Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1.05 Ecological Assessment
Flying M Ranch Planned Unit Development Application Garfield County, Colorado Exhibit E Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC Ecological Assessment of Eastbank Property Ecological Assessment of Eastbank Property for Minor Subdivision and Major Impact Review Garfield County, Colorado February 18, 2015 Report for: .HYLQ.LHUQDQ Ə'DYLV)DUUDU :HVWHUQ6ORSH&RQVXOWLQJ//& %DVDOW0W'U &DUERQGDOH&2 Report By: Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC Jonathan Lowsky, MS 0100 Elk Run Drive, Suite 128 Basalt, CO 81621 Page left intentionally blank. Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | iii Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................1 2.0 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................................1 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION & VEGETATION ............................................................................................................1 4.0 LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: Natural Habitat & Migration Routes §4-502(D) ........................................2 4.1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ....................................................................................................2 4.2 OTHER SPECIES OF INTEREST .....................................................................................................................5 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS §4-502(E) ....................................................................................................................8 5.1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ....................................................................................................8 6.0 PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS §7-202 .................................................................................9 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................................................11 8.0 BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS ..........................................................................................................13 MAPS .............................................................................................................................................................14 PHOTOS .........................................................................................................................................................18 APPENDIX A: CPW SAM mule deer and elk seasonal activity area definitions .............................................25 APPENDIX B: State of Colorado Threatened & Endangered Vertebrates .....................................................26 APPENDIX C: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Consultation Letter ..................................................................................28 Maps Map 1. Aerial view & vegetation ................................................................................................................. 15 Map 2. CPW mapped bald eagle & black bear seasonal habitats ................................................................ 16 Map 3. CPW mapped mule deer & elk field verified seasonal habitats ....................................................... 17 Photos Photo 1. Property is comprised of a series of terraces or benches .............................................................. 19 Photo 2. Dirt access road .............................................................................................................................. 19 Photo 3. Lower dirt access road to Parcel 2B ............................................................................................... 20 Photo 4. Higher quality sagebrush shrubland .............................................................................................. 20 Photo 5. Poor quality, disturbed sagebrush shrubland with no understory vegetation .............................. 21 Photo 6. Due to disturbance, rabbitbrush approaches co-dominance in remnant sagebrush stands ......... 21 Photo 7. Scotch thistle is a problem on the property ................................................................................... 22 Photo 8. Elk pellets were common on the February site assessment .......................................................... 22 Photo 9. Elk tracks were observed during the site visit ................................................................................ 23 Photo 10. The property is highly disturbed with large areas of bare soil and weeds .................................. 23 Photo 11. Non-native, invasive species and bare ground dominate large portions of the property ........... 24 Photo 12. Russian olive stand on the northwest end of the property ......................................................... 24 Page left intentionally blank. Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents an evaluation of the wildlife, wildlife habitat, and ecological resources of a parcel of land known as Parcel 2A of the Eastbank Parcel 2 Lot Split (Parcel ID # 2185- 353-04-001) in unincorporated Garfield County and assesses the effects of the proposed minor subdivision and development on those resources. 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, Land Suitability Analysis, Impact Analysis, and Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property for development of a commercial building, parking lots, and associated infrastructure. 2.0 METHODS This assessment is based on: (1) a February 11, 2015 site assessment; (2) a review of current Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) Species Activity Mapping (SAM) (Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife 2014); and (3) the author’s experience in recognizing, avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating potential impacts of development on wildlife and other ecological resources in Garfield County and western Colorado. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION & VEGETATION The 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). Elevation of the property is approximately 5,940 feet above mean sea level and lies within the southwest quarter of Section 35 of Township 6 South, Range 89 of the 6th Principal Meridian. The property is dominated by a series of relatively flat terraces situated at a prominent bend in the Roaring Fork River (Figure 1) approximately 5 miles south-southwest of downtown Glenwood Springs, CO on the site of an old gravel pit . Each terrace is separated by a small, relatively steep slope that is characteristic of such river terraces in the Roaring Fork watershed (Photo 1). A dirt driveway (Photo 2) passes through the property providing access from Old Highway 82 to Parcel 2B of the Eastbank Parcel 2 Lot Split. The upper terrace (on the east side of the property) is dominated by a flood irrigated hay field on the north with commercial development and the remnants of the old gravel operation. Another dirt driveway passes through this portion of the property paralleling the river to the west of the developed area. This driveway also leads to Parcel 2B of the Lot Split (Photo 3). Outside of the hayfield and the developed areas, the vegetation is disturbed and quite sparse with large areas of bare soil. The slopes between the terraces are the most intact and the native plant communities that persist on those sites are likely remnants of the vegetation that once dominated the property – Big Sagebrush Shrubland (Photo 4). This Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: Natural Habitat & Migration Routes §4-502(D) 2 association occurs on moderate slopes between 4,500-6,900 feet. Big sagebrush is the dominant shrub with antelope bitterbrush, mountain-mahogany, and rabbitbrush occurring as well. Grasses such as needleandthread, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and prairie junegrass are expected to occur within the sagebrush shrubland at this elevation but understory plants on the property are largely absent (Photo 5). Given the degree of disturbance on the site, the seral stage varies from patches of late successional versions of the big sagebrush plant community with nearly pure stands of sagebrush to larger areas where rabbitbrush is co-dominant or dominant (Photo 6). Although a thorough weed assessment has not been conducted, it is clear that there are serious weed infestations on the property. Again, this is largely due to past land uses on the property. Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium; Photo 7), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) are among the more common Garfield County listed Noxious Weeds observed on the property. Numerous other non-natives and invasive species occur. 4.0 LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: Natural Habitat & Migration Routes §4-502(D) 4.1 Threatened and Endangered Species1 Species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that may occur in Garfield County are listed below in Table 1. Also included are species listed as Endangered or Threatened by the State of Colorado that occur in Garfield County. Some of the species listed below are typically found within habitats that do not occur on the property or within areas that cannot be affected by actions associated with the project. There will be no effect on these off-site species. A brief rationale for the “no effect” determination for each of these species is included in the following paragraphs. Table 1. Threatened or Endangered Species that may occur in Garfield County, Colorado or may be affected by the project. 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 Yes 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 Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia British Columbia east to Saskatchewan south through most of western US, Mexico, Central America, and South America. Found primarily in eastern Colorado as a summer resident but also on west slope, primarily in Mesa County, but also Delta, Garfield, Montrose, and Montezuma (Kingery 1998). ST No No Nest primarily in near prairie dog and other ground squirrel burrows. Prefer sparsely vegetated habitat particularly shortgrass prairie in eastern Colorado and semi-desert shrubland on the west slope (Kingery 1998). No Effect Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida Southern Utah and Colorado, through Arizona, New Mexico, and west Texas, to the mountains of central Mexico (Rinkevich et al. 1995). FT, ST No No 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 No Effect 1 See Appendix B for the list of Colorado Threatened and Endangered species Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: Natural Habitat & Migration Routes §4-502(D) 3 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 hollow trees (Rinkevich et al. 1995) 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 Yes 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 PLANTS Ute ladies'-tresses 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 Of the 6 state and federal listed, candidate, and proposed species potentially occurring or potentially affected by actions on the property only bald eagles have habitat within proximity of the project area. 4.1.1Bald Eagle (ST) Background Bald eagles were listed as endangered under the ESA in 1978 but had recovered sufficiently by 1995 to be downlisted to threatened status. This species is also state-listed as threatened. Because of its successful recovery, there is a current proposal to delist bald eagles from the ESA, but protections would remain under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the Bald Eagle Protection Act. Bald eagles are listed as Threatened by the state of Colorado (Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife 2015a). According to CPW data, in 2014 there were 120 known nesting pairs in Colorado, and approximately 400-1,000 bald Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: Natural Habitat & Migration Routes §4-502(D) 4 eagles winter in the state (Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife 2015b). Bald eagles depend on large roost trees that allow them a wide field of vision for prey. Food sources include fish, small mammals, waterfowl, and carrion. Known sensitive habitats in the project area include winter range, winter foraging habitat (Figure 2A). No known bald eagle nests occur in or adjacent to the project area. Effects of Proposed Action The closest active nest is at Aspen Glen, approximately 4 miles to the south-southeast. There are no active roost sites on or adjacent to the property. The property lies within bald eagle winter range and adjacent to bald eagle winter forage habitat (Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife 2014). Winter forage and winter range, however, are broadly defined habitat areas that occupy very large areas (Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife 2014). Winter Forage: Foraging areas frequented by wintering bald eagles between November 15 and March 15. May be a large area radiating from preferred roosting sites. In western Colorado preferred roosting sites are within dominant riparian zones. Winter Range: Those areas where bald eagles have been observed between November 15 and April 1. 4.1.2Canada Lynx (FT/SE, G5/S1) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a final rule on March 24, 2000 listing the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) in the coterminous United States as a "threatened" species under the Endangered Species Act (Federal Register: 65 FR 16052). In 1999 and 2000, the State of Colorado began releases of lynx in southwestern Colorado in order to reestablish a viable lynx population within the state. The property is not situated within proximity to potential lynx habitat and no lynx have been documented on or within close proximity to the property (J. Mao, CPW, pers. comm.). Lynx denning habitat is comprised of spruce-fir forests, north-facing lodgepole pine forests, and Douglas-fir forests with complex multi-storied conifer stands, large quantities of downed woody debris and or dense understory conifer that provide den sites in close proximity to habitat for foraging on snowshoe hares. Winter foraging habitat is all denning habitat plus conifer stands that lack structure for dens sites but provide optimal winter foraging conditions of dense (35% or more) horizontal conifer cover at or above the snow (USDA Forest Service 2002). On November 9, 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released a proposed critical habitat plan for lynx (Federal Register: 50 CFR Part 17 66008) which omits Colorado, New Mexico, and southern Wyoming (United States Fish & Wildlife Service 2006). The habitat types on and adjacent to the proposed activity envelope are not suitable lynx winter foraging or denning habitat and should be considered “unsuitable private lands” (USDA Forest Service 2002, Shenk and Kahn 2010, USFWS and USFS 2010, Theobald and Shenk 2011). 4.1.3Ute 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 Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: Natural Habitat & Migration Routes §4-502(D) 5 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 southeast of the property (Durkin 2009). The Ute ladies’-tresses orchid generally blooms from late July through the end of August (USFWS 2010b). Depending on location and climatic conditions, however, the blooming timeframe can vary considerably (USFWS 1992). It is adapted to early- to mid-seral site s with moist to wet conditions, where competition for light, space, water, and other resources is normally kept low by periodic 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. 4.2 Other Species of Interest This section addresses present use of the study area by significant wildlife not listed by the state or federal government. The ‘significant’ wildlife use described herein refers to those wildlife species that are of ecological, economic, regulatory, social, and/or political importance. 4.2.1Ungulates Rocky Mountain Elk & Mule Deer Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus) are present on the property throughout the year but elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) only occur in winter. CPW mapping correctly maps the property solely as mule deer winter range (Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife 2014). 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 Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: Natural Habitat & Migration Routes §4-502(D) 6 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 1984, Toweill et al. 2002, Ungulate Winter Range Technical Advisory Team 2005). Consequently, winter range of larger elk covers a greater areal extent of lands with greater snow depths than that of mule deer (Parker 1984). As stated above, the property is not used by elk in winter. Both deer and elk (Photo 8) pellets and tracks (Photo 9) were observed throughout the property. The property provides marginal winter range, suitable only in relatively light winters. In an average to heavy winter, these areas do not provide good winter range due to the accumulation of snow. CPW mapped winter range lies to the east across SH-82 and the west across the Roaring Fork River (Figures 2A, 2B). The higher quality winter range, however, lies across further east on the slopes and lower reaches of Spring Valley and further west on the slopes west of Prehm Road and Westbank Road where deep snows do not accumulate. Current CPW Species Activity Mapping (SAM) data does not delineate the property within or adjacent to deer or elk severe winter or winter concentration habitat. These habitat types for mule deer occur on the slopes west of Prehm Road and Westbank Road and across SH-82. Production Areas Elk calving grounds or production areas are carefully selected by cows and are generally in locations where cover, forage, and water are in close proximity (Seidel 1977a, Phillips and Alldredge 2000, Barbknecht et al. 2011, Rearden et al. 2011). Calving sites occur in the lower to middle portions of summer range and often occur in the same general area each year. Although selected sites are used for a brief period in the spring or early summer, elk production habitat often a limiting factor for a given population. Sites must provide security from harassment and be within or adjacent to high quality summer range. Elk are considered a hider species because the calf remains bedded at a location and responds to threats by remaining prone while the female moves away to forage, returning periodically to nurse. Seidel (1977b, 1977a) studied elk calving habitat at various sites in the White River National Forest. He found that cow elk prepare a distinct birthing bed and, for the most part, return to that bed each year. All birthing beds examined were in mature aspens Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: Natural Habitat & Migration Routes §4-502(D) 7 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 known production habitat is more than 4 miles to the southwest. Migration Corridors There are no mapped or field verified migration corridors on or near the property. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep There is no mapped (Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife 2014) or field verified bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) habitat on or immediately adjacent to the study area. 4.2.2Other Species Black Bears Black bears (Ursus americanus) use the river corridor west of the property for daily and seasonal movement. Although CPW maps the property (Figure 2B) within a black bear fall concentration area (Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife 2014), this is likely a mapping error due to scale since the property supports little bear forage with very few chokecherry, Gambel oak, serviceberry or other fruit or mast bearing shrubs. Raptors CWS conducted a raptor nest search during the site assessment. No raptor nests were found. No breeding or nesting activity was observed. No peregrine falcon activity areas, nests, or potential nesting areas are located in the vicinity of the Ranch (Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife 2014). Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) No greater sage-grouse are known or suspected to occur on or within proximity to the property. No historic leks occur on or near the property (Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife 2014). Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | IMPACT ANALYSIS §4-502(E) 8 5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS §4-502(E) The physical removal of vegetation or other habitat features is known as direct habitat loss. Disturbance resulting from human activity associated the proposed development will decrease the effectiveness of habitat that remains physically undisturbed. This is known as indirect habitat loss. As with most development in western Colorado, the implementation of the proposed project will have some direct and indirect effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat. The property, however, is embedded in a highly developed landscape. It is currently occupied by mixed agricultural and commercial operations. Neighboring properties are a mix of commercial and residential development. Although the proposal will result in the direct loss of 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 Threatened and Endangered Species 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). 5.1.1Bald Eagle The portion of the property proposed for development occupies a tiny fraction of the CPW mapped bald eagle winter forage area and winter range. The winter forage area and winter range in which the Ranch is situated are 187,470 acres and 4,669,528 acres, respectively. As such, it is unlikely that the proposed development will have significant impacts on these habitat areas. Given that there are no active or historic nest sites or roosts within close proximity to the property and the area occupies negligible portions of the winter range and winter foraging areas, the project will have no effect on bald eagle habitat. 5.1.2Canada Lynx Bald Eagle There is no suitable Canada lynx habitat on or within proximity to the property. As such, the project will have no effect on Canada lynx. 5.1.3Ute ladies'-tresses Orchid There is no suitable Ute ladies'-tresses orchid habitat on or adjacent to the property. As such, the project will have no effect on Ute ladies'-tresses orchids. 5.2 Other Species of Interest 5.2.1 Ungulates Given the analysis above (4.2.1) the proposed development may affect, but not likely to adversely affect mule deer and elk. There will be no effect on bighorn sheep. Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS §7-202 9 5.2.2 Black Bears The proposed development will not result in the direct or indirect loss of black bear foraging habitat or fall concentration habitat. Consequently, there will be no effect on black bears. 5.2.3 Raptors The proposed development will not result in the loss of any known raptor nests, nest stands, or any unique habitat attributes. Loss of undeveloped land will reduce hunting acreage for some generalist species such as American kestrels, great-horned owls (Bubo virginianus) and red-tailed hawks. The proposal may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect raptors. 5.2.4 Greater Sage-Grouse Greater sage-grouse do not occur on or within proximity to the property nor do they have the potential to occur. Consequently, there will be no effect on greater sage-grouse. 5.3 Alteration of Existing Native Vegetation The proposed development will result in the loss of negligible acreage of native vegetation. The highest quality native shrublands occur on the slopes on the west side of the property. The applicant does not propose any development in that area. The balance of vegetation is comprised of highly disturbed patches of native vegetation, invasive species and noxious weeds (Photos 10, 11) including a stand of Russian olive trees (Elaeagnus angustifolia) in the northwest portion of the property (Photo 12). 6.0 PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS §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. The proposed development is highly clustered on a previously developed parcel adjacent to dense residential and commercial development. 2.Fencing – Fencing that is incompatible with wildlife movements can result in direct wildlife mortality, restricted or blocked movement, and reduction of habitat effectiveness. a.No fences should be placed below the crest of the west-facing slope on the west side of the property. b.Other than those necessary for facility security, fences should meet the standards for wildlife-friendly fencing described in the CPW Fencing with Wildlife in Mind publication (Available online at Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS §7-202 10 https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/PrivateLandPrograms/Fencing WithWildlifeInMind.pdf). 6.1 Native vegetation 1.Native vegetation should be preserved to the maximum extent possible except where management is necessary to reduce wildfire hazards. 2.Native vegetation should be preserved on the slopes at the western end of the property. 6.2 Other Measures to Minimize Impacts 1.Noxious Weeds should be managed by means of an Integrated Weed Management strategy in compliance with the current Garfield County Weed Management Plan. Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 7.0 LITERATURE CITED 11 7.0 LITERATURE CITED 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 Division of Parks & Wildlife. 2014. CPW All Species Activity Mapping Data. Available online at http://www.arcgis.com/home/group.html?owner=rsacco&title=Colorado%20Parks%20and%20Wild life%20-%20Species%20Activity%20Data. Colorado Parks & Wildlife, , Fort Collins, CO. Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife. 2015a. Colorado Listing of Endangered, Threatened and Wildlife Species of Special Concern – Species Pages. Available online at http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx. Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife. 2015b. Colorado Wildlife Species Profile Page - Bald Eagle. Available online at http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of 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. 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. Gaines, D., and S. A. Laymon. 1984. Decline, status and preservation of the yellow-billed cuckoo in California. Western Birds 15:49-80. Kelsall, J. P., and W. Prescott. 1971. Moose and deer behaviour in snow in Fundy National Park, New Brunswick. Canandian Wildlife Service Report 15. Kingery, H. E. 1998. Colorado breeding bird atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership : Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colo. Laymon, S. A. 1980. Feeding and nesting behavior of the yellow-billed cuckoo in the Sacramento Valley. Loveless, C. M. 1967. Ecological characteristics of Mule Deer winter range. Technical Publication 20. Colorado Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 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 & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 7.0 LITERATURE CITED 12 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. Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000). Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77:118-125. Parker, K. L., Charles T. Robbins, and Thomas A. Hanley. 1984. Energy expenditures for locomotion by mule deer and elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:474-488. Phillips, G. E., and A. W. Alldredge. 2000. Reproductive success of elk following disturbance by humans during calving season. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:521-530. Rearden, S. N., R. G. Anthony, and B. K. Johnson. 2011. Birth-site selection and predation risk of Rocky Mountain elk. Journal of Mammalogy 92:1118-1126. Rinkevich, S. E., J. L. Ganey, J. L. W. Jr., G. C. White, D. L. Urban, A. B. Franklin, W. M. Block, and E. Clemente. 1995. General biology and ecological relationships of the Mexican Spotted Owl,. Pages 19-35 in K. J. Cook, editor. Recovery plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl. Vol. I. USDI Fish and Wildl. Serv., Albuquerque, NM. Seidel, J. W. 1977a. Elk calving behavior in west central Colorado. Pages 38-40 in Colorado Division of Wildlife, editor. Proceedings of the Western States Elk Workshop. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Seidel, J. W. 1977b. Elk calving habitat. USDA Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 – Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook, zero code, Ch. 10, and Ch.20. Region 2 Amendment No. 2509.25 – 99 – 1. Effective March 22, 1999. Colorado Division of Wildlife and USDA Forest Service, Grand Junction, CO. Shenk, T. 2009. Lynx Update, May 25, 2009. Available: http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/1E7C95D0- 53F3-41EB-82DD-26134C0FF261/0/LynxUpdateMay252009.pdf. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. Shenk, T. M., and R. H. Kahn. 2010. The Colorado lynx reintroduction program. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Theobald, D. M., and T. M. Shenk. 2011. Areas of high habitat use from 1999-2010 for radio-collared Canada lynx reintroduced to Colorado. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Toweill, D. E., J. W. Thomas, and D. P. Metz. 2002. North American elk: ecology and management. 1st edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington [D.C.]. Ungulate Winter Range Technical Advisory Team. 2005. Desired conditions for Mule Deer, Elk, and Moose winter range in the Southern Interior of British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch. Victoria, BC. Wildl. Bull. No. B-120. 18pp. United States Fish & Wildlife Service. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada lynx; Final Rule. November 9, 2006. 71 FR 66008-66061. USDA Forest Service. 2002. Lynx habitat parameters, White River National Forest. Unpub. Forest Service document. Glenwood Springs. CO. 3pp. plus LAU spreadsheet (subject to further revision-last available update 02/11/2005). USFWS. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Mule Deer. Draft. USFWS, and USFS. 2010. Inter-Agency Southern Rockies Lynx Project Decision Screen. Unpublished Report of Southern Rocky Mountain Lynx Conservation Interagency Team. 22 pp plus attachments. U.S. Forest Service, Denver, CO, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Jct, CO. Oct. 2010. Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | 8.0 BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS 13 8.0 BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC (CWS) is a small wildlife and ecological consulting firm based in Basalt, Colorado, specializing in wildlife research, management, and monitoring, ecological assessments, baseline inventories, ecological planning, habitat management, and ecological restoration. CWS applies a scientifically sound approach to biological resource studies and management. Our work combines professional integrity and strong academic training with extensive experience working for government, private, and non- profit clients. With an extensive network of professional collaborators that includes plant ecologists, foresters, hydrologists, and soil scientists, CWS leverages the collective knowledge of experienced professionals working toward practical, effective and cost saving solutions. CWS provides expert services to a diverse array of clients. Since we are a small company, personal attention is ensured. We combine full in-house GIS (ArcGIS) with real-time, sub- meter GPS to provide state-of-the-art spatial data, analyses, maps, and presentations. We have prepared Biological Assessments and Biological Evaluations, and contributed to EAs and EISs. CWS has worked with large private firms such as Jacobs, Carter and Burgess, Parsons, CH2MHILL, and SAIC as well as city and county agencies and governments such as City of Aspen, City of Glenwood Springs, Pitkin County, Colorado Department of Transportation, and Roaring Fork Transportation Agency. Owner and Wildlife Biologist Jonathan Lowsky, M.S. Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, has a broad range of knowledge. With more than 20 years of professional experience with federal (US Forest Service), state (Colorado Division of Wildlife), and county agencies as well as two major universities (Colorado State University and University of Washington), Jonathan’s career has focused on a diverse array of wildlife from bighorn sheep, elk, and songbirds to northern goshawks, flying squirrels, small mammals, and spotted bats. Mr. Lowsky’s experience includes biological assessments and evaluations for NEPA compliance, conservation planning, GIS mapping and modeling, wildlife research, and ecological monitoring design and implementation, as well as wetland and riparian delineations, evaluations, and restoration. He has authored management plans and conservation easement baseline inventory reports and published scientific papers. An expert birder, experienced tracker, certified wetlands delineator, and passionate observer of wildlife, Jonathan has spent countless hours studying and appreciating Colorado’s diverse ecological communities. Jonathan Lowsky completed the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineator Certification Program in 1999 and the Wildland Hydrology (Dave Rosgen) Applied Fluvial Geomorphology Course in 2001. This training has contributed to the quality and success of the wetlands delineations and wetlands and stream restoration projects Mr. Lowsky has completed and contributed to over the last 12 years. Prior to the inception of Colorado Wildlife Science, Jonathan served as the Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist for more than 6 years. In that role, he acted as the County’s wetlands, stream, and riparian expert. A detailed description of Mr. Lowsky’s professional experience and references are available. For additional information, please visit our website at coloradowildlifescience.com. Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | MAPS 14 :,/'/,)($66(660(172)'(9(/230(17)25 &2817<6,7(3/$15(9,(: MAPS ($67%$1.)('(5$/(;35(663523(57< Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 107°17'30"W 107°17'30"W 107°17'40"W 107°17'40"W 107°17'50"W 107°17'50"W 107°18'0"W 107°18'0"W107°18'10"W 39°29'12"N39°29'12"N39°29'4"N39°29'4"N39°28'56"N39°28'56"NEcological Assessment of Ecological Assessment of Commercial Development forCommercial Development for Minor Subdivision Application Minor Subdivision Application COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE LLC 0100 Elk Run Dr, Ste 128, Basalt, CO 81621 970.927.4549 info@coloradowildlifescience.com http://coloradowildlifescience.com Basemap Source(s): Date Prepared: 2015-02-23 o Area of Detail 1 in = 250 feet Figure 1. Aerial View & Vegetation 0 100 200 300 400 50050 Feet Legend: Bing Maps Coordinate System: NAD83 State Plane Colorado Central Project No 1500202 Eastbank Federal Express Facility¬«82 Disturbed - Commercial Development/Road Disturbed Vegetation/Bare Soil Hay Field Pavement Riparian Shrubland Riverine Sagebrush Shrubland Parcel Boundary Note: Not a survey. Parcel boundaries are approximate. R io G ra n d e Tr ail Legend 0 500 1,000250 Feet 1 inch equals 625 feet Parcel Boundary A. Bald Eagle B. Black Bear Bald Eagle Winter Range Bald Eagle Winter Foraging Area Black Bear - Human Conflict Area Black Bear Fall Concentration Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubedArea of Detail Ecological Assessment of Ecological Assessment of Commercial Development forCommercial Development for Minor Subdivision Application Minor Subdivision Application Eastbank Federal Express Facility o COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE LLC 0100 Elk Run Dr, Ste 128, Basalt, CO 81621 970.927.4549 info@coloradowildlifescience.com http://coloradowildlifescience.com Basemap Source(s): Date Prepared: 2015-02-23 Bing Maps Coordinate System: NAD83 State Plane Colorado Central Project No 1500202 Note: Not a survey. Parcel boundaries are approximate. Figure 3. CPW Species Activity Mapping - Bald Eagle & Black Bear Legend 0 500 1,000250 Feet 1 inch equals 625 feet Parcel Boundary A. Mule Deer B. Rocky Mountain Elk Winter Range Severe Winter Range Winter Concentration Area Elk Production Area Summer Range Migration Corridor Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubedArea of Detail Ecological Assessment of Ecological Assessment of Commercial Development forCommercial Development for Minor Subdivision Application Minor Subdivision Application Eastbank Federal Express Facility o COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE LLC 0100 Elk Run Dr, Ste 128, Basalt, CO 81621 970.927.4549 info@coloradowildlifescience.com http://coloradowildlifescience.com Basemap Source(s): Date Prepared: 2015-02-23 Bing Maps Coordinate System: NAD83 State Plane Colorado Central Project No 1500202 Note: Not a survey. Parcel boundaries are approximate. Figure 3. CPW Species Activity Mapping - Mule Deer & Rocky Mountain Elk Wildlife Assessment - EASTBANK FEDERAL EXPRESS PROPERTY February 27, 2015 :,/'/,)($66(660(172)'(9(/230(17 )25&2817<$&7,9,7<(19(/23( 6,7( 3/$15(9,(: PHOTOS ($67%$1.)('(5$/(;35(663523(57< Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | PHOTOS 19 Photo 13URSHUW\LVFRPSULVHGRIDVHULHVRIWHUUDFHVRUEHQFKHV Photo 2'LUWDFFHVVURDG Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | PHOTOS 20 Photo 3/RZHUGLUWDFFHVVURDGWR3DUFHO% Photo 4+LJKHUTXDOLW\VDJHEUXVKVKUXEODQG Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | PHOTOS 21 Photo 53RRUTXDOLW\GLVWXUEHGVDJHEUXVKVKUXEODQGZLWKQRXQGHUVWRU\YHJHWDWLRQ Photo 6'XHWRGLVWXUEDQFHUDEELWEUXVKDSSURDFKHVFRGRPLQDQFHLQUHPQDQWVDJHEUXVKVWDQGV Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | PHOTOS 22 Photo 76FRWFKWKLVWOHLVDSUREOHPRQWKHSURSHUW\ Photo 8(ONSHOOHWVZHUHFRPPRQRQWKH)HEUXDU\VLWHDVVHVVPHQW Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | PHOTOS 23 Photo 9(ONWUDFNVZHUHREVHUYHGGXULQJWKHVLWHYLVLW Photo 107KHSURSHUW\LVKLJKO\GLVWXUEHGZLWKODUJHDUHDVRIEDUHVRLODQGZHHGV Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | PHOTOS 24 Photo 111RQQDWLYHLQYDVLYHVSHFLHVDQGEDUHJURXQGGRPLQDWHODUJH SRUWLRQVRIWKHSURSHUW\ C Photo 125XVVLDQROLYHVWDQGRQWKHQRUWKZHVWHQGRIWKHSURSHUW\ Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | APPENDIX A: CPW SAM mule deer and elk seasonal activity area definitions 25 APPENDIX A: CPW SAM mule deer and elk seasonal activity area definitions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ildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | APPENDIX B: State of Colorado Threatened & Endangered Vertebrates 26 APPENDIX B: 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 Wildlife & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | APPENDIX B: State of Colorado Threatened & Endangered Vertebrates 27 COMMON NAME LATIN NAME STATUS Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus ST 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 & Ecological Assessment - Eastbank FedEx February 18, 2015 COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC | APPENDIX C: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Consultation Letter 28 APPENDIX C: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Consultation Letter United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Office 445 WEST GUNNISON AVENUE, SUITE 240 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 PHONE: (970)243-2778 FAX: (970)245-6933 URL: www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/Colorado/; www.fws.gov/platteriver/ Consultation Code: 06E24100-2015-SLI-0070 February 20, 2015 Event Code: 06E24100-2015-E-00096 Project Name: Eastbank LLC Minor Subdivision Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (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 ), Federal agencies are requiredet seq. to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 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.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 ), and projects affecting these species may requireet seq. 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 2 http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 02/20/2015 11:50 AM 1 Official Species List Provided by: Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Office 445 WEST GUNNISON AVENUE, SUITE 240 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 (970) 243-2778 http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/Colorado/ http://www.fws.gov/platteriver/ Consultation Code: 06E24100-2015-SLI-0070 Event Code: 06E24100-2015-E-00096 Project Type: Development Project Name: Eastbank LLC Minor Subdivision Project Description: The applicants are proposing a minor subdivision in unincorporated Garfield County, CO. Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by' section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns. United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Eastbank LLC Minor Subdivision http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 02/20/2015 11:50 AM 2 Project Location Map: Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-107.2987182 39.4832561, -107.2982758 39.4832662, -107.2978429 39.4833376, -107.2974335 39.4834678, -107.2971597 39.4835955, - 107.2963994 39.4840748, -107.2966856 39.4842622, -107.2953007 39.4852885, -107.2946157 39.4851162, -107.2946275 39.4850018, -107.2943813 39.4847753, -107.2931959 39.4838864, - 107.2927251 39.4835863, -107.2918394 39.4830974, -107.2926094 39.4822911, -107.2938882 39.4825088, -107.2949875 39.4827522, -107.2964821 39.4827132, -107.2966276 39.4827468, - 107.2970222 39.4827114, -107.2970482 39.4830426, -107.2979104 39.4828825, -107.2980423 39.4828263, -107.2980309 39.482776, -107.298361 39.4826853, -107.2989444 39.482464, - 107.2994829 39.4821912, -107.3002298 39.482081, -107.3015895 39.4822653, -107.301664 39.4825349, -107.3016692 39.483101, -107.3017915 39.4838232, -107.3019264 39.4841698, - 107.3020894 39.4844609, -107.3022381 39.4849312, -107.3020285 39.4850761, -107.3017994 39.4854635, -107.3017742 39.4858113, -107.3016081 39.4861594, -107.3015361 39.4863927, - 107.3010098 39.4867729, -107.3010092 39.4849134, -107.3008636 39.4844708, -107.3005864 39.4840676, -107.3001935 39.4837272, -107.2998361 39.4835248, -107.2992981 39.4833382, - United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Eastbank LLC Minor Subdivision http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 02/20/2015 11:50 AM 3 107.2987182 39.4832561))) Project Counties: Garfield, CO United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Eastbank LLC Minor Subdivision http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 02/20/2015 11:50 AM 4 Endangered Species Act Species List There are a total of 10 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on your 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. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. Birds Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s) Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Population: entire Candidate Mexican Spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) Population: Entire Threatened Final designated Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Population: Western U.S. DPS Threatened Proposed Fishes Bonytail chub (Gila elegans) Population: Entire Endangered Final designated Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) Population: Entire, except EXPN Endangered Final designated Greenback Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki stomias) Population: Entire Threatened United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Eastbank LLC Minor Subdivision http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 02/20/2015 11:50 AM 5 Humpback chub (Gila cypha) Population: Entire Endangered Final designated Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Population: Entire Endangered Final designated Flowering Plants Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Threatened Mammals Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Population: (Contiguous U.S. DPS) Threatened United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Eastbank LLC Minor Subdivision http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 02/20/2015 11:50 AM 6 Critical habitats that lie within your project area There are no critical habitats within your project area. United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Eastbank LLC Minor Subdivision