Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.00 Environmental_Assessment_(Appendix_A-G)_-_Aster_Place,_Parachute U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20410 www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov Environmental Assessment Determinations and Compliance Findings for HUD-assisted Projects 24 CFR Part 58 Project Information Project Name: Aster Place Responsible Entity: Garfield County Grant Recipient (if different than Responsible Entity): Lincoln Avenue Communities State/Local Identifier: Preparer: John Leybourne, Planner III Certifying Officer Name and Title: TBD Consultant (if applicable): Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. – 25-486627.2 Direct Comments to: John Leybourne, Planner III Project Location: SWC of South Battlement Parkway and Stone Quarry Road, Parachute Colorado, 81635 Additional Location Information: The subject property is located on the southwestern corner of the South Battlement Parkway and Stone Quarry Road intersection within a residential and commercial area of Garfield County, Colorado. The adjoining properties consist of Willow Park Apartments to the north across South Battlement Parkway; US West Communications to the northeast across the intersection of South Battlement Parkway and Stone Quarry Road; Maverik Adventure’s First Stop to the east across Stone Quarry Road; Grand Valley Fire Protection District to the southeast across Stone Quarry Road; Dollar General and condominiums to the south; and vacant land to the west across Battlement Creek Trail. Description of the Proposed Project [24 CFR 50.12 & 58.32; 40 CFR 1508.25]: The subject property is proposed for the development of a multi-tenant, affordable rental housing complex. The development will consist of two (2), split two- and three-story apartment buildings consisting of 58 total residential units, a single-story clubhouse, a pavilion including playground equipment, a 97-space parking area including 6 accessible spots, and all supporting development (roadways, garbage enclosures, signage, sidewalks, utilities, etc.). The unit breakdown will include 14 one-bedroom units, 28 two-bedroom units, and 16 three-bedroom units. The spread of affordability anticipated for the proposed units will include eight (8) units directed to those making 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI), five (5) units directed to those making 40% of the AMI, four (4) units directed to those making 50% of the AMI, fifteen (15) units directed to those making 60% AMI, fifteen (15) units directed to those making 70% AMI, and eleven (11) units directed to those making 80% of the AMI. This report is being prepared in support of the distribution of eight (8) Project-Based Vouchers for the proposed development through the Housing Authority of Garfield County. Statement of Purpose and Need for the Proposal [40 CFR 1508.9(b)]: The subject property is proposed for new construction with PBV financing. The development will meet Garfield County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan that has objective focused on providing a range of housing types, costs, and tenancy options that ensure current and future residents affordable housing opportunities in safe and efficient residential structures. In addition, one of the key points is that there are opportunities for greater collaboration between Garfield County Housing Authority and other involved county agencies as well as creating more availability of workforce and affordable housing directly linked to attracting and retaining a qualified work force. The policies in the Comprehensive plan include ensuring that current land use planning objective promote affordable housing and encouragement of affordable workforce housing near regional centers. In the 2020 update of the Comprehensive Plan, the estimated housing needs by Area Median Income (AMI) in the New Castle to Parachute Area of Garfield County is focused on AMI% of 121% and above. The proposed project will cap AMI% at 80%, allowing for much needed affordable housing in the area. The property is needed to provide multi-tenant affordable housing and will create an affordable rental housing option in close proximity to high quality transit and a living environment that is safe, lively, and creates a strong sense of community. The proposed units and project amenities will be reasonable compared to the direct competition in the market area. The unit type will facilitate strong leasing activity and will provide 100 percent affordable housing for the immediate area. Existing Conditions and Trends [24 CFR 58.40(a)]: The subject property currently consists of approximately 6.38 acres of vacant land with no current onsite operations. According to available historical sources, the subject property was agricultural with a farmstead in the western portion from as early as 1937 until 1993. The farmstead was removed by 2005, and the subject property has appeared to be vacant land since 2009. The surrounding area of the subject property consists of residential developments to the immediate north and southwest, and commercial developments to the east and southeast. The proposed project will provide an affordable housing opportunity in an area where such opportunities are limited, near major arterial roadways for Parachute, Colorado, that provide access to highways, commercial shopping, and career opportunities. Funding Information Grant Number HUD Program Funding Amount TBD Project-Based Voucher $2,469,120 Estimated Total HUD Funded Amount: $2,469,120 Estimated Total Project Cost (HUD and non-HUD funds) [24 CFR 58.32(d)]: $25,116,812 Compliance with 24 CFR 50.4, 58.5, and 58.6 Laws and Authorities Record below the compliance or conformance determinations for each statute, executive order , or regulation. Provide credible, traceable, and supportive source documentation for each authority. Where applicable, complete the necessary reviews or consultations and obtain or note applicable permits of approvals. Clearly note citations, dates/names/titles of contacts, and page references. Attach additional documentation as appropriate. Compliance Factors: Statutes, Executive Orders, and Regulations listed at 24 CFR §58.5 and §58.6 Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required? Compliance determinations STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS LISTED AT 24 CFR 50.4 and 58.6 Airport Hazards 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart D Yes No The project site is not located within 15,000 feet of a military airport or 2,500 feet of a civilian airport. The project is in compliance with Airport Hazards requirements. Coastal Barrier Resources Coastal Barrier Resources Act, as amended by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 [16 USC 3501] Yes No This project is located in a state that does not contain CBRS units. Therefore, this project is in compliance with the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. Flood Insurance Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 [42 USC 4001-4128 and 42 USC 5154a] Yes No The structure or insurable property is not located in a FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area. According to the Community Panel Number 0802051315B, dated January 3, 1986, the subject property is not located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Garfield County is currently updating all of their existing floodplain maps; however, this information will not be available until 4th Quarter 2025. Further information has been requested from local and state floodplain managers; however, as of the issuance of this report, a response has not been received. A review of the online NFIP information indicates that the town and county are active participants within the NFIP. The community identification numbers are as follows: Town of Parachute is CID# 080215# and Garfield County is CID# 080205#. The structure or insurable property is not located in a FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area. While flood insurance may not be mandatory in this instance, HUD recommends that all insurable structures maintain flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The project is in compliance with flood insurance requirements. STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS LISTED AT 24 CFR 50.4 & 58.5 Clean Air Clean Air Act, as amended, particularly section 176(c) & (d); 40 CFR Parts 6, 51, 93 Yes No According to the USEPA Green Book and NEPAssist website, the subject property is not located in a non-attainment or maintenance area for any US EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) criteria air pollutants. The subject property is an approximate 6.38-acre plot of vacant land that is planned for the new development of a multi-tenant residential complex. No industrial uses are planned for the subject property and development of the subject property will follow all Town of Parachute and Garfield County permitting requirements. Development of the proposed multi-tenant project will not result in emission levels of criteria pollutants, including de minimis levels. Because neither the immediate area nor Garfield County are identified as a whole designated area for actions by the EPA, there are no State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the subject property area to regulate air quality. The project is in compliance with the Clean Air Act. Coastal Zone Management Coastal Zone Management Act, sections 307(c) & (d) Yes No This project is located in a state that does not participate in the Coastal Zone Management Program. Therefore, this project is in compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act. Contamination and Toxic Substances 24 CFR Part 50.3(i) & 58.5(i)(2) Yes No Site contamination was evaluated as follows: ASTM Phase I ESA, ASTM Vapor Encroachment Screening. On-site or nearby toxic, hazardous, or radioactive substances that could affect the health and safety of project occupants or conflict with the intended use of the property were not found. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed in concurrence with this assessment that did not identify any Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Controlled RECs (CRECs), or Historical RECs (HRECs) in connection with the subject property. Nearby identified properties were written off based on regulatory status and/or time of operation. Of note, a Business Environmental Risk (BER) was identified in relation to a former residence located on the subject property and soil management considerations should be taken into consideration during development and any encountered subsurface features associated with the former on- site improvements should be properly removed. A Vapor Encroachment Screen (VES) was completed by Partner as part of the Phase I ESA. The VES was performed using Tier I non- invasive screening pursuant to ASTM E2600-23 Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions, Section 8. Based on the findings of the Tier I Screen and VES, vapor intrusion can be ruled out because a VEC does not or is not likely to exist. As such no further assessment is recommended. With regards to additional nuisances, there were no fall hazards observed on or adjoining to the subject property; however, a high voltage powerline was identified in the vicinity of the subject property. According to architectural drawings, the proposed structures are located approximately 500 feet from the powerline easement, which is a greater distance than the height of the powerline towers. Therefore, this powerline is not considered a fall hazard. Various producing oil wells were identified within the vicinity of the subject property; however, the nearest of these wells is located approximately 2,085 feet west of the subject property. According to MAP Guidelines, no residential structures may be within 300 feet of a drilling site. Based on the distance of the nearest wells from the subject property, these wells are not considered to be a hazard to the subject property. Endangered Species Endangered Species Act of 1973, particularly section 7; 50 CFR Part 402 Yes No This project will have No Effect on listed species because there are no listed species or designated critical habitats in the action area. Partner reviewed the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Planning and Conservation (IPaC) database for threatened and endangered species and critical habitats. A summary of the IPaC database indicates three (3) endangered species, one (1) proposed endangered, five (5) threatened species, one (1) proposed threatened species, and one (1) experimental population, non-essential species and no critical habitats within the project area. Based on Partner research and analysis of habitats for the identified species, as well as environmental condition occurring on the subject property, which is currently vacant land with little to no vegetation, the presence of the listed species is not likely and can be ruled out. Additionally, the subject property does not provide proper location for migratory birds as there are no trees, covered areas, or available land for foraging on the subject property. As such, no additional assessment is warranted. This project is in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Explosive and Flammable Hazards 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart C Yes No Based on the site reconnaissance, no existing industrial facilities handling explosive or fire- prone materials such as liquid propane, gasoline, diesel fuel of 100-gallons or larger are adjacent to and/or visible from the subject property. Multiple active oil wells are located within one mile of the subject property and the sites include holding tanks for the crude oil that is pumped from the previously identified wells. There are a total of six aboveground storage tank (AST) Areas within the one-mile radius of the subject property. Each of the tank areas was noted with within a dike. The closest tank area, AST Area 1, is located approximately 2,056 feet to the west of the subject property. The dike area around the AST had a width of 48.8 feet and a length of 84.99 feet. The Acceptable Separation Distances (ASDs) for the tank area is as follows: • ASD for Thermal Radiation for People (ASDPNPD): 280.37 feet; • ASD for Thermal Radiation for Buildings (ASDBNPD): 51.22 feet. Results indicate that the observed ASTs are located at an acceptable distance from the proposed subject property buildings and outdoor gathering areas. ASD calculations for the AST Areas 2 through 6 also did not depict the subject property within the ASDs for any of the tank areas. According to the National Pipeline Mapping System, there is one natural gas pipeline located within one mile of the subject property, located approximately 0.653 miles (3,450 feet) to the south-southeast. The pipeline is owned and operated by Public Service Co of Colorado. According to Xcel Energy, the pipeline has a diameter of 6 inches with a pressure of 520 pounds per square inch (PSI). According to HUD’s Pipeline Impact Potential Evaluation (PIPE) Tool: • the pipeline potential impact radius (in feet) for thermal radiation for buildings is 67 feet; • the pipeline potential impact radius (in feet) for thermal radiation for people is 313 feet; and • the pipeline potential impact radius in feet for blast overpressure is 217 feet. As such, the subject property is located at an acceptable distance from this natural gas pipeline. In addition, a 50’ gas pipeline easement was depicted to the southwest of the subject property. No information related to this pipeline was available via NPMS. According to Xcel Energy, the pipeline has a diameter of 2 inches and has a pressure of 520 PSI. Utilizing HUD’s PIPE tool: • the pipeline potential impact radius (in feet) for thermal radiation for buildings is 23 feet; • the pipeline potential impact radius (in feet) for thermal radiation for people is 105 feet; and • the pipeline potential impact radius in feet for blast overpressure is 65 feet. The nearest edge of the pipeline easement with no structures between it and the nearest proposed structure is located approximately 390 feet away. Based on the calculated distances, the proposed structures and gathering areas are located at an acceptable distance from the natural gas pipeline depicted in the structural drawings. The project is in compliance with explosive and flammable hazard requirements. Farmlands Protection Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, particularly sections 1504(b) and 1541; 7 CFR Part 658 Yes No This project has the potential to convert agricultural land to a non-agricultural use. However, an exemption applies. The subject property consists of 6.38 acres of vacant land within a developed area and because the project does not convert agricultural land to non-agricultural land, the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is not triggered. According to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, the onsite soils are rated as Farmland of Statewide Importance with a small portion designated as Not Prime Farmland. However, the subject property is located within a designated urban area, per the Geography Division, US Census Bureau. As such, an exemption applies, and no additional action is warranted for FPPA compliance. The project is in compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act. Floodplain Management Executive Order 11988, particularly section 2(a); 24 CFR Part 55 Yes No This project is not located within the FFRMS floodplain. According to the Community Panel Number 0802051315B, dated January 3, 1986, the subject property is not located within the 100-year floodplain/SFHA. No preliminary FEMA FIRM (p-FIRM) or pending products are available for the subject property at this time. Additionally, regulatory floodways are not considered a hazard for the subject property, including ingress and egress, at this time. HUD adopted the FEMA's Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) on May 23, 2024. The compliance date for other HUD programs is June 24, 2024. The FFRMS defines an expanded floodplain that takes future flood risk into account via three (3) methods: (1) Climate- informed science approach (CISA), (2) 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding (PFA) and (3) Freeboard Value Approach (FVA). According to Caitlin McDaniel, PE, CFM, Floodplain Mapping Program Manager with the State of Colorado, the State is currently updating all of their existing floodplain maps, and this information will not be available until 4th Quarter 2025. Further information has been requested from local and county floodplain managers; however, as of the issuance of this report, a response has not been received. Per the HUD Multifamily Accelerated Processing (MAP) Guide, flood maps used to make a determination for floodplain management must be approved by either FEMA or the floodplain management agency. In addition, per the applicant information, the proposed site plan for the subject property has been approved by municipal entities who also defer to regional floodplain mapping tools. As such, floodplains are not considered to be a concern for the subject property at this time. Historic Preservation National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, particularly sections 106 and 110; 36 CFR Part 800 Yes No Review of online information indicates the project is not listing on or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places individually or as part of a historic district. Based on the project’s scope of work, which includes new construction and associated ground disturbance, an Archaeological Desktop Assessment has been prepared for reference in a State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) consultation letter. Tribes with interest in the project area, according to the Tribal Directory Assessment Tool (TDAT), include the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana; and the Shoshone- Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation. Of note, according to available online mapping, the closest reservation is the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, which is located approximately 55 miles west of the subject property in Unitah County, Utah, and may also need to be contacted as the subject property is within an area that is identified as a traditional territory of the Nuuchiu (Ute). Consultation with the SHPO and tribal entities was initiated by the Responsible Entity on September 5, 2025, through the United States Postal Service. According to the Certified Mail Receipts, the most recent letter was received on September 18. As such, the mandatory minimum 30-day response period ended on October 18, 2025. No responses were received in this time period. As such, this project is in compliance with Historic Preservation Requirements. Noise Abatement and Control Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended by the Quiet Communities Act of 1978; 24 CFR Part 51 Subpart B Yes No A Noise Assessment was conducted. The noise level was Normally Unacceptable: 69 dB. A total 10-year day-night sound level (DNL) was calculated for multiple noise assessment locations (NALs), as depicted within the attached assessment, combining roadways with available traffic data within 1,000 feet; railways within 3,000 feet; and airports/military airfields within a 15-mile radius of the subject property, where applicable. A total of four (4) NALs were assessed: NALs #1-2 (Northern Building): 68 dB; NAL #3 (Southern Building): 65 dB; and NAL#4 (Playground): 69 dB. Mitigation is not necessary for NAL#3 (Southern Building) as the noise is deemed acceptable per HUD guidelines. With respect to NALs 1-2, mitigation has been achieved through the completion of the Sound Transmission Classification Assessment Tool (STraCAT) assessment that is appended herein. Barrier attenuation calculations were additionally completed and determined that the proposed barriers will effectively reduce exterior noise to acceptable levels for the proposed outdoor gathering area (playground). Sole Source Aquifers Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended, particularly section 1424(e); 40 CFR Part 149 Yes No The project is not located on a sole source aquifer area. Based on a review of the Designated Sole Source Aquifers National Map, published by the USEPA, the subject property is not located in a sole source aquifer recharge area. Moreover, the water supply for the subject property will be tied into the public utilities; therefore, it will not impact existing groundwater conditions. The project is in compliance with Sole Source Aquifer requirements. Wetlands Protection Executive Order 11990, particularly sections 2 and 5 Yes No The project has the potential to impact on- or off- site wetlands. According to the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory website, there are federally regulated wetlands along the south-southwestern property boundary that are associated with a tributary of the Colorado River. The wetlands are identified as a seasonally flooded, streambed, intermittent riverine (R4SBC). The proposed project includes construction activities such as grading and excavation that has the potential to impact this wetland. A Preliminary Wetland Determination prepared by Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. on July 11, 2025, did not identify wetlands on the subject property. As such, no impacts to wetlands are anticipated with the proposed project. Wild and Scenic Rivers Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, particularly section 7(b) and (c) Yes No This project is not within proximity of a NWSRS river. No unique natural features or areas were identified within visible distance of the subject property. Unique natural features or areas include bluffs, cliffs, public or private scenic areas, and/or special natural resources on the property or in the vicinity of the property. The subject property is not located within a one-mile radius of a designated Wild and Scenic River; therefore, consultation review by the National Park Service is not required. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act protects selected rivers in a free-flowing condition and prohibits federal support for activities that would harm a designated river's free-flowing condition, water quality, or outstanding resource values. The project is in compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 Yes No The subject property is NOT located within an Opportunity Zone. Executive Order 14173 - Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity was released on January 21, 2025 and effectively rescinded Executive Order 12898 - Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, dated February 11, 1994. As such, an evaluation of Environmental Justice is no longer warranted. Environmental Assessment Factors [24 CFR 58.40; Ref. 40 CFR 1508.8 &1508.27] Recorded below is the qualitative and quantitative significance of the effects of the proposal on the character, features and resources of the project area. Each factor has been evaluated and documented, as appropriate and in proportion to its relevance to the proposed action. Verifiable source documentation has been provided and described in support of each determination, as appropriate. Credible, traceable and supportive source documentation for each authority has been provided. Where applicable, the necessary reviews or consultations have been completed and applicable permits of approvals have been obtained or noted. Citations, dates/names/titles of contacts, and page references are clear. Additional documentation is attached, as appropriate. All conditions, attenuation or mitigation measures have been clearly identified. Impact Codes: Use an impact code from the following list to make the determination of impact for each factor. (1) Minor beneficial impact (2) No impact anticipated (3) Minor Adverse Impact – May require mitigation (4) Significant or potentially significant impact requiring avoidance or modification which may require an Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Assessment Factor Impact Code Impact Evaluation LAND DEVELOPMENT Conformance with Plans / Compatible Land Use and Zoning / Scale and Urban Design 2 The subject property is proposed for the development of a multi- tenant, affordable rental housing complex. The development will consist of two (2), split two/three-story apartment buildings consisting of 58 residential units, a single-story clubhouse, a pavilion including playground equipment, a 97-space parking area including 6 accessible spots, and all supporting development (roadways, garbage enclosures, signage, sidewalks, utilities, etc.). These plans conform with the 2030 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, which is committed to provided quality affordable housing. The subject property is currently zoned “PUD-MDR” for planned unit development medium density residential by Garfield County. The subject property is located within the Battlement Mesa PUD. At this time, this district allows for multi-family residential construction. No zoning violations are foreseen with relation to the proposed project. According to historical and current site information, the subject property is considered a suitable area as the subject property has not been utilized as a dump, sanitary landfill, or mine waste disposal area. Furthermore, no unusual conditions were identified at the subject property during the site reconnaissance. The impact on surrounding existing native or non-invasive vegetation and wildlife will be minimal. None of the reasonably foreseeable aspects of the proposed project or future use plans for the site conflict with the community’s vision for its future. Soil Suitability/ Slope/ Erosion/ Drainage/ Storm Water Runoff 2 The 2022 United States Geological Survey (USGS) Parachute, Colorado Quadrangle 7.5-minute series topographic map was reviewed for this assessment. According to the contour lines on the topographic map, the subject property is located at approximately 5,401 to 5,425 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The contour lines in the area of the subject property indicate the area has a moderate slope to the west-northwest. Based on information obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey online database, the subject property is mapped as Potts Loam and Potts-Ildefonso complex. No evidence of erosion or sedimentation was observed during the site reconnaissance. Construction of the proposed project would involve grading and earth moving activities as well as construction of the project components. Construction would result in the temporary disturbance of soil and would expose disturbed areas to potential storm events. This exposure could generate accelerated runoff, localized erosion, and sedimentation. A Geotechnical Report was prepared by Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. for the subject property and dated November 13, 2024. The investigation included the advancement of 14 soil borings to 31.5 feet below ground surface and three (3) infiltration tests for soil observation. Onsite soils were found to consist of silty gravel and sandy gravel. Groundwater was not encountered during boring advancement. The investigation found that some of the onsite soils may be suitable for reuse as engineered fill in structural areas. According to the Aster Place Project Manual, dated February 2025, the general contractor in charge of following a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to limit erosion and sedimentation during construction activities. Additional erosion controls will include on-land silt fences, erosion logs, erosion control blankets, and storm drain inlet protection. A NPDES will also need to be filed prior to potential discharge activities. Hazards and Nuisances including Site Safety and Noise 1 Radon: Review of the USEPA Radon Zone Map and county information indicates the subject property is located within Radon Zone 1, where typical radon levels are greater than 4 pCi/L. Based on the proposed development activities, radon mitigation is warranted as part of new construction activities. Per HUD guidelines, radon mitigation activities are required to be implemented during the construction phase of the subject property per CC-1000, latest edition, Soil Gas Control Systems in New Construction of Buildings. The guidelines require soil gas control for all portions of the foundation system and post-construction testing will be required by a licensed, radon professional. Site Generated Noise: Development of the subject property will result in short-term noise during the daylight hours. The proposed use of the subject property (residential) upon completion of construction, will not result in elevated levels of noise. Other Nuisances: No natural hazards, air pollution generators, man-made site hazards or nuisances were observed during the site reconnaissance. SOCIOECONOMIC Employment and Income Patterns 1 Based on 2023 numbers, the economy of Garfield County, Colorado employs approximately 33,982 people with the largest industries being Construction, Health Care & Social Assistance, Retail Trade, Accommodation & Food Services, and Educational Services. The cost of living in Garfield County is 1.2% higher than the state average and 21.9% higher than the national average. Attainable affordable housing for the workforce is in short supply. Garfield County has an unemployment rate of 3.5%, compared to the US average of 4.2%, as of April 2025. According to 2023 data, the median household income of a Garfield County resident was $86,172 annually, while the US average was $80,610. Please note that the above information should be verified with a Market Study, which was not provided for Partner to review. No direct or indirect displacement is associated with the proposed project. No people will be displaced. No jobs will be destroyed or relocated. The proposed development has the potential to create permanent opportunities associated with facility maintenance and management. The proposed development will not have an adverse effect on the community or neighborhoods. Source: https://datausa.io/profile/geo/garfield-county-co Demographic Character Changes, Displacement 2 According to 2024 information, the population of Garfield County was 63,167. The median age of Garfield County is 37.2, compared to the US median age of 38.7. The poverty rate in Garfield County is 9.1%, compared to the US average of 11.1%. The general demographic makeup of Garfield County is White (Non- Hispanic) – 63.6%, Black – 1.6%, American Indian and Alaskan Native – 1.9%, Asian – 1%, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander – 0.2%, Hispanic or Latino – 32.8%. The proposed project does not contribute to reducing or significantly altering the racial, ethnic, or income segregation of the area’s housing. The proposed project does not create a concentration of low-income or disadvantaged people in violation of HUD site and neighborhood standards. Source: https://datausa.io/profile/geo/garfield-county-co Environmental Justice N/A Executive Order 14173 - Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity was released on January 21, 2025, and effectively rescinded Executive Order 12898 - Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, dated February 11, 1994. As such, an evaluation of Environmental Justice is no longer warranted. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES Educational and Cultural Facilities 2 Due to the relatively small size of the Parachute area, there are only four (4) public schools including one elementary, one middle, and one high school. The subject property is located within the Garfield County School District No. 16, which serves the town of Parachute and the surrounding area. According to the Garfield County School District No. 16 website, parents of students may complete enrollments packets for students who meet standard criteria for age, behavior, and immunization (https://www.garfield16.org/parents/enrollment). The school system currently serves 1,171 students in grades PK-12. Based on the number of units proposed for the subject property (58), and the total number of students within the Garfield County School District No. 16, the maximum additional school-aged children at the proposed project would comprise a negligible increase to student enrollment and is not expected to exceed the capacity of the existing or planned school facilities in the surrounding area. Several cultural facilities are located within the surrounding area. Cultural facilities in the surrounding area of the subject property include the Rifle Heritage Center & Museum, the Western Museum of Mining and Industry, and the Glenwood Springs Historic Society and Frontier Museum. Based on the proposed residential unit count (58 units), the proposed project will result in an incremental increase in the demand for cultural facilities or require additional/alternative facilities to ensure safety and suitable access to/from educational or cultural facilities. The proposed project is filling a need for additional housing units in the community and will not substantially increase the community's population that would result in crowing of educational or cultural facilities. Commercial Facilities 1 The subject property is located within reasonable distance of services and commercial shopping areas that will meet the needs of future tenants in terms of affordability. Specifically, the subject property is within a two-mile distance to commercial facilities including Dollar General, Clark’s Market and Pharmacy, Family Dollar, various restaurants, beauty salons, clothing stores, banks, and gyms. The project will not adversely impact or displace existing retail and commercial services. The proposed project is not considered a concern and will not require additional commercial facilities. Furthermore, the placing of eligible residents in more attainable housing for mixed income levels allows for more disposable income for spending on hard and soft goods. Health Care and Social Services 2 Based on online information, emergency health services are available within reasonable proximity to the proposed project. Battlement Mesa Medical Center / Grand River Health Clinic West is located within a nearby radius; however, the nearest hospital is located in Rifle, approximately 20 minutes away. Social services, if warranted, will be provided by governmental social service agencies, public or private groups. The project would result in an incremental increase in demand for health care and social services but would not be expected to have adverse impacts on such services given that the project would likely serve existing area residents would be relatively small in size. The development of this project is not considered a concern and will not require additional healthcare facilities. Solid Waste Disposal / Recycling 2 The project development will generate construction debris that will be managed by the development team and disposed offsite in accordance with applicable standards. Upon completion of construction activities, general household solid waste will be generated from the proposed project. Solid waste disposal will reportedly be provided by an independent solid waste disposal contractor. The Garfield County Landfill receives refuse from the Town of Parachute. The trash generated at the subject property will likely consist of general refuse including paper, cardboard, cooking waste, and general consumer-use plastic material. As such, the residential use of the subject property is not expected to substantially increase the amount of refuse/trash generated at the subject property and is not expected to materially increase the amount of received by the Garfield County Landfill. Waste Water / Sanitary Sewers 2 Domestic wastewater is not currently generated at the subject property. No industrial processes are currently performed at the subject property. The Town of Parachute services the subject property vicinity. No onsite septic systems are proposed for development. The onsite development will allow the Town of Parachute to meet future flow and loading demands as well as regulatory requirements. The new residential units will result in very minimal impact on the designed capacity of the Parachute Water Department. Positive effects are that storm water will be separated from the sewage collection system that is maintained by the municipality. No adverse effects from the proposed development is applicable at this time. Water Supply 2 Domestic wastewater is not currently generated at the subject property. According to available information, a public water system operated by the Town of Parachute Water Department serves the subject property vicinity. The source of public water for the Town of Parachute is surface water from the Colorado River and groundwater wells under the direct influence of surface water. According to the Town of Parachute Water Department 2024 Annual Water Quality Report, water supplied to the subject property vicinity is in compliance with all State and Federal regulations pertaining to drinking water standards, including lead and copper. Based on the total number of new units proposed for the subject property (58), the new residential units will result in very minimal impact on the designed capacity of the municipal sanitary sewer system. Public Safety - Police, Fire and Emergency Medical 2 The proposed project will have minimal impact on the city and/or county Police, Fire, and Emergency Medical Services. While the addition of residential units will incrementally increase demand on police and fire services, the proposed project is expected to have a nominal increase on the existing public safety resources to the area. Access routes for accessibility for emergency vehicles and compliance with local regulations will be addressed by the civil design team, per city/county building compliance. The project meets the site access requirements for emergency vehicles, including fire truck and ambulance. Parks, Open Space and Recreation 2 Parks, open spaces, and recreation areas within the surrounding area include Parachute Ponds State Wildlife Area, Beasley Park, Bill Patterson Wildlife Area, and Parachute/Battlement Mesa Parks and Recreation as well as various other opportunities. Further away are state parks such as Grand Mesa and Rifle Falls. Passive and active recreational activities and cultural resources are available for the subject property vicinity. Moreover, the proposed project will include a children's playground. Based on the inclusion of a children's recreation area at the proposed project and large number of parks in the vicinity of the subject property, the proposed project will not have an adverse effect on passive and active recreational activities to include parks, recreational areas and open spaces within the vicinity of the subject property. Transportation and Accessibility 2 The subject property will be accessed via Stone Quarry Road along the eastern property boundary and Battlement Creek Trail along the western property boundary. Based on the site reconnaissance, the approaches to the subject property will be convenient, safe, and attractive. Accessibility requirements will be included within the proposed development per the civil design plans. The subject property will provide residents with convenient access to employment centers and recreational outlets (commercial/retail shopping services). Additionally, the proposed project is within walking distance of multiple bus stops. The proposed project will not result in additional impact to the transportation services. NATURAL FEATURES Unique Natural Features, Water Resources 2 No geological features that include rare or special social/cultural, economic, educational, aesthetic, or scientific value were identified on or adjoining to the subject property. As such, no adverse impact to unique natural features is considered applicable for the proposed development. No visual or other indications of water quality problems on or near the site were identified. The proposed project will include a storm water runoff control/design. The proposed project will not involve the discharge of non-sewage pollutants into surface water bodies and will not limit the access to or quality of water for downstream communities. Vegetation, Wildlife 2 The proposed development will involve grading the land, development of the subject building and seeding the soil with grass, where applicable. No nuisance or non-indigenous species of vegetation will be included within the proposed development. The proposed project will not damage or destroy plant species that are legally protected by state or local ordinances. Other Factors 2 No other factors apply to this project. The site is not located near any military bases, as such, a military presence does not appear applicable. CLIMATE AND ENERGY Climate Change Impacts N/A Executive Order 14148 - Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions was released on January 20, 2025 and effectively rescinded Executive Order 14008 - Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, dated January 27, 2021. As such, an evaluation of Climate Change is no longer warranted. Energy Efficiency 1 The subject property will be designed to meet the National Green Building Standard and Zero Energy Ready Homes. The project will include the completion of a SEDI and evidence energy efficiency features by achieving NGBS green designation. Additionally, the developer plans to install Solar Photovoltaics on the apartment roofs. The compliance will be overseen by Group 14. Additional Studies Performed: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., dated June 2025; Noise Assessment, prepared by Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., dated June 2025; Sound Transmission Classification Assessment Tool Report, prepared by Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., dated June 2025; Cultural Resources Desktop Review Summary Report, prepared by Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., dated July 2025; Preliminary Wetland Determination, prepared by Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., dated July 2025 Field Inspection (Date and completed by): April 2, 2025; Eric Breer, Project Assessor List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted [40 CFR 1508.9(b)]: USFWS, USDA, Colorado DOT, County and City FOIA departments, as listed in the Phase I ESA. List of Permits Obtained: Permits, reviews, and approvals required for construction activities will be issued by local, city/county and state regulatory agencies with implementation by project contractor and oversight by engineer/architect. Public Outreach [24 CFR 50.23 & 58.43]: In the course of conducting this environmental compliance review, no issues warranting NEPA- related hearings or public meetings were revealed. Upon acceptance by the HUD Certifying Official, the FONSI will be posed on a publicly available website for one year at: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-review-records/ Cumulative Impact Analysis [24 CFR 58.32]: The proposed construction project will not adversely impact the surrounding area. This activity is compatible with the existing uses in the area. There will not be any adverse impact on existing resources or services to the area. Alternatives [24 CFR 58.40(e); 40 CFR 1508.9] Off Site Alternative: Consideration of an off-site alternative is not warranted because there are no substantial adverse effects that would result from the project, or if potentially adverse effects were identified, mitigation has been required to reduce those potentially adverse effects. Reduced Project: Reducing the number of apartment units or the square footage of nonresidential space would provide less affordable housing in the area. A reduced project with fewer units and a smaller residential population would have similar environmental impacts as the proposed project but would be slightly lower in magnitude. Reducing the number of affordable housing units would not meet the purpose or need of the project, which includes objectives to accommodate a portion of the citywide demand for affordable housing for all. No Action Alternative [24 CFR 58.40(e)]: The "no action" alternative was considered; however, no action would not meet the demand for affordable/market rate units in the County. The demand for affordable/market rate housing in the County and region has increased in the last few years. If not been given this housing opportunity, the affordable/market rate households and prospective tenants for these properties will not be able to meet their household needs. In addition, construction of a new apartment complex will visually improve the image of the neighborhood and provide demand for goods and services in the area. Summary of Findings and Conclusions: The project would benefit the Town of Parachute and low-income residents by providing high- quality affordable housing in a desirable area with access to commercial amenities, employment opportunities, and all standard community services. Residents of the affordable housing project would benefit from being in proximity to transportation corridors and activity centers which would for provide opportunity for employment, social engagement, and commerce. Because the project is within a developed area, the project would be adequately served by utilities and public services. The project would conform to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations associated with land use compatibility, air pollutant emissions, water quality, geologic hazards, and related environmental resources addressed herein. Based on the analyses of environmental issues contained in this document, the project is not expected to have significant environmental impacts. Mitigation Measures and Conditions [40 CFR 1505.2(c)] Summarize below all mitigation measures adopted by the Responsible Entity to reduce, avoid, or eliminate adverse environmental impacts and to avoid non-compliance or non-conformance with the above-listed authorities and factors. These measures/conditions must be incorporated into project contracts, development agreements, and other relevant documents. The staff responsible for implementing and monitoring mitigation measures should be clearly identified in the mitigation plan. Law, Authority, or Factor Mitigation Measure Contamination and Toxic Substances Per HUD guidelines, radon mitigation activities are required to be implemented during the construction phase of the subject property per CC-1000, latest edition, Soil Gas Control Systems in New Construction of Buildings. The guidelines require soil gas control for all portions of the foundation system and post-construction testing will be required by a licensed, radon professional. Determination: Finding of No Significant Impact [24 CFR 58.40(g)(1); 40 CFR 1508.27] The project will not result in a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Finding of Significant Impact [24 CFR 58.40(g)(2); 40 CFR 1508.27] The project may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Preparer Signature: __________________________________________Date: 10/20/2025_ Name/Title/Organization: __________________________________________________ ____Allyson Shaw, Senior Project Manager, Partner Engineering and Science, Inc.________ Certifying Officer Signature: ___________________________________Date:____10/20/2025____ Name/Title: ____John Leybourne, Planner III Garfield County Community Development This original, signed document and related supporting material must be retained on file by the Responsible Entity in an Environmental Review Record (ERR) for the activity/project (ref: 24 CFR Part 58.38) and in accordance with recordkeeping requirements for the HUD program(s). FIGURES / PHOTOGRAPHS / SCOPE OF WORK 1.Looking north at subject property 2.Looking east at subject property 3.Looking south at subject property 4.Looking west at subject property 5.Looking east along northern subject property boundary 6.Looking north along eastern subject property boundary Appendix A: Site Photographs Project No. 25-486627.1 7.Looking west along southern subject property boundary 8.Looking north along western subject property boundary 9.Native vegetation on subject property 10.Storm water detention area 11.Pad-mounted transformer on southeastern portion of subject property 12.Pole-mounted transformer along northern subject property boundary Appendix A: Site Photographs Project No. 25-486627.1 13.North-adjoining property, Willow Park Apartments (1230 West Battlement Parkway) 14.Northeast-adjoining property, US West Communications (1536 South Battlement Parkway) 15.East-adjoining property, Maverik Adventure's First Stop (10 Stone Quarry Road) 16.Southeast-adjoining property, Grand Valley Fire Protection District (124 Stone Quarry Road) 17.South-adjoining property, Dollar General (119 Stone Quarry Road) 18.South-adjoining condominiums Appendix A: Site Photographs Project No. 25-486627.1 19.Southwest-adjoining condominiums 20.West-adjoining vacant land Appendix A: Site Photographs Project No. 25-486627.1 FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION MAP Project No. 25-486627.1 Drawing Not To Scale KEY: Subject Property FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN Project No. 25-486627.1 KEY: Subject Property GROUNDWATER FLOW South Battlement Parkway St o n e Q u a r r y R o a d Subject Property (5 Stone Quarry Road) Willow Park Apartments (1230 West Battlement Parkway) US West Communications (1536 South Battlement Parkway) Maverik Adventure's First Stop (10 Stone Quarry Road) Grand Valley Fire Protection District (124 Stone Quarry Road) Dollar General (119 Stone Quarry Road) Condominiums (69-77 Bryan Loop) FIGURE 3: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Project No. 25-486627.1 USGS 7.5-Minute Parachute, Colorado Quadrangle Created: 2022 KEY: Subject Property Aster Place Apartments CMC Group, Inc 58 Unit Apartment Complex + Comm Center 5/1/2025 Description SOV General Conditions & Supervision 722,856                                  Construction Survey / Staking 41,456                                    Equipment / Hydro Vac 13,947                                    Site Assessments 13,500                                    Erosion Control, Site Excavation 788,385                                  Vapor management 62,745                                    Site Concrete  228,600                                  Asphalt Paving & base 164,271                                  Signage & Markings  10,842                                    Landscaping & Irrigation & Seeding 183,163                                  Outdoor Grille Set Up 20,000                                    Outdoor Canopy 27,259                                    Playground Equipment 75,000                                    Fence @ Detention Ponds 15,000                                    Site Utilities 653,458                                  Electrical  infrastructure 40,370                                    Postal Specialties 15,854                                    Bike Racks 6,930                                       Concrete Foundations & Slab 817,000                                  Gypcrete 100,400                                  CMU ‐ Outdoor Kitchen / Trash Enclosure 43,200                                    Structural & Misc Steel 46,355                                    Rough Carpentry  ‐ Labor 999,318                                  Rough Carpentry  ‐ Material 938,401                                  Engineered wood Products 420,742                                  Framing Hardware / Foundation Straps 31,630                                    Railings 62,341                                    Damproofing & Rigid Insulation 84,716                                    Acoustical Sealants & Caulking 113,160                                  Insulation (Blown, Batt, Rigid, Foam)243,100                                  Draft Stops, Fire Caulk 39,060                                    Exterior Siding & Trim & Decks 621,350                                  Metal Soffits & Fascia 64,566                                    Asphalt Shingle Roofing, Gutters, Downspouts 391,547                                   Doors, Hardware & Install, Accessories, Trim 551,334                                  Windows 309,707                                  Mirrors 5,916                                       Access hatches  / panels 3,250                                       Drywall, Finishing & Prime 744,486                                  Drywall Cut, patch, Finish 31,500                                    Painting 467,195                                  Paint Touch up 18,750                                    LVT Flooring & Base, Carpet 317,741                                  Appliances 268,981                                  Unit Cabinets, Counters & Install 431,992                                  Counter Tops 182,575                                  Window Blinds 61,550                                    Fire Suppression 246,887                                  Fire Lock Boxes 8,538                                       Fire Extinguishers 10,000                                    Plumbing Systems 1,051,000                               HVAC Systems 1,219,251                               Electrical Systems, Fire Alarm 931,702                                  Clubhouse Amenties & Finishes 15,000                                    Contingency 225,285                                  Weather Protection  50,000                                    General Liability Insurance 160,000                                  Pre‐Construction Services 42,500                                    General Contractor Profit  312,872                                  General Contractor Overhead  789,889                                  Total Construction Cost 16,558,423                             APPENDIX A: AIRPORT HAZARDS Colorado River 70 River Bluff Rd River B luff Rd C a r dinal W a y W 1st St S 2 n d Ct Y a m p a A v e R ain b o w Ct P o nde r o s a C i r R i v e r B l u f f R d M o n u ment Trl Eagle Ridge Dr W BattlementPkw y Arr o y o D r Val l e y V iewDr S Battlement Pk w y Stone Q u a r r y R d U n d e r w o o d L n B a t t l e m e n t M e s a R d S t o n e Q u a r r y Rd C o lu mbin e L n S a g e mon t C ir Battl em en t S c hool E B a t t l e m e n t P k w y C o u n t y R o a d 3 0 8 County Road 308 2,500-ft Airport Radius Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, EPA OEI Aster Place Project Buffer June 3, 2025 0 0.2 0.40.1 mi 0 0.35 0.70.17 km 1:18,056 70 70 70 U n a R u l i s o n P a r a c h u te 70AnvilPoints 70 15,000-ft Airport Radius Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, EPA OEI Aster Place Project Buffer June 3, 2025 0 1.5 30.75 mi 0 3 61.5 km 1:144,448 APPENDIX B: COASTAL BARRIER CBRS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal Barrier Resources Act Program, Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c)OpenStreetMap contributorsSource: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community June 24, 2025 0 0.06 0.120.03 mi 0 0.1 0.20.05 km 1:3,762 This page was produced by the CBRS Mapper This map is for general reference only. The Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) boundaries depicted on this map are representations ofthe controlling CBRS boundaries, which are shown on the official maps, accessible at https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/official-coastal-barrier-resources-system-maps. All CBRS related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the CBRS Mapperwebsite. The CBRS Buffer Zone represents the area immediately adjacent to the CBRS boundary where users are advised to contact the Service for anofficial determination (https://www.fws.gov/service/coastal-barrier-resources-system-property-documentation) as to whether the property orproject site is located "in" or "out" of the CBRS. CBRS Units normally extend seaward out to the 20- or 30-foot bathymetric contour (depending on the location of the unit). The true seaward CBRS Buffer Zone CBRS Units Otherwise Protected Area System Unit Subject Property APPENDIX C: FLOOD INSURANCE Subject Property Community Status Book Report COLORADO Communities Participating in the National Flood Program CID Community Name County Init FIRM Identified Curr Eff Map Date Reg-Emer Date Init FHBM Identified % DiscCRS Entry Date Curr Class Curr Eff Date Tribal 080112B FLEMING, TOWN OF LOGAN COUNTY 05/16/16 07/15/8505/16/1611/08/74 No 080070#FLORENCE, CITY OF FREMONT COUNTY 01/06/12 12/04/8412/04/8405/17/74 No 080102#FORT COLLINS, CITY OF LARIMER COUNTY 05/02/12 07/16/7907/16/7906/28/74 205/01/16 40%10/01/91No 080183C FORT LUPTON, CITY OF WELD COUNTY 11/30/23 04/02/7904/02/7905/31/74 No 080131B FORT MORGAN, CITY OF MORGAN COUNTY 05/18/21 02/05/8602/05/8610/29/76 No 080061A FOUNTAIN, CITY OF EL PASO COUNTY 12/07/18 06/05/8506/05/8506/28/74 1004/01/2210/01/92No 080073#FRASER, TOWN OF GRAND COUNTY 01/02/08 01/02/0801/02/0809/06/74 No 080244C FREDERICK, TOWN OF WELD COUNTY 09/26/24 07/16/7907/16/7909/26/75 No 080067#FREMONT COUNTY *FREMONT COUNTY 07/03/12 09/29/8909/29/8908/16/74 905/01/08 05%10/01/93No 080245B FRISCO, TOWN OF SUMMIT COUNTY 11/16/18 05/15/8005/15/8010/15/76 710/01/23 15%10/01/93No 080194#FRUITA, CITY OF MESA COUNTY 10/16/12 12/01/8112/01/8101/24/75 No 080205#GARFIELD COUNTY*GARFIELD COUNTY 08/02/06 12/15/7712/15/77 No 080035C GEORGETOWN, TOWN OF CLEAR CREEK COUNTY 12/20/19 06/05/8906/05/8906/14/74 No 080213C GILCREST, TOWN OF WELD COUNTY 11/30/23(M)06/10/8001/20/1608/22/75 No 080075A GILPIN COUNTY *GILPIN COUNTY 04/06/22(M)03/01/8603/01/8606/10/77 No 080247F GLENDALE, CITY OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY 09/04/20 12/05/0504/17/89 No 080071#GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CITY OF GARFIELD COUNTY 10/15/85 07/16/7910/15/8511/14/75 No 080090F GOLDEN, CITY OF JEFFERSON COUNTY 12/20/19 05/15/8505/18/8511/05/76 705/01/11 15%10/01/96No 080144A GRANADA, TOWN OF PROWERS COUNTY 04/19/16 09/24/8409/24/8407/18/75 No 080248#GRANBY, TOWN OF GRAND COUNTY 01/02/08(M)05/15/0801/02/0808/15/75 No 080280#GRAND COUNTY *GRAND COUNTY 01/02/08 04/29/2101/02/08 No 080117#GRAND JUNCTION, CITY OF MESA COUNTY 10/16/12 01/06/8301/06/8302/01/74 No 080214#GRAND LAKE, TOWN OF GRAND COUNTY 01/02/08(M)01/01/8601/01/8608/15/75 No 080184C GREELEY, CITY OF WELD COUNTY 11/30/23 07/16/7907/16/7905/03/74 No 080062A GREEN MOUNTAIN FALLS, TOWN OF EL PASO COUNTY 12/07/18 06/05/8506/05/8508/30/74 1004/01/2410/01/03No 080195F GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CITY OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY 04/11/24 01/05/7801/05/7812/27/74 No 080078#GUNNISON COUNTY *GUNNISON COUNTY 05/16/13 09/29/8909/29/8901/03/75 905/01/18 05%10/01/94No 080080#GUNNISON, CITY OF GUNNISON COUNTY 05/16/13 04/18/8304/18/8303/22/74 704/01/22 15%10/01/95No 080295#GYPSUM, TOWN OF EAGLE COUNTY 12/04/07 09/16/8109/16/8101/08/80 No 080140 HAXTUN, TOWN OF PHILLIPS COUNTY (NSFHA)12/11/8505/10/74 No 080157#HAYDEN, TOWN OF ROUTT COUNTY 02/04/05 06/01/7806/01/7806/28/74 No 080081A HINSDALE COUNTY*HINSDALE COUNTY 09/12/24 09/30/8709/30/8705/24/77 No 080145A HOLLY, TOWN OF PROWERS COUNTY 04/19/16 05/20/8304/19/1605/17/74 No 080141#HOLYOKE, CITY OF PHILLIPS COUNTY 02/19/87 02/19/8702/19/8706/28/74 No 080044#HOTCHKISS, TOWN OF DELTA COUNTY 08/19/10 07/03/8507/03/8506/21/74 No 080249C HUDSON, TOWN OF WELD COUNTY 01/20/16 01/20/1603/18/8003/21/78 No 080206 HUERFANO COUNTY*HUERFANO COUNTY 10/01/86(L)10/01/8610/01/8611/22/77 No 080108#HUGO, TOWN OF LINCOLN COUNTY 10/15/85(M)10/15/8510/15/8505/31/74 No 080036C IDAHO SPRINGS, CITY OF CLEAR CREEK COUNTY 12/20/19 11/15/7811/15/7806/14/74 No 080207B ILIFF, TOWN OF LOGAN COUNTY 05/04/21 08/04/8708/04/8712/27/74 No Page 3 of 8 06/25/2025 Community Status Book Report COLORADO Communities Participating in the National Flood Program CID Community Name County Init FIRM Identified Curr Eff Map Date Reg-Emer Date Init FHBM Identified % DiscCRS Entry Date Curr Class Curr Eff Date Tribal 080187C MILLIKEN, TOWN OF WELD COUNTY 11/30/23 08/01/7908/01/7905/17/74 No 080284#MINERAL COUNTY *MINERAL COUNTY (All Zone D)04/16/9104/16/91 No 080053#MINTURN, TOWN OF EAGLE COUNTY 12/04/07 09/17/8009/17/8008/16/74 No 080270#MOFFAT COUNTY *MOFFAT COUNTY 08/02/82 08/02/8208/02/8204/04/78 No 080155#MONTE VISTA, CITY OF RIO GRANDE COUNTY 09/02/11 09/30/8209/30/8202/01/74 No 080285#MONTEZUMA COUNTY *MONTEZUMA COUNTY 09/26/08 05/04/8905/04/8911/15/77 No 080124#MONTROSE COUNTY *MONTROSE COUNTY 01/06/12 02/15/8402/15/8408/30/74 No 080125#MONTROSE, CITY OF MONTROSE COUNTY 01/06/12 03/01/8403/01/8402/15/74 No 080064A MONUMENT, TOWN OF EL PASO COUNTY 12/07/18 12/18/8612/18/8605/24/74 1004/01/2410/01/03No 080129B MORGAN COUNTY *MORGAN COUNTY 05/18/21 09/29/8909/29/8902/21/78 No 080092#MORRISON, TOWN OF JEFFERSON COUNTY 02/05/14 12/01/8212/01/8209/13/74 810/01/19 10%10/01/96No 080306#MT. CRESTED BUTTE, TOWN OF GUNNISON COUNTY (NSFHA)05/16/1305/16/13 No 080126#NATURITA, TOWN OF MONTROSE COUNTY 01/06/12 01/06/8201/06/8205/17/74 No 080255E NEDERLAND, TOWN OF BOULDER COUNTY 10/24/24 08/01/7908/01/7908/22/75 No 080256 NEW CASTLE, TOWN OF GARFIELD COUNTY 07/25/75 07/22/04(E)07/25/75 No 080257E NORTHGLENN, CITY OF ADAMS COUNTY 12/02/21 09/15/7809/15/7808/22/75 No 080167#NORWOOD, TOWN OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY (NSFHA)01/27/8509/30/9211/22/74 No 080188C NUNN, TOWN OF WELD COUNTY 01/20/16 02/01/7902/01/7908/30/74 No 080158#OAK CREEK, TOWN OF ROUTT COUNTY 02/04/05 07/17/8907/17/8905/17/74 No 080128#OLATHE, TOWN OF MONTROSE COUNTY 01/06/12 09/16/8209/16/8206/28/74 No 080258#ORCHARD CITY, TOWN OF DELTA COUNTY 08/19/10 05/16/8307/16/8105/31/77 No 080259#ORDWAY, TOWN OF CROWLEY COUNTY 12/18/85(M)12/18/8512/18/8508/22/75 No 080132#OTERO COUNTY *OTERO COUNTY 08/19/85 08/19/8508/19/8511/22/74 No 080178A OTIS, TOWN OF WASHINGTON COUNTY 05/18/21(M)08/19/8508/19/8505/24/74 No 080136A OURAY COUNTY *OURAY COUNTY 01/11/24 07/03/8507/03/85 No 080137A OURAY, CITY OF OURAY COUNTY 01/11/24 07/03/8507/03/8505/24/74 No 080170A OVID, TOWN OF SEDGWICK COUNTY 05/18/21 07/30/0905/18/2111/15/74 No 080019B PAGOSA SPRINGS, TOWN OF ARCHULETA COUNTY 10/05/23 12/01/7812/01/7806/07/74 No 080198#PALISADE, TOWN OF MESA COUNTY 10/16/12 02/05/8602/05/8608/13/76 No 080065A PALMER LAKE, TOWN OF EL PASO COUNTY 12/07/18 07/03/7807/03/7811/16/73 1010/01/2210/01/03No 080045#PAONIA, TOWN OF DELTA COUNTY 08/19/10 03/16/8303/16/8305/24/74 No 080215#PARACHUTE, TOWN OF GARFIELD COUNTY 09/27/91 09/27/9109/27/9108/13/76 No FORMERLY THE TOWN OF GRAND VALLEY No 080139#PARK COUNTY*PARK COUNTY 12/18/09(M)04/01/8704/01/8711/22/77 No 080310E PARKER, TOWN OF DOUGLAS COUNTY 12/02/21 09/30/8709/30/87 505/01/17 25%10/01/92No 080286 PHILLIPS COUNTY *PHILLIPS COUNTY 07/24/98(E)No 080189C PIERCE, TOWN OF WELD COUNTY 01/20/16 11/15/7911/15/7911/29/74 No 080287B PITKIN COUNTY*PITKIN COUNTY 08/15/19 06/04/8706/04/8710/25/77 710/01/23 15%10/01/92No 080190C PLATTEVILLE, TOWN OF WELD COUNTY 11/30/23 02/29/8001/20/1601/16/76 No 080220A PONCHA SPRINGS, TOWN OF CHAFFEE COUNTY 12/07/17 02/19/8702/19/8708/29/75 No Page 5 of 8 06/25/2025 Community Status Book Report COLORADO Communities Participating in the National Flood Program CID Community Name County Init FIRM Identified Curr Eff Map Date Reg-Emer Date Init FHBM Identified % DiscCRS Entry Date Curr Class Curr Eff Date Tribal 080173#TELLER COUNTY *TELLER COUNTY 09/25/09 09/30/8809/30/8809/06/77 No 080168#TELLURIDE, TOWN OF on probation eff mar 09, 2024 SAN MIGUEL COUNTY 09/30/92 09/15/7809/15/7806/28/74 1010/01/2010/01/94No 080007E THORNTON, CITY OF ADAMS COUNTY 12/02/21 06/15/7806/15/7811/01/74 510/01/24 25%10/01/94No 080005#TIMNATH, TOWN OF LARIMER COUNTY 12/19/06 12/11/0612/19/06 No 080107A TRINIDAD, CITY OF LAS ANIMAS COUNTY 08/28/19 07/03/7807/03/7806/28/74 No 080054#VAIL, TOWN OF EAGLE COUNTY 12/04/07 05/02/8305/02/8309/19/78 604/01/22 20%10/01/91No 080086 WALDEN, TOWN OF JACKSON COUNTY 08/05/86(M)08/05/8608/05/8606/28/74 No 080083#WALSENBURG, CITY OF HUERFANO COUNTY 09/29/86 09/29/8609/29/8601/18/74 No 080021 WALSH, TOWN OF BACA COUNTY (NSFHA)06/30/7606/30/7606/28/74 No 080266C WELD COUNTY *WELD COUNTY 09/26/24 03/18/8003/18/8003/21/78 No 080104#WELLINGTON, TOWN OF LARIMER COUNTY 12/19/06 02/15/7902/15/7903/22/74 No 080008F WESTMINSTER, CITY OF JEFFERSON COUNTY/ADAMS COUNTY 12/20/19 09/30/8809/30/8806/07/74 605/01/13 20%10/01/91No 085079F WHEAT RIDGE, CITY OF JEFFERSON COUNTY 08/02/22 05/26/7205/26/72 510/01/17 25%10/01/91No 080204B WIGGINS, TOWN OF MORGAN COUNTY 04/04/18 02/15/7902/15/7901/28/77 No 080228A WILEY, TOWN OF PROWERS COUNTY 04/19/16(M)10/06/0010/06/00 No 080028#WILLIAMSBURG, TOWN OF FREMONT COUNTY 01/06/12 10/21/1309/19/07 No 080264C WINDSOR, TOWN OF LARIMER COUNTY/WELD COUNTY 11/30/23 09/27/9109/27/9103/26/76 No 080305#WINTER PARK, TOWN OF GRAND COUNTY 01/02/08 11/15/8511/15/85 No 080175#WOODLAND PARK, CITY OF TELLER COUNTY 09/25/09 09/30/8809/30/8806/07/74 No 080191#WRAY, CITY OF YUMA COUNTY 06/19/85 06/19/8506/19/8503/15/74 No 080160#YAMPA, TOWN OF ROUTT COUNTY (NSFHA)12/23/8502/04/0505/24/74 No 080291#YUMA COUNTY *YUMA COUNTY 06/19/85 06/19/8506/19/85 No 080265 YUMA, TOWN OF YUMA COUNTY (NSFHA)11/01/8404/23/76 No Total In Emergency Program Total In the Regular Program Total In Regular Program with No Special Flood Hazard Total In Regular Program But Minimally Flood Prone 6 248 14 34 Summary: Total In Flood Program 254 Page 7 of 8 06/25/2025 Community Status Book Report COLORADO Communities Not in the National Flood Program CID Community Name County Init FIRM Identified Curr Eff Map Date Sanction Date Init FHBM Identified % DiscCRS Entry Date Curr Class Curr Eff Date Tribal 080016B BLUE RIVER, TOWN OF SUMMIT COUNTY 11/16/18 11/16/1211/16/11 No 080231E CASTLE PINES, CITY OF DOUGLAS COUNTY 12/02/21 02/07/7609/03/8002/07/75 No 080014F COLUMBINE VALLEY, TOWN OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY 04/11/24 04/11/24(S)06/15/7801/25/74 No 080111B CROOK, TOWN OF LOGAN COUNTY 05/04/21 05/17/16(S)02/05/8611/08/74 No 080040 CUSTER COUNTY*CUSTER COUNTY 01/24/78 01/24/7901/24/78 No 080120 DINOSAUR, TOWN OF MOFFAT COUNTY 01/09/76 08/30/7501/09/7608/30/74 No 080212C EMPIRE, TOWN OF CLEAR CREEK COUNTY 12/20/19 05/02/7603/19/0705/02/75 No 080074#HOT SULPHUR SPRINGS, TOWN OF GRAND COUNTY 01/02/08 11/22/7501/02/0811/22/74 No 080033 KIT CARSON, TOWN OF CHEYENNE COUNTY 12/13/74 12/13/7512/13/74 No 080109A LIMON, TOWN OF LINCOLN COUNTY 09/12/24 09/12/24(S)11/01/8406/28/74 No 080217B LOG LANE VILLAGE, TOWN OF MORGAN COUNTY 05/18/21 04/04/1904/04/18 No 080110B LOGAN COUNTY *LOGAN COUNTY 05/04/21 03/30/23(S)09/29/8904/04/78 No 080113B MERINO, TOWN OF LOGAN COUNTY 05/04/21 11/22/7505/16/1611/22/74 No 080127#NUCLA, TOWN OF MONTROSE COUNTY 01/06/12 05/24/7501/06/1205/24/74 No 080088B PEETZ, TOWN OF LOGAN COUNTY 05/16/16 05/15/1705/15/16 No 080293#PITKIN, TOWN OF GUNNISON COUNTY 05/16/13 06/20/7905/16/1306/20/78 No 080316#SAWPIT, TOWN OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY 09/30/88 09/30/8909/30/88 No 080292E WARD, TOWN OF BOULDER COUNTY 10/24/24 02/01/8002/01/79 No 080176A WASHINGTON COUNTY*WASHINGTON COUNTY 05/18/21 05/18/2205/18/21 No Total Suspended from Emergency Program Total Suspended from Regular Program Total Withdrawn Communities Not In Program Total Not In Program With Hazard Area Identified Total Not In Program With Hazard Area Identified < 1 Year 0 4 0 19 0 Summary: Total Not in Flood Program 19 Legend: Indicates Entry In Emergency Program No Special Flood Hazard Area - All Zone C Date of Current Effective Map is after the Date of This Report Not Applicable At This Time Suspended Community Withdrawn Community No Elevation Determined - All Zone A, C and X Original FIRM by Letter - All Zone A, C and X (E) NSFHA (>) N/A (S) (W) (M) (L) APPENDIX D: AIR QUALITY State Area NAAQS Standard Notice Type Action Publication Date Effective Date CO Adams, Denver, and Boulder Counties; Denver Metropolitan area PM-10 (1987 Standard)Other Redesignation Request Received -- CO Adams, Denver, and Boulder Counties; Denver Metropolitan area PM-10 (1987 Standard)Final Initial Classification -11/15/1990 CO Adams, Denver, and Boulder Counties; Denver Metropolitan area PM-10 (1987 Standard)Final Initial Designation -11/15/1990 CO Adams, Denver, and Boulder Counties; Denver Metropolitan area PM-10 (1987 Standard)Proposal Redesignation to Attainment 5/23/2002 - CO Adams, Denver, and Boulder Counties; Denver Metropolitan area PM-10 (1987 Standard)Final Redesignation to Attainment 9/16/2002 10/16/2002 CO Archuleta County; Pagosa Springs PM-10 (1987 Standard)Other Redesignation Request Received -- CO Archuleta County; Pagosa Springs PM-10 (1987 Standard)Final Initial Classification -11/15/1990 CO Archuleta County; Pagosa Springs PM-10 (1987 Standard)Final Initial Designation -11/15/1990 CO Archuleta County; Pagosa Springs PM-10 (1987 Standard)Proposal Redesignation to Attainment 6/15/2001 - CO Archuleta County; Pagosa Springs PM-10 (1987 Standard)Direct Final Redesignation to Attainment 6/15/2001 8/14/2001 CO Colorado Springs Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Other Redesignation Request Received -- CO Colorado Springs Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Final Initial Classification -11/15/1990 CO Colorado Springs Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Final Initial Designation -11/15/1990 CO Colorado Springs Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Proposal Redesignation to Attainment 8/25/1999 - CO Colorado Springs Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Direct Final Redesignation to Attainment 8/25/1999 10/25/1999 CO Denver Metro/North Front Range 8-Hour Ozone (2015 Standard)---- CO Denver-Boulder Area 1-Hour Ozone (1979 Standard)Other Redesignation Request Received -- CO Denver-Boulder Area 1-Hour Ozone (1979 Standard)Final Initial Classification -11/15/1990 CO Denver-Boulder Area 1-Hour Ozone (1979 Standard)Final Initial Designation -11/15/1990 CO Denver-Boulder Area 1-Hour Ozone (1979 Standard)Proposal Redesignation to Attainment 5/11/2001 - CO Denver-Boulder Area 1-Hour Ozone (1979 Standard)Final Redesignation to Attainment 9/11/2001 10/11/2001 CO Denver-Boulder Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Other Redesignation Request Received -- CO Denver-Boulder Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Final Initial Designation -11/15/1990 CO Denver-Boulder Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Final Initial Classification -4/9/1997 CO Denver-Boulder Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Proposal Redesignation to Attainment 8/22/2001 - CO Denver-Boulder Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Final Redesignation to Attainment 12/14/2001 1/14/2002 CO Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland 8-Hour Ozone (1997 Standard)Final Initial Designation -11/20/2007 CO Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland 8-Hour Ozone (1997 Standard)Final Initial Classification -6/13/2012 CO Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland 8-Hour Ozone (1997 Standard)Proposal Revocation 6/6/2013 - CO Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland 8-Hour Ozone (1997 Standard)Final Revocation 3/6/2015 4/6/2015 CO Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland 8-Hour Ozone (2008 Standard)Final Initial Designation 5/21/2012 7/20/2012 CO Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland 8-Hour Ozone (2008 Standard)Final Initial Classification 5/21/2012 6/3/2016 CO Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland 8-Hour Ozone (2008 Standard)Proposal Change to a Higher Classification 8/15/2019 - CO Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland 8-Hour Ozone (2008 Standard)Final Change to a Higher Classification 12/26/2019 1/27/2020 CO Fort Collins Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Other Redesignation Request Received -- CO Fort Collins Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Final Initial Classification -11/15/1990 CO Fort Collins Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Final Initial Designation -11/15/1990 CO Fort Collins Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Proposal Redesignation to Attainment 7/22/2003 - CO Fort Collins Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Direct Final Redesignation to Attainment 7/22/2003 9/22/2003 CO Fremont County; Canon City Area PM-10 (1987 Standard)Other Redesignation Request Received -- CO Fremont County; Canon City Area PM-10 (1987 Standard)Final Initial Classification -11/15/1990 CO Fremont County; Canon City Area PM-10 (1987 Standard)Final Initial Designation -11/15/1990 CO Fremont County; Canon City Area PM-10 (1987 Standard)Proposal Redesignation to Attainment 5/30/2000 - CO Fremont County; Canon City Area PM-10 (1987 Standard)Direct Final Redesignation to Attainment 5/30/2000 7/31/2000 CO Greeley Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Other Redesignation Request Received -- CO Greeley Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Final Initial Classification -11/15/1990 CO Greeley Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Final Initial Designation -11/15/1990 CO Greeley Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Proposal Redesignation to Attainment 3/10/1999 - CO Greeley Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Direct Final Redesignation to Attainment 3/10/1999 5/10/1999 CO Longmont Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Other Redesignation Request Received -- CO Longmont Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Final Initial Classification -11/15/1990 CO Longmont Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Final Initial Designation -11/15/1990 CO Longmont Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Proposal Redesignation to Attainment 9/24/1999 - CO Longmont Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Direct Final Redesignation to Attainment 9/24/1999 11/23/1999 CO Pitkin County; Aspen PM-10 (1987 Standard)Other Redesignation Request Received -- CO Pitkin County; Aspen PM-10 (1987 Standard)Final Initial Classification -11/15/1990 CO Pitkin County; Aspen PM-10 (1987 Standard)Final Initial Designation -11/15/1990 CO Pitkin County; Aspen PM-10 (1987 Standard)Proposal Redesignation to Attainment 5/15/2003 - CO Pitkin County; Aspen PM-10 (1987 Standard)Direct Final Redesignation to Attainment 5/15/2003 7/14/2003 CO Prowers County; Lamar PM-10 (1987 Standard)Other Redesignation Request Received -- CO Prowers County; Lamar PM-10 (1987 Standard)Final Initial Classification -11/15/1990 CO Prowers County; Lamar PM-10 (1987 Standard)Final Initial Designation -11/15/1990 CO Prowers County; Lamar PM-10 (1987 Standard)Proposal Redesignation to Attainment 8/5/2004 - CO Prowers County; Lamar PM-10 (1987 Standard)Final Redesignation to Attainment 10/25/2005 11/25/2005 CO Routt County (part); Steamboat Springs PM-10 (1987 Standard)Other Redesignation Request Received -- CO Routt County (part); Steamboat Springs PM-10 (1987 Standard)Final Initial Classification -1/20/1994 CO Routt County (part); Steamboat Springs PM-10 (1987 Standard)Final Initial Designation -1/20/1994 CO Routt County (part); Steamboat Springs PM-10 (1987 Standard)Proposal Redesignation to Attainment 8/5/2004 - CO Routt County (part); Steamboat Springs PM-10 (1987 Standard)Final Redesignation to Attainment 10/25/2004 11/24/2004 CO San Miguel County; Telluride PM-10 (1987 Standard)Other Redesignation Request Received -- CO San Miguel County; Telluride PM-10 (1987 Standard)Final Initial Classification -11/15/1990 CO San Miguel County; Telluride PM-10 (1987 Standard)Final Initial Designation -11/15/1990 CO San Miguel County; Telluride PM-10 (1987 Standard)Proposal Redesignation to Attainment 6/15/2001 - CO San Miguel County; Telluride PM-10 (1987 Standard)Direct Final Redesignation to Attainment 6/15/2001 8/14/2001 State Area NAAQS Standard Status Designation Date 2021 Area Population³2020 Area PopulationDesign Value 24 Hr Design Value Design Value Unit of MeasureDesign Value Years Meets NAAQS?⁴ CO Adams, Denver, and Boulder Counties; Denver Metropolitan area PM-10 (1987 Standard)Maintenance 11/15/1990 3,280,183 3,222,535 .000 0.0 est. exc.2020-2022 Yes CO Archuleta County; Pagosa Springs PM-10 (1987 Standard)Maintenance 11/15/1990 15,070 13,359 1.300 1.3 est. exc.2020-2022 No CO Colorado Springs Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Maintenance 11/15/1990 728,162 717,432 1.100 -ppm 2021-2022 Yes CO Denver Metro/North Front Range 8-Hour Ozone (2015 Standard)Nonattainment 8/3/2018 4,003,309 3,919,132 .084 -ppm 2020-2022 No CO Denver-Boulder Area 1-Hour Ozone (1979 Standard)Maintenance 11/15/1990 4,001,488 3,917,211 .103 -ppm 2020-2022 Yes CO Denver-Boulder Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Maintenance 11/15/1990 3,140,255 3,085,176 1.800 -ppm 2021-2022 Yes CO Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland 8-Hour Ozone (1997 Standard)Nonattainment (NAAQS revoked)11/20/2007 4,001,488 3,917,211 .084 -ppm 2020-2022 Yes CO Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Loveland 8-Hour Ozone (2008 Standard)Nonattainment 7/20/2012 4,001,488 3,917,211 .084 -ppm 2020-2022 No CO Fort Collins Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Maintenance 11/15/1990 164,271 160,801 1.100 -ppm 2021-2022 Yes CO Fremont County; Canon City Area PM-10 (1987 Standard)Maintenance 11/15/1990 48,465 48,939 -est. exc.2020-2022 Incomplete CO Greeley Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Maintenance 11/15/1990 342,225 328,949 .700 -ppm 2021-2022 Yes CO Longmont Area Carbon Monoxide (1971 Standard)Maintenance 11/15/1990 108,620 106,312 -ppm 2021-2022 No Data CO Pitkin County; Aspen PM-10 (1987 Standard)Maintenance 11/15/1990 18,281 17,358 -est. exc.2020-2022 Incomplete CO Prowers County; Lamar PM-10 (1987 Standard)Maintenance 11/15/1990 7,867 7,576 2.800 2.8 est. exc.2020-2022 No CO Routt County (part); Steamboat Springs PM-10 (1987 Standard)Maintenance 1/20/1994 26,058 24,829 .000 0.0 est. exc.2020-2022 Yes CO San Miguel County; Telluride PM-10 (1987 Standard)Maintenance 11/15/1990 8,432 8,072 .000 0.0 est. exc.2020-2022 Yes APPENDIX E: COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT     STATE COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARIES February 9, 2012 STATE DEFINITION OF STATE’S COASTAL ZONE (The seaward boundary of the Great Lake States is the U.S.-Canada International boundary, and for all other States is the 3 nautical mile territorial sea, except for those States marked with an asterisk (*) ALABAMA Alabama’s coastal zone extends inland to the continuous 10-foot elevation contour in Baldwin and Mobile Counties.   ALASKA As of July 1, 2011, Alaska no longer has a federally approved coastal management program or defined coastal zone and federal consistency does not apply to Alaska. Contact NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management for additional information. AMERICAN SAMOA American Samoa’s coastal zone is the entire Territory. CALIFORNIA & BCDC California’s coastal zone generally extends 1,000 yards inland from the mean high tide line. In significant coastal estuarine habitat and recreational areas it extends inland to the first major ridgeline or 5 miles from the mean high tide line, whichever is less. In developed urban areas, the boundary is generally less than 1,000 yards.   The coastal zone for the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) includes the open water, marshes and mudflats of greater San Francisco Bay, and areas 100 feet inland from the line of highest tidal action. The boundary also includes: the Suisun marsh and buffer zone: managed wetlands diked off from the Bay; and open waters diked off from the Bay and used in salt production. CONNECTICUT Connecticut’s coastal zone has two tiers incorporated within the 36 coastal townships. The first tier is bounded by a continuous line delineated by a 1,000 foot linear setback measured from the mean high water mark in coastal waters; or a 1,000 foot linear setback measured from the inland boundary of state regulated tidal wetlands; or the continuous interior contour elevation of the one hundred year frequency coastal flood zone; whichever is farthest inland. The second tier is the area between the inland boundary of the 36 coastal communities and the inland boundary of the first tier. DELAWARE Delaware’s coastal zone includes the whole state. FLORIDA * Florida’s coastal zone is the entire State, but has two tiers. Local governments eligible to receive coastal management funds are limited to those Gulf and Atlantic coastal cities and counties which include or are contiguous to state water bodies where marine species of vegetation constitute the dominant plant community. Florida’s seaward boundary in the Gulf of Mexico is 3 marine leagues (9 nautical miles) and is 3 nautical miles in the Atlantic. GEORGIA Georgia’s coastal zone includes the 11 counties that border tidally-influenced waters or have economies that are closely tied to coastal resources. GUAM Guam’s coastal zone is the entire Territory. HAWAI’I Hawai’i’s coastal zone is the entire state. ILLINOIS   Illinois’ coastal zone has two components. The Lakeshore Boundary is based on the Lake Michigan watershed and is generally parallel to the Lake Michigan shoreline. The Inland Waterway Boundary includes Inland Waterway Corridors, which are select segments of the Chicago River system (North Branch, South Branch, Main Branch and North Shore Channel) and select segments of the Little Calumet and Grand Calumet Rivers. The Inland Waterway Corridors consist of both the waterway and designated land area to either side of the waterway. INDIANA Indiana’s coastal zone is based on watershed boundaries within coastal townships and the counties of Lake, Porter and LaPorte. To create an inland boundary that is identifiable in practical landmarks, the coastal zone boundary is described based on the U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle maps and major roads for each county. The coastal zone boundary is located in the northern portions of Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties. At its widest extent, the boundary extends away from the shoreline 17 miles to the Crown Point area and at its narrowest point, less than 2 miles, just north of Hudson Lake in LaPorte County. See NOAA, Indiana Lake Michigan Coastal Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix C (April 2002), to determine the precise coastal zone boundary in a particular area of the State. LOUISIANA Louisiana’s coastal zone varies from 16 to 32 miles inland from the Gulf coast and generally follows the Intracoastal Waterway running from the Texas-Louisiana state line then follows highways through Vermilion, Iberia, and St. Mary parishes, then dipping southward following the natural ridges below Houma, then turning northward to take in Lake Pontchartrain and ending at the Mississippi-Louisiana border. MAINE Maine’s coastal zone includes the inland line of coastal towns on tidewaters and all islands. MARYLAND Maryland’s coastal zone extends to the inland boundary of the 16 counties bordering the Atlantic Ocean, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Potomac River (as far as the municipal limits of Washington, D.C), and includes Baltimore City and all local jurisdictions within the counties. MASSACHUSETTS Massachusetts’ coastal zone extends 100 feet inland of specified major roads, RR tracks, or other visible right of ways which are located within a half mile of coastal waters or salt marshes. The coastal zone includes all islands, transitional and intertidal areas, and coastal wetlands and beaches. In instances where the road boundary excludes significant resource areas, the boundary line may depart from the road to encompass. MICHIGAN Michigan’s coastal zone, generally, extends a minimum of 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The boundary extends further inland in some locations to encompass coastal lakes, rivermouths, and bays; floodplains; wetlands; dune areas; urban areas; and public park, recreation, and natural areas. MINNESOTA Minnesota’s coastal zone is divided into three areas. The first includes the area of the St. Louis River in Carlton County, south of Duluth. The second is the city of Duluth and surrounding areas of urban growth and expansion to the north and west. The third is the region between the Duluth city limits north to the Canadian border, also known as the “North Shore,” which includes portions of St. Louis, Lake, and Cook Counties. See NOAA, Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter One, (May 1999), to determine the precise coastal zone boundary in a particular area of the State. MISSISSIPPI Mississippi’s coastal zone includes the 3 counties adjacent to the coast. The coastal zone includes these counties, as well as all adjacent coastal waters. Included in this definition are the barrier islands of the coast. NEW HAMPSHIRE New Hampshire’s coastal zone is the 17 coastal municipalities. NEW JERSEY New Jersey’s coastal zone recognizes four distinct regions of the State and treats them separately. From the New York border to the Raritan Bay, the boundary extends landward from mean high water to the first road or property line. From the Raritan Bay south along the Atlantic shoreline and up to the Delaware Memorial Bridge, the boundary extends from half a mile to 24 miles inland (1,376 square miles of land area). From the Delaware Memorial Bridge northward up the Delaware River to Trenton, the boundary extends landward to the first road inclusive of all wetlands. The fourth boundary serves a 31-mile square area in the northeast corner of the state bordering the Hudson river (New Jersey Meadowlands Commission). NEW YORK New York's coastal zone varies from region to region while incorporating the following conditions: The inland boundary is approximately 1,000 feet from the shoreline of the mainland. In urbanized and developed coastal locations the landward boundary is approximately 500 feet from the mainland's shoreline, or less than 500 feet where a roadway or railroad line runs parallel to the shoreline at a distance of under 500 feet and defines the boundary. In locations where major state-owned lands and facilities or electric power generating facilities abut the shoreline, the boundary extends inland to include them. In some areas, such as Long Island Sound and the Hudson River Valley, the boundary may extend inland up to 10,000 feet to encompass significant coastal resources, such as areas of exceptional scenic value, agricultural or recreational lands, and major tributaries and headlands. NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina’s coastal zone includes the 20 counties that in whole or in part are adjacent to, adjoining, intersected by or bounded by the Atlantic Ocean or any coastal sound(s). Within this boundary, there are two tiers. The first tier is comprised of Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) and is subject to more thorough regulatory controls. AECs include: coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, public trust areas, estuarine shorelines, ocean beaches, frontal dunes, ocean erosion areas, inlet lands, small surface water supply watersheds, pubic water supply well-fields, and fragile natural resource areas. The second tier includes land uses which have potential to affect coastal waters even though they are not located in AECs. NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS Northern Mariana Islands’ coastal zone is the entire Commonwealth. (Note: a recent federal court decision ruled that the Commonwealth does not own the adjacent territorial sea. A consent decree allows the CNMI to manage the area.) OHIO Ohio’s coastal zone includes portions of 9 counties bordering Lake Erie and its tributaries and varies depending on biophysical characteristics of various coastal regions– in the western part of the coast the boundary extends inland up to 15 miles along certain low lying wetland and floodplain areas; in most of the eastern part of the State, areas with high bluffs, the boundary extends inland for only about an eighth of a mile, with the exception of the Mentor Marsh area. OREGON Oregon’s coastal zone extends inland to the crest of the coastal range, except for the following: along the Umpqua River, where it extends upstream to Scottsburg; along the Rogue River, where it extends upstream to Agness; and except in the Columbia River Basin, where it extends upstream to the downstream end of Puget Island. PENNSYLVANIA Pennsylvania’s coastal zone along Lake Erie varies from 900 feet in urban areas to over 3 miles in more rural areas, and encompasses the floodplains of Lake Erie and tributary streams, bluff hazards recession areas, and coastal wetlands. The coastal zone along the Delaware River Estuary extends inland to 660 feet in urbanized areas, to 3.5 miles in rural areas, and includes floodplains of the Delaware and Schuykill Rivers and their tributaries to the upper limit of tidal influence, and tidal and freshwater wetlands. PUERTO RICO * Puerto Rico’s coastal zone, generally, extends 1,000 meters inland; however, it extends further inland in certain areas to include important coastal resources. Puerto Rico’s seaward boundary is 3 marine leagues (9 nautical miles). RHODE ISLAND Rhode Island’s coastal zone includes the whole state. However, the inland extent of the regulatory authority of the State’s CZMA agency is 200 feet inland from any coastal feature, to watersheds, and to certain activities that occur anywhere within the State that include: power-generating plants; petroleum storage facilities; chemical or petroleum processing; minerals extraction; sewage treatment and disposal plants; solid waste disposal facilities; and, desalination plants. SOUTH CAROLINA South Carolina’s coastal zone includes all lands and waters in the counties which contain any one or more of the critical areas (coastal waters, tidelands, beaches, and primary oceanfront sand dunes). TEXAS * Texas’ coastal zone is generally the area seaward of the Texas coastal facility designation line which roughly follows roads that are parallel to coastal waters and wetlands generally within one mile of tidal rivers. The boundary encompasses all or portions of 18 coastal counties. Texas’ seaward boundary is 3 marine leagues (9 nautical miles). VIRGINIA Virginia’s coastal zone includes the 29 counties, 17 cities, and 42 incorporated towns of Tidewater Virginia, including the Atlantic Coast watershed and portions of the Chesapeake Bay and Albemarle-Pamlico Sound watersheds. VIRGIN ISLANDS Virgin Islands’ coastal zone includes the entire territory. WASHINGTON Washington’s coastal zone is the 15 coastal counties that front saltwater. WISCONSIN Wisconsin’s coastal zone is the 15 counties that front Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, or Green Bay.   APPENDIX F: CONTAMINATION AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Oil and Gas Well Map Subject Property Transmission Lines Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User U.S. Electric Power Transmission Lines 220-287 (Kilovolts) World_Hillshade 6/25/2025 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.15 0.30.07 km 1:7,922 Subject Property APPENDIX G: ENDANGERED SPECIES Section 7 ESA Review SPECIES STATUS CRITICAL AND SUITABLE HABITAT HABITAT PRESENCE DETERMINATION Canada Lynx Threatened Lynx habitat can generally be described as moist boreal forests that have cold, snowy winters and a high-density snowshoe hare prey base. The predominant vegetation of boreal forest is conifer trees, primarily species of spruce (Picea spp.) and fir (Abies spp.). In the contiguous United States, the boreal forest type transitions to deciduous temperate forest in the Northeast and Great Lakes, and to subalpine forest in the west. In mountainous areas, the boreal forests that lynx use are characterized by scattered moist forest types with high hare densities in a matrix of other habitats (e.g., hardwoods, dry forest, non-forest) with low hare densities. In these areas, lynx incorporate the matrix habitat (non- boreal forest habitat elements) into their home ranges and use it for traveling between patches of boreal forest that support high hare densities where most foraging occurs. Not present on the subject property No Effect Gray Wolf Experimental Population, Non- Essential Gray wolves have a circumpolar range including North America, Europe and Asia. The wide range of habitats in which wolves can thrive reflects their adaptability as a species and includes temperate forests, mountains, tundra, taiga, grasslands and deserts. In North America, wolves are primarily predators of medium and large hooved mammals, such as moose, elk, white- tailed deer, mule deer, caribou, muskox and bison. Gray wolves have long legs that are well adapted to running, allowing them to move fast and travel far in search of food, and large skulls Not present on the subject property No Effect and jaws that are well suited to catching and feeding on large mammals. Yellow-billed Cuckoo Threatened Yellow-billed Cuckoos use wooded habitat with dense cover and water nearby, including woodlands with low, scrubby, vegetation, overgrown orchards, abandoned farmland, and dense thickets along streams and marshes. In the Midwest, look for cuckoos in shrublands of mixed willow and dogwood, and in dense stands of small trees such as American elm. In the central and eastern U.S., Yellow-billed Cuckoos nest in oaks, beech, hawthorn, and ash. In the West, nests are often placed in willows along streams and rivers, with nearby cottonwoods serving as foraging sites. Not present on the subject property No Effect Bonytail Endangered Bonytails are restricted to warm-water reaches of main-stem streams, but they have been found in reservoirs and backwaters of the Colorado and Green Rivers. They are also captive-reared in ponds. Not present on the subject property No Effect Colorado Pikeminnow Endangered Colorado Pikeminnow inhabit larger rivers in the Colorado River basin and occupy a variety of environments that change over the course of their life cycle. Larvae and juveniles are found in calm, warm backwaters and other low-velocity areas. Larger juveniles and adults establish home ranges that contain pools, deep runs, and eddies where they can forage. Not present on the subject property No Effect Humpback Chub Threatened Humpback chub live in rocky canyons where swift, turbulent water makes it difficult for other fish to live. Humpback chub are resilient to a variety of physical and chemical habitat conditions and tolerate a wide range of river flows at all life stages. Not present on the subject property No Effect Razorback Sucker Endangered Razorback sucker are native only to large rivers in the Colorado River basin. They use a variety of habitat types, including mainstem river channels, reservoirs, turbid inflow areas, and floodplain wetlands. Historically, razorback sucker are thought to have been uncommon in turbulent, canyon-bound river sections, with robust populations typically found in calm, flatwater areas. Not present on the subject property No Effect Monarch Butterfly Proposed Threatened Monarch butterflies can have habitat in fields, roadside areas, open areas, wet areas, and urban gardens; however, milkweed and flowering plants are needed for food and breeding. For overwintering monarchs, habitat with a specific microclimate is needed for protection from the elements, as well as moderate temperatures to avoid freezing. Monarchs living west of the Rocky Mountain Range in North America primarily overwinter in California at sites along the Pacific Coast, roosting in eucalyptus, Monterey Pines, and Monterey cypress trees. Not present on the subject property No Effect Silverspot Threatened The silverspot requires moist, open meadows with vegetation for shelter. Herbaceous plants are also important for nectar sources, which provide energy to adults for mating and flying. The butterfly has an annual life cycle and lays eggs on, or immediately next to, the bog violet that the larvae feed on exclusively. Not present on the subject property No Effect Suckley’s Cuckoo Bumble Bee Proposed Endangered Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bees cannot successfully reproduce without the availability of suitable host bumble bee colonies, typically Western bumble bee and Nevada bumble bee colonies, that they invade and their survival is dependent on the survival and health of the host Not present on the subject property No Effect colony. The bee requires diverse native floral resources and strict temperature requirements. Based on IpaC information, no Suckley’s have been observed in Colorado since 2014 and since 2018, have only been found in northern latitudes, primarily in Canada. Ute Ladies’-tresses Threatened When Ute ladies’-tresses was listed in 1992 it was known primarily from moist meadows associated with perennial stream terraces, floodplains, and oxbows at elevations between 4300-6850 feet (1310-2090 meters). Surveys since 1992 have expanded the number of vegetation and hydrology types occupied by Ute ladies’-tresses to include seasonally flooded river terraces, subirrigated or spring-fed abandoned stream channels and valleys, and lakeshores. In addition, 26 populations have been discovered along irrigation canals, berms, levees, irrigated meadows, excavated gravel pits, roadside barrow pits, reservoirs, and other human-modified wetlands. New surveys have also expanded the elevational range of the species from 720-1830 feet (220-558 meters) in Washington to 7000 feet (2134 meters) in northern Utah. Over one-third of all known Ute ladies’-tresses populations are found on alluvial banks, point bars, floodplains, or ox-bows associated with perennial streams. Not present on the subject property No Effect 06/25/2025 15:29:27 UTC United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Office 445 West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 240 Grand Junction, CO 81501-5711 Phone: (970) 628-7180 Fax: (970) 245-6933 In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2025-0104678 Project Name: Aster Place Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat (Colorado Ecological Services Field Office). Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the ESA, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the ESA is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the ESA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR Project code: 2025-0104678 06/25/2025 15:29:27 UTC   2 of 13 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/endangered-species-consultation-handbook.pdf. Projects and activities without a Federal nexus (e.g., without Federal funding, permit, or authorization) should be evaluated for the potential to “take” listed wildlife. Take does not apply to listed plants and to designated critical habitat. The term "take" means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (ESA Section 3, Definitions). Harm in the definition of “take” in the ESA means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Gray Wolf: On November 8, 2023, the Service promulgated an ESA section 10(j) (i.e., experimental population) rule (10(j) rule) for gray wolf (Canis lupus) within the State of Colorado (88 FR 77014). For purposes of ESA section 7 consultation, we treat experimental populations as if they are proposed for listing, except on National Park Service and Service lands, where they are treated as threatened. Evaluations for proposed species are completed under the regulations for conferencing (50 CFR 402.10). Conferencing for species that are proposed for Federal listing, or for proposed critical habitat, is only required if a proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species or will result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If an action agency determines that their action would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and/ or would not result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, and the Service concurs, the conferencing requirement is fulfilled. Colorado River Fish/Depletions: Formal interagency consultation under section 7 of the ESA is required for projects that may lead to depletions of water from any system that is a tributary to the Colorado River. Federal agency actions resulting in water depletions to the Colorado River system may affect the endangered bonytail (Gila elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and the threatened humpback chub (Gila cypha), and their designated critical habitats. Water depletions include evaporative losses and consumptive use of surface or groundwater within the affected basin, often characterized as diversion minus return flows. Project elements that could be associated with depletions include, but are not limited to: ponds, lakes, and reservoirs (e.g., detention, recreation, irrigation, storage, stock watering, municipal storage, and power generation); drilling, hydraulic fracturing and completion of oil and gas wells; hydrostatic testing of pipelines; water wells; dust abatement; diversion structures; and water treatment facilities. Any actions that may result in water depletions should be identified. An analysis of the water depletion should include: an estimate of the amount and timing of the average annual water use (both historic and new uses) and methods of arriving at such estimates; location of water use or where diversion occurs, as specifically as possible; if and when the water will be returned to the system; and the intended use of the water. Depending on Project details, the Service may have more specific questions regarding the potential consumptive use of the water. The Service, in accordance with the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (https:// coloradoriverrecovery.org/uc/), adopted a de minimis policy, which states that water-related activities in the Upper Colorado River Basin that result in less than 10 acre-foot per year of depletions in flow have no effect on the Colorado River endangered fish species and their critical habitat, and thus do not require consultation for potential effects on those species and critical habitat. While no section 7 consultation is needed, the Service requests Federal agencies notify the Upper Colorado Fishes Coordinator of depletions between 0.1 and 10 acre-feet per year with the approximate location of the project (e.g., reference to the most proximate surface water or tributary), the water use (e.g., agricultural, oil and gas, energy), and the timing of and depletion Project code: 2025-0104678 06/25/2025 15:29:27 UTC   3 of 13 amount. Detention basins designed to detain runoff for less than 72 hours, and temporary withdrawals of water outside of critical habitat (e.g., for hydrostatic pipeline testing) that return all the water to the same drainage basin within 30 days, are considered to have no effect and do not require consultation. Suckley’s Cuckoo Bumble Bee: On December 17, 2024, Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee (Bombus suckleyi) (Suckley’s) was proposed for listing as an endangered species (89 FR 102074). Suckley’s is an obligate social parasite of social bumble bees in the genus Bombus. Suckley’s cannot successfully reproduce without the availability of suitable host colonies. It is a semi- specialist parasite and confirmed to usurp nests of Western bumble bee (Bombus occiddentalis) and Nevada bumble bees (Bombus nevadensis) (Service 2024). Based on the best available information, no Suckley’s have been observed in Colorado since 2014 despite ongoing surveys. The Species Status Assessment (SSA) shows observations since 2018 occur only in northern latitudes, primarily in Canada (Service 2024), but the species may persist in high quality upper elevation habitats in western States. While Suckley’s is proposed for listing, there is no prohibition of “take” under Section 9 of the ESA; therefore, projects without a federal nexus, do not need to engage with the Service to exempt take under the ESA. However, we encourage including conservation measures benefiting pollinators and pollinator habitat into projects. Examples include retaining suitable foraging (diversity and abundance of native floral resources), nesting (suitable host colony above or below ground), and overwintering habitat (loose substrates such as leaf litter, duff, rotting logs); maintaining habitat for host bumble bees by avoiding impacts to abandoned underground holes (rodent burrows); and revegetation efforts that include native seed mixes to promote an abundance and diversity of native floral resources. Additionally, we recommend supporting and conducting general bumble bee and pollinator surveys. While the species is not currently known to occur in Colorado, we encourage proactive conservation actions to protect and conserve pollinators and pollinator habitat. Examples include retaining suitable foraging (diversity and abundance of native floral resources), nesting (suitable host colony above or below ground), and overwintering habitat (loose substrates such as leaf litter, duff, rotting logs); maintaining habitat for host bumble bees by avoiding impacts to abandoned underground holes (rodent burrows); and revegetation efforts that include native seed mixes to promote an abundance and diversity of native floral resources. Additionally, we recommend supporting and conducting general bumble bee and pollinator surveys. Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-bird-permit/what- we-do. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds. In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservation-migratory-birds. Project code: 2025-0104678 06/25/2025 15:29:27 UTC   4 of 13 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Attachment(s): Official Species List USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries Bald & Golden Eagles Migratory Birds Wetlands OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Office 445 West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 240 Grand Junction, CO 81501-5711 (970) 628-7180 Project code: 2025-0104678 06/25/2025 15:29:27 UTC   5 of 13 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code:2025-0104678 Project Name:Aster Place Project Type:Residential Construction Project Description:New construction of multi-family residential development Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@39.44059935,-108.03147754389403,14z Counties:Garfield County, Colorado Project code: 2025-0104678 06/25/2025 15:29:27 UTC   6 of 13 1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 11 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Note that 4 of these species should be considered only under certain conditions. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. 1 Project code: 2025-0104678 06/25/2025 15:29:27 UTC   7 of 13 ▪ ▪ ▪ MAMMALS NAME STATUS Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Population: Wherever Found in Contiguous U.S. There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3652 Threatened Gray Wolf Canis lupus Population: CO No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4488 Experimental Population, Non- Essential BIRDS NAME STATUS Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Population: Western U.S. DPS There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911 Threatened FISHES NAME STATUS Bonytail Gila elegans There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: Water depletions in the upper Colorado River basin adversely affect this species and its critical habitat. Effects of water depletions must be considered even outside of occupied range. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1377 Endangered Colorado Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius Population: Wherever found, except where listed as an experimental population There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: Water depletions in the upper Colorado River basin adversely affect this species and its critical habitat. Effects of water depletions must be considered even outside of occupied range. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3531 Endangered Humpback Chub Gila cypha There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: Water depletions in the upper Colorado River basin adversely affect this species and its critical habitat. Effects of water depletions must be considered even outside of occupied range. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3930 Threatened Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus Endangered Project code: 2025-0104678 06/25/2025 15:29:27 UTC   8 of 13 ▪ NAME STATUS There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: Water depletions in the upper Colorado River basin adversely affect this species and its critical habitat. Effects of water depletions must be considered even outside of occupied range. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/530 INSECTS NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Proposed Threatened Silverspot Speyeria nokomis nokomis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2813 Threatened Suckley's Cuckoo Bumble Bee Bombus suckleyi Population: No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10885 Proposed Endangered FLOWERING PLANTS NAME STATUS Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2159 Threatened CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES. USFWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LANDS AND FISH HATCHERIES Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA. Project code: 2025-0104678 06/25/2025 15:29:27 UTC   9 of 13 1. 2. 3. BALD & GOLDEN EAGLES Bald and Golden Eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to Bald or Golden Eagles, or their habitats, should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, as described in the various links on this page. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) There are Bald Eagles and/or Golden Eagles in your project area. Measures for Proactively Minimizing Eagle Impacts For information on how to best avoid and minimize disturbance to nesting bald eagles, please review the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. You may employ the timing and activity-specific distance recommendations in this document when designing your project/ activity to avoid and minimize eagle impacts. For bald eagle information specific to Alaska, please refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity. The FWS does not currently have guidelines for avoiding and minimizing disturbance to nesting Golden Eagles. For site-specific recommendations regarding nesting Golden Eagles, please consult with the appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Office or Ecological Services Field Office. If disturbance or take of eagles cannot be avoided, an incidental take permit may be available to authorize any take that results from, but is not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. For assistance making this determination for Bald Eagles, visit the Do I Need A Permit Tool. For assistance making this determination for golden eagles, please consult with the appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Office or Ecological Services Field Office. Ensure Your Eagle List is Accurate and Complete If your project area is in a poorly surveyed area in IPaC, your list may not be complete and you may need to rely on other resources to determine what species may be present (e.g. your local FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys). Please review the Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles, to help you properly interpret the report for your specified location, including determining if there is sufficient data to ensure your list is accurate. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to bald or golden eagles on your list, see the "Probability of Presence Summary" below to see when these bald or golden eagles are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. 2 1 Project code: 2025-0104678 06/25/2025 15:29:27 UTC   10 of 13 ▪ ▪ no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence NAME BREEDING SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31 PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during that week of the year. Breeding Season () Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/ collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Project code: 2025-0104678 06/25/2025 15:29:27 UTC   11 of 13 ▪ ▪ 1. 2. 3. Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/ media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur- project-action MIGRATORY BIRDS The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the "Probability of Presence Summary" below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31 PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during that week of the year. Breeding Season () Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. 1 Project code: 2025-0104678 06/25/2025 15:29:27 UTC   12 of 13 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence Survey Effort () Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable Additional information can be found using the following links: Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/ collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/ media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur- project-action WETLANDS Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. RIVERINE R4SBC Project code: 2025-0104678 06/25/2025 15:29:27 UTC   13 of 13 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency:Partner ESI Name:Ashley Keesling Address:1515 Mockingbird Lane, Suite 840 City:Charlotte State:NC Zip:28209 Email akeesling@partneresi.com Phone:9804456171 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION Lead Agency:County of Garfield ECOS /  Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Range Information |Candidate Info |Federal Register |Recovery |Critical Habitat |SSA |Conservation Plans |Petitions |Biological Opinions |Life History Taxonomy:View taxonomy in ITIS Listing Status: Threatened Where Listed: WHEREVER FOUND Announcements 01/14/2025 -- 2024 PCH for Canada Lynx is available on ScienceBase, and the 2014 FCH for Canada Lynx will remain on ECOS till the new designation is nalized. Proposed 2024 critical habitat is up on ScienceBase: https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/675c4085d34e189836d1d185 General Information The lynx is a medium-sized cat with long legs, large, well-furred paws, long tufts on the ears, and a short, black-tipped tail. The winter pelage of the lynx is dense and has a grizzled appearance with grayish-brown mixed with bu or pale brown fur on the back, and grayish-white or bu- white fur on the belly, legs and feet. Summer pelage of the lynx is more reddish to gray-brown. Adult males average 10 kilograms (22 pounds) in weight and 85 centimeters (33.5 inches) in length (head to tail), and females average 8.5 kilograms (19 pounds) and 82 centimeters (32 inches). The lynx s long legs and large feet make it highly adapted for hunting in deep snow. The distribution of lynx in North America is closely associated with the distribution of North American boreal forest. In Canada and Alaska, lynx inhabit the classic boreal forest ecosystem known as the taiga. The range of lynx populations extends south from the classic boreal forest zone into the subalpine forest of the western United States, and the boreal/hardwood forest ecotone in the eastern United States. Forests with boreal features extend south into the contiguous United States along the North Cascade and Rocky Mountain Ranges in the west, the western Great Lakes Region, and northern Maine. Within these general forest types, lynx are most likely to persist in areas that receive deep snow and have high-density populations of snowshoe hares, the principal prey of lynx. ECOS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service The species historical range included Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming. See below for information about where the species is known or believed to occur. Current Listing Status Summary Show 10 entries Threatened 03-24-2000 Mountain Prairie Region (Region 6) Wherever Found in Contiguou information Status Date Listed  Lead Region  Where Listed Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext  » Range Information Current Range  Last Updated: 11-13-2023 - Wherever Found in Contiguous U.S. Zoom in! Some species' locations may be small and hard to see from a wide perspective. To narrow-in on locations, check the state and county lists (below) and then use the zoom tool. Want the FWS's current range for all species? Click here to download a zip le containing all individual shapeles and metadata for all species. * For consultation needs do not use only this current range map, please use IPaC. Current range maps are only shown within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States of America. The species may also occur outside this region. 1 + - Wherever Found in Contiguous U.S. Listing status: Threatened States/US Territories in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: California,Colorado,Idaho,Maine,Michigan,Minnesota,Montana,New Hampshire,New Mexico,Utah,Vermont,Washington,Wisconsin,Wyoming US Counties in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: View All USFWS Refuges in which this population is known to occur: Aroostook National Wildlife Refuge, Benton Lake Wetland Management District, Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge ...Show All Refuges » Candidate Information No Candidate information available for this species. No Candidate Assessments available for this species. Candidate Notice of Review Documents No Uplisting Documents currently available for this species. » Federal Register Documents Federal Register Documents Show 10 entries 10/30/2001 66 FR 54808 54832 ETWP; Review of Plant and Animal Species That Are Candid Listing as Endangered or Threatened,Annual Notice of Find Petitions, and Annual Description of Progress on Listing Act 10/25/1999 64 FR 57535 57547 Review of Plant and Animal Taxa That Are Candidates or Pr Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on R Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions 09/19/1997 62 FR 49398 49397 Review of Plant and Animal Taxa 12/30/1982 47 FR 58454 58460 Review of Vertebrate Wildlife for Listing as End or Thr Spec Date Citation Page Title Showing 1 to 4 of 4 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries 1 » Species Status Assessments (SSAs) Species Status Assessments (SSAs) 11/29/2024 89 FR 94656 94680 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx 08/05/2022 87 FR 48037 48038 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of 5- Year Status Reviews of Five Listed Species in the Mountain- Prairie Region 09/12/2014 79 FR 54782 54846 Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Revised Distinct Population Segment Boundary; Final Rule 06/20/2014 79 FR 35303 35309 Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Revised Distinct Population Segment Boundary 09/26/2013 78 FR 59430 59474 Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Revised Distinct Population Segment Boundary; Proposed Rule 10/01/2010 75 FR 60735 P d I f I id t l T k P it t th Date Citation Page  Title  Showing 1 to 10 of 51 entries Previous2 3 4 5 6 Next  Show 10 entries 12/01/2023 SSA Addendum - Species Status Assessment Addendu (Lynx canadensis) Contiguous United States Distinct Po 10/01/2017 Species Status Assessment for the CANADA LYNX (Lynx Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment Document Date Document Version  Document Title Showing 1 to 2 of 2 entries PreviousNext  1 1 Special Rule Publications » Recovery Species with Recovery Documents Data Explorer Recovery Priority Number: 15 Current Recovery Plan(s) Other Recovery Documents Note: This report includes actual Five Year Review completions and notices as well as records that act as Five Year Review completions and notices. Show 10 entries 03/24/2000 65 FR 16053 16086 Determination of Threatened Status for the Contiguous U.S Segment of the Canada Lynx and Related Rule;Final Rule Date Citation Page Title Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries 11/22/2024 Final Final recovery plan for the contiguous United States distinct population segment of Canada lynx (Lynx View Implementation Progress Date  Plan Stage  Recovery Plan  Implementation Status  SSAs/Biological Reports Reco Imp Stra Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries Date Citation Page Title Docum 1 1 Five Year Reviews Note: This report includes actual Five Year Review completions as well as records that act as Five Year Review completions. No Delisting Documents currently available for this species. » Critical Habitat Critical Habitat Spatial Extents Population(s) Wherever Found in Contiguous U.S. 12/01/2023 Notice of Draft Recovery Plan for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Do No Pla 08/05/2022 87 FR 48037 48038 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews of Five Listed Species in the Mountain-Prairie Region Fiv Inf 04/18/2007 72 FR 19549 19551 Initiation of 5-Year Reviews of Seven Wildlife Species and Two Plant Species in the Mountain- Prairie Region Fiv Inf Showing 1 to 3 of 3 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries 11/13/2017 Canada Lynx(Lynx canadensis)5-Year Review Date Title Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext  1 1 + - Critical Habitat Documents To learn more about critical habitat please see https://ecos.fws.gov/crithab » Conservation Plans Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) (learn more) Show 10 entries 11/29/2024 89 FR 94656 94680 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx Download 09/12/2014 79 FR 54782 54846 Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Revised Distinct Population Segment Boundary; Final Rule Download Date  Citation Page  Title Critical Habitat Shapele Showing 1 to 2 of 2 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries West Fork Timber HCP, Amendment (Addition of Bull Trout and Lynx) Plum Creek Timber I-90 HCP, Amendment (addition of Canada lynx and Puget Sound/Coastal D Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Lands HCP Plan Summaries 1 » Petitions Maine's Trapping Program Incidental Take Plan City of Tacoma, Tacoma Water HCP Showing 1 to 6 of 6 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries North American lynx (Felis lynx canadensis) North Cascades pop.; List as Endangered (Petition) 08/22/1991 CA, CO, ID, ME, MI, MN, MT, NH, NM, UT, VT, WA, WI, WY Mr. Mark Tipperman, Attorney Sierra Club Cascade Chapter APA: Petitioned to designate Critical Habitat ESA - Petitioned for Listing: Endangered Petition ndings yet mad North American lynx (Felis lynx canadensis) North Cascades pop.; List as Endangered (Litigation) 08/22/1991 CA, CO, ID, ME, MI, MN, MT, NH, NM, UT, VT, WA, WI, WY Mr. Mark Tipperman, Attorney Sierra Club Cascade Chapter ESA - Petitioned for Listing: Endangered APA: Petitioned to designate Critical Habitat Petition ndings yet mad Petition Title  Date Received by the FWS Where the species is believed to or known to occur  Petitioner Name  Requested Action  Petition Finding(s) Showing 1 to 6 of 6 entries PreviousNext  1 1 » Biological Opinions To see all FWS Issued Biological Opinions please visit the BO Report. » Life History Habitat Requirements Lynx habitat can generally be described as moist boreal forests that have cold, snowy winters and a high-density snowshoe hare prey base. The predominant vegetation of boreal forest is conifer trees, primarily species of spruce (Picea spp.) and r (Abies spp.). In the contiguous United States, the boreal forest type transitions to deciduous temperate forest in the Northeast and Great Lakes, and to subalpine forest in the west. In mountainous areas, the boreal forests that lynx use are characterized by scattered moist forest types with high hare densities in a matrix of other habitats (e.g., hardwoods, dry forest, non-forest) with low hare densities. In these areas, lynx incorporate the matrix habitat (non-boreal forest habitat elements) into their home ranges and use it for traveling between patches of boreal forest that support high hare densities where most foraging occurs. Food Habits Snowshoe hares are the primary prey of lynx, comprising the bulk of the lynx diet throughout its range. Without high densities of snowshoe hares, lynx are unable to sustain populations despite utilizing a multitude of other prey when snowshoe hare numbers are low. Other prey species include red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), grouse (Bonasa umbellus, Dendragopus spp., Lagopus spp.), ying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus), ground squirrel (Spermophilus parryii, S. Richardsonii), porcupine (Erethrizon dorsatum), beaver (Castor canadensis), mice (Peromyscus spp.), voles (Microtus spp.), shrews (Sorex spp.), sh. Ungulate carrion may also be consumed. Movement / Home Range Individual lynx maintain large home ranges generally between 12 to 83 square miles. The size of lynx home ranges varies depending on abundance of prey, the animal s gender and age, season, and the density of lynx populations. When densities of snowshoe hares decline, for example, lynx enlarge their home ranges to obtain sucient amounts of food to survive and reproduce. Lynx also make long distance exploratory movements outside their home ranges. Preliminary research supports the hypothesis that lynx home ranges at the southern extent of the species range are generally large compared to those in the core of the range in Canada, indicating a relative reduction of food resources in these areas. Reproductive Strategy Breeding occurs through March and April in the north. Kittens are born in May to June in southcentral Yukon. The male lynx does not help with rearing young. Yearling females may give birth during periods when hares are abundant. During periods of hare abundance in the northern taiga, litter size of adult females averages four to ve kittens. Litter sizes are typically smaller in lynx populations in the contiguous United States. Other In all regions within the range of the lynx in the contiguous United States, timber harvest, recreation, and their related activities are the predominant land uses aecting lynx habitat. The primary factor that caused the lynx to be listed was the lack of guidance for the conservation of lynx and snowshoe hare habitat in plans for federally managed lands. Landscape connectivity between lynx populations and habitats in Canada and the contiguous United States must be maintained. Lynx movements may be negatively aected by high trac volume on roads that bisect suitable lynx habitat, such as in the Southern Rockies, and in some areas, mortalities due to road kill are high. » Other Resources NatureServe Explorer Species Reports-- NatureServe Explorer is a source for authoritative conservation information on more than 50,000 plants, animals and ecological communtities of the U.S and Canada. NatureServe Explorer provides in-depth information on rare and endangered species, but includes common plants and animals too. NatureServe Explorer is a product of NatureServe in collaboration with the Natural Heritage Network. ITIS Reports-- ITIS (the Integrated Taxonomic Information System) is a source for authoritative taxonomic information on plants, animals, fungi, and microbes of North America and the world. FWS Digital Media Library -- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Digital Library is a searchable collection of selected images, historical artifacts, audio clips, publications, and video." + ECOS /  Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Range Information |Candidate Info |Federal Register |Recovery |Critical Habitat |SSA |Conservation Plans |Petitions |Biological Opinions |Life History Taxonomy:View taxonomy in ITIS Listing Status: Endangered and others listed below General Information The Gray Wolf, being a keystone predator, is an integral component of the ecosystems to which it typically belongs. The wide range of habitats in which wolves can thrive reects their adaptability as a species, and includes temperate forests, mountains, tundra, taiga, and grasslands. Gray wolves were originally listed as subspecies or as regional populations of subspecies in the contiguous United States and Mexico. In 1978, we reclassied the gray wolf as an endangered population at the species level (C. lupus) throughout the contiguous United States and Mexico, except for the Minnesota gray wolf population, which was classied as threatened. Gray wolf populations in Idaho and Montana were delisted due to recovery in 2011. The species historical range included Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. See below for information about where the species is known or believed to occur. Population detail The following populations are being monitored: Gray wolf Current Listing Status Summary ECOS Show 10 entries Threatened 03-09- 1978 Midwest Region (Region 3) U.S.A. (MN) Additional species information Experimental Population, Non-Essential Mountain Prairie Region (Region 6) CO experimental population (CO) Endangered 03-09- 1978 Mountain Prairie Region (Region 6) U.S.A.: All of AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, IN, IL, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO ND, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, and WV; and porti NM, OR, UT, and WA as follows: (1) Northern AZ (that portion north of the centerline Interstate Highway 40); (2) Northern NM (that portion north of the centerline of Inte Highway 40); (3) Western OR (that portion of OR west of the centerline of Highway 3 Highway 78 north of Burns Junction and that portion of OR west of the centerline of south of Burns Junction); (4) Most of Utah (that portion of UT south and west of the Highway 84 and that portion of UT south of Highway 80 from Echo to the UT/WY Sta (5) Western WA (that portion of WA west of the centerline of Highway 97 and Highw of Mesa and that portion of WA west of the centerline of Highway 395 south of Mes Additional species information Status Date Listed Lead Region  Where Listed U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S.A.: All of AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, IN, IL, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, and WV; and portions of AZ, NM, OR, UT, and WA as follows: (1) Northern AZ (that portion north of the centerline of Interstate Highway 40); (2) Northern NM (that portion north of the centerline of Interstate Highway 40); (3) Western OR (that portion of OR west of the centerline of Highway 395 and Highway 78 north of Burns Junction and that portion of OR west of the centerline of Highway 95 south of Burns Junction); (4) Most of Utah (that portion of UT south and west of the centerline of Highway 84 and that portion of UT south of Highway 80 from Echo to the UT/WY Stateline); and (5) Western WA (that portion of WA west of the centerline of Highway 97 and Highway 17 north of Mesa and that portion of WA west of the centerline of Highway 395 south of Mesa). Mexico. Listing status: Endangered States/US Territories in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: California,Michigan,Minnesota,Nevada, Oregon,Washington,Wisconsin US Counties in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: View All Showing 1 to 4 of 4 entries PreviousNext  » Range Information Current Range  Last Updated: 12-16-2024 - U.S.A.: All of AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, IN, IL, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, and WV; and portions of AZ, NM, OR, UT, and WA as follows: (1) Northern AZ (that portion north of the centerline of Interstate Highway 40); (2) Northern NM (that portion north of the centerline of Interstate Highway 40); (3) Western OR (that portion of OR west of the centerline of Highway 395 and Highway 78 north of Burns Junction and that portion of OR west of the centerline of Highway 95 south of Burns Junction); (4) Most of Utah (that portion of UT south and west of the centerline of Highway 84 and that portion of UT south of Highway 80 from Echo to the UT/WY Stateline); and (5) Western WA (that portion of WA west of the centerline of Highway 97 and Highway 17 north of Mesa and that portion of WA west of the centerline of Highway 395 south of Mesa). Mexico.  Last Updated: 10-10-2024 - U.S.A. (MN)  Last Updated: 10-25-2014 - Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and north central Utah  Last Updated: 07-25-2024 - CO experimental population (CO) Zoom in! Some species' locations may be small and hard to see from a wide perspective. To narrow-in on locations, check the state and county lists (below) and then use the zoom tool. Want the FWS's current range for all species? Click here to download a zip le containing all individual shapeles and metadata for all species. * For consultation needs do not use only this current range map, please use IPaC. Current range maps are only shown within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States of America. The species may also occur outside this region. 1 + - USFWS Refuges in which this population is known to occur: Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge, J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District ...Show All Refuges U.S.A. (MN) Listing status: Threatened States/US Territories in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: Minnesota US Counties in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: View All USFWS Refuges in which this population is known to occur: Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge, Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District, Fergus Falls Wetland Management District ...Show All Refuges Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and north central Utah Listing status: Delisted due to Recovery States/US Territories in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: Idaho,Montana,Oregon,Utah, Washington,Wyoming US Counties in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: View All USFWS Refuges in which this population is known to occur: Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge, National Bison Range, Northwest Montana Wetland Management District-Flathead County CO experimental population (CO) Listing status: Experimental Population, Non-Essential States/US Territories in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: Colorado US Counties in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: View All USFWS Refuges in which this population is known to occur:  » Candidate Information No Candidate information available for this species. No Candidate Assessments available for this species. No Candidate Notice of Review Documents currently available for this species. No Uplisting Documents currently available for this species. » Federal Register Documents Federal Register Documents Show 10 entries 01/08/2025 90 FR 1419 1421 ETWP; 90-Day Finding on Two Petitions for Gray Wolf Petitio Form 02/07/2024 89 FR 8391 8395 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Finding for the Gray Wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains and the Western United States Specie Assess Specie Assess 11/08/2023 88 FR 77014 77039 Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Gray Wolf in Colorado; Final Rule 11/03/2023 88 FR 75506 75512 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reinstatement of Endangered Species Act Protections for the Gray Wolf (Canis Lupus) in Compliance With Court Order 09/19/2023 88 FR 64399 64400 NOA, Final Environmental Impact Statement: Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Gray Wolf in the State of Colorado 02/17/2023 88 FR 10258 10280 Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Gray Wolf in Colorado; Proposed Rule Date Citation Page  Title Supporting Document » Species Status Assessments (SSAs) Species Status Assessments (SSAs) Special Rule Publications » Recovery Species with Recovery Documents Data Explorer Recovery Priority Number: 3C Current Recovery Plan(s) 07/21/2022 87 FR 43489 E t bli h t f N ti l E i t l P l ti f th G W lf i th St t Showing 1 to 10 of 80 entries Previous2 3 4 5 …8 Next  Show 10 entries 12/22/2023 Version 1 2 Species Status Assessment for the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)in the Western Unite Document Date Document Version Document Title Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries 11/08/2023 88 FR 77014 77039 Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Gray Wolf in Colorado; Final Ru 01/28/2008 73 FR 4720 4736 Revision of Special Regulation for the Central Idaho and Yellowstone Area Nonessential Experim Populations of Gray Wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains 01/12/1998 63 FR 1752 1772 ETWP; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Ar New Mexico 11/22/1994 59 FR 60266 60281 ETWP; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Gray Wolves in Central Idah Southwestern Montana 11/22/1994 59 FR 60252 60266 ETWP; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Gray Wolves in Yellowstone Park in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana 08/16/1994 59 FR 42118 42128 ETWP; Proposed Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Gray Wolf in C Area 08/16/1994 59 FR 42108 42118 ETWP; Proposed Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Gray Wolf in Yello National Park in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana 12/12/1985 50 FR 50792 50793 Regulations Governing Gray Wolf in Minnesota; 50 FR 50792-50793 08/10/1983 48 FR 36256 36266 Regulations Governing Gray Wolf in Minn ;48 FR 36256 36266 Date Citation Page Title Showing 1 to 10 of 10 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries Date  Plan Stage  Recovery Plan  Implementation Status  SSAs/Biological Reports Recovery Implementation Strategies 1 1 1 Other Recovery Documents Note: This report includes actual Five Year Review completions and notices as well as records that act as Five Year Review completions and notices. Five Year Reviews Note: This report includes actual Five Year Review completions as well as records that act as Five Year Review completions. Delisting 01/31/1992 Final Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf - Revised View Implementation Progress 08/03/1987 Final Revision 1 Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan View Implementation Progress Showing 1 to 2 of 2 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries 01/08/2025 90 FR 1419 1421 ETWP; 90-Day Finding on Two Petitions for Gray Wolf Delistin petition Substan 11/03/2020 85 FR 69778 69895 Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Final Rule Delistin Five Yea Status R Comple 03/15/2019 84 FR 9648 9687 Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Proposed Rules Delistin 05/01/2017 82 FR 20284 20285 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reinstatement of Removal of Federal Protections for Gray Wolves in Wyoming Delistin 06/13/2013 78 FR 35664 35719 Removing the Gray Wolf(Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi ) by Listing It as Endangered; Proposed Revision to the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Wolf; Proposed Rules Acts as 5YR: De Propose 10/05/2011 76 FR 61782 61823 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Removal of the Gray Wolf in Delistin Date Citation Page Title Document T Showing 1 to 10 of 18 entries Previous2 Next  Show 10 entries 11/03/2020 Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Final Rule 02/29/2012 Gray wolf(Canis lupus)5-Year Review Date Title Showing 1 to 2 of 2 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries 02/01/2008 Gray Wolf Final PDM Date Title 1 1 1 » Critical Habitat Critical Habitat Spatial Extents Population(s) MN Critical Habitat Documents To learn more about critical habitat please see https://ecos.fws.gov/crithab » Conservation Plans Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) (learn more) Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries 03/09/1978 43 FR 9607 9615 Reclassication of the Gray Wolf in the U.S. and Mexico with Determination of Critical Habitat in Michigan and Minnisota Fin Date Citation Page  Title Critical Habitat Shapele Doc Typ Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries West Fork Timber HCP (formerly Murray Pacic) WDNR Forest Lands HCP City of Tacoma, Tacoma Water HCP Cedar River Watershed HCP HCP Plan Summaries Showing 1 to 4 of 4 entries PreviousNext  1 1 1 + - Safe Harbor Agreements (SHA): (learn more) » Petitions » Biological Opinions To see all FWS Issued Biological Opinions please visit the BO Report. » Life History Habitat Requirements Wolves are habitat generalists and lived thorughout the northern hemisphere. They only require ungulate prey and human-casued mortality rates that are not excessive. Food Habits Show 10 entries SHA -Spur Ranch SHA Paterson Thomas W and Caroline H SHA Plan Summaries Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries Wolf, Mexican gray (Canis lupus baileyi); Amend 10(j) rule to ban all traps and snares 06/11/2010 AZ Rio Grande Chapter Sierra Club WildEarth Guardians Southwest Environmental Center Jean Ossorio APA: Other 12m petition nding Not Warranted on 10/09/2012 Yes Wolf, gray (Canis lupus); Rocky Mountain DPS; designate and delist 07/15/2005 CA, ID, MI, MN, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA, WI, WY, United States State of Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal ESA - Petitioned for Delisting: Due to error - New information Petition ndings not yet made No - Not Withdrawn Wolf, gray (Canis lupus); Retain ESA f h 10/03/2012 CA, MI, MN, NV, OR, WA, d John M. Glowa The Maine lf l APA: Other 12m petition d No - Not Withdrawn Petition Title  Date Received by the FWS Where the species is believed to or known to occur  Petitioner Name  Requested Action  Petition Finding(s)  Active  Petition Docume Showing 1 to 10 of 25 entries Previous2 3 Next  1 1 Ungulates [wild and domestic] are the typical prey of wolves, but wolves also readily scavenge. Beaver are among the smallest important prey but wolves can utilize smaller mamals, birds, and sh. Movement / Home Range Wolves packs defend their territories from other wolves. Territory size is a function of prey density and can range from 25-1,500 square miles. Both male and female wolves disperse at equal rates and equal distances, sometimes >600 miles. Reproductive Strategy Normally rst breed as yearlings and once a year in February. One to 10 pups [normally ~5] are born 63 days later. Pups normally stay with pack until > 1 year old. » Other Resources NatureServe Explorer Species Reports-- NatureServe Explorer is a source for authoritative conservation information on more than 50,000 plants, animals and ecological communtities of the U.S and Canada. NatureServe Explorer provides in-depth information on rare and endangered species, but includes common plants and animals too. NatureServe Explorer is a product of NatureServe in collaboration with the Natural Heritage Network. ITIS Reports-- ITIS (the Integrated Taxonomic Information System) is a source for authoritative taxonomic information on plants, animals, fungi, and microbes of North America and the world. FWS Digital Media Library -- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Digital Library is a searchable collection of selected images, historical artifacts, audio clips, publications, and video." + ECOS /  Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Range Information |Candidate Info |Federal Register |Recovery |Critical Habitat |SSA |Conservation Plans |Petitions |Biological Opinions |Life History Taxonomy:View taxonomy in ITIS Listing Status: Threatened General Information Yellow-billed Cuckoos are fairly large, long, and slim birds. The mostly yellow bill is almost as long as the head, thick and slightly downcurved. They have a at head, thin body, and very long tail. Wings appear pointed and swept back in ight. Yellow-billed Cuckoos are warm brown above and clean whitish below. Their blackish face mask is accompanied by a yellow eyering. In ight, the outer part of the wings ash rufous. From below, the tail has wide white bands and narrower black ones. References cited in Species Prole Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2015. Yellow-billed Cuckoo. All About Birds. http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Yellow-billed_Cuckoo/id Hughes, Janice M. 2015. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/418 Laymon, S. A. 1998. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccycus americanus). In The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan:a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html Partners in Flight. 2012. Species assessment database. http://rmbo.org/pifassessment/Database.aspx USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 2012. North American Breeding Bird Survey 1966-2010 analysis. http://www.mbr- pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/specl10.html The species historical range included Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wyoming. See below for information about where the species is known or believed to occur. Current Listing Status Summary ECOS Show 10 entries Threatened 11-03- 2014 Southwest Region (Region 2) Western DPS: U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO (western), ID, MT (western), NM (western), NV, OR, TX (we UT, WA, WY (western)); Canada (British Columbia (southwestern); Mexico (Baja California, California Sur Chihuahua Durango (western)Sinaloa Sonora)Additional species inform Status Date Listed  Lead Region  Where Listed Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext  » Range Information Current Range  Last Updated: 06-12-2023 - Western DPS: U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO (western), ID, MT (western), NM (western), NV, OR, TX (western), UT, WA, WY (western)); Canada (British Columbia (southwestern); Mexico (Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Durango (western), Sinaloa, Sonora) Zoom in! Some species' locations may be small and hard to see from a wide perspective. To narrow-in on locations, check the state and county lists (below) and then use the zoom tool. Want the FWS's current range for all species? Click here to download a zip le containing all individual shapeles and metadata for all species. * For consultation needs do not use only this current range map, please use IPaC. Current range maps are only shown within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States of America. The species may also occur outside this region. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1 Western DPS: U.S.A. (AZ, CA, CO (western), ID, MT (western), NM (western), NV, OR, TX (western), UT, WA, WY (western)); Canada (British Columbia (southwestern); Mexico (Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Durango (western), Sinaloa, Sonora) Listing status: Threatened States/US Territories in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: Arizona,California,Colorado,Idaho,Montana, Nevada,New Mexico,Oregon,Texas,Utah,Washington,Wyoming US Counties in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: View All USFWS Refuges in which this population is known to occur: Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge ...Show All Refuges Countries in which this population is known to occur: Canada, Mexico, United States » Candidate Information No Candidate information available for this species. No Candidate Assessments available for this species. Candidate Notice of Review Documents No Uplisting Documents currently available for this species. Show 10 entries 11/21/2012 77 FR 69993 70060 Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions 10/26/2011 76 FR 66370 66439 Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions 11/10/2010 75 FR 69222 69294 Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule 11/09/2009 74 FR 57804 57878 Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions 12/10/2008 73 FR 75176 75244 Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule 12/06/2007 72 FR 69034 69106 Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule 09/12/2006 71 FR 53756 53835 Review of Native Species That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; A Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions 05/11/2005 70 FR 24870 24934 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates or Prop f Li i E d d Th d A l N i f Fi di R b i d P i i A l Date Citation Page Title Showing 1 to 10 of 16 entries Previous2 Next 1 + - » Federal Register Documents Federal Register Documents » Species Status Assessments (SSAs) Species Status Assessments (SSAs) No Species Status Assessments (SSA's) are currently available for this species. Special Rule Publications No Special Rule Publications currently available for this species. » Recovery Species with Recovery Documents Data Explorer Recovery Priority Number: 3C No Current Recovery Plans available for this species. Other Recovery Documents Note: This report includes actual Five Year Review completions and notices as well as records that act as Five Year Review completions and notices. Show 10 entries 04/21/2021 86 FR 20798 21005 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow- Billed Cuckoo 09/16/2020 85 FR 57816 57818 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Findings on a Petition To Delist the Distinct Population Segment of the Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo and a Petition To List the U.S. Population of Northwestern Moose Species Assessmen Form 02/27/2020 85 FR 11458 11594 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow- Billed Cuckoo Peer Revie Peer Revie Peer Revie Peer Revie 06/27/2018 83 FR 30091 30094 90-Day Findings for Three Species; Notice of petition ndings and initiation of status reviews. 06/18/2018 83 FR 28251 28254 Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews of 50 Species in California, Nevada, and the Klamath Basin of Oregon 12/02/2014 79 FR 71373 71375 Designation of Critical Habitat for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow- Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Date Citation Page  Title Supporting Documents Showing 1 to 10 of 38 entries Previous2 3 4 Next  Show 10 entries 09/16/2020 85 FR 57816 57818 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Findings on a Petition To Delist the Distinct Population Segment of the Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo and a Petition To List the U.S. Population of Northwestern Moose Delisting 12m p nding, Not Wa Date Citation Page Title Document Type 1 Five Year Reviews Note: This report includes actual Five Year Review completions as well as records that act as Five Year Review completions. No Delisting Documents currently available for this species. » Critical Habitat Critical Habitat Spatial Extents Population(s) Western U.S. DPS Critical Habitat Documents To learn more about critical habitat please see https://ecos.fws.gov/crithab » Conservation Plans 06/27/2018 83 FR 30091 30094 90-Day Findings for Three Species; Notice of petition ndings and initiation of status reviews. Delisting 90 day petition nding Substantial Showing 1 to 3 of 3 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries 09/16/2020 Yellow-billed Cuckoo(Coccyzus americanus)5-Year Review Date Title Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries 04/21/2021 86 FR 20798 21005 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Download Final Date  Citation Page  Title Critical Habitat Shapele Documen Type Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext  1 1 1 + - Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) (learn more) » Petitions » Biological Opinions Show 10 entries Yolo Natural Heritage Program Western Riverside MSHCP (One permit w/ 22 permittees) Southern Nevada Water Authority Low-Eect Habitat Conservation Plan for Warm Springs Natural Area and Hidden Valley Property San Luis Valley Salt River Project Roosevelt Lake Habitat Conservation Plan Salt River Project Horseshoe and Bartlett HCP Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, under Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Malpai Borderlands Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Plan (LCR MSCP) l d HCP Plan Summaries Showing 1 to 10 of 12 entries Previous2 Next  Show 10 entries Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus); Emergency listing as Endangered with critical habitat 02/02/1998 AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, NV, OR, TX, UT, WA, WY, Canada, Mexico, United States Wildlife Damage Review Noah Greenwald Southwest Center for Biological Divsersity Huachuca Audubon Society Maricopa Audubon Society White Mountain Conservation League Tucson Audubon ESA - Petitioned for Listing: Endangered APA: Petitioned to designate Critical Habitat 12m petition nding Warranted But Precluded on 07/25/2001 90 day petition nding Substantial on 02/17/2000 12m petition nding Warranted But Precluded: Resubmitted on 11/21/2012 12m petition nding Warranted But Precluded: Resubmitted on 10/26/2011 No - Not Withdrawn Cucko Yellow 02-02- 1998.p Petition Title  Date Received by the FWS Where the species is believed to or known to occur  Petitioner Name  Requested Action  Petition Finding(s)  Active  Petition Documents Showing 1 to 2 of 2 entries PreviousNext  1 1 To see all FWS Issued Biological Opinions please visit the BO Report. » Life History Habitat Requirements Yellow-billed Cuckoos use wooded habitat with dense cover and water nearby, including woodlands with low, scrubby, vegetation, overgrown orchards, abandoned farmland, and dense thickets along streams and marshes. In the Midwest, look for cuckoos in shrublands of mixed willow and dogwood, and in dense stands of small trees such as American elm. In the central and eastern U.S., Yellow-billed Cuckoos nest in oaks, beech, hawthorn, and ash. In the West, nests are often placed in willows along streams and rivers, with nearby cottonwoods serving as foraging sites. Food Habits Caterpillars top the list of Yellow-Billed Cuckoo prey: individual cuckoos eat thousands of caterpillars per season. On the East coast, periodic outbreaks of tent caterpillars draw cuckoos to eat as many as 100 caterpillars in one sitting. Fall webworms and the larvae of gypsy, brown-tailed, and white-marked tussock moths are also part of the cuckoos lepidopteran diet, often supplemented with beetles, ants, and spiders. They take advantage of the annual outbreaks of cicadas, katydids and crickets, and will hop to the ground to chase frogs and lizards. In summer and fall, cuckoos forage on small wild fruits, including elderberries, blackberries and wild grapes. In winter, fruit and seeds become a larger part of their diet. Movement / Home Range Yellow-billed Cuckoos breed throughout much of the eastern and central U.S., winter almost entirely in South America east of the Andes, and migrate through Central America. The western subspecies (C.a. occidentalis) has disappeared over much of the western U.S. and now occurs as a rare breeder in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and west Texas. Reproductive Strategy The male and female Yellow-billed Cuckoo build a at, oblong platform nest together constructed of loose sticks, using twigs collected from the ground or snapped from nearby trees and shrubs. The pair may line the nest sparingly with strips of bark or dried leaves. The male sometimes continues bringing in nest materials after incubation has begun. Pairs may visit prospective nest sites multiple times before building a nest together. Other In the West, much of the Yellow-Billed Cuckoos riparian habitat has been converted to farmland and housing, leading to population declines and the possible extirpation of cuckoos from British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and Nevada. Once common in the California Central Valley, coastal valleys, and riparian habitats east of the Sierra Nevada, habitat loss now constrains the California breeding population to small numbers of birds. As long-distance, nocturnal migrants, Yellow-Billed Cuckoos are also vulnerable to collisions with tall buildings, cell towers, radio antennas, wind turbines, and other structures.Yellow- billed Cuckoo populations declined by 1.6 percent per year between 1966 and 2010. Partners in Flight estimates the global breeding population at about 9 million, with 84 percent breeding in the U.S., 10 percent in Mexico, and none in Canada. For more information on this species, including occurence, conservation strategies and recovery actions in specic states or regions, refer to the following resource: <li>Laymon, S. A. 1998. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccycus americanus). In The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan:a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. <a href="http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v- 2.html">http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html</a> » Other Resources NatureServe Explorer Species Reports-- NatureServe Explorer is a source for authoritative conservation information on more than 50,000 plants, animals and ecological communtities of the U.S and Canada. NatureServe Explorer provides in-depth information on rare and endangered species, but includes common plants and animals too. NatureServe Explorer is a product of NatureServe in collaboration with the Natural Heritage Network. ITIS Reports-- ITIS (the Integrated Taxonomic Information System) is a source for authoritative taxonomic information on plants, animals, fungi, and microbes of North America and the world. FWS Digital Media Library -- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Digital Library is a searchable collection of selected images, historical artifacts, audio clips, publications, and video." + FWS Focus Over view The bonytail is the rarest of the endangered, native fish of the Colorado River and is thought to have evolved around 3 to 5 million years ago. Its name describes the fish as an elegant swimmer and member of the chub group of minnows. Bonytail were once common in portions of the upper and lower Colorado River basins. In the early 1900s, Chuck Mack of Craig, Colorado, called them broomtails, because “…you could get a firm grip on their bony tail.” Mack, and other old-timers, used to catch these fish in the upper Colorado River basin, along with Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker. Recovery eorts for this species are ongoing, with stocking occurring at multiple locations in both the upper and lower Colorado River basins. Threats to the species include streamflow regulation, habitat modification, competition with and predation by non-native species and hybridization. Scientific Name Gila elegans Image Details B ony tail Common Name Bonytail, bonytail chub FWS Category Fishes Kingdom Animalia Location in Taxonomic Tree  () Genus Gila Species Gila elegans Identification Numbers TSN:  () 163553  Characteristics Habitat SIMILAR SPECIES  PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS  LIFE CYCLE  HABITAT  Little is known about the specific habitat requirements of bonytail because the species was extirpated from most of its historic range prior to extensive fisher y sur veys. The bonytail is considered adapted to mainstem rivers where it has been obser ved in pools and eddies. River or Stream A natural body of running water. Geography Range The bonytail was historically common to abundant in warm-water sections of larger rivers from Mexico to Wyoming. Little is known about the specific habitat requirements of bonytail because the species was extirpated from most of its historic range prior to extensive fisher y sur veys. LA U N C H IN T E RACTIVE M A P FOOD  + − FWS Focus Over view Colorado pikeminnow is a fish species endemic to warm-water, large rivers of the Colorado River basin and is the largest minnow native to North America. Historically, the Colorado pikeminnow was the apex, or top, predator in the upper basin, despite lacking jaw teeth. The species was protected under the Endangered Species Act in 1973 because large dams and human water use altered river flows and restricted the fishʼs movement. Populations of Colorado pikeminnow in the Colorado and Green rivers are remnants of wild populations. The species has also been reintroduced into the San Juan River through the stocking of hatchery fish. Scientific Name Ptychocheilus lucius Common Name Colorado Pikeminnow, Colorado squawfish FWS Category Image Details Colorado Pikeminnow Fishes Kingdom Animalia Location in Taxonomic Tree  () Genus Ptychocheilus Species Ptychocheilus lucius Identification Numbers TSN:  () 163525  Characteristics Habitat Colorado pikeminnow inhabit larger rivers in the Colorado River basin and occupy a variety of environments that change over the course of their life cycle. Lar vae and juveniles are found in calm, warm backwaters and other low-velocity areas. As they grow, larger juveniles and adults establish home ranges that contain pools, deep runs, and eddies where they can forage. While Colorado pikeminnow can migrate long distances (more than 200 miles) to find suitable spawning bars comprised of loose, clean cobbles and gravel, they may spawn closer to their home range if suitable sites are nearby. River or Stream A natural body of running water. HABITAT  FOOD  FWS Focus Over view The humpback chub is a native species of the Colorado River that evolved around 3.5 million years ago and is only found in warm-water canyons of the Colorado River basin. The humpback chub was first described from a fish caught in 1933 near Bright Angel Creek, a tributary of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, making it one of the last large fish species to be described in North America. The species was protected under the Endangered Species Act in 1973 because large dams and human water use changed the river flow. Actions to conserve the humpback chub include managing river flows, providing passage around dams, and removing non-native predators. Monitoring of humpback chub populations indicates that management actions are benefiting the species. In fact, the Little Colorado River population in Grand Canyon is now estimated at more than 11,000 fish, and the Westwater Canyon population in Utah is estimated to exceed 3,300 fish. Scientific Name Gila cypha Common Name Image Details Humpback Chub Humpback Chub FWS Category Fishes Kingdom Animalia Location in Taxonomic Tree  () Genus Gila Species Gila cypha Identification Numbers TSN:  () 163551  Characteristics Habitat Humpback chub live in rocky canyons where swi, turbulent water makes it diicult for other fish to live. Humpback chub are resilient to a variety of physical and chemical habitat conditions and tolerate a wide range of river flows at all life stages. River or Stream A natural body of running water. HABITAT  FOOD  FWS Focus Over view The razorback sucker is native only to the warm-water portions of the Colorado River basin of the southwestern United States. Razorback sucker are found throughout the basin in both lake and river habitats but are most common in backwaters, floodplains, flatwater river sections and reservoirs. Dam construction in the basin reduced peak flows, changed temperature regimes, created reservoirs, and disconnected floodplains from the mainstem rivers. Altered environments provided opportunities for nonnative fish to flourish. Nonnative predators eat early life stages of razorback sucker, preventing reproduction in the river systems. In response to population declines, stocking programs were developed and implemented throughout the Colorado River basin. The razorback sucker was listed as an endangered species in 1991. Because of conservation eorts and reestablishment of populations that are surviving, spawning, and showing rare signs of reproductive success, the species was proposed for reclassification in 2021. Survival of wild razorback sucker to the adult life stage still needs to occur on a broad scale to eectively complete the lifecycle of the species. Image Details Razorback Sucker Scientific Name Xyrauchen texanus Common Name Razorback Sucker FWS Category Fishes Kingdom Animalia Location in Taxonomic Tree  () Genus Xyrauchen Species Xyrauchen texanus Identification Numbers TSN:  () 163968  Characteristics Habitat Razorback sucker are native only to large rivers in the Colorado River basin. They use a variety of habitat types, including mainstem river channels, reservoirs, turbid inflow areas, and floodplain wetlands. Historically, razorback sucker are thought to have been uncommon in turbulent, canyon-bound river sections, with robust populations typically found in calm, flatwater areas. Lake A considerable inland body of standing water. HABITAT  ECOS /  Monarch buttery (Danaus plexippus) Range Information |Candidate Info |Federal Register |Recovery |Critical Habitat |SSA |Conservation Plans |Petitions |Biological Opinions |Life History Taxonomy:View taxonomy in ITIS Listing Status: Proposed Threatened General Information For information on monarch conservation, visit https://www.fws.gov/initiative/pollinators/monarchs, http://www.mafwa.org/?page_id=2347, and, for the West, https://wafwa.org/committees-working- groups/monarch-working-group/. Adult monarch butteries are large and conspicuous, with bright orange wings surrounded by a black border and covered with black veins. The black border has a double row of white spots, present on the upper side of the wings. Adult monarchs are sexually dimorphic, with males having narrower wing venation and scent patches. The bright coloring of a monarch serves as a warning to predators that eating them can be toxic. During the breeding season, monarchs lay their eggs on their obligate milkweed host plant (primarily Asclepias spp.), and larvae emerge after two to ve days. Larvae develop through ve larval instars (intervals between molts) over a period of 9 to 18 days, feeding on milkweed and sequestering toxic chemicals (cardenolides) as a defense against predators. The larva then pupates into a chrysalis before emerging 6 to 14 days later as an adult buttery. There are multiple generations of monarchs produced during the breeding season, with most adult butteries living approximately two to ve weeks; overwintering adults enter into reproductive diapause (suspended reproduction) and live six to nine months. In many regions where monarchs are present, monarchs breed year-round. Individual monarchs in temperate climates, such as eastern and western North America, undergo long-distance migration, and live for an extended period of time. In the fall, in both eastern and western North America, monarchs begin migrating to their respective overwintering sites. This migration can take monarchs distances of over 3,000 km and last for over two months. In early spring (February-March), surviving monarchs break diapause and mate at the overwintering sites before dispersing. The same individuals that undertook the initial southward migration begin ying back through the breeding grounds and their ospring start the cycle of generational migration over again. Current Listing Status Summary ECOS Show 10 entries Proposed Threatened Midwest Region (Region 3)W Status Date Listed Lead Region Whe Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext  » Range Information U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1 Wherever found Listing status: Proposed Threatened States/US Territories in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: Alabama,Arizona,Arkansas, California,Colorado,Connecticut,Delaware,District of Columbia,Florida,Georgia,Hawaii,Idaho,Illinois,Indiana, Iowa,Kansas,Kentucky,Louisiana,Maine,Maryland,Massachusetts,Michigan,Minnesota,Mississippi,Missouri, Montana,Nebraska,Nevada,New Hampshire,New Jersey,New Mexico,New York,North Carolina,North Dakota, Ohio,Oklahoma,Oregon,Pennsylvania,Rhode Island,South Carolina,South Dakota,Tennessee,Texas,Utah, Vermont,Virginia,Washington,West Virginia,Wisconsin,Wyoming US Counties in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: View All USFWS Refuges in which this population is known to occur:  » Candidate Information No Candidate information available for this species. No Candidate Assessments available for this species. Candidate Notice of Review Documents Current Range  Last Updated: 08-03-2023 - Wherever found Zoom in! Some species' locations may be small and hard to see from a wide perspective. To narrow-in on locations, check the state and county lists (below) and then use the zoom tool. Want the FWS's current range for all species? Click here to download a zip le containing all individual shapeles and metadata for all species. * For consultation needs do not use only this current range map, please use IPaC. Current range maps are only shown within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States of America. The species may also occur outside this region. Show 10 entries 06/27/2023 88 FR 41560 41585 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Species That Are Candida Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notication of Findings on Resubmitted Petition Progress on Listing Actions Date Citation Page Title + - No Uplisting Documents currently available for this species. » Federal Register Documents Federal Register Documents » Species Status Assessments (SSAs) Species Status Assessments (SSAs) Special Rule Publications 05/03/2022 87 FR 26152 26178 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Species That Are Candida Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notication of Findings on Resubmitted Petition P Li i A i Showing 1 to 2 of 2 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries 03/19/2025 90 FR 12694 12695 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening Comment Periods for Three Proposed Rules; Announcement of a Public Hearing for One Proposed Rule 12/12/2024 89 FR 100662 100716 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Monarch Buttery and Designation of Critical Habitat 06/27/2023 88 FR 41560 41585 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notication of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions 05/03/2022 87 FR 26152 26178 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notication of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions 12/17/2020 85 FR 81813 81822 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for the Monarch Buttery Date Citation Page  Title Sup Doc Showing 1 to 6 of 6 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries 12/01/2024 Version 2.3 Monarch Buttery (Danaus plexippus) Species Status Assessment R 09/01/2020 Version 2 1 Monarch (Danaus plexippus)Species Status Assessment Report ve Document Date Document Version Document Title Showing 1 to 2 of 2 entries PreviousNext  1 1 1 No Special Rule Publications currently available for this species. » Recovery Species with Recovery Documents Data Explorer No Current Recovery Plans available for this species. No Other Recovery Documents currently available for this species. No Five Year Reviews currently available for this species. No Delisting Documents currently available for this species. » Critical Habitat Critical Habitat Spatial Extents Population(s) Proposed Wherever found Critical Habitat Documents To learn more about critical habitat please see https://ecos.fws.gov/crithab » Conservation Plans Show 10 entries 12/12/2024 89 FR 100662 100716 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Monarch Buttery and Designation of Critical Habitat Download Date  Citation Page  Title Critical Habit Shapele Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext 1 + - Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) (learn more) Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAA): (learn more) » Petitions Show 10 entries Southern Nevada Water Authority Low-Eect Habitat Conservation Plan for Warm Springs Natural Area and Hidden Val Aramis Solar Energy Generation and Storage Project HCP Plan Summaries Showing 1 to 2 of 2 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries Nationwide Candidate Conservation Agreement on Energy and Transportation Lands CCAA Plan Summaries Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries Petition for Rulemaking for a Section 4(d) Rule for the Monarch Buttery 11/18/2020 AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY The University of Illinois Chicago APA: Petitioned to Promulgate New Species 4(d) Rule Petition ndings not yet made Yes Buttery, Monarch (Danaus plexippus plexippus); list T w/ CH 08/26/2014 AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, Center for Biological Diversity Dr. Lincoln Brower Center for Food Safety ESA - Petitioned for Listing: Threatened APA: Petitioned to designate 90 day petition nding Substantial on 12/31/2014 12m Yes Petition Title  Date Received by the FWS Where the species is believed to or known to occur  Petitioner Name  Requested Action  Petition Finding(s)  Active  Pet Showing 1 to 2 of 2 entries PreviousNext  1 1 1 » Biological Opinions To see all FWS Issued Biological Opinions please visit the BO Report. » Life History No Life History information has been entered into this system for this species. » Other Resources NatureServe Explorer Species Reports-- NatureServe Explorer is a source for authoritative conservation information on more than 50,000 plants, animals and ecological communtities of the U.S and Canada. NatureServe Explorer provides in-depth information on rare and endangered species, but includes common plants and animals too. NatureServe Explorer is a product of NatureServe in collaboration with the Natural Heritage Network. ITIS Reports-- ITIS (the Integrated Taxonomic Information System) is a source for authoritative taxonomic information on plants, animals, fungi, and microbes of North America and the world. FWS Digital Media Library -- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Digital Library is a searchable collection of selected images, historical artifacts, audio clips, publications, and video." + A blue variant of Nokomis fritillary is found in northern Mexico. Argynnis nokomis © Alan Schmierer / Flickr Nokomis Fritillary LANDPKS LEARNING Habitat Hub aa Identication Nokomis fritillary buttery, also known as the Great Basin silverspot buttery, has two sets of black or orange wings with dark colored veins. The male has a brownish orange upperside with dark patterns of dots and stripes along both wings. The female has black wings with cream- colored spots. Their wingspan can be 2.5 to 3 in/6-8 cm long. They both have darker undersides with cream-colored crescent shaped spots. © Alan Schmierer / Flickr Observation Tips They range across the southwestern U.S. from California to Colorado and into Mexico. Males are easier to observe than females. Although Nokomis fritillary do not migrate, they are strong iers. The Nokomis fritillary larval foodplant is bog violet, so look in moist meadows and other areas with nectar plants. During courtship, males are known to become active in early morning, scouting for females. Courtship ight and coupling has been observed midday in Arizona and New Mexico. Interesting Fact A blue variant of Nokomis fritillary is found in northern Mexico. Ideal Habitat The Nokomis fritillary feed on ower nectar, including that from thistles. They live in moist meadows, seeps, riparian areas, wetlands, and marshes with a variety of nectar plants. In the drier areas, wetlands are rare, therefore Nokomis fritillary populations are isolated. Nokomis fritillary are only found at sites with bog violets, the larval foodplant. Bog violets tend to grow in moist soil with plenty of shade. Range map provided by NatureServe and Butteries and Months of North America (BAMONA). Note: Map only showing range in U.S. Management Activities that Benet Species – Best Management Practices (BMPs) Restoring and maintaining bog violet is the most important conservation and management tool to provide habitat for Nokomis fritillary. Habitat management should also focus on ensuring nectar plants are diverse and abundant in areas near bog violets. Habitat areas such as riparian wetland communities with bog violet should be managed and maintained to provide habitat for the Nokomis fritillary. Management Activities to Avoid Avoid habitat loss of areas with bog violet and nectar plants through draining and degrading wetlands and riparian areas. Avoid heavy grazing (where the larval foodplant is damaged), and insecticide use in wetlands and riparian areas. Other Species that Benet from Similar Habitat Management Management for Nokomis fritillary will benet bog violets and nectar plants. The other animals who feed on those plants will also benet, including other butteries, and hummingbirds. Download Download the Nokomis Fritillary factsheet Descarga la cha de mariposa speyeria Nokomis Other Resources Butteries and Moths of North America.Nokomis Fritillary Speyeria. Data were provided by the Buttery and Moth Information Network and the many participants who contribute to its Butteries and Moths of North America project. NatureServe. 2021. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Argynnis Nokomis USDA Forest Service.Great Basin Silverspot Buttery CATEGORIES ORGANISM TYPES INSECT | POLLINATOR HABITAT TYPES GRASSLAND | RIPARIAN | URBAN | WET MEADOW REGIONS NORTH AMERICA LANGUAGES ENGLISH HABITAT HUB HOME Get News and Updates Stay informed about LandPKS apps, including opportunities to provide input on features, and other news. Our newsletters are infrequent, and we will never sell or share your personal information. First name Last name Email address GET UPDATE Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Suckley's Cuckoo Bumble Bee LEGAL STATUS This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an ocial legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the ocial print version or the ocial electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov. The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding ocial PDF le on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unocial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it ocial legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our ocial publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov. The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the ocial SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an ocial edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it ocial status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts. LEGAL STATUS A Proposed Rule by the Fish and Wildlife Service on 12/17/2024 Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2024-0117; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000] DOCUMENT HEADINGS PUBLISHED DOCUMENT: 2024-28729 (89 FR 102074) PUBLISHED CONTENT - DOCUMENT DETAILS Agencies:Depar tment of the InteriorFish and Wildlife Service Agency/Docket Numbers:Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2024-0117FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000 CFR:50 CFR 17 Document Citation:89 FR 102074 Document Number:2024-28729 Document Type:Proposed Rule Pages:102074-102091 (18 pages) Publication Date:12/17/2024 RIN:1018-BI15 Summary of Biological Status and Threats Species Needs HOST SPECIES FOOD RESOURCES In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the species and its resources, and the threats that inuence the species' current and future ( printed page 102079) condition, in order to assess the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability. There have been few studies focused specically on understanding Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee biology and needs. Thus, we relied on information available for cuckoo bumble bees (subgenus Psithyrus) or bumble bees (genus Bombus) where appropriate. Suckley's cuckoo bumble bees cannot successfully reproduce without the availability of suitable host bumble bee colonies. Female cuckoo bumble bees invade host bumble bee nests where they will often eliminate the host queen, destroy host eggs, and eject host larvae from the nest. This may be driven by the need to create space for parasitic eggs and/or to increase the incubation effort of host workers towards parasitic eggs. Cuckoo bumble bees lack a mechanism to carry pollen and are unable to produce worker bees, and thus depend on social bee hosts to collect the pollen on which they rear their young (Lhomme and Hines 2019, p. 126). Thus, survival of Suckley's cuckoo bumble bees is dependent upon the survival and health of the host colony. Cuckoo bumble bees require diverse native oral resources (pollen and nectar) for nutrition. Limited information exists regarding key forage plants for cuckoo bumble bees (Dozier et al. 2023, p. 643), but abundant spring oral resources are important to cuckoo bumble bee females for ovary development (Lhomme and Hines 2019, p. 132) and abundant fall oral resources are important to the tness of the colony (Hateld and LeBuhn 2007, pp. 156-157), since this is when new gynes (the primary reproductive females) and drones (male bees that are solely responsible for reproduction) are produced (Goulson 2010a, pp. 6-8). In addition, fall oral resources are important for females who must survive an overwintering diapause (a period of suspended development) without foraging (Beekman et al. 1998, p. 207; Ogilvie and CaraDonna 2022, p. 2419). Because cuckoo bumble bees are dependent on host workers to raise their offspring, females tend to emerge from hibernation later than their hosts to feed on nectar and pollen in preparation for laying eggs (Lhomme and Hines 2019, p. 132). While specic requirements for overwintering sites are unknown, Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee females likely overwinter in and under mulch or other decomposing vegetation that is separated from nesting habitat (COSEWIC 2019, p. 27; Liczner and Colla 2019, p. 793; Martin et al. 2023, p. 25). HABITAT AND POPULATION CONNECTIVITY THERMAL SUITABILITY Dispersal of bees is necessary to nd unrelated mates and is aided by the proximity of other usurped colonies and the presence of suitable dispersal corridors. Bumble bee reproductive individuals (drones and gynes) can disperse up to 10.0 kilometer (km) (6.2 mile (mi)) (Darvill et al. 2006, p. 606; Jha and Kremen 2013, p. 2490; Lepais et al. 2010, p. 287). Dispersal distance can vary widely across species, and it has not yet been described for Suckley's cuckoo bumble bees. The indiscriminate cuckoo bumble bee ( B. insularis) was found to disperse up to 7.0 km (4.3 mi) which is comparable to research on other Bombus species (Koch et al. 2021, p. 5). Connectivity is a constraint for cuckoo bumble bees because they live in small, fragmented populations as a result of their dependence on host bumble bee colonies (Suhonen et al. 2016, p. 529). Population connectivity is important for Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee's viability as it increases the likelihood of genetic diversity, which promotes successful reproduction. Bumble bees are prone to producing unviable sterile males when genetic diversity between mating pairs is low (Zayed 2009, p. 239). Sterile males are unable to contribute to the following year's cohort, which can have negative impacts to the population and overall species viability. Dispersal of bees to nd unrelated mates is aided by the proximity of other usurped colonies. Consequently, the sharp historical decrease in the prevalence of both Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee, and many of its conrmed and potential host species (see Historical, Current, and Near-term Condition of Suckley's Cuckoo Bumble Bee, below), has likely reduced population connectivity relative to historical conditions. Reduced gene ow may have consequences on the genetic diversity of Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee, because small populations can experience stronger genetic drift (Zayed 2009, p. 246). This is important because high genetic diversity reduces prevalence of some pathogens (Parsche and Lattorff 2018, p. 900), and the risk of matched mating, which produces sterile males that do not contribute to population growth (Zayed 2009, p. 239). Bumble bees require temperatures to be within a suitable range throughout their lifecycle; however, this temperature range appears to be highly variable both across and within bumble bee species (Service 2024, pp. 20-22). Based on occupancy modeling results for Suckely's cuckoo bumble bee, occupancy is greatest when the average maximum temperature is near 20 Celsius (°C) (68 Fahrenheit (°F)) and declines when temperatures are lower and higher than the average maximum temperature (Service 2024, p. 64). In general, as bumble bees approach the lower end of their thermal limits, they become lethargic (Oyen et al. 2016, p. 53). Additionally, extreme cold can affect foraging behavior; exposure to cold (approximately 4°C (39°F) for 5 minutes) reduced bumble bee foraging for days after exposure (Wilson et al. 2006, p. 171). The upper end of some bumble bee thermal limits, where loss of muscle control occurs, ranged from approximately 38 to 53°C (100-129°F) (Hamblin et al. 2017, p. supplemental dataset; Oyen et al. 2016, p. 54; Oyen and Dillon 2018, p. 4). Compared to other bee species, bumble bees may be particularly sensitive to increases in temperature (Hamblin et al. 2017, p. 3). Further, bumble bee abundance was observed to decrease following heat waves in Europe (Rasmont and Iserbyt, 2012, p. 276). Nest temperatures are important to the maintenance and growth of the colony (Heinrich 1979, p. 68; Vogt 1986, p. 64). Temperatures in underground bumble bee nests uctuate less than in the surrounding environment, maintaining around 30°C (86°F) (Vogt, 1986, p. 61; Goulson, 2010a, p. 20; Heinrich 1979, p. 66), due to insulating qualities and colony behavior. Nest temperatures outside of ideal thermal ranges can slow larvae development and colony growth (Heinrich 1979, p. 68; Vanderplanck et al. 2019, p. 3; Vogt 1986, p. 64). The brood is most susceptible to cold temperatures earlier in the season when ambient temperatures are low, and the colony is small. In summary, Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee must have availability of suitable host colonies, sucient food resources, connectivity, and thermal suitability to suppor t viability. Highly resilient populations consist of many genetically diverse individuals that have all their basic resource needs met (host colony availability, oral resource abundance and diversity, overwintering site availability, population connectivity, and thermal suitability). This translates into a diverse collection of individuals on the landscape with high survival and reproduction success, which ultimately results in population ( printed page 102080) growth and larger populations. Survival and reproduction of Suckley's cuckoo bumble bees depend on the survival and health of the host colony. Host colony workers are paramount to the growth and survival of new generations of Suckley's cuckoo bumble bees because they forage and care for the brood of parasite larva. Redundancy for Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee is described as having multiple, healthy populations widely distributed across the breadth of adaptive diversity relative to the spatial occurrence of catastrophic events ( e.g., pathogen outbreak, wildre, or drought events). In addition to guarding against a single or series of catastrophic event(s) extirpating all populations of Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee, redundancy is important to protect against losing irreplaceable sources of adaptive diversity. Having multiple populations distributed across the range of the species will help preserve the breadth of adaptive diversity and, hence, the evolutionary exibility of the species. Threats HOST SPECIES DECLINE The adaptive capacity, as it relates to representation, of Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee is a function of the amount and spatial distribution of genetic and phenotypic diversity. Based on genetic studies of other bumble bee species with similar ecologies, and given the potential dispersal capability, Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee may not exhibit much genetic differentiation across its broad range. Genetic variation can be negatively affected by genetic drift; small populations experience stronger drift (Zayed 2009, p. 246). Thus, preserving the genetic diversity of Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee may require maintaining relatively large populations and connectivity among them. Cuckoo bumble bees have higher threat indices (higher extinction vulnerability) than host species because they are entirely dependent on host colonies for reproduction (Suhonen et al. 2015, pp. 238-239). The presence of parasitic bees depends on the presence of their hosts; any stressor effects on the host will be reected in the status of the parasite (Sheeld et al. 2013, p. 508). Because cuckoo bumble bees depend on host species, there is a co-extinction risk for host and parasite species (Suhonen et al. 2015, p. 238). Thus, signs that host species are declining are of major concern to the viability of Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee. The effect of all the stressors impacting Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee are compounded through the additional effects of these stressors on host species availability (Service 2024, p. 33). Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee is part of a group in the subgenus Psithyrus which primarily parasitizes bumble bees in the subgenus Bombus (Lhomme and Hines 2019, p. 129). Bumble bee nests are rare to encounter at a baseline, and usurped nests are even rarer to encounter, making observations supporting host choice limited (Lhomme and Hines 2019, pp. 132-133). Additionally, cuckoo bumble bee females may shelter in nests they do not usurp, leading to inconclusive observations. Given these challenges, our current understanding is that Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee has two conrmed hosts and numerous potential hosts. The western bumble bee is the most widely known host of Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee (Hobbs 1968, p. 164; Williams et al. 2014, p. 165; Lhomme and Hines 2019, p. 128). The western bumble bee occurs throughout the core of Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee's range in western North America. There are also three records of Suckley's cuckoo bumble bee nesting successfully ( i.e., rearing young) in Nevada bumble bee nests (Hobbs 1965, p. 127). ECOS /  Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Range Information |Candidate Info |Federal Register |Recovery |Critical Habitat |SSA |Conservation Plans |Petitions |Biological Opinions |Life History Taxonomy:View taxonomy in ITIS Listing Status: Threatened Where Listed: WHEREVER FOUND General Information Ute ladies -tresses is a perennial herb with erect, glandular-pubescent stems 12-60 cm tall arising from tuberous-thickened roots. Basal leaves are narrowly linear, up to 1 cm wide and 28 cm long, and persist at the time of owering. Leaves become progressively smaller up the stem and are alternate. The inorescence is a sparsely pubescent 3-15 cm long spike of numerous small white or ivory-colored owers arranged in a gradual spiral. Individual owers are 7.5-15 mm long and faintly fragrant (with a vanilla-like scent). The lip petal is oval to lance-shaped, narrowed at the middle, and has crispy-wavy margins. Sepals are separate or fused only at the base (not fused into a hood-like structure) and are often spreading at their tips. Fruits are cylindric capsules with numerous seeds. The species occurs in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The species historical range included Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Utah, Washington, Wyoming. See below for information about where the species is known or believed to occur. Current Listing Status Summary ECOS Show 10 entries Threatened 01-17-1992 Mountain Prairie Region (Region 6)Wherever found Status Date Listed Lead Region Where Listed Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext  » Range Information Current Range  Last Updated: 02-14-2024 - Wherever found Due to the data complexities of this current range, the data will not draw in the mapper within a reasonable time frame. Please refer to the downloadable data for the correct current range. Zoom in! Some species' locations may be small and hard to see from a wide perspective. To narrow-in on locations, check the state and county lists (below) and then use the zoom tool. Want the FWS's current range for all species? Click here to download a zip le containing all individual shapeles and metadata for all species. * For consultation needs do not use only this current range map, please use IPaC. Current range maps are only shown within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States of America. The species may also occur outside this region. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1 + - Wherever found Listing status: Threatened This population has been proposed for delisting States/US Territories in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: Arizona,Colorado,Idaho,Montana,Nebraska, Nevada,South Dakota,Utah,Washington,Wyoming US Counties in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: View All USFWS Refuges in which this population is known to occur: Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge » Candidate Information No Candidate information available for this species. No Candidate Assessments available for this species. No Candidate Notice of Review Documents currently available for this species. No Uplisting Documents currently available for this species. » Federal Register Documents Federal Register Documents » Species Status Assessments (SSAs) Species Status Assessments (SSAs) Show 10 entries 01/07/2025 90 FR 1054 1078 Removal of Ute Ladies'-Tresses from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants Species Stat Assessment 10/12/2004 69 FR 60605 60607 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Delist the Ute Ladies'-Tresses Orchid and Initiation of a 5-Year Review 01/17/1992 57 FR 2048 205 ETWP; Final Rule to List the Plant Spiranthes diluvialis, Ute Ladies'- Tresses, as a Threatened Species 11/13/1990 55 FR 47347 47350 ETWP; Proposal to List the Plant Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies'- tresses) as a Threatened Species;55 FR 47347 47350 Date Citation Page  Title Supporting Documents Showing 1 to 4 of 4 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries 12/02/2024 v1.1 Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) species status assessment (SSA) report v1 06/01/2023 v1 0 Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)species status assessment (SSA)report Document Date Document Version Document Title Showing 1 to 2 of 2 entries 1 Special Rule Publications No Special Rule Publications currently available for this species. » Recovery Species with Recovery Documents Data Explorer Recovery Priority Number: 14C Current Recovery Plan(s) Other Recovery Documents Note: This report includes actual Five Year Review completions and notices as well as records that act as Five Year Review completions and notices. Five Year Reviews Note: This report includes actual Five Year Review completions as well as records that act as Five Year Review completions. Delisting PreviousNext  Show 10 entries 09/21/1995 Draft Ute Ladies'-Tresses Draft Recovery Plan View Implementation Progress Date Plan Stage  Recovery Plan Implementation Status SSAs/Biological Reports Recovery Implementat Strategies Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries 01/07/2025 90 FR 1054 1078 Removal of Ute Ladies'-Tresses from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants Acts as notice for 5YR: Proposed 10/12/2004 69 FR 60605 60607 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Delist the Ute Ladies'-Tresses Orchid and Initiation of a 5-Year Review Delisting 90 day petitio Substantial Date Citation Page Title Document Type Showing 1 to 2 of 2 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries 08/08/2023 Ute ladies'-tresses 5-year status review Date Title Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext  Show 10 entries 01/07/2025 Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for Ute Ladies’-Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Date Title Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext  1 1 1 1 1 » Critical Habitat No Critical Habitat Documents currently available for this species. » Conservation Plans No Conservation Plans currently available for this species. » Petitions » Biological Opinions To see all FWS Issued Biological Opinions please visit the BO Report. » Life History Habitat Requirements When Ute ladies -tresses was listed in 1992 it was known primarily from moist meadows associated with perennial stream terraces, oodplains, and oxbows at elevations between 4300-6850 feet (1310-2090 meters). Surveys since 1992 have expanded the number of vegetation and hydrology types occupied by Ute ladies -tresses to include seasonally ooded river terraces, subirrigated or spring-fed abandoned stream channels and valleys, and lakeshores. In addition, 26 populations have been discovered along irrigation canals, berms, levees, irrigated meadows, excavated gravel pits, roadside barrow pits, reservoirs, and other human-modied wetlands. New surveys have also expanded the elevational range of the species from 720- 1830 feet (220-558 meters) in Washington to 7000 feet (2134 meters) in northern Utah. Over one-third of all known Ute ladies -tresses populations are found on alluvial banks, point bars, oodplains, or ox-bows associated with perennial streams. Food Habits NA Movement / Home Range NA Reproductive Strategy Spiranthes diluvialis is a long-lived perennial forb that probably reproduces exclusively by seed. The occasional presence of clustered plants could be the result of asexual reproduction from a single root mass or broken root segment. Such clusters could also be from seed caches or germination of seed from an entire buried fruiting capsule. The life cycle of S. diluvialis consists of four main stages: seedling, dormant, vegetative, and reproductive (owering or fruiting). Fruits are produced in late August or September across most of the plant s range, with seeds shed shortly thereafter. As with other orchid species, Ute ladies - tresses seeds are microscopic, dust-like, and readily dispersed by wind or water. Because of their minute size, Spiranthes seeds contain little stored food to sustain embryos and are probably short-lived in the soil. Show 10 entries Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies'-tresses); Delist 05/10/1996 AZ, CO, ID, MT, NE, NV, SD, UT, WA, WY, United States Don Christiansen, General Manager ESA - Petitioned for Delisting: Due to error - New information Petition ndings not yet made Yes Petition Title  Date Received by the FWS Where the species is believed to or known to occur  Petitioner Name  Requested Action  Petition Finding(s)  Active  Petition Docum Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries PreviousNext 1 Recent attempts to germinate S. diluvialis seeds in lab culture found it took up to 1.5 years for germination to occur. It is hypothesized that germinated seedlings must quickly establish a symbiotic relationship with mycorrhizal soil fungi in order to survive. The absence or rarity of appropriate fungal symbionts in the soil may be a major factor limiting the establishment of new Ute ladies - tresses populations. New vegetative shoots are produced in October and persist through the winter as small rosette. These resume growth in the spring and develop into short-stemmed, leafy, photosynthetic plants. Depending on site productivity and conditions, vegetative shoots may remain in this state all summer or develop inorescences. Vegetative individuals die back in the winter to subterranean roots or persist as winter rosettes. Across its range Spiranthes diluvialis blooms from early July to late October. Flowering typically occurs earlier in sites that have an open canopy and later in well-shaded sites. Bees are the primary pollinators of Ute ladies - tresses, particularly solitary bees in the genus Anthophora, bumblebees (genus Bombus), and occasionally non-native honeybees (Apis mellifera). Of these species, Anthophora terminalis is apparently the most eective pollinator. Studies along the Diamond Fork watershed in Utah indicate that orchids pollinated by A. terminalis produce three times as many fruits as plants from Browns Park pollinated only by Bombus species. Long-term monitoring studies indicate that the relative abundance and composition of the available bee fauna varies from year to year, which may impact overall fruit production rates. Other insect taxa (including Syrphid ies, skippers, and other hymenopteran genera) have been observed visiting S. diluvialis blooms for nectar but are too small or improperly shaped to function as pollen vectors. Other In 1992, the US Fish and Wildlife Service identied habitat loss and modication (through urbanization, water development, and conversion of wetlands to agriculture), overcollection, competition from exotic weeds, and herbicides as the main current and potential threats to the long term survival of Ute ladies - tresses. Since 1992, other threats have been identied including impacts from recreation; mowing for hay production, (mowing, especially in conjunction with winter grazing, can have positive eects on Ute ladies - tresses by reducing competing vegetative cover and protective cover for voles); grazing by cattle or horses; hydrology change (modication of wetland habitats through development, ood control, de-watering, and other changes to hydrology); herbivory by native wildlife (particularly voles); reduction in the number and diversity of insect pollinators; drought; absence or rarity of mycorrhizal symbionts; and conicting management with other rare species. » Other Resources NatureServe Explorer Species Reports-- NatureServe Explorer is a source for authoritative conservation information on more than 50,000 plants, animals and ecological communtities of the U.S and Canada. NatureServe Explorer provides in-depth information on rare and endangered species, but includes common plants and animals too. NatureServe Explorer is a product of NatureServe in collaboration with the Natural Heritage Network. ITIS Reports-- ITIS (the Integrated Taxonomic Information System) is a source for authoritative taxonomic information on plants, animals, fungi, and microbes of North America and the world. FWS Digital Media Library -- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Digital Library is a searchable collection of selected images, historical artifacts, audio clips, publications, and video." +