Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1.03 Ecological Assessment
Wildlife Assessment of Residential Development for County Activity Envelope & Site Plan Review Riverside FedEx Property Garfield County, Colorado July 18, 2014 Report for: Report By: Kevin Kiernan- <, Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC % Davis Farrar' Jonathan Lowsky, MS Western Slope Consulting, LLC 0100 Elk Run Drive, Suite 128 0165 Basalt Mt Dr. Carbondale, CO 81623 Basalt, CO 81621 4 d ' EcolgAicalAssessnienl - Riverside FedEx Property July 18, 2014 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1 2.0 METHODS.............................................................................................................................................1 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION & VEGETATION...........................................................................................1 4.0 LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: NATURAL HABITAT & MIGRATION ROUTES §4- 502(D).............................................................................................................................................................2 4.1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES.........................................................................................2 4.1.1 Bald Eagle(ST)............................................................................................................................................... 3 4.1.2 Canada Lynx (FT/SE, G5/S1)........................................................................................................................ 4 4.1.3 North American Wolverine (FT/SE, G4T4/S1)........................................................................................... 4 4.2 OTHER SPECIES OF INTEREST.............................................................................................................5 4.2.1 Ungulates........................................................................................................................................................ 5 ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK (CER VUS ELAPHUS NELSONI) & MULE DEER (ODOCOILEUS HEMIONUS) ..................... 5 Winter Range, Severe Winter Range, Winter Concentration........................................................................................ 6 ProductionAreas............................................................................................................................................................. 6 MigrationCorridors........................................................................................................................................................ 7 ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN SHEEP (OVIS CANADENSIS).................................................................................7 4.2.2 Other Species of Interest................................................................................................................................. 7 BLACK BEARS(URSUSAMERICANUS)................................................................................................................7 RAPTORS.......................................................................................................................................................... 7 GREATER SAGE -GROUSE (CENTROCERCUS UROPHASIANUS).............................................................................7 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS §4-502(E)..........................................................................................................7 5.1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES.........................................................................................8 5.1.1 Bald Eagle(ST)............................................................................................................................................... 8 5.1.2 Canada Lynx (FT/SE, G5/S 1).................................................................................................................................. 8 5.1.3 North American Wolverine (FT/SE, G4T4/S1)........................................................................................................ 8 5.2 OTHER SPECIES OF INTEREST............................................................................................................. 8 5.2.1 Ungulates........................................................................................................................................................ 8 5.2.2 Black Bears..................................................................................................................................................... 8 5.2.3 Raptors............................................................................................................................................................ 8 5.2.4 Greater Sage-Grouse....................................................................................................................................... 8 5.3 ALTERATION OF EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION.............................................................................. 9 6.0 PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS §7-202............................................................9 6.1 SITE PLANNING.................................................................................................................................. 9 6.2 Native vegetation............................................................................................................................................ 9 6.3 Other Measures to Minimize Impacts............................................................................................................. 9 7.0 LITERATURE CITED.........................................................................................................................10 8.0 BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS........................................................................................12 MAPS...........................................................................................................................................................14 PHOTOS.....................................................................................................................................................18 APPENDIX A: CPW SAM MULE DEER AND ELK SEASONAL ACTIVITY AREA DEFINITIONS...........................................................................................................................................26 APPENDIX B: COLORADO THREATENED & ENDANGERED VERTEBRATES .................... 27 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC Vildlife &EcologicalAssessment- Riverside FedEx Pmpediy July 18, 2014 Maps Map 1. CPW mapped bald eagle seasonal habitats.............................................................................. 15 Map 2. CPW mapped mule deer and field verified seasonal habitats ............................................... 16 Map 3. CPW mapped elk and field verified seasonal habitats............................................................ 17 Photos Photo 1. Flat bench above Roaring Fork River...................................................................................... 19 Photo2. Gravel driveway......................................................................................................................... 19 Photo3. Existing residence....................................................................................................................... 20 Photo4. Existing shed............................................................................................................................... 20 Photo 5. Fence south of residence and cheatgrass................................................................................. 21 Photo 6. Field bindweed — a noxious weed............................................................................................ 21 Photo 7. Disturbed area and bare ground.............................................................................................. 22 Photo8. Two -track road........................................................................................................................... 22 Photo9. Two -track road........................................................................................................................... 23 Photo 10. Mountain Big Sagebrush / Needle -and -Thread Shrubland................................................ 23 Photo 11. Two -needle pinon and Utah juniper woodland and old structure footprint ................... 24 Photo 12. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum).................................................................................................. 24 Photo 13. Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) on south end of the Property ................................ 25 Photo 14. Dalmatian toadflax on north end of the Property................................................................ 25 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I Fildlife dam' Ecological Assessment - Riverside FedEx Properly July 18, 2014 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents an evaluation of the wildlife, wildlife habitat, and ecological resources of a parcel of land known as the Riverside FedEx Property (Parcel ID # 2185-271-00-008) ) in unincorporated and assesses the effects of the proposed action on those resources. This analysis addresses significant, present wildlife use of the Property, evaluates potential effects of development on wildlife and other important ecological resources, and recommends actions to reduce ecological impacts. This report addresses potential impacts to wildlife, plants and plant communities per the Garfield County Land Use Code (LUC) — specifically, Land Suitability Analysis, Impact Analysis, and Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas. The applicant is proposing to develop the northern portion of the Property with a commercial building, parking lots, and associated infrastructure. 2.0 METHODS This assessment is based on: (1) a detailed site assessments of the Property; (2) a review of current Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) Species Activity Mapping (SAM) (Lyon and Christensen 2002); and (3) the author's experience in recognizing, avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating potential impacts of development on wildlife and other ecological resources in Garfield County and western Colorado. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION & VEGETATION The Ranch is situated in the North-Central Highlands and Rocky Mountain Section of the Southern Rocky Mountains Steppe - Open Woodland - Coniferous Forest - Alpine Meadow Physiographic Province (Bailey 1976, Omernik 1987, Bailey 1995, Bailey et al. 1998). Elevation of the Property ranges from approximately 5,880 to 5,910 feet above mean sea level and lies within Section 27 of Township 6 South, Range 89 of the 6th Principal Meridian. The Property is dominated by a relatively flat bench situated above the Roaring Fork River (Photo 1). The easternmost portion of the Property encompasses relatively steep, easterly facing slopes that lead down to the river. An existing gravel driveway, residence, shed and fence are situated on the north side of the Property (Photos 2- 5). This side of the Property is quite disturbed with many noxious weeds and bare ground (Photos 6, 7). A number of old two -track roads occur throughout the Property (Photos 8, 9). South of the disturbed area associated with the residence, the vegetation the flatter portions of the Property are occupied by what can be described as a Mountain Big Sagebrush / Needle -and -Thread Shrubland (Photos 11). This association occurs on moderate slopes between 4,500-6,900 feet. Mountain big sagebrush is the dominant shrub. Antelope bitterbrush, mountain -mahogany, rabbitbrush, and serviceberry are present occur as well. Needleandthread is the principal understory graminoid. Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and prairie junegrass occur as well but occur in smaller amounts. Other species include Letterman's needlegrass, fringed sagebrush and silver sagebrush. Two -needle pifion and Utah juniper woodland dominates the east -facing slopes. Pockets occur on the bench as well and this plant association appears to be increasing in extent (Photo 11). The vegetation is characterized by an open to moderately dense tree canopy co - COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC 11.0 INTRODUCTION Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Biverside FedEx Pmperty July 18, 2014 dominated by two -needle piiion and Utah juniper. Rocky Mountain juniper occurs on the slopes above the river as well. Mountain big sagebrush dominates the often patchy, moderately dense shrub layer. Gambel oak, mountain -mahogany, mountain big sagebrush, snowberry, and serviceberry are common. Herbaceous cover is variable, ranging from sparse to moderately dense, but generally dominated by grasses with scattered forbs. Wheatgrasses, Indian ricegrass and needleandthread are the most common grasses. There are serious noxious weed infestations on the Property. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum; Photo 12) and Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica; Photos 13, 14) pose the greatest threat to the ecological integrity of the Property and surrounding area. 4.0 LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: Natural Habitat & Migration Routes §4-502(D) 4.1 Threatened and Endangered Species' There are no federally listed Endangered or Threatened (T&E) amphibians, birds, mammals, or reptiles known or suspected to occur on the Ranch. T&E (and Candidate) species addressed in this evaluation are those included on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Garfield County T&E list (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). Also included are species listed as Endangered or Threatened by the State of Colorado that occur in Garfield County. Some of the species listed below are typically found within habitats that do not occur within the project area or within areas that cannot be affected by actions associated with the project. There will be no effect on these off-site species. A brief rationale for the "no effect" determination for each of these species is included in the following paragraphs. Table 1. Threatened or Endangered Species that may occur in Garfield County, Colorado or may be affected by the project. COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: Natural Habitat & Migration Routes §4-502(D) In Colorado, statewide along rivers, lakes, reservoirs. All of the conterminous United States and Alaska. Theo -thirds of breeding sites west of Continental No Divide. Concentrations include the Yampa. White, and Colorado Rivers (Kingery Bald Eagle 1998). Open water bodies, prairie dog colonies important food source during the winter. Haliaeetus leucocephalus ST Yes Breeding: Usually nests in tall trees or on cliffs near water. Winter: Preferentially roosts in conifers or other sheltered sites in winter in some areas; typically selects No Effect the larger, more accessible trees. Perching in deciduous and coniferous trees is equally common in other areas (NatureServe 2005). British Columbia east to Saskatchewan south through most of western US, Mexico, Central America, and South America. Found primarily in eastern No Burrowing Owl Colorado as a summer resident but also on west slope, primarily in Mesa County, but also Delta., Garfield, Montrose, and Montezuma (Kingery 1998). Athene cunicularia ST No Nest primarily in near prairie dog and other ground squirrel burrows. Prefer sparsely vegetated habitat particularly shortgrass prairie in eastern Colorado and No Effect semi -desert shrubland on the west slope (Kingery 1998). Southern Utah and Colorado, through Arizona, New Mexico; and west Texas, to No Mexican Spotted Owl the mountains of central Mexico (Rinkevich et al. 1995). Complex forest or rocky canyons that contain uneven -aged, multi-level and old- Strix occidentalis lucida FT, ST No aged, thick forests. below 9,500 feet elevation. Nests in standing snags and No Effect hollow trees (Rinkevich et al. 1995) Western Yellow -Billed In Colorado west ofthe Continental Divide, the species was probably never Cuckoo common (Bailey and Niedrach 1965, Kingery 1998) and is now extremely rare (Kingery 1998). One confirmed nesting observation occurred along the Yampa No Coccyzus americanus River near Hayden during the Breeding Bird Atlas surveys conducted from 1987- FC, SC No 1994 (Kingery 1998) and one cuckoo, representing a probable nesting pair in See Appendix B for the list of Colorado Threatened and Endangered species COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: Natural Habitat & Migration Routes §4-502(D) Vildlife dam' Ecological Assessment - Riverside FedEx Properly July 18, 2014 Of the 8 state and federally listed, candidate, and proposed species potentially occurring or potentially affected by actions within the project area only bald eagles have habitat within close proximity of the project area. 4.1.1 Bald Eagle (ST) Background Bald eagles were listed as endangered under the ESA in 1978 but had recovered sufficiently by 1995 to be downlisted to threatened status. This species is also state -listed as threatened. Because of its successful recovery, there is a current proposal to delist bald eagles from the ESA, but protections would remain under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the Bald Eagle Protection Act. Bald eagles are listed as Threatened by the state of Colorado (CDOW 2009a). According to CDOW data, in 2001 there were 51 known nesting pairs in Colorado, and approximately 1,000 bald eagles winter in the state (CDOW 2007). Bald eagles depend on large roost trees that allow them a wide field of vision for prey. Food sources include fish, small mammals, waterfowl, and carrion. Known sensitive habitats in the project area include winter range, winter foraging habitat (Map 2). No known bald eagle nests occur in or adjacent to the project area. COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: Natural Habitat & Migration Routes §4-502(D) tLexter iyya). Nest in deciduous woodlands associated with wetlands or streams. Require combination of dense willow understory for nesting, a cottonwood overstory for foraging, and large patches of habitat (Laymon 1980, No Effect Gaines and Laymon 1984, Kingery 1998). Feed on grasshoppers, caterpillars, beetles and other insects (Dellinger 1989). Historic and current breeding status of the southwestern willow flycatcher in Colorado is unclear (USF&WS 1995, USFWS 1995). Breeding willow flycatchers No Southwestern Willow with genetic characteristics of the southwestern ssp. occur at Alamosa NWR and Flycatcher McIntire Springs (USFWS 2002). Breeds in patchy to dense riparian habitats along streams or other wetlands, near Empidonax traithi extimus FE, SE No or adjacent to surface water or underlain by saturated soil. Occupied sites usually No Effect consist of dense vegetation in the patch interior, or an aggregate of dense patches MAMMALS interspersed with openings (USFWS 1995). Colorado is the southern limit of the North American distribution of the species, and the population is considered isolated from those in the Northern Rockies No Canada lynx (McKelvey et al. 2000). Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir is the habitat used by lynx with a mix of spruce, Lynx canadensis FT, SE No fir and aspen second. Riparian and riparian -mix areas used heavily too. Lynx in No Effect Colorado increasingly using riparian areas beginning in July, peaking in November, and dropping off December through June (Shenk 2009). Formerly throughout the Great Plains, mountain basins, and semi -arid grasslands. Black -footed ferret Reintroduced in South Dakota, Montana, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and No Chihuahua. Mustela nigripes FE, SE No Prairie dog towns in the Great Plains, montane basins, and semi -arid grasslands. rNo Effect 2003 CDOW statewide river otter survey found 3 viable populations: Gunnison, Piedra, and Green river populations. In addition, evidence of otters was on the Cache la Poudre, South Platte, Michigan, and Illinois rivers and also reported No North American river otter additional individual sightings. River otters are found occasionally in the Roaring Fork and Crystal River. Lontra canadensis ST Yes Water bodies and riparian areas within a broad range of ecosystems from semi - desert shrubland to montane and subalpine forest. The primary habitat No Effect requirement for river otters is permanent water with abundant fish or crustacean prey and relatively high water quality (Boyle 2006). #Status: T = Threatened; E = Endangered; P = Proposed; FC = Candidate for federal listing; SC = State species of concern Of the 8 state and federally listed, candidate, and proposed species potentially occurring or potentially affected by actions within the project area only bald eagles have habitat within close proximity of the project area. 4.1.1 Bald Eagle (ST) Background Bald eagles were listed as endangered under the ESA in 1978 but had recovered sufficiently by 1995 to be downlisted to threatened status. This species is also state -listed as threatened. Because of its successful recovery, there is a current proposal to delist bald eagles from the ESA, but protections would remain under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the Bald Eagle Protection Act. Bald eagles are listed as Threatened by the state of Colorado (CDOW 2009a). According to CDOW data, in 2001 there were 51 known nesting pairs in Colorado, and approximately 1,000 bald eagles winter in the state (CDOW 2007). Bald eagles depend on large roost trees that allow them a wide field of vision for prey. Food sources include fish, small mammals, waterfowl, and carrion. Known sensitive habitats in the project area include winter range, winter foraging habitat (Map 2). No known bald eagle nests occur in or adjacent to the project area. COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: Natural Habitat & Migration Routes §4-502(D) Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Biverside FedEx Pmperty July 18, 2014 Effects of Proposed Action The closest active nest is at Aspen Glen, approximately 6.5 miles to the southeast and there are no active roost sites within close proximity to the Ranch. Winter forage and winter range are broadly defined habitat areas that occupy very large areas (CDOW 2009b): Winter Forage: Foraging areas frequented by wintering bald eagles between November 15 and March 15. May be a large area radiating from preferred roosting sites. In western Colorado preferred roosting sites are within dominant riparian zones. Winter Range: Those areas where bald eagles have been observed between November 15 and April 1. 4.1.2 Canada Lynx (FT/SE, GS/S1) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a final rule on March 24, 2000 listing the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) in the coterminous United States as a "threatened" species under the Endangered Species Act (Federal Register: 65 FR 16052). In 1999 and 2000, the State of Colorado began releases of lynx in southwestern Colorado in order to reestablish a viable lynx population within the state. Several of these animals have been either confirmed or reported in Pitkin County between 1999 and 2011. The Property lies within proximity to potential lynx habitat and lynx may occasionally cross the Property. No lynx, however, have been documented on or within close proximity to the Property (K. Wright, CPW, pers. comm.). Lynx denning habitat is comprised of spruce -fir forests, north -facing lodgepole pine forests, and Douglas -fir forests with complex multi -storied conifer stands, large quantities of downed woody debris and or dense understory conifer that provide den sites in close proximity to habitat for foraging on snowshoe hares. Winter foraging habitat is all denning habitat plus conifer stands that lack structure for dens sites but provide optimal winter foraging conditions of dense (35% or more) horizontal conifer cover at or above the snow (USDA Forest Service 2002). On November 9, 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released a proposed critical habitat plan for lynx (Federal Register: 50 CFR Part 17 66008) which omits Colorado, New Mexico, and southern Wyoming (United States Fish & Wildlife Service 2006). The habitat types on and adjacent to the proposed activity envelope are not suitable lynx winter foraging or denning habitat and should be considered "unsuitable private lands" (USDA Forest Service 2002, Shenk and Kahn 2010, USFWS and USFS 2010, Theobald and Shenk 2011). 4.1.3 North American Wolverine (FT/SE, G4T4/S1) On 4 February 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published a proposal to list the distinct population segment of the wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) in the contiguous U.S. as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 23; USFWS 2013). Wolverines were nearly extirpated from the contiguous United States in the early 20th century due to broad -scale predator trapping and poisoning programs. Since that time they have made a remarkable recovery. Unfortunately, climate warming over the next century is likely to significantly reduce wolverine habitat, to the point where persistence of wolverines in the contiguous United States, without intervention, is in doubt. USFWS also proposed a special rule that would limit protections of the ESA only to those necessary to address the threats to the species. In the case of the wolverine, human activities in wolverine habitat such as snowmobiling, backcountry skiing, and land management COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: Natural Habitat & Migration Routes §4-502(D) Vildlife dam' Ecological Assessment - Riverside FedEx Properly July 18, 2014 activities like timber harvest and infrastructure development, which do not constitute threats to the species, would not be prohibited or regulated. Wolverines do not appear to specialize on specific vegetation or geological habitat aspects, but instead select areas that are cold and receive enough winter precipitation to reliably maintain deep persistent snow late into the warm season (Copeland et al. 2010). The requirement of cold, snowy conditions means that, in the southern portion of the species' range where ambient temperatures are warmest, wolverine distribution is restricted to high elevations, while at more northerly latitudes, wolverines are present at lower elevations and even at sea level in the far north (Copeland et al. 2010). Deep, persistent, and reliable spring snow cover (April 15 to May 14) is the best overall predictor of wolverine occurrence in the contiguous United States (Aubry et al. 2007, Copeland et al. 2010). In Colorado, nearly all historical and recent reports of wolverines are from higher elevation, alpine areas (E. Odell, pers. comm.). The habitat types on and around the Property and elevations do not have the potential to provide suitable wolverine habitat. 4.2 Other Species of Interest This section addresses present use of the study area by significant wildlife not listed by the state or federal government. The `significant' wildlife use described herein refers to those wildlife species that are of ecological, economic, regulatory, social, and/or political importance. 4.2.1 Ungulates Rocky Mountain Elk (Cereus elaphus nelsoni) & Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Mule deer are present on the Property throughout the year but elk are rare visitors. CPW mapping correctly maps the Property solely as mule deer winter range (CPW 2013). Limiting Factors Limiting factors are influences that determine whether a wildlife population increases, decreases or remains stable. It is important to understand that there is seldom one factor that, by itself, causes a reduction or an increase in the population of a given species. It is usually the interaction of several factors that determine the fate of a population. For example, predation may seem to be a factor causing an elk population to decline when in fact restricted winter habitat, deep snow or the lack of alternate prey may be what allows predation to have a major impact. Traditionally, we have looked at the concept of food, water, cover and space as the primary components that determine how suitable a habitat is for wildlife. While this is true, it oversimplifies our understanding of how various factors affect habitat. Several other factors may not be as important on their own, but when they are combined with the four primary habitat components, the value of the habitat may be immediately enhanced or reduced. For example, other land uses can greatly impact elk use of suitable range. In the Roaring Fork Watershed the limiting factors for bighorn sheep, elk, and mule deer most affected by residential development are winter habitats, production areas, and migration habitat. COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: Natural Habitat & Migration Routes §4-502(D) Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Biverside FedEx Pmperty July 18, 2014 Winter Range, Severe Winter Range, Winter Concentration Both elk and mule deer on winter range continuously seek the most moderate ambient weather conditions, and other factors influencing habitat selection are secondary. In winter, elk move between foraging and bedding sites in response to changing ambient temperatures, increasing snow depths, and to enhance control of body temperature. On the coldest days and/or when snow depths are greatest, both species seek southerly and westerly facing slopes where snows typically melt quickly. Snow depths greater than 12 inches begin to reduce the winter range (USFWS 1982). In general, mule deer and elk do not tolerate snow depths greater than chest height and are impeded when snow is knee-deep (Loveless 1967, Kelsall and Prescott 1971, Parker 1984, Toweill et al. 2002, Ungulate Winter Range Technical Advisory Team 2005). Consequently, winter range of larger elk covers a greater areal extent of lands with greater snow depths than that of mule deer (Parker 1984). As stated above, the Property is not used by elk in winter. Some elk pellets were observed on site but only a few. Mule deer sign, however, is plentiful. Recent tracks and pellets were observed as were numerous pellets from the winter. Most of the deer activity occurs on the east -facing slopes and along the top of the slope. An active game trail was observed paralleling the crest of the slope. The flatter portions of the Property provide marginal winter range, suitable only in light winters. In an average to heavy winter, these areas do not provide good winter range due to the accumulation of substantial snow depths. The higher quality winter range lies on the slopes below and on the slopes to west of Prelim Road (CR 116) where deep snows do not accumulate. Current CPW Species Activity Mapping (SAM) data does not delineate the Property within or adjacent to deer or elk severe winter or winter concentration habitat. These habitat types for mule deer occur on the slopes west of Prelim Road and more than 1.6 miles to the west-southwest on the slopes between the Threemile and Fourmile Creek drainages (Maps 1, 2). Production Areas Elk calving grounds or production areas are carefully selected by cows and are generally in locations where cover, forage, and water are in close proximity (Seidel 1977a, Phillips and Alldredge 2000, Barbknecht et al. 2011, Rearden et al. 2011). Calving sites occur in the lower to middle portions of summer range and often occur in the same general area each year. Although selected sites are used for a brief period in the spring or early summer, elk production habitat often a limiting factor for a given population. Sites must provide security from harassment and be within or adjacent to high quality summer range. Elk are considered a hider species because the calf remains bedded at a location and responds to threats by remaining prone while the female moves away to forage, returning periodically to nurse. Seidel (1977b, 1977a) studied elk calving habitat at various sites in the White River National Forest. He found that cow elk prepare a distinct birthing bed and, for the most part, return to that bed each year. All birthing beds examined were in mature aspens with a thick understory of shrubs such as chokecherry and snowberry. All beds were located on southeast -facing slopes within 183 in (200 yd) of a water source. Personal observation by CWS of calving behavior in Pitkin County has largely confirmed Seidel's assessment with the following additions: (1) the aspect variable described by Seidel seems to be less important than the understory variable. Active elk calving habitat in Pitkin County is known to occur on variable aspects, but there is always significant woody understory vegetation which provides calves with hiding cover; (2) very young spotted COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: Natural Habitat & Migration Routes §4-502(D) Vildlife dam' Ecological Assessment - Riverside FedEx Properly July 18, 2014 calves and probable birthing beds have been observed in narrowleaf cottonwood riparian habitat that has a dense willow, alder, and/or chokecherry understory; and (3) although some elk cows do indeed exhibit strong calving site fidelity, others do not. Recent research supports Seidel's conclusions (See Phillips and Alldredge 2000, Barbknecht et al. 2011, Rearden et al. 2011). There is no mapped or field verified elk production habitat on or within proximity to the Property. The nearest known production habitat is more than 4 miles away. tion Corridors There are no mapped or field verified migration corridors on or near the Property. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis) There is no mapped (Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife 2012a) or field verified bighorn sheep habitat on or immediately adjacent to the study area. 4.2.2 Other Species of Interest Black Bears (Ursus americanus) Black bears use the river corridor for daily and seasonal movement. CPW maps the Property outside of notable black bear habitat (Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife 2012b). Raptors CWS conducted a raptor nest search. No raptor nests were found. No breeding or nesting activity was observed. No peregrine falcon activity areas, nests, or potential nesting areas are located in the vicinity of the Ranch (CDOW 2009c). Greater Sage -Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) No greater sage -grouse are known or suspected to occur on or within proximity to the Property. No historic leks occur on or near the Property (Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife 2012c). 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS §4-502(E) The physical removal of vegetation or other habitat features is known as direct habitat loss. Disturbance resulting from human activity associated the proposed development will decrease the effectiveness of habitat that remains physically undisturbed. This is known as indirect habitat loss. As with most development in western Colorado, the implementation of the proposed project will have some direct and indirect effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat. The Property, however, is embedded in a highly developed landscape. It is adjacent to an airport and surrounding properties are occupied with dense residential and commercial development. Although the proposal will result in the direct loss of vegetation and habitat, given the surroundings and indirect impacts of the existing development, this loss will be negligible. COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I IMPACT ANALYSIS §4-502(E) Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Biverside FedEx Pmperty July 18, 2014 5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species As discussed above, there are no ESA listed or Candidate species known to occur in the vicinity of the Property. As such, it is highly unlikely that the proposed development will have any effect on federal Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate vertebrate species (See Table 1, above). 5.1.1 Bald Eagle (ST) The portion of the Ranch proposed for development occupies a tiny fraction of the CPW mapped bald eagle winter forage area and winter range. The winter forage area and winter range in which the Ranch is situated are 187,470 acres and 4,669,528 acres, respectively. As such, it is unlikely that the proposed development will have significant impacts on these habitat areas. Given that there are no active or historic nest sites or roosts within close proximity to the Property and the area occupies negligible portions of the winter range and winter foraging areas, the project will have no effect on bald eagle habitat. 5.1.2 Canada Lynx (FT/SE, G5/S1) There is no suitable Canada lynx habitat on or within proximity to the Property. As such, the project will have no effect on Canada lynx. 5.1.3 North American Wolverine (FT/SE, G4T4/S1) There is no suitable North American wolverine habitat on or within proximity to the Property. As such, the project will have no effect on North American wolverines. 5.2 Other Species of Interest 5.2.1 Ungulates Given the analysis above (4.2.1) the proposed development may affect, but not likely to adversely affect mule deer. There will be no effect on bighorn sheep or elk. 5.2.2 Black Bears The proposed development will not result in the direct and indirect loss of black bear foraging habitat or fall concentration habitat. Consequently, there will be no effect on black bears. 5.2.3 Raptors The proposed development will not result in the loss of any known raptor nests, nest stands, or any unique habitat attributes. Loss of native shrublands will reduce hunting acreage for some generalist species such as American kestrels, great -horned owls (Bubo virginianus) and red-tailed hawks. The proposal may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect raptors. 5.2.4 Greater Sage -Grouse Greater sage -grouse do not occur on or within proximity to the Property nor do they have the potential to occur. Consequently, there will be no effect on greater sage -grouse. COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I IMPACT ANALYSIS §4-502(E) Fildlife dam' Ecological Assessment - Riverside FedEx Properly July 18, 2014 5.3 Alteration of Existing Native Vegetation The proposed development will result in the loss of less than 5 ac of slightly disturbed existing native vegetation. The highest quality native shrublands and piiion juniper woodlands occur on the slopes on the east side of the Property. The applicant does not propose any development in that area. 6.0 PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS W-202 The following measures will reduce the impacts of the proposed development on wildlife. 6.1 Site planning 1. Clustering - Clustered development and infrastructure minimizes impact by overlapping the zone of influence resulting from human activity associated with residential development. The proposed development is highly clustered on a previously developed parcel adjacent to dense residential and commercial development. a. 2. Fencing — Fencing that is incompatible with wildlife movements can result in direct wildlife mortality, restricted or blocked movement, and reduction of habitat effectiveness. a. No fences should be placed below the crest of the east -facing slopes. b. Fences should be avoided at the south end of the Property that is to remain undeveloped. 6.2 Native vegetation 1. Native vegetation should be preserved to the maximum extent possible except where management is necessary to reduce wildfire hazards. 2. Native vegetation should be preserved at the southern end of the Property that is not proposed for development. 3. An orange safety fence should be required along the crest of the east facing slope during construction to prevent any unnecessary vegetation disturbance. 4. Any areas disturbed outside the proposed development should be immediately revegetated according to Garfield County Vegetation Management Reclamation Standards. 6.3 Other Measures to Minimize Impacts 1. Noxious Weeds should be managed by means of an Integrated Weed Management strategy in compliance with the current Garfield County Weed Management Plan. COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS §7-202 Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Biverside FedEx Pmperty July 18, 2014 7.0 LITERATURE CITED Aubry, K. L., K. S. McKelvey, and J. P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and broadscale habitat associations of the wolverine in the contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2147-2158. Bailey, A. M., and R. J. Niedrach. 1965. Birds of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO. Bailey, R. G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. 2nd edition. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. Bailey, R. G., United States Geological Survey, and United States Forest Service. 1998. Ecoregions of North America. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Barbknecht, A. E., W. S. Fairbanks, J. D. Rogerson, E. J. Maichak, B. M. Scurlock, and L. L. Meadows. 2011. Elk parturition site selection at local and landscape scales. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75:646-654. Boyle, S. 2006. North American River Otter (Lontra canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northamericanriverotter.pd£ USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. . CDOW. 2007. Colorado Wildlife Species Profiles. Available online at http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/Profiles/. Natural Diversity Information Source, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. CDOW. 2009a. Colorado Listing of Endangered, Threatened and Wildlife Species of Special Concern — Species Pages. Available online at http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfCo cem/ThreatenedEndangeredList/Li st0ffhreatenedAndEndan eg redSpecies.htm. CDOW. 2009b. Colorado Species Distribution Maps - Bald Eagle. Available online at http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/ftp/data/sam/bald ea lg e.zip. Natural Diversity Information Source, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. CDOW. 2009c. Colorado Species Distribution Maps - Peregrine Falcons. Available online at http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/ftp/data/s4m!peregrine.4ip. Natural Diversity Information Source, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife. 2012a. Colorado Species Distribution Maps - Bighorn Sheep. Available online at http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/ftp/data/sani/bi hg om.zip. Natural Diversity Information Source, Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife. 2012b. Colorado Species Distribution Maps - Black Bears. Available online at hLtp://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/ftp/data/sam/bighom.zip. Natural Diversity Information Source, Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife. 2012c. Colorado Species Distribution Maps - Greater Sage - grouse. Available online at http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/ftp/data/sam/bi hg om.zip_. Natural Diversity Information Source, Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. Copeland, J. P., K. S. McKelvey, K. B. Aubry, A. Landa, J. Persson, R. M. Inman, J. Krebs, E. Lofroth, H. Golden, J. R. Squires, A. Magoun, M. K. Schwartz, J. Wilmot, C. L. Copeland, R. E. Yates, 1. Kojola, and R. May. 2010. The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine (Gulo gulo): do climatic constraints limit its geographic distribution? Canadian Journal of Zoology 88:233-246. CPW. 2013. Colorado Species Distribution Maps - Mule Deer. Available online at http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/ftp/data/sam/mule deer.zip. Natural Diversity Information Source, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC 1 7.0 LITERATURE CITED Fildlife dam' Ecological Assessment - Riverside FedEx Properly July 18, 2014 Dexter, C. 1998. River survey of west -central Colorado, for yellow -billed cuckoo and riparian weeds. Report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction, CO. 26 pp. Gaines, D., and S. A. Laymon. 1984. Decline, status and preservation of the yellow -billed cuckoo in California. Western Birds 15:49-80. Kelsall, J. P., and W. Prescott. 1971. Moose and deer behaviour in snow in Fundy National Park, New Brunswick. Canandian Wildlife Service Report 15. Kingery, H. E. 1998. Colorado breeding bird atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership : Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colo. Laymon, S. A. 1980. Feeding and nesting behavior of the yellow -billed cuckoo in the Sacramento Valley. Loveless, C. M. 1967. Ecological characteristics of Mule Deer winter range. Technical Publication 20. Colorado Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Lyon, J. L., and A. G. Christensen. 2002. Elk and land management. Pages 557-582 in D. E. Toweill and J. W. Thomas, editors. North American elk: ecology and management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. McKelvey, K. S., K. B. Aubry, and Y. K. Ortega. 2000. History and distribution of lynx in the contiguous United States. Pages 207-264 in L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires, editors. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Denver, CO. NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at http://www.natureserve.org/explore . Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000). Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77:118-125. Parker, K. L., Charles T. Robbins, and Thomas A. Hanley. 1984. Energy expenditures for locomotion by mule deer and elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:474-488. Phillips, G. E., and A. W. Alldredge. 2000. Reproductive success of elk following disturbance by humans during calving season. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:521-530. Rearden, S. N., R. G. Anthony, and B. K. Johnson. 2011. Birth -site selection and predation risk of Rocky Mountain elk. Journal of Mammalogy 92:1118-1126. Rinkevich, S. E., J. L. Ganey, J. L. W. Jr., G. C. White, D. L. Urban, A. B. Franklin, W. M. Block, and E. Clemente. 1995. General biology and ecological relationships of the Mexican Spotted Owl,. Pages 19-35 in K. J. Cook, editor. Recovery plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl. Vol. I. USDI Fish and Wildl. Serv., Albuquerque, NM. Seidel, J. W. 1977a. Elk calving behavior in west central Colorado. Pages 38-40 in Colorado Division of Wildlife, editor. Proceedings of the Western States Elk Workshop. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Seidel, J. W. 1977b. Elk calving habitat. USDA Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 - Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook, zero code, Ch. 10, and Ch.20. Region 2 Amendment No. 2509.25 - 99 - 1. Effective March 22, 1999. Colorado Division of Wildlife and USDA Forest Service, Grand Junction, CO. Shenk, T. 2009. Lynx Update, May 25, 2009. Available: http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/ 1 E7C95DO-53F3-41 EB-82DD- 26134COFF261/0/LMUpdateMay252009.pdf. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. Shenk, T. M., and R. H. Kahn. 2010. The Colorado lynx reintroduction program. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC 1 7.0 LITERATURE CITED Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Biverside FedEx Pmperty July 18, 2014 Theobald, D. M., and T. M. Shenk. 2011. Areas of high habitat use from 1999-2010 for radio - collared Canada lynx reintroduced to Colorado. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Toweill, D. E., J. W. Thomas, and D. P. Metz. 2002. North American elk: ecology and management. 1st edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington [D.C.]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species - Colorado Counties (Updated June 2009). United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Colorado Field Office. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/endspp/countylists/colorado.pdf. Ungulate Winter Range Technical Advisory Team. 2005. Desired conditions for Mule Deer, Elk, and Moose winter range in the Southern Interior of British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch. Victoria, BC. Wildl. Bull. No. B-120. 18pp. United States Fish & Wildlife Service. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada lynx; Final Rule. November 9, 2006. 71 FR 66008-66061. USDA Forest Service. 2002. Lynx habitat parameters, White River National Forest. Unpub. Forest Service document. Glenwood Springs. CO. 3pp. plus LAU spreadsheet (subject to further revision -last available update 02/11/2005). USF&WS. 1995. Final rule determining endangered status for the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). Federal Register 60:10694 (February 27, 1995). USFWS. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Mule Deer. Draft. USFWS. 1995. Final rule determining endangered status for the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). Federal Register 60:10694 (February 27, 1995). USFWS. 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 210 pp. USFWS, and USFS. 2010. Inter -Agency Southern Rockies Lynx Project Decision Screen. Unpublished Report of Southern Rocky Mountain Lynx Conservation Interagency Team. 22 pp plus attachments. U.S. Forest Service, Denver, CO, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Jct, CO. Oct. 2010. 8.0 BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC (CWS) is a small wildlife and ecological consulting firm based in Basalt, Colorado, specializing in wildlife research, management, and monitoring, ecological assessments, baseline inventories, ecological planning, habitat management, and ecological restoration. CWS applies a scientifically sound approach to biological resource studies and management. Our work combines professional integrity and strong academic training with extensive experience working for government, private, and non-profit clients. With an extensive network of professional collaborators that includes plant ecologists, foresters, hydrologists, and soil scientists, CWS leverages the collective knowledge of experienced professionals working toward practical, effective and cost saving solutions. CWS provides expert services to a diverse array of clients. Since we are a small company, personal attention is ensured. We combine full in-house GIS (ArcGIS) with real-time, sub- meter GPS to provide state-of-the-art spatial data, analyses, maps, and presentations. We have prepared Biological Assessments and Biological Evaluations, and contributed to EAs and EISs. CWS has worked with large private firms such as Jacobs, Carter and Burgess, Parsons, CH2MHILL, and SAIC as well as city and county agencies and governments such COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC 1 8.0 BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS Vildlife dam' Ecological Assessment - Riverside FedEx Properly July 18, 2014 as City of Aspen, City of Glenwood Springs, Pitkin County, Colorado Department of Transportation, and Roaring Fork Transportation Agency. CWS is currently collaborating on the Pitkin County Airport Wildlife Hazard Assessment. Owner and Wildlife Biologist Jonathan Lowsky, M.S. Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, has a broad range of knowledge. With more than 20 years of professional experience with federal (US Forest Service), state (Colorado Division of Wildlife), and county agencies as well as two major universities (Colorado State University and University of Washington), Jonathan's career has focused on a diverse array of wildlife from bighorn sheep, elk, and songbirds to northern goshawks, flying squirrels, small mammals, and spotted bats. Mr. Lowsky's experience includes biological assessments and evaluations for NEPA compliance, conservation planning, GIS mapping and modeling, wildlife research, and ecological monitoring design and implementation, as well as wetland and riparian delineations, evaluations, and restoration. He has authored management plans and conservation easement baseline inventory reports and published scientific papers. An expert birder, experienced tracker, certified wetlands delineator, and passionate observer of wildlife, Jonathan has spent countless hours studying and appreciating Colorado's diverse ecological communities. Jonathan Lowsky completed the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineator Certification Program in 1999 and the Wildland Hydrology (Dave Rosgen) Applied Fluvial Geomorphology Course in 2001. This training has contributed to the quality and success of the wetlands delineations and wetlands and stream restoration projects Mr. Lowsky has completed and contributed to over the last 12 years. Prior to the inception of Colorado Wildlife Science, Jonathan served as the Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist for more than 6 years. In that role, he acted as the County's wetlands, stream, and riparian expert. A detailed description of Mr. Lowsky's professional experience and references are available. For additional information, please visit our website at coloradowildlifes cience. com. COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC 18.0 BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS Wlildlife dam' Ecological Assessment - Riverside FedEx Properly July 18, 2014 WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT FOR COUNTY SITE PLAN REVIEW MAPS RIVERSIDE FEDEX PROPERTY COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I MAPS z 107'191YW 0 M M z 0 0 M z 0 M Z O 0 m z a N M 107°19'0"W 107°18'45"W 107018'30"W 107018'1 YW 107°18'0"W 1071 T45"W 107 _ 4 \ , ! ! TVr `h/ \ / w ; / , \ p - ,l a �C 4 f` X '\ M i h m % \/ i , / 1 1� l / •\ \ \\ \� k ;\r 0,Ix �r ri 4 .:, r.. r, x r / ; W , j• o\ X\� \� r iK. F x V �.� x r , /S 1 XIM ;X Co rI htO 201-3 National Geo ' py g` graiphic Society, i=cubed V 107'19'0"W 10718'45"W 107'1 8'30"W 107'18'1YW 107"18'0"W 107017'45"W 107°17'31 m M Riverside FedEx Property July 18, 2014 MI� GARFIELD ', EAGLE IIII ,l 7 MESA j PITKIN z r~ o - Area of Detail n ISON \ M z 0 0 it Legend: Subject Property Winter Foraging Habitat Winter Range 1 inch - 667 feet z Basemap Source: 01 N NOTE. Not a survey. Boundaries are USDA-NRCS-NCGS m approximate. Mosaicked County EDRG Garfield County, CO COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE LLC 0100 Elk Run Dr, Ste 128, Basalt, CO 81621 970.927.4549 info@coloradowildlifescience.com http://coloradowildlifescience.com z 107'19'15"W z 0 o r yf { 0. % r w • z / • sr O J � r z w M 107°19'0"W 1071845"W 107018'30"W 107018'15"W 107°18'0'W i / w 1071 T45"W 107°17' - � �` Ill � X%" ;i i �• � , :/ / - X, " �: • X"y#�X / �, ;/ / r , "` ;� \y 'X SIX' 1C .X •�1.� '�1 � � : r ? % iXy X�WyX /V f. { Y" , r" K/ / )f ti A ! Aelll\/ f, f f : } / / : t 4 X "X-,A'./X f ; i' ' / / 14f � 7C'[•�1 �/`�'' ` ;' ' /' `/ � t 'del �c` .'yC ?�.� \1/V 7C X i' • I X X i�%X X /X'�rX / ►' "Xd X r?`�:•X ; / / /1Y\X X /`/V X'`►X'+x' rXi` :,a/c'Y , i • // , ,� �/ X X LNN/ X / X f ` � • • �j Y X X r � i� Y 7C# r .:i 7 j X X /X/�� X X.�.'`�'`Y h //' . / � � � N X �14�`�! $C :'C • • � / t ni USC X /X n.'\ZX/ XIX ", /u X ?C /X/� X• X X >l./4 ,r X X X x �X` X}�N'/-'\' f \ .'X% 7 i.' � X F." p 1t X /X .7C 1X %�• / I�tI X N 1%/ - !'!. . X,kXiX/` '�./ X X7�i� /'�r'��.'r Xx':. ,: , � , �Xr fit X't•\-�l►X iia , t ``any; a ' Nom/ y� /1 `f / 1 a r�i .-•'`\iX�r,r lXq' �iw ,* i % Xf Xli \,�c . i�i""�r �'e:' 4'l %1. \ ' •"' %"R / ` V Dc °`� .: f , # , % ' X .X Xvtic''�j1;?\ X �%X, • 4 , • / , , `• f ,!../ i X / N /ahr• %' �Y X X. ri �. '�-. �`'v X 3/N F ? -X , ''#� X !X X Ae\ XlL y YX .T k / •-/. ' ' " A Copyr,ght;© 2013; National Geograiphic Society, i` -cubed 107"19'0"W 10718'45"W 107'1 8'30"W 107'18'15"W 107"18'0"W 107017'45"W 107017'30"W m M Riverside FedEx Property July 18, 2014 MI1 GARFIELD ', EAGLE IIII I T MESA j PITKIN Z r~ o -Area of Detail M Z 0 Legend: aSubject Property Severe Winter Range 171 Winter Range Winter Concentration 1 inch - 667 feet z Basemap Source: N NOTE. Not a survey. Boundaries are USDA-NRCS-NCGS m approximate. Mosaicked County EDRG Garfield County, CO COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE LLC 0100 Elk Run Dr, Ste 128, Basalt, CO 81621 970.927.4549 info@coloradowildlifescience.com http://coloradowildlifescience.com 146 wildlife 5c:ir:nre Map 3. CPW mapped elk seasonal habitat areas Assessment - Riverside FedEx WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT FOR COUNTY ACTIVITY ENVELOPE & SITE PLAN REVIEW p w 0 0 Riverside FedEx Property 2014 Wlildlife dam' Ecological Assessment - Riverside FedEx Properly July 18, 2014 Photo 1. Flat bench above Roaring Fork River Photo 2. Gravel driveway COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I PHOTOS Wlildlife dam' Ecological Assessment - Riverside FedEx Properly July 18, 2014 Photo 3. Existing residence Photo 4. Existing shed COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I PHOTOS 21 1 Wlildlife dam' Ecological Assessment - Riverside FedEx Properly July 18, 2014 Photo 7. Disturbed area and bare ground Photo 8. Two -track road COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I PHOTOS Wlildlife dam' Ecological Assessment - Riverside FedEx Properly July 18, 2014 Photo 9. Two -track road Photo 10. Mountain Big Sagebrush / Needle -and -Thread Shrubland COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I PHOTOS & Ecological Assessment - Riverside FedEx Property July 18, 2014 Photo 11. Two -needle pinon and Utah juniper woodland and old structure footprint Photo 12. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I PHOTOS Wlildlife dam' Ecological Assessment - Riverside FedEx Properly July 18, 2014 Photo 13. Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) on south end of the Property Photo 14. Dalmatian toadflax on north end of the Property COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I PHOTOS & Ecological Assessment - Riverside FedEx Property July 18, 2014 APPENDIX A: CPW SAM mule deer and elk seasonal activity area definitions ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK HIGHWAY CROSSING: Those areas where elk movements traditionally cross roads, presenting potential conflicts between elk and motorists. MIGRATION CORRIDORS: A specific mappable site through which large numbers of animals migrate and loss of which would change migration routes. PRODUCTION AREA: That part of the overall range of elk occupied by the females from May 15 to June 15 for calving. (Only known areas are mapped and this does not include all production areas for the DAU). RESIDENT POPULATION: An area used year-round by a population of elk. Individuals could be found in any part of the area at any time of the year; the area cannot be subdivided into seasonal ranges. It is most likely included within the overall range of the larger population. SEVERE WINTER: That part of the range of a species where 90 percent of the individuals are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two worst winters out of ten. The winter of 1983-84 is a good example of a severe winter. SUMMER CONCENTRATION: Those areas where elk concentrate from mid-June through mid-August. High quality forage, security, and lack of disturbance are characteristics of these areas to meet the high energy demands of lactation, calf rearing, antler growth, and general preparation for the rigors of fall and winter. SUMMER RANGE: That part of the range of a species where 90% of the individuals are located between spring green -up and the first heavy snowfall, or during a site specific period of summer as defined for each DAU. Summer range is not necessarily exclusive of winter range; in some areas winter range and summer range may overlap. WINTER CONCENTRATION: That part of the winter range of a species where densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter range in the average five winters out of ten. WINTER RANGE: That part of the overall range of a species where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green -up, or during a site specific period of winter as defined for each DAU. MULE DEER CONCENTRATION AREA: That part of the overall range where higher quality habitat supports significantly higher densities than surrounding areas. These areas are typically occupied year round and are not necessarily associated with a specific season. Includes rough break country, riparian areas, small drainages, and large areas of irrigated cropland. HIGHWAY CROSSING: Those areas where mule deer movements traditionally cross roads, presenting potential conflicts between mule deer and motorists. MIGRATION CORRIDORS: A specific mappable site through which large numbers of animals migrate and loss of which would change migration routes. RESIDENT POPULATION: An area that provides year-round range for a population of mule deer. The resident mule deer use all of the area all year; it cannot be subdivided into seasonal ranges although it may be included within the overall range of the larger population. SEVERE WINTER: That part of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two worst winters out of ten. SUMMER RANGE: That part of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are located between spring green - up and the first heavy snowfall. Summer range is not necessarily exclusive of winter range; in some areas winter range and summer range may overlap. WINTER CONCENTRATION: That part of the winter range where densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter range in the average five winters out of ten. WINTER RANGE: That part of the overall range where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green -up, or during a site specific period of winter as defined for each DAU. COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I APPENDIX A: CPW SAM mule deer and elk seasonal activity area definitions Wlildlife &EcologicalAssessrxew - Riverside FedEx Property July 18, 2014 APPENDIX B: State of Colorado Threatened & Endangered Vertebrates Whooping Crane AMPHIBIANS Boreal Toad Bufo boreas boreas SE Northern Cricket Frog Acris crepitans Sc Great Plains Narrowmouth Toad Gastrophryne olivacea SC Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens Sc Wood Frog Rana sylvatica SC Plains Leopard Frog Rana blairi Sc Couch's Spadefoot Scaphiopus couchii SC Haliaeetus leucocephalus BIRDS Whooping Crane Grus americana FE, SE Least Tern Sterna antillarum FE, SE Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, SE Plains Sharp -Tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus jamesii SE Piping Plover Charadrius melodus circumcinctus FT, ST Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus ST Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida FT, ST Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia ST Lesser Prairie -Chicken Tympanuchus pallidicinctus ST Western Yellow -Billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus SC Greater Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis tabida SC Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis SC Gunnison Sage -Grouse Centrocercus minimus SC American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Sc Greater Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus SC Western Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus Sc Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus SC Long -Billed Curlew Numenius americanus SC Columbian Sharp -Tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus SC FISH Bonytail Gila elegans FE, SE Razorback Sucker Xyrauchentexanus FE, SE Humpback Chub Gila cypha FE, ST Colorado Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius FE, ST Greenback Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias FT, ST Rio Grande Sucker Catostomus plebeius SE Lake Chub Couesius plumbeus SE Plains Minnow Hybognathus placitus SE Suckermouth Minnow Phenacobius mirabilis SE Northern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus eos SE Southern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus erythrogaster SE Brassy Minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni ST COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I APPENDIX B: State of Colorado Threatened & Endangered Vertebrates Wlildlife &EcologicalAssessrxew - Riverside FedEx Property July 18, 2014 Common Shiner Arkansas Darter Mountain Sucker Plains Orangethroat Darter Iowa Darter Rio Grande Chub Colorado Roundtail Chub Stonecat Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Flathead Chub Gray Wolf Black -Footed Ferret ■ Grizzly Bear Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Lynx Wolverine River Otter Kit Fox Townsend's Big -Eared Bat Black -Tailed Prairie Dog Botta's Pocket Gopher Northern Pocket Gopher Swift fox Triploid Checkered Whiptail I Midget Faded Rattlesnake Longnose Leopard Lizard Yellow Mud Turtle Common King Snake Texas Blind Snake Texas Horned Lizard Roundtail Horned Lizard Massasauga Common Garter Snake Luxilus cornutus Etheostoma cragini Catostomus playtrhynchus Etheostoma spectabile Etheostoma exile Gila pandora Gila robusta Noturus flavus Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis Platygobio gracilus MAMMALS Canis lupus Mustela nigripes Ursus arctos Zapus hudsonius preblei Lynx canadensis Gulo gulo Lontra canadensis Vulpes macrotis Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Cynomys ludovicianus Thomomy bottae rubidus Thomomys talpoides macrotis Vulpes velox REPTILES Cnemidophorus neotesselatus Crotalus viridis concolor Gambelia wislizenii Kinosternon flavescens Lampropeltis getula Leptotyphlops dulcis Phrynosoma cornutum Phrynosoma modestum Sistrurus catenatus Thamnophis sirtalis COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC I APPENDIX B: State of Colorado Threatened & Endangered Vertebrates ST ST Sc SC Sc SC Sc SC Sc SC Sc FE, SE FE, SE FT, SE FT, ST FT, SE SE ST SE SC SC SC SC Sc Sc SC Sc SC Sc SC Sc SC Sc Sc