The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20222130.tiffRESOLUTION RE: APPROVE PARTIAL VACATION OF FOUR -LOT RECORDED EXEMPTION, RECX19-0095, FOR REMOVAL OF LOT D - TEPEE RING RANCH, LLC, C/O BOB EHRLICH AND LANCE ASTRELLA WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, on October 21, 2019, the Department of Planning Services approved Four -Lot Recorded Exemption, RECX19-0095, and WHEREAS, the Board has received a request from the current property owner, Tepee Ring Ranch, LLC, do Bob Ehrlich and Lance Astrella, 1853 B Chesapeake Circle, Johnstown, Colorado 80534, to vacate Lot D of Recorded Exemption, RECX19-0095, located on the following described real estate, to wit: Lot D of Recorded Exemption, RECX19-0095; being part of the SW1/4 of Section 22, Township 10 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners heard all of the testimony and statements of those present, studied the request of the applicant and the recommendations of the Department of Planning Services staff and all of the exhibits and evidence presented in this matter and, having been fully informed, deems it advisable to approve said partial vacation, and makes the following findings: 1. No property will be left without access to a public road right-of-way as a result of the vacation. 2. No property resulting from the vacation will continue to use any access across any other lots within the exemption plat. 3. No easements are being included in this vacation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the request of Tepee Ring Ranch, LLC, do Bob Ehrlich and Lance Astrella, for Partial Vacation of Four -Lot Recorded Exemption, RECX19-0095, for removal of Lot D, be, and hereby is, approved, subject to the following condition(s): cc; PL(TP/MN), APPL., f PPL. REP. 4i/3o/22 4846938 Pages: 1 of 2 08/08/2022 10:84 AM R Fee:$0.00 Carly Kappa., Clark and Raoordar, Wald County , CO IVICIN Id. MUM, Ill II 2022-2130 RECX19-0095 PARTIAL VACATION OF FOUR -LOT RECORDED EXEMPTION, RECX19-0095, FOR REMOVAL OF LOT D - TEPEE RING RANCH, LLC, C/O BOB EHRLICH AND LANCE ASTRELLA PAGE 2 1. As described in Sections 24-11-50.H and 24-11-50.1 of the Weld County Code, the applicant shall submit an exemption vacation plat and deed to the Department of Planning Services within ninety (90) days for review. Upon acceptance, the plat shall be signed by the property owners and shall be submitted for recording, along with the recording fee, to the Department of Planning Services. The vacation is in effect the date of recordation of the land survey plat with the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 25th day of July, A.D., 2022. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: /l Weld County Clerk to the Board BY: County Attorney Date of signature: 8-/3/22 Sci!5ft K. James, Chair ra\*SCC man, Pro-Tem Perry L. XCUSED teve Moreno 8�. on Saine 4846936 Pages: 2 of 2 08/08/2022 10:54 AM R F..:$0.00 Carly Kopp. , CI.rk and R�cord�r, Wold County , CO VIII �U�1��=I��L�4'li� I�i'� Y �SiYti'�ti'�f'�IKff�h Bill 2022-2130 RECX19-0095 EXHIBIT DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES MEMORANDUM i 3 WEcx la -o045 To: Weld County Board of County Commissioners From: Maxwell Nader, Planner Subject: Partial Vacation of RECX19-0095 Hearing Date: July 25, 2022 Owners: Tepee Ring Ranch LLC c/o Bob Ehrlich & Lance Astrella Representative: AGPROfessionals c/o Hannah Dutrow Legal Description: Lot D of Recorded Exemption RECX19-0095; being a part of the SW4 of Section 22, T1 ON, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, CO Location: North of and adjacent to County Road 114; approximately one mile east of HWY 85. Parcel Number: 0301-22-3-00-010 Total Parcel Size: +/- 131.93 acres Zone District: A (Agricultural) Summary: Tepee Ring Ranch LLC requests to vacate Lot D, being the largest lot of Four Lot Recorded Exemption RECX19-0095, recorded February 12, 2020, reception #4566228. This partial vacation of Lot D of RECX19- 0095 would result in an approximately 132 acre unplatted parcel. Lot Al B and C of RECX19-0095 is not a part of this action. No easements are impacted by this request. Vacation Criteria: The Vacation of a Recorded Exemption plat criteria are detailed in Chapter 24, Article XI of the Weld County Code, being the Obsolete Land Divisions Article within the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance. Section 24-11-10.A of the Weld County Code, states in part: "Previously approved Recorded Exemptions and Subdivision Exemptions may be amended, corrected, or vacated." Section 24-11-50 of the Weld County Code provides specific criteria for the vacation process. The processing of this vacation and memorandum have been prepared in accordance with this Code section. Section 24-11-50.A of the Weld County Code details the items to be submitted by the property owners in order to request a complete or partial vacation of an exemption. The submitted materials were deemed complete and include the vacation request letter (Exhibit C) and the draft vacation plat map (Exhibit D). Section 24-11-50.B of the Weld County Code, allows for partial vacations, which may be used to vacate the largest lot within a Recorded Exemption plat, which is greater than thirty-five (35) acres in size, without affecting the remaining lot(s) within the same plat. The submitted vacation request complies with this code section. Vacation of RECX19-00951 Tepee Ring Ranch LLC Page 1 of 2 Recommendation The Department of Planning Services staff has reviewed this request and recommends that this request be approved by the Board of County Commissioners subject to the following condition A If the vacation request is approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the vacation plat shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services for review in accordance with Sections 24- 11-50 H and I of the Weld County Code Upon acceptance of the plat, the plat shall be signed by the property owners and shall be submitted for recording with the recording fee to the Department of Planning Services The vacation is in effect the date of recordation of the land survey plat with the Weld County Clerk and Recorder Exhibits A RECX19-0095 Plat B RECX19-0095 Staff Comments C Vacation Request Letter D Draft Vacation plat Vacation of RECX19-0095I Tepee Ring Ranch LLC Page 2 of 2 Tepee Ring Ranch, LLC. Robert E. Ehrlich 1853 B Chesapeake Circle Johnstown, CO 80534 May 24, 2022 Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Vacation of Lot D of Recorded Exemption No. RECX19-0095 To Whom It May Concern, We are writing to request the vacation of Lot D of Recorded Exemption No. RECX19-0095, as recorded on February 12, 2020, at reception no. 4566228. The legal description for the subject property is listed below: Lot D of Recorded Exemption RECX19-0095 recorded February 12, 2020, at reception no. 4566228, being a Part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 10 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., County of Weld, State of Colorado. The requested vacation is a partial vacation of RECX19-0095, affecting Lot D RECX19-0095 only. The existing 30' joint ingress/egress access and utility easement across Lots A, B, and C of RECX19-0095 for the benefit of Lots A, B, and C of RECX19-0095, as dedicated by the RECX19-0095 plat, is expected to remain and be unaffected by the partial vacation. No property resulting from the vacation will be left without access to a public road right-of-way. As no road right-of-way was dedicated by the RECX19-0095 plat, no existing right-of-way will be affected by the partial vacation. The partial vacation is not expected to affect any existing improvements. A copy of the recorded RECX19-0095 plat and the draft partial exemption vacation plat are included with this letter. Sincerely, R ert E. Ehrlich Enclosures: 1. Recorded RECX 19-0095 Plat 2. Draft Partial Exemption Vacation Plat EXHIBIT VACATION OF LOT D OF RECORDED EXEMPTION NO. 0301-22-03 RECX19-0095 BEING A PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 10 NORTH, RANGE 66 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, CO 1 FLAT °ESC:APRON BEING PART OF THE SOU HNEET 1431 SECTION. TOW net* to nom H. RANGE 6C Vs EST OF THE (111Fµ COUNTY OF WELD STATE OF OLORAD".. BASta OF BEARING Abbul M4 THE WE-LI LIM OF THE "Cul HM'EaT1 4 :EC ION 22 TCIWt,1 1.10 NORTH Rf.M4 Ea WEST AS BEARING NIORIn WOVIS'WEWI SETWE EN THE FOLAYU WN:ME NTS AS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY ANDWITPALL OT HER SEARNW CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE TFEFE13, At PFNPERTY BEING MBE FART4%0ARLY DE%CREEDA, Fit LOWb MINA MOM.: AT THE SCUT TYNE ST SEC I ION *INNER OF SECTIONa2 TOWNS,. tV NGkt II RAGE Ha WEST OF THE OOH P.M. COUNTY OF WELD. STATE OF COLORADO AMALSO BEING 1 H P0011 OF BEG*fl .. I HENCE ALONG HE NEST LINE OF THE Saul LIN EST 1/4 OF SAKI SECT ION 21 NOM FI OOCCI:-MAI FOR A Ella ALOE OF AI./ EA F FE IC THI WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SAKIC.TI N2: T HE NL'E AL3NFG IRE NGRI H LINE OF THE SCE IT ret S1 14 CS 1AK/ SECT TUN 22 N/F4I H WI VII' EAST FOR A WINCE OF ;456.8J FEET 10 T1E CENTER 1 4 COT NE R OF FLAN/ aft! ION 12 ' it ACE ALONG IHl EAST UNE -F THE SOOT rWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 2. SCUT HC0'2JSi LAST FryEA DISTANCE OF 2637./1 FEET TO HE SOUTH 114 GC RNER OF 5•40 SEcanN22 t•E RICE ALOCR* :HU/THUNA OF THE bov1 P4t4t. 114 O1 %AC SECTION i2 ENE YS.MEA' WEST FOR A Ubl ALOE OF 00.70 FEET TO POPO ONT.E EMI RI BOL/1401ARt' OF LOT C OF NG( 9.00.5 r rt POt CEPMYING I HE SOUTH LANE OF THE SOUL FEWEST 1/4 OF WIC SECTION 22 AND FOLLOWING THE 6OLAOARY DE :CISA B ANC C. OF RE.OON:09S FORT FE FOL.OWING 3COLMSES IHEN;E NDRT.H COW ;-WES' 1014A DISTANCE OF S0C.21 FEE1 2. !ti Nw.ESC/uIHm7904' WE ST FOR A DISTANCE OF 1452-5 FEET .E. HE ACE SOUTH WRIT. tA61 FOR A Lb TANCE Of 90041 FEET TO THE 6OUln Lilt OF 1 HE bout PAS t511/4 OF SAID SE jI ON :1 I rE ACE ALONG T HE SO'4T H UNt OF THE Ilt/' LFI HWEST 1 4 OF MIO SECT ION 22 SC/tn n atelt4- WEST FOR 4 CAST ANCE OF 61030 MT F T T 0 T H4 P01NI OF HE UNNMK.. OONTANINC A CAL C.JtAT 1 D ARIA 01 1)I.W ACML S. :'/kVEYORa NUl Ea '. BASIS OF BEARPG AESLSANG THE WEST LANE OF THE SOUR FWES7 1/4 OF SECTION 10 TOWNS.*6 NORTH RANGE 56 WEST AS *AMC. CF4t HU;'.6'15'N'EST SE TWEEN THE WMME NTS SHOWN ON THIS SURREY AND WITH Au OTHER BEARINGS CONTAINED •4 REIN RELATIVE 'HERETO. :. A.4 C15TAN:E IAEAS.AEIFE N15 frONA,L ARE IIY u.S. SLA'1 EY FOOT. I 1 HS PLAT WAS CM AT E D TO VACAI E ..OT D OF RECORDED EXEMPT ION MD. 021-2144 REC.419w9b RECORDS C ON FE BR.ARY I+ '020 A' THE WE W ,X, ATV C:1 RK AM) RECORDERS RS OF F CE AS RICE PTDN NO. 4564220. 4. AGPR0F E5E/DNALS RELIED .MIN 1 HE BEARNF:6 ANO DISTANCES F R'IIA RECCROL D DRAM I ION NC. 0301-2111 RECX19mt6 RE CORCE D ON FE IMAM( 11 Job Al THE WELD LOUIVEY t.EERKANC RECORDERS OFFICE AS RE aPTION NO. *stela, NC F *LC WORK WAS CDNOi.TEO FOR THIS /A(ATI N PUT. S. 1401 RI Y COMM lb VA! O14 IMY NOT LAK<I. THE LOCATION OF THE PROP. RI( CORM* WERE. DETERMINED FROM THE FIECOROEC tat IAF 1 ON NO. I1101-4,03 RE CY HPi09S FLAT AI. LORTX D ON F I BRtAI N I J ? J0 AT THE WEED COUNTY GEE RK ANO REGORC FRS OFICE AS RECEPTION NO. *ICA2a. ACCURUNC. TO OOLURAI/U LAW VOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL AC TUN BASED uPoN ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WIT TEN THREE YEAka Af/ERYOu FIRST [WOVE REO:Arm DEFECT. INC EVENT MAYAN( ACTION EMI 'AON ANY DEFECT BE COMMENCED ACRE THAN TEN YEARS FROM 1 HE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. PROPERTY CAWNt Ra CE FITIFICAT E IMO T FE LACE REIN D BE1NG T FE 501.E 0444114 N H E t OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED NCPERTY DO HEREBY PARTWAY VACATE THE LAW OMSDN PEAT OR RECORD NOW RECOGNIZED AS AN uN NAT Ito T EIN,;T OF LANG. IIOBERT E. EH RLC HFOR F EPEI RING RANCH tit STATE OF WLORAN CCANTY OF WELL •E IOl4t 0 itt 14TIFKATKIN WAS ACKNOWLEIVIE0BLFC.RE TAE THIS CM OF E0 . 'SI .X UMpSIUN EN FIRES WT NEE . TAN • ANO AND SEAL NOTARY RISLE BraRO OF ;DUN'( COLA 155CM RE C.I RTIFEAT E OF APFRCAAt ''C VACATION Pi A' R APPROVE C BY T r4. BOARD OF COUNTY CCMM650NE R6 OF WELD CCUNIY STATE OF COLORADO. MT 51 IN HANG AND 'Fit :.ORPONATI atAL OF. NE IDWUP4fl T' 6 AN OF a0/[. ATTEST NE LD.^OUNtY Ct E AK TO 1 r4 BOARC BY DEPUTY CLERK 'C THE BOARD CATE '.HAP BOARD OF . OUNTY WMK16SDNE ITS . r LNMHI \.': 'UPI( .M. 4wK.• .1 vK.lp 4 M,.A.14'IK4Pl\S.M1\`117 Pi t.(l.M.1.In1. IAII .4/It 1. 70e J4M A RY AGkMO RE.MONHf .43 4 WtE' 1/4 CORNER SECTION 7i T.OAR6r4P it Chili R1AMt1 WI Et OF FF4 (THP.µ COUNTY CAC 31 St CI ION l NE RIGHT OF WAY PC' ODUNTY MINT MCC OCTOBER 14 IMO C LE FA ANDRE:ORCYR RUCK a6 PAiiE 11JWOE FTIC/NNMBER 3Q53. 411 22 5eb:AW-1V alb Al 28 tA(AT ED ON 1022 BY RESOtUT DN UE)TCCC(X OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COUNKN GIVE RN OF MLLE COLAlV S SB'3BM'M'. 484.' I' LOT A NOT A PAR' auL4.WLS? aECTDNOORNER SECTION t2 TOWNSHIP is NORTH. RAN]E Si WEST OF THE STr1 PAL LEGEND `L*KM 4 W .6X775 SECIDNCORNER AS NO1E0 ONE -L. AkTEkCORNEA AS WRFC F-LPEk!Y CORNER ROW LIVE BOUNDARY LIVE AGPROfessionals DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE 3050 67th Avenue, Suite 200 Greeley, CO 80634 P (970) 535-9318 F (970) 535-9854 t 3132 ACRE 6 6A066 129.27 ACRES NET S BBJUQI'W 1452.35' S BB'0904' W. 484.11' LOT B NOT APAR' S SB 3904' VI 481 11 LOT C CT A PANT CANTER 14 CORNER SE rIONJ TOWNSHIP 10 NORTH. RANGE (6 WEST co- RE Uri P.M. $663904'W 610./0 IA.LM TV {DAD 114 6 E RUM OF WAY 3L7 EACH WOE OF SECT AN LSYE JULY a 1916 CLERK AND RECORDER BOOK lb PAGE ALL; RECEPTION NUMBER 3542(5. SOu1 n 114 CORNER SECTION 22 TOWNSHIP 14 NORTH RANGE M WEST OF Tit OH P.M. 1 G IUD SCAT I 1' /00. 77iR- boelS 4EAVEY^RB CE RI IFKATE 1 TYLER S.UEE►NN.A RECATEREO PROFE'SDWL tANC auld/O/ORINI THE aIATE OF COLORALO CO HEREBY CERTIFY TINT T.E SLAE/EV REPRESENTED BY T.It PIA! WAS MCE UNDER IN PERSONAL SUPER. NON Alit T ENT T HIE PLAT 6 AN ACCURAT E RE FRESENTATION THEREOF. I FATHER CERTIFY I1101 T THE Slat E Y ANC T HIS PLAT /AMPLAE6 WIT H A u APPL/^ABLE RULES 1EGAATI NS. AND LAM OF THE STATE OF COLDRACO. STATE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AC PROFESSIONAL LAN.S:MAYORS AND WE LO BY 35129 PC ER S. ORE IMN OAT E ....0104•00 REMITRATION • C•1 ''4 LOT TORE VACAT S VICINITY MAP VACATION PLAT SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 10 NORTH, RANGE 66 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY. CO DATE 05.21.22 JOB NO. I127-02 Sit t I 1 of EXHIBIT 4566229 P.N•' 1 of 1 62/12/2.26 N 37 HI R F.4 MI M eRfc)c e ooqs RECORDED EXEMPTION NO. 0301-22-03 RECX19-0095 BEING A PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 10 NORTH, RANGE 66 WEST, OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO FR* DESCRIPT1ON- S 89.. " M 165983 WEST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 22. TOWNSHIP 1O NORTH, RANGE 66 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M SET A 2 1/2' ALUM CAP ON A ,6 REBAR STAMPED 24307 COUNTY ROAD 31 SECTION UNE RIGHT OF WAY NOT COUNTY MAINTAINED; OCTOBER 14. 1669. CLERK AND RECORDER BOOK 66 PAGE 273. RECEPTION No. 34263 r EXSTNG AG / ACCESS FOR LOT D N 8839'04' f 454 1' LOT A 10.00 ACRES GROS`. i 9.67 ACRES NET e bg z • 28 • ` N 88'39'04' E. 610 70' s 6B'3To4L.11. 463.TT `SOUTHWEST SECTION CORNER SECTION 22. TOWNSHIP 1O NORTH, RANGE 66 WEST Of THE 6TH PM. FOUND A 3 1/4" ALUM CAP ON A ,6 REBAR STAMPED 31938 LEGEND FOUND OR SET SECTION CORNER AS NOTED LOT O 13193 ACRES GROSS 13109 ACRES NET 4 S C4'vtt5' E. N 68'39'04 1. 484.11' LOT 8 10.00 ACRES GROSS 9.67 ACRES NET 8 z 30 ACCESS AND UTUTY --‘ EASEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT A.LGTB AND LOT C 1 N 68.39'04' E. 48411 I N 66'39'04' E. 2673 75' -- PROPOSED ACCESS FOR LOT A. LOT 6 AND LOT C •• FOUND OR SET ONE -QUARTER CORNER AS NOTED. = SET 18' 05 REBAR WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP HAMMER PLS 24307 c ROW LINE = EASEMENT LINE - BOUNDARY LINE = SECTION = QUARTER SECTION CENTER 1/4 CORNER SECTION 22. TOWNSHIP 1O NORTH, RANGE 66 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. SET A 2 t/2" ALUM CAP ON A #6 REBAP STAMPED 24307 N 66'19'04• E. 484.11' LOT C 10.00 ACRES GROSS 9 87 ACRES NET 1 66.39'04' W, 464.11' "I N COUNTY ROAD 114 60 -FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, 30 -FOOT EACH SIDE OF SECTION UNE JULY 8. '916 CLERK AND RECORDER BOOK 83 PAGE 392 RECEPTION NUMBER 354266. GRAPHIC SCALE 200 0 100 200 4OO ( IN FEET ) BY EXISTING AG 1 ACCESS FOR LOT D N 66'39'0: E. 610 7C' 2 SOUTH 1/4 CORNER SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 1O NORTH, RANGE 66 WEST OF THE 6TH Pm SET A 1 '/2" ALUM. CAP ON A ,6 REBAR STAMPED 24307 %RRYFYOR'S NOTES' 27 - 1. BASIS OF BEARING ASSUMING THE SOUTH LINE OF TOWNSHIP 10 NORTH, RANGE 66 WEST AS BEARING FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY, AND HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO. /'F NFRAL NOTES. BEING PART Or THE SW 1/4 Of SECTION 22. TOWNSHIP :0 NORTH, RANGE 66 *EST Of THE 6TH PM. CQ.NTY OF WELD STATE OF COLORADO BASIS OF BEARING. ASSUMING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSniP IC NORTH. RANGE 66 WEST AS BEARING NORTH Be 39'DA• EAST BETWEEN THE FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN ON TINS SURvEY, AND WITH ALL OTHER BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO SAID PROPERTY BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. COWMENCNG Al THE SOUTH WEST SECTION CORNER Or SECTION 22. TO*INSHIP 10 NORTH, PAIGE 66 AEli or THE 6TH PY, COUNTY OF WELD, STATE Of COLOAADO AND ALSO BEING THE POIN' OF BEGINNING. THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH SECTION LINE Or THE SOUTH WEST 1/4 DF SAID SECTION NORTH 88'39'04' EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 2673 75 FEET TO THE SOUTH j CORNER Of SAID SECTION 22. THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 NORTH 00'23'53" WEST FOR A DISTANCE Or 2632.67 FEET To THE CENTER I/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22. THENCE ALONG THE NORTH UNE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 22 SOUTH 69'10'47- WEST FOR A D'SIANCE OF 2659.83 FEET TQ THE WEST '/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22. THENCE ALONG THE WEST UNE of THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAIO SECTION 22 SOUTH 00'06'15' EAST FOR A DISTANCE Or 265768 FEET TO THE POINT Of BEGINNING, CONTAflNG A CALCULATED AREA OF 161.93 ACRES PROPERTY OWNERS CFRTIFICATF. THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING THE SOU OWNER IN FEE Of THE A3OVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY, DO HEREBY SUBDIADE HE SAME AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP I UNDERSTAND THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE POKE ZOyE (XS r NC D6 ALSO SINTENDED TC RRONOE AREAS FOR III. CONDUCT OF OTHE V SyBIJ POKE ES .r5ES AND USES BY SPEGAL 4ESEw C EHRUCH FO TEPEE RING RANCH LL(. STATE OF COLORADO ) )SS COUNTY OF WE.D THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION *AS ACKNOWLEDGED w COMMISSION EXPIRES___Et C WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL _T70{ GL4 ROBERT f. EHRUCII OR TEPEE RING RICH 110 CFRTIFMATF of APPROVAL RY THE THIS PLAT IS BEFORE ME THIS±! DAY OF-20!� DICATE. FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PROPERTIES SHOWN OR DESCR18E0 S SHOWN OR DESCRIBED HEREON or puma NT of P, AWNING SFRAFFS-ADMINISTRAWL RI VIEW. BY HE CEPARIMLNT Or ''LAAINC SERVICES rOR FILING. DIRECTOR. DEPARTMENT Of PLANNING SERVICES STATE OF COLORADO ) ;SS. COUNTY OF WELD THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATTrIION//WAS L ACKNOW'.EDGED Wok( ME THISItTSAY OF�E�O&Y MT cOMMr,5iOk EXPIRES-f3T-E!'! WITNESS YY RAND AND SEAL hu As . I „WOW 1‘444.4s SURVEYOR'S CFRTIFICAif I. GARY K HAAYER A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE Of caORADO, Do HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE SURVEY REPRESENTED BY THIS PLAT WAS MADE UNDER MY PERSONAL SUPERVISION, AND THAT THIS PLAT IS AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION THEREOF. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE SEAWAY AND THIS PUT COMPLIES WILL ALL APPLICABLE RULES. REGULATIONS. AND LAWS or THE STATE Of COLORADO, STATE BOARD Of REGISTRATION FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND PROFESSONAA LAND SURVEYORS. AND WEL .COUNTY. 8Y:_ (DAG'S Of OCARING) \j± 66'49'04' E. 2673-76' —z� tt. sa. SOUTHEAST SECTION CORNER SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 10 NORTH. RANGE 66 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M FOUND A 2 1/2" ALUM CAP ON A ,6 REBAR STAMPED 10740 THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 22. NORTH 58'39'34" EAST BETWEEN THE WITH ALL OTHER BEARINGS CONTAINED 2. ALL DISTANCE MEASUREMENTS SHOWN ARE IN U S. SURVEY FOOT NOTICE' ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVERED SUCH DEFECT. IN NC) EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON CLIENT: AGPROFESSIONALS 3050 67TH AVE. SUITE 200 GREELEY, CO 80634 I, RECORDED EXEMPTIONS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES MAY RASE THE ISSUE OF COMPLIANCE MTH THE IMENT OF THE RECORDED EXEMPTION PROCES.. £^PROVM. OF RECORDED EXEMPTION DOES NOT GUARANTEE APPROVAL OF FUTURE APPLICATIONS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 2) ALL PROPOSED OR EXISTING STRUCTURES WILL OR 00 MEET THE WORM SETBACK AO OFFSET REQUMEYETETS FOR THE ZONE DISTRICT IN WINCH THE PROPERTY 5 LOCATED. PURSUANT TO THE DEFINITION Of SETBACK IN THE WELD COUNT' CODE, THE REQUIRED SETBACK IS MEASURED FROM THE FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY INC • NO BULLDNG OR STRUCTURE AS DEFINED AND LIMITED TO THOSE OCCLWANCKS LISTED AS GROUPS A. B. E, F. H. I. M AND R is SECTION 302.1 OF THE 2016 INTER/NIKMy BUIdNG CODE. SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WIT1NN A 200 -FOOT RADIUS OF ANY TANK BATTERY OR ...NNW( A ISO -FOOT RADIUS Uf ANY WELLHEAD OR *ITHBN A 25 -FOOT Wows of ANY PLUGGED OR ABANDONED OIL AND GAS WELL. ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN A 200 -FOOT RADIUS Cr ANY TANK BATTERY OR ISO -FOOT RADIUS OF ANY WELLHEAD SHALL REQUIRE A VARIANCE FROM THE TERMS OF THUS CHAPTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION 23-6- 10 C Of THIS CODE. N ANY FUTURE STRUCTURES OR USES ON SITE MUST OBTAIN THE APPROPRIATE ZONING AND BUILDING PERMITS. 4) LOT A LOT BANE) LOT C ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A FUTURE LAND EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 24-8-23.C 3 Or THE WELD COUNTY CODE Si THE LARGEST LOT OF ANY RECORDED EXEMPTION MAY NOT BE LESS THAN n6RTY-ME (35) ACRES NET UNLESS APPROVED BY THE WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 24-8- 40.P OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE. 61 THE PROPERTY OWNER OH OPERATOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTROLLING NOXIOUS WEEDS ON THE SITE, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER IS, ARTICLE I AND .1, OF THE *ELD COUNTY CODE TI WELD COUNTY YPLL NOT REPLACE PIERUAPPING EASEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING RIGHT -Or- WAY CO PAY TO RELOCATE EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING COLNTr RIGHT -Or -WAY. II ALL ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ME DEDICATED FOP THE BENEFIT Or ALL OWNERS Or LOTS DEPICTED ON THIS PLAT, NCLUONG OWNERS Of FUTURE LOTS CREATED T)OREFR0M. REGARDLESS OF LOT CONFIGURATION OR NUMBER OF USERS, AND WITHOUT LIMITATION Of THE uSE OR INTENSITY OF THE uSE Or SUCH EASEMENTS. NO LOT OWNER MAY INSTALL A GATE OR OTHERWISE IMPEDE THE USE OF SUCH EASEMENTS WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF ALL PERSONS WITH RIGHTS OF USE Of SUCH EASEMENTS 91 ACCESS ON THE SITE SHALL BE MANTANED TO MITIGATE ANY IMPACTS TO IIIE PU&K ROAD INCLUDING DAMAGES AND/OR OFFSITE IRACKNG I01PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF BUILDING PERMITS. THE APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A COMPLETE ACCESS APPLICATION FOR A 'FRELIMINARTLY APPROVED ACCESS LOCATION AS SHOWN ON THIS PEAT MANY WORK THAT MAY OCCUPY AND OR ENCROACH UPON ANY COUNTY WAFTS -Of -WAY OR EASEMENT SHALL ACQUIRE AN APPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY USE PERMIT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT. t2)THE HISTORICAL FLOW PATTERNS AND RUNOFF AMOUNTS RILL BE MAINTAINED ON THE SITE 13)PRIOR TO THE RFIFASE of BUILDING PERMITS, THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A REGORGED DEED DESCRIBING THE LOT UPON WINCH THE BUILDING PER6.T 5 REQUESTED wan THE Bu0.0YNG PERMIT APPLICATIONS THE LEGAL OESCRPTION ON SUCH DEED SHALL INCLUDE THE LOT DESIGNATION AND RECORDED EXEMPTION NUMBER /41PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF BUILDING PERMITS, THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT EVIDENCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES THAT LOTS A, B, C ANO 0 HAVE AN ADEQUATE WATER SuPPt Y Of SUJFTCIEM QUALITY, QUANTITY AM) DEPENDABILITY ISIPOTENTIAL PURCHASERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT LOTS A. B. AND C MAY NOT BE EUiIDLE FOR A DOMESTIC WELL PERMIT WHICH ALLOWS FOR OUTSIDE IRRIGATION AND/OR THE WATERING OF STOCK ANIMALS THE STATE DMSION OF WATER RESOURCES ISSUES ALL WELL PERMITS 161POTENTIAL PURCHASERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT GROUNDWATER MAY NOT MEET ALL ORINKNG WATER STANDARDS AS DEFINED BY THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT. THE WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT Of PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT STRONGLY ENCOURAGES WELL USERS TO TEST THEM DRINKING WATER PRIOR TO UJNSi.MPTION AND PERIOOCALLY THEREAFTER. 1 TIPOTENTIAL PURCHASERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT APPROVAL OF THIS RECORDED EXEMPTION MAY BE DEEMED NON.- BUILDABLE IF THE LOT OWNER TS UNABLE TC OBTAIN A WELL PERMIT. 1616VILDING PERMITS ISSUED ON THE PROPOSED LOTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO THE DRAINAGE IMPACT FEE PROGRAMS DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT WELL PERMITS WILL BE ISSUED FOR THE LOTS. ANY LOT THE STATE DowSiON OF WATER RESOURCES ISSUES AL: WELL PERMITS FEE STRUCTURE OF THE COUNT' -WIDE ROAD IMPACT FEE. COUNTY FACILITY FEE AND 191RK;M TO EXTRACT MINERAL RESOURCES STATEMENT. WELD COUNTY HAS SOME OF TIC MOST A&NGNNT MINERAL RESOURCES. INCLUDING. BuT NOT UNITED TO. SAND NC GRAVEL. OIL. NATURAL GAS. AND CO.L. UNDER TITLE 34 Of THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES. MINERALS ARE AtAL RESOURCES BECAUSE (A) THE STATE'S COMMERCIAL MINERAL DEPOSITS ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE STATE'S ECONOMY; (B) THE POPULOUS COUNTIES OF THE STATE FACE A CRITICAL SHORTAGE OF SUCH DEPOSITS. AND (C) SUCH DEPOSITS SHOULD BE EXTRACTED ACCORDING TO A RATIONAL PLAN CALCULATED TO AVOID WASTE OF SuCH DEPORTS AND CAUSE THE LEAST PPACTCCABUE DISRUPTION Of' THE ECOLOGY AND DUALITY Of LIFE Or THE CITIZENS OF THE POPULOUS COUNTIES Of THE STATE MINERAL RESOURCE LOCATIONS ARE WIDESPREAD THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY AND PERSON MOVNG INTO THESE AREAS MUST RECOGNIZE THE VARIOUS IMPACTS ASSOCIATED MTH THIS DEVELOPMENT OFTEN TWMES. MINERAL RESOURCE SITES ARE FIXED TO Th(M GEOGRAPHICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL LOCATIONS MOREOVER. THESE RESOURCES ARE. PROTECTED PROPERTY RIGHTS ANO MINERAL OWNERS SHOULD BE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXTRACT THE MINERAL RESOURCE 1OIWELD COUNTY'S RIGHT TO FARM STATEMENT WELD COUNTY IS 014E Of THE MOST PRODUCTNE ACYfICULTUFtAL COUNTES IN THE UNITED STATES. TYPICALLY RANKING IN THE TOP TEN COUNTIES IN THE COUNTRY IN TOTAL MARKET vAL,E Of AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS SOLD. THE RURAL AREAS OF WELD COUNTY MAY BE OPEN AND SPACIOUS. BUT THEY ARE INTENSNELY USED FOR AGRICULTURE. PERSONS MOVING INTO A RURAL AREA MUST RECOGNIZE AND ACCEPT THERE ARE DRAWBACKS, INCLUDING CONFLICTS WITH LONG-STANDING AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND A LOWER LEVEL Or SERVICES THAN IN TOWN. ALONG WITH THE DRAWBACKS COME THE INCENTIVES WHICH ATTRACT URBAN DWELLERS TC RELOCATE TO RURAL AREAS- OPEN VIEWS. SPACIOUSNESS. WILDL,FE. LACK OF CITY NOISE ANO CONGESTION, AND THE RURAL ATMOSPHERE AND WAY Or LIFE WITHOUT NEIGHBORING FARMS. THOSE FEATURES MACH ATTRACT URBAN DWELLERS TO RURAL WELD COUNTY WOULD QUICKLY BE GONE FOREVER AGRCULTURAL USERS OF THE LAND SHOED NOT BE EXPECTED TO CIMNGE THEIR LONG-ESTABLISHED AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES TO ACCONNOAATE TIE INTRUSIONS OF URBAN USERS NTD A PUPAL AREA WELL -RUN AGRICULTURAL ACTMTIE'S 'W14 GENERATE Off -SITE RPACTS. 'NCLUDING NOISE FROM TRACTORS AND EOUIPEIENT. SLOW- MOVING FARM VEH.CLES ON RURAL ROADS. DUST FROM ANIMAL PENS. FIELD WORK. HARVEST AND GRAVEL ROADS; ODOR FROM ANIMAL CONFINEMENT. SILAGE AND MANURE, SMOKE FROM DITCH BURNING, FLIES AND MOSQUITOES; HUNTING AND TRAPPING ACTMTIES; SHOOTING SPORTS, LEGAL HAZING Of NUISANCE WILDLIFE. AND THE USE OF PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS IN 'HE FIELDS, INCLUDING THE USE OF AERIAL SPRAYING. IT IS COMMON PRACTICE FOR AGRCULTURAL PRODUCERS TO UTILIZE AN ACCUMULATION or AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY AND SUPPLIES TO ASSIST IN THEIR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS A CONCENTRATION OF MISCELLANEOUS AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS OFTEN PRODUCES A YISUAL DISPATITY BETWEEN RURAL AND URBAN AREAS Of THE COUNTY SECTION 35-3.5-102, CRS, PROv1DES THAT AN AGRICULTURAL OPERATION SHALL NOT BE fOUNO TO BE A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE NUISANCE IF THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION ALLEGED TO BE A NUISANCE EMPLOYS METHODS UR PRACTICES THAT ARE COMMONLY UP REASONABLY ASSOCIATED WITH AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION WATER HAS BEEN, AND CONTINUES TO BE, THE UfCUNE FOR THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY IT IS UNREALISTIC TO ASSUME THAT DITCHES MAID RESERVOIRS MAT SIMPLY BE MC7vED ' OUT Of THE WAY' OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHEN MOVING 70 THE COUNTY. PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS MUST REALIZE THEY CANNOT TAKE WATER FROM IRRIGATION DITCHES. LAKES, OR OTHER STRUCTURES. UNLESS THEY HAV( AN ADJUDICATED RIGHT TO THE WATER WELD COUNTY COVERS A LAND AREA OF APPROXIMATELY FOUR THOUSAND (4.000) SQUARE ARLES IN SIZE (TWICE TIC 512E Of THE STATE Of DELAWARE) WITH MORE THAN 1HINEE THOUSAND SEWN HUNDRED (3.700) MILES Of STATE AND COUNTY ROADS OUTSIDE Or MUNICIPALITIES THE' SHEER MAGNITUDE Or THE AREA TO BE SERVED STRETCHES AVAILABLE RESOURCES. LAW ENFORCEMENT IS BASED ON RESPONSES TO COMPLAINTS MORE THAN ON PATROLS V THE COUNTY. Alt THE DISTANCES *NCH MUST BE TRAVELED 11Av DELAY ALL EMERGENCY RESPONSES. INCLUDING LAW ENFORCEMENT. AMBULANCE, AND FIRE. PRE PROTECTION 6 USUALLY PROVIOED BY VDUNTLERS ONO MUST ,LAVE THEIR JOSS ANC FAMILIES TO RE SPEND TO EMERGENCIES. COUNTY GRAVEL ROADS. NO MATTER HOW OFTEN THEY ARE BLADED. WILL NOT PROVIDE THE SAME KIND OF SURFACE EXPECTED FROM A PAVED ROAD. SNOW REMOvAL PRIORITIES MEAN THAT ROADS FROM SUBDIVISIONS TO ARTERIALS MAY NOT BE CLEARED FOR SEVERAL DAYS AFTER A MAJOR SNOWSTORM. SERVICES IN RURAL AREAS. WE. CASES. WILL NOT BE EQUIVALENT TO MUNICIPAL SERVICES RURAL DWELLERS MUST. BY NECESSTY, SE MORE SELF-SUFFIUENT THAN URBAN DWELLERS PEOPLE DITCHES. BANNS ti .•. 11.• ,I.Y. (SENT TO N NW 21 I 13 N 00( 26 1 *CR 114 Y4 Sw-\ 110 N 166W 22 LOT D 0 1-• S 0 U 0 10 N 64* - 27 VICINITY MAP 1" = 2000' HAMMER LAND SURVEYING, INC. 3050 67TH AVENUE, SUITE 200 GREELEY, CO 80634 PH: 970-535-9318 ", • FOR M i11)FPUMPSSPEED DI ARDSCENTER IN THE COuNTY THAN IN AN URBAN OR SueuRBAN SETTING FARM PIVOT OPERATIONS, HIGH TRAFFIC. SAND BURS. PUNCTURE CEQUIPMENT TERRITORIAL RIEFLD EQUIPMENT, DOGS AND DDPUVESTOCK. AND OPEN THREATS CONTROLLING CHILDREN'S ACIVITIES IS *PORTANT. NOT ONLY FOR THEIR SAFETY. BUT ALSO FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE FARMER'S JVEL HCO0. NOIIIHWEST SECTKN CORNEIV SECION 22. TOwNSIIP IC IK1frmm. RANGE 66 *13' C4 M 47)1 P.M tQUND A 2 1/2• ALUM. CAP ON A f6 REBAR STAMPER 36571 WEST 3/4 CORNEA SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 10 NORTH. RANGE 66\ WEST W THE 4TH P.M SETA 7 1/2' NW CAP ON A Ott ROM SNARED 24307 SOUTHWEST SECTION CORNER SECTION 22. TOWnS* IC NORTH. RANGE 66 NEST Of THE 6TH Pm F0tsI A 3 1/4' ALUM. CAP ON A 06 \ Kee STAMPED 31936 \v S O0O6'W C. 2657.66' W SN N S 69'42'50' W, 2646.13' CENTER 1/4 CORNER SECTION 22. TOWNSHIP 10 NORTH. RANCE 66 MST OF M ITN PM. SET A 2 I/2' ALUM CAP ON A /6 PERM STAMPED 24307 JS 69'10'47 W 2659.83' 0 0 S 8942'50' W. 2646.13' `NORTH 1/4 CORIEII SECTgN 22. TO'w91I 10 NORN. RANCE 66 REST Of M 6TH P.M CALCULATED PORTION. NOTHING FOUL 0R SET SECTION 22 TOtN9NC '0 N NANCE 66w S 89'10'47' W, 2659.83' II SOJTH 1/4 CORMR SECTION I RANGE 'OeC.e 10 NORTH. 66 *EST Of THE 6TH ii PAC SET A 2 yr ALUM. CO z /ON A 66 REAM STAMPED 24307 • 6839'04' E. 2673.75' )/ W61.50- W. 26O6.1a z NNORTIEAST slam cover. SECfON 22. TOWNSINP IQ NORTH, RANGE 66 REST Or THE 6TH P M roue • 2 I/2' ALLAN UP RYA A F6 RESAT STANK() 17497 EAST I/4 CCANUI SECTION 22. TOMS 10 NORTH, RAIK,E N *EST Of TIE 6TH P.Y. CALCULATED POSH °R, NOTHING M Owe OP 511 SOUTEAST SLcI✓3N CORNER SECTOR 22. TOrweS P 10 /NORTH. RANGE 66 *EST OF THE 6TH PM FOUND A N 8839'04' L. 2673.75' _y 2 1/2' ALUM CAP ON A f6 RCMP STAMPED IJ74Q SECTION 10 MAP 1" = 1000' RECORDED EXEMPTION SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 10 NORTH, RANGE 88 WEST, 8TH P.M. SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 10 NORTH RANGE 66 WEST, 6TH P.M. JOB#1127-01 NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Code, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Administration Building, 1150 O Street, Assembly Room, Greeley, Colorado 80631, at the time specified. If a court reporter is desired, please advise the Clerk to the Board, in writing, at least five days prior to the hearing. The cost of engaging a court reporter shall be borne by the requesting party. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if special accommodations are required in order for you to participate in this hearing, please contact the Clerk to the Board's Office at (970) 400-4225, prior to the day of the hearing. The complete case file may be examined in the office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County Administration Building, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631. E-mail messages sent to an individual Commissioner may not be included in the case file. To ensure inclusion of your e-mail correspondence into the case file, please send a copy to egesick@weldgov.com. DATE: July 25, 2022 TIME: 9:00 a.m. APPLICANT: Tepee Ring Ranch, LLC c/o Bob Ehrlich and Lance Astrella 1853 B Chesapeake Circle Johnstown, Colorado 80534 REQUEST: Partial Vacation of Four -Lot Recorded Exemption, RECX19-0095, for Removal of Lot D LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot D of Recorded Exemption, RECX19-0095; being part of the SW1/4 of Section 22, Township 10 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: North of and adjacent to County Road 114; approximately one mile east of U.S. Highway 85 (See Legal Description for precise location) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO DATED: July 13, 2022 r -R Ls) O O r9 r -R ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS FOR PARTIAL VACATION OF RECX19-0095 Owner SCOTT AND HOLLEE WELTY RANDALL AND KIMBERLY WHEELER AND JEANNE RAU CMH HOMES, INC. TEPEE RING RANCH, LLC Address 15109 COUNTY ROAD 114 P.O. BOX 190 5000 CLAYTON ROAD 1853 B CHESAPEAKE CIRCLE City N UNN State Zip CO 80648-9605 N UNN CO 80648-0190 MARYVILLE TN 37804-5550 JOHNSTOWN CO 80534-8344 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that I have placed a true and correct copy of the Notice, in accordance with the notification requirements of Weld County for Partial Vacation of Recorded Exemption, RECX19-0095, in the United States Mail, postage prepaid First Class Mail as listed above. Dated the 13th day of July, 2022. /Yt LU ui It it Janet M. Warwick Deputy Clerk to the Board U.S. Postal Service' CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com . ?;t Certified Mail Fee Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee as appropriate) ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery o Adult Signature Required $ ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage Total Postage and Fees Sent StreeApt. N City, tfd 14�jJ f�a ; dl sc(4,Lic# <:.S E i Postmark Here 5 See Reverse for Instructions C, 4a CD "C3 ❑ ❑ ct, >- z° ❑ ❑ T• E 0 o E-0 o (1) 4- -0 a) c0 0 6 -a 13 L- cLl 4; 5' C >- 0 c?) • w22 222 a� >, a) z -ccto o �C a) .0) ❑❑❑ ❑ U) cc C) 0 cc Qm 2® 1-75 c c 2 U rn '0 (0-aa 0 0 0 0 <<0000 v O 'w U .L._ 0 cc N 0 0 O) w CC C) 0 0 U goo c c V 0 0 t 90 a) — a) a) 2 > .a C O o ern co O — 0 o -tea) a C w N T3 = a▪ s ftci O N CO E 7ai a) '' N U U OC �0 Lam.. Q) Vi - 0 .(1) Q. >, • �_ o 0 .� 00.to Qo ■ ■ ■ a - r 0 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 5 O c0 r1 CI S O O r1 rag Domestic Return Receipt C COQ 5 '7 1 J C0 U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEI Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at w Certified Mail Fee Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee as appropriate) ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ Adult Signature Required $ ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage SENDER: COMPLETE T i-:IS SECTION ■ ■ 'lit: 1. Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. Article Addressed to: actuctitdrKiatho/kLukifix! csteannt-7-.0.-u Po rad3r1 Sao khtnn 'iD Dtel4 °IWD rho:uye a�a co z i`�QndaIlQ��d 4_c) iyyt Ec Sent To S iinLiRckL- or PO Box 0 9590 9402 6749 1074 1345 32 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature *ev, O Agent =-`—� ❑ Addressee eceived by (Printed ame) C. Date of Delivery 1\) e41\ • \ D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 7IP+4®0g lc 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) fl/PA-4® 011883 ?01,7 1,450 0000 9675 PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 See PS Form 3811, July 2020 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 3. Service Type ❑ Adult Signature ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery Certified Mail® Certified Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery Vlail Restricted Delivery )0) U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIP SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION Domestic Mail Only I •1 iI I C.l l (•] I �.i Certified Mail Fee $ Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee as appropriate) ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery Adult Signature Required $ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $ Total Postage and Fees �.I 7017—talin_ tom . Ste a t.Non9r PO: o � City ZIP • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: 1:lepte,n Is�53 B Othatkplck)Cc aCif Aiiitikton eD 8D5 3ci3�Id a ire C PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 i i 9590 9402 6749 1074 1345 25 Sc'? ❑ Priority Mail Express® ❑ Registered MailTM ❑ Registered Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Signature ConfirmationTM ❑ Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery Domestic Return Receipt q5 31k COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature X 7./` L B. Received *printed Name) ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee C. Date of Dejivery 7,/i 1-1 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? O Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 2_ Article Ntimher (Transfer from service label) 3. Service Type ❑ Adult Signature ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery Certified Mail® ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery tail vlail Restricted Delivery )0) 7017 1450 0000 9675 1876 PS Form 3811, July 2020 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com Certified Mail Fee kxw YY top zen Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee as appropriate) ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Adult Signature Required ['Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage Total Postage and Fees Sent To Sne5Ca 41- bUU 9113 Postmark Here PQ Box No. L.34) PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 • ❑ Priority Mail Express ❑ Registered MailTM ❑ Registered Mail Rc Delivery ❑ Signature Confirm ❑ Signature Confi-ma Restricted Delivery Domestic Return Rece WELD COUNTY COLORADO LAND RECORDS AFFIDAVIT OF INTERESTED LAND OWNERS SURFACE ESTATE 6/24/2022 2:44:47 PM THE UNDERSIGNED, States that to the best of his or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names, addresses, and the corresponding Parcel Identification Number assigned by the Weld County Assessor of the owners of the property (the surface estate) within 500 feet of the property being considered. This list was compiled utilizing the records of the Weld County Assessor available on the Weld County Internet Mapping site, http://www.co.weld.co.us, and has not been modified from the original. The list compiled for the records of the Weld County Assessor was assembled within thirty days of the applications submission date. t(ISignature Date Property Owners Within 500 Feet of Parcel # 030122300010 Account Parcel Owner Mailing Address R0296786 030121000002 USA 2850 LAKEWOOD, YOUNGFIELD CO ST 802157210 R0297086 030122000004 USA 2850 LAKEWOOD, YOUNGFIELD CO 802157210 ST R8965165 030122300007 1,01- A WELTY HOLLEE ELLEN R8965165 030122300007 L-01 'i WELTY SCOTT PATRICK 15109 NUNN, COUNTY CO 806489605 ROAD 114 R8965166 030122300008 1-04-46 RAU JEANNE M R8965166 030122300008 L,01 WHEELER KIMBERLY J o R8965166 030122300008 Lo4- WHEELER RANDALL LEE PO NUNN, BOX 190 CO 806480190 R8965167 030122300009 Lof C' CMH HOMES INC 5000 MARYVILLE, CLAYTON TN RD 378045550 R8965168 030122300010 Lt'l I TEPEE RING RANCH LLC 1853 JOHNSTOWN, B CHESAPEAKE CO 805348344 CIRCLE Parcels: 9 Owner Records: 13 Page 1 of 3 WELD COUNTY COLORADO LAND RECORDS AFFIDAVIT OF INTERESTED LAND OWNERS SURFACE ESTATE 6/24/2022 2:44:47 PM THE UNDERSIGNED, States that to the best of his or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names, addresses, and the corresponding Parcel Identification Number assigned by the Weld County Assessor of the owners of the property (the surface estate) within 500 feet of the property being considered. This list was compiled utilizing the records of the Weld County Assessor available on the Weld County Internet Mapping site, http://www.co.weld.co.us, and has not been modified from the original. The list compiled for the records of the Weld County Assessor was assembled within thirty days of the applications submission date. 41 eat -I 1-zontz Signature Date Property Owners Within 500 Feet of Parcel # 030122300010 Account Parcel Owner Mailing Address R0298586 030127000005 U S A 2850 LAKEWOOD, YOUNGFIELD CO 802157210 ST R0298686 030127200006 BATMAN SHIRLEY M R0298686 030127200006 BATMAN LARRY G PO GREELEY, BOX 336921 CO 806330616 R0298886 030128000001 U S A 2850 LAKEWOOD, YOUNGFIELD CO 802157210 ST Parcels: 9 Owner Records: 13 Page 2 of 3 WELD COUNTY COLORADO LAND RECORDS AFFIDAVIT OF INTERESTED LAND OWNERS SURFACE ESTATE 6/24/2022 2:44:48 PM THE UNDERSIGNED, States that to the best of his or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names, addresses, and the corresponding Parcel Identification Number assigned by the Weld County Assessor of the owners of the property (the surface estate) within 500 feet of the property being considered. This list was compiled utilizing the records of the Weld County Assessor available on the Weld County Internet Mapping site, http://www.co.weld.co.us, and has not been modified from the original. The list compiled for the records of the Weld County Assessor was assembled within thirty days of the applications submission date. Property Owners Within 500 Feet of Parcel # 030122300010 Parcels: 9 Owner Records: 13 Signature Date Page 3 of 3 PLAT VACATION APPLICATION RECORDED EXEMPTIONS & SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE: DATE RECEIVED: PLANNER ASSIGNED: PLAT INFORMATION Title of plat t0 be vacated: Lot D of Recorded Exemption No. RECX19-0095 S 22 T 10 R 66 IDComplete Vacation (must include all lots)OPartial Vacation of the largest lot (must be over 35 acres) List of lots to be vacated: Lot Parcel Number D 030122300010 131.93 N/A- no vacation of easements is proposed Acreage Affected Easements PROPERTY OWNER(S) (Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Name: Sob Ehrlich & Lance Astrella Company: Tepee Ring Ranch LLC. Phone #: 303-292-9021 Email: lance@astrellalaw.com Street Address: 1853 B Chesapeake Circle City/State/Zip Code: Johnstown/ CO/ 80534 APPLICANT/AUTHORIZED AGENT (Authorization must be included if them is an Authorized Agent.) Name: Hannah Dutrow Company: AGPROfessionals Phone #: 970-535-9318 Email: hdutrow@agpros.com Street Address: 3050 67th Avenue Suite 200 City/State/Zip Code: Greeley/ CO/ 80634 I (We) hereby depose and state under penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals, and/or plans submitted with or contained within the application are true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge. All fee owners of the property must sign this application. If an Authorized Agent signs, an Authorization Form signed by all fee owners must be included with the application. If the fee owner is a corporation, evidence must be included indicating the signatory has the legal authority to sign for the corporation. I (We) have read and agree to comply with the regulations for complete or partial vacation of recorded exemption or subdivision exemption. nature: Owner or omr ''"'"" Date Signature: Owner or Authorized Agent Date rOr, hi.khYL O, MAPia G1 -r, lochaQs int: Owner or Authorized Agent Print: Owner or Authorized Agent 7/20/2021 DEPARTMENTS OF PLANNING BUILDING, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 1555 NORTH 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, CO 80631 AUTHORIZATION FORM I (We) Tepee Ring Ranch, LLC. , give permission to AGPROfessionals (Owner— please print) (Authorized Agent/Applicant—please print) to apply for any Planning, Building, Access, Grading or OMITS permits on our behalf, for the property located at (address or parcel number) below: Parcel no. 030122300010 Lot D RECX19-0095 Legal Description: Subdivision Name: N/A of Section 22 Township 10 N, Range66 Lot N/A Block N/A Property Owners Information: Address: 1853 B Chesapeake Circle, Johnstown, CO 80534-8344 W 303-292-9021 Phone: E-mail: lance@astrellalaw.com Authorized Agent/Applicant Contact Information: 3050 67th Avenue Suite 200, Greeley, CO 80634 Address: Phone: 970-535-9318 E -Mail: hdutrow@agpros.com Correspondence to be sent to: Owner Ja Authorized Agent/Applicant a by: Mail Email Additional Info: I (We) he certify, under penalty of perjury and after carefully reading the entire contents of this documhatthe inforrnet1'on stated above is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge. Owner Signature Date Owner Signature Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of C /t v1 {� U e, Cr�Fi� My commission expires ) Notary Pubh Date , 20 U by KARILYN BAUGHMAN NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20174032330 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 1, 2025 STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY 1 This Statement of Authority relates to the entity named Tepee Ring Ranches LLC. 2. Tepee Ring Ranches LLC is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of Colorado. 3. The mailing address of Tepee Ring Ranches LLC is 1853 Chesapeake Circle, Unit B, Johnstown, Colorado 80534. 4. The name of the person authorized to execute all documents on behalf Tepee Ring Ranches LLC, is Robert E. Ehrlich. 5. Tepee Ring Ranches LLC is member managed. The members of Tepee Ring Ranches LLC are: Ronin Resources, LLC Robert E. Ehrlich, LLC 6. This Statement of Authority may be executed in counterparts each of which shall be considered an original and together one and the same Statement of Authority. 7 This Statement of Authority is executed on behalf of Tepee Ring Ranches, LLC pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. § 38-30-172. Executed this /M:lay of ,z/2/4, '' , 2019. TEEPEE RING RANCH, LLC BY: RONIN RESOURCES, LLC, MEMBER By:. Lance Astrella BY: ROBERT E. EHRLICH, d,C MEME By: bert E. hrlich ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ARE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE Member Member STATE OF d , 4 -O ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this f 7 day of 2019, by Lance Astrella, as sole member of Ronin Resources, LLC, member of Tee Ring Ranches, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: STATE OF LICccL } ) ss. COUNTY OF LAID ) JODY FOURNIER NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20144011927 COMMISSION EXPIRES MAR, 19, 2021 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 15 day of 2019, by Robert E. Ehrlich, sole member of Robert E. Ehrlich, LLC, member of T� epee Ring Ranches, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: -- Q - �,90 a Notary Public oQ� GAO Tepee Ring Ranch, LLC WARRAEED MIS DEED, on August 14, 2013 between KaUrteon� jversan a: , Stale of fng Ranch, t,LC, a wyomnhng timid Uty company to ose legal address M of the County of 4OO WI1NESSETH, that receipt and sufficiency of presents do grant, bergat parttogetherwith im descrtted as 395 08/21/2013 03:0 /I T taPages: 6 Rec Fee: 00 Doc Fee: $18. e Moreno - Clerk fecorder, Weld Co n�� O Recorder's )V ^`. raOndum Q� This dogient was found nadequate for On C,nnning purposes l grantor(s). and s), for and in consideration of the en and 001100 DOLLARS (510.1 ereby acknowledged. We grant, net, sold and conveyed, and by th convey and confirm unto land being heirs and Count of Weld and Stale of alI the re Coloredd meets, if any, situate, lying � y Southwest .^ Section 22, Township 10 North e 66 West of the 61h P.M, OQ County • �' d, Slate of Colorado. fro �o as bt9wn . reef end numbers as: CR 114, Nunn. 980648 `� rude and rerEInders rents. Issue beto or Iheraond a9 iho ' - soaver of the grantor=s), alfhe 11 �. ally, oFt, fn and to tho above nd appurtenances. TO HAVE AN0 TO FI0L rd premises above bargained and d O) grantee=s) their heirs end as • ver. And the grantor=s), for thomse heirs, antl personal repraseMalw do covenant grant, bargal� to and with the grantee(s), Utdr eesrgne, that at the Urns of the and dalwery of these a - = ey are wail seized dike premises veyad, had good, sure, parfeG, ab and Indefeasible estate o`t • Mance, In haw, in fee simple and has rfghl. fial power and lawful wordy to g bargain, sag and ey lice same in manner and form as af d, and that the same are free and clear f' ell former and °Margrant ns, sales Bens, taxes, assessments, o trances and restrictions of whatever • • • nature WO,erxeP4 �i'O(3ETHER with ell and singular tl rlittg and tan ravorsron and reveres right tale. inlemst riakn and vO = rgahnsd premises, soda the heredi with the appuAenences, unio the for genres and assessments for the ye,44013 and subsequent years; and su4ct to easements, ' • Is, reservations, restrictions and ,•= of way of record. he grantors) shall end win WAR FOREVER DEFEND the above -be premises M the quiet end possesspn of the grantee=s), t and assigns, aggainst aA and every or persons lawfully claiming e whole or an part Thereof. Where herein!. the plural reierantes shall d to be singular references and singular references shag o be plural references where the ulnas and all references of gender and parson shall be construed to the grantor or grantors identified he ' rdless of the context. .,O /4\O IN WITNESS WHEe grantors) have executed tai c on the date set forth above. d��✓✓✓ "�� r' �� is v�' QKa een ST OF • letOP0Itt) • ) ss. or e STY OF bME�B r/l/�C �d ) OK 0711,1=17. ukUged before me lhls /1/ da 33700-1D,cElGt! SoR W W2R. * tray Deed (For Phologtaphk WORT, RICAN TITLE COMPANY OF COLORADO 2a32Rev. lvswa erne KELLI S. BOWDENO� NOTARY PUBLIC for the State of Monte Residing at White ntaes My Commies' ires May 4 ,. o„ 9 e /5o �@ @ 4 # CL @3 29 290 e� �opM �o ' g<, o � v o ,,, & & ,) � c 22 CO 395:0 08/21/2013 03:0 P�2 of 6CDe ,\@ o J xhibit A o OQ o A Db Transferring un -ante, any and • 1� ` , and gas rights °Cop kind, now o by grantor whic in, on, under an o� �, ed together v the rights of in that may o�•lYfd��t� ' r neces - - to explore for, and remove suck in ding 100% of any existimoil, gas, mineral leaaes4 c aowledged by o 0 0‘2. o op Ida A a A. Iversen 4)- 0 o° opo ) C A O Y on and and egress e d gas. O ^O� Tepee Ring Ranch, iG, a Wyn Cv� whose legal address is i z $ OO _ of the County of WUNESSET grantor(s), for and in consideration m eration T `- of Tan and 00/100 DOI,I.ARS (S ,i Z ilY receipt and suffidgn fy9� are hereby acknowledged. have bargained, sold arid conveyed, end ) e presents do hx sell, convey and cement drip the nt =• s}, their heirs and assigns forever, the al property, ed improvements, if any, situate, lyingor eirhg in the Courtly of Well and Stale foredo descr14 of Section 22, Township 10 rtge 136 West of the 61h P.M•�OO M mina. w in anywise prrAs thereof, and *lithe m equity, of, in and to the above �J O ® 3954 08/21/2013 03:0 C �� Pn3 of 6 0 O Op OOp ,OO� O,1 0 _ �. © 0 n OHO 2%,> 0 OO O Tepee Rung Ranch, WAR -� THIS ado on August 14, 2013 between /,® G ry L eager. and W��eesley B. Yeager O(�� Couny of ` ' 7A ' C , prantwis}, a.%�� n Nabaty company Stale of Cam+ c}� DEED Sout Coe 23 Weld, State of Colorado, o by aueO and numbers err. CR 114, Vt n. CO 80848 TOOETWER with ell end ainguIer 'I rrerts end eppurtenanee e t OO ppeetMoeg and the remmbo and s, remainder and remalders, rents, eMote right, title, interest, mein a whetsceverof the grentor(s}, ettyte bemMoed premises, with tare he ark apputemeees TO HAVE AND TO t the said premises above bargained a rkilh the eppuntenences, unto ' grentee(s), their hells a forever. And the ;polaris), tort s, their heirs, and personal uprisen f • do covenant, grant, Weekagree to and with the grantee(s), and assigns, that at the time of the a •. and delivery of theseptedernts, they are weir seized orate premis convoyed had good sere, perfect. and indef tale of inheritance. In law, In fee smrple a has good right, full power and lawful au Ity to grant, bargain, sell _ �• the same in manner and form as old, and dial the same are free and all former and other • s, .argalns, sales liens. tear , as blames and restrictions of what Is or nature soaver, for � taxes and assessments for the 013 and subsequent years; rants, reservations, restrictions a • s of way of record. The granlor(s) sthaN and wW W +r FOREVgR DEFEND the above -6 premises in the quiet end possession of the gramee(s r ni. irW assigns. erggaIrlst ap and eve or persons lawfully claiming the whole of any pan thereof. W _ - • heraln, tine pk+ral references shall to be singular references and singular references shah be • ty - • to be plural references where the a i.ms and all references of gender and person shall be consulted ; `g=r to the grantor or grantors identified h ese of the corded. /�� IN WITNESS WHERE a grantor(S) have ebacuted this n the date set forth above. \S ..y,-- O O ((�o �O UNTY OF vO Thefaegotng lnstrumnxtla�w�ga�s�� ,O GeyL yeagarandwesngrer. n� fr;1:._ ,/._0 33700.13-1 GR 0 � O O lodged before me this L Witness ►+t ss. Notary dstbs(Th 0�� O easements, KATHLEE ti ~ ALLAGHER PUBLIC S ,� OF COLORADO Ns� ;-YID #19944015348 M , =mission Expires September 22, ■;14 Na tr49r nrJ811af11Y need (Fa FhoblFaWdc `�O D�7 H AMERICAN TITLE COkq'ANY OF COLOR: ObZ7C0oro,aeteRev /9/00 Cv� V OAS 20 20 that may be prodncgather with the rights 0� including o£ any existing oil, g. Ackno'ty by Se. Q� 2O1 /o ®® ©A °b M 20 O�` O 0D� Q� 20 395 (f 08/21/2013 03:0 P�'4 of 6 000 00 Eit 0 OQ oQ TVansfening unto Grantee, fay and all oiil, and gas rig f any p'21,cind, nON0 owned by r whia are w, on, and d upon and b s and egress ,�° eressaty to or, mine, and remove oil and gas. �Q instal leases. X00 2 OQ� Q0 C29 J O�� 00 �oQ �oQ Ode O�,e A e © 0 # ,o) # oQ2 Q2 Q2 `1 ® ® ® 00 %." 2' ,> .> .2, e �o 0 e 0 2 , 4 o4 4 4 o � Oar o � o�'� •o%> 90KZ9 /+ © , 0 0 0 # ©Q c9e ®� o9 ® ® ® , off' 2<, 2O? 2O> 20. 0 o�o� ooU e U 0200 OOO 2 © 4 4, 4 O . ce e. . O� ' ., %.), o0 e oe 20 0+00 ,y- 4(15 a2O 0 pe 0 4U93 -US -'I 4GS wett. rgo COQ » u.+ru taco •auu r c/ e t COQ �O�b �O f, 3P958 6 08/21/2013 03:02?,0 , OO @ tlrtwn•J,tmy ; i4.+r � � ��,0 n Q5 Ti�l,MED, Mh y e t #, 2013 betrilSrl WARRAA �cf� ." is dteei , L,LC; a9ryonil eglhoifed It. WI 0�� %.). r . '� + WiThISMW ttte CteeRY of r...,,_,,— -r � *--��,.,,„,,.,Peetee(ak e v E MI, tta lliff.di, ur irnoa to � 1 . of �t 0G Gtt7 SRs (S1 o,RX}, w@ o �, ,.„, Baer .sd t vofwide„ ,,„=,,,„,,,.„ eeregPenvaygC,med?!�'h SD ...,,,....„..,, flow �tldatfoams: Q •SoutIwast'�t,1.1 4 n 22libwttetlip•V Isler r, Eton COO/ of rp}1: ikte Of Ciiloradat J oar ieDBYer; went OQ fdr 5enerol sev o° fist Pf We Bth PAL,. 4{�R.eMthatl etndaMrguied d1! enL�•al�d appetlerwneee thgre�v pe(o��p,.++x.' etel {6'e nversicn�ivrdri�etetts, rem r#td%�+datC.Y m, 44 ci prig lee;, .Aehiha fa Eib nelds • 4i1' . A Kerala, dim end eu. aitlta� in , tyest•• � TO b E ACED to,44010 C (ha -:.. abweb ne d end 4�s�$ 0; ureo&rgs, unto the �2� pn�iavisY me�sto� ;And e�aevg�3 d �per1�(,l.�a ttaa+e�vo.,,r ,ppaerr�ora�esusnsHva, ee �S 40vAl�^t,grarts.•b;erpplrtcsnd .. .:�'� ,vyh,pre9ren sw( aiee mru - theiidMYr�l'thl4etareal ,© „ e hail r .. ttt sked de>i�r :o, i1DaeQe9rasetnb y twtiA 8eir ,J7fiha t sss'eltays as , ` OogSi; c ausghds n hN bib I a84 � A� b, i 11.1. rh4an h., gORd ; mom' . u) �r sti Ametr. anA7o ri� stmeeubS � Ill t � Won. free and 4.4er tl t wie, e;l►�e r gone;, harms - fie, leee5, 94,4 t.4 ....1'111 6ivdeotever>Qrld or Hite n;'arsaesesmefrtstor thbyear, 201 ' 66dt'(gentlemra'.*ridsubjertta alt..4,1f4 'ic .I....t4thIP a ' r 'rhe rnor(;a drsnd xRl WAREWIT AND A LiEFENO Itimgboverbapigt9B pr.ses,, bn of tl 1911 rNaerei Bk hdea ;.... ,�irtNeettelt .e>lr.e Pereean e2 tk lh3 �+Ypetir'tlteteof 1Attt�`vPr�ed :.: � pkiretesrprNyWaeahe+��rAus�uc�to m,.,,t a e�raek 'lw *arm a Mil be Co00, 610 •� � Oferenoae wliete to context ►g n�ac t:�� br pendee •n �hta1 br.aansfrbgp'tsl'rpJto the • argrogua sGonli 0 *elf, re ardi. WIMBAEOF, t9:. ti>g; '' ass exited this de aCOh the. STATE OF .COLIWN fnkramaAt voseanswiedett env, �tar;•a, /71.2 1.42N ,,...� tni A, at Vataeestelile de end Ott Nofeeey t=41. ope ope iiie � cps ��O ,O � O am' °4 p (� .. sat! sou .e r¢gGaud sa g +mirndeuo esnasnN � u�'fH J AN retie QGue+msYo`- r ear+rno etaj l..... moan; •%>, 0 ��, l O� a 4 4 o �cc sq+abteto O OC 2013-08-' Q :23 Wel�ergo C�°° >> U490 3440 uu r ai ��Q %s2 %'2' P9580 6 8/21 /2013 03:020 °per' e 'e (6,) + S.** O #(6) * O #lo O moo° moo° e e °p o�°p oO 0 4* -- 4* , d3 4 i op iog op oY op� pe i ope ' is ing Otito: gny a all ot, tu,d �► be ' d. oar awed" 1F lGl) a,fe b, al,. and Walla ti ; � O tat ra ' bql tog x will th 0 a egre i 4° .neeassi7 tat f'a.mine. mid tttri0 ail O j 4 i.aclu 100% 0f any existing O g mineral leaaea. 4 4 ®Q At led dd tri+ ®Q i O° Op Op Op Op Opp @e° i 4* # , 4* 4 SD i moo° �® moo° moo i moo° °pe %.> i©.9'. ope opc� i °pe oe bo• e e o �o• ,o I 4# & °pc� °pc' op� °pe e c� + *' + p 0 O O 4# 4 p • O G Ce, �°p°' , e°per c�O> °per K .<gv 4)- ,,,--- ifn October 21, 2019 Tepee Ring Ranch, LLC 1853 Chesapeake Circle, Unit B Johnstown, CO 80534 Subject: Recorded Exemption RECXI9-0095 Parcel ID #: 0301-22-3-00-003 To whomever it may concern, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Website: www.weldgov.com Email: mnader@weldgov.com Phone: (970) 400-3527 Fax: (970) 304-6498 The Department of Planning Services has reviewed your application and related materials for compliance with the Weld County Code. We find that your proposed Recorded Exemption meets the intent of the Code and it has been conditionally approved by staff. We have enclosed our comments for your case. Please address all issues identified in the staff comments. Prior to submitting the Mylar, please submit an electronic draft (PDF) of your plat for review by the Department of Planning Services staff. Upon approval of the draft plat please submit a Mylar plat along with all other documentation required as conditions of approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services Staff. The plat shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 24-8-60 of the Weld County Code. The Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be submitted within sixty (60) days after the date the Administrative Review was signed or after the date of the Board of County Commissioners resolution. There is a $13 dollar recording fee per Mylar sheet that you will be responsible for paying to record the plat; additional pages are $10 each. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1, 2005, should the plat not be recorded within the required sixty (60) days from the date the Administrative Review was signed a $50 recording continuance charge shall be added for each additional 3 -month period. Please contact me with any questions. Regards, 74 Maxwell Nader, Planner I RECX19-0095 Page 1 of 7 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES RECORDED EXEMPTION ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW Applicant: Tepee Ring Ranch, LLC c/o Robert Ehrlich RECX19-0095 Planner: Maxwell Nader Legal Description: Being a part of the SW4 of Section 22, T10N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, CO Parcel ID #: 0301-22-3-00-003 Lot A Size: +/- 10 acres Lot B Size: +/- 10 acres Lot C Size: +/- 10 acres Lot D Size: +/- 128 acres Water Source: Lot A: Proposed Well Lot B: Proposed Well Lot C: Proposed Well Lot D: Proposed Well Sewer System: Lot A: Proposed Septic Lot B: Proposed Septic Lot C: Proposed Septic Lot D: Proposed Septic Criteria Checklist Yes No X 1. Conforms with Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any adopted municipal plan. X 2. Compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. X 3. Consistent with the intent of the zone district. X 4. Consistent with efficient and orderly development. X 5. Complies with Recorded Exemption standards in Section 24-8-40 of the Weld County Code. X 6. Provides for adequate protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County. Approved with Conditions The Weld County Department of Planning Services has determined through an administrative review that the standards of Section 24-8-40 of the Weld County Code have been met. This Recorded Exemption is approved with the following conditions in accordance with information submitted in the application and the policies of Weld County. 1. If buildings requiring water and sewer are to be constructed, a Weld County On -site Wastewater Treatment System Regulations (OWTS) Permit is required for both proposed lots septic systems and shall be installed according to the Weld County On -site Wastewater Treatment System Regulations. 2. This application is proposing a well as its source of water. The applicant should be made aware that while they may be able to obtain a well permit from the Office of the State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, the quantity of water available for usage may be limited to specific uses, i.e. domestic use only, etc. Also, the applicant should be made aware that groundwater may not meet all drinking water standards as defined by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. We strongly encourage the applicant to test their drinking water prior to consumption and periodically test it over time. RECX19-0095 Page 2 of 7 3. The West Greeley Conservation District has provided information regarding the soils on the site. The applicant shall review the information and use it to positively manage on site soils. 4. Prior to recording the plat: A. The applicant shall address the concerns of the Public Works Referral, dated July 29, 2019, relating to the proposed Lot A, B, C, and D access location(s). B. The applicant shall satisfy the concerns of Weld County School District RE -9, as stated in the referral response dated July 15, 2019 per Section 24-8-40.K.1 of the Weld County Code. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. C. Lots A, B, and C shall comply with the two and one-half (2 1/2) acre net minimum lot size required by Section 24-8-40.L of the Weld County Code. Net acreage calculations should not include future road right-of-way. D. Lot A shall comply with the less than thirty-five (35) acre maximum lot size required by Section 24-8-10.B of the Weld County Code. Net acreage calculations should not include future road right-of-way. E. Lot D shall comply with the one -hundred twenty (120) acre minimum lot size required by Section 24-8-20.C.3 of the Weld County Code. Net acreage calculations should not include future road right-of-way. 5. Items to be included on the plat: A. The plat shall be titled: Recorded Exemption No. 0301-22-3 RECX19-0095 B. A 30 -foot -wide joint access and utility easement extending across Lots A and B from County Road 114, for the benefit of Lots A, B, and C shall be shown clearly on the plat. The joint easement shall be dedicated for the use as shown using the language set forth in the Weld County Code, Appendix 24-F.2. The easement shall be graded and drained to provide all weather access. C. County Road 114 is a gravel road and is designated on the Weld County Functional Classification Map (Code Ordinance 2017-01) as a local road, which requires 60 feet of right- of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate and label on the plat the future and existing right-of-way (along with the documents creating the existing right-of-way) and the physical location of the road. If the existing right-of-way cannot be verified it shall be dedicated. The applicant shall also delineate the physical location of the roadway. Pursuant to the definition of setback in the Weld County Code, Chapter 23, Article III, Section 23-3-50, the required setback is measured from the future right-of-way line. This road is maintained by Weld County. D. County Road 31 is an unmaintained section line right-of-way. The applicant shall verify and delineate on the map the unmaintained right-of-way from the lots to and including the connection to County Road 114. Reference the documents creating the right-of-way. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of right-of-way. This road is not maintained by Weld County. Any unmaintained road needs to be located/identified in relationship to the right- of-way. Show and label the section line Right -of -Way as "CR 31 Section Line Right-of-way, not County maintained" E. Show and label the existing and proposed access point(s) and the usage types (Agriculture, Residential, Commercial/Industrial, or Oil and Gas). Public Works will review access locations as a part of the plat submittal. RECX19-0095 Page 3 of 7 F. The access easement which runs parallel to County road 114 shall have adequate screening and separation provided by the applicant. Section 24-7-20 of the Weld County Code states, "If such alignment is used, a minimum of twenty (20) feet of buffer between future rights -of - way will be required. Screening to reduce right -side headlight glare will be required. Screening type shall receive approval by the Departments of Public Works and Planning Services." G. Setback radiuses for existing oil and gas tank batteries and wellheads shall be indicated on the plat per the setback requirements of 23-3-50.E of the Weld County Code. H. Show and label all recorded easements by book and page number or reception number and date. 6. The following notes shall be placed on the plat: 1) Recorded Exemptions on adjacent properties may raise the issue of compliance with the intent of the Recorded Exemption Process. Approval of this Recorded Exemption does not guarantee approval of future applications on adjacent properties. 2) All proposed or existing structures will or do meet the minimum setback and offset requirements for the zone district in which the property is located. Pursuant to the definition of setback in the Weld County Code, the required setback is measured from the future right-of-way line. * No building or structure as defined and limited to those occupancies listed as Groups A, B, E, F, H, I, M and R in Section 302.1 of the 2018 International Building Code, shall be constructed within a 200 -foot radius of any tank battery or within a 150 -foot radius of any wellhead or within a 25 -foot radius of any plugged or abandoned oil and gas well. Any construction within a 200 -foot radius of any tank battery or 150 -foot radius of any wellhead shall require a variance from the terms of this Chapter in accordance with Subsection 23-6-10.C of this Code. 3) Any future structures or uses on site must obtain the appropriate zoning and building permits. 4) Lot A, Lot B and Lot C are not eligible for a future land exemption in accordance with Section 24-8-20.C.3 of the Weld County Code. 5) The largest lot of any recorded exemption may not be less than thirty-five (35) acres net unless approved by the Weld County Board of Commissioners in accordance with Section 24-8-40.P. of the Weld County Code. 6) The property owner or operator shall be responsible for controlling noxious weeds on the site, pursuant to Chapter 15, Article I and II, of the Weld County Code. 7) Weld County will not replace overlapping easements located within existing right-of- way or pay to relocate existing utilities within the existing County right-of-way. 8) All access and utility easements are dedicated for the benefit of all owners of lots depicted on this plat, including owners of future lots created therefrom, regardless of lot configuration or number of users, and without limitation of the use or intensity of the use of such easements. No lot owner may install a gate or otherwise impede the use of such easements without the approval of all persons with rights of use of such easements. 9) Access on the site shall be maintained to mitigate any impacts to the public road including damages and/or offsite tracking. 10) Prior to the release of building permits, the applicant shall be required to submit a complete access application for a "preliminarily approved" access location as shown RECX19-0095 Page 4 of 7 on this plat. 11) Any work that may occupy and or encroach upon any County rights -of -way or easement shall acquire an approved Right -of -Way Use Permit prior to commencement. 12) The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts will be maintained on the site. 13) Prior to the release of building permits, the applicant shall submit a recorded deed describing the Lot upon which the building permit is requested with the building permit applications. The legal description on such deed shall include the Lot designation and Recorded Exemption number. 14) Prior to the release of building permits, the applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services that Lots A, B, C, and D have an adequate water supply of sufficient quality, quantity and dependability. 15) Potential purchasers should be aware that Lots A, B, and C may not be eligible for a domestic well permit which allows for outside irrigation and/or the watering of stock animals. The State Division of Water Resources issues all well permits. 16) Potential purchasers should be aware that groundwater may not meet all drinking water standards as defined by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment strongly encourages well users to test their drinking water prior to consumption and periodically thereafter. 17) Potential purchasers should be aware that approval of this Recorded Exemption does not guarantee that well permits will be issued for the lots. Any lot may be deemed non - buildable if the lot owner is unable to obtain a well permit. The State Division of Water Resources issues all well permits. 18) Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to the fee structure of the County -Wide Road Impact Fee, County Facility Fee and Drainage Impact Fee Programs. 19) RIGHT TO EXTRACT MINERAL RESOURCES STATEMENT: Weld County has some of the most abundant mineral resources, including, but not limited to, sand and gravel, oil, natural gas, and coal. Under title 34 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, minerals are vital resources because (a) the State's commercial mineral deposits are essential to the State's economy; (b) the populous counties of the state face a critical shortage of such deposits; and (c) such deposits should be extracted according to a rational plan, calculated to avoid waste of such deposits and cause the least practicable disruption of the ecology and quality of life of the citizens of the populous counties of the state. Mineral resource locations are widespread throughout the County and person moving into these areas must recognize the various impacts associated with this development. Often times, mineral resource sites are fixed to their geographical and geophysical locations. Moreover, these resources are protected property rights and mineral owners should be afforded the opportunity to extract the mineral resource. 20) WELD COUNTY'S RIGHT TO FARM STATEMENT: Weld County is one of the most productive agricultural counties in the United States, typically ranking in the top ten counties in the country in total market value of agricultural products sold. The rural areas of Weld County may be open and spacious, but they are intensively used for agriculture. Persons moving into a rural area must recognize and accept there are drawbacks, including conflicts with long-standing agricultural practices and a lower level of services than in town. Along with the drawbacks come the incentives which attract urban dwellers to relocate to rural areas: open views, spaciousness, wildlife, lack of city noise and congestion, and the rural atmosphere and way of life. Without RECX19-0095 Page 5of7 neighboring farms, those features which attract urban dwellers to rural Weld County would quickly be gone forever. Agricultural users of the land should not be expected to change their long-established agricultural practices to accommodate the intrusions of urban users into a rural area. Well -run agricultural activities will generate off -site impacts, including noise from tractors and equipment; slow -moving farm vehicles on rural roads; dust from animal pens, field work, harvest and gravel roads; odor from animal confinement, silage and manure; smoke from ditch burning; flies and mosquitoes; hunting and trapping activities; shooting sports, legal hazing of nuisance wildlife; and the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the fields, including the use of aerial spraying. It is common practice for agricultural producers to utilize an accumulation of agricultural machinery and supplies to assist in their agricultural operations. A concentration of miscellaneous agricultural materials often produces a visual disparity between rural and urban areas of the County. Section 35-3.5-102, C.R.S., provides that an agricultural operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the agricultural operation alleged to be a nuisance employs methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably associated with agricultural production. Water has been, and continues to be, the lifeline for the agricultural community. It is unrealistic to assume that ditches and reservoirs may simply be moved "out of the way" of residential development. When moving to the County, property owners and residents must realize they cannot take water from irrigation ditches, lakes, or other structures, unless they have an adjudicated right to the water. Weld County covers a land area of approximately four thousand (4,000) square miles in size (twice the size of the State of Delaware) with more than three thousand seven hundred (3,700) miles of State and County roads outside of municipalities. The sheer magnitude of the area to be served stretches available resources. Law enforcement is based on responses to complaints more than on patrols of the County, and the distances which must be traveled may delay all emergency responses, including law enforcement, ambulance, and fire. Fire protection is usually provided by volunteers who must leave their jobs and families to respond to emergencies. County gravel roads, no matter how often they are bladed, will not provide the same kind of surface expected from a paved road. Snow removal priorities mean that roads from subdivisions to arterials may not be cleared for several days after a major snowstorm. Services in rural areas, in many cases, will not be equivalent to municipal services. Rural dwellers must, by necessity, be more self-sufficient than urban dwellers. People are exposed to different hazards in the County than in an urban or suburban setting. Farm equipment and oil field equipment, ponds and irrigation ditches, electrical power for pumps and center pivot operations, high speed traffic, sand burs, puncture vines, territorial farm dogs and livestock, and open burning present real threats. Controlling children's activities is important, not only for their safety, but also for the protection of the farmer's livelihood. 7 The plat shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 24-8-60 of the Weld County Code. The applicant shall submit an electronic copy (PDF) of the plat for preliminary approval to the Department of Planning Services. Upon approval of the plat, the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other documentation required as conditions of approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder by the Department of Planning Services. The Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be recorded within sixty (60) days from the date the administrative review was signed. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fee. 8. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1, 2005, should the plat not be recorded within the required sixty (60) days from the date the Administrative Review was signed a $50.00 recording continuance charge shall added for each additional 3 month period. RECX19-0095 Page 6 of 7 9. If the exemption plat has not been recorded within sixty (60) days from the date the administrative review was signed, or Board of County Commissioners resolution, or if an applicant is unwilling or unable to meet any of the conditions within sixty (60) days of approval, the application will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a staff recommendation for denial. The Director of Planning Services may grant an extension of time, for good cause shown, upon a written request by the applicant. 10. The applicant shall create and record deeds for all the newly created lots; deeds shall include the legal description of each lot and the reception of the recorded exemption. New deeds are required even if lots will remain under the same ownership. Failure to do so may create issues with the proper assessment of the lots by the Weld County Assessor's Department and may create a clouded chain of title. By: Date: October 21, 2019 Maxwell Nader, Planner I RECX19-0095 Page 7 of 7 Nyi . e RESEARCi ' _ ===LNI Testing for Thresholds in a Semiarid Grassland: The Influence of Prairie Dogs and Plague Author(s): David J. Augustine, Justin D. Derner, and James K. Detling Source: Rangeland Ecology & Management, 67(6):701-709. 2014. Published By: Society for Range Management DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-14-00032.1 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/ful1/10.2111/REM-D-14-00032.1 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne's Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms of use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. Biome sees sustainable scholarly puhlishinr as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries. and research lunders iii the common goal of Ma\111;1/.1n11 access to critical research. Rangeland Ecol Manage 67:701-709 I November 2014 I DOI: 10.2111/REM-D-14-00032.1 Testing for Thresholds in a Semiarid Grassland: The Influence of Prairie Dogs and Plague David J. Augustine,' Justin D. Derner,2 and James K. Detling3 Authors are I Research Ecologist and tResearch Leader and Rangeland Scientist, US Department of Agriculture —Agricultural Research Service, Rangeland Resources Research Unit, Cheyenne, WY 82009, and Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA; and ;Professor Emeritus, Department of Biology and Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. Abstract State -and -transition models for semiarid grasslands in the North American Great Plains suggest that the presence of herbivorous black -tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) on a site 1) creates a vegetation state characterized by increased dominance of annual forbs and unpalatable bunchgrasses and increased bare soil exposure and 2) requires long-term (> 40 yr) prairie dog removal to transition back to a vegetation state dominated by palatable perennial grasses. Here, we examine 1) how the recent history of prairie dog occupancy on a site (1-10 yr) influences the magnitude of prairie dog effects on vegetation composition and 2) how occupancy history affects vegetation dynamics following extirpation of prairie dogs. We used a natural experiment in the shortgrass steppe of northeastern Colorado, USA, where prairie dogs were extirpated from multiple sites during an outbreak of epizootic plague. On sites occupied by prairie dogs for 1-4 yr prior to extirpation, plant cover and composition recovered to conditions similar to unoccupied sites within a single growing season. Larger reductions in perennial C4 grasses occurred on sites occupied for the prior 7-10 yr compared to sites with shorter occupancy histories (< 6 yr). On sites occupied for the prior 7-10 yr, C4 perennial grasses recovered after 5 yr following prairie dog extirpation; in addition, C3 perennial graminoids and forbs remained more abundant (compared to sites with no history of prairie dogs) throughout the 5-yr period. Our findings showcase that prior site occupancy (up to 10 yr) by prairie dogs did not induce irreversible shifts in vegetation state in this semiarid grassland. Rather, vegetation changes induced by prairie dogs represent primarily a phase shift in landscapes where prairie dog populations are regulated by epizootic plague. Key Words: ecological sites, grazing intensity, resilience, shortgrass steppe, state -and -transition models, western Great Plains INTRODUCTION State -and -transition models (STMs) provide a conceptual framework for understanding spatial variation and temporal changes in grassland vegetation as well as implications of management practices and strategies (Westoby et al. 1989; Stringham et al. 2003; Briske et al. 2005, 2008; Bestelmeyer et al. 2009). STMs are founded on the idea that plant communities can undergo transitions that are either readily reversible (referred to as phase shifts) or not readily reversible (referred to as transitions among alternate stable states; Briske et al. 2005). A key challenge in developing STMs is identifying those conditions, processes, and ecological interactions that can result in phase shifts vs. state transitions. The latter are generally linked to an ecological threshold whereby a change in ecosystem conditions past the threshold alters ecological processes that previously would have been capable of reversing the shift (Briske et al. 2008). Examples of such thresholds include changes in fire behavior (e.g., due to shifts in woody vs. Research was funded by the US Dept of Agriculture —Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) and the Shortgrass Steppe Long Term Ecological Research Program (NSF DEB -0217631). The USDA-ARS, Northern Plains Area, is an equal opportunity/ affirmative action employer, and all agency services are available without discrimination. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US government. Correspondence: David J. Augustine, US Dept of Agriculture —Agricultural Research Service, 1701 Centre Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA. Email: David.Augustine@ ars.usda.gov Manuscript received 4 March 2014; manuscript accepted 16 May 2014. © 2014 The Society for Range Management herbaceous vegetation abundance; Van Langevelde et al. 2003; Ansley and Castellano 2006) and loss of surface soil fertility or water -holding capacity (e.g., due to loss of vegetation cover; Suding et al. 2004; van de Koppel and Rietkerk 2004; Chartier and Rotagno 2006; Bestelmeyer et al. 2013). Phase shifts within a vegetation state can occur in response to natural events or management and represent changes that can be readily reversed if the driver causing the phase shift is removed (Briske et al. 2008). One of the most frequently cited factors inducing transitions among ecological states in grasslands of North America is grazing management (Twidwell et al. 2013). In western North America, existing STMs typically focus on the effects of livestock grazing, particularly with regard to the timing, intensity, and duration of grazing. In some rangelands, the effects of grazing by native herbivores, including colonial, burrowing mammals, can also have dramatic effects on vegetation structure and composition and can additionally have important effects on biodiversity of native plants and vertebrates (Kotliar et al. 1999; Davidson et al. 2012; Augustine and Baker 2013). In the western Great Plains of North America, black -tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicia- nus) are colonial, burrowing rodents that historically were widespread throughout the region and were ecologically important components of the disturbance regime (Knowles et al. 2002). Although their distribution and abundance have been substantially reduced over the past two centuries, black -tailed prairie dogs have significant effects on vegetation composition and structure where they remain locally abundant (Coppock et al. 1983; Whicker and Detling 1988; Cid et al. 1991; Hartley et RANGELAND ECOLOGY & MANAGEMENT 67(6) November 2014 701 al. 2009; Baker et al. 2013). These effects include decreases in height, cover, and biomass of palatable graminoids together with increases in cover and biomass of forbs, and the magnitude of these changes in vegetation typically increases with the time an area has been occupied by prairie dogs (Coppock et al. 1983; Archer et al. 1987). Because of the importance of these grasslands for livestock grazing, a key issue is the degree and time period over which such effects are reversible following prairie dog removal. Within the range of the black -tailed prairie dog, currently published STMs often include an alternative state characterized by increased bare ground exposure and increased dominance of an unpalatable bunchgrass (red threeawn, Aristida purpurea Nutt.) and annual forbs (US Department of Agriculture —Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA-NRCS] 2007). These STMs suggest the Aristida—bare ground state may transition back to rangeland dominated by palatable perennial grasses only through long-term (> 40 yr) prairie dog removal (USDA-NRCS 2007). However, few empirical data are available to support these predictions. Given the importance of such models for informing rangeland management and policy, empirical studies that assess temporal and spatial variation in plant communities in order to test the assumptions of STMs are clearly needed (e.g., Bagchi et al. 2012; Bestelmeyer et al. 2013). Here, we examine 1) how the recent history (previous 10 yr) of prairie dog occupancy influences the magnitude of prairie dog effects on vegetation composition in the shortgrass steppe of Colorado, USA, and 2) how occupancy history affects vegetation dynamics over a 5-yr period following the local extirpation of prairie dogs by an epizootic plague event. To address the first objective, we examined how variation in plant community composition was related to variation in the number of years that prairie dogs had occupied a site. To address the second objective, we quantified temporal dynamics in the abundance of four plant functional groups (C4 perennial grasses, C3 perennial graminoids, annual forbs, and perennial forbs) and changes in the spatial pattern of plant cover over time following prairie dog extirpation. METHODS Study Area We conducted this study in native shortgrass steppe at the Central Plains Experimental Range approximately 12 km northeast of Nunn, Colorado, USA (lat 40°50'N, long 104°43'W). Long-term mean annual precipitation is 340 mm, and mean annual precipitation during the growing season (April —August) is 242 mm. During 2004-2011, annual precipitation was 293, 370, 301, 350, 330, 436, 360, and 356 mm, respectively, and growing season precipitation was 169, 250, 158, 216, 240, 352, 285, and 245 mm, respectively. Soils consist of very deep, well -drained, fine sandy loams to loamy sands on convex alluvial flats and upland plains. Two C4 grasses (Bouteloua gracilis [Willd. Ex Kunth] Lag. ex Steud and B. dactyloides [Nutt.] J. T. Columbus) dominate the vegetation (> 80% of aboveground net primary production); Opuntia polyacantha Haw. is an important succulent plant, and Sphaeralcea coccinia [Nutt] Rydb. is the dominant forb (Milchunas et al. 2008). Plant nomenclature follows the USDA PLANTS database (USDA-NRCS 2014). All research occurred in pastures with no known history of crop cultivation. Pastures were grazed by cattle at moderate stocking rates 0.60 animal unit months • ha -1) each year from 15 May to 1 October, where an animal unit month was defined as the equivalent of a 454 -kg livestock unit grazing for 30 d. Previous work showed that cattle at this site graze on prairie dog colonies in proportion to their availability within the landscape (Guenther and Detling 2003). Study Design We used a natural experiment created by the annual expansion of prairie dog colonies in our study area during 1997-2006 followed by rapid extirpation of prairie dogs from the colonies due to epizootic plague during the fall and winter of 2006- 2007. We studied four prairie dog colony sites. The outermost boundaries of these colonies were mapped annually using global positioning system technology beginning in 1997 and continuing until 2011, with the exception that colonies were not mapped in 1998, 1999, or 2001. Mapping of colony boundaries followed methods described by Sidle et al. (2012). Colony expansion primarily occurred during 2000-2006; sizes were 8, 12, 18, and 31 ha in 2000 and expanded to 129, 200, 244, and 245 ha, respectively, in 2006. During September 2006 -April 2007, the area occupied by prairie dogs at these four colonies declined rapidly by > 95%, indicative of an epizootic outbreak of plague caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis. Plague is the only disease known to cause such contractions in colony size over such a short time period, and past research in our study areas has documented that such rapid, extensive colony contractions are the result of plague (Stapp et al. 2004; Antolin et al. 2006; Savage et al. 2011). During May and June 2007, we used the annual maps of colony boundaries to identify five prairie dog occupancy history categories in each pasture: 1) areas occupied by prairie dogs prior to 2000 (7-10 yr of occupancy prior to plague), 2) areas colonized by prairie dogs between 2000 and 2002 (5-6 yr of occupancy prior to plague), 3) areas colonized between 2002 and 2004 (3-4 yr of occupancy prior to plague), 4) areas colonized between 2004 and 2006 (1-2 yr of occupancy prior to plague), and 5) areas with no recent (past 10 yr) history of prairie dog occupancy. Within these five occupancy categories in each pasture, we then identified those portions of the areas occurring on similar soils and randomly selected a location for a 40 x 40 m plot. See Appendix A (available online at http://dx. doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-14-00032.s1) for an example of plot layout relative to soils and prairie dog occupancy history in one block of the experiment. The first block was on soils of the Ulm-Renohill complex (fine sandy loam; correlated to the Loamy Plains ecological site), the second on soils of the Ulm - Cushman complex (fine sandy loam; correlated to the Loamy Plains ecological site), the third on soils of the Zigweid series (sandy loam; correlated to the Sandy Plains ecological site), and the fourth on soils of the Edgar series (loam; correlated to the Overflow ecological site; USDA-NRCS 2007). Vegetation Sampling At each 40 x 40 m plot, we established a nested grid of quadrats where we measured vegetation foliar cover. At each quadrat, 702 Rangeland Ecology & Management 1.5 ■ 0.5 - -0.5 - O A A I♦Zigweid series (Sandy Plains) mounds in the plot with signs of recent excavation and prairie ®Ulm -Cushman complex (Loamy Plains) dog scat). Measurements from 2011 must therefore be OUIm-Renohill complex (Loamy Plains) interpreted with recognition that plots were beginning to AEdgar Series (Overflow) experience recolonization by prairie dogs at that time. • A O 0 -1.5 -1 -0.5 Axis 1 0.5 1.5 Figure 1. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling ordination of plant species composition at 20 sites (five sites in each of four soil types) in the shortgrass steppe of northeastern Colorado measured in June 2007. Within each soil type, the five sites represented a gradient of prairie dog occupancy history. The largest symbols in each soil type represent sites occupied for 7-10 yr prior to 2007. Symbols of decreasing size represent sites occupied for 5-6 yr, 3-4 yr, and 1-2 yr, respectively, and the smallest symbols represent sites with no history of prairie dog occupation. Axes 1 and 2 explained 75% of the variation in the original species matrix. Variation associated with occupancy history occurs primarily along axis 1, whereas variation associated with soils was orthogonal to the effects of praide dogs and occurs primarily along axis 2. we visually estimated foliar cover of each plant species and additionally estimated the bare soil exposure. Cover was recorded by classes consisting of 0-1%, 2-5%, 6-15%, 16- 25%, 26-40%, 41-60%, and > 60%, and cover class midpoints were used in all statistical analyses (Hickman and Derner 2007). The grid consisted of 17 sampling locations; at each location, we measured vegetation cover in three 50 X20 cm quadrats placed 20 cm apart such that the three quadrats combined occurred within a 50X 100 cm area (Appendix B; available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.2111/ REM -D -14-00032.s1). This grid design allowed for analyses of spatial variation among quadrats across scales of 0.2-20 m. With this design, we sampled 51 quadrats (17 locations x 3 quadrats per location) within each of the 20 40 X40 m plots. Quadrat locations were permanently marked with a 10 -cm - long nail and 3 -cm -diameter washer placed in the northeast and southwest corners to facilitate annual remeasurement at the same location. Vegetation measurements occurred during 20 June -10 July, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011. When the first measurements occurred in 2007, vegetation on the plots had been growing in the absence of prairie dog activity for ti 2 mo. None of the study plots were recolonized by prairie dogs during 2007-2010. When vegetation measurements began in June 2011, two of four plots in the 7-10-yr occupancy category, one of four plots in the 5-6-yr occupancy category, and two of four plots in the 3-4-yr occupancy category had been partially recolonized by prairie dogs (one or more burrow Statistical Analyses To examine variation in plant species composition in relation to prairie dog occupancy history and among the four blocks of study sites at the beginning of the study, we conducted a nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMS) ordination of the species x site matrix. We used NMS ordination because it does not make assumptions regarding normality of the data and has been shown to perform well with simulated gradients (McCune and Grace 2002). We performed preliminary analyses of the relationship between number of ordination axes and stress. Based on the rate of reduction in stress with increasing number of axes (McCune and Grace 2002), we performed a three -axis NMS ordination using the Sorenson distance measure in PC- ORD (v6.0; MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR). We used repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine how foliar cover of four plant functional groups and bare soil exposure changed over time within the different prairie dog occupancy history categories. Functional groups consisted of C4 perennial grasses (dominated by Bouteloua gracilis; includes B. dactyloides, Sporobolus cryptandrus [Torr.] A. Greay, A. purpurea, and Muhlenbergia torreyi [Kunth] Hitchc. ex Bush), C3 perennial grasses and sedges (dominated by Pascopyrum smithii [Rydb.] A. Love and Carex duriuscula C.A. Mey; includes Hesperostipa comata [Trin. & Rope.] Barkworth and Elymus elymoides [Raf] Swezey), perennial forbs (dominated by S. coccinia; includes 27 other species), and annual forbs (dominated by Cryptantha minima Rydb. and Machaeranthera tanacetifolia [Kunth] Nees; includes 21 other species). Nomenclature follows USDA-NRCS (2014). In addition to analyzing patterns for mean bare soil exposure at each site, we also calculated the within -grid variance in bare soil at each site (a nonspatially explicit measure of variation in bare soil) and examined how this variation was related to site occupancy history and year. All ANOVAs were performed using the Mixed procedure in SAS (v9.2; SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Finally, we used Moran's I (Sokal and Oden 1978), calculated at three spatial scales within each sampling grid, to examine spatially explicit variation in the distribution of bare soil (i.e., areas lacking plant or litter cover). Moran's I measures local spatial autocorrelation in bare soil for quadrats separated by a specified distance class, where values near 0 indicate a lack of spatial autocorrelation and values approaching 1 or —1 indicate strong positive or negative spatial autocorrelation respectively. We calculated Moran's I using the statistical package GS+ (v7.0; Gamma Design Software, Plainwell, MI). RESULTS Vegetation Composition Relative to Prairie Dog Occupancy History Vegetation measurements in June 2007, when plants had grown for 2 mo (from mid -April to mid -June 2007) in the absence of 67(6) November 2014 703 C4 Perennial Grass Cover (%) 80 60 20 a ME No Prairie dogs a 1-2yrs a - 3-4yrs a OM 5-6yrs b =3 7-10yrs 0 2007 10- 8- 6- 4- 2 2008 2009 2010 2011 a No Prairie dogs ab1-2yrs b MI 3-4yrs be EMI 5-6yrs c 0 7-10yrs 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 C3 Perennial Gramminoid Cover (%) 2007 2008 2009 2010 10- a No Prairie dogs ab=II 1-2yrs b IMO 3-4yrs be FM 5-6yrs c 0 7-10yrs .411 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Figure 2. Cover of four plant functional groups in relation to prairie dog occupancy history in the shortgrass steppe of northeastern Colorado during 2007- 2011. Bars with different shades refer to sites with varying number of years of prairie dog occupancy prior to a plague epizootic that removed prairie dogs before the 2007 growing season. The label "1-2 years" refers to sites occupied by prairie dogs for 1-2 yr prior to 2007 and so on. For all four plant functional groups, we did not detect significant interactions between prairie dog occupancy history and year (Table 1). Letters next to occupancy category legends and below years indicate which categories and years differ significantly at the P< 0.05 level. prairie dog activity, revealed a clear gradient in plant species composition (Fig. 1) and cover of plant functional groups (Fig. 2) related to the length of prior occupancy by prairie dogs. First, the NMS ordination of species composition showed that sites occupied 7-10 yr were consistently located more negatively on axis 1 compared to sites with no history of occupancy, while sites with 1-6 yr of prairie dog occupancy were generally located in between these extremes (Fig. 1). Within each for the four replicate sets of sites (i.e., blocks), variation associated with prairie dog occupancy history was consistently distributed along axis 1 (Fig. 1). Variation associated with the history of prairie dog occupancy was orthogonal to differences among sites on different soils (occurring primarily along axis 2), showing that prairie dog occupancy history generally altered plant species composition in a manner that was consistent within each soil type but substantially different than variation among soil types (Fig. 1). The ordination also suggests greater similarity in plant community composition across soil types in the absence of prairie dogs and greater divergence in composition across soil types with 7-10 yr of prairie dog occupancy (Fig. 1). In the first postplague growing season, most large differences in functional group cover were evident only between sites occupied for 7-10 yr prior to plague vs. sites with no history of prairie dog occupancy (Fig. 2). For C4 perennial grasses, cover in 2007 declined linearly from unoccupied sites (21% cover) up to sites occupied for 5-6 yr (15% cover), but significant differences were not detected among these colony age classes. Cover was significantly lower (6%) at sites occupied 7-10 yr (Fig. 2A). Aristida purpurea comprised only a minor portion of the total C4 perennial grass cover at all sites, and its abundance was not influenced by prairie dog occupancy history (F4,12=2.04, P=0.152). Minimum A. purpurea cover was recorded in 2007 (mean of 0.1% cover on sites with 7-10 yr of prairie dog occupancy and 0.5% cover on sites with no prairie dogs), and maximum A. purpurea cover was recorded in 2009 (mean of 0.8% cover with 7-10 yr of prairie dog occupancy and 1.9% cover with no prairie dogs). In the first growing season following prairie dog extirpation (2007), perennial C3 graminoids did not exhibit a clear trend related to the occupancy gradient but were significantly greater on 7-10 yr compared to 1-4 yr (Fig. 2B). Trends for annual and perennial forb cover among sites were opposite that for C4 704 Rangeland Ecology & Management Table 1. Results of repeated measures analysis of variance testing how the abundance of four plant functional groups varies among years (2007- 2011) and in relation the history of prairie dog occupancy in the shortgrass steppe of northeastern Colorado. For tests for all response variables, the degrees of freedom in the numerator and denominator were, respectively, 4 and 12 for occupancy history, 3 and 9 for year, and 12 and 36 for the occupancy history x year interaction. Functional group Factor F P C4 perennial grasses C3 perennial gramminoids Perennial orbs Annual f orbs Bare soil exposure Variance in bare soil Occupancy history Year Occupancy x year Occupancy history Year Occupancy x year Occupancy history Year Occupancy x year Occupancy history Year Occupancy x year Occupancy history Year Occupancy x year Occupancy history Year Occupancy x year 14.9 65.66 0.46 3.69 16.41 1.05 5.48 6 0.67 8.83 44.98 0.3 23.57 11.8 1.32 8.32 6.69 0.83 0.000 < 0.0001 0.924 0.035 0.001 0.430 0.010 0.016 0.764 0.002 < 0.0001 0.985 < 0.0001 0.002 0.249 0.002 0.0114 0.6204 grasses, as forb cover increased linearly from unoccupied sites to sites occupied 7-10 yr (Figs. 2C and 2D). In general, cover of all functional groups was similar on sites occupied for 1-4 yr prior to plague compared to sites with no history of prairie dogs, indicating that plant cover on sites occupied for 4 or fewer years recovered to unoccupied levels in a single growing season. Vegetation Dynamics Following Prairie Dog Extirpation We used repeated measures ANOVA to test whether variation among occupancy categories varied across the 4 yr of measurements and assess whether and how dynamics on sites with the longest history of occupancy differed from other occupancy categories. For all four functional groups, we detected significant differences in cover among occupancy history categories and among years but no significant year x occupancy interactions (Table 1). In general, cover of all functional groups on sites occupied for 1-4 yr prior to plague was similar to cover on sites with no history of prairie dogs. C4 grass cover increased substantially and at the same rate in all five occupancy categories over time (Fig. 2A), reflecting the fact that the study was initiated following a drought year in 2006 and continued through a series of average and above -average precipitation years during 2008-2010. Where prairie dogs occupied the site for 7-10 yr prior to plague, Ca grass cover still had not recovered to the same level as unoccupied sites by 2011. However, even though Ca cover had been reduced to extremely low levels on these sites in 2007 (mean cover of 6%), C4 grass cover recovered rapidly, reaching mean cover of 34% by 2011. C3 perennial graminoid cover was 50 0 w •p 30 a m 20 �o a� 10 5 0 a a - No Prairie Dogs a MN 1-2yrs a IMIN 3-4yrs a ® 5-6yrs b =1 7-10yrs 600 - 2 2007 2006 2009 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 2010 2011 a No Prairie Dogs b 1-2yrs a 3-4yrs a ® 5-6yrs c 7.10yrs Figure 3. Mean bare soil exposure and within -site variation in bare soil exposure in relation to prairie dog occupancy history in the shortgrass steppe of northeastern Colorado during 2007-2011. Bars with different shades refer to sites with varying number of years of prairie dog occupancy prior to a plague epizootic that removed prairie dogs before the 2007 growing season. The label "1-2 years" refers to sites occupied by prairie dogs for 1-2 yr prior to 2007, and "7-10 years" refers to sites occupied by prairie dogs for 7-10 yr prior to 2007. Letters next to occupancy category legends and below years indicate which categories and years differ significantly at the P < 0.05 level. stable during 2007-2009 and then increased notably between 2009 and 2011 following above -average precipitation in 2009. Trends suggested a greater increase in C3 graminoids in 2011 on sites occupied 7-10 yr compared to all other occupancy categories (Fig. 2B), but the year x occupancy class interaction was not significant (Table 1). Patterns for C3 graminoids show that long-term prairie dog occupancy did not suppress cover in the short term or reduce the capacity for C3 graminoids to increase in abundance once prairie dogs were removed. Perennial forb cover declined from 2007 to 2011 and remained significantly greater on sites occupied 7-10 yr relative to unoccupied sites throughout the study (Fig. 2C). Annual forb cover varied widely among years, possibly in response to spring precipitation patterns. Across the 4 yr, annual forb cover was significantly greater on sites occupied 67(6) November 2014 705 o. 0. .4- g 0.2- g -o. -0.4 be ab NS MI No Prairie Dogs - 1-2yrs - 3-4yrs 5-6yrs 17-10yrs A: 2007 a b b b b NS zz i n !I�4 0.8 - o. N B 0. i 0.0 -0.2 - -0.4 NS NS II �t 4 B: 2011 ICI 0.2 - 0.6 m 10 m 20 m Distance Between Quadrats Figure 4. Mean Moran's I for bare soil exposure in relation to prairie dog occupancy history in the shortgrass steppe of northeastern Colorado during 2007-2011. Bars with different shades refer to sites with varying number of years of prairie dog occupancy prior to a plague epizootic that removed prairie dogs before the 2007 growing season. Moran's I is a measure of spatial autocorrelation with values approaching 1 or —1 indicating strong positive or negative autocorrelation and values near zero indicating a random spatial pattern. For 2007, bars with the same letter above them indicate occupancy categories with similar levels of spatial autocorrelation fora given spatial scale. NS indicates spatial scales for which there were no differences in spatial pattern among occupancy categories. In both 2007 and 2011, spatial autocorrelation for all occupancy categories was significantly greater (P< 0.05) at the submeter spatial scale compared to the 10-m and 20-m scales. for 7-10 yr compared to sites occupied <6 yr as well as unoccupied sites (Fig. 2D). Patterns for bare soil exposure were generally the inverse of our findings for C4 perennial grasses, with significant differ- ences among occupancy classes and years (Table 1; Fig. 3A). In 2007, bare soil exposure was substantially greater on sites occupied 7-10 yr compared to all other sites (Fig. 3A). Mean bare soil exposure declined monotonically across years during the study on all occupancy categories. In 2009 and 2011, bare soil was consistently less than 25% at sites in all occupancy categories, except sites that were occupied 7-10 yr (mean bare soil of 35% in 2009 and 27% in 2011; Fig. 3A). Bare soil on sites occupied 7-10 yr prior to prairie dog extirpation declined from a mean of 46% in 2007 to 27% in 2011 but did not decline to the levels occurring in any of the other occupancy categories. Vegetation Spatial Patterns Following Prairie Dog Extirpation To assess changes in the spatial pattern of vegetation cover, we used bare soil exposure as our response variable because it represents the distribution of areas lacking any form of vegetation cover. We examined whether prairie dogs altered spatial patterns in bare soil by creating more frequent and/or larger bare patches and whether such patch formation may be associated with rates of vegetation recovery after prairie dog extirpation. Variability in bare soil within a site generally showed similar patterns as mean bare soil exposure. Variability was significantly greater at sites occupied 7-10 yr compared to all other occupancy classes, and variability declined in all occupancy categories over time (Fig. 3B). We used Moran's I to evaluate patchiness (i.e., spatial autocorrelation) in bare soil at submeter, 10-m, and 20-m spatial scales. During the first growing season following prairie dog extirpation (2007), spatial autocorrelation in bare soil at the submeter scale was significantly greater at sites occupied 3- 6 yr compared to sites occupied both for longer (7-10 yr) and shorter (1-2 yr and unoccupied) time periods (Fig. 4A). At the 10-m scale, we found significant negative spatial autocorrela- tion at unoccupied sites (test for difference from 0: P=0.005) but no spatial autocorrelation in any other occupancy classes. At the 20-m scale, we found no significant negative or positive spatial autocorrelation in any occupancy category (Fig. 4A). In 2011, at each of the three spatial scales we found no differences among occupancy categories in the degree of spatial autocor- relation (Fig. 4B). In both 2007 and 2011, spatial autocorre- lation for all occupancy categories was significantly greater (P < 0.05) at the submeter scale compared to the 10-m and 20- m scales (Fig. 4). DISCUSSION The spatial distribution and temporal persistence of black - tailed prairie dog colonies in grasslands of the western Great Plains, primarily west of the 102nd meridian (Cully et al. 2006), are highly influenced by epizootic plague. Where complexes of prairie dog colonies persist on the landscape, periodic outbreaks of epizootic plague often affect colonies at intervals of once every 12 yr or less (Augustine et al. 2008; Hartley et al. 2009; Cully et al. 2010). Areas affected by prairie dogs continuously for longer than a decade are extremely rare in landscapes that harbor plague. For example, in Colorado and Montana, areas continuously occupied by prairie dogs for a period of > 10 yr accounted for only 0.16% and 0.27% of the landscape, respectively (Augustine et al. 2008). Based on a chronosequence approach, Hartley et al. (2009) found that periodic extirpation of prairie dogs due to plague dampens their effects on shortgrass steppe vegetation, suggest- ing that prairie dogs do not induce irreversible changes in vegetation composition. Our direct measurements of post - plague vegetation dynamics provide clear support for this conclusion. First, we found that sites occupied by prairie dogs 706 Rangeland Ecology & Management 1-4 yr prior to extirpation exhibit recovery in plant cover and composition to levels in unoccupied (control) sites within a single growing season, at least in the absence of drought. Furthermore, sites that were occupied by prairie dogs for 7-10 yr prior to extirpation did experience significant reductions in C4 perennial grass cover compared to sites with shorter occupancy histories, but cover of these C4 perennial grasses recovered rapidly over 5 yr following extirpation of the prairie dogs, demonstrating that irreversible shifts in vegetation state did not occur. We note that our findings regarding C4 perennial grass recovery occurred during a 5-yr period that did not encompass a drought year, but we did observe similar rates of increase in C4 perennials during 2007-2008 (years of average and slightly below -average precipitation) as during 2009-2011 (years of above -average precipitation). Our findings, combined with those of Hartley et al. (2009), suggest incorporating significant revisions regarding the effects of prairie dogs on vegetation dynamics and associated state transitions for the shortgrass steppe. Current models (USDA- NRCS 2007) include a transition from a state dominated by a mixture of perennial C4 shortgrasses and C3 graminoids (state 1) to a state characterized by high bare soil exposure and increased abundance of A. purpurea and annual forbs (state 2), with the transition resulting from the presence of prairie dogs. These models suggest that > 40 yr of prairie dog absence is required to transition back from state 2 to state 1. Furthermore, current models suggest that such recovery may be possible only with the implementation of a prescriptive livestock grazing plan that allows for rest from grazing for portions of the growing season each year (USDA-NRCS 2007). In contrast, our findings indicate that where epizootic plague outbreaks periodically affect colonies at intervals of 10 yr or shorter, vegetation on those colonies represents a phase characterized by increased bare soil (up to 30-50%), reduced cover of perennial C4 grasses, and increased cover of perennial C3 forbs and graminoids (i.e., phase 1 within state 1 described above). In addition, neither our study nor Stapp (2007) found increased abundance of A. purpurea in active prairie dog colonies. The vegetation phase on active colonies can transition back to a phase dominated by C4 perennial shortgrasses and C3 perennial graminoids (phase 2 within state 1) within 1-5 yr after prairie dog extirpation and can do so with continuous, season -long (May —October) cattle grazing at moderate stocking rates. Furthermore, our findings indicate that prairie dog effects on vegetation composition were consistent across the soil types we studied (Fig. 1) and that the general trajectory and rate of recovery after prairie dog extirpation was consistent across soil types. Previous meta -analyses indicate that the shortgrass steppe is one of the most grazing -resistant grasslands in the world, which has been attributed to the long coevolutionary history of grazing by large ungulates (Milchunas and Lauenroth 1993; Milchunas et al. 2008). The four dominant graminoid species in our study (Bouteloua gracilis, Bouteloua dactyloides, Carex dursicola, and Pascopyrum smithii) exhibit a suite of adapta- tions to defoliation. The first three species are all characterized by a prostrate growth form and high rates of biomass allocation belowground (B. gracilis and C. durisicola) or to stolons (B. dactyloides; Milchunas et al. 2008). The rhizoma- tous growth form of P. smithii facilitates rapid spread into patches where grazing has suppressed bunchgrasses and thereby generated microsites with reduced intensity of inter - specific competition. We suggest that, collectively, these traits allow these perennial graminoids to maintain dominance in areas affected by continuous prairie dog occupation for 1-6 yr. With longer continuous prairie dog occupancy (7-10 yr), C4 perennial grasses decline notably in abundance but retain the capacity to recover quickly once prairie dogs are removed. Finally, we suggest that the capacity for these perennial graminoids to recover is related to their spatial distribution on long-term occupied sites. In particular, we found that 7-10 yr of prairie dog occupancy did not increase patchiness in bare soil at the submeter scale or the 10-m scale (Fig. 4). Variance in bare soil was greater with increasing length of prairie dog occupancy (Fig. 3B), reflecting increasing exposure of bare soil within some quadrats. However, the finding that small areas (quadrats) with high bare soil exposure were not more spatially aggregated on sites with 7-10 yr of prairie dog occupancy indicates that plants were still widely dispersed within each square meter on the site. This fine -scale pattern of plant persistence may be one factor allowing perennials to recolonize most plant interspaces during the first 1-3 yr after extirpation of prairie dogs. These findings support the contention of Bestelmeyer et al. (2006) that assessing rangeland vegetation at multiple scales can provide insight to vegetation resilience and the potential presence of thresholds. Because prairie dogs consume large quantities of many of the same plant species that livestock consume (Detling 2006), they are considered by many to be competitors with livestock. Depending on weather conditions, site productivity, and the proportion of pastures they occupy, prairie dogs can suppress livestock weight gains in semiarid rangelands, particularly if they occupy 30% or more of the area of a pasture (Derner et al. 2006; Augustine and Springer 2013). However, controlling prairie dog populations through poisoning can be expensive and in some cases cost ineffective (Collins et al. 1984). Our findings suggest that vegetation recovery following prairie dog extirpation, either by plague or by poisoning, is likely to vary spatially within a given colony site, and impacts to livestock weight gains will depend on the prior recent history of prairie dog occupancy. The capacity for vegetation on shortgrass steppe to rapidly recover after prairie dog removal suggests that removal via poisoning could provide short-term returns for livestock production. Conversely, the periodic recurrence of plague in this region (and hence extirpation without associated costs to livestock managers) suggests that over longer time frames, poisoning may have limited economic value. Clearly, these predictions are based on the assumption that plague will continue to exert similar effects on prairie dog populations in the future. Should prairie dog resistance to plague or effective vaccination or other plague control strategies develop, conse- quences for vegetation dynamics will need additional long-term study. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Our results support the idea that arid and semiarid grasslands can be surprisingly resilient to disturbance associated with multiple years of intense grazing pressure (Bestelmeyer et al. 67(6) November 2014 707 2013). We found no evidence that occupation of sites by prairie dogs over time frames of 1-10 yr caused irreversible shifts in the state of the vegetation. Our finding of high vegetation resilience to the intense grazing regime imposed by prairie dogs, which may consume 70% or more of the annual aboveground net primary production on their colonies (Detling 2006), is also consistent with many previous studies reporting strong resistance of the shortgrass steppe plant community to less intense disturbance imposed by livestock grazing (Milchunas et al. 2008). We suggest that STMs for vegetation of the shortgrass steppe should explicitly incorporate the time frame over which prairie dogs occupy a site and recognize that vegetation changes currently induced by prairie dogs represent a phase shift rather than an alternate stable state. Given that colonial, burrowing herbivores are native to most semiarid grasslands worldwide (Davidson et al. 2012), we suggest their effects on vegetation dynamics be examined with explicit consideration of those factors, such as disease, that control the distribution and abundance of their colonies in space and time. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For assistance in the field, we thank Mary Ashby, Jeff Thomas, Toy Smith, Patrick McCuske , Matt Mortensen, Emily Klarquist, Tyler Odell, Joshua Bake, Kasha Malling, and Tammy Kanode. We thank the Crow Valley Livestock Cooperative for providing the cattle in this study. LITERATURE CITED ANSLEY, R. J., AND M. J. CASTELLANO. 2006. Strategies for savanna restoration in the southern Great Plains: effects of fire and herbicides. Restoration Ecology 14:420-428. ANTOLIN, M., L. SAVAGE, AND R. EISEN. 2006. Landscape features influence genetic structure of black -tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus). Landscape Ecology 21:867-875. ARCHER, S., M. GARRETT, AND J. DETLING. 1987. Rates of vegetation change associated with prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) grazing in North American mixed -grass prairie. Vegetatio 72:159-166. AUGUSTINE, D. J., AND B. BAKER. 2013. Associations of grassland bird communities with black -tailed prairie dog colonies in the North American Great Plains. Conservation Biology 27:324-334. AUGUSTINE, D. J., M. R. MATCHETT, T. P. TOOMBS, J. F. CULLY, JR., T. L. JOHNSON, AND J. G. SIDLE. 2008. Spatiotemporal dynamics of black -tailed prairie dog colonies affected by plague. Landscape Ecology 23:255-267. AUGUSTINE, D. J., AND T. SPRINGER. 2013. Competition and facilitation between a native and a domestic herbivore: trade-offs between forage quantity and quality. Ecological Applications 23:850-863. BAGCHI, S., D. D. BRISKE, X. B. Wu, M. P. MCCLARAN, B. T. BESTELMEYER, AND M. E. FERNANDEZ-GIMENE.. 2012. Empirical assessment of state -and -transition models with a long-term vegetation record from the Sonoran Desert. Ecological Applications 22:400-411. BAKER, B., D. AUGUSTINE, J. SEDGWICK, AND B. Lueow. 2013. Ecosystem engineering varies spatially: a test of the vegetation modification paradigm for prairie dogs. Ecography 36:230-239. BESTELMEYER, B. T., M. C. DUNIWAY, D. K. JAMES, L. M. Bum, AND K. M. HAVSTAD. 2013. A test of critical thresholds and their indicators in a desertification -prone ecosystem: more resilience than we thought. Ecology Letters 16:339-345. BESTELMEYER, B. T., D. A. TRUJILLO, A. J. TUGEL, AND K. M. HAVSTAD. 2006. A multi -scale classification of vegetation dynamics in arid lands: what is the right scale for models, monitoring, and restoration? Journal of Arid Environments 65:296-318. BESTELMEYER, B. T., A. J. TUGEL, G. L. PEACOCK, JR., D. G. ROBINETT, P. L. SHAVER, J. R. BROWN, J. E. HERRICK, H. SANCHEZ, AND K. M. HAVSTAD. 2009. State -and -transition models for heterogeneous landscapes: a strategy for development and application. Rangeland Ecology & Management 62:1-15. BRISKE, D. D., B. T. BESTELMEYER, T. K. STRINGHAM, AND P. L. SHAVER. 2008. Recommendations for development of resilience -based state -and -transition models. Rangeland Ecology & Management 61:359-367. BRISKE, D. D., S. D. FUHLENDORF, AND F. E. SMEINs. 2005. State -and -transition models, thresholds, and rangeland health: a synthesis of ecological concepts and perspectives. Rangeland Ecology & Management 58:1-10. CHARTIER, M., AND C. RosroGNo. 2006. Soil erosion thresholds and alternative states in northeastern Patagonian rangelands. Rangeland Ecology & Management 59:616-624. CID, M. S., J. K. DETLING, A. D. WHICKER, AND M. A. BRIzuELA. 1991. Vegetational responses of a mixed -grass prairie site following exclusion of prairie dogs and bison. Journal of Range Management 44:100-105. COLLINS, A. R., J. P. WORKMAN, AND D. W. URESK. 1984. An economic analysis of black - tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) control. Journal of Range Management 37:358-361. CoPPocK, D. L, J. E. Ellis, J. K. DETLING, AND M. I. DYER. 1983. Plant -herbivore interactions in a North American mixed -grass prairie. I. Effects of black -tailed prairie dogs on intrasesonal aboveground plant biomass and nutrient dynamics. Oecologia 56:1-9. CULLY, J. F., D. E. BIGGINS, AND D. B. SEERY. 2006. Conservation of prairie dogs in areas with plague. In: J. L. Hoogland [ED.]. Conservation of the black -tailed prairie dog: saving North America's western grasslands. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press. p. 157-168. CULLY, J. F., JR., T. L. JOHNSON, S. K. COLLINGE, AND C. RAY. 2010. Disease limits populations: plague and black -tailed prairie dogs. Vector-Bome and Zoonotic Diseases 10:7-15. DAVIDSON, A. D., J. K. DETLING, AND J. H. BROWN. 2012. Ecological roles and conservation challenges of social, burrowing, herbivorous mammals in the world's grasslands. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:477-486. DERNER, J., J. DETLING, AND M. ANTOLIN. 2006. Are livestock weight gains affected by black -tailed prairie dogs? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4:459-464. DETLING, J. K. 2006. Do prairie dogs compete with livestock? In: J. L. Hoogland [ED.]. Conservation of the black -tailed prairie dog: saving North America's westem grasslands. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press. p. 65-88. GUENTHER, D. A., AND J. K. DETLING. 2003. Observations of cattle use of prairie dog towns. Journal of Range Management 56:410-417. HARTLEY, A. E., J. K. DETLING, AND L. T. SAVAGE. 2009. Introduced plague lessens the effects of an herbivorous rodent on grassland vegetation. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:861-869. HICKMAN, K. R., AND J. D. DEFINER. 2007. Blackland tallgrass prairie vegetation dynamics following cessation of herbicide application. Rangeland Ecology & Management 60:186-190. KNOWLES, C. J., J. D. PROCTOR, AND S. C. FORREST. 2002. Black -tailed prairie dog abundance and distribution in the Great Plains based on historic and contemporary information. Great Plains Research 12:219-254. KOTLIAR, N. B., B. W. BAKER, A. D. WHICKER, AND G. E. PLUMB. 1999. A critical review of assumptions about the prairie dog as a keystone species. Environmental Management 24:177-192. McCuNE, B., AND J. B. GRACE. 2002. Analysis of ecological communities. Geneden Beach, OR, USA: MjM Software Design. 300 p. MILCHUNAS, D., AND W. LAUENROTH. 1993. Quantitative effects of grazing on vegetation and soils over a global range of environments. Ecological Monographs 63:327- 366. MILCHUNAS, D., W. LAUENROTH, I. BURKE, AND J. K. DETLING. 2008. Effects of grazing on vegetation. In: W. Lauenroth and I. C. Burke [EDS.]. Ecology of the shortgrass steppe: a long-term perspective. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press. p. 389-446. SAVAGE, L. T., R. REICH, L. HARTLEY, P. STAPP, AND M. F. ANTOLIN. 2011. Climate, soils and connectivity predict plague epizootics in black -tailed prairie dogs. Ecological Applications 21:2933-2943. SIDLE, J. G., D. J. AUGUSTINE, D. H. JOHNSON, S. D. MLLER, J. F. CULLY, JR., AND R. P. READING. 2012. Aerial surveys adjusted by ground surveys to estimate area 708 Rangeland Ecology & Management occupied by black -tailed prairie dog colonies. Wildlife Society Bulletin 36:248- 256. SOKAL, R., AND N. ODEN. 1978. Spatial autocorrelation in biology 2. Some biological implications and four applications of evolutionary and ecological interest. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 10:229-249. STAPP, P. 2007. Rodent communities in active and inactive colonies of black -tailed prairie dogs in shortgrass steppe. Journal of Mammalogy 88:241-249. STAPP, P., M. F. ANTovN, AND M. BALL. 2004. Patterns of extinction in prairie dog metapopulations: plague outbreaks follow El Nino events. Frontiers in Ecology Environment 2:235-240. STRINGHAM, T., K. KRUEGER, AND P. L. SHAVER. 2003. State and transition modeling: an ecological process approach. Journal of Range Management 56:106-113. SLIDING, K. N., K. L. GROSS, AND G. R. HOUSEMAN. 2004. Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19:46-53. TWIDWELL, D., B. W. ALLRED, AND S. D. FUHLENDORF. 2013. National -scale assessment of ecological content in the world's largest land management framework. Ecosphere 4(8): Article 94. [USDA-NRCS] US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE —NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE. 2007. Ecological site descriptions for: Loamy Plains (R067BY002C0), Overflow (R067BY036C0) and Sandy Plains (R067BY024C0), MLRA 067B —Central High Plains, Southern Part. Available at https://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov/ESDReport/ fsReport.aspx?id-i067BY002CO3 https://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov/ESDReporV fsReport.aspx?id=i067BY036CO, and https://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov/ ESDReport/fsReport.aspx?id=R067BY024C0. Accessed 12 May 2014. [USDA-NRCS] US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE —NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE. 2014. The PLANTS database. Available at http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed 4 October 2014. VAN DE KOPPEL, J., AND M. RIETKERK. 2004. Spatial interactions and resilience in and ecosystems. The American Naturalist 163:113-121. VAN LANGEVELDE, F., C. A. D. M. VAN DE VIJVER, L. KUMAR, J. VAN DE KOPPEL, N. DE RIDDER, J. VAN ANDEL, A. K. SKIDMORE, J. W. HEARNE, L. STROOSNIJDER, W. J. BOND, H. H. T. PRINS, AND M. RIETKERK. 2003. Effects of fire and herbivory on the stability of savanna ecosystems. Ecology 84:337-350. WESTOBY, M., B. WALKER, AND I. Nov-MEIR. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42:266-274. WHICKER, A., AND J. DETLING. 1988. Ecological consequences of prairie dog disturbances. BioScience 38:778-785. 67(6) November 2014 709 4 FW: prairie pics From. Kimber i gridwnc@gmail.com To Randy Wheeler I rockdogz97@gmail.com Original message From: Emma Balunek <emmabalunek@gmail.com> Date: 7/22/22 4:36 PM (GMT -07:00) To: gridwnc@gmail.com Subject: prairie pics 4 Sunday, Jul 24, 7:24 PM Here are some pics. I think some were too big and are google drive link. threw in some cute pdogs too. some trail cam images from a friend too and whiteleg and the badger. s .q HCSOO HVPERFIRE I 0 6-11-07 2:13:50 PM M 2/ ) 68°F HCSOO HVPERFIRE h a S 11 500_1127.jpg II 500_1353.jpg Ili 500_3016.jpg Fhe Journal of Wildlife Management 85(7):1332-1343; 2021; DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.22103 Research Article Long -Term Effects of Black -Tailed Prairie Dogs on Livestock Grazing Distribution and Mass Gain DAVID J. AUGUSTINE "D,1 Rangeland Resources and Systems Research Unit, USDA-ARS, 1701 Centre Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80526 USA JUSTIN D. DERNER "N2, Rangeland Resources and Systems Research Unit, USDA-ARS, 8408 Hildreth Road, Cheyenne, WY 82009 USA ABSTRACT The conservation and management of black -tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) have been contentious issues in grasslands of central North America for much of the past century, primarily because of the perception that they compete with livestock for forage. Studies quantifying the magnitude of competition between prairie dogs and cattle are difficult to conduct because of the large spatial and long temporal scales needed to quantify how competition varies in response to interannual variation in precipitation and prairie dog abundance. We examined variation in mass gains of yearling steers in shortgrass steppe of northeastern Colorado, USA, with and without prairie dogs from 2008-2019, a period that encompassed a full cycle in prairie dog abundance from a nadir following plague -induced population collapse, to peak abundance following population recovery, to plague -induced population lows again. Analyses of cattle grazing distribution with global positioning system (GPS)-collars revealed preferential grazing on colonies following a period of unusually high vegetation production, and preferential grazing off colonies following a period of rapid vegetation senescence, but these patterns were not clearly related to cattle mass gains. Across all 12 years of the study, average daily mass gain (ADG) during the growing season was 0.97 kg/steer/day in pastures where prairie dogs were con- trolled annually, and 0.95 kg/steer/day in pastures where they were not. Average daily mass gain was a quadradic function of precipitation and a linear function of prairie dog occupancy within a pasture, with a generalized linear mixed model predicting an 8.0% decrease in ADG as prairie dog occupancy increased from 0 to 60% of a pasture with average growing -season precipitation. We did not detect a significant interaction between pre- cipitation and prairie dog occupancy, but one limitation of our study is that the only drought year (2012) occurred when prairie dogs occupied low percentages (10-25%) of the study pastures. Prairie dogs had a small but detectable negative effect on cattle mass gains during the growing season in shortgrass steppe. The mag- nitude of this effect can be used by managers in combination with market conditions and the spatial extent of prairie dog colonies to estimate economic effects of prairie dogs on livestock operations. © 2021 The Wild" i fe Society. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. KEY WORDS Central Plains Experimental Range, Cynomys ludovicianus, competition, cattle production, rangeland management, shortgrass steppe. Black -tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus, prairie dogs) are colonial, burrowing herbivores that historically were abundant and widely distributed across the western Great Plains in central North America (Hoogland 2006). Prairie dogs serve as both a keystone species and an eco- logical engineer in the western Great Plains because they create burrows and modify grassland structure in ways that create habitat for a diverse array of vertebrates including grassland birds, small mammals, reptiles, and arthropods (Desmond et al. 2000, Kretzer and Cully 2001, Dinsmore et al. 2005, Augustine and Baker 2013). Furthermore, prairie dogs serve as a prey base for many mesocarnivores including ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis), golden eagles Received: 29 January 2021; Accepted: 26 May 2021 1E -mail: David.Augustine@usda.gov (Aquila chrysaetos), prairie rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis), American badgers (Taxidea taxus), and swift fox (Vulpes velox), and large complexes of prairie dog colonies are es- sential for the recovery of the endangered black -footed ferret (Mustela nigripes; Davidson et al. 2012, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). The conservation and management of prairie dogs have been contentious issues in the western Great Plains of North America for much of the past century, primarily because prairie dogs and cattle consume similar diets, and prairie dogs are perceived as reducing forage availability to a level that negatively affects livestock performance, or forces livestock managers to reduce their stocking rate (Vermeire et al. 2004, Detling 2006, Miller et al. 2007, Delibes- Mateos et al. 2011). As a result, 2 key questions for wildlife and rangeland managers in the western Great Plains are 1) to what extent does the suppression of prairie dog 1332 The Journal of Wildlife Management • 85(7) populations via rodenticides enhance livestock production and 2) how can prairie dog populations be managed spatially to maintain their ecological role while minimizing effects on livestock? Studies attempting to quantify the magnitude of competition between prairie dogs and cattle are difficult to conduct because of the large spatial and long temporal scales needed to quantify how competition varies in response to interannual variation in precipitation and prairie dog abundance (Detling 2006). Semi -arid rangelands of the western Great Plains are characterized by dramatic and unpredictable spatiotemporal variation in precipitation and forage production (Augustine 2010), and livestock pro- ducers often must adaptively reduce stocking rates or ac- quire new forage resources when drought occurs (Kachergis et al. 2014, Smart et al. 2021). Measurements of forage production and quality on versus off prairie dog colonies at multiple locations across the Great Plains suggest that prairie dogs can suppress, have no effect, and enhance livestock performance during dry, average, and wet years, respectively (Johnson-Nistler et al. 2004, Augustine and Springer 2013, Connell et al. 2019). Prior to European settlement, black -tailed prairie dog colonies were relatively stable and spatially extensive within the western Great Plains (Knowles et al. 2002). The in- troduction of plague, caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, from Asia to California, USA, in 1908 enabled this disease to spread to black -tailed prairie dog populations in the Great Plains by the 1940s (Biggins and Eads 2019). Plague combined with extensive prairie dog population control ef- forts that began in the late 1800s (Knowles et al. 2002) led to range -wide declines in prairie dog populations. Even in areas where prairie dogs are not controlled with rodenti- cides, plague epizootics periodically cause a >95% decline in the size of individual colonies (Cully and Williams 2001, Stapp et al. 2004), or even entire colony complexes dis- tributed across landscapes of >100,000ha within a single year (Augustine et al. 2008, Cully et al. 2010). Epizootic outbreaks of plague typically occur at intervals of 5-15 years, with colonies expanding slowly back to pre -epizootic sizes in the intervening years (Augustine et al. 2008, Hartley et al. 2009, Cully et al. 2010). The exact timing and location of epizootics are unpredictable, and are influenced by complex interactions among precipitation, temperature, the bacterium, fleas that transmit it, prairie dog health, ampli- fying alternate hosts, and the movements of other mammals among colonies (Stapp et al. 2004, Salkeld et al. 2016, Eads and Biggins 2017). Given that these population fluctuations occur against a backdrop of interannual variation in weather and forage availability, quantifying the magnitude of com- petition between prairie dogs and livestock for forage presents a major challenge. Prior experimental tests of prairie dog effects on livestock mass gain suggested a small negative effect, varying from no effect to up to 15% reduction in livestock mass gain in certain locations and years, but sample sizes and statistical power were limited (O'Meilia et al. 1982, Derner et al. 2006). In addition, estimates of the magnitude of effect on livestock performance are also likely to be contingent on how stocking rates are managed over time (Vermeire et al. 2004). Recently, Brennan (2019) reported that, during a period of average to above -average precip- itation, when stocking rates were reduced in direct pro- portion to the percent of a pasture occupied by prairie dogs, livestock mass gains on a per head basis were unaffected by prairie dog presence. Livestock production on a per unit area basis, however, declined in direct proportion to the magnitude of the reduction in actual stocking rate (Brennan 2019), which has substantial negative economic consequences for producers (Derner et al. 2006). Reducing the stocking rate in proportion to the area occupied by prairie dogs essentially assumes that any forage produced on colonies is unavailable to livestock. But researchers have reported that under some circumstances, cattle either do not avoid grazing on prairie dog colonies (Guenther and Detling 2003, Brennan 2019), or in some cases even pref- erentially graze on colonies relative to off -colony grassland (Sierra -Corona et al. 2015). A key unanswered question is whether sufficient on -colony forage could be used by cattle during the growing season such that livestock performance would be unaffected by prairie dogs if stocking rates were managed in accord with fluctuating weather conditions but without regard to prairie dog occupancy. Our first research objective was to quantify the degree to which prairie dogs compete with cattle by measuring dif- ferences in cattle mass gain in pastures with and without prairie dogs in the shortgrass steppe of eastern Colorado, USA. Our second objective was to quantify the degree to which cattle forage on versus off prairie dog colonies under varying weather and forage growth conditions, and whether this could serve as an indicator of the degree to which prairie dogs negatively affect cattle mass gain. A third ob- jective was to describe the temporal dynamics of prairie dog colonies over the course of an entire plague -induced pop- ulation cycle. Our study design enabled us to assess the magnitude of decline in cattle mass gain if managers do not reduce their stocking rate in response to prairie dog pres- ence. We hypothesized that under these conditions, prairie dogs would negatively affect cattle mass gains in years with below -average precipitation, and this effect would become more severe with increasing occupancy levels. We addi- tionally hypothesized that the magnitude and direction of effects of prairie dogs on livestock mass gains would be reflected in the degree to which livestock preferentially grazed on versus off colonies in a given year. STUDY AREA We conducted this study at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) -Agricultural Research Service's (ARS) Central Plains Experimental Range (CPER), a Long -Term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) network site that encompasses approximately 6,400 ha of shortgrass steppe in northeastern Colorado (40°50'N, 104°43'W). Mean annual precipitation is 340 mm and mean growing - season precipitation (Mar —Aug) is 258 mm. During 2008-2019, growing -season precipitation varied from 116 mm in 2012 to 361 mm in 2009. The CPER is Augustine and Derner • Prairie Dog —Cattle Competition 1333 subdivided into 65 -390 -ha pastures, which have been grazed by cattle since the station was established in 1939. Topography consists of gently undulating plains at a mean elevation of 1,640 m. Soils consist of deep, well -drained, fine sandy loamy to loamy sands on alluvial flats and upland plains. Parent materials of soils are primarily Holocene alluvial and eolian deposits derived from local sources (Kelly et al. 2008). Sandy soils are often associated with eolian deposits, whereas soils formed from mixed alluvium have greater clay and silt content (Kelly et al. 2008). Soils in study pastures located in the western and southern portion of CPER (Fig. 1) correlate to the Loamy Plains Ecological Site (USDA 2007a). Plant communities on Loamy Plains are dominated by C4 perennial shortgrasses (blue grama [Bouteloua gracilis] and buffalograss [B. dactyloides]), which contribute >70% of forage production (Lauenroth and Burke 2008). Subdominant plants include C3 perennial grasses (western wheatgrass [Pascopyrum smithii] and nee- dleandthread [Hesperostipa comata] ), the succulent plains pricklypear cactus (Opuntia polyacantha), and the perennial forb, scarlet globemallow (Sphaeralcea coccinia). Pastures located in the eastern and northern portion of CPER (Fig. 1) were dominated by soils that correlate to the Sandy Plains, Overflow, or Salt Flat ecological sites Legend (USDA 2007b, c, d). All 3 of these ecological sites are similar in terms of total forage production, and are more productive than the Loamy Plains. The Sandy Plains and Overflow ecological sites are dominated by C3 perennial grasses (western wheatgrass and needleandthread), with C4 shortgrasses also present. The Salt Flat ecological site is co - dominated by western wheatgrass and C4 saltgrasses (alkali sacaton [Sporobolus airoides] and inland saltgrass [Distichlis spicata]). For analyses, we grouped study pastures into 2 blocks, with one consisting of pastures dominated by the Loamy Plains ecological site, and the other consisting of pastures dominated by a combination of Sandy Plains, Overflow, and Salt Flat ecological sites. On all soil types, grazing by prairie dogs reduces the relative abundance of perennial grasses, reduces total vegetation cover, and in- creases the relative abundance of perennial and annual forbs and exposure of bare soil (Augustine et al. 2014). When colonies contract because of plague, cover of perennial C3 midgrasses and C4 shortgrasses recovers rapidly (Hartley et al. 2009, Augustine et al. 2014). The range of the black -tailed prairie dog extends from southern Saskatchewan, Canada to northern Mexico. The CPER is located near the geographic center of this range. Most of CPER was homesteaded prior to 1930, and the lands were subsequently purchased by the United States Prairie dog colonies in 2008 rairie dog colonies in 2013 ontroP s ntrol led 2,000 Meters Figure 1. The Central Plains Experimental Range in northeastern Colorado, USA, with locations of pastures with and without prairie dog control via rodenticides in which we studied cattle mass gains in 2008-2019. 1334 The Journal of Wildlife Management • 85(7) government in the 1930s as farms and ranches became unviable during the Dust Bowl years. Presumably, most prairie dogs were extirpated from CPER during the homesteading era. The CPER was created in 1937, and the first scientist to work there (D. F. Costello) wrote in his memoir (~1949; on file at CPER) "We have never made a complete list of the wildlife of the experimental range... The lone prairie dog in [pasture] 15-W eventually died of ennui, or a coyote got him." Prairie dogs remained ex- tirpated from CPER from the 1940s through the 1980s, and then subsequently recolonized 4 locations on the property in the 1990s. Mapping of prairie dog colony boundaries began in 1997 using global positioning system (GPS) devices (Sidle et al. 2012) with 6 documented col- onies in 5 different pastures totaling 22 ha. Subsequent annual mapping showed that colonies expanded con- tinuously for the next 9 years (Derner et al. 2006), reaching a maximum of 961 ha in 2006. During 2006-2007, epi- zootic plague drastically reduced prairie dog abundance, to a low of 25 ha of active colony area mapped in 2008. Our study period began in 2008, and it encompassed a full cycle in prairie dog abundance from the nadir in 2008 following plague -induced population collapse, to peak abundance during 2013-2015 following population recovery, to plague - induced population lows again during 2014-2017. Other widespread native herbivores present at the study site in- clude pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) and black -tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus). METHODS Beginning in 2008, we designated 4 pastures at CPER (2 130 -ha and 2 390 -ha pastures) containing active prairie dog colonies as areas where prairie dogs would be allowed to coexist with cattle. We mapped the boundaries of active black -tailed prairie dog colonies in these pastures during September or October each year during 2008-2019 fol- lowing methods described by Sidle et al. (2012). On the CO s N CO 'V C r Stocking rate (Anima 25 - 20 - 15- 10 - 5 0 r remainder of CPER (~5,360 ha), prairie dogs have been controlled annually since 2008 with rodenticides (im- plemented by the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service -Wildlife Services; Fig. 1). In 2008, 6 pastures where prairie dogs were controlled (i.e., controls) and the 4 pastures containing prairie dogs were stocked with yearling steers at a moderate rate during the grazing season (mid -May to Oct). In 2009, the number of moderately stocked control pastures was increased to 10. Of the 10 control pastures, 4 were 65 ha during 2008-2012, and then expanded to 130 ha during 2013-2019. The remaining 6 control pastures were 130 ha. Within any given year, stocking rates varied by ≤8% across study pastures. During 2008-2012, stocking rates for all study pastures were set at a constant annual moderate rate of approximately 18 animal unit days (AUD)/ha (Fig. 2). For the second hal of the study, we varied stocking rates adaptively among years in response to weather and forage conditions. Following a drought in 2012, stocking rates were reduced by 30% below the 18 AUD/ha rate in 2013, and then returned to 18 AUD/ha rate in 2014. Following consecutive years of above -average forage pro- duction during 2014-2015, stocking rates were progressively increased during 2016-2018, reaching a peak at 24 AUD/ha in 2018, and then reduced to 20 AUD/ha in 2019 (Fig. 2). Although stocking rates varied from year to year during 2013-2019, stocking rates remained constant across all study pastures (both with and without prairie dogs) within each year. Two of the 4 prairie dog pastures and 5 of 10 control pastures were in the Loamy Plains block, and remaining pastures were in the second block. Cattle Measurements We determined average cattle mass gains (kg/animal/day) each year by weighing individual animals (yearling steers) at the beginning (mid -May) and end (early Oct) of each grazing season, and dividing by the number of grazing days. Protocols for handling, weighing, and collaring of - 600 - 500 - 400 1 E c O as a �U a) - 200 a. - 300 - 100 I I 2006 2008 2010 2012 Year I I 0 2014 2016 2018 2020 Figure 2. Mean annual growing -season precipitation (Mar —Aug; blue circles) and annual cattle stocking rates (black diamonds) used in this study at the Central Plains Experimental Range, northeastern Colorado, USA, 2008-2019. Augustine and Derner • Prairie Dog —Cattle Competition 1335 the cattle were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the USDA -Rangeland Resources and Systems Unit, Central Plains Experimental Range (protocol number CPER-3) On occasion, 1 steer within a herd exhibits substantially greater or lower growth rate than the remainder of the herd, likely because of health issues or genetic variation We calculated mean steer mass gain for each pasture in each year, identified any in- dividuals whose gain differed from the pasture mean by >2 standard deviations, and removed these outliers from the analysis We then calculated mean daily mass gain for each pasture, and used pasture means in our statistical analyses To examine the degree to which cattle forage on prairie dog colonies, we studied cattle foraging distribution in 3 prairie dog pastures (2 were 130 ha and 1 was 390 ha) during 2013-2016 In 2013 and 2014, we measured cattle distribution using GPS-collars (Lotek 3300LR collars, Lotek Engineering, Newmarket, ON, Canada) placed on 3 or 4 steers per pasture for 2 time intervals (collar deploy- ments) per year, the first beginning in mid June and the second beginning in mid -August, that lasted for 27-29 days In 2015 and 2016, we used the GPS-collars to measure cattle distribution during 4 consecutive 27 -29 -day intervals that began in early June and continued until the end of September Collars weighed 1 2 kg, were set to record GPS positions at 5 -minute intervals, and included a dual -axis activity sensor that recorded up -down (y-axis) and side -to - side (a -axis) movements and percentage of time the y-axis sensor was in the down position We used a previously developed classification tree model based on the distance traveled in a 5 -minute interval and activity sensor meas- urements to discriminate between GPS fixes associated with grazing versus fixes associated with non -grazing behavior (Augustine and Derner 2013) We analyzed cattle dis- tribution based on those GPS coordinates recorded by the collars when the cattle were estimated to be grazing (s e , grazing locations) Vegetation Phenology Because we hypothesized that the degree to which cattle grazed on prairie dog colonies would vary with the pro- ductivity of the vegetation, we quantified seasonal and annual variation in vegetation productivity using the normalized dif- ference vegetation index (NOW) We calculated NDVI from a fusion of measurements by the Terra and Aqua moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer satellites, which gen- erated a quasi 8 -day time series at a 250 x 250-m pixel reso lotion for the years in which we conducted the cattle grazing distribution study (2013-2016) We used the Sav rzky-Golay filter to smooth data and fill gaps following Gaffney et al (2018), thereby generating a smoothed daily NDVI time series We averaged the daily NOW values across all pixels within the boundary of CPER to provide a study -site -scale index of vegetation phenology and overall productivity each year The integrated area under the NDVI curve is positively related to net primary production at CPER (Gaffney et al 2018) Statistical Analyses We first analyzed cattle mass gains using a generalized linear mixed model in which mass gain was the response variable, annual growing -season precipitation (Mar —Aug) and pasture occupancy by prairie dogs (as a categorical variable [controlled or not controlled]) were fixed effects, year within pasture was included as a random effect with first -order auto -regressive covariance structure to account for repeated measures over time, and block (differentiating pastures with loamy vs sandy sods) was included as a random effect We then considered 3 additional models The first included main effects of annual precipitation and pasture occupancy by prairie dogs as a continuous variable (percent of the pasture occupied each year, which was 0% for controls and could potentially vary from 0-100% for non -controlled pastures) The second included the 2 main effects plus an interaction between precipitation and prairie dog occupancy, and the third included the 2 main effects and a quadratic effect of precipitation We considered the latter because Derner and Hart (2007) reported average daily mass gain was a quadratic function of precipitation Because the 2 smaller prairie dog pastures (each 130 ha, the same as control pastures) both reached higher levels of prairie dog occupancy than the 2 larger prairie dog pastures (each 390 ha), we also evaluated the same statistical models using only the 2 smaller prairie dog pasture replicates, to test whether the magnitude of effects would change notably We performed all analyses using Proc GLIMMIX in SAS ver- sion 9 4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) For each collar deployment interval, we overlaid all of the grazing locations pooled across all collared steers onto a 25 x 25-m grid of pixels within each study pasture to obtain a count of grazing locations per pixel We also used a digital elevation map to classify each pixel into 1 of 4 topographic position classes (fiat plains, open slopes, lowlands, and up- lands, Gersie et al 2019), and we calculated the distance from the center of each pixel to the nearest fence and nearest drinking water location Lowlands consist of sncssed stream channels, floodplasns near channels, and shallow valleys, open slopes consist of flat plains tilted at >2% slope, and uplands consist of ridges, hilltops, and upper hillslopes (Gersse et al 2019) For each year, we used the mapped boundaries of the prairie dog colonies to classify each pixel as occupied or unoccupied by prairie dogs We then fit count -based regression models of grazing locations per pixel as a function of topographic position class, prairie dog oc- cupancy, and distance to fence and water (Gersse et al 2019) For each collar deployment and study pasture, we examined whether the model coefficient for prairie dog occupancy was positive or negative, and whether it was significantly different from zero (P<0 05) We considered a statistically significant effect of prairie dogs on cattle grazing distribution to occur when coefficients from the 3 study pastures were all significantly positive or negative RESULTS During 2008-2019, the area occupied by active prairie dog colonies in pastures where prairie dog populations were not 1336 The Journal of Wildlife Management • 85(7) controlled by rodenticide varied dramatically. Prairie dogs occupied 1-3% of study pastures in 2008, as a result of a spatially synchronized plague epizootic that affected all colonies during 2006-2007 (Augustine et al. 2014). During the current study, peak prairie dog occupancy occurred at 65% of the 130 -ha replicate in block 1 in 2013, and at 68% of the 130 -ha replicate in block 2 in 2014 (Fig. 3). The 2 larger replicates (390 ha each) only reached peak occu- pancy levels of 29% and 38% in blocks 1 and 2 respectively (Fig. 3). Prairie dog colonies contracted dramatically be- cause of epizootic plague in al. 4 pastures sometime during 2014-2017, but the exact year of contraction was not syn- chronous across the study site (Fig. 3). A ct a) a) U) O) C •O U E cti so a) Cu Q B a) a) U) O) C O) U) N CO E a) CO > Q L O c O) SD . a) L a a> ' a 0 0 45 a C O O O L 0 U) O) O -13 .2 L a .a 0 O O a) CO a 9- O 0 0 0 L 0_ 0.0 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 Cattle Mass Gains The ADG of cattle in pastures where prairie dogs were controlled varied among years, from a low of 0.73 kg/ steer/day during the drought of 2012 to a maximum of 1.13 kg/steer/day in 2017 (Table 1; Fig. 3). Across all 12 years of the study, ADG averaged 0.97 kg/steer/day in pastures where prairie dogs were controlled, and ADG averaged 2.1% less (0.95 kg/steer/day) where they were not (Table 1). A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) of ADG as a function of growing -season precipitation and presence or absence of prairie dog control (treatment) showed no treatment x precipitation interaction (F1,145 = 0.01, P= 0.96). When we refit the Mean ADG in pastures without prairie dogs O- - ADG in replicate 1 with prairie dogs • ADG in replicate 2 with prairie dogs O- - Proportion of replicate 1 occupied by prairie dogs ■ Proportion of replicate 2 occupied by prairie dogs V 7\ ■ . ■ Mean ADG in pastures without prairie dogs - ADG in replicate 3 with prairie dogs ■ ADG in replicate 4 with prairie dogs - O- - Proportion of replicate 3 occupied by prairie dogs Proportion of replicate 4 occupied by prairie dogs 0.2 Cr IN ■ 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Year ■ ■ ■ ■ Figure 3. Average daily mass gain of steers (ADG; kg/steer/day) in A) pastures dominated by Loamy Plains ecological site (low productivity block; n= 5 pastures without prairie dogs and 2 pastures with prairie dogs), and B) in pastures dominated by Sandy Plains, Overflow, or Salt Flat ecological sites (high productivity block; n= 5 pastures without prairie dogs and 2 pastures with prairie dogs) at the Central Plains Experimental Range in northeastern Colorado, USA, 2008-2019. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals for the pastures without prairie dogs in each block. For the pastures with prairie dogs, blue symbols show the proportion occupied by prairie dogs each year for the replicate with the same symbol shape. At the start of this study in 2008, prairie dogs were rare in all 4 pastures because of an outbreak of epizootic plague during 2006-2007. Colonies in all 4 pastures expanded during 2009-2013, and then contracted because of plague in 2014 and 2015 in pasture 1, in 2016 in pastures 2 and 3, and in 2017 in pasture 4. Augustine and Derner • Prairie Dog —Cattle Competition 1337 Table 1 Average daily mass gams (kg/steer/day) of yearling steers in pastures with and without control of prairie dogs via rodenticsde during 2008-2019 at the Central Plains Experimental Range in northeastern Colorado, USA Annual stocking rates were the same in both sets of pastures each year but vaned annually Values in parentheses are 1 standard error around the mean band on spatial variation among rephcates within each year, and for the overall mean are based on temporal variation among the 12 years Prairie dogs controlled Prairie dogs uncontrolled Year x SE x SE 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 All 0 97 109 102 1 03 0 73 0 86 0 93 0 96 0 97 1 13 0 84 1 11 0 97 0 02 0 03 0 03 0 03 0 03 0 02 0 02 0 02 0 04 0 02 0 03 0 02 0 03 0 93 106 101 1 04 0 72 0 85 0 94 0 95 091 1 07 0 82 1 09 0 95 0 02 0 05 0 02 0 04 0 07 0 04 0 03 001 0 05 0 03 0 05 0 03 0 03 model without the interaction term, where ADG was a function of treatment and a quadratic function of growing -season precipitation, there was a highly sig- nificant influence of precipitation, but no significant ef- fect of treatment (Table 2, model 1) Prairie dogs were relatively rare in some years, and reached peak abundance in different pastures in different years (Fig 3) When we evaluated a generalized linear mixed model of ADG as a function of growing -season precip- itation and percent of pasture occupied by prairie dogs, we found no significant interaction between the effects of prairie dogs and precipitation (F0,1571 = 0 13, P= 0 72) When we evaluated models that only included the main effects of colony occupancy and precipitation, both with and without a quadratic term for precipitation, we found the quadratic term for precipitation was a highly significant predictor of ADG, as were the main effects of precipitation and prairie dog occupancy (Table 2, model 2) The final model predicted a rapid rate of increase in ADG as growing -season precipitation increased from approximately 110 mm to 275 mm, followed by less rapid increases in ADG above 275 mm precipitation (Fig 4) The effect of prairie dogs was statistically significant but small over the entire range of precipitation levels, with the GLMM pre- dicting an 8 0% decrease in ADG as prairie dog occupancy increased from 0 to 60% of a pasture at average growing - season precipitation (Fig 4) For comparison, our results predict a 24% decrease in ADG as growing -season precip- itation declines from 240 mm (near -average) to 120 mm (drought, Fig 4) When we fit the same set of GLMMs to the data using only the 2 prairie dog pasture replicates that were 130 ha each, results were nearly identical to the results with all 4 replicates We again found no significant interaction between prairie dog occupancy and precipitation (F0,131=102, P= 0 31), and the linear and quadratic term for precipitation were highly significant (F1,1218= 25 65, P< 0 001, and F1,119 9 = 8 85, P= 0 004 respectively) The effect of prune dog occupancy was also significant (F1,79 42 =5 83, P=0 018), with a co- efficient of —0 00299 (1 SE = 0 00124) This coefficient predicted a decline in ADG by 8 4% as prairie dog occupancy increased from 0 to 60% of a pasture at average growing - season precipitation Cattle Grazing Distribution When we analyzed models of the distribution of grazing steers in terms of number of grazing fixes per 25 x 25-m (625 m2) pixel, across all 3 study pastures in 2013, cattle preferentially grazed in lowland topographic positions rela- tive to flat plains, and avoided uplands and open slopes relative to flat plains, but did not exhibit any consistent pattern of preferential grazing either on or off prairie dog colonies The growing season of 2013 followed a severe drought in 2012, so there was minimal standing dead veg- elation in 2013, but greenup at the start of the growing season was rapid (approximately following the long-term mean), and was followed by a second mid -summer pulse of grass growth at the beginning of the second GPO -collar deployment period (Fig 5) In 2014, overall greenness and forage production was substantially above average Under these conditions, yearling steers again did not show any consistent preferential use of either prairie dog colonies or topographic patterns across the 3 study pastures Table 2 Results of 2 generalized linear mixed models for average daily mass gam of yearling steers at the Central Plains Experimental Range in northeastern Colorado, USA, 2008-2019 Model 1 included a binary categorical predictor for presence or absence of pranne dog control via rodent,cides Model 2 included a continuous, numerical predictor consisting of the percent of each prairie dog pasture occupied by prairie dogs each year Model Effect Type III tests of fixed effects Numerator Denominator DF DF Parameter F P estimate SE Model 1 Intercept Precipitation (mm) Precipitation (mm)2 Pasture treatment (presence or absence of prairie dog control) Model 2 Intercept Precipitation (mm) Precipitation (mm)2 Prairie dog occupancy (% of pasture) 149 1 147 7 818 147 0 145 4 93 7 27 97 9 17 215 31 03 1125 641 <0 001 0 003 0147 <0 001 0 001 0 013 0 803 0 007478 —0 00000882 0 0458 0 824 0 007814 —0 00000971 —0 00288 0192 0 001414 0 0000029 0 0312 01890 0 001403 0 0000029 0 00114 1338 The Journal of Wildlife Management • 85(7) 1.4 - co -v 411) C 1.0 - co v) co E 0.8 - co G) Co 0.6 - L a) Q 1.2 - 0.4 • • No prairie dogs 30% of pasture occupied by prairie dogs 60% of pasture occupied by prairie dogs • •a a e8 I • a 0 I a s • • a • 0 • • O • No prairie dogs 0 With prairie dogs (varying occupancy per year) I r 100 150 200 250 300 Growing -season precipitation (mm) I 1 350 400 Figure 4. Average daily mass gain of steers (kg/steer/day) in relation to growing -season precipitation and degree of pasture occupancy by prairie dogs at the Central Plains Experimental Range in northeastern Colorado, USA, 2008-2019. Points show measured mass gains in pastures with (n = 4) and without prairie dogs (n = 10). Curves show mass gains predicted by a generalized linear model fit to the data. The red curve shows predicted mass gains for a pasture in which 60% of the area is occupied by prairie dogs. Actual occupancy of prairie dogs in pastures where they were not controlled varied from 0-65% over time depending on location and timing of plague outbreaks, with an overall average annual occupancy of 17% during the 12 -year study. In 2015, greenness and forage growth were substantially above -average for the second year in a row, such that off - colony portions of the pastures had residual standing dead grass carried over from the previous wet year and new growth during the first two-thirds of the growing season. Under these conditions, cattle preferentially grazed on col- onies (and reduced grazing time off -colony) in all 3 study pastures during 12 June -5 August, which corresponded to the period of peak greenness (Fig. 5). For the remainder of August and through September, when vegetation was sen- escing, cattle did not graze preferentially on or off colonies in a consistent manner (Fig. 5). In 2016, plant growth in early summer was near average throughout the growing season, and then senesced relatively rapidly in August and September compared to the previous 3 years. During the first 2 collar deployments in mid- summer (10 Jun -6 Aug), cattle grazed preferentially off - colony in 1 study pasture (f3 ≤ -2.06; P< 0.04). In the other 2 study pastures, the coefficient for colony selection was negative ((3 < —0.07), but these coefficients were not sig- nificantly different from zero (P> 0.05). During the third and fourth collar deployments (7 Aug -1 Oct), cattle grazed preferentially off colonies in all 3 pastures ([3 ≤ —1.97, P< 0.05 in all 6 models; Fig. 5). DISCUSSION How, when, and where to manage black -tailed prairie dog populations to conserve this keystone species while mini- mizing potential effects on livestock production continues to be a source of substantial controversy and contention in the western Great Plains (Miller et al. 2007, USDA Forest Service 2020). In shortgrass rangeland of Colorado, as prairie dog colony occupancy increases from 0 to 60% of a pasture, average daily mass gains of yearling steers during the growing season decline on average by 8%. The magni- tude of this effect is smaller than that reported by Derner et al. (2006), who estimated that gains declined by 15% at 60% occupancy. Our results are based on a larger set of pastures and years, and likely provide an estimate of prairie dog effect on growing -season cattle mass gains that is more robust across varying pasture conditions and precipitation levels. For steers grazing for 140 days during the growing season, as in our study, our estimate of 8% weight gain loss amounts to individual steers ending the grazing season 10.8 kg lighter with 60% prairie dog occupancy compared to no prairie dogs. Over the course of our 12 -year study, prairie dogs rarely occupied pastures at such a high level because of recurrent epizootic outbreaks of plague. Averaged over the entire 12 years, we did not detect a statistically significant increase in steer mass gains associated with prairie dog population control. Furthermore, we documented sub- stantially greater effects of inter -annual variation in growing -season rainfall on mass gains, with the shape and magnitude of this effect being very similar to previous work in different pastures at our study site in a prior decade (Derner and Hart 2007). Overall, these results suggest that over an entire plague -induced cycle of prairie dog abun- dance, effects on livestock production during the growing season can be minimal. Significant reductions in mass gain can occur where and when prairie dogs are locally abundant. One important consequence of plague -induced cycles in prairie dog abundance is that prairie dogs do not con- tinuously occupy large areas over a sequence of several years. As a result, they do not induce long-term changes in plant community composition over large areas of the landscape (Hartley et al. 2009). In areas occupied by prairie dogs for a Augustine and Derner • Prairie Dog —Cattle Competition 1339 • 0.8 - 0.8 - C 1.0 1.0 O 0.7- d .11 0.5 0.5 0.7- N • 0.0 0.0 O 0.6 - - -0.5 -0.5 0.6 - -1.0 -1.0 0-0 0-0 2013 Average (2001-2018) 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 C O d d >.•• ` 0.0 C '+ _O N -0.5 8 -1.0 1.0 S 0.5 C Day of Year 2015 Average (2001-2018) 280 300 320 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 Day of Year C 1.0 O d .C 0.5 yD • 0.0 C O O U - 0.5 - 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 - 0.5 - 1.0 2014 Average (2001-2018) 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 C 1.0 O d PO 0.5 0.0 -. L v oO -0.5 u -1.0 Day of Year I 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 Day of Year Figure 5. Variation in vegetation greenness (normalized difference vegetation index [NDVI]) in relation to the timing of measurements of cattle selection for or against prairie dog colonies while grazing shortgrass steppe at the Central Plains Experimental Range in north-eastern Colorado, USA, during each of 4 years (2013-2016). Red horizontal lines show the time periods within each year when we deployed global positioning system collars on cattle to measure grazing distribution, and inset graphs with red bars show the average magnitude of the prairie dog colony selection coefficient (positive values = preferential grazing on prairie dog colonies; negative values = avoidance of colonies). Error bars in the inset graphs show 1 standard error for the selection coefficient. sequence of ≤6 years, plague -induced removal of the prairie dogs resulted in rapid recovery of perennial grass cover in the first post -plague growing season (Augustine et al. 2014). In contrast, areas occupied continuously for 7-10 years ex- hibited significant reductions in perennial grass cover and increased bare soil exposure for multiple years after plague - induced prairie dog removal (Augustine et al. 2014). Similarly, in northern mixed prairie, core areas of colonies that are occupied continuously for decades show increased bare soil exposure, increased dominance by unpalatable subshrubs and forbs, and loss of perennial grass cover, whereas the more recently colonized edges often have significant cover of closely cropped grasses (Coppock et al. 1983, Brennan et al. 2020). These colony edges can provide valuable foraging areas for livestock during the growing season (Brennan 2019), and in some cases, even during dormant season grazing (Sierra -Corona et al. 2015). Our finding that cattle mass gains were suppressed to a limited degree and only when colonies were extensive (e.g., by 4-8% when colonies occupied 30-60% of pastures) is consistent with the idea that negative effects of prairie dogs may primarily arise from the loss of perennial grasses on core colony areas that are occupied continuously in between plague epizootics. Because of recurrent plague epizootics on time scales of roughly 5-15 years across the western Great Plains, these core areas typically comprise a small portion of the landscape, even when colonies occupy a majority of a given pasture (Augustine et al. 2008, Hartley et al. 2009, Brennan et al. 2020). In our study, we did not map spatial variation in vegetation communities or cover within the colonies. Recent advances in remote sensing are enabling more accurate mapping of areas within colonies with ele- vated bare soil exposure and cover of unpalatable forbs (Brennan et al. 2020). Knowledge of the location and extent of such areas could potentially provide an improved estimate of the effect of prairie dogs on livestock performance, and perhaps assist with more targeted adaptive management approaches to minimize the effects. Several important caveats pertain to these results. First, and perhaps most important, peak abundance of prairie dogs during our 12 -year study period did not coincide with the severe drought in 2012. We did not detect a significant interaction between the effect of growing -season precip- itation and the effect of prairie dog occupancy level, 1340 The Journal of Wildlife Management • 85(7) suggesting that each have separate and independent effects across the range of combinations tested Prairie dog occu- pancy vaned from 10% to 25% of treatment pastures during the 2012 drought, hence, we have not tested whether an interaction may occur when precipitation is low and prairie dogs occupy >25% of a pasture The substantial direct ef- fects of drought on cattle mass gains that we observed likely operates in part through forage limitation during the second half of the growing season Given that previous analyses of prairie dog effects on forage quality and quantity in short - grass steppe showed much larger effects on quantity than quality in drought (Augustine and Springer 2013), we hy- pothesize that competition between cattle and prairie dogs could still be exacerbated in dry periods where prairie dogs occupy >25% of a pasture Our results combined with those of Olson et al (2016) and Brennan (2019) also shed light on adjustments to stocking rates in response to prairie dog abundance In the Brennan (2019) experiment, stocking rates were reduced in direct proportion to praine dog colony extent in study pastures, which prevented cattle from experiencing reduced mass gain during the growing season when coexisting with prairie dogs In contrast, within each year we maintained the same stocking rates in pastures both with and without prairie dogs, while also flexibly changing stocking rates in both treatments across years in response to weather and forage conditions For example, the experiment -wide stocking rate was reduced by 30% in 2013 following the 2012 drought, and increased by 30% over a 4 -year penod in response to exceptional forage production during 2014 and 2015 Given our finding that cattle only experienced minor mass loss as the area occupied by prairie dogs increased, stocking rates may not need to be reduced as drastically in response to prairie dog occupation of pastures as im- plemented in the Brennan (2019) study At the same time, some lesser reduction in stocking rate may be warranted if the goal is to prevent a decline in individual cattle per- formance Estimates of the extent of core colony areas with elevated bare soil exposure and unpalatable forb dominance (Brennan et al 2020) could potentially provide a more ap- propriate estimate of the necessary magnitude of reduction in stocking rate Economic analyses are also needed to compare strategies of reducing stocking rate versus main- taining stocking rate with reduced animal gains, and to compare both to the costs of controlling prairie dogs Our analyses of cattle grazing distribution responses to prairie dog colonies during 2013-2016 yielded 2 key in- sights First, our findings during 2013 and 2014 were con- sistent with Guenther and Detling (2003), who reported cattle in shortgrass rangeland grazed prairie dog colonies in proportion to their availability We were surprised that cattle did not graze preferentially off colonies in 2013, when the rangeland was still recovering from the 2012 drought One potential explanation is that the 30% reduction in stocking rates in 2013 alleviated the need for cattle to in- crease grazing time off colonies Second, results from 2015 and 2016 were consistent with the competition and facili- tation hypothesis (Augustine and Springer 2013), in that cattle grazed preferentially on colonies during the period of greatest forage availability during our study and off colonies during an extended penod of plant senescence in 2016 (Fig 4) This did not translate, however, into a detectable interaction between effects of precipitation and prairie dogs on cattle mass gain Our grazing distribution models did account for the influence of topography and our data in- dicated increased grazing intensity on lowlands and flat plains compared to open slopes and uplands, consistent with work by Genie et al (2019) Perhaps the influence of fac- tors such as spatial variability in topography and soils, combined with temporal variability in growing -season pre- cipitation, so strongly affect mass gains that effects of prairie dogs on grazing distribution do not translate clearly into effects on mass gains in this ecosystem Additionally, we did not map spatial variation in plant communities within col- onies, which could perhaps improve predictions of grazing distribution (Sierra -Corona et al 2015) Our findings illustrate temporal variation in prairie dog colony size over the 12 -year study penod with initial low abundance following the 2006-2007 plague event, followed by colony growth until 2015 (reaching a maximum of 65-68% pasture occupancy 1 to 2 years after the 2012 drought), followed by another plague -induced decline in prairie dog colony area to <2 2 ha per occupied pasture during 2015-2017, and then colony recovery and expansion in 2018 and 2019 Expansions in colony size occurred even though prairie dogs in the surrounding landscape were being controlled annually with rodenticides This control strategy likely suppressed the potential for prairie dog dis- persal among the spatially separate pastures where they were not controlled Two of the study pastures were adjacent and could have more readily exchanged dispersing prairie dog individuals, but the other 2 pastures were >4 km from ad- jacent uncontrolled sites Both declined to <1 ha of active colony area in 2016-2017, and then recovered to 8 2-18 0 ha in 2019, suggesting significant resilience of spatially discrete populations to plague Although the ge- netic consequences of plague -induced bottlenecks are not known, persistence of localized and isolated populations through plague epizootics is consistent with researchers reporting that prairie dog populations in Colorado may be developing increased resistance to plague, as compared to more eastern populations in South Dakota, USA, that have not coexisted with plague for the past 70 years (Rocke et al 2012, Russell et al 2019) MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Cattle mass gain during the growing season declined line- arly by 8% as prairie dog occupancy of shortgrass pastures increased from 0 to 60% In the absence of population control via rodenticide, prairie dog populations fluctuate dramatically in response to periodic, disease -induced pop- ulation fluctuations Asa result, negative effects on livestock mass gains do not occur every year, and could be negligible over the course of a decade if years of peak prairie dog abundance do not coincide with drought We suggest that decisions on the need to manage prairie dog populations Augustine and Derner • Prairie Dog —Cattle Competition 1341 could be based on the magnitude of the effect documented in our study, market values of cattle, and the costs of prairie dog control, but managers should also consider uncertainty in the potential for drought to coincide with peak prairie dog abundance (and associated lack of quantification of the consequence for livestock managers), the frequency and timing of plague, and costs of alternative forage sources during drought If prairie dogs become increasingly resilient to plague in the future, it will become even more important to plan management strategies temporally and spatially to mitigate effects on livestock production under conditions expected in most years, as quantified here, and to under- stand the consequences of high prairie dogs occupancy rates during dormant seasons and droughts ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank D P Smith for management of GPS-collar de- ployments, N A Dufek, seasonal USDA-ARS employees, and staff of the Shortgrass Steppe Long -Term Ecological Research program at Colorado State University for praine dog colony mapping We thank M M Ashby, J B Thomas, M K Johnston, J B Thomas, J M Holtman, T R Joins, M C Mortenson, and P K Freeman for weighing and managmg cattle, N E Kaplan for assistance with data management, and the Crow Valley Livestock Cooperative for providing all the cattle used in this study This research was a contribution from the Long -Term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) network, LTAR is supported by the United States Department of Agriculture LITERATURE CITED Augustine, D J 2010 Spatial versus temporal variation in precipitation in a semiarid ecosystem Landscape Ecology 25 913-925 Augustine, D J , and B W Baker 2013 Associations of grassland bird communities with black -tailed prairie dogs in the North Amencan Great Plains Conservation Biology 27 324-334 Augustine, D J , and J D Derner 2013 Assessing herbivore foraging behavior with GPS collars in a semiand grassland Sensors 13 3711-3723 Augustine, D J, J D Derner, and J K Dethng 2014 Testing for thresholds in a semiand grassland the influence of praine dogs and plague Rangeland Ecology & Management 67 701-709 Augustine, D J, M R Matchett, T P Toombs, J F Cully, Jr, TL Johnson, and J G Sidle 2008 Spatiotemporal dynamics of black -tailed prairie dog colonies affected by plague Landscape Ecology 23 255-267 Augustine, D J , and T L Springer 2013 Competition and facilitation between a nanve and a domestic herbivore trade-offs between forage quantity and quality Ecological Applications 23 850-863 Biggins, D E , and D A Eads 2019 Prairie dogs, persistent plague, flocking fleas, and pernicious positive feedback Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6 (MAR) article 75 Brennan, J R 2019 Prairie dogs and livestock in rangeland systems balancing biodiversity and production in the northern mixed -grass prairie Dissertanons, South Dakota State University, Brookings, USA Brennan, J B, P S Johnson, and N P Hanan 2020 Comparing stability in random forest models to map Northern Great Plains plant com- munities in pastures occupied by prairie dogs using Pleiades imagery Biogeosciences 171281-1292 Connell, L C, L M Porensky, and J D Scasta 2019 Prairie dog (Cynomys ludovuianus) influence on forage quantity and quality in a grazed grassland-shrubland ecotone Rangeland Ecology & Management 72 360-373 Coppock D L, J E Ellis, J K Detling, and M I Dyer 1983 Plant - herbivore interactions in a North American mixed -grass praine I Effects of black-taded praine dogs on intrasesonal aboveground plant biomass and nutnent dynamics Oecologia 56 1-9 Cully, J F , Jr , and E S Williams 2001 Interspecific comparisons of sylvatic plague in prairie dogs Journal of Mammalogy 82(4) 894-905 Cully, J F, Jr, S K Colhnge, R E VanNimwegen, C Ray, W C Johnson, B Thiagaraian, D B Conlin, and B E Holmes 2010 Spatial variation in keystone effects small mammal diversity associated with black -tailed prairie dog colonies Ecography 33(4) 667-677 Davidson, A D, J K Detling, and J H Brown 2012 Ecological roles and conservation challenges of social, burrowing, herbivorous mammals in the world's grasslands Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10 477-486 Delibes-Mateos, M, A T Smith, C N Slobodchikoff, and J E Swenson 2011 The paradox of keystone species persecuted as pests a call for the conservation of abundant small mammals in their native range Biological Conservation 1441335-1346 Demer, J D , J Detling, and M Antohn 2006 Are livestock weight gains affected by black -tailed prairie dogs, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4 459-464 Derner, J D , and R H Hart 2007 Livestock and vegetation responses to rotational grazing in short -grass steppe Western North Amencan Naturalist 67 359-367 Desmond, M J,J A Savidge, and K M Eskridge 2000 Correlations between burrowing owl and black -tailed prairie dog declines a 7 -year analysis Journal of Wildlife Management 641067-1075 Detling, J K 2006 Do prairie dogs compete with livestock, Pages 65-88 it J L Hoogland, editor Conservation of the black -tailed prame dog Island Press, Washington, D C , USA Dinsmore, S J , G C White, and F L Knopf 2005 Mountain plover population responses to black -tailed prairie dogs in Montana Journal of Wildlife Management 691546-1553 Eads, D A, and D E Biggins 2017 Paltry past -precipitation predis- posing prairie dogs to plague, Journal of Wildlife Management 81(6) 990-998 Gaffney, R, L M Porensky, F Gao, J G Inset,,, M Durante, J D Derner, and D J Augustine 2018 Using APAR to predict aboveground plant productivity in semi -aid rangelands Spatial and temporal rela- tionships differ Remote Sensing 10(9) 1474 Gets,,, S P, D J Augustine, and J D Demer 2019 Cattle grazing distribution in shortgrass steppe influences of topography and saline soils Rangeland Ecology & Management 72 602-614 Guenther, D A , and J K Detling 2003 Observations of cattle use of prairie dog towns Journal of Range Management 56 410-417 Hartley, L M,J J K Detling, and L T Savage 2009 Introduced plague lessens the effects of an herbivorous rodent on grassland vegetation Journal of Applied Ecology 46 861-869 Hoogland, J L 2006 Conservation of the black -tailed praine dog saving North America's western grasslands Island Press, Washington, D C , USA Johnson-Nisder, C M, B F Sowell, H W Sherwood, and C L Wambolt 2004 Black -tailed praine dog effects on Montana's mixed - grass prame Journal of Range Management 57 641-648 Kachergis, E, J D Demer, B B Cutts, L M Roche, V T Eviner, M N Lubell, and K W Tate 2014 Increasing flexibility in rangeland management during drought Ecosphere 5 1-14 Kelly, E F, C M Yonkers, S W Blecker, and C G Olson 2008 Soil development and distribution in the shortgrass steppe ecosystem Pages 30-54 m W Lauenroth and I C Burke, editors Ecology of the shortgrass steppe a long-term perspective Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA Knowles, C J , J D Proctor, and S C Forrest 2002 Black -tailed prairie dog abundance and distribution in the Great Plains based on historic and contemporary information Great Plains Research 12 219-254 Kretzer, J E , and J F Cully, Jr 2001 Effects of black -tailed prairie dogs on reptiles and amphibians in Kansas shortgrass praine Southwestern Naturalist 46 171-177 Lauenroth, W, and I C Burke 2008 Ecology of the shortgrass steppe Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA Miller, B, R Reading, D Biggins, J Detling, S Forrest, J Hoogland, J Javersak, S Miller, J Proctor, J Truett, and D Uresk 2007 Paine 1342 The Journal of Wildlife Management • 85(7) dogs an ecological review and current biopohtics Journal of Wildlife Management 712801-2810 Olson, K C, C Schauer, C Engel, J J Kincheloe, J R Brennan, and B L Hauptman 2016 Effect of grazing prune dog -colonized rangeland on cattle nutrition and performance a progress report Rangelands 38 29-33 O'Meiba, M E, F L Knopf, and J C Lewis 1982 Some consequences of competition between prairie dogs and beef cattle Journal of Range Management 5 580-585 Rocke, T E, J Williamson, K R Cobble, J D Busch, M F Antohn, and D M Wagner 2012 Resistance to plague among black -tailed prairie dog populations Vector -Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 12111-116 Russell, R E,D D W Tripp, and T E Rocke 2019 Differential plague susceptibility in species and populations of prairie dogs Ecology and Evolution 911962-11971 Salkeld, D J, P Stapp, D W Tripp, K L Gage, J Lowell, C T Webb, R J Brinkerhoff, and M F Antohn 2016 Ecological traits driving the outbreaks and emergence of zoonotic pathogens BioScience 66(2) 118-129 Sidle, J G,D J Augustine, D H Johnson, S D Miller, J F Cully, Jr, and R P Reading 2012 Aerial surveys adjusted by ground surveys to estimate area occupied by black -tailed prairie dog colonies Wildlife Society Bulletin 36 248-256 Sierra -Corona, R, A Davidson, E L Fredrickson, H Luna -Soria, H Suzan-Azpin, E Ponce -Guevara, and G Ceballos 2015 Black -tailed prairie dogs, catde, and the conservation of North America's and grasslands PLoS ONE 10(3) e0118602 Smart, A J, K Harmony, J D Scasta, M B Stephenson, J D Volesky, L T Vermeire, J C Mosley, K Sedivec, M Meehan, T Haigh, et al 2021 Critical decision dates for drought management in central and northern Great Plains rangelands Rangeland Ecology & Management 78 in press https //doi org/10 1016/1 rams 2019 09 005 Stapp, P, M F Antolin, and M Ball 2004 Pattems of extinction in prairie dog metapopulations plague outbreaks follow El Nino events Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(5) 235-240 U S Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2007a Ecological site descnp- tion for Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO) https //edit jornada nmsu edu/ catalogs/esd/067B/R067BY002CO Accessed 29 Jun 2021 U S Department of Agriculture [USDA] 20076 Ecological site descrip- tion for Overflow (R067BY036CO) https //editjornada nmsu edu/ catalogs/esd/067B/R067BY036CO Accessed 29 Jun 2021 U S Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2007, Ecological site descnp- tion for Salt Flat (R067BY033CO) https //edit jornada nmsu edu/ catalogs/esd/067B/R067BY033CO Accessed 29 Jun 2021 U S Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2007d Ecological site descrip- tion for Sandy Plains (R067BY024CO) https //edit jornada nmsu edu/ catalogs/esd/067B/R067BY024CO Accessed 29 Jun 2021 U S Department of Agriculture [USDA] Forest Service 2020 Final Record of Decision for the Thunder Basin National Grassland 2020 Plan Amendment https //www fs usda gov/project/>project=55479 Accessed 15 Jan 2021 U S Fish and Wildlife Service 2013 Recovery plan for the black -footed ferret (Mustela nignpes) US Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado, USA Vermeire, L T, R K Hertschmidt, P S Johnson, and B F Sowell 2004 The prairie dog story do we have it right? BioScience 54 689-695 Assoaate Editor AmtKuenxi Augustine and Denier • Prairie Dog —Cattle Competition 1343 Hello