The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1.12 Wildlife Impact ReportCOLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Error! No text of specified style in document. Prepared for — ASCENDIGO AUTISM SERVICES, INC. 818 Industry Place Carbondale, CO 81623 Prepared by — COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC 0100 Elk Run Drive, Suite 128 Basalt, CO 81621 WILDLIFE IMPACT ANALYSIS: ASCENDIGO RANCH Garfield County, Colorado Colorado Wildlife Science Ecological Research, Management & Consulting December 17, 2020 Page left intentionally blank for two-sided printing. WILDLIFE IMPACT ANALYSIS: Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 I hereby certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate. December 17, 2020 Jonathan Lowsky, Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC Date Copyright © 2020 Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including Photocopying, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author. Prepared for — ASCENDIGO AUTISM SERVICES, INC. 818 Industry Place Carbondale, CO 81623 Prepared by — COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC 0100 Elk Run Drive, Suite 128 Basalt, CO 81621 Page left intentionally blank for two-sided printing. Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Table of Contents iv Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 1 3.0 METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 1 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 2 4.1 Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. ................................................................................... 2 4.2 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................. 2 4.3 Noxious Weeds ......................................................................................................................... 3 4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................................ 3 4.5 Raptors, Birds of Conservation Concern, and Migratory Birds ...................................... 6 4.6 Other Species of Interest .................................................................................................... 7 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS §4-203.G .................................................................................................... 11 5.1 Adjacent Land Use - §4-203.G(1) ............................................................................................ 11 5.2 Environmental Impacts - §4-203.G(6) ..................................................................................... 12 5.2.1 Determination of the Long-Term and Short-Term Effect on Flora & Fauna ................ 12 5.2.2 Determination of the Effect on Designated Environmental Resources, Including Critical Wildlife Habitat ............................................................................................................ 13 5.2.3 Impacts on Wildlife and Domestic Animals .................................................................. 13 6.0 WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS & MITIGATION - §7-202 ................................................................. 14 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................... 18 8.0 BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS .......................................................................................... 20 Appendix A. Maps .......................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix B. Photos ........................................................................................................................ 26 Appendix C. Site Plan ..................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix D. CPW SAM mule deer and elk seasonal activity area definitions .............................. 37 Appendix E. State of Colorado Threatened & Endangered Vertebrates ...................................... 38 Appendix F. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Consultation Letter .................................................................... 40 Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Photos v Photos Photo 1. Topography of the upper portions of the property where development is proposed is relatively flat to rolling ................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Photo 2. Paved roads originally developed for the planned residential subdivision remain on the property ............ 27 Photo 3. A few two-track roads occur on the property which are often used by adjacent homeowners for recreation ........................................................................................................................................................... 28 Photo 4. Footprints and bike tire tracks were frequently observed on the two-tracks during surveys ...................... 28 Photo 5. Existing pond with bare soil and weeds at the periphery ............................................................................. 29 Photo 6. Water storage tank on the property ............................................................................................................. 29 Photo 7. Large residences adjacent to the property ................................................................................................... 30 Photo 8. Another adjacent residence .......................................................................................................................... 30 Photo 9. Residence adjacent to the property on the east side ................................................................................... 31 Photo 10. Remnant, disturbed sagebrush shrubland remnant on the property with more intact sagebrush beyond the property to the north................................................................................................................................... 31 Photo 11. Pastures on the property are dominated by non-native grasses ................................................................ 32 Photo 12. Higher quality patch of piñon-juniper woodland on the property.............................................................. 32 Photo 13. Relatively old mule deer pellets observed on the property ........................................................................ 33 Photo 14. Fresh mule deer track observed during surveys ......................................................................................... 33 Photo 15. Solitary mule deer doe observed on the property during surveys ............................................................. 34 Maps Map 1. Aerial view & vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 22 Map 2. Development landscape & clustering .............................................................................................................. 23 Map 3. CPW mapped elk field verified seasonal habitats ........................................................................................... 24 Map 4. CPW mapped mule deer field verified seasonal habitats................................................................................ 25 Page left intentionally blank for two-sided printing. Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents an analysis of the potential impacts to wildlife, wildlife habitat, and ecological resources resulting from the proposed development of parcels of land to be collectively known as Ascendigo Ranch (Parcel IDs # 2391-283-00-225, 2391-283-00-237, 2391- 283-18-001 through 005, 2391-283-18-012, 2391-283-18-013, and 2391-294-18-006 through 011) in unincorporated Garfield County. This analysis addresses significant wildlife use of the property, evaluates potential effects of development on wildlife, plants, and other important ecological resources, and recommends actions to reduce ecological impacts. This report specifically addresses potential impacts to wildlife, plants and plant communities per the Garfield County Land Use Code (LUC) – specifically, §4-203.G(6) Impact Analysis-Flora and Fauna and §7-202 Wildlife Habitat Areas. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 126+ acre property (the property) is currently made up of the Whitecloud Ridge subdivision and two additional parcels of the former Levitt property. The previous owner envisioned 13 homes at Whitecloud Ridge, each with an allowed ADU of up to 3,000 square feet per lot and up to eight homes on the former Levitt property. The focus of Ascendigo Ranch educational facility would be camp services serving the autism community. Ascendigo Ranch would house up to 24 campers, resident staff, a guest cabin and an agricultural caretaker (Appendix C). Camps would be offered between May 1 and September 30. Campers would stay for one or more weeks at a time. During other seasons, the camp may be made available for smaller autistic group activities, on-site therapeutic sessions, training groups of educators and/or employers, and/or families for short term rental/events related to Ascendigo’s program. 3.0 METHODS This assessment is based on: (1) Pedestrian surveys of the property on December 7, 2020; (2) a review of current Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) Species Activity Mapping (SAM) (Colorado Parks & Wildlife 2020); (3) on-site consultation with CPW District Wildlife Manager Kurtis Tesch; (4) consultation with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) via the IPaC system regarding federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species that may occur on or within proximity to the property or may be affected by implementation of the proposal; and (5) the author’s experience in recognizing, avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating potential impacts of development on wildlife and other ecological resources in Garfield County and western Colorado. A preliminary review of the property using digital orthophotos was conducted to familiarize Colorado Wildlife Science (CWS) with the property and as an aid to help determine the potential presence of wildlife and any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of plants and wildlife. The site surveys concentrated on habitat mapping, developing an ecological understanding of the property, field verifying SAM maps, and searching for evidence of specific species presence (as described in species accounts, below), and assessing the plant communities, hydrological and geomorphic characteristics of the Property. A CWS biologist conducted pedestrian surveys of the property to identify and locate wildlife species, wildlife sign, wildlife habitats, and plant communities. Raptor nest surveys were conducted on foot through suitable habitat on and in Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2 proximity to the property. Vegetation types were determined through field identification of plants, aerial photography, and on-the-ground assessments of plant abundance. As this survey was conducted late in the growing season, some plant species and noxious weeds may not have been identifiable. Field data collected and photographs taken during the survey were georeferenced using a submeter GPS. During the site assessment, CWS also evaluated any potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) and associated wetlands. If applicable, location and extent of any WOTUS that have the potential to affect implementation of the proposal were photodocumented and recorded via GPS. 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The property is situated in the North-Central Highlands and Rocky Mountain Section of the Southern Rocky Mountains Steppe - Open Woodland - Coniferous Forest - Alpine Meadow Physiographic Province (Bailey 1976, Omernik 1987, Bailey 1995, Bailey et al. 1998). Mean elevation of the property is approximately 6,633 feet above mean sea level and lies within the southwest quarter of Sections 28 and 29 of Township 7 South, Range 87 of the 6th Principal Meridian. The property is comprised of relatively flat to rolling portions of the plateau known as Missouri Heights (Photo 1) and the steep southerly to westerly facing slopes that lead from Missouri Heights down to the Roaring Fork River valley (Map 1). Two paved roads (Photo 2) and a few dirt and two-track roads (Photo 3) occur throughout the upper portion of the property. These roads are commonly used recreationally (Photo 4 bike track) by local residents and by dog walkers. A pond (Photo 5) and a water storage tank (Photo 6) occur at the northwest corner of the property. The property is located in an area where the primary land uses include agricultural activities and residential development. The property and surrounding area were historically used for cattle, sheep, and horse ranching as well as potato cultivation. Agricultural activity in the area is rapidly declining as Missouri Heights ranches are subdivided for residential development. 4.1 Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. A desktop assessment of waterbodies and wetlands was evaluated by reviewing areas that could potentially be identified as jurisdictional wetlands and other (non-wetland) waters of the U.S. (WOTUS). Impacts to potentially jurisdictional WoUS require permitting through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to issue permits for the discharge of dredge or fill materials into WOTUS. Based on the desktop review and on-site surveys, there currently are no wetlands or drainages conveying WOTUS that would be affected by the proposed project. 4.2 Vegetation Most of the native plant communities (Map 1) on the upper property have been cleared over time; first for hay and pasture and then in preparation for residential development. Some small patches of mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana) shrubland (Photo 7) Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 remain but these patches are degraded with understory plants dominated by agricultural grasses (Photo 8) such as smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). The steep slopes are dominated by relatively intact two-needle piñon – Utah juniper (Pinus edulis – Juniperus osteosperma) woodland with patches of higher quality sagebrush shrubland near the southwest corner of the property. The piñon-juniper extends up onto the plateau as well, where the understory vegetation becomes increasingly dominated by non-native plants. A few patches of piñon-juniper at the east end of the property (Photo 9) are higher quality with fewer non- natives than the patches at the edge of the slopes. 4.3 Noxious Weeds Although a thorough weed assessment has not been conducted, it is clear that there are few weed infestations on the property. Only a few plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides) and, musk thistle (Carduus nutans) were observed, but these occurred in small patches of a few plants along the roads and around the pond. Both of these species are on the Garfield County Noxious Weed List and should be controlled. It is possible that other weed species occur on the property and in the nearby area but were not detected due to the time of inspection. The steep slopes were not surveyed but observations of the plant communities from above suggest that there is little to no human use of those slopes so noxious weed problems are unlikely. Ascendigo intends to follow best practice standards on vegetation management, including Garfield County’s guidelines and regulations. In fact, the first action taken after the property was acquired was to begin weed management by engaging a weed management contractor and participating in Garfield County’s Noxious Weed Cost Share program. Ascendigo plans to follow the Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan, which is intended to “curb the degradation of our valued environment by implementing an Integrated Weed Management Plan designed to stop the spread of noxious weeds.” Until Ascendigo can build organizational capacity and expertise in this area, it is their plan is to continue to contract weed management to a qualified contractor. 4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 1 On December 9, 2020 the property was submitted to USFWS via the IPaC system (http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) requesting an official list of threatened, endangered, or candidate species that may occur on or within proximity to the property or may be affected by implementation of the proposal. An official list was received and is attached as Appendix F. 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.). Per the consultation with USFWS, species protected under the ESA that may occur within the boundary of the property are listed below in Table 1. Also included are species listed as Endangered or Threatened by the State of Colorado that have the potential to be affected by the proposed project. Some of the species listed below are typically found within habitats that do not occur on the property or within areas that cannot be affected by actions associated with the 1 See Appendix B for the list of Colorado Threatened and Endangered species Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 project. There will be no effect on these off-site species. A brief rationale for the “no effect” determination for each of these species is included in the following paragraphs. Table 1. Threatened or Endangered Species that may occur in Garfield County, Colorado or may be affected by the project Common Name Latin Name Occurrence Status‡ Potential Habitat on the property? Surveys Conducted? Habitat Effect BIRDS Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus In Colorado, statewide along rivers, lakes, reservoirs. All of the conterminous United States and Alaska. Two-thirds of breeding sites west of Continental Divide. Concentrations include the Yampa. White, and Colorado Rivers (Kingery 1998). ST No No Open water bodies, prairie dog colonies important food source during the winter. Breeding: Usually nests in tall trees or on cliffs near water. Winter: Preferentially roosts in conifers or other sheltered sites in winter in some areas; typically selects the larger, more accessible trees. Perching in deciduous and coniferous trees is equally common in other areas (NatureServe 2005). No Effect Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Large sagebrush shrublands, north of I-70 in Colorado. SC No No Leks are areas used by sage-grouse during the mating season where males display to attract receptive females. Lek sites are characterized by low vegetation with sparse shrubs often surrounded by big sagebrush dominated plant communities. Nesting/Early Brood-rearing habitat is characterized by big sagebrush-dominated plant communities. Brood-rearing habitat is riparian plant communities associated with intermittent and perennial streams, springs, seeps and meadows that are within upland vegetation communities or along the edge of agricultural hay meadows. No Effect Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida Open water bodies, prairie dog colonies important food source during the winter. Breeding: Usually nests in tall trees or on cliffs near water. Winter: Preferentially roosts in conifers or other sheltered sites in winter in some areas; typically selects the larger, more accessible trees. Perching in deciduous and coniferous trees is equally common in other areas (NatureServe 2005). FT, ST No No Effect Complex forest or rocky canyons that contain uneven-aged, multi-level and old-aged, thick forests below 9,500 feet elevation. Nests in standing snags and hollow trees (Rinkevich et al. 1995) No Effect Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus In Colorado west of the Continental Divide, the species was probably never common (Bailey and Niedrach 1965, Kingery 1998) and is now extremely rare (Kingery 1998). One confirmed nesting observation occurred along the Yampa River near Hayden during the Breeding Bird Atlas surveys conducted from 1987-1994 (Kingery 1998) and one cuckoo, representing a probable nesting pair in surveyed lowland river riparian habitat along six rivers in west-central Colorado (Dexter 1998). FT, SC No No Nest in deciduous woodlands associated with wetlands or streams. Require combination of dense willow understory for nesting, a cottonwood overstory for foraging, and large patches of habitat (Laymon 1980, Gaines and Laymon 1984, Kingery 1998). Feed on grasshoppers, caterpillars, beetles and other insects (Dillinger 1989). No Effect MAMMALS Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Colorado is the southern limit of the North American distribution of the species, and the population is considered isolated from those in the Northern Rockies (McKelvey et al. 2000). FT, SE No No Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir is the habitat used by lynx with a mix of spruce, fir and aspen second. Riparian and riparian-mix areas used heavily too. Lynx in Colorado increasingly using riparian areas beginning in July, peaking in November, and dropping off December through June (Shenk 2009). No Effect North American river otter Lontra canadensis 2003 CDOW statewide river otter survey found 3 viable populations: Gunnison, Piedra, and Green river populations. In addition, evidence of otters was on the Cache la Poudre, South Platte, Michigan, and Illinois rivers and also reported additional individual sightings. River otters are found occasionally in the Roaring Fork and Crystal River. ST No No Water bodies and riparian areas within a broad range of ecosystems from semi-desert shrubland to montane and subalpine forest. The primary habitat requirement for river otters is permanent water with abundant fish or crustacean prey and relatively high water quality (Boyle 2006). No Effect Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 Table 1. Threatened or Endangered Species that may occur in Garfield County, Colorado or may be affected by the project Common Name Latin Name Occurrence Status‡ Potential Habitat on the property? Surveys Conducted? Habitat Effect FISH Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius Large, swift-flowing muddy rivers with quiet warm backwaters in the Green, Yampa , White, Colorado, Gunnison, San Juan, and Dolores Rivers. FE, ST No No No Effect Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus Often associated with sand, mud, and rock substrate in areas with sparse aquatic vegetation, where temperatures are moderate to warm within the Colorado River system. FE, SE No No No Effect Humpback chub Gila cypha Prefers deep, fast-moving, turbid waters often associated with large boulders and steep cliffs in the Green, Yampa , and Colorado Rivers. FE, ST No No No Effect Bonytail chub Gila elegans Large, swift-flowing waters of the Colorado River system. FE, SE No No No Effect PLANTS Ute ladies'-tresses orchid Spiranthes diluvialis Eastern slope of Rocky Mountains in southeastern Wyoming & Nebraska, north central and central Colorado; in the upper Colorado River Basin, particularly the Uinta Basin; and in the Bonneville Basin along the Wasatch Front and westward in the eastern Great Basin, in north-central and western Utah, extreme eastern Nevada and southeastern Idaho. Nearest location is near Catherine, CO. FT No No Subirrigated, alluvial soils along streams, and in open meadows, in floodplains. 4500 to 6800 ft. No Effect ‡Status: T = Threatened ; E = Endangered; P = Proposed; FC = Candidate for federal listing; SC = State species of concern None of the listed species in the above table have mapped habitat occurring within or near the site. Potential habitat is not present for the bald eagle, bonytail chub, Canada lynx, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, Mexican spotted owl, razorback sucker, yellow-billed cuckoo, or Ute ladies’-tresses orchid. CPW maps greater sage-grouse (GrSG) Historic Habitat overlaying the site. The nearest active GrSG habitats all occur more than 20 miles northwest of the site, north of the town of Gypsum at Greenhorn Mountain. The property is not within GrSG habitat areas depicted in the Garfield County Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. 4.4.1 Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid (FT, G2G3) The Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) was listed as threatened under the ESA in January 1992, and is ranked as imperiled both globally (G2G3) and in the state of Colorado (S2) (NatureServe 2015). This orchid is a perennial that grows up to 20 inches tall and has a distinctive spike of white flowers (USFWS 2010). It is known from British Columbia southwards to Colorado. Utah has the largest number of element occurrences, followed by Colorado (NatureServe 2012). In Colorado, it is known from Boulder, El Paso, Garfield, Jefferson, Larimer, Moffat, and Weld Counties (NatureServe 2015). The closest known occurrence, however, is along the Roaring Fork River at Catherine near Carbondale which is approximately 9.5 mi to the southeast of the property (Durkin 2009). The Ute ladies’-tresses orchid generally blooms from late July through the end of August (USFWS 2010). Depending on location and climatic conditions, however, the blooming timeframe can vary considerably (USFWS 1992). It is adapted to early- to mid-seral sites with moist to wet conditions, where competition for light, space, water, and other resources is normally kept low by periodic Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6 or recent disturbance events (NatureServe 2015). In Colorado, the orchid is found along perennial streams or rivers, or in groundwater-fed spring or sub-irrigated meadows at elevations ranging from 4,560 feet to 6,260 feet (Fertig et al. 2005). The habitat types on and adjacent to the proposed activity envelope are not suitable. The property is entirely upland habitat, and the correct hydrology is not present to qualify the site as potential Ute ladies’-tresses orchid habitat. 4.5 Raptors, Birds of Conservation Concern, and Migratory Birds CWS evaluated the property for raptor species that could potentially occur in the area (Andrews and Righter 1992, Righter 2004, Wickersham 2007, NatureServe 2020). A nest search was conducted on the property and no raptor nests were located. No active nest or roost sites for bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), ospreys (Pandion haliaetus), peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus), or red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) are known to occur on or within proximity of the proposed activity envelope. In addition to raptors, CWS evaluated the site for bird species which could potentially be affected by the proposal. Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) have been identified by the USFWS for priority conservation management in an attempt to prevent or remove the need to list additional species under the Endangered Species Act (Appendix F). Table 2. Raptors, Birds of Conservation Concern, and Migratory Bird Species Common Name Scientific Name Preferred Habitat BCC Habitat on the Property? Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Open water bodies, prairie dog colonies important food source during the winter. Breeding: Usually nests in tall trees or on cliffs near water. Winter: Preferentially roosts in conifers or other sheltered sites in winter in some areas; typically selects the larger, more accessible trees. Perching in deciduous and coniferous trees is equally common in other areas (NatureServe 2005). No† No Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri High quality sagebrush-dominated landscapes. Populations may occur in pinon-juniper woodlands or in large tracts of coniferous forests (Sedgwick 1987). The preferred winter habitat is composed of sagebrush shrublands. Yes Yes, but not within developable area ̶ only below the plateau. Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Open and semi-open country such as sagebrush, savannah or sparse woodland, and barren areas, especially in hilly or mountainous regions, in areas with sufficient prey base and near suitable nesting sites. Yes Foraging only. Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Nonbreeding: marshes, ponds, wet meadows, lakes and mudflats, coastal salinas. Yes No Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Three important habitats include open ponderosa pine forest, open riparian woodland dominated by cottonwood, and logged or burned pine forest. Their breeding distribution is widely associated with ponderosa pine distribution in western North America. Yes No Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 7 Table 2. Raptors, Birds of Conservation Concern, and Migratory Bird Species Common Name Scientific Name Preferred Habitat BCC Habitat on the Property? Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Mature spruce/fir, lodgepole pine, and Douglas-fir forests with preference for natural clearings, bogs, stream and lakeshores with water-killed trees, forest burns and logged areas with standing dead trees. Generally from 7,500 to11,000 ft. Yes No Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephal Piñon-juniper woodland, sagebrush, scrub oak, and chaparral communities, and sometimes in pine forests. Yes Yes, but not within developable area ̶ only below the plateau. Virginia's Warbler Leiothlypis virginiae Strongly associated with Gambel oak. Nest on the ground in dense shrublands and on scrub dominated slopes of mesas, foothills, open ravines, and mountain valleys in semiarid country. They also use scrubby brush, piñon-juniper woodland with a well-developed shrubby understory and Gambel oak component, ravines covered with Gambel oak, and dense shrublands – especially Gambel oak. Yes Yes, but not within developable area ̶ only below the plateau. Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii Strongly tied to brushy areas of willow (Salix spp.) and similar shrubs. Found in thickets, open second growth with brush, swamps, wetlands, streamsides, and open woodland. Common in mountain meadows and along streams; also in brushy upland pastures (especially hawthorn) and orchards. The presence of water (running water, pools, or saturated soils) and willow, alder (Alnus spp.), or other deciduous riparian shrubs are essential habitat elements. Yes No † But warrants attention because of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c) or for potential susceptibilities in riparian areas from certain types of development or activities. 4.6 Other Species of Interest This section addresses present use of the study area by significant wildlife not listed by the state or federal government. The ‘significant’ wildlife use described herein refers to those wildlife species that are of ecological, economic, regulatory, social, and/or political importance. 4.6.1 Ungulates Rocky Mountain Elk & Mule Deer Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus) are present on the property throughout the year but elk (Cervus canadensis nelsoni) only occur in winter. The property is mapped by CPW as within elk (Map 3) summer range, winter range, and severe winter range and mule deer (Map 4) summer range, winter range, winter concentration, severe winter range, and within a portion of a resident population area (Colorado Parks & Wildlife 2020). The property is also mapped within the home range of a resident (i.e., non-migratory) mule deer herd. It is important to note, CPW includes the following disclaimer with all of its GIS digital data: Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 8 Care should be taken in interpreting these data. Written documents may accompany this map and should be referenced. The information portrayed on these maps should not replace field studies necessary for more localized planning efforts. The data are gathered at a variety of scales; discrepancies may become apparent at larger scales. The areas portrayed here are graphic representations of phenomena that are difficult to reduce to two dimensions. Animal distributions are fluid; animal populations and their habitats are dynamic. The seasonal elk and mule deer habitats are mapped at a 1:24,000 scale and often need to be confirmed and/or modified (i.e., field verified) to reflect more micro-scale conditions. Limiting Factors Limiting factors are influences that determine whether a wildlife population increases, decreases or remains stable. It is important to understand that there is seldom one factor that, by itself, causes a reduction or an increase in the population of a given species. It is usually the interaction of several factors that determine the fate of a population. For example, predation may seem to be a factor causing an elk population to decline when in fact restricted winter habitat, deep snow or the lack of alternate prey may be what allows predation to have a major impact. Traditionally, we have looked at the concept of food, water, cover and space as the primary components that determine how suitable a habitat is for wildlife. While this is true, it oversimplifies our understanding of how various factors affect habitat. Several other factors may not be as important on their own, but when they are combined with the four primary habitat components, the value of the habitat may be immediately enhanced or reduced. For example, other land uses can greatly impact elk use of suitable range. In the Roaring Fork watershed the limiting factors for bighorn sheep, elk, and mule deer most affected by residential development are winter habitats, production areas, and migration habitat. Winter Range, Severe Winter Range, Winter Concentration Both elk and mule deer on winter range continuously seek the most moderate ambient weather conditions, and other factors influencing habitat selection are secondary. In winter, elk move between foraging and bedding sites in response to changing ambient temperatures, increasing snow depths, and to enhance control of body temperature. On the coldest days and/or when snow depths are greatest, both species seek southerly and westerly facing slopes where snows typically melt quickly. Snow depths greater than 12 inches begin to reduce the winter range (USFWS 1982). In general, mule deer and elk do not tolerate snow depths greater than chest height and are impeded when snow is knee-deep (Loveless 1967, Kelsall and Prescott 1971, Parker et al. 1984, Toweill et al. 2002, Ungulate Winter Range Technical Advisory Team 2005). Consequently, winter range of larger elk covers a greater areal extent of lands with greater snow depths than that of mule deer (Parker 1984). Deer pellets (Photo 10) and tracks (Photo 11) were observed throughout the property as well as a solitary doe (Photo 12). No elk tracks or pellets were observed on the property. Browse on preferred forage shrubs (e.g., antelope bitterbrush, Gambel oak, mountain mahogany, serviceberry) was very light throughout the upper portions of the property but is increasingly significant as one proceeds to and over the edge of the southerly facing slopes down to the Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 9 Roaring Fork valley where the density of game trails, tracks, and pellet piles were all substantially greater. Based on CWS surveys of site conditions and observations of elk and deer use of this portion of Missouri Heights, the CPW SAM winter habitat mapping for deer is more accurate than the elk habitat mapping. Although the entire property is mapped as severe winter range for elk, it is the southerly facing slopes that are available for travel and forage in a severe winter. Snow accumulation on the flat portions of the ranch in a severe winter would be expected to exceed the tolerance of both species. In contrast, the south-facing slopes remain relatively free of snow in most winters with a substantially shallower snowpack in the worst winters. As such, the severe winter range for elk would be more accurately mapped to more or less coincide with the mule deer mapping. Production Areas Elk calving grounds or production areas are carefully selected by cows and are generally in locations where cover, forage, and water are in close proximity (Seidel 1977a, Phillips and Alldredge 2000, Barbknecht et al. 2011, Rearden et al. 2011). Calving sites occur in the lower to middle portions of summer range and often occur in the same general area each year. Although selected sites are used for a brief period in the spring or early summer, elk production habitat is often a limiting factor for a given population. Sites must provide security from harassment and be within or adjacent to high quality summer range. Elk are considered a hider species because the calf remains bedded at a location and responds to threats by remaining prone while the female moves away to forage, returning periodically to nurse. Seidel (1977b, 1977a) studied elk calving habitat at various sites in the White River National Forest. He found that cow elk prepare a distinct birthing bed and, for the most part, return to that bed each year. All birthing beds examined were in mature aspens with a thick understory of shrubs such as chokecherry and snowberry. All beds were located on southeast-facing slopes within 183 m (200 yd) of a water source. Personal observation by CWS of calving behavior in the Roaring Fork watershed has largely confirmed Seidel’s assessment with the following additions: (1) the aspect variable described by Seidel seems to be less important than the understory variable. Active elk calving habitat in the Roaring Fork watershed is known to occur on variable aspects, but there is always significant woody understory vegetation which provides calves with hiding cover; (2) very young spotted calves and probable birthing beds have been observed in narrowleaf cottonwood riparian habitat that has a dense willow, alder, and/or chokecherry understory; and (3) although some elk cows do indeed exhibit strong calving site fidelity, others do not. Recent research supports Seidel’s conclusions (See Phillips and Alldredge 2000, Barbknecht et al. 2011, Rearden et al. 2011). There is no mapped or field verified elk production habitat on or within proximity to the property. The nearest active production habitat is more than 1 mile to the east-northeast (Colorado Parks & Wildlife 2020). Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 10 Migration Corridors A migration corridor is a specific mappable site through which large numbers of animals migrate and loss of which would change migration routes. There are no mapped or field verified migration corridors on or within proximity to the property (Colorado Parks & Wildlife 2020). North American Moose Moose (Alces americanus) are relatively recent arrivals to the Roaring Fork watershed. Twelve moose were originally introduced in North Park in 1978 and 91 moose were released on the Grand Mesa between 2005 and 2007 (Colorado Parks & Wildlife 2013). Moose have since pioneered northeast from the Grand Mesa and south from North Park to the Roaring Fork watershed. Moose most typically occur in riparian habitat followed by Gambel oak-shrublands, aspen forest, conifer forests, and mixed aspen-conifer. No moose have been observed on the property to date. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Two adaptations of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) substantially define basic habitat requirements. First is their agility on precipitous slopes, which is their primary means of escaping predators. Second is their keen eyesight, which is their primary sense for detecting predators (Geist 1971, Etchberger 1989). Relatively short legs and a stocky build allow agility on rocks, but preclude fleetness necessary to outrun coursing predators in less rocky terrain (Geist 1971). Consequently, bighorn sheep select open habitats that allow them to detect predators at distances sufficient to provide adequate lead time to reach the safety of precipitous terrain (Geist 1971, Etchberger 1989). In short, optimal bighorn habitat is visually open and contains steep and generally rocky slopes. There is no mapped or field verified bighorn sheep habitat on or immediately adjacent to the study area (Colorado Parks & Wildlife 2020). 4.6.2 Other Species American Black Bear Black bears (Ursus americanus) are relatively common in the area surrounding the property and CPW maps the property within a Black Bear Human Conflict Area (Colorado Parks & Wildlife 2020). Mountain Lion Although mountain lions (Puma concolor) have extremely large territories (10 to 370 square miles), residential development can still have a negative effect. Lions are directly affected due to habitat loss and vehicle collisions and indirectly through habitat loss and changes in prey abundance. CPW accurately maps the property within a Mountain Lion Human Conflict Area (Colorado Parks & Wildlife 2020). Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS §4-203.G 11 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS §4-203.G The physical removal of vegetation or other habitat features is known as direct habitat loss. Disturbance resulting from human activity associated with the proposed development will decrease the effectiveness of habitat that remains physically undisturbed. This is known as indirect habitat loss. As with most development in western Colorado, the implementation of the proposed project will have some direct and indirect effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat. The property, however, is embedded in a highly developed landscape. It is currently occupied by mixed agricultural and residential properties. Although the proposal will result in the direct loss of some native vegetation and habitat, given the surroundings and indirect impacts of the existing development and the disturbed nature of the vegetation, this loss will be negligible. 5.1 Adjacent Land Use - §4-203.G(1) The property is embedded in a landscape where historic agricultural land has been increasingly converted to residential development. The property is surrounded on all sides by residential subdivisions. A geospatial buffer model was created in ArcGIS 10.5 (ESRI 2017) to approximate indirect 2 impacts and loss of habitat effectiveness associated with the implementation of the proposed residential development. This is based on the premise that human activities, noise, fugitive light, and road noise would diminish the habitat effectiveness on the ranch. Clustering residential development allows for more opportunities to conserve large patches of wildlife habitats; land containing a few large patches is less fragmented than land containing smaller patches within the same area. The buffer distances used for this analysis are based on available scientific and land management literature (Odell and Knight 2001, Odell et al. 2003, Fraterrigo and Wiens 2005, Glennon and Kretser 2005, Hansen et al. 2005, Lenth et al. 2006, Merenlender et al. 2009). Specifically, Odell and Knight (2001) found that houses and areas of frequent human activity in Pitkin County have a zone of influence (ZOI) that extends approximately 180 m in all directions into adjacent habitat. Their study showed that human-sensitive species were less common up to 180 m from human disturbance. Bird and medium sized mammal population densities were affected by the arrangement and density of exurban housing developments, with both species groups avoiding seemingly intact habitat up to 180 m from residential development (Odell and Knight 2001). Smith et al. (1989) suggest that mule deer habitat use is influenced up to 82.3 m from houses during the winter but Vogel (1989) reported mule deer use declined significantly within 400 m of existing residential development. As shown in Map 2, the zones of influence created by developed residential lots within 1,500 feet of the property (Photos 7, 8, 9) extend on to the property. In addition, the residents of adjacent lots currently use the property as an open space amenity; walking dogs, hiking, and biking on the property. This use of the property further diminishes the effectiveness of its remaining habitat and effectively extends the ZOI from adjacent residences to include the entire upper portion of 2 Indirect Impacts: those effects of the proposed development which are reasonably certain, but would occur later in time or are spatially separated from the project. Examples of indirect impacts (effects) would include increased traffic, noise and activities from residents, fugitive lighting, etc. Direct Impacts: would include the impacts (and effects) associated with implementation of the proposed project. Direct impacts would include direct conversion or manipulation of habitats (including beneficial or detrimental changes) or direct impacts to a species, (including road and home building, occupancy of developed areas, reclamation of open space areas, use of soft path trails). Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS §4-203.G 12 the property. As such, most of the upper portions of the property are not considered effective wildlife habitat, especially for those species that are more sensitive to human activity. 5.2 Environmental Impacts - §4-203.G(6) 5.2.1 Determination of the Long-Term and Short-Term Effect on Flora & Fauna The proposed development will result in the loss of negligible acreage of native vegetation. The highest quality native piñon-juniper woodlands and mountain big sagebrush shrublands occur on the slopes on the south and west side of the property outside of the proposed development areas. The balance of vegetation (i.e., habitat) is comprised of non-native pasture, disturbed patches of sagebrush shrubland, and small patches of somewhat intact piñon-juniper woodland. Consequently, although the proposed project may have some minor short-term effects on individuals it will not have short-term effects on populations or long-term effects on individuals, populations, or species. Flora The proposed development and use of the property would not adversely affect federally listed plant species. No significant native plant communities would be affected on a long- or short-term basis by implementation of the proposal. It is recommended that noxious weed management is implemented as proposed to eradicate or limit the spread of existing weeds and reduce the likelihood of new infestations. Weed management should be implemented in coordination with the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. Ute ladies'-tresses orchid - There is no suitable Ute ladies'-tresses habitat on or adjacent to the property. As such, the project will have no effect on individual or populations of Ute ladies'- tresses orchid. Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Sensitive Wildlife Species Implementation of the proposal would not adversely affect federally listed wildlife species due to the lack of suitable habitat within or surrounding the project area. No federally designated critical habitat occurs within or near the site. Colorado State listed Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive wildlife species would not be impacted by the proposed project due to the lack of suitable habitat available for those species within or surrounding the proposed project area. As discussed above, there are no ESA listed or Candidate species known to occur on the property. As such, it is highly unlikely that the proposed development will have any effect on federal Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate vertebrate species (See Table 1, above). Greater Sage-Grouse - Although greater sage-grouse historically occurred on Missouri Heights, they do not currently occur on or within proximity to the property nor do they have the potential to occur. Consequently, there will be no effect on greater sage-grouse. Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS §4-203.G 13 Raptors, Birds of Conservation Concern, and Migratory Birds The portion of the property proposed for development does not contain substantial native plant communities or wildlife habitat. The proposal will not result in the loss of any known raptor nests, nest stands, or any unique habitat attributes. Loss of undeveloped land will reduce hunting acreage for some generalist species such as American kestrels (Falco sparverius), great-horned owls (Bubo virginianus), and red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) but since these species are habitat generalists, this loss will be inconsequential and will have not contribute to a loss of viability to a population or the species. Foraging and other habitat use would likely continue within adjacent habitats, as available. No suitable nesting habitat for BCC or migratory bird species would be impacted. Long- or short- term effects related to the project area would be minimal due to current use of the property and surrounding residential activity. Loud noises and human activities associated with construction on the property during the breeding and nesting season may have limited indirect impacts on habitat effectiveness, possibly reducing the suitability or effectiveness for nesting activities in the native shrubland habitats temporarily; but as mentioned, a lack of suitable nesting habitat on the property limits the amount of potential impacts. Other Species of Interest Given the analysis above (Section 4.7) for black bears, elk, mountain lions, and mule deer, implementation of the proposal may affect individuals in the short-term, but is not likely to adversely affect or cause a loss of viability to the population or species over the long-term. 5.2.2 Determination of the Effect on Designated Environmental Resources, Including Critical Wildlife Habitat As stated in Section 5.2.1, implementation of the proposal will not result in substantial impacts to designated environmental resources including critical habitat for wildlife. The project would not impede any natural migration or movement through the area over the long-term. Although use of the developed portions of the property during the winter months may temporarily cause animals to avoid those areas, the valuable habitat on the slopes on the southern and western ends of the property will remain undisturbed. No measurable long-term impacts to mule deer or elk herds would be expected from this project. As mentioned above, some individual animals may be indirectly impacted by moving away from the site, but no significant impacts to herds, or long-term impacts to critical wildlife habitat are expected. 5.2.3 Impacts on Wildlife and Domestic Animals The proposal would not create hazardous attractions to avian or mammalian wildlife species or domestic animals, alter substantial native vegetation, block migration routes, or cause a change in habitat use. Wildlife species may be indirectly impacted by increased noise and human presence during construction and during operation but those effects will, for the most part, occur within the zones of influence of existing residential development. Use of habitats by wildlife would still likely occur on or adjacent to the active portions of the operation in undisturbed habitat and during periods Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 6.0 WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS & MITIGATION - §7-202 14 when there is no human activity. The majority of the species occurring within the area are habitat generalists; therefore, most wildlife species that may be indirectly affected have other habitat in the greater area that would still be available for foraging, reproduction, dispersal and shelter. The proposed project may impact individuals indirectly but would not likely impact populations. No impacts to domestic animals would be expected. 6.0 WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS & MITIGATION - §7-202 The following measures will reduce the impacts of the proposed development on wildlife. 6.1 Site planning 1. Clustering - Clustered development and infrastructure minimizes impact by overlapping the zone of influence resulting from human activity associated with residential development. 2. Pond - The applicant proposes a pond at the eastern end of the property (Appendix C). In order to avoid creating a hazard for large wildlife such as deer and elk, the following components should be incorporated into the design of a pond: a. Side slopes from the edge of the pond should be 3:1 (H:V) except the littoral shelf and safety bench which should be 6:1 or flatter. The littoral shelf should be a minimum of 10 feet wide and the safety bench should be a minimum of 3 feet wide. Note that the safety bench does not have to occur around the circumference of the entire pond. Figure 1. Good pond slope geometry to include littoral/safety bench with wildlife friendly side slopes. The emergent vegetation around the perimeter serves several other functions: it reduces erosion, enhances the removal of dissolved nutrients in stormwater discharges, may reduce the formation of floating algal mats, and provides habitat for aquatic life and wetland wildlife. b. A short (1 ft) drop-off can be constructed at the edge of the pond to control the potential breeding of mosquitoes. Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 6.0 WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS & MITIGATION - §7-202 15 c. A minimum of 24 inches of topsoil or combination of topsoil and gravel should cover the pond liner so that hooved animals can gain purchase and avoid being trapped. 3. Fencing – Fencing that is incompatible with wildlife movements can result in direct wildlife mortality, restricted or blocked movement, and reduction of habitat effectiveness. a. All fences should meet the standards for wildlife-friendly fencing described in the CPW Fencing with Wildlife in Mind publication (Available online at https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/PrivateLandPrograms/FencingW ithWildlifeInMind.pdf). 3. Protection of Native vegetation a. Native vegetation should be preserved to the maximum extent possible except where management is necessary to reduce wildfire hazards and within the proposed building envelopes. b. An orange safety fence should be placed around building envelopes during construction to prevent any unnecessary vegetation disturbance during construction. c. Vegetation disturbed outside the approved activity envelope should be revegetated according to the current Garfield County Revegetation Guidelines (http://www.garfield-county.com/vegetation- management/files/sites/29/2019/03/2019_Revegetation_Update.pdf). d. Noxious Weeds should be managed by means of an Integrated Weed Management strategy in compliance with the current Garfield County Weed Management Plan. 4. Lighting & Game Use - Because mule deer and elk have the potential to use the upper portions of the property at night, nighttime lighting of the property outside structures and excessive lighting of roads (beyond what is required for safe driving conditions) should be avoided in order to allow nocturnal wildlife use of the property. Further, lighting of existing winter range beyond the active portions of the property is strongly discouraged (e.g., Bright flood-lights illuminating remnant sagebrush or piñon-juniper woodlands). 5. Domestic Animals - Domestic animals will be allowed on-site provided they and their owners abide by Ascendigo’s rules, which are written and intended to comply with Garfield County’s Animal Control Regulations. In this case, the term domestic animal includes dogs, cats, birds and other small mammals and reptiles, but not fowl, herd animals, goats or horses. In addition to Garfield County regulations, the following rules will apply: a. All pets must be within the control of a responsible person, either verbal or physical. Ascendigo may require certain animals be leashed. Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 6.0 WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS & MITIGATION - §7-202 16 b. Pets not under control are considered at large and may be reported to Garfield County Animal Control. c. Pet owners/responsible persons will make every reasonable effort to prevent their pet from disturbing the peace of any other person by habitual or persistent barking, biting or otherwise injuring, chasing, howling, yelping, whining or making any other disturbing noise. d. Pet owners/responsible persons will immediately collect and properly dispose of all pet animal feces. e. Cats will be kept inside or on a leash at all times. f. Pet owners/responsible persons will be warned after the first infraction. Upon the second infraction, Ascendigo may temporarily ban the pet and/or pet owner/responsible person from Ascendigo property. Upon the third infraction, Ascendigo may permanently ban the pet and/or pet owner/responsible person from Ascendigo property. 6. Livestock Management - Livestock Management involves management of all aspects of care for farm animals, including animal health, nutrition, grazing, hay and forage management, and fencing. This application outlines management practices for grazing, hay and forage management, and fencing. Ascendigo’s current program involves leasing a few horses, mini-horses and goats from April 1 through October 31. a. All livestock will be confined within fenced areas at all times except when being ridden or led on trails by trained staff. b. There will be dry lots and at least two irrigated pastures for grazing. c. Pastures will be raked regularly to remove manure. Manure will be stored in a designated and contained area and trucked off-site as necessary. All feed will be imported and stored on-site in enclosed storage facilities. d. Livestock fencing is intended to keep Ascendigo animals on the property, control grazing patterns, and protect livestock from predators. Livestock fences will be designed for the specific needs of Ascendigo’s programs and will be properly maintained in case of any damage caused by the livestock or extreme weather conditions. e. Livestock fencing design will comply with Garfield County regulations. 7. Black Bears: a. All refuse containers should meet bear-proof specifications set by the Living with Wildlife Foundation (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1oc3yIDcEbwcuq_Bccpv_-PaUUu_8LhXB) or kept in a bear-proof enclosure or indoors (e.g., lockable barn, garage, or shed) until the day of pickup. b. Pets should not be fed outside. Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 6.0 WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS & MITIGATION - §7-202 17 c. Wherever possible, lever style door handles should be avoided on the exterior of the house. d. Bird feeders should be avoided from April 1st through November 1st. e. Composting should be restricted to yard waste (e.g., leaves and grass clippings). Food waste will be prohibited within compost. 8. Education – Staff and visitors should be provided with educational material pertaining to local wildlife (e.g., CPW brochures entitled “Living with Bears” and “Living with Lions). Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 7.0 LITERATURE CITED 18 7.0 LITERATURE CITED Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado birds : a reference to their distribution and habitat. 1st edition. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, Colo. Bailey, A. M., and R. J. Niedrach. 1965. Birds of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO. Bailey, R. G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. 2nd edition. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. Bailey, R. G., United States Geological Survey, and United States Forest Service. 1998. Ecoregions of North America. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Barbknecht, A. E., W. S. Fairbanks, J. D. Rogerson, E. J. Maichak, B. M. Scurlock, and L. L. Meadows. 2011. Elk parturition site selection at local and landscape scales. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75:646–654. Boyle, S. 2006. North American River Otter (Lontra canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northamericanriverotter.pdf. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. . Colorado Parks & Wildlife. 2013. Moose Reintroduction Program. Available online at https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/Mammals/MooseReintroductionFactSheet.pdf. . Colorado Parks & Wildlife. 2020. CPW All Species Activity Mapping Data. Available online at http://www.arcgis.com/home/group.html?owner=rsacco&title=Colorado%20Parks%20and%20Wildlife%2 0-%20Species%20Activity%20Data. Colorado Parks & Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. Dexter, C. 1998. River survey of west-central Colorado, for yellow-billed cuckoo and riparian weeds. Report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction, CO. 26 pp. Durkin, P. 2009. Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute Ladies’-tresses orchid) 2008 Survey Report, Glenwood South Bridge Environmental Assessment. State of Colorado Department of Transportation, Grand Junction, Colorado. ESRI. 2017. ArcGIS version 10.5. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California, USA. Etchberger, R. C., Paul R. Krausman, and Rosemary Mazaika. 1989. Mountain sheep habitat characteristics in the Pusch Ridge Wilderness, Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:902-907. Fertig, W., R. Black, and P. Wolken. 2005. Rangewide status review of Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). Prepared for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Central Utah Water Conservancy District. 101 pp. Fraterrigo, J. M., and J. A. Wiens. 2005. Bird communities of the Colorado Rocky Mountains along a gradient of exurban development. Landscape and Urban Planning 71:263–275. Gaines, D., and S. A. Laymon. 1984. Decline, status and preservation of the yellow-billed cuckoo in California. Western Birds 15:49-80. Geist, V. 1971. Mountain sheep : a study in behavior and evolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Glennon, M., and H. E. Kretser. 2005. Impacts to wildlife from low density, exurban development: information and considerations for the Adirondack Park. Technical paper no. 3. Wildlife Conservation Society Adirondack Communities and Conservation Program, Saranac Lake, New York. Hansen, A. J., R. L. Knight, J. M. Marzluff, S. Powell, K. Brown, P. H. Gude, and A. Jones. 2005. Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecological Applications 15:1893– 1905. Kelsall, J. P., and W. Prescott. 1971. Moose and deer behaviour in snow in Fundy National Park, New Brunswick. Canandian Wildlife Service Report 15. Kingery, H. E. 1998. Colorado breeding bird atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership : Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colo. Laymon, S. A. 1980. Feeding and nesting behavior of the yellow-billed cuckoo in the Sacramento Valley. Lenth, B., R. L. Knight, and W. C. Gilgert. 2006. Conservation Value of Clustered Housing Developments. Conservation Biology 20:12. Loveless, C. M. 1967. Ecological characteristics of Mule Deer winter range. Technical Publication 20. Colorado Department of Game, Fish and Parks. McKelvey, K. S., K. B. Aubry, and Y. K. Ortega. 2000. History and distribution of lynx in the contiguous United States. Pages 207-264 in L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires, editors. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Denver, CO. Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 7.0 LITERATURE CITED 19 Merenlender, A. M., S. E. Reed, and K. L. Heise. 2009. Exurban development influences woodland bird composition. Landscape and Urban Planning 17:9. NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe Web Service, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. NatureServe. 2020. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. . NatureServe Web Service, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Odell, E. A., and R. L. Knight. 2001. Songbird and medium-sized mammal communities associated with exurban development in Pitkin County, Colorado. Conservation Biology 15:0-0. Odell, E. A., D. M. Theobald, and R. L. Knight. 2003. Incorporating ecology into land use planning: the songbird’s case for clustered development Journal of the American Planning Association 69:72-82. Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000). Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77:118-125. Parker, K. L., C. T. Robbins, and T. A. Hanley. 1984. Energy expenditures for locomotion by mule deer and elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:474-488. Phillips, G. E., and A. W. Alldredge. 2000. Reproductive success of elk following disturbance by humans during calving season. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:521-530. Rearden, S. N., R. G. Anthony, and B. K. Johnson. 2011. Birth-site selection and predation risk of Rocky Mountain elk. Journal of Mammalogy 92:1118-1126. Righter, R. 2004. Birds of western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country. Grand Valley Audubon Society, Grand Junction, Colo. Rinkevich, S. E., J. L. Ganey, J. L. W. Jr., G. C. White, D. L. Urban, A. B. Franklin, W. M. Block, and E. Clemente. 1995. General biology and ecological relationships of the Mexican Spotted Owl,. Pages 19-35 in K. J. Cook, editor. Recovery plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl. Vol. I. USDI Fish and Wildl. Serv., Albuquerque, NM. Seidel, J. W. 1977a. Elk calving behavior in west central Colorado. Pages 38-40 in Colorado Division of Wildlife, editor. Proceedings of the Western States Elk Workshop. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Seidel, J. W. 1977b. Elk calving habitat. USDA Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 – Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook, zero code, Ch. 10, and Ch.20. Region 2 Amendment No. 2509.25 – 99 – 1. Effective March 22, 1999. Colorado Division of Wildlife and USDA Forest Service, Grand Junction, CO. Shenk, T. 2009. Lynx Update, May 25, 2009. Available: http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/1E7C95D0-53F3- 41EB-82DD-26134C0FF261/0/LynxUpdateMay252009.pdf. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. Smith, D. O., M. Conner, and E. R. Loft. 1989. The distribution of winter mule deer use around home sites. Transactions of the Western States Section of the Wildlife Society 25:77-80. Toweill, D. E., J. W. Thomas, and D. P. Metz. 2002. North American elk: ecology and management. 1st edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington [D.C.]. Ungulate Winter Range Technical Advisory Team. 2005. Desired conditions for Mule Deer, Elk, and Moose winter range in the Southern Interior of British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch. Victoria, BC. Wildl. Bull. No. B-120. 18pp. USFWS. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Mule Deer. Draft. Vogel, W. O. 1989. Response of deer to density and distribution of housing in Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:406-413. Wickersham, L. 2007. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas II. San Juan Institute of Natural and Cultural Resources. Durango, Colorado. Found online at http://www.cobreedingbirdatlasii.org. Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 8.0 BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS 20 8.0 BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC (CWS) is a small wildlife and wildfire consulting firm based in Basalt, Colorado, specializing in wildlife research, management, and monitoring, ecological assessments, wildfire hazard assessments, baseline inventories, ecological planning, habitat management, and ecological restoration. CWS applies a scientifically sound approach to biological resource studies and management. Our work combines professional integrity and strong academic training with extensive experience working for government, private, and non- profit clients. With an extensive network of professional collaborators that includes plant ecologists, foresters, hydrologists, and soil scientists, CWS leverages the collective knowledge of experienced professionals working toward practical, effective and cost saving solutions. CWS provides expert services to a diverse array of clients. Since we are a small company, personal attention is ensured. We combine full in-house GIS (ArcGIS) with real-time, sub-meter GPS to provide state-of-the-art spatial data, analyses, maps, and presentations. Owner and Wildlife Biologist Jonathan Lowsky, M.S. Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, has a broad range of knowledge. With more than 26 years of professional experience with federal (US Forest Service), state (Colorado Division of Wildlife), and county agencies as well as two major universities (Colorado State University and University of Washington), Jonathan’s career has focused on a diverse array of wildlife. Mr. Lowsky’s experience includes biological assessments and evaluations for NEPA compliance, conservation planning, GIS mapping and modeling, wildlife research, and ecological monitoring design and implementation, as well as wetland and riparian delineations, evaluations, and restoration. He has authored numerous management plans and published scientific papers. CWS has prepared over 60 conservation easement baseline inventory reports for 8 different conservation organizations in 5 western Colorado counties. As the former Pitkin County Biologist, Mr. Lowsky worked closely with the County Planning Department, County Commissioners, and the Planning & Zoning Commission. As such, Jonathan is uniquely qualified to help clients achieve successful land use determinations in western Colorado. Jonathan has been directly involved in fire mitigation since 1995 when he directed ponderosa pine fuel reduction, thinning, and habitat improvement efforts on the North Kaibab Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest. Over the course of 28 years as a professional ecologist he has gained intimate knowledge of ecosystem processes in western Colorado that lead to increased fuel loads, over-mature forest and shrublands, and measures that can be taken to reduce the threat and intensity of wildfires. In addition, I am experienced in mechanical treatments of forest, woodland, and shrubland for the purpose of wildfire mitigation and habitat improvement. Mr. Lowsky strongly believes that these two resource goals are mutually beneficial and measures that prioritize either wildfire mitigation or habitat improvement should consider both goals in the design and implementation of those actions. Jonathan is a certified to conduct Wildland Fire Assessments by: the Wildland Fire Assessment Program and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) FIREWISE. A detailed description of Mr. Lowsky’s professional experience and references are available. For additional information, please visit our website at www.coloradowildlifescience.com. Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Appendix A. Maps 21 Appendix A. Maps 107°6'50"W 107°6'50"W 107°7'0"W 107°7'0"W 107°7'10"W 107°7'10"W 107°7'20"W 107°7'20"W 107°7'30"W 107°7'30"W 107°7'40"W 107°7'40"W 39°25'3"N39°25'3"N39°24'54"N39°24'54"N39°24'45"N39°24'45"N39°24'36"N39°24'36"N39°24'27"NA s c e n d i g o R a n c hAscendigo R a n c h COLOR AD O W ILD LIF E SC IENC E LLC 0100 Elk Run Dr, Ste 128, Basalt, CO 81621970.927.45 49info@coloradowildlifescience.comhttp://coloradowildlifescience.com Basemap Sources: Date Prepare d: 2020-DEC-14 Map 1. Aerial View & Ve getation Legend: Su bje ct Property Coordinate System : NAD83 State Plane Co lorado Central Projec t No. 20349 o Subject Property 1 in = 367 feet Garfield Cou nty, CO Wildlife Impact Report No n-n at ive past ures 0 500 1,000250Feet Mo un tain B ig S age br ushRemnants Pa tches of Piñon-junip er Woodland Int act M ou nta in Bi g Sa gebru shShrubland on Slop es Belo w Pro po sed De velop ment Piñ on -Juniper Slopes D ow nto the R oa rin g F or k Vall ey Pa ved Road Tw o-trac k Ro ad s Use d By Ad ja cent Re sid en ts for D og -Wal kin g, Hikin g, et c. Water Ta nk 2020 Microsoft Corp oration, 2020 Maxar, CNES (2020) Copyright:2013 National Geograp hic 107°6'30"W 107°6'30"W 107°6'40"W 107°6'40"W 107°6'50"W 107°6'50"W 107°7'0"W 107°7'0"W 107°7'10"W 107°7'10"W 107°7'20"W 107°7'20"W 107°7'30"W 107°7'30"W 107°7'40"W 107°7'40"W 107°7'50"W 107°7'50"W 107°8'0"W 107°8'0"W 39°25'12"N39°25'12"N39°25'3"N39°25'3"N39°24'54"N39°24'54"N39°24'45"N39°24'45"N39°24'36"N39°24'36"N39°24'27"N39°24'27"N39°24'18"N39°24'18"NAscendigo RanchAscendigo Ranch COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE LLC 0100 Elk Run Dr, Ste 128, Basalt, CO 81621970.927.4549info@coloradowildlifescience.comhttp://coloradowildlifescience.com Basemap Sources: Date Prepared: 2020-DEC-14 Map 2. Adjacent Land Use Coordinate System: NAD83 State Plane Colorado Central Project No. 20349 o Subject Property 1 in = 583 feet Garfield County, CO Wildlife Impact Report 0 500 1,000250 Feet 2020 Microsoft Corporation, 2020 Maxar, CNES (2020) Copyright:2013 National Geographic Legend: Subject Property Zone of Influence from Existing Residences 1,500-foot radius from Neighboring Properties 107°6'36"W 107°6'36"W 107°6'48"W 107°6'48"W 107°7'0"W 107°7'0"W 107°7'12"W 107°7'12"W 107°7'24"W 107°7'24"W 107°7'36"W 107°7'36"W 107°7'48"W 107°7'48"W 107°8'0"W 107°8'0"W 39°25'12"N39°25'12"N39°25'3"N39°25'3"N39°24'54"N39°24'54"N39°24'45"N39°24'45"N39°24'36"N39°24'36"N39°24'27"N39°24'27"N39°24'18"N39°24'18"NAscendigo RanchAscendigo Ranch COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE LLC 0100 Elk Run Dr, Ste 128, Basalt, CO 81621970.927.4549info@coloradowildlifescience.comhttp://coloradowildlifescience.com Basemap Sources: Date Prepared: 2020-DEC-15 Map 3. CPW Species Activity Mapping (SAM)Rocky Mountain Elk Coordinate System: NAD83 State Plane Colorado Central Project No. 20349 o Subject Property 1 in = 583 feet Garfield County, CO Wildlife Impact Report 0 500 1,000250 Feet 2020 Microsoft Corporation, 2020 Maxar, CNES (2020) Copyright:2013 National Geographic Legend: Subject Property Winter Range Severe Winter Range Winter Concentration Area Production Area Summer Range 107°6'36"W 107°6'36"W 107°6'48"W 107°6'48"W 107°7'0"W 107°7'0"W 107°7'12"W 107°7'12"W 107°7'24"W 107°7'24"W 107°7'36"W 107°7'36"W 107°7'48"W 107°7'48"W 107°8'0"W 107°8'0"W 39°25'3"N39°25'3"N39°24'54"N39°24'54"N39°24'45"N39°24'45"N39°24'36"N39°24'36"N39°24'27"N39°24'27"N39°24'18"N39°24'18"NAscendigo RanchAscendigo Ranch COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE LLC 0100 Elk Run Dr, Ste 128, Basalt, CO 81621970.927.4549info@coloradowildlifescience.comhttp://coloradowildlifescience.com Basemap Sources: Date Prepared: 2020-DEC-15 Map 4. CPW Species Activity Mapping (SAM)Mule Deer Coordinate System: NAD83 State Plane Colorado Central Project No. 20349 o Subject Property 1 in = 583 feet Garfield County, CO Wildlife Impact Report 0 500 1,000250 Feet 2020 Microsoft Corporation, 2020 Maxar, CNES (2020) Copyright:2013 National Geographic Legend: Subject Property Winter Range Severe Winter Range Winter Concentration Area Resident Population Summer Range Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Appendix B. Photos 26 Appendix B. Photos Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Appendix B. Photos 27 Photo 1. Topography of the upper portions of the property where development is proposed is relatively flat to rolling Photo 2. Paved roads originally developed for the planned residential subdivision remain on the property Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Appendix B. Photos 28 Photo 3. A few two-track roads occur on the property which are often used by adjacent homeowners for recreation Photo 4. Footprints and bike tire tracks were frequently observed on the two-tracks during surveys Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Appendix B. Photos 29 Photo 5. Existing pond with bare soil and weeds at the periphery Photo 6. Water storage tank on the property Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Appendix B. Photos 30 Photo 7. Large residences adjacent to the property Photo 8. Another adjacent residence Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Appendix B. Photos 31 Photo 9. Residence adjacent to the property on the east side Photo 10. Remnant, disturbed sagebrush shrubland remnant on the property with more intact sagebrush beyond the property to the north Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Appendix B. Photos 32 Photo 11. Pastures on the property are dominated by non-native grasses Photo 12. Higher quality patch of piñon-juniper woodland on the property Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Appendix B. Photos 33 Photo 13. Relatively old mule deer pellets observed on the property Photo 14. Fresh mule deer track observed during surveys Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Appendix B. Photos 34 Photo 15. Solitary mule deer doe observed on the property during surveys Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Appendix C. Site Plan 35 Appendix C. Site Plan Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Appendix D. CPW SAM mule deer and elk seasonal activity area definitions 37 Appendix D. CPW SAM mule deer and elk seasonal activity area definitions ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK HIGHWAY CROSSING: Those areas where elk movements traditionally cross roads, presenting potential conflicts between elk and motorists. MIGRATION CORRIDORS: A specific mappable site through which large numbers of animals migrate and loss of which would change migration routes. PRODUCTION AREA: That part of the overall range of elk occupied by the females from May 15 to June 15 for calving. (Only known areas are mapped and this does not include all production areas for the DAU). RESIDENT POPULATION: An area used year-round by a population of elk. Individuals could be found in any part of the area at any time of the year; the area cannot be subdivided into seasonal ranges. It is most likely included within the overall range of the larger population. SEVERE WINTER: That part of the range of a species where 90 percent of the individuals are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two worst winters out of ten. The winter of 1983- 84 is a good example of a severe winter. SUMMER CONCENTRATION: Those areas where elk concentrate from mid-June through mid-August. High quality forage, security, and lack of disturbance are characteristics of these areas to meet the high energy demands of lactation, calf rearing, antler growth, and general preparation for the rigors of fall and winter. SUMMER RANGE: That part of the range of a species where 90% of the individuals are located between spring green-up and the first heavy snowfall, or during a site specific period of summer as defined for each DAU. Summer range is not necessarily exclusive of winter range; in some areas winter range and summer range may overlap. WINTER CONCENTRATION: That part of the winter range of a species where densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter range in the average five winters out of ten. WINTER RANGE: That part of the overall range of a species where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green-up, or during a site specific period of winter as defined for each DAU. MULE DEER CONCENTRATION AREA: That part of the overall range where higher quality habitat supports significantly higher densities than surrounding areas. These areas are typically occupied year round and are not necessarily associated with a specific season. Includes rough break country, riparian areas, small drainages, and large areas of irrigated cropland. HIGHWAY CROSSING: Those areas where mule deer movements traditionally cross roads, presenting potential conflicts between mule deer and motorists. MIGRATION CORRIDORS: A specific mappable site through which large numbers of animals migrate and loss of which would change migration routes. RESIDENT POPULATION: An area that provides year-round range for a population of mule deer. The resident mule deer use all of the area all year; it cannot be subdivided into seasonal ranges although it may be included within the overall range of the larger population. SEVERE WINTER: That part of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two worst winters out of ten. SUMMER RANGE: That part of the overall range where 90% of the individuals are located between spring green-up and the first heavy snowfall. Summer range is not necessarily exclusive of winter range; in some areas winter range and summer range may overlap. WINTER CONCENTRATION: That part of the winter range where densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter range in the average five winters out of ten. WINTER RANGE: That part of the overall range where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green-up, or during a site specific period of winter as defined for each DAU. Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Appendix E. State of Colorado Threatened & Endangered Vertebrates 38 Appendix E. State of Colorado Threatened & Endangered Vertebrates COMMON NAME LATIN NAME STATUS AMPHIBIANS Boreal Toad Bufo boreas boreas SE Northern Cricket Frog Acris crepitans SC Great Plains Narrowmouth Toad Gastrophryne olivacea SC Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens SC Wood Frog Rana sylvatica SC Plains Leopard Frog Rana blairi SC Couch's Spadefoot Scaphiopus couchii SC BIRDS Whooping Crane Grus americana FE, SE Least Tern Sterna antillarum FE, SE Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, SE Plains Sharp-Tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus jamesii SE Piping Plover Charadrius melodus circumcinctus FT, ST Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus ST Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida FT, ST Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia ST Lesser Prairie-Chicken Tympanuchus pallidicinctus ST Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus SC Greater Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis tabida SC Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis SC Gunnison Sage-Grouse Centrocercus minimus SC American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum SC Greater Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus SC Western Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus SC Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus SC Long-Billed Curlew Numenius americanus SC Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus SC FISH Bonytail Gila elegans FE, SE Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus FE, SE Humpback Chub Gila cypha FE, ST Colorado Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius FE, ST Greenback Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias FT, ST Rio Grande Sucker Catostomus plebeius SE Lake Chub Couesius plumbeus SE Plains Minnow Hybognathus placitus SE Suckermouth Minnow Phenacobius mirabilis SE Northern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus eos SE Southern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus erythrogaster SE Brassy Minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni ST Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus ST Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Appendix E. State of Colorado Threatened & Endangered Vertebrates 39 COMMON NAME LATIN NAME STATUS Arkansas Darter Etheostoma cragini ST Mountain Sucker Catostomus playtrhynchus SC Plains Orangethroat Darter Etheostoma spectabile SC Iowa Darter Etheostoma exile SC Rio Grande Chub Gila pandora SC Colorado Roundtail Chub Gila robusta SC Stonecat Noturus flavus SC Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus SC Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis SC Flathead Chub Platygobio gracilus SC MAMMALS Gray Wolf Canis lupus FE, SE Black-Footed Ferret Mustela nigripes FE, SE Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos FT, SE Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei FT, ST Lynx Lynx canadensis FT, SE Wolverine Gulo gulo SE River Otter Lontra canadensis ST Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis SE Townsend's Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens SC Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys ludovicianus SC Botta's Pocket Gopher Thomomy bottae rubidus SC Northern Pocket Gopher Thomomys talpoides macrotis SC Swift fox Vulpes velox SC REPTILES Triploid Checkered Whiptail Cnemidophorus neotesselatus SC Midget Faded Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis concolor SC Longnose Leopard Lizard Gambelia wislizenii SC Yellow Mud Turtle Kinosternon flavescens SC Common King Snake Lampropeltis getula SC Texas Blind Snake Leptotyphlops dulcis SC Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum SC Roundtail Horned Lizard Phrynosoma modestum SC Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus SC Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis SC Wildlife Impact Analysis – Ascendigo Ranch Limited Impact Review December 17, 2020 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | Appendix F. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Consultation Letter 40 Appendix F. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Consultation Letter December 09, 2020United States Department of the InteriorFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICEWestern Colorado Ecological Services Field Office445 West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 240Grand Junction, CO 81501-5711Phone: (970) 628-7180 Fax: (970) 245-6933http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/Colorado/http://www.fws.gov/platteriver/In Reply Refer To: Consultation Code: 06E24100-2021-SLI-0128 Event Code: 06E24100-2021-E-00289 Project Name: Ascendigo Ranch Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed projectTo 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 (Act) 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. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, 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 ECOS-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 ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.The purpose of the Act 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 Act 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.12/09/2020Event Code: 06E24100-2021-E-00289 2 ƑƑƑƑA 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 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:http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDFPlease be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/ eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats.Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http:// www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http:// www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/ comtow.html.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 Tracking Number 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 ListUSFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish HatcheriesMigratory BirdsWetlands 12/09/2020Event Code: 06E24100-2021-E-00289 1 Official Species ListThis 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 Office445 West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 240Grand Junction, CO 81501-5711(970) 628-718012/09/2020Event Code: 06E24100-2021-E-00289 2 Project SummaryConsultation Code: 06E24100-2021-SLI-0128Event Code: 06E24100-2021-E-00289Project Name: Ascendigo RanchProject Type: DEVELOPMENTProject Description: The focus of Ascendigo Ranch educational facility would be camp services serving the autism community. Ascendigo Ranch would house up to 24 campers, resident staff, a guest cabin and an agricultural caretaker . Camps would be offered between May 1 and September 30. Campers would stay for one or more weeks at a time. During other seasons, the camp may be made available for smaller autistic group activities, on-site therapeutic sessions, training groups of educators and/or employers, and/ or families for short term rental/events related to Ascendigoµs programs.Project Location:Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/place/39.41270991449385N107.12134666301579WCounties: Garfield, CO 12/09/2020Event Code: 06E24100-2021-E-00289 3 1.Endangered Species Act SpeciesThere is a total of 8 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.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.MammalsNAMESTATUSCanada Lynx Lynx canadensisPopulation: Wherever Found in Contiguous U.S.There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3652ThreatenedBirdsNAMESTATUSMexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucidaThere is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8196ThreatenedYellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanusPopulation: Western U.S. DPSThere is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911Species survey guidelines: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/guideline/survey/population/6901/office/65413.pdfThreatened112/09/2020Event Code: 06E24100-2021-E-00289 4 FishesNAMESTATUSBonytail Gila elegansThere is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1377EndangeredColorado Pikeminnow (=squawfish) Ptychocheilus luciusPopulation: Wherever found, except where listed as an experimental populationThere is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3531EndangeredHumpback Chub Gila cyphaThere is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3930EndangeredRazorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanusThere is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/530EndangeredFlowering PlantsNAMESTATUSUte Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialisNo critical habitat has been designated for this species.Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2159ThreatenedCritical habitatsTHERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. 12/09/2020Event Code: 06E24100-2021-E-00289 1 1.2.3.Migratory BirdsCertain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.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)The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.NAMEBREEDING SEASONBald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalusThis 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/1626Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweriThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USAhttps://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9291Breeds May 15 to Aug 101212/09/2020Event Code: 06E24100-2021-E-00289 2 NAMEBREEDING SEASONGolden Eagle Aquila chrysaetosThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USAhttps://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipesThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679Breeds elsewhereLewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewisThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9408Breeds Apr 20 to Sep 30Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperiThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914Breeds May 20 to Aug 31Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalusThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9420Breeds Feb 15 to Jul 15Virginia's Warbler Vermivora virginiaeThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9441Breeds May 1 to Jul 31Willow Flycatcher Empidonax trailliiThis is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USAhttps://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3482Breeds May 20 to Aug 31Probability Of Presence SummaryThe 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 and understand the FAQ ²Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report³ before using or attempting to interpret this report.Probability of Presence () 12/09/2020Event Code: 06E24100-2021-E-00289 3 1.2.3. no data survey effort breeding season probability of presenceEach green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.Breeding Season ()Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.Survey Effort ()Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.No Data ()A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.Survey TimeframeSurveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.12/09/2020Event Code: 06E24100-2021-E-00289 4 ƑƑƑSPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECBald EagleNon-BCC VulnerableBrewer's SparrowBCC - BCRGolden EagleBCC - BCRLesser YellowlegsBCC Rangewide (CON)Lewis's WoodpeckerBCC Rangewide (CON)Olive-sided FlycatcherBCC Rangewide (CON)Pinyon JayBCC Rangewide (CON)Virginia's WarblerBCC Rangewide (CON)Willow FlycatcherBCC - BCRAdditional information can be found using the following links:Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.phpMeasures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/ management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.phpNationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/ management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdfMigratory Birds FAQTell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. 12/09/2020Event Code: 06E24100-2021-E-00289 5 1.2.What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:"BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);"BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and12/09/2020Event Code: 06E24100-2021-E-00289 6 3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ ²What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location³. Please be aware this report provides the ²probability of presence³ of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the ²no data³ indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ ²Tell