page 8... ...
3 5. Key decision points for long-range planning seem to assume that this is a new process, not the next step in a never-ending series of plan updates.
|
From page 9... ...
4 CHAPTER 1 Introduction The following report is an evaluation of the use of the Transportation for Communities – Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) in carrying out the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (PPACG)
|
From page 10... ...
5 creating severe budget issues at local governments and has led to significant cuts in local entity staffing. For example, two of seven MPO staff positions at PPACG have been cut.
|
From page 11... ...
6 Partners/Stakeholders Figure 1.1 shows the organizational structure of PPACG's planning process. It lays out the different decision-making groups and working groups and how they related to each other in the planning process.
|
From page 12... ...
7 consensus and not a majority. Additional information on this effort is found in the report by the Udall Institute.
|
From page 13... ...
8 CHAPTER 2 Description of the Pilot Test During development of the 2035 planning effort, PPCAG followed the process outlined in TCAPP for long-range planning. This included developing a timeline for the team of participants that had all of the TCAPP steps embedded into the tasks.
|
From page 14... ...
9 CHAPTER 3 Stakeholder Involvement PPACG put considerable effort into recruiting non-transportation agency stakeholders. This included writing formal invitation letters to the agencies to help support and justify their participation within their agency.
|
From page 15... ...
10 CHAPTER 4 Assessment of TCAPP Everyone interviewed for this evaluation was aware of TCAPP, and most had used some of the content on TCAPP. It was commented that the "materials were good" and that it was a "very good process" but that "some people are obviously not ready for it yet." Most commented that the site and information on the site were helpful in communicating the value of an enhanced planning process.
|
From page 16... ...
11 Please complete the self-assessment by 8am on Wednesday November 17, 2010. After completion of the self-assessment survey (approximately 10 minutes)
|
From page 17... ...
12 necessary to have the information available at the meetings to keep "walk-ins" and other people on the same playing field. It is recommended that some sort of downloadable hard copy, or suggestions on how to create a hard copy, of key information be developed.
|
From page 18... ...
13 LRP-4 Approve Transportation Deficiencies: Because of local entity recommendations, the PPACG Board directed PPACG staff to not identify deficient facilities. The reasoning for this was that local entity staff had, in their individual local processes, already identified needed projects and any analysis by PPACG would "muddy the waters." LRP-5 Approve Financial Assumptions/PRO-1 Approve Revenue Sources: In Colorado, the MPO is decision maker in name only.
|
From page 19... ...
14 of projects that was collaboratively developed with other agencies during the RTP process. This will necessitate PPACG preparing an RTP amendment to include those projects selected for funding and the removal of a similar costing set of projects from the fiscally constrained list, thereby effectively negating the effort to include nontransportation considerations in the RTP process.
|
From page 20... ...
15 any potential benefits to transportation projects. They also were not comfortable with having federal resource and regulatory agencies involved in the long-range planning process, especially when the majority of the projects are funded using the local sales tax initiative and therefore have no state or federal action.
|
From page 21... ...
16 opportunities of an area. The NatureServe Vista analyses provided the conservation value summaries (CVS)
|
From page 22... ...
17 practitioner commented that the agency's involvement was included for the following two IEF steps and not some of the earlier or later steps: • Step 4: Assess Land Use and Transportation Effects on resource conservation objectives identified in the REF • Step 5: Establish and Prioritize Ecological Actions The commenter said that the agency did not get involved in some of the earlier steps because these steps were a bit out of the agency's "range of understanding or interest" and that some of the visioning and data integration work was done before the agency's involvement. This person was unaware of the status of the steps beyond Step 5.
|
From page 23... ...
18 Better Collaboration Created Understanding, Buy-in and Trust: As described in the "Stakeholder Involvement" section of this report, there were significant efforts made to ensure engagement stakeholders and more engagement by natural resource agencies. This resulted in the natural resource agencies having a better understanding of the transportation planning process, and resulted in the consideration of important natural resource issues because natural resource experts were involved in the review of land use analyses.
|
From page 24... ...
19 3. Challenge of Getting Input That Is Representative of All Stakeholders: TCAPP could provide more specific guidance or case studies on processes that are effective for getting input from stakeholders.
|
From page 25... ...
20 were not current and complete enough to guide regulatory decision making. The data that are available are good for an initial evaluation and prioritization of conservation areas, potential impacts, and selection of mitigation sites, but the development of more precise and complete data would be necessary to inform project-level decisions.
|
From page 26... ...
21 into the planning process via expert opinion so that this information would be documented and could inform future analyses.
|
From page 27... ...
22 CHAPTER 5 Other (Non-TCAPP) Related Challenges and Recommendations The following are a few other challenges and related recommendations that came up during the evaluation process that cannot be addressed within the TCAPP-related efforts.
|
From page 28... ...
SHRP 2 C18D Attachment A FINAL REPORT Conservation Analyses to Support Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments 2011 Long-range Transportation Plan Prepared by: The Colorado Natural Heritage Program and NatureServe On behalf of: Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments
|
From page 29... ...
2 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3 NatureServe Vista Analyses .....................................................................................................
|
From page 30... ...
3 INTRODUCTION In support of the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (PPACG) Long-range Transportation Plan, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP)
|
From page 31... ...
4 identify the final preferred scenario. This process involved the CNHP team providing conservation outputs (maps and reports)
|
From page 32... ...
5 4. Develop and Assign Weights -- weight the conservation elements in the NatureServe Vista database with input from stakeholders.
|
From page 33... ...
6 To determine the conservation element list, the project team studied the CNHP's Element Occurrence1 data for sensitive species and natural communities documented within the study area. This list was refined in the February expert workshop.
|
From page 34... ...
7 Figure B Conservation Value Summary A, Weighted by NatureServe Global Status Ranks and Federal Legal Status.
|
From page 35... ...
8 was needed to develop standardized NatureServe Vista input values (Table B)
|
From page 36... ...
9 development scenarios. Appendix C is a summary of the compatibility of land use by species and plant community elements.
|
From page 37... ...
10 In general, the NatureServe Vista results achieved in this project are atypical. Several elements did not meet retention goals in either the Current Condition or any development scenario.
|
From page 38... ...
11 Figure C Conflict and compatibility in the Current Condition (baseline)
|
From page 39... ...
12 Figure D Conflict and compatibility in the Infill development scenario (first run)
|
From page 40... ...
13 Figure E Conflict and compatibility in the Trend scenario (only run)
|
From page 41... ...
14 Figure F Conflict and compatibility in the Build-out scenario (only run)
|
From page 42... ...
15 Figure G Conflict and compatibility in the Conservation A scenario (only run)
|
From page 43... ...
16 Figure H Conflict and compatibility in the Conservation B scenario (only run)
|
From page 44... ...
17 Figure I Conflict and compatibility in the Current Condition scenario (second run)
|
From page 45... ...
18 Figure J Conflict and compatibility in the Infill scenario (second run)
|
From page 46... ...
19 Figure K Conflict and compatibility in the Small Area Forecast scenario (only run)
|
From page 47... ...
20 N-SPECT ANALYSIS The Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool (N-SPECT) was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
|
From page 48... ...
21 Table C Crosswalk of Land Cover Data for N-SPECT Analysis Placeways Land Use NLCD Land Cover Final Land Cover Used in NSPECT Commercial Developed, high intensity High intensity developed Residential Under 5 Developed, medium intensity Medium intensity developed Road Developed, low intensity Low intensity developed 5 to 35 Developed, open space Irrigated Cultivated crops Cultivated land Pasture/Hay Pasture/Hay Grassland/Herbaceous Grassland Deciduous forest Deciduous forest Evergreen forest Evergreen forest Mixed forest Mixed forest Shrub/Scrub Scrub/Shrub Palustrine forested wetland Palustrine forested wetland Woody wetlands Palustrine scrub/shrub wetland Palustrine scrub/shrub wetland Palustrine emergent wetland (persistent)
|
From page 49... ...
22 Soil K-factor and hydrologic group data used in the analysis came from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO)
|
From page 50... ...
23 Table D Average Percent Change from Current Condition for Fountain Creek Watershed Fountain Creek Watershed Average Percent Change from Current Condition Parameter Infill Trend Buildout Conservation A Conservation B SAF (Preferred)
|
From page 51... ...
24 Figure L Average percent change from current condition for Fountain Creek Watershed -25% -15% -5% 5% 15% 25% 35% 45% 55% 65% Pe rc en t c ha ng e Percent Change from Current Fountain Creek Accumulated Run-off Total Suspended Solids Nitrogen Concentrations Phosphorus Concentrations Lead Concentrations Zinc Concentrations Accumulated Sediment
|
From page 52... ...
25 Figure M Average percent change from current condition for Chico Creek Of the water quality factors modeled, PPACG is primarily interested in nitrogen, phosphorus, runoff, and total suspended solids (personal communication Rich Muzzy, PPACG)
|
From page 53... ...
26 Figure N N-SPECT analysis comparing SAF scenario to baseline for nitrogen.
|
From page 54... ...
27 Figure O N-SPECT analysis comparing SAF scenario to baseline for phosphorus.
|
From page 55... ...
28 Figure P N-SPECT analysis comparing SAF scenario to baseline for runoff.
|
From page 56... ...
29 Figure Q N-SPECT analysis comparing SAF scenario to baseline for total suspended solids.
|
From page 57... ...
30 MARXAN ANALYSIS Marxan is a decision support software program for conservation planning and reserve system design (Ball et al.
|
From page 58... ...
31 overlaid onto the planning units and the costs of some units adjusted upward to indicate areas of planned low- to medium-intensity development. Areas of current or planned high-intensity development were "locked out" entirely, preventing Marxan from including them in a solution.
|
From page 59... ...
32 the "Green Infrastructure Nodes" (GI nodes) provided by PPACG (Figure R)
|
From page 60... ...
33 orchid that is considered a species of concern by the U.S. Forest Service because it is sensitive to being overharvested by orchid collectors and sellers.
|
From page 61... ...
34 Figure R Green Infrastructure areas identified at PPACG's 2011 workshop.
|
From page 62... ...
35 Table F Marxan Results for the Mitigation Solution Using Green Infrastructure Nodes Conservation Element Goal Met % of Goal Met ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS Wetland (coarse filter)
|
From page 63... ...
36 Figure S Marxan best solution looking at conservation impacts of proposed development only.
|
From page 64... ...
37 Figure T Marxan best solution for low-risk conservation goals (counties unweighted)
|
From page 65... ...
38 Figure U Marxan best solution for high-risk conservation goals (counties unweighted)
|
From page 66... ...
39 Figure V Marxan best solution for low-risk conservation goals (Pueblo County minimized)
|
From page 67... ...
40 Figure W Marxan best solution for high-risk conservation goals (Pueblo County minimized)
|
From page 68... ...
41 Conclusions General Statements and Recommendations The primary product of these analyses was a standardized, scientifically based, welldocumented process for evaluating the potential impacts of several development scenarios on the conservation elements and their associated goals in the Pikes Peak Area. In addition, it supported input from the PPACG stakeholders throughout the planning and analysis process, and the selection of a preferred scenario -- the SAF -- that, based on the analyses, showed the least amount of overall impacts to conservation elements.
|
From page 69... ...
42 The CNHP team used NatureServe Vista to evaluate five potential development scenarios. The five initial potential development scenarios tested were Infill, Trend, Build-out, Conservation A, and Conservation B
|
From page 70... ...
43 N-SPECT Conclusions The percent of change from baseline for each modeled factor was summarized over the Fountain Creek and Chico Creek watersheds for each development scenario (Tables D and E, Figures L and M)
|
From page 71... ...
44 should be investigated further. The planned development within the SAF scenario appears to negatively affect several species.
|
From page 72... ...
45 REFERENCES CITED Ardron, J
|
From page 73... ...
46 APPENDIX A SPECIES ELEMENTS, RETENTION GOALS, AND MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS USED IN THE NATURESERVE VISTA ANALYSIS Latin Name Common Name NatureServe Global Conservation Status Rank CNHP State Conservation Status Rank Federal Legal Status State Legal Status Federal Agency Sensitivity Proposed Goal -- High Risk Proposed Goal -- Low Risk Minimum Area (acres) AMPHIBIANS Rana pipiens Northern leopard frog G5 S3 SC BLM/ USFS 50% 75% 3 BIRDS Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle G5 S1B, S3N ST BLM/ USFS 100% 100% 500 Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk G5 S3B BLM/ USFS 50% 75% 500 Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk G4 S3B, S4N SC BLM/ USFS 50% 75% 500 Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle G5 S3 50% 75% Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon G4T4 S2B SC BLM/ USFS 75% 100% 500 Lagopus leucurus White-tailed ptarmigan G5 S4 USFS 33% 66% 70 Grus canadensis tabida Greater sandhill crane G5T4 S2B, S4N SC 75% 100% Charadrius montanus Mountain plover G2 S2B SC BLM/ USFS 100% 100% 140 Numenius americanus Long-billed curlew G5 S2B SC BLM/ USFS 75% 100% 35
|
From page 74... ...
47 Latin Name Common Name NatureServe Global Conservation Status Rank CNHP State Conservation Status Rank Federal Legal Status State Legal Status Federal Agency Sensitivity Proposed Goal -- High Risk Proposed Goal -- Low Risk Minimum Area (acres) Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl G5 S4B ST BLM/ USFS 33% 66% 48 Strix occidentalis lucida Mexican spotted owl G3T3 S1B, SUN LT ST 100% 100% Melanerpes lewis Lewis's woodpecker G4 S4 USFS 33% 66% 15 Dendroica graciae Grace's warbler G5 S3B 50% 75% 5 Seiurus aurocapilla Ovenbird G5 S2B 75% 100% 4 Calcarius mccownii McCown's longspur G4 S2B USFS 75% 100% 3 Leucosticte australis Brown-capped RosyFinch G4 S3B, S4N 50% 75% 1 FISH Etheostoma cragini Arkansas darter G3G4 S2 C ST BLM 75% 100% Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias Greenback cutthroat trout G4T2T3 S2 LT ST 100% 100% INSECTS Amblyscirtes simius Simius roadside skipper G4 S3 50% 75% 50?
|
From page 75... ...
48 Latin Name Common Name NatureServe Global Conservation Status Rank CNHP State Conservation Status Rank Federal Legal Status State Legal Status Federal Agency Sensitivity Proposed Goal -- High Risk Proposed Goal -- Low Risk Minimum Area (acres) Hesperia leonardus montana Pawnee montane skipper G4T1 S1 LT 100% 100% 50?
|
From page 76... ...
49 Latin Name Common Name NatureServe Global Conservation Status Rank CNHP State Conservation Status Rank Federal Legal Status State Legal Status Federal Agency Sensitivity Proposed Goal -- High Risk Proposed Goal -- Low Risk Minimum Area (acres) Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer G5 S5 25% 50% Puma concolor Mountain lion G5 S4 33% 66% REPTILES Aspidoscelis neotesselata Triploid Colorado checkered whiptail G2G3 S2 SC 100% 100% Sistrurus catenatus Massasauga G3G4 S2 PS:C SC BLM/ USFS 75% 100% VASCULAR PLANTS Ambrosia linearis Plains ragweed G3 S3 50% 75% 1 Amorpha nana Dwarf wild indigo G5 S2S3 75% 100% 1 Aquilegia chrysantha var.
|
From page 77... ...
50 Latin Name Common Name NatureServe Global Conservation Status Rank CNHP State Conservation Status Rank Federal Legal Status State Legal Status Federal Agency Sensitivity Proposed Goal -- High Risk Proposed Goal -- Low Risk Minimum Area (acres) Botrychium hesperium Western moonwort G4 S2 75% 100% 1 Botrychium lineare Narrowleaf grapefern G2?
|
From page 78... ...
51 Latin Name Common Name NatureServe Global Conservation Status Rank CNHP State Conservation Status Rank Federal Legal Status State Legal Status Federal Agency Sensitivity Proposed Goal -- High Risk Proposed Goal -- Low Risk Minimum Area (acres) Lesquerella calcicola Rocky Mountain bladderpod G3 S3 50% 75% 1 Liatris ligulistylis Gayfeather G5?
|
From page 79... ...
52 Latin Name Common Name NatureServe Global Conservation Status Rank CNHP State Conservation Status Rank Federal Legal Status State Legal Status Federal Agency Sensitivity Proposed Goal -- High Risk Proposed Goal -- Low Risk Minimum Area (acres) Townsendia fendleri Fendler's Townsend daisy G2 S2 100% 100% 1 Unamia alba Prairie goldenrod G5 S2S3 75% 100% 1 Viola pedatifida Prairie violet G5 S2 75% 100% 1 Column Definitions: • Latin Name -- Scientific name for species.
|
From page 80... ...
53 • Federal Agency Sensitivity -- Species with some sort of conservation designation by a federal land management agency • Proposed Goal -- High Risk -- Highest percentage of the species population that would ideally be preserved in the PPACG area to ensure the sustainability of the species. • Proposed Goal -- Low Risk -- Mimimum percentage of the species population that would be preserved to support the sustainability of the species in the PPACG area.
|
From page 81... ...
54 APPENDIX B PLANT COMMUNITY ELEMENTS Latin Name Common Name NatureServe Global Status Rank CNHP State Status Rank Alnus incana/Cornus sericea shrubland Thinleaf alder-red-osier dogwood riparian shrubland G3G4 S3 Alnus incana/Mesic graminoids shrubland Montane riparian shrubland G3 S3 Andropogon gerardii -- Calamovilfa longifolia herbaceous vegetation Mesic tallgrass prairie GU S2 Andropogon gerardii -- Schizachyrium scoparium Western Great Plains herbaceous vegetation Xeric tallgrass prairie G2? S2 Andropogon gerardii -- Sporobolus heterolepis Western Foothills herbaceous vegetation Xeric tallgrass prairie G2 S1S2 Artemisia filifolia/Andropogon hallii shrubland Northern sandhill prairie G3?
|
From page 82... ...
55 Latin Name Common Name NatureServe Global Status Rank CNHP State Status Rank Carex nebrascensis herbaceous vegetation Wet meadows G4 S3 Carex pellita herbaceous vegetation Montane wet meadows G3 S3 Carex praegracilis herbaceous vegetation Clustered sedge wetland G3G4 S2 Carex rupestris - Geum rossii herbaceous vegetation Alpine meadows G4 S4 Carex simulata herbaceous vegetation Wet meadow G4 S3 Cercocarpus montanus/Hesperostipa comata shrubland Mixed foothill shrublands G2 S2 Cercocarpus montanus/Muhlenbergia montana shrubland Mixed mountain shrublands GU S2 Corylus cornuta shrubland [provisional] Lower montane forests G3 S1 Danthonia intermedia herbaceous vegetation Montane grasslands G2G3 S2S3 Danthonia parryi herbaceous vegetation Montane grasslands G3 S3 Distichlis spicata herbaceous vegetation Salt meadows G5 S3 Festuca arizonica -- Muhlenbergia filiculmis herbaceous vegetation Montane grasslands GU S3 Festuca arizonica -- Muhlenbergia montana herbaceous vegetation Montane grasslands G3 S2 Hesperostipa neomexicana herbaceous vegetation Great Plains mixed grass prairie G3 S3 Hesperostipa comata Colorado Front Range herbaceous vegetation Great Plains mixed grass prairie G1G2 S1S2 Juncus balticus herbaceous vegetation Western Slope wet meadows G5 S5 Kobresia myosuroides -- Carex rupestris var.
|
From page 83... ...
56 Latin Name Common Name NatureServe Global Status Rank CNHP State Status Rank Pascopyrum smithii -- Bouteloua gracilis herbaceous vegetation Great Plains shortgrass prairie G5 S4 Pascopyrum smithii -- Eleocharis spp. herbaceous vegetation Playa grassland G1 S1 Picea engelmannii/Trifolium dasyphyllum forest Timberline forests G2?
|
From page 84... ...
57 Latin Name Common Name NatureServe Global Status Rank CNHP State Status Rank Populus deltoides -- (Salix amygdaloides) /Salix (exigua, interior)
|
From page 85... ...
58 Latin Name Common Name NatureServe Global Status Rank CNHP State Status Rank Salix wolfii/Mesic forbs shrubland Subalpine riparian willow carr G3 S3 Schizachyrium scoparium -- Bouteloua curtipendula Loess mixed-grass herbaceous vegetation Loess prairie G3?
|
From page 86... ...
59 APPENDIX C LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CODING FOR EACH CONSERVATION ELEMENT IN NATURESERVE VISTA ANALYSIS Conservation Element 1 to 5 A cr es 35 P lu s A cr es 5 to 3 5 A cr es C om m er ci al D ev el op ed R ec re at io n Fa ci lit ie s In du st ri al In fr as tr uc tu re / G en er al U rb an iz at io n L ar ge M ili ta ry In st al la tio n (B ui lt U p A re as )
|
From page 87... ...
60 Conservation Element 1 to 5 A cr es 35 P lu s A cr es 5 to 3 5 A cr es C om m er ci al D ev el op ed R ec re at io n Fa ci lit ie s In du st ri al In fr as tr uc tu re / G en er al U rb an iz at io n L ar ge M ili ta ry In st al la tio n (B ui lt U p A re as )
|
From page 88... ...
61 Conservation Element 1 to 5 A cr es 35 P lu s A cr es 5 to 3 5 A cr es C om m er ci al D ev el op ed R ec re at io n Fa ci lit ie s In du st ri al In fr as tr uc tu re / G en er al U rb an iz at io n L ar ge M ili ta ry In st al la tio n (B ui lt U p A re as )
|
From page 89... ...
62 Conservation Element 1 to 5 A cr es 35 P lu s A cr es 5 to 3 5 A cr es C om m er ci al D ev el op ed R ec re at io n Fa ci lit ie s In du st ri al In fr as tr uc tu re / G en er al U rb an iz at io n L ar ge M ili ta ry In st al la tio n (B ui lt U p A re as )
|
From page 90... ...
63 Conservation Element 1 to 5 A cr es 35 P lu s A cr es 5 to 3 5 A cr es C om m er ci al D ev el op ed R ec re at io n Fa ci lit ie s In du st ri al In fr as tr uc tu re / G en er al U rb an iz at io n L ar ge M ili ta ry In st al la tio n (B ui lt U p A re as )
|
From page 91... ...
64 Conservation Element 1 to 5 A cr es 35 P lu s A cr es 5 to 3 5 A cr es C om m er ci al D ev el op ed R ec re at io n Fa ci lit ie s In du st ri al In fr as tr uc tu re / G en er al U rb an iz at io n L ar ge M ili ta ry In st al la tio n (B ui lt U p A re as )
|
From page 92... ...
65 Conservation Element 1 to 5 A cr es 35 P lu s A cr es 5 to 3 5 A cr es C om m er ci al D ev el op ed R ec re at io n Fa ci lit ie s In du st ri al In fr as tr uc tu re / G en er al U rb an iz at io n L ar ge M ili ta ry In st al la tio n (B ui lt U p A re as )
|
From page 93... ...
66 Conservation Element 1 to 5 A cr es 35 P lu s A cr es 5 to 3 5 A cr es C om m er ci al D ev el op ed R ec re at io n Fa ci lit ie s In du st ri al In fr as tr uc tu re / G en er al U rb an iz at io n L ar ge M ili ta ry In st al la tio n (B ui lt U p A re as )
|
From page 94... ...
67 Conservation Element 1 to 5 A cr es 35 P lu s A cr es 5 to 3 5 A cr es C om m er ci al D ev el op ed R ec re at io n Fa ci lit ie s In du st ri al In fr as tr uc tu re / G en er al U rb an iz at io n L ar ge M ili ta ry In st al la tio n (B ui lt U p A re as )
|
From page 95... ...
68 Conservation Element 1 to 5 A cr es 35 P lu s A cr es 5 to 3 5 A cr es C om m er ci al D ev el op ed R ec re at io n Fa ci lit ie s In du st ri al In fr as tr uc tu re / G en er al U rb an iz at io n L ar ge M ili ta ry In st al la tio n (B ui lt U p A re as )
|
From page 96... ...
69 APPENDIX D PERCENT OF CONSERVATION GOALS MET FOR REVISED CURRENT CONDITION SCENARIO AND SAF SCENARIO Element Name Current Condition SAF ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS Aspen 155.63% 156.13% Mixed conifer 174.09% 174.87% Mixed-grass 126.65% 117.05% Mountain shrubs 143.05% 144.54% Pinyon-Juniper 14.91% 14.95% Ponderosa 80.61% 81.13% Prairie shrubs 118.04% 118.05% Riparian 130.62% 130.39% Shortgrass prairie 43.60% 43.35% Wetlands 73.83% 75.21% AMPHIBIANS Northern leopard frog 97.06% 108.82% BIRDS Northern goshawk 110.83% 112.88% Golden eagle 127.65% 117.70% Burrowing owl 139.86% 138.97% Ferruginous hawk 133.33% 133.33% McCown's longspur 80.00% 80.00% Mountain plover 107.90% 107.90% Grace's warbler 100.00% 100.00% American peregrine falcon 111.11% 111.11% Greater sandhill crane 100.00% 100.00% Bald eagle 98.94% 99.56% White-tailed ptarmigan 100.00% 100.00% Brown-capped Rosy-Finch 100.00% 100.00% Lewis's woodpecker 100.00% 100.00% Long-billed curlew 100.00% 100.00% Ovenbird 100.00% 100.00% Mexican spotted owl 0.00% 0.00% Mexican spotted owl habitat 42.60% 42.74% FISH Arkansas darter 97.92% 99.54% Greenback cutthroat trout 100.00% 100.00%
|
From page 97... ...
70 Element Name Current Condition SAF INSECTS Simius roadside skipper 132.69% 132.69% Moss' elfin 100.00% 100.00% Hops feeding azure 100.00% 100.00% Colorado blue butterfly 103.02% 78.58% Pawnee montane skipper 100.00% 100.00% MAMMALS Pronghorn 53.98% 54.13% Elk 112.96% 113.21% Gunnison's prairie dog -- Montane population 82.52% 101.85% Black-tailed prairie dog 119.04% 117.21% Fringed myotis 100.00% 100.00% Mule deer 145.76% 146.40% Bighorn sheep 107.24% 107.58% Townsend's big-eared bat subspecies 21.76% 23.92% Mountain lion 142.90% 136.93% Swift fox 70.88% 74.03% Meadow jumping mouse subspecies 103.46% 107.29% REPTILES Triploid Colorado checkered whiptail 100.00% 100.00% Massasauga 100.00% 100.00% VASCULAR PLANTS Ambrosia linearis 82.62% 82.18% Amorpha nana 50.00% 50.00% Aquilegia chrysantha var. rydbergii 40.00% 40.00% Aquilegia saximontana 96.06% 98.59% Argyrochosma fendleri 50.00% 50.00% Asclepias uncialis ssp.
|
From page 98... ...
71 Element Name Current Condition SAF Elatine triandra 100.00% 100.00% Heuchera richardsonii 75.00% 75.00% Isoetes setacea ssp. muricata 100.00% 100.00% Juncus brachycephalus 0.00% 0.00% Lesquerella calcicola 21.06% 21.34% Liatris ligulistylis 100.00% 100.00% Mertensia alpina 100.00% 100.00% Nuttallia chrysantha 100.00% 100.00% Nuttallia speciosa 88.89% 100.00% Oenothera harringtonii 75.00% 83.33% Oonopsis puebloensis 103.00% 103.00% Oreoxis humilis 100.00% 100.00% Oxybaphus rotundifolius 46.53% 46.53% Penstemon degeneri 0.00% 0.00% Potentilla ambigens 50.00% 50.00% Ptilagrostis porteri 100.00% 100.00% Ribes americanum 49.64% 51.10% Salix serissima 100.00% 100.00% Sisyrinchium pallidum 80.00% 80.00% Telesonix jamesii 110.90% 110.90% Townsendia fendleri 100.00% 100.00% Unamia alba 61.72% 61.72% Viola pedatifida 80.00% 80.00% PLANT COMMUNITIES Alnus incana/Cornus sericea shrubland 133.33% 133.33% Alnus incana/Mesic Graminoids shrubland 122.23% 122.23% Andropogon gerardii -- Calamovilfa longifolia herbaceous vegetation 77.48% 103.41% Andropogon gerardii -- Sporobolus heterolepis Western Foothills herbaceous vegetation 109.54% 109.54% Artemisia filifolia/Andropogon hallii shrubland 109.55% 109.55% Betula occidentalis/Maianthemum stellatum shrubland 111.11% 111.11% Betula occidentalis/Mesic graminoids shrubland 111.11% 111.11% Bouteloua gracilis -- Buchloe dactyloides herbaceous vegetation 111.11% 111.11% Bouteloua gracilis -- Pleuraphis jamesii herbaceous vegetation 133.33% 133.33% Bouteloua gracilis herbaceous vegetation 127.98% 128.02% Buchloe dactyloides -- Ratibida tagetes -- Ambrosia linearis herbaceous vegetation 111.42% 111.42% Carex aquatilis -- Carex utriculata herbaceous vegetation 151.52% 151.52% Carex aquatilis herbaceous vegetation 151.52% 151.52%
|
From page 99... ...
72 Element Name Current Condition SAF Carex nebrascensis herbaceous vegetation 133.33% 133.33% Carex pellita herbaceous vegetation 133.33% 133.33% Carex praegracilis herbaceous vegetation 111.11% 111.11% Carex rupestris -- Geum rossii herbaceous vegetation 151.52% 151.52% Carex simulata herbaceous vegetation 133.33% 133.33% Cercocarpus montanus/Hesperostipa comata shrubland 111.11% 111.11% Cercocarpus montanus/Muhlenbergia montana shrubland 63.29% 111.11% Corylus cornuta shrubland [provisional] 111.11% 111.11% Danthonia intermedia herbaceous vegetation 111.11% 111.11% Danthonia parryi herbaceous vegetation 133.33% 133.33% Distichlis spicata herbaceous vegetation 133.33% 133.33% Festuca arizonica -- Muhlenbergia filiculmis herbaceous vegetation 19.25% 19.31% Festuca arizonica -- Muhlenbergia montana herbaceous vegetation 110.89% 110.89% Hesperostipa neomexicana herbaceous vegetation 98.08% 98.08% Juncus balticus herbaceous vegetation 34.38% 40.09% Kobresia myosuroides -- Carex rupestris var.
|
From page 100... ...
73 Element Name Current Condition SAF Populus angustifolia/Salix exigua woodland 111.11% 111.11% Populus angustifolia/Salix irrorata woodland 105.09% 105.09% Populus deltoids -- (Salix amygdaloides) /Salix (exigua, interior)
|
From page 101... ...
74 Element Name Current Condition SAF Big Sandy Creek at Calhan 73.35% 73.36% Big Sandy Creek at Matheson 111.11% 111.11% Blue Mountain to Phantom Canyon 109.65% 109.65% Boehmer Creek 111.11% 111.11% Bohart Playas 111.11% 111.11% Buffalograss Playas 89.14% 89.22% Carlin Gulch 111.11% 111.11% Cascade Creek East 111.11% 111.11% Cathedral Park 98.27% 98.27% Cave of the Winds 39.87% 46.12% Central Arkansas Playas 199.98% 199.98% Cheyenne Canyon 97.84% 98.79% Cheyenne Mountain 85.82% 86.15% Chico Basin Shortgrass Prairie 98.41% 98.44% Chico Creek 110.91% 110.91% Colorado Springs Airport 61.90% 78.79% Cripple Creek 75.89% 75.89% Dome Rock 108.08% 108.12% East Chico Basin Ranch 111.11% 111.11% Farish Recreation Area 98.37% 98.37% Florrisant 111.11% 111.11% Fountain and Jimmy Camp Creeks 78.62% 80.89% Fountain Creek 91.92% 84.93% Fountain Creek Springs at Pinon 111.11% 111.11% Fremont Fort 111.11% 111.11% Halfway Picnic Ground 111.11% 111.11% Hanover Road 89.87% 89.87% Highland Road 111.11% 111.11% I-25 Shamrock 46.58% 46.58% Judge Orr Road 99.73% 100.05% La Foret 47.34% 47.71% Little High Creek at Booger Red Hill 111.11% 111.11% Lovell Gulch 17.47% 17.47% Marksheffel Road 111.09% 58.97% Midway Prairie 111.11% 111.11% Monument Creek 82.70% 84.79% Monument Southeast 61.39% 63.75% North Mueller Ranch 111.11% 111.11% Phantom Canyon of Eightmile Creek 111.11% 111.11% Pikes Peak 110.14% 110.18% Pineries at Black Forest 82.45% 82.45%
|
From page 102... ...
75 Element Name Current Condition SAF Rare Plants of the Chalk Barrens 111.07% 111.07% Rasner Ranch Playas 111.11% 111.11% Red Creek Canyon 109.30% 109.30% Riser at Calhan 104.07% 104.13% Sand Creek Ridge 100.23% 99.75% Schriever Playas 67.59% 67.59% Severy Creek 111.11% 111.11% Signal Rock Sandhills 110.04% 110.04% South Platte River 111.09% 111.09% Table Rock 100.28% 100.28% Turkey Creek at South Platte Canyon 111.11% 111.11% West Kiowa Creek at Elbert 111.11% 111.11% Widefield Fountain 76.02% 74.36% Woodland Park 108.12% 108.12%
|
From page 103... ...
76 APPENDIX E PERCENTAGE OF CONSERVATION GOALS MET BY POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS IN NATURESERVE VISTA ANALYSIS ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of goals met Name Current Infill*
|
From page 104... ...
77 ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of goals met Name Current Infill*
|
From page 105... ...
78 ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of goals met Name Current Infill*
|
From page 106... ...
79 ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of goals met Name Current Infill*
|
From page 107... ...
80 ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of goals met Name Current Infill*
|
From page 108... ...
81 ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of goals met Name Current Infill*
|
From page 109... ...
82 ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of goals met Name Current Infill*
|
From page 110... ...
83 ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of goals met Name Current Infill*
|
From page 111... ...
84 ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of goals met Name Current Infill*
|
From page 115... ...
88 APPENDIX G CONSERVATION ELEMENT GOALS FOR MARXAN ANALYSIS Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS Riparian Acres 66.0% 75.0% 50,295 37,721 Low Risk %'s mostly based on perceived conservation importance of habitat & total amount in area.
|
From page 116... ...
89 Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank Greater Sandhill Crane Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 T4S2 Mountain Plover Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 19.0 19.0 G2S2 Long-billed Curlew Number of EOs 50.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G5S2 Burrowing Owl Number of EOs 35.0% 50.6% 25.7 13.0 G4S4 Mexican Spotted Owl Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 0.1 0.1 T3S1 Mexican Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Acres 33.3% 50.0% 100,038 50019 We're including the species EOs at 100%, so OK to have much lower goal here.
|
From page 117... ...
90 Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank Townsend's Big-eared Bat Subsp Number of EOs 43.5% 87.0% 2.3 2.0 Minutes precision record overlaps with gold mine.
|
From page 118... ...
91 Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank Hops Feeding Azure Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G2S2 Colorado Blue butterfly Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 T2S2 VASCULAR PLANTS Ambrosia linearis Number of EOs 49.8% 67.6% 28.1 19.0 G3S3 Amorpha nana Number of EOs 50.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G5S2 Aquilegia chrysantha var.
|
From page 119... ...
92 Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank Nuttallia speciosa Number of EOs 50.0% 75.0% 12.0 9.0 G3S3 Oenothera harringtonii Number of EOs 50.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G3S3 Oonopsis puebloensis Number of EOs 85.0% 85.0% 4.7 4.0 G2S2 Oreoxis humilis Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 3.0 3.0 G1S1 Oxybaphus rotundifolius Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 5.0 5.0 G2S2 Penstemon degeneri Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G2S2 Potentilla ambigens Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G3S1 Ptilagrostis porteri Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 G2S2 Ribes americanum Number of EOs 50.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G5S2 Salix serissima Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G4S1 Sisyrinchium pallidum Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 5.0 5.0 G2S2 Telesonix jamesii Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 17.0 17.0 G2S2 Townsendia fendleri Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 G2S2 Unamia alba Number of EOs 80.0% 100.0% 5.0 5.0 G5S2 Viola pedatifida Number of EOs 80.0% 100.0% 5.0 5.0 G5S2 PLANT COMMUNITIES Alnus incana / Cornus sericea Shrubland Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 G3S3 Alnus incana / Mesic Graminoids Shrubland Number of EOs 50.0% 75.0% 4.0 3.0 G3S3 Andropogon gerardii - Calamovilfa longifolia Herbaceous Vegetation Acres 75.0% 90.0% 8,161 7345 EO >= 2500 acres, set goal to acreage GUS2 Andropogon gerardii - Sporobolus heterolepis Western Foothills Herbaceous Vegetation Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G2S1S2 Artemisia filifolia / Andropogon hallii Shrubland Acres 75.0% 90.0% 46,452 41807 EO >= 2500 acres, set goal to acreage G3S2 Betula occidentalis / Maianthemum stellatum Shrubland Number of EOs 50.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G4S2 Betula occidentalis / Mesic Graminoids Shrubland Number of EOs 50.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G3S2
|
From page 120... ...
93 Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank Bouteloua gracilis - Buchloe dactyloides Herbaceous Vegetation Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 G4S2?
|
From page 121... ...
94 Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank Festuca arizonica - Muhlenbergia filiculmis Herbaceous Vegetation Acres 50.0% 75.0% 5,207 3905 Very small piece of large EO in Project Area, acres work better here.
|
From page 122... ...
95 Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank Pinus ponderosa / Carex inops ssp.
|
From page 123... ...
96 Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank Quercus gambelii - Cercocarpus montanus / (Carex geyeri)
|
From page 124... ...
97 Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank Schoenoplectus acutus -- Typha latifolia -- (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani)
|
From page 125... ...
98 APPENDIX H MARXAN RESULTS FOR LOW-RISK AND HIGH-RISK GOALS (each goal weighted to avoid selecting areas within Pueblo County, or not) Conservation Element Unweighted Low Risk Unweighted High Risk Weighted Low Risk Weighted High Risk Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS Aspen Yes 180% Yes 174% Yes 185% Yes 167% Mixed conifer Yes 164% Yes 144% Yes 168% Yes 144% Mixed-grass prairie Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Montane shrublands Yes 100% Yes 101% Yes 100% Yes 102% Pinyon-Juniper Yes 102% Yes 103% Yes 101% Yes 101% Ponderosa Yes 116% Yes 100% Yes 121% Yes 100% Prairie shrublands Yes 125% Yes 100% Yes 115% Yes 100% Riparian Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Shortgrass Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Wetland Yes 102% Yes 105% Yes 103% Yes 105% AMPHIBIANS Northern leopard frog Yes 102% Yes 112% Yes 101% Yes 119% BIRDS American peregrine falcon Yes 100% Yes 116% Yes 100% Yes 133% Bald eagle Yes 99% Yes 99% Yes 99% Yes 99% Brown-capped Rosy-Finch Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Burrowing owl Yes 136% Yes 152% Yes 131% Yes 176% Ferruginous hawk Yes 109% Yes 140% Yes 109% Yes 121% Golden eagle Yes 102% Yes 112% Yes 100% Yes 126% Grace's warbler Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Greater sandhill crane Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Lewis's woodpecker Yes 200% Yes 169% Yes 200% Yes 169% Long-billed curlew Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 200%
|
From page 126... ...
99 Conservation Element Unweighted Low Risk Unweighted High Risk Weighted Low Risk Weighted High Risk Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met McCown's longspur Yes 100% Yes 103% Yes 100% Yes 116% Mexican spotted owl Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Mexican Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Yes 163% Yes 219% Yes 168% Yes 229% Mountain Plover Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Northern Goshawk Yes 97% Yes 112% Yes 97% Yes 122% Ovenbird Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% White-tailed Ptarmigan Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% FISH Arkansas Darter Yes 99% Yes 99% Yes 99% Yes 99% Greenback Cutthroat Trout Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% MAMMALS (NON-GAME) Black-tailed Prairie Dog Yes 100% Yes 108% Yes 100% Yes 130% Fringed Myotis Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Gunnison's Prairie Dog no 95% Yes 100% no 95% Yes 100% Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse no 87.3% no 87% no 87% no 87% Swift Fox Yes 105% Yes 110% Yes 105% Yes 111% Townsend's Big-eared Bat Subsp Yes 108% Yes 116% Yes 108% Yes 116% MAMMALS (BIG GAME)
|
From page 127... ...
100 Conservation Element Unweighted Low Risk Unweighted High Risk Weighted Low Risk Weighted High Risk Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Triploid Colorado Checkered Whiptail Yes 102% Yes 102% Yes 102% Yes 102% INSECTS Colorado Blue no 77% no 77% no 77% no 77% Hops Feeding Azure Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Moss's Elfin Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Pawnee Montane Skipper Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Simius Roadside Skipper Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% VASCULAR PLANTS Ambrosia linearis Yes 104% Yes 119% Yes 114% Yes 128% Amorpha nana Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Aquilegia chrysantha var. rydbergii Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Aquilegia saximontana Yes 118% Yes 178% Yes 117% Yes 178% Argyrochosma fendleri Yes 167% Yes 167% Yes 167% Yes 167% Asclepias uncialis ssp.
|
From page 128... ...
101 Conservation Element Unweighted Low Risk Unweighted High Risk Weighted Low Risk Weighted High Risk Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Cypripedium calceolus ssp. parviflorum no 94.9% Yes 107% no 95% Yes 107% Draba fladnizensis Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Elatine triandra Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Heuchera richardsonii Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Isoetes setacea ssp.
|
From page 129... ...
102 Conservation Element Unweighted Low Risk Unweighted High Risk Weighted Low Risk Weighted High Risk Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Alnus incana / Cornus sericea Shrubland Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Alnus incana / Mesic Graminoids Shrubland Yes 133% Yes 200% Yes 133% Yes 152% Andropogon gerardii - Calamovilfa longifolia Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 103% Yes 105% Yes 100% Yes 102% Andropogon gerardii - Sporobolus heterolepis Western Foothills Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Artemisia filifolia / Andropogon hallii Shrubland Yes 101% Yes 112% Yes 102% Yes 132% Betula occidentalis / Maianthemum stellatum Shrubland Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 196% Betula occidentalis / Mesic Graminoids Shrubland Yes 100% Yes 200% Yes 100% Yes 124% Bouteloua gracilis - Buchloe dactyloides Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Bouteloua gracilis - Pleuraphis jamesii Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 133% Yes 200% Yes 103% Yes 103% Bouteloua gracilis Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 254% Yes 669% Yes 269% Yes 816%
|
From page 130... ...
103 Conservation Element Unweighted Low Risk Unweighted High Risk Weighted Low Risk Weighted High Risk Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Buchloe dactyloides - Ratibida tagetes - Ambrosia linearis Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 117% Yes 166% Yes 117% Yes 175% Carex aquatilis - Carex utriculata Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Carex aquatilis Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Carex nebrascensis Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 149% Yes 202% Yes 149% Yes 202% Carex pellita Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Carex praegracilis Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Carex rupestris - Geum rossii Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Carex simulata Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Cercocarpus montanus / Hesperostipa comata Shrubland Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Cercocarpus montanus / Muhlenbergia montana Shrubland Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Corylus cornuta Shrubland [Provisional] Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Danthonia intermedia Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100%
|
From page 131... ...
104 Conservation Element Unweighted Low Risk Unweighted High Risk Weighted Low Risk Weighted High Risk Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Danthonia parryi Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 125% Yes 249% Yes 100% Yes 200% Distichlis spicata Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Festuca arizonica - Muhlenbergia filiculmis Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 103% Yes 101% Yes 101% Yes 103% Festuca arizonica - Muhlenbergia montana Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 117% Yes 100% Yes 114% Hesperostipa neomexicana Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Juncus balticus Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Kobresia myosuroides - Carex rupestris var. drummondiana Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 200% Yes 100% Yes 200% Kobresia myosuroides - Geum rossii Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Opuntia imbricata Shrubland Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Paronychia pulvinata - Silene acaulis Dwarfshrubland Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Pascopyrum smithii - Bouteloua gracilis Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100%
|
From page 132... ...
105 Conservation Element Unweighted Low Risk Unweighted High Risk Weighted Low Risk Weighted High Risk Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Pascopyrum smithii - Eleocharis spp. Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Picea engelmannii / Trifolium dasyphyllum Forest Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Picea pungens / Betula occidentalis Woodland Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Pinus aristata / Festuca arizonica Woodland Yes 112% Yes 227% Yes 112% Yes 202% Pinus aristata / Trifolium dasyphyllum Woodland Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Pinus edulis / Achnatherum scribneri Woodland Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Pinus ponderosa / Carex inops ssp.
|
From page 133... ...
106 Conservation Element Unweighted Low Risk Unweighted High Risk Weighted Low Risk Weighted High Risk Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Populus angustifolia - Pseudotsuga menziesii Woodland Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Populus angustifolia / Prunus virginiana Woodland Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Populus angustifolia / Salix exigua Woodland Yes 200% Yes 200% Yes 200% Yes 200% Populus angustifolia / Salix irrorata Woodland Yes 179% Yes 179% Yes 179% Yes 179% Populus deltoides - (Salix amygdaloides) / Salix (exigua, interior)
|
From page 134... ...
107 Conservation Element Unweighted Low Risk Unweighted High Risk Weighted Low Risk Weighted High Risk Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Redfieldia flexuosa - (Psoralidium lanceolatum) Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Salix bebbiana Shrubland Yes 100% Yes 133% Yes 100% Yes 133% Salix brachycarpa / Carex aquatilis Shrubland Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Salix brachycarpa / Mesic Forbs Shrubland Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Salix exigua / Barren Shrubland Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Salix exigua / Mesic Graminoids Shrubland Yes 200% Yes 400% Yes 200% Yes 400% Salix geyeriana - Salix monticola / Mesic Forbs Shrubland Yes 100% Yes 191% Yes 100% Yes 200% Salix ligulifolia Shrubland Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Salix monticola / Calamagrostis canadensis Shrubland Yes 100% Yes 200% Yes 100% Yes 200% Salix monticola / Mesic Graminoids Shrubland Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Salix planifolia / Carex aquatilis Shrubland Yes 149% Yes 303% Yes 149% Yes 303% Salix planifolia / Carex utriculata Shrubland Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Salix wolfii / Mesic Forbs Shrubland Yes 149% Yes 303% Yes 149% Yes 303%
|
From page 135... ...
108 Conservation Element Unweighted Low Risk Unweighted High Risk Weighted Low Risk Weighted High Risk Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Schizachyrium scoparium - Bouteloua curtipendula Western Great Plains Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 200% Yes 100% Yes 200% Schoenoplectus acutus - Typha latifolia - (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani) Sandhills Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Schoenoplectus pungens Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Stipa comata - Bouteloua gracilis Herbaceous Vegetation Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Symphoricarpos occidentalis Shrubland Yes 100% Yes 200% Yes 100% Yes 200% CNHP POTENTIAL CONSERVATION AREAS B1 & B2 ranked PCAs Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% B3-B5 ranked PCAs Yes 136% Yes 174% Yes 122% Yes 168%
|
From page 136... ...
Appendix E Percentage of Conservation Goals Met by Potential Development Scenarios in NatureServe Vista Analysis ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of Goals Met Name Current Infill* Build-out Trend Conservation A Conservation B AMPHIBIANS Northern leopard frog 55.88% 91.18% 64.71% 67.65% 73.53% 64.71% BIRDS Northern goshawk 0.00% 108.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Golden eagle 28.57% 127.01% 28.57% 28.57% 28.57% 28.57% Burrowing owl 38.89% 135.04% 38.89% 38.89% 38.89% 38.89% Ferruginous hawk 50.00% 133.33% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% McCown'ss longspur 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% Mountain plover 36.84% 105.85% 36.84% 36.84% 36.84% 36.84% Grace's warbler 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% American peregrine falcon 44.44% 110.32% 44.44% 44.44% 44.44% 44.44% Greater sandhill crane 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Bald eagle 0.00% 77.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% White-tailed ptarmigan 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Brown-capped Rosy-Finch 0.00% 100% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Lewis's soodpecker 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Long-billed curlew 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Ovenbird 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Mexican spotted owl 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Mexican spotted owl critical habitat 34.08% 42.39% 34.08% 34.08% 34.08% 34.08% ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS Aspen 150.04% 150.04% 150.04% 150.04% 150.04% 120.73% Mixed conifer 171.04% 171.05% 171.04% 171.04% 171.05% 159.84% Mixed grass 121.64% 111.50% 107.88% 116.51% 115.77% 64.63% Mountain shrubs 109.83% 108.30% 108.31% 109.83% 109.83% 101.89% Pinyon-Juniper 17.90% 17.90% 17.90% 17.90% 17.90% 17.87% Ponderosa 76.63% 75.23% 75.23% 76.63% 74.78% 68.12% Prairie shrubs 124.14% 124.11% 124.11% 124.14% 124.16% 121.81% Riparian 119.58% 116.64% 116.03% 118.51% 117.71% 105.94% Shortgrass prairie 70.29% 69.76% 69.65% 69.97% 70.27% 63.27% Wetlands 62.57% 62.57% 62.57% 62.57% 62.57% 35.73% FISH Arkansas darter 25.00% 92.90% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% Greenback cutthroat trout 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% INSECTS
|
From page 137... ...
ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of Goals Met Name Current Infill* Build-out Trend Conservation A Conservation B Simius roadside skipper 0.00% 132.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Moss' elfin 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Hops feeding azure 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Colorado blue butterfly 0.00% 101.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Pawnee montane skipper 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% MAMMALS Pronghorn 55.54% 53.48% 54.24% 55.53% 54.90% 54.96% Elk 108.19% 109.85% 108.44% 110.05% 109.55% 108.76% Gunnison's prairie dog -- Montane population 23.08% 90.56% 23.08% 23.08% 23.08% 23.08% Black-tailed prairie dog 62.50% 117.17% 50.00% 56.25% 62.50% 65.63% Fringed myotis 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Mule deer 14.78% 142.44% 14.78% 14.79% 14.89% 14.89% Bighorn sheep 103.90% 106.58% 103.90% 103.90% 103.90% 103.65% Townsend's big-eared bat subspecies 0.00% 20.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Mountain lion 13.64% 133.95% 13.32% 13.36% 13.43% 13.64% Swift fox 0.00% 41.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Meadow jumping mouse subspecies 18.75% 104.29% 6.25% 18.75% 18.75% 6.25% REPTILES Triploid Colorado checkered whiptail 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% Massasauga 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% VASCULAR PLANTS Ambrosia linearis 31.82% 80.30% 22.73% 27.27% 22.73% 31.82% Amorpha nana 0.00% 50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Aquilegia chrysantha var.
|
From page 138... ...
ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of Goals Met Name Current Infill* Build-out Trend Conservation A Conservation B Draba fladnizensis 100.00% 100% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Elatine triandra 100.00% 100% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Heuchera richardsonii 50.00% 50% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% Isoetes setacea ssp.
|
From page 139... ...
ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of Goals Met Name Current Infill* Build-out Trend Conservation A Conservation B Bouteloua gracilis -- Buchloe dactyloides herbaceous vegetation 98.24% 109.88% 98.24% 98.24% 98.24% 98.24% Bouteloua gracilis -- Pleuraphis jamesii herbaceous vegetation 130.26% 133.33% 130.26% 130.26% 130.26% 130.26% Bouteloua gracilis herbaceous vegetation 126.12% 126.58% 126.12% 126.12% 126.12% 123.86% Buchloe dactyloides -- Ratibida tagetes -- Ambrosia linearis herbaceous vegetation 107.67% 107.67% 107.67% 107.67% 107.67% 107.67% Carex aquatilis -- Carex utriculata herbaceous vegetation 151.52% 151.52% 151.52% 151.52% 151.52% 151.52% Carex aquatilis herbaceous vegetation 151.52% 151.52% 151.52% 151.52% 151.52% 151.52% Carex nebrascensis herbaceous vegetation 132.92% 132.92% 41.33% 132.92% 41.33% 132.92% Carex pellita herbaceous vegetation 132.78% 132.78% 9.48% 132.78% 9.48% 132.78% Carex praegracilis herbaceous vegetation 99.58% 110.65% 7.11% 99.58% 7.11% 99.58% Carex rupestris -- Geum rossii herbaceous vegetation 151.52% 151.52% 151.52% 151.52% 151.52% 151.52% Carex simulata herbaceous vegetation 133.33% 133.33% 133.33% 133.33% 133.33% 133.33% Cercocarpus montanus/Hesperostipa comata shrubland 100.00% 111.11% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Cercocarpus montanus/Muhlenbergia montana shrubland 56.61% 63.29% 56.61% 56.61% 56.61% 56.61% Corylus cornuta shrubland [provisional]
|
From page 140... ...
ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of Goals Met Name Current Infill* Build-out Trend Conservation A Conservation B Festuca arizonica -- Muhlenbergia montana herbaceous vegetation 99.44% 110.89% 99.44% 99.44% 99.44% 99.44% Hesperostipa neomexicana herbaceous vegetation 18.69% 42.16% 18.69% 18.69% 18.69% 18.69% Juncus balticus herbaceous vegetation 199.16% 18.69% 14.23% 199.16% 14.23% 199.16% Kobresia myosuroides -- Carex rupestris var.
|
From page 141... ...
ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of Goals Met Name Current Infill* Build-out Trend Conservation A Conservation B Pinus ponderosa/Schizachyrium scoparium woodland 95.68% 151.52% 95.68% 95.68% 95.68% 92.56% Populus angustifolia -- Juniperus scopulorum woodland 78.91% 106.32% 78.91% 78.91% 78.91% 78.91% Populus angustifolia -- Pseudotsuga menziesii woodland 90.55% 93.35% 90.55% 90.55% 90.55% 90.55% Populus angustifolia/Prunus virginiana woodland 87.19% 111.11% 87.19% 87.19% 87.19% 87.19% Populus angustifolia/Salix exigua woodland 54.87% 111.11% 54.87% 54.87% 54.87% 54.87% Populus angustifolia/Salix irrorata woodland 75.65% 99.18% 75.65% 75.65% 75.65% 75.65% Populus deltoides -- (Salix amygdaloides)
|
From page 142... ...
ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of Goals Met Name Current Infill* Build-out Trend Conservation A Conservation B Redfieldia flexuosa -- (Psoralidium lanceolatum)
|
From page 143... ...
ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of Goals Met Name Current Infill* Build-out Trend Conservation A Conservation B Beaver Creek at Sugar Loaf 30.73% 34.51% 30.73% 30.73% 30.73% 30.73% Big Sandy Creek 96.40% 110.97% 96.40% 96.40% 96.40% 96.40% Big Sandy Creek at Calhan 63.96% 72.73% 63.96% 63.96% 63.96% 63.96% Big Sandy Creek at Matheson 100.00% 111.11% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Blue Mountain to Phantom Canyon 97.85% 109.65% 97.85% 97.85% 97.85% 96.38% Boehmer Creek 99.51% 110.81% 99.51% 99.51% 99.51% 99.51% Bohart Playas 100.00% 111.11% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Buffalograss Playas 78.90% 87.85% 78.90% 78.90% 78.90% 77.82% Carlin Gulch 98.84% 111.11% 98.84% 98.84% 98.84% 98.84% Cascade Creek East 98.14% 111.11% 98.14% 98.14% 98.14% 98.14% Cathedral Park 79.91% 94.99% 79.91% 79.91% 79.91% 79.91% Cave of the Winds 28.67% 31.85% 28.67% 28.67% 28.67% 28.67% Central Arkansas Playas 168.07% 199.98% 168.07% 168.07% 168.07% 168.07% Cheyenne Canyon 63.84% 95.65% 62.46% 63.84% 63.84% 63.56% Cheyenne Mountain 70.83% 82.80% 70.83% 70.83% 70.83% 70.83% Chico Basin Shortgrass Prairie 78.69% 97.78% 78.69% 78.69% 78.69% 77.93% Chico Creek 87.15% 110.87% 87.15% 87.15% 87.15% 87.15% Colorado Springs Airport 43.00% 49.84% 29.79% 37.27% 39.25% 42.19% Cripple Creek 59.62% 74.98% 59.62% 59.62% 59.62% 59.62% Dome Rock 96.65% 107.84% 96.65% 96.65% 96.65% 96.65% East Chico Basin Ranch 100.00% 111.11% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Farish Recreation Area 88.35% 98.17% 88.35% 88.35% 88.35% 88.35% Florrisant 98.68% 111.11% 98.68% 98.68% 98.68% 98.68% Fountain and Jimmy Camp Creeks 59.64% 65.13% 42.97% 59.49% 50.80% 58.12% Fountain Creek 73.33% 81.71% 56.87% 63.76% 67.47% 65.76% Fountain Creek Springs at Pinon 100.00% 111.11% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Fremont Fort 100.00% 111.11% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Halfway Picnic Ground 99.11% 111.11% 99.11% 99.11% 99.11% 99.11% Hanover Road 79.44% 88.27% 79.44% 79.44% 79.44% 75.13% Highland Road 97.93% 111.11% 97.93% 97.93% 97.93% 97.93% I-25 Shamrock 0.00% 40.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Judge Orr Road 0.00% 97.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% La Foret 100.00% 43.83% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Little High Creek at Booger Red Hill 5.16% 111.11% 5.16% 5.16% 5.16% 5.16% Lovell Gulch 100.00% 5.73% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Marksheffel Road 97.42% 59.82% 50.41% 50.51% 97.24% 97.24% Midway Prairie 97.01% 111.11% 97.01% 97.01% 97.01% 97.01% Monument Creek 19.98% 77.91% 16.61% 19.98% 19.98% 19.70% Monument Southeast 37.45% 41.62% 37.45% 37.45% 37.45% 37.45% North Mueller Ranch 98.41% 109.35% 98.41% 98.41% 98.41% 98.41%
|
From page 144... ...
ELEMENTS SCENARIOS % of Goals Met Name Current Infill* Build-out Trend Conservation A Conservation B Phantom Canyon of Eightmile Creek 100.00% 111.11% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Pikes Peak 98.36% 110.12% 98.36% 98.36% 98.36% 98.36% Pineries at Black Forest 72.35% 80.63% 21.64% 72.35% 21.64% 54.90% Rare Plants of the Chalk Barrens 93.11% 111.07% 93.11% 93.11% 93.11% 93.11% Rasner Ranch Playas 100.00% 111.11% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Red Creek Canyon 96.78% 109.30% 96.78% 96.78% 96.78% 96.78% Riser at Calhan 91.82% 102.03% 91.82% 91.82% 91.82% 87.10% Sand Creek Ridge 85.35% 55.46% 27.61% 60.96% 52.36% 81.38% Schriever Playas 60.02% 66.88% 60.02% 60.02% 60.02% 60.02% Severy Creek 99.68% 111.11% 99.68% 99.68% 99.68% 99.68% Signal Rock Sandhills 94.07% 109.97% 94.07% 94.07% 94.07% 93.98% South Platte River 99.66% 111.09% 99.66% 99.66% 99.66% 99.66% Table Rock 90.25% 100.28% 90.25% 90.25% 90.25% 90.25% Turkey Creek at South Platte Canyon 100.00% 111.11% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% West Kiowa Creek at Elbert 98.49% 111.11% 98.49% 98.49% 98.49% 98.49% Widefield Fountain 54.42% 67.74% 45.92% 50.76% 46.33% 53.16% Woodland Park 97.04% 107.83% 97.04% 97.04% 97.04% 97.04% *
|
From page 145... ...
Appendix F N-SPECT Land Cover Maps for Current Condition, Potential Development Scenarios, and Small Area Forecast Scenario
|
From page 152... ...
Appendix G Conservation Element Goals for Marxan Analysis Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS Riparian Acres 66.0% 75.0% 50,295 37,721 Low-risk percentages mostly based on perceived conservation importance of habitat and total amount in area Wetland Acres 66.0% 75.0% 5,950 4,462 High-risk following the high-risk numbers used for NatureServe Vista goals Aspen Acres 50.0% 50.0% 16,536 8,268 Pinyon-Juniper Acres 50.0% 66.0% 26,219 17,305 Montane shrublands Acres 50.0% 66.0% 47,184 31,142 Prairie shrublands Acres 50.0% 50.0% 266,078 133,039 Mixed-grass prairie Acres 50.0% 50.0% 305,428 152,714 Ponderosa Acres 50.0% 50.0% 280,082 140,041 Shortgrass Acres 50.0% 66.0% 624,677 412,287 Mixed conifer Acres 50.0% 50.0% 96,074 48,037 AMPHIBIANS Northern leopard frog Number of EOs 50.0% 75.0% 44.0 33.0 G5S3 BIRDS Bald eagle Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 3.0 3.0 G5S1 Northern goshawk Number of EOs 50.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G5S3 Ferruginous hawk Number of EOs 50.0% 75.0% 4.0 3.0 G4S3 Golden eagle Number of EOs 50.0% 77.8% 18.0 14.0 G5S3 American peregrine falcon Number of EOs 75.0% 100.0% 8.0 8.0 T4S2 White-tailed ptarmigan Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 G5S4 Greater sandhill crane Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 T4S2 Mountain plover Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 19.0 19.0 G2S2 Long-billed curlew Number of EOs 50.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G5S2 Burrowing owl Number of EOs 35.0% 50.6% 25.7 13.0 G4S4 Mexican spotted owl Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 0.1 0.1 T3S1
|
From page 153... ...
Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank Mexican spotted owl critical habitat Acres 33.3% 50.0% 100,038 50,019 The species EOs are included at 100%, so OK to have much lower goal here Lewis's woodpecker Number of EOs 50.0% 50.0% 2.0 1.0 G4S4 Grace's warbler Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 G5S3 Ovenbird Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 G5S2 McCown's longspur Number of EOs 80.0% 100.0% 5.0 5.0 G4S2 Brown-capped Rosy-Finch Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 G4S3 FISH Greenback cutthroat trout Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 T2S2 Arkansas darter Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 4.0 4.0 G2S2 MAMMALS (NONGAME)
|
From page 154... ...
Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank Elk Acres 5.0% 33.0% 61,910 20,430 G5S5 Mule and white-tailed deer Acres 10.0% 50.0% 86,164 43,082 G5S4 Pronghorn antelope Acres 10.0% 50.0% 227,028 113,514 G5S4 Mountain lion Acres 10.0% 50.0% 66,733 33,367 Note that black bear covered by coarse filter G5S4 Bighorn sheep Acres 10.0% 50.0% 73,134 36,567 G4S4 REPTILES Triploid Colorado checkered whiptail Number of EOs 66.7% 66.7% 1.5 1.0 The 0.5 EO is a minutes precision that overlaps city of Pueblo, so not going with 100% G2S2 Massasauga Acres 75.0% 90.0% 32,720 29,447.8 One of the EOs ≥ 2,500 acres, set goal to acreage G3S2 INSECTS Pawnee montane skipper Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 0.6 0.6 T1S1 Simius roadside skipper Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 G4S3 Moss' elfin Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 T3S2 Hops feeding azure Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G2S2 Colorado blue butterfly Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 T2S2 VASCULAR PLANTS Ambrosia linearis Number of EOs 49.8% 67.6% 28.1 19.0 G3S3 Amorpha nana Number of EOs 50.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G5S2 Aquilegia chrysantha var.
|
From page 155... ...
Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank Chenopodium cycloides Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 6.0 6.0 G3S1 Commelina dianthifolia Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 6.0 6.0 G5S1 Cypripedium calceolus ssp.
|
From page 156... ...
Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank Artemisia filifolia/Andropogon hallii shrubland Acres 75.0% 90.0% 46,452 41,807 EO ≥ 2,500 acres, set goal to acreage G3S2 Betula occidentalis/Maianthemum stellatum shrubland Number of EOs 50.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G4S2 Betula occidentalis/Mesic graminoids shrubland Number of EOs 50.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G3S2 Bouteloua gracilis -- Buchloe dactyloides herbaceous vegetation Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 G4S2?
|
From page 157... ...
Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank Festuca arizonica -- Muhlenbergia filiculmis herbaceous vegetation Acres 50.0% 75.0% 5,207 3,905 Very small piece of large EO in Project Area, acres work better here GUS3 Festuca arizonica -- Muhlenbergia montana herbaceous vegetation Number of EOs 75.0% 100.0% 3.0 3.0 G3S2 Hesperostipa neomexicana herbaceous vegetation Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 G3S3 Juncus balticus herbaceous vegetation Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 G5S5 Kobresia myosuroides -- Carex rupestris var.
|
From page 158... ...
Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank Pinus ponderosa/Schizachyrium scoparium woodland Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 G3S1 Populus angustifolia -- Juniperus scopulorum woodland Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 0.2 0.2 G2S2S3 Populus angustifolia -- Pseudotsuga menziesii woodland Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 0.8 0.8 G3S2 Populus angustifolia/Prunus virginiana woodland Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 G2S1 Populus angustifolia/Salix exigua woodland Number of EOs 50.0% 50.0% 2.0 1.0 G4S4 Populus angustifolia/Salix irrorata woodland Number of EOs 56.0% 56.0% 1.8 1.0 G2S2 Populus deltoides -- (Salix amygdaloides)
|
From page 159... ...
Common Name Goal Unit Goal % High Risk Goal % Low Risk Total Acreage Low Risk Goal (EOs or Acres) Goal Explanation Natural Heritage Rank Salix exigua /Mesic graminoids shrubland Number of EOs 25.0% 50.0% 4.0 2.0 G5S5 Salix geyeriana -- Salix monticola/Mesic forbs shrubland Number of EOs 50.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G3S3 Salix ligulifolia shrubland Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 G2S2S3 Salix monticola/Calamagrostis canadensis shrubland Number of EOs 50.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G3S3 Salix monticola/Mesic graminoids shrubland Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 G3S3 Salix planifolia/Carex aquatilis shrubland Number of EOs 33.3% 66.7% 3.0 2.0 G5S4 Salix planifolia/Carex utriculata shrubland Number of EOs 100.0% 100.0% 1.0 1.0 GNRS2 Salix wolfii/Mesic forbs shrubland Number of EOs 33.3% 66.7% 3.0 2.0 G3S3 Schizachyrium scoparium -- Bouteloua curtipendula Western Great Plains herbaceous vegetation Number of EOs 50.0% 100.0% 2.0 2.0 G3S2 Schoenoplectus acutus -- Typha latifolia -- (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani)
|
From page 160... ...
Appendix H Marxan Results for Low-risk and High-risk Goals (Each goal weighted to avoid selecting areas within Pueblo County, or not) Conservation Element Unweighted Low Risk Unweighted High Risk Weighted Low Risk Weighted High Risk Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS Aspen Yes 180% Yes 174% Yes 185% Yes 167% Mixed conifer Yes 164% Yes 144% Yes 168% Yes 144% Mixed-grass prairie Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Montane shrublands Yes 100% Yes 101% Yes 100% Yes 102% Pinyon-Juniper Yes 102% Yes 103% Yes 101% Yes 101% Ponderosa Yes 116% Yes 100% Yes 121% Yes 100% Prairie shrublands Yes 125% Yes 100% Yes 115% Yes 100% Riparian Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Shortgrass Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Wetland Yes 102% Yes 105% Yes 103% Yes 105% AMPHIBIANS Northern leopard frog Yes 102% Yes 112% Yes 101% Yes 119% BIRDS American peregrine falcon Yes 100% Yes 116% Yes 100% Yes 133% Bald eagle Yes 99% Yes 99% Yes 99% Yes 99% Brown-capped Rosy-Finch Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Burrowing owl Yes 136% Yes 152% Yes 131% Yes 176% Ferruginous hawk Yes 109% Yes 140% Yes 109% Yes 121% Golden eagle Yes 102% Yes 112% Yes 100% Yes 126% Grace's warbler Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Greater sandhill crane Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Lewis's woodpecker Yes 200% Yes 169% Yes 200% Yes 169% Long-billed curlew Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 200%
|
From page 161... ...
Conservation Element Unweighted Low Risk Unweighted High Risk Weighted Low Risk Weighted High Risk Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met McCown's longspur Yes 100% Yes 103% Yes 100% Yes 116% Mexican spotted owl Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Mexican spotted owl critical habitat Yes 163% Yes 219% Yes 168% Yes 229% Mountain plover Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Northern goshawk Yes 97% Yes 112% Yes 97% Yes 122% Ovenbird Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% White-tailed ptarmigan Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% FISH Arkansas darter Yes 99% Yes 99% Yes 99% Yes 99% Greenback cutthroat trout Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% MAMMALS (NONGAME) Black-tailed prairie dog Yes 100% Yes 108% Yes 100% Yes 130% Fringed myotis Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Gunnison's prairie dog No 95% Yes 100% No 95% Yes 100% Preble's meadow jumping mouse No 87.3% No 87% No 87% No 87% Swift fox Yes 105% Yes 110% Yes 105% Yes 111% Townsend's big-eared bat subspecies Yes 108% Yes 116% Yes 108% Yes 116% MAMMALS (BIG GAME)
|
From page 162... ...
Conservation Element Unweighted Low Risk Unweighted High Risk Weighted Low Risk Weighted High Risk Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met Goal Met % of Goal Met INSECTS Colorado blue butterfly no 77% no 77% no 77% no 77% Hops feeding azure Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Moss' elfin Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Pawnee montane skipper Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Simius roadside skipper Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% VASCULAR PLANTS Ambrosia linearis Yes 104% Yes 119% Yes 114% Yes 128% Amorpha nana Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Aquilegia chrysantha var. rydbergii Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Yes 100% Aquilegia saximontana Yes 118% Yes 178% Yes 117% Yes 178% Argyrochosma fendleri Yes 167% Yes 167% Yes 167% Yes 167% Asclepias uncialis ssp.
|
From page 163... ...
SHRP 2 C18D Attachment B CommunityViz Scenario Modeling Prepared by: Placeways On behalf of: Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments
|
From page 164... ...
Contents Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1 Methods ......................................................................................................................................
|
From page 165... ...
1 Introduction As part of a federally funded SHRP 2 project entitled Capacity EHG Project C18D (September 9, 2010) , Placeways LLC created future growth scenarios for the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (PPACG)
|
From page 166... ...
2 Methods Data for the scenario development came from PPACG and the U.S. Census.
|
From page 167... ...
3 each TAZ attribute measured received a weight based on the percent of overlap. For example, if a TAZ were 25% covered by the transit buffer, then 25% of its employees would be counted as "near transit." The buffer weighting process applied to distances of one-quarter mile and one-half mile to bus stops and lines.
|
From page 168... ...
4 households, and 563,000 for jobs. The geographic location of the population and employees changes by scenario.
|
From page 169... ...
5 tract just south of CO-94. In Teller County, the US-24 corridor develops more intensively than the more remote areas.
|
From page 170... ...
6 Figure 1. Residential density in 2010 for El Paso and Teller Counties by TAZ.
|
From page 171... ...
7 Figure 2. Current Trend residential density in 2035 for El Paso and Teller Counties by TAZ.
|
From page 172... ...
8 Figure 3. Infill/Cluster residential density in 2035 for El Paso and Teller Counties by TAZ.
|
From page 173... ...
9 Figure 4. Conservation residential density in 2035 for El Paso and Teller Counties by TAZ.
|
From page 174... ...
10 Figure 5. Current Trend residential density change from 2010 to 2035 for El Paso and Teller Counties by TAZ.
|
From page 175... ...
11 Figure 6. Infill/Cluster residential density change from 2010 to 2035 for El Paso and Teller Counties by TAZ.
|
From page 176... ...
12 Figure 7. Conservation residential density change from 2010 to 2035 for El Paso and Teller Counties by TAZ.
|
From page 177... ...
13 Figure 8. Conservation values for El Paso and Teller Counties with darker shades representing higher values (data from CNHP)
|
From page 178... ...
14 Preferred Scenario The June 28, 2011, Scenario Planning Workshop held by PPACG included the development of three preferred scenario drafts by workshop attendees who split into three groups, each producing a preferred scenario based on one of the three scenarios developed by Placeways (either Current Trend, Infill/Cluster, or Conservation)
|
From page 179... ...
15 Figure 9. Preferred scenario residential density in 2035 for El Paso and Teller Counties by TAZ.
|
From page 180... ...
16 Figure 10. Preferred scenario residential density change from 2010 to 2035 for El Paso and Teller Counties by TAZ.
|
From page 181... ...
17 Scenario Comparison This section contains charts from the scenario analysis. Indicators are organized as either general or part of a 2035 RTP Framework goal.
|
From page 182... ...
18 The average distance to center for the Current Trend is slightly higher than in 2010 at just over 8 mi, as opposed to just over 7 mi in 2010, reflecting a steady outward spread of development. The Infill/Cluster scenario has a higher average distance to center, at just under 8 mi, than in 2010 because of continued development outside the city, but it has a lower distance than the Current Trend because of increased development in the city center.
|
From page 183... ...
19 Figure 13. Population near trails and transit.
|
From page 184... ...
20 Figure 15. Single-family households near trails and transit.
|
From page 185... ...
21 Figure 17. Annual CO2 auto emissions.
|
From page 186... ...
22 other words, a TAZ with 25% low-income population today would still have a 25% low-income population in 2035. The low-income population near transit is highest in the Infill/Cluster scenario because of increased population in the city center.
|
From page 187... ...
23 Figure 20. Aged 65+ near transit and trails.
|
From page 188... ...
24 Figure 21. Population and employees near high-volume roads.
|
From page 189... ...
25 Figure 22. Households near high-volume roads by type.
|
From page 190... ...
26 Figure 24. Historic areas near high-volume roads.
|
From page 191... ...
27 Schools near high-volume roads follow a pattern similar to that of parks. The Current Trend has more high-volume roads in the city than does Infill/Cluster and so has more schools near the highvolume roads, whereas the Conservation development is further out from schools.
|
From page 192... ...
28 Figure 28. High-volume roads in 2010.
|
From page 193... ...
29 Figure 29. High-volume roads in 2035 -- Current Trend.
|
From page 194... ...
30 Figure 30. High-volume roads in 2035 -- Infill and Cluster.
|
From page 195... ...
31 Figure 31. High-volume roads in 2035 -- Conservation.
|
From page 196... ...
32 Infill/Redevelopment Indicator (Goal 12) The infill/redevelopment indicator tracked was land consumption, per goal 12 of the RTP document, which strives for infill and redevelopment.
|
From page 197... ...
33 Figure 33. Household types for the Preferred scenario compared with 2010 conditions and the Current Trend.
|
From page 198... ...
34 Figure 35. Single-family households near trails and transit for the Preferred scenario compared with 2010 conditions and the Current Trend.
|
From page 199... ...
35 Figure 37. Total employees near trails and transit for the Preferred scenario compared with 2010 conditions and the Current Trend.
|
From page 200... ...
36 Figure 39. Low-income households near trails and transit for the Preferred scenario compared with 2010 conditions and the Current Trend.
|
From page 201... ...
37 Conclusion CommunityViz real-time analysis allows fast estimates and is ideal for scenario modeling, but the indicators described here are planning estimates and should not be used beyond comparison purposes. Overall, the indicators presented in this document portray the differences between each of the modeled scenarios and the Preferred scenario well.
|
From page 202... ...
38 Appendix A Indicator Tables Table 1. General Indicators Indicator Base Scenario Current Trend Infill and Cluster Conservation Units Description Jobs-to-housing ratio 1 2 2 2 Jobs/Households Multifamily household total 33,022 59,318 84,086 25,761 Households Total number of multifamily households Single-family household total 234,991 319,568 294,168 353,125 Households Total number of singlefamily households Annual CO2 auto emissions 1,805,095 2,951,780 2,664,192 3,631,327 Tons Planning estimate of total carbon dioxide emissions generated by vehicles associated with residential buildings.
|
From page 203... ...
39 Total single-family households within 1/2 mi of trails 164137 184946 186399 170623 Households Total population aged 65+ within 1/2 mi of trails Total multifamily households within 1/4 mi of trails 16373 14814 44092 14195 Households Total multifamily households within 1/4 mi of trails Total multifamily households within 1/2 mi of trails 22049 21238 59268 18873 Households Total multifamily households within 1/2 mi of trails Table 3. Special Needs Indicators Indicator Base Scenario Current Trend Infill and Cluster Conservation Units Description Total population aged 65+ within 1/4 mi of transit 22969 24843 28646 23949 People Total population aged 65+ within 1/4 mi of transit Total population aged 65+ within 1/2 mi of transit 30722 33552 39264 32242 People Total population aged 65+ within 1/2 mi of transit Total low income population within 1/4 mi of transit 22389 24812 30843 23351 People Total low income population within 1/4 mi of transit Total low income population within 1/2 mi of transit 28090 31327 39434 29418 People Total low income population within 1/2 mi of transit Total low income population within 1/4 mi of trails 24423 27079 33769 25541 People Total low income population within 1/4 mi of trails Total low income population within 1/2 mi of trails 32276 35884 44507 33642 People Total low income population within 1/2 mi of trails Total population aged 65+ within 1/4 mi of trails 27703 30466 35753 29330 People Total population aged 65+ within 1/4 mi of trails Total population aged 65+ within 1/2 mi of trails 37237 41095 48499 39645 People Total population aged 65+ within 1/2 mi of trails Table 4.
|
From page 204... ...
40 volume streets mi of high volume roads Multifamily households within 1/2 mi of highvolume streets 18641 30956 55467 16571 Households Total multifamily households within 1/2 mi of high-volume roads Cultural areas within 1/4 mi of high-volume streets 4.11 6.13 5.43 6.56 Square miles Total square mi of cultural areas within 1/4 mi of high-volume roads Cultural areas within 1/2 mi of high-volume streets 8.64 12.64 11.12 13.57 Square miles Total square mi of cultural areas within 1/2 mi of high-volume roads Environmental areas within 1/4 mi of highvolume streets 22.69 40 36.16 54.18 Square miles Total square mi of environmental areas within 1/4 mi of highvolume roads Environmental areas within 1/2 mi of highvolume streets 45.25 75.96 67.92 102.06 Square miles Total square mi of environmental areas within 1/2 mi of highvolume roads Historic areas within 1/4 mi of high-volume streets 0.88 0.5 0.4 0.37 Square miles Total square mi of historic areas within 1/4 mi of high-volume roads Historic areas within 1/2 mi of high-volume streets 1.29 1.08 0.92 0.89 Square miles Total square mi of historic areas within 1/2 mi of high-volume roads Parks within 1/4 mi of high-volume streets 2.2 3.7 3.26 3.37 Square miles Total square mi of parks areas within 1/4 mi of high-volume roads Parks within 1/2 mi of high-volume streets 5.69 8.67 7.85 8.08 Square miles Total square mi of parks areas within 1/2 mi of high-volume roads Schools within 1/4 mi of high-volume streets 99 102 94 97 Number of schools Total number of schools within 1/4 mi of high-volume roads Schools within 1/2 mi of high-volume streets 164 197 184 191 Number of schools Total number of schools within 1/2 mi of high-volume roads Table 5. Infill/Redevelopment Indicator Indicator Base Scenario Current Trend Infill and Cluster Conservation Units Description Land Consumed 138599 199724 177677 234016 Acres Total acres of land consumed by households
|
From page 205... ...
41 Appendix B Preferred Scenario Indicators Table 6. Preferred Scenario Indicators Compared with 2010 and Current Trend Values Indicator Base Scenario Current Trend Preferred Scenario Units Description Total single-family households 33022 59318 290981 Households Total single-family households Total multifamily households 234991 319568 89320 Households Total multifamily households Total households within 1/4 mi of transit 98864.26942 107430.4691 119724.7108 Households Total households within 1/4 mi of transit Total households within 1/2 mi of transit 134176.8051 147053.808 164608.5933 Households Total households within 1/2 mi of transit Total single-family households within 1/4 mi of transit 83054 91889 91592 Households Total single-family households within 1/4 mi of transit Total single-family households within 1/2 mi of transit 114789 126870 128015 Households Total single-family households within 1/2 mi of transit Total multifamily households within 1/4 mi of transit 15811 15542 28137 Households Total multifamily households within 1/4 mi of transit Total multifamily households within 1/2 mi of transit 19388 20184 36599 Households Total multifamily households within 1/2 mi of transit Total employees within 1/4 mi of transit 173678 243309 259749.746 Employees Total employees within 1/4 mi of transit Total employees within 1/2 mi of transit 223034 311052 330882.347 Employees Total employees within 1/2 mi of transit Total households within 1/4 mi of trails 136803.6503 149179.2687 166165.1709 Households Total households within 1/4 mi of trails Total households within 1/2 mi of trails 186185.4218 206184.1032 227032.282 Households Total households within 1/2 mi of trails Total single-family households within 1/4 mi of trails 120431 134365 133074 Households Total single-family households within 1/4 mi of trails Total singe family households within 1/2 mi of trails 164137 184946 184189 Households Total singe family households within 1/2 mi of trails Total multifamily households within 1/4 mi of trails 16373 14814 33094 Households Total multifamily households within 1/4 mi of trails Total multifamily households within 1/2 mi of trails 22049 21238 42848 Households Total multifamily households within 1/2 mi of trails Total employees within 1/4 mi of trails 204954 295424 309440.7594 Employees Total employees within 1/4 mi of trails Total employees within 1/2 mi of trails 276073 408190 419873.3623 Employees Total employees within 1/2 mi of trails Total households with aged 65+ within 1/4 mi of transit 11187.1916 11773.95376 13016.1778 Households Total households with aged 65+ within 1/4 mi of transit Total households with aged 65+ within 1/2 mi of transit 14894.68428 15730.57368 17628.42497 Households Total households with aged 65+ within 1/2 mi of transit Total low income households within 1/4 mi of transit 11049.21757 12071.20249 13403.12657 Households Total low income households within 1/4 mi of transit Total low income households within 1/2 mi of transit 13806.82237 15136.58621 16996.87309 Households Total low income households within 1/2 mi of transit Total low income households within 1/4 mi of trails 11871.91026 12924.93157 14780.08862 Households Total low income households within 1/4 mi of trails Total low income households within 1/2 mi of trails 15522.29353 17015.85386 19265.68521 Households Total low income households within 1/2 mi of trails
|
From page 206... ...
42 Total households with aged 65+ within 1/4 mi of trails 13354.68696 14226.09464 15875.05093 Households Total households with aged 65+ within 1/4 mi of trails Total households with aged 65+ within 1/2 mi of trails 17814.84458 18903.33694 21214.18831 Households Total households with aged 65+ within 1/2 mi of trails Land Consumed 138599 199724 191011 Square miles Total acres of land consumed by households
|
From page 207... ...
Attachment C Goals and Performance Measures Workshop Handout In evaluating major capacity expansion projects, impacts on the movement of people and goods over that system are among the most common considerations. The performance measures framework identifies four categories for evaluating the impact of capacity-adding projects on transportation system performance: Mobility, Reliability, Accessibility, and Safety.
|
From page 208... ...
Mobility is the ability of the transportation system to facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods. Improved mobility is a common goal for almost all transportation agencies and is especially relevant in highly congested urban areas.
|
From page 209... ...
Long-range Planning -- Used to identify the extent and magnitude of congestion relief needs on a state's highway network and subsequent statewide investment needs. Trip Travel Time: Time required for a motorist to complete a trip from origin to its destination.
|
From page 210... ...
understand trends in congestion over time or to compare regions or states. Volume to Capacity Ratio: Actual number of vehicles using a roadway segment relative to the number of vehicles it is designed to handle over a fixed time period.
|
From page 211... ...
congestion relief needs on a state's highway network, and it may be used as a criterion for determining subsequent statewide investment needs. Lends itself to color-coded mapping.
|
From page 212... ...
• Mode Share: Number or percent of transportation system users using non–singleoccupancy vehicle (SOV) travel means (e.g., transit, bicycle, high-occupancy vehicle travel)
|
From page 213... ...
Long-range Planning -- May be used as a criterion in place of VC ratio information for identifying congestion relief needs on a state's highway system and subsequent statewide investment needs. Used to highlight the potential benefits of management and operations strategies in a state or region, compared with capacity expansion.
|
From page 214... ...
Accessibility is the ability to reach desired destinations or activities within a reasonable amount of travel time. From the standpoint of the individual, access to jobs, school, shopping, personal services, and entertainment and recreational opportunities is important.
|
From page 215... ...
Destination Accessibility: Average travel time to major regional destinations. Destination accessibility can be calculated as the change in average travel time to key destinations, such as hospitals or employment centers, as a result of a project.
|
From page 216... ...
• Labor Force Accessibility: Number of residents within reach of the region's employers. Labor force accessibility can be calculated as the change in average travel time to major employment centers or the percent of workers within a defined travel time of employment centers as a result of a project.
|
From page 217... ...
Environmental Justice Accessibility Impact: Relative jobs, destinations, labor force, and market accessibility for environmental justice populations versus the general population. Safety is defined as the ability for users of the system to reach their destination safely on any given trip.
|
From page 218... ...
o Accidents (or injuries of fatalities) /person miles of travel (PMT)
|
From page 219... ...
Land use impacts include changes in land cover and vegetation, the use of land from natural to human uses, and the type of use (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural)
|
From page 220... ...
used in these efforts. http://faculty.arch.utah.edu/bartholomew/SP_SummaryRpt_Web.pdf • A 2005 report for AASHTO, Transportation Impacts of Smart Growth and Comprehensive Planning Initiatives (prepared under NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 2)
|
From page 221... ...
Induced Development Land Consumption: Amount of land developed for nontransportation uses as a result of the project. Induced development measures the change in nontransportation land uses that is triggered by economic growth associated with a new transportation project.
|
From page 222... ...
Forecastable: No Examples of use: o Projected growth (based on models) attributable to project are in line with local and regional vision and plans; o Development guidelines and requirements (zoning codes, development incentives, etc.)
|
From page 223... ...
Communities often have an interest in preserving their past to maintain a sense of history, offer educational opportunities, and support research. Highway capacity projects can pose significant threats to a community's historic, cultural, and archeological resources through changes in how visitors experience a site, reduction of access to a site, physical impacts that compromise structures or significant land, or degradation of a site's value for research purposes.
|
From page 224... ...
that improve and streamline the National Register evaluation of cultural resources. http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?
|
From page 225... ...
Highway capacity projects can significantly affect the social characteristics of a local community through aesthetic impacts, increased noise, or displacement and fragmentation. The social factor includes measures that help define how well a project "fits" into a community based on that community's socioeconomic structure, visual aesthetics, physical layout, and citizens' priorities and expectations.
|
From page 226... ...
Objectives and Performance Measures • Community Cohesion: Change in physical neighborhood-level connections that unite residents and businesses. Transportation facilities can have a significant impact on physical connections between and within neighborhoods and overall community cohesion.
|
From page 227... ...
Forecastable: Yes Examples of use: o Increase in noise levels on schools, churches, and public gathering places; o Number of noise receptor sites above threshold; o Number of residences exposed to noise in excess of established thresholds; o Percent of population exposed to highway noise above 60 decibels (dB) ; o Noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time during specified hours, measured in "A-weighted" dB.
|
From page 228... ...
o Color Rating Matrix: Measure of both color and reflectivity, with scores assigned from a matrix. Scores are based on compatibility with the natural landscape, with compatible colors and low reflectivity receiving the highest score; o Texture Rating Matrix: Measure of both the texture of individual surfaces and the total number of separate planes (surfaces)
|
From page 229... ...
A single highway capacity project can affect different groups in different ways depending on its location and associated accessibility impacts. Some may experience travel time savings, whereas others experience increased noise or a loss of local businesses because of relocation or displacement.
|
From page 230... ...
Objectives and Performance Measures Fair and Equitable Distribution of Transportation Benefits and Costs Environmental Justice: Relative distribution of project benefits and costs across affected population.
|
From page 231... ...
Transportation investments have significant potential economic benefits and impacts that are often considered in analyses of potential capacity expansion projects. Transportation infrastructure plays a vital role in the economy at local, regional, and national levels, and investments in this infrastructure provide benefits through improved accessibility, reduced travel times, and similar changes.
|
From page 232... ...
This factor also addresses changes in broad economic variables. Highway capacity investments create changes in employment through direct, indirect, and induced impacts.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.