Wildlife Assessment Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange

Federal Parcel Mineral County, Colorado

prepared for:

The Village at Wolf Creek, LLC 12117 Bee Cave Road, Suite 240, Austin, TX 78738 prepared by:

Western Ecological Resource, Inc. 711 Walnut Street, Boulder, CO 80302

July 2010

Acknowledgement

Wildlife Section prepared by:

Jerry Powell Wildlife Specialties, LLC

P.O. Box 1231 Lyons, O 80540

Table of Contents

Section/Title Page

1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 2.0 Environmental Setting ...........................................................................................................1 3.0 Habitat Types........................................................................................................................1

3.1 Spruce-Fir Forests ..............................................................................................................1 3.2 Aspen Forest......................................................................................................................2 3.2 Upland Meadows & Clearings ...........................................................................................2

3.2.1 Upland Meadows........................................................................................................2 3.2.2 Forest Clearings...........................................................................................................3

3.6 Volcanic Tuff Vegetation....................................................................................................3 3.3 Riparian/Wetland Habitats .................................................................................................3

3.3.1 Forested Riparian/Wetland Habitats.............................................................................3 3.3.2 Scrub-Shrub Riparian/Wetland Habitats .......................................................................4 3.3.3 Herbaceous Riparian/Wetland Habitats .......................................................................4

3.4 Aquatic Sites......................................................................................................................5 3.5 Disturbed/Barren ...............................................................................................................5

4.0 Methods................................................................................................................................5 5.0 Sensitive Species ...................................................................................................................6

5.1 Mammals ..........................................................................................................................6 5.1.1 American Marten ........................................................................................................6 5.1.2 North American Wolverine .........................................................................................7 5.1.3 Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep ..................................................................................8

5.2 Birds..................................................................................................................................9 5.2.1 American Three-toed Woodpecker..............................................................................9 5.2.2 Boreal Owl .................................................................................................................9 5.2.3 Flammulated Owl .....................................................................................................10 5.2.4 Northern Goshawk....................................................................................................11 5.2.5 Olive-sided Flycatcher...............................................................................................13 5.2.6 White-tailed Ptarmigan..............................................................................................14

5.3 Amphibians .....................................................................................................................14 5.3.1 Northern Leopard Frog..............................................................................................14 5.3.2 Western Toad (Boreal Toad) ......................................................................................15

6.0 Management Indicator Species ............................................................................................16 6.1 Mammals ........................................................................................................................16

6.1.1 Mule Deer ................................................................................................................16 6.1.2 Rocky Mountain Elk ..................................................................................................16

6.2 Birds................................................................................................................................17 6.2.1 Brown Creeper..........................................................................................................17 6.2.2 Hermit Thrush...........................................................................................................18 6.2.3 Lincoln’s Sparrow .....................................................................................................18 6.2.4 Wilson’s Warbler ......................................................................................................19

6.3 Fish .................................................................................................................................19 6.3.1 Brook Trout...............................................................................................................19

7.0 Federally Listed Species.......................................................................................................20 7.1 Canada Lynx.....................................................................................................................20 7.2 Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout ..............................................................................................22

8.0 Summary.............................................................................................................................22

Table of Contents (continued)

Section/Title Page

9.0 References ..........................................................................................................................23 10.0 Figures ..............................................................................................................................28 11.0 Tables ...............................................................................................................................34 12.0 Photographs ......................................................................................................................44

List of Figures

Name Page

Figure 1. Project Location Map..................................................................................................29 Figure 2. Habitat Type Map.......................................................................................................30 Figure 3. Owl Broadcast Survey Points ......................................................................................31 Figure 4. Goshawk Broadcast Survey Points...............................................................................32 Figure 5. Fish Sampling Map .....................................................................................................33

List of Tables

Name Page

Table 1. Habitat Types ...............................................................................................................35 Table 2. Wildlife Species Considered in this Report ...................................................................36 Table 3. BLM and FS Sensitive Wildlife Species List and Habitat Associations ............................39 Table 4. Wildlife Survey Types Per Species................................................................................42 Table 5. Federally Listed Species ...............................................................................................43

List of Photographs

Name Page

Photo 1. Spruce-Fir Forest (July 28, 2009). .................................................................................45 Photo 2. Aspen Forest with basalt boulders (July 28, 2009). .......................................................45 Photo 3. Upland Natural Meadow – Wetland/upland transition (July 28, 2009). ........................46 Photo 4. Upland Natural Meadow – Depressional area (July 28, 2009) ......................................46 Photo 5. Volcanic Tuff Barrenlands (July 28, 2009). ...................................................................47 Photo 6. Forested Wetland/Riparian Habitat ..............................................................................47 Photo 7. Scrub-Shrub Wetland Habitat (July 28, 2009)...............................................................48 Photo 8. Herbaceous Wetland around pond (July 28, 2009). .....................................................48

1

1.0 Introduction

The Village at Wolf Creek, LLC is preparing a proposal to exchange approximately 178 acres of their private land parcel located adjacent to the Wolf Creek Ski Area at Wolf Creek Pass for an adjoining approximate 178 acre federal (United States Forest Service) Parcel of equal value. Specifically, the federal exchange Parcel is located in an un-sectioned area of Range 2 West and Township 37 North in Mineral County, Colorado (Figure 1). This report describes the habitat types present on the federal Parcel and identifies U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species, Management Indicator Species, and Federally Listed Wildlife Species potentially present in the habitat types of the Parcel and on adjacent Forest Service Lands. Please note, habitat types correspond to the vegetation types as presented in the Vegetation Assessment, Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange, Federal Parcel, Mineral County, Colorado (Western Ecological Resource 2010). The Wildlife Assessment for the Private Parcel is described in a separate document. Please note, Figures are located in Section 10.0 and Tables are included in Section 11.0. 2.0 Environmental Setting

The approximate 178 acre federal exchange Parcel, located south of U.S. Highway 160 about one mile east of the summit of Wolf Creek Pass, lies between the Continental Divide to the west and Alberta Park Reservoir to the southeast. The Parcel is accessed via several four wheel drive roads that extend north from U.S. Forest Service Road 391 (Albert Park Road), which extends south from U.S. Highway 160 to the Alberta Park Reservoir. It should be noted that the habitat type mapping and the wildlife inventory extended out from the Parcel boundary to the southeast, west and northwest to encompass an additional 127 acres of landscape. The Parcel has 255 feet of vertical relief which ranges from a high of 10,500 feet on a small ridge on the eastern end to a low of 10,275 feet where the North Tributary to Pass Creek exits the north boundary. The Parcel slopes and drains both to the northeast and to the southeast. Two segments, 1,197 and 895 feet in length, of the North Tributary to Pass Creek, a small perennial stream, bisect the northwestern portion of the Parcel. The South Tributary to Pass Creek, also a perennial stream, flows east to Alberta Park Reservoir just south of the Parcel. Pass Creek is a perennial tributary to the South Fork of the Rio Grande River. Numerous small unnamed drainages flow into the North Tributary to Pass Creek and there is a small pond about one acre in size near the northeast boundary of the Parcel. Most, about 84%, of the Parcel is forested, however there are herbaceous meadows and barrenland (volcanic tuff) habitats. Overall, the Parcel is relatively undisturbed, except for several four wheel drive roads, selective logging, and one small area which has been clear cut. 3.0 Habitat Types

Habitat types were identified, mapped and described according to plant species dominance and structural diversity using field reconnaissance and 2005 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial photographs. Wetlands on the Parcel were delineated, mapped, and described in 2009 by Western Ecological Resource, Inc. Major habitat types on the Parcel include spruce-fir forests, aspen forests, meadows, barren volcanic tuff, and wetlands. See Figure 2 and Table 1. 3.1 Spruce-Fir Forests

Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) – subalpine fir (Abies bifolia) forests (Photo 1) dominate 152.5 acres, or 85.9% the Parcel, and the majority of the stands have been affected by selective logging. In general, trees are 16 to 24 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) and 50 to 60 feet tall. Forests on the Parcel are relatively healthy and no large outbreaks of spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) or other insects or diseases were noted within the Parcel boundary.

2

However, the ski resort has been actively removing “hot” infected spruce trees over the last several years (Hicks, personal communication). In addition, the Colorado Forest Health Aerial Survey for 2009 revealed outbreaks of spruce beetle approximately 1½-3 miles west and northwest of the Parcel (USDA Forest Service 2009). In addition, outbreaks of western spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis) have occurred both north and south of the Parcel, and subalpine fir mortality from the western balsam bark beetle (Dryocoetes confusus) and the Armillaria root disease (Armillaria spp.) have occurred approximately two miles north of the Parcel. Overall, these forests are dominated by Engelmann spruce, with subalpine fir comprising 30% or less of the total. Reproduction was observed in most stands and is most evident in areas selectively logged. Forested wetland/riparian communities, which are discussed in Section 3.3.1, comprise 6.1 acres, or 3.5% of the Parcel. Portions of the forest also have areas of blow down. This forested habitat supports a variable understory depending on the degree of shading by trees. Where the trees are relatively dense (70% canopy cover or greater), the understory is comprised of a carpet of whortleberry (Vaccinium myrtillus ssp. oreophilum) with occasional shrubs of gooseberry currant (Ribes montigenum) and red elderberry (Sambucus microbotrys). Where canopy cover is more open (40% to 70% canopy cover), a number of different forb species may occur, including skunkleaf polemonium (Polemonium pulcherrimum), heartleaf arnica (Arnica cordifolia), sickletop lousewort (Pedicularis racemosa ssp. alba), bluntseed sweet cicely (Osmorhiza depauperata), strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), and mountain parsley (Pseudocymopterus montanus). This habitat is best described by the Abies lasiocarpa–Picea engelmannii/Vaccinium myrtillus Forest Association (NatureServe 2009), which occurs in the southern Rocky Mountains of Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. 3.2 Aspen Forest

Small stands of aspen forest are present on the Parcel on south-facing slopes above the Alberta Reservoir Road. In total, the aspen forests cover 0.2 acres (0.1%) of the approximate 178 acre Parcel. These stands of aspen, which are at the upper altitudinal limit of this species, occur amid large basalt boulders and rock outcrops (Photo 2). The canopy is fairly open and is interspersed with young Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir trees. Individual aspen trees up to 18 inches in diameter are present, however all age classes occur. The understory is diverse and contains scattered shrubs of serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), snowberry (Symphoricarpos rotundifolius) and common juniper (Juniperus communis ssp. alpina), as well as numerous grasses and forbs such as fringed brome (Bromus ciliatus), elk sedge (Carex geyeri), Fendler meadowrue (Thalictrum fendleri), mountain parsley (Pseudocymopterus montanus), heartleaf arnica (Arnica cordifolia), manyray goldenrod (Solidago multiradiata), Fendler sandwort (Eremogone fendleri), small leaf pussytoes (Antennaria parvifolia), harebell (Campanula rotundifolia), and Indian paintbrush (Castilleja miniata). This habitat is classified as the Populus tremuloides/Amelanchier alnifolia – Symphoricarpos oerophilus Mixed Graminoid Forest (Nature Serve 2009). 3.2 Upland Meadows & Clearings

3.2.1 Upland Meadows Natural upland meadows occur on the northern portion of the Parcel at the transition zone between wetlands and spruce-fir forests (Photo 3). In total, 1.9 acres or 1.0% of the Parcel is comprised of upland meadows. The majority of these meadows are graminoid dominated and are best classified as the Festuca thurberi Subalpine Grassland Herbaceous Association (NatureServe 2009), which occurs in the subalpine environment of Colorado and New Mexico from 9,100 to 12,500 feet in elevation. Thurber fescue (Festuca thurberi) is generally dominant, however other grasses including fringed brome, slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus), Vasey oatgrass (Danthonia intermedia), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosas), and alpine timothy (Phleum commutatum) may be present. Common perennial forbs including yarrow (Achillea lanulosa), nodding ragwort (Ligularia bigelovii), harebell, mountain parsley, strawberry, small leaf pussytoes,

3

dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), manyray goldenrod, beautiful cinquefoil (Potentilla pulcherrima), sulphur Indian paintbrush (Castilleja sulphurea), creeping sibbaldia (Sibbaldia procumbens), and pale and orange agoseris (Agoseris glauca, A. aurantiaca) occur. Overall, herbaceous cover likely reaches 80% to 90% in most of these meadows. Another upland meadow community occurs in the eastern portion of the Parcel in openings of the spruce-fir forest (Photo 4). These meadows, mesic depressional areas with late snowpack, are dominated by creeping sibbaldia and dwarf bilberry (Vaccinium caespitosum). Other species present include tufted hairgrass, umber pussytoes (Antennaria corymbosa), and Drummond rush (Juncus drummondii), all wetland species, as well as yarrow, strawberry, ticklegrass (Agrostis scabra), mountain parsley, alpine timothy, manyray goldenrod, and Vasey oatgrass. Saplings of Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir occur at the outer edge of these areas. This habitat is best classified as the Sibbaldia procumbens – Polygonum bistortoides Herbaceous Vegetation Association (Nature Serve 2009). 3.2.2 Forest Clearings Approximately 0.3 acres, or 0.1% of the Parcel has been cleared for small-scale logging operations. These clearings are comprised of scattered young spruce and fir trees and a dense cover of graminoids such as fringed brome, spike trisetum (Trisetum spicatum), slender wheatgrass, alpine timothy, and ebony sedge (Carex ebenea). Common forbs include yarrow, strawberry, manyray goldenrod, beautiful cinquefoil, Coulter fleabane (Erigeron coulteri), sheep sorrel (Acetosella vulgaris), smallleaf pussytoes, and harebell. Noxious weeds occasionally present include Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and toadflax (Linaria vulgaris). Dwarf bilberry and whortleberry, which are common in the understory of adjacent spruce-fir forests, are present as well. 3.6 Volcanic Tuff Vegetation

This habitat type occurs on poorly developed soils where vegetative cover is generally less than 20% (Photo 5). Areas of volcanic tuff soil occur north of Alberta Park Reservoir and in the far eastern portion of the Parcel. These areas support a sparse cover of stickly gilia (Allicelia pinnatifida), tasselflower brickellbush (Brickellia grandiflora), pearly everlasting (Anaphalis margaritacea), beautiful cinquefoil, Rocky Mountain groundsel (Packera oodes), manyray goldenrod, strawberry, junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), muttongrass (Poa fendleriana), blacktip ragwort (Senecio atratus), cutleaf daisy (Erigeron compositus), pale agoseris, and Wood's rose. Regenerating spruce and fir occur as well. This habitat does not appear to fit any standard vegetation classification. In total, this vegetation type comprises 3.2 acres (1.8%) of the approximate 178 acre Parcel. 3.3 Riparian/Wetland Habitats

Riparian/Wetland Habitats comprise 14.7 acres or 8.4% of the Parcel. The wetlands are located in the northern portion of the project site as part of the Alberta Park Wetland Complex and in the eastern portion of the Parcel as an isolated wetland fen around a pond. 3.3.1 Forested Riparian/Wetland Habitats The forested wetland habitat generally occurs along the North Tributary to Pass Creek and the numerous small streams adjacent to the creek in the northern portion of the Parcel (Photo 6). The Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir overstory has a dense understory of chiming bells (Mertensia ciliata), arrowleaf groundsel (Senecio triangularis), heartleaf bittercress (Cardamine cordifolia), Fendler cowbane (Oxypolis fendleri), brook saxifrage (Micranthes odontoloma), bishop’s cap (Mitella pentandra), marsh marigold (Caltha leptosepala), bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis) green bog orchid (Limnorchis hyperborea), willowherb (Epilobium spp.), Parry’s primrose (Primula parryi), and Brandegee fumewort (Corydalis caseana), as well as alpine speedwell (Veronica nutans), hairy arnica (Arnica mollis), Coulter fleabane, subalpine fleabane (Erigeron peregrinus), millet woodrush (Luzula parviflora), hemlock parsley (Conioselinum

4

scopulorum), and plantainleaf buttercup (Ranunculus alismifolius). The scattered upland plants which often occur in the outer edges of the wetland include strawberry, lovage, Richardson’s geranium (Geranium richardsonii), Whipple penstemon (Penstemon whippleanus), fringed brome, splitleaf Indian paintbrush (Castilleja rhexifolia), and whortleberry. Numerous hillside seeps also occur along the western portion of the North Tributary to Pass Creek, especially on the steep north-facing hillsides just outside of the exchange Parcel, but within the project area. These seepage areas generally support a dense cover of Brandegee fumewort along with arrowleaf groundsel, chiming bells, Fendler cowbane, bog bluegrass (Poa leptocoma), bishop’s cap, and brook saxifrage. Overall, herbaceous plant cover likely reaches 95%. There is 6.1 acres of forested wetland/riparian habitat on the Parcel. These forested/wetland habitats are best described by the Abies lasiocarpa–Picea engelmannii/ Mertensia ciliata Forest (Nature Serve 2009). 3.3.2 Scrub-Shrub Riparian/Wetland Habitats Scrub-Shrub Riparian/Wetland Habitats occur in the northern portion of the Parcel in the North Alberta Park Wetland (Photo 7). This vegetation community is dominated by a dense overstory of planeleaf willow (Salix planifolia) with an understory of water sedge (Carex aquatilis), beaked sedge (Carex utriculata), arrowleaf groundsel, monkshood (Aconitum columbianum), marsh marigold, hemlock parsley, elephant’s head (Pedicularis groenlandica), Fendler cowbane, and largeleaf avens (Geum macrophyllum). Wolf willow (Salix wolfii), barrenground willow (Salix brachycarpa), and bush honeysuckle (Distegia involucrata) are occasionally present. Portions of this wetland contain histosol soils and would be considered a fen. These areas belong to the Salix planifolia – Carex utriculata and the Salix planifolia – Carex aquatilis plant associations (NatureServe 2009). Plant cover is dense in these areas and overall has an absolute vegetative cover of 95-100%. There is 6.2 acres of Scrub-Shrub Riparian/Wetland Habitat on the Parcel. 3.3.3 Herbaceous Riparian/Wetland Habitats There is 2.4 acres of Herbaceous Riparian/Wetland Habitat on the Parcel (Photo 8). One of the highest quality riparian/wetland habitats is a fen located in a glacial kettle in the northeast corner of the exchange parcel. This fen is characterized by a one acre pond surrounded by floating histosol mats. Buckbean (Menyanthes trifoliate), a native aquatic forb, grows in the shallow water at the margins of the pond. On the floating histosol mat, there are large stands of beaked sedge, water sedge and bluejoint reedgrass. Other common graminoids on the floating histosols include golden sedge (Carex aurea), creeping spikerush (Eleocharis palustris), prickly sedge (Carex angusitor), ebony sedge, and pale sedge (Carex canescens). Forbs are sparsely represented on the floating mats, however some buckbean is present, as well as willowherb (Epilobium sp.), and there is a high cover of moss. The stands of beaked sedge, water sedge and bluejoint reedgrass also extend into the saturated organic soils that surround the floating mats. Within the beaked sedge and water sedge zone, forbs such as elephant’s head and plantainleaf buttercup also occur. Areas dominated by bluejoint reedgrass also contain tufted hairgrass, tall cotton sedge (Eriophorum angustifolium), fowl bluegrass, Drummond rush, elephant’s head, and longstalk starwort (Stellaria longipies). At the margin of the wetland, false hellebore and bunchberry (Chamaepericlymenum canadense) are also common. This wetland is best described by the Carex utriculata Herbaceous Association and Carex aquatilis Herbaceous Association (NatureServe 2007). Another fen, located north of Alberta Park, is similar in vegetation composition to the glacial kettle pond wetland, but lacks the floating histosols. Southeast of the glacial kettle pond wetland is a drier wetland complex dominated by the Calamagrostis canadensis and Deschampsia caespitosa Herbaceous Associations. Stands of bluejoint reedgrass occur in the driest areas and also extend outside the wetland boundary into areas that lack hydric soils. Slightly wetter areas are dominated by tufted hairgrass growing with saffron butterweed (Packera crocata), fowl bluegrass (Poa palustris), alpine timothy, sheep sedge, water sedge, and marsh yellow cress (Rorippa teres). In a wetter zone, false hellebore grows amid a stand of bluejoint reedgrass, beaked sedge, saffron butterweed, alpine timothy, marsh marigold, and others.

5

Herbaceous wetlands in roadside ditches are present both within the exchange Parcel as well as outside of the Parcel. Within the Parcel, ditch wetlands are located along one of the four-wheel drive trails. These wetlands are characterized by similar vegetation including arrowleaf groundsel, Drummond rush, Merten’s rush (Juncus mertensianus), beautiful sedge (Carex bella), bog bluegrass, tufted hairgrass, smallwing sedge (Carex microptera), bluejoint reedgrass, and alpine timothy. Other common associates include the forbs Fendler cowbane, largeleaf avens, bluntseed sweet cicely, common monkey flower (Mimulus guttatus), mountain strawberry, and Idaho licorice root (Ligusticum tenuifolium). Other roadside ditch wetlands are located north of Highway 160, which is outside of the Parcel boundary. These wetlands are dominated by meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis), smallwing sedge, Tracy’s rush (Juncus tracyi), creeping spikerush, arctic bluegrass (Poa arctica), Baltic rush (Juncus arcticus ssp. ater), bluejoint reedgrass, and willowherb. Another roadside ditch wetland, located north of Alberta Park Reservoir Road includes the graminoids Tracy’s rush, tufted hairgrass, alpine timothy, smallwing sedge, beautiful sedge, Drummond rush, ticklegrass, slimstem reedgrass (Calamagrostis stricta), and Wolf’s trisetum (Trisetum wolfii). Some of the common forbs include saffron butterweed, common monkey flower, nodding ragwort, yarrow, death camas (Anticlea elegans), and mountain strawberry. Scattered small trees and shrubs that line the ditch include Engelmann spruce, aspen, barrenground willow, mountain willow (Salix monticola), Woods’ rose, shrubby cinquefoil (Pentaphylloides floribunda), planeleaf willow, and whiplash willow (Salix lasiandra var. caudata). 3.4 Aquatic Sites

Approximately 2,092 linear feet of the North Tributary to Pass Creek, a perennial stream, traverse the Parcel, and an approximate one acre pond is located in the northeastern portion of the Parcel. Numerous small drainages flow into the North Tributary to Pass Creek. The habitat of perennial streams is included in the acreage of adjacent vegetation types. 3.5 Disturbed/Barren

This mapping unit includes dirt roads within the Parcel which lack vegetation, as well as road-cut and fill slopes that are characterized by a disturbed vegetation type. The cut slopes generally support regenerating spruce and fir up to 10 feet in height and a diversity of forbs and graminoids such as strawberry, yarrow, dandelion, goldenrod, Whipple’s penstemon, ticklegrass, pearly everlasting, black tip ragwort (Senecio atratus), and Bigelow tansyaster (Machaeranthera bigelovii). Moonwort (Botrychium spp.) species also occur in this habitat. There is 3.6 acres (2.0% of the Parcel) of disturbed/barren habitat on the Parcel. 4.0 Methods

Jerry Powell of Wildlife Specialties, LLC worked with personnel in the U.S. Forest Service, Rio Grande National Forest, Divide District to prepare a list of wildlife species for analysis in this assessment. First, Mr. Powell prepared a list of 25 species (Table 2) potentially present in the habitat types on the Parcel and surrounding areas based on species assessed in the Biological Assessment for Transportation and Utilities Systems and Facilities for the Village at Wolf Creek (Thompson 2005a) and the Wildlife Biological Evaluation and Specialist Report for the Village at Wolf Creek Environmental Impact Statement (Thompson 2005b). The list, which included 15 U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Species, seven Management Indicator Species and three Federally Listed Species, was submitted to the U.S. Forest Service on July 9, 2009 as a preliminary list of species to be addressed in the Wildlife Assessment. U.S. Forest Service personnel (Dalrymple 2009) reviewed the list and on July 14, 2009 concurred that all species on the list should be addressed in the Assessment, and asked Mr. Powell to review the San Luis Valley Public Land Center BLM and FS Sensitive Wildlife Species List (Table 3) as updated on May 19, 2009 and the June 9, 2009 U.S. Forest Service Region 2, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Animals, to

6

determine if any additional species from these lists should be included in the Assessment. Mr. Powell reviewed the lists and concluded that no additional species from the lists should be included in the Assessment as appropriate habitat does not exist on the Parcel or the Parcel is above the known elevational limits of the species. Next, the habitat affinities, overall distribution and elevational limits of the 25 species of Table 2 were reviewed to determine the potential occurrence of these species in the habitat types of the Parcel. It was concluded that the Parcel does not provide suitable habitat for the American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Brewer's sparrow (Spizella breweri), flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus), Lewis's woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), or the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). Specifically, the Parcel does not contain cliffs or other suitable nesting sites for the American peregrine falcon or bald eagle; additionally, no bald eagle winter roosts are near the Parcel. The American peregrine falcon and bald eagles may occasionally fly over the Parcel during migration but they do not likely use the habitat of the Parcel. Suitable habitat for the Brewer’s sparrow (sagebrush shrublands) and Lewis’s woodpecker (riparian cottonwoods or trees burned within the last five years) does not occur within the Parcel or on adjacent Forest Service property. There is no ponderosa pine forest habitat, the primary habitat of the flammulated owl. However, on July 9, 2010 the U.S. Forest Service suggested that surveys for flammulated owls be conducted within the project area even though ponderosa pine forest is not present. It was agreed that surveys would be conducted for the owl. Willows, the habitat preferred by the southwestern willow flycatcher, a federally endangered species, are present on the Parcel. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) stated that suitable breeding habitat is not present within the Parcel for this species (Thompson 2005a). No additional discussion of these five species occurs in this assessment. For additional information on these species in relation to the Parcel, please see Thompson 2005a and b. The U.S. Forest Service reviewed and approved the proposed survey methods for all wildlife species (Table 4) prior to completion of the survey. Species specific surveys were conducted in July 2009 for northern goshawk, boreal owl and flammulated owl. The field work did not begin until mid-July, well after the peak of the avian breeding season. Therefore, specific surveys were conducted only for the northern goshawk, boreal owl and flammulated owl, because mid-July is still an appropriate time to survey these species. Standardized single-pass electrofishing surveys for brook and Rio Grande cutthroat trout were completed in the North Tributary to Pass Creek in September 2009 to determine presence/absence of fish species. No specific surveys for any other species occurred as part of this project. Surveys for several species listed in Table 2 were previously conducted on the Parcel by Thompson (2005a and b) and others. The results of such surveys are included in the following species discussions as part of the general distribution of these species within and near the Parcel. A general assessment of habitat types present at the entire Parcel was conducted in 2009 while conducting species specific surveys. All of the avian species included in this report are migratory birds and are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA [16 U.S.C. 701-711]). The MBTA established a Federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to “pursue, hunt, take…, for the protection of migratory birds…or any part, nest, or egg of such bird.” 5.0 Sensitive Species

The eleven U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Species of Table 2 are discussed below. 5.1 Mammals

5.1.1 American Marten Distribution: Considered apparently secure in Colorado, marten occur throughout Alaska, Canada and the lower 48 states except for the Midwest and the South. Natural reestablishment and reintroduction programs have contributed to a moderate comeback in some areas of the northern

7

U.S., including northern New England and the Great Lakes region (NatureServe 2009). In Colorado, they occur mostly in coniferous forest habitat in the high mountains (Fitzgerald et. al. 1994). Natural history: Marten are considered common in subalpine forest, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and high elevation riparian habitats. Specifically, marten cover habitat occurs within mature and late-successional subalpine (spruce-fir) forest, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and high elevation riparian forests. Marten foraging habitat occurs within all structural stages of spruce-fir forest, lodgepole pine and high elevation riparian forest; and within mature and late-successional Douglas-fir habitat. They prefer late-successional or mixed-age stands with over 30%, and preferably 40-60%, canopy cover. Marten home range size is variable and usually less than 10km², though it may be larger when resources are scarce (NatureServe 2009). Male home range may overlap that of several females. Marten den in tree cavities, logs, rock piles, and burrows, and frequently rest on tree limbs during the day. Voles and mice may constitute over 60-88% of the marten diet. Other small mammals are also eaten. The species prefers interior forest and will avoid open areas more than 100 to 250m wide. Marten are crepuscular to nocturnal, though they may exhibit diurnal behavior in the summer when diurnal ground squirrels are an important prey source. Marten remain active year-round and rely upon downed logs, woody debris, brush piles, and rootwads to access the subnivean environment in search of food. Marten are generally tolerant of human disturbance but are vulnerable to habitat loss or modification (NatureServe 2009, Ruggiero et. al 1994). Environmental Baseline: Historical logging and land clearing associated with the ski area likely reduced the amount of usable marten habitat by creating openings in the forest and removing downed logs and other woody debris. Project Area Use: Thompson (2005b) reported the detection of marten within the Parcel during tracking surveys. They likely do not use the Parcel for denning because of the constant disturbance and modification of habitat. They likely use the entirety of the Parcel as part of their home range. 5.1.2 North American Wolverine Distribution: Wolverines are found in areas near tundra or timberline that have thick timber (CDOW 2009a; Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Colorado is considered to be at the southern extent of their range (Aubry, et al. 2007; NatureServe 2009). The historical population in Colorado is considered to have been low, likely because of human caused mortality and low to nonexistent immigration rates (Aubry et al. 2007). Until the spring of 2009, when one male traveled into north-central Colorado from Wyoming, the last confirmed wolverine sighting in Colorado occurred in 1919. This individual has remained in Colorado since that time, but has not ventured close to the Parcel. Natural history: Primary food items include small mammals, birds and eggs, fish, carrion, and plant matter. They are typically solitary animals. Mating can occur from late spring to early fall, delayed implantation results in blastocysts not implanting until January or February (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Two to five young are born in March or April in simple dens. Home ranges of wolverines are generally large but can vary greatly depending on availability of food, gender, age, and habitat suitability. Banci (1994) reported that home ranges of adult wolverines range from less than 100 km² to over 900 km² (38.5 mi² to 348 mi²). Mortality rates are not known, but human caused mortality is the most common form in areas where they are not protected. In a study conducted in western Montana, trapping accounted for 64% of mortalities during a three year period (Squires et al. 2007). Wolverines have few natural predators; typical life spans in the wild are not greater than 10 to 11 years. Environmental Baseline: The wolverine is a Region 2 species of concern and is listed by the State of Colorado as a state endangered species (CDOW 2009). Prior to the 2009 documentation of a

8

wolverine in Colorado, wolverines had not been confirmed in the state since 1919. Population levels in Colorado are unknown. On March 11, 2008, the USFWS announced their 12-month finding on a petition to list the wolverine as an endangered or threatened species under the ESA. At that time, the USFWS determined that the population of North American wolverine occurring in the contiguous United States did not constitute a listable entity under the ESA and therefore the species was not warranted for listing. Project Area Use: Numerous surveys near the Parcel and within the Rio Grande National Forest have not detected wolverines (see Thompson 2005b). The lone wolverine that entered Colorado in May of 2009 has remained in Colorado since that time. Its current location is not available to the public, but it is not near the project area. It is unlikely that wolverine exist near the Parcel or use the Parcel for any component of their life history at this time. 5.1.3 Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Distribution: Wild sheep are one of the most widely distributed ungulates in the world (Beecham et al. 2007). Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep occur in Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Colorado has the largest number of bighorn sheep in the United States, almost 7,200 in 75 herd units (NatureServe 2009). Natural history: Bighorns typically occur in steep, high mountain terrain. In Colorado, they prefer habitat dominated by grass, low shrubs, rock cover, and near open escape areas where they can retreat and rest (CDOW 2009b). Bighorn are primarily grazers, feeding in meadows, open woodland, and alpine tundra. Many bands now spend all year near timberline on what used to be their traditional summer range. Breeding occurs in November and December with a peak in early December. Gestation averages five to six months. Typically, a single lamb is born from April through July, with the peak in late May and early June. Lambing areas are usually on or near wintering areas. These sites are often used annually for many years and are characterized by steep, rugged topography. This provides protection from predators, shelter from inclement weather, and isolation during the mother-young bonding period (Beecham et al. 2007). Bighorns have a high degree of site fidelity which ties them to familiar areas and limits range expansion (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). This site fidelity makes them vulnerable to increased stress when disturbance within their range occurs. Seasonal, short migrations between summer and winter ranges occur in a series of short-distance moves using favored habitat along the way (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). This short-term use of seasonal home ranges often occurs in four to five areas, depending on the herd and terrain. Movement in Colorado occurs over a 5 to 8km (3 – 5 mile) area which often leads to an elevational shift of hundreds of meters. Environmental Baseline: Colorado supports the greatest number of Rocky Mountain bighorns within their current range. Bighorns within the Parcel likely were extirpated during the historical mining period when subsistence hunting was not regulated. Through careful management of the species, these impacts are no longer applicable. Project Area Use: The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) does not map the Parcel as any type of bighorn sheep critical habitat (e.g. winter range, lambing area, etc.). Areas 0.6 miles northwest of the Parcel are identified as a summer concentration area; 0.06 miles to the west is identified as summer range. It is possible that bighorn sheep could use the entirety of the Parcel and all habitats within the Parcel during the summer months. However, because of the constant disturbance it is unlikely that they regularly use any portion of the Parcel.

9

5.2 Birds

5.2.1 American Three-toed Woodpecker Distribution: Considered vulnerable in Colorado, three-toed woodpeckers have a circumpolar distribution in boreal forest habitat. Globally, this species is considered stable, yet these woodpeckers are locally distributed and occur nowhere in abundance. Limited North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate a relatively stable population (NatureServe 2009). In Colorado, these woodpeckers occur in a scattered distribution, reflecting the scattered distribution of older spruce-fir forests with decadent trees (Kingery 1998). Wiggins (2004) mentions strong decreases in abundance in the Southern Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Natural History: Colorado BBA data and Wiggins (2004) indicate a strong habitat preference for spruce-fir forests, with only a handful of occurrences from ponderosa, lodgepole and aspen habitats. Wiggins (2004) found that old growth lodgepole pine habitat is also important in Colorado. Two other important habitat components are abundant insect populations and diseased trees resulting from fire and/or insect epidemics. In Colorado, observations ranged from 7,000 to 12,000 feet with most occurring above 9,000 feet (Kingery 1998). Scant data on home range size ranges from 31.2 hectares for one female in the winter to 304 hectares for a summer home range. Home range sizes for this species have increased with increased data collection (Wiggins 2004). Three-toed woodpeckers nest in cavities in snags or live trees with dead heartwood. In the Rockies, three-toed woodpeckers will move into recently burned habitats or into insect infestations, but generally they stay in spruce-fir habitats (Wiggins 2004, Kingery 1998). In the years following a burn, three-toed woodpecker abundance may increase sharply as they forage on wood-borers that invade fire-killed trees. By five years after a fire, wood-borer populations have decreased and three-toed woodpecker populations diminish as they forage elsewhere. Once three-toed woodpeckers leave an area, they leave behind a host of cavities for secondary cavity nesting species (Kingery 1998). In Colorado (Kingery 1998) nesting occurs in May and June and young can be found in the nest into mid-August. These woodpeckers stay on or near their home ranges throughout the year (Wiggins 2004). Three-toed woodpecker habitat may be detrimentally affected by fire suppression because of the decreased availability of snags in burned-over areas. However, fire suppression also produces favorable conditions for insect outbreaks, especially wood-borers, a preferred prey for woodpeckers (Wiggins 2004, Kingery 1998). Salvage logging of insect-infested or diseased forest may reduce or eliminate habitat for this species. Three-toed woodpeckers are basically tolerant of non-destructive intrusion (NatureServe 2009). Environmental Baseline: NatureServe reports that population trends are unknown, but most likely populations are decreasing. Densities are often greatest one to two years post fire (NatureServe 2009). Low sample size from Breeding Bird Surveys should be used with caution, but the species likely is declining throughout its Holarctic range (NatureServe 2009). Results of survey efforts suggest that population trends may be stable in Colorado (RMBO 2004). Mountain pine beetle infestations may increase foraging opportunities in the short term (3-5 years). Project Area Use: American three-toed woodpeckers were observed foraging and drumming throughout the Parcel and in nearby areas during the 2009 field review. Because of the size of the Parcel (84 ha), it is likely that the entirety of the Parcel is used by a pair for foraging and as part of a home range. 5.2.2 Boreal Owl Distribution: In Colorado, boreal owls occur mainly in mature to old-age (over 150 years) spruce-fir forests above 2,745m (9,000 feet), but they also frequent higher-elevation lodgepole pine and aspen (Kingery 1998). Within these forests they prefer wet areas, but may wander into ponderosa and pinyon-juniper forests. They are a circumpolar species but do occur in the Rocky Mountains

10

as far south as New Mexico. In Colorado, they are primarily year-round residents of spruce-fir forests (Kingery 1998). Natural history: The male boreal owl does not defend all of the home range or foraging area, but will defend when intruders are within 100m of the nest site. Nest sites generally are secondary cavities created by woodpeckers. In Colorado, courtship singing by the pair can last for up to 120 days (Hayward and Hayward 1993). Boreal owls are typically monogamous and have a single brood annually. In Colorado, laying dates are estimated from 17 April to 1 June with half the known nests being initiated by 10 May (Hayward and Hayward 1993). Clutch size averages four to six eggs. After an approximate 26 day incubation period, the young leave the nest at about four to five weeks. The boreal owl eats mainly small mammals but will include birds and insects in its diet. Year-round territory sizes range between 3,447 and 3,894 acres, with at least a 90% overlap in two territories in Colorado (Kingery 1998). Environmental Baseline: The boreal owl is considered secure throughout most of its range. Lack of information on demography, local and regional populations, and response to habitat change makes assessment of its conservation status difficult (Hayward and Hayward 1993). Historical timber harvest and land clearing associated with the ski area likely reduced available foraging and nesting habitat within and near the Parcel. Current timber harvest and thinning resultant of beetle kill likely has reduced available foraging and nesting habitat near the Parcel. Historical and current timber harvest likely has reduced the number of home ranges and suitable nest sites available to boreal owls. Project Area Use: The Parcel contains habitat suitable for nesting and foraging or as part of a home range centered elsewhere. Because of the constant disturbance it is unlikely that a home range is centered upon the Parcel. Survey Results: Surveys in 2004 did not result in the detection of boreal owls; surveys in 2005 identified one nesting pair northwest of the Alberta Park Reservoir outlet (USDA 2006) on U.S. Forest Service lands. Tape play-back call surveys were conducted in 2009 on the night of July 15. No owls were detected the night of the 15th. Prior to the initiation of surveys, 11 suitable broadcast call survey locations were identified in the Parcel and on nearby U.S. Forest Service lands (Figure 3). Owl surveys were conducted according to established broadcast call survey protocols (Cilimburg and Young 2005). Calls were broadcast through a Fanon® handheld bullhorn to maximize projection capabilities of the call. In summary, surveys were initiated approximately 2 hours after sunset and continued until all survey locations had been visited. At each survey point visited, surveyors spent six minutes alternating between listening for spontaneously calling owls and broadcasting vocalizations. 5.2.3 Flammulated Owl Distribution: The Flammulated owl is widespread throughout the montane forest of western Colorado, with greater numbers being present in the southern part of the state (McCallum 1994a). The Breeding Bird Atlas reported Flammulated owls being present in several locations in western Colorado (Kingery 1998). The species is considered migratory, typically using lower elevation habitats peripheral to breeding habitats (McCallum 1994a). Natural History: Flammulated owls use open forests with a shrub dominated understory (McCallum 1994a, McCallum 1994b, Kingery 1998, Linkhart et al. 1998). Flammulated owls are most commonly detected in dry, open montane forest dominated by ponderosa pine, aspen with an oak understory, and other pine species where nest cavities are available (Kingery 1998, Linkhart et al. 1998, Arsenault et al. 2002). The Flammulated owl nests in natural cavities within or adjacent to open forests where foraging habitat is present, typically between 6,000 and 10,000

11

feet in elevation. The species has relatively strong nest site fidelity with pairs returning to old territories over successive years (Kingery 1998). According to McCallum (1994a, 1994b) and Kingery (1998), Flammulated owls have a tendency to use upper slopes and plateaus for nesting as these habitats are frequently more open than lower slopes. Home range size, as reported by Kingery (1998), ranged from 36 to 55 hectares (90 to 140 acres). Ridge tops often delineate territorial boundaries (Reynolds 1987). Winter and migratory habitats are typically at lower elevations in habitats presumably similar to those used during the breeding season (McCallum 1994a). Although several species of trees provide suitable nest cavities, ponderosa pine forests were identified as key habitat (Kingery 1998). Aspen forest with an oak understory also provides nesting habitat (McCallum 1994a, Kingery 1998). These forests provide the necessary forage base of large nocturnal arthropods, primarily moths (Lepidoptera) and beetles (Coleoptera), with crickets and grasshoppers (Orthoptera) also taken. Nest success is reportedly high, with an estimated rate of 87 percent and a per nest production of fledglings at 2.3 in Colorado (McCallum 1994a). Home range size varies with an average of approximately 14.5 hectares (36 acres) being identified. Individual territory size is not known to vary with respect to the number or proximity of the nearest con-specific neighbor (McCallum 1994b). Although information on nest site fidelity and breeding ecology is available, population trends have not been defined as data collections are sporadic due to the difficulty in locating the species even in suitable habitats. However, with the loss of the open forests required by the species through either increases in tree density or logging of large trees, a downward population trend is possible. Conversely, the recent use of fire to open previously dense forest may improve habitat conditions for the species, leading to a slight increase. Environmental Baseline: As with most avian species, the greatest conservation threat is the loss or degradation of habitat. Activities such as the logging of old growth forest, the use of pesticides, and habitat degradation have all been identified as having a potentially negative impact on the species. Fire suppression and the resulting overgrowth of open habitats with dense stands of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and an increase in Douglas fir have all been recognized as contributing to the loss of habitat quality and quantity (McCallum 1994a, Kingery 1998, Linkhart et al. 1998). Project Area Use: Potentially suitable habitat at the Parcel is restricted to the forest clearings located near riparian/wetland habitats. Survey Results: Surveys were conducted on the night of July 14, 2009 within the Parcel and other nearby areas because the Parcel lies within the elevational range for the species. No flammulated owls were detected. Broadcast survey call locations were the same as those used for the boreal surveys (Figure 3). The lack of ponderosa pine forest led to the conclusion that suitable habitat for this species is not present and they likely do not use the Parcel. Owl surveys were conducted according to established broadcast call survey protocols (Cilimburg and Young 2005). Calls were broadcast through a Fanon® handheld bullhorn to maximize projection capabilities of the call. In summary, surveys were initiated approximately 2 hours after sunset and continued until all survey locations had been visited. At each survey point visited, surveyors spent six minutes alternating between listening for spontaneously calling owls and broadcasting vocalizations. 5.2.4 Northern Goshawk Distribution: The northern goshawk is a rare to uncommon resident in the foothills and mountains of Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1992). Confirmed breeding sites across the state indicate a very patchy distribution with most concentrated in the north-central and southwestern portions of the western slope. They are normally found between 7,500 and 11,500 feet elevation

12

in this area; however, they are occasionally seen above timberline, especially in the fall. Additionally, they are a rare spring and fall migrant and winter resident in western valleys, mountain parks, and on the eastern plains. Natural history: The Northern goshawk is a forest habitat generalist, utilizing a variety of forest types, forest ages, structural conditions, and successional stages. The principal forest types occupied by the goshawk are ponderosa pine, aspen, mixed-conifer and spruce-fir. Studies of nesting habitat show that goshawks nest in older-aged forests with variable tree species. The most consistent vegetation characteristic of goshawk nest sites is a high percent of canopy closure. Stand structure ranges from dense canopy mixed conifer with an open understory to aspen groves with trees exhibiting heavy upper branching to provide nest platforms and protection. Because of its large body size and wingspan, the goshawk seldom uses young, dense forests. Nest habitat can occupy up to 200 acres and may include two to three scattered large nest trees (Reynolds et al. 1992). In a review of the scientific literature, Finch (1992) found nest sites may be revisited from year to year and are generally within 0.25 mile of water. Fledgling areas contain a mix of large trees with a canopy cover greater than 50 percent and young trees for hiding cover near the ground (Reynolds et al. 1992). Suitable foraging areas can be as large as 6,000 acres and include a variety of forest cover types and vegetation structural stages. Limited radio-telemetry evidence suggests that goshawks prefer mature forests for foraging. However, forest edges, openings and underneath forest canopies of all timber types are used for hunting. Prey species include rabbits, squirrels, woodpeckers, robins, jays, and other small birds and mammals (Reynolds et al. 1992). Snags, downed logs, woody debris, small openings, large trees, and herbaceous and shrubby understories are important features to many goshawk prey populations. Downed logs (>12 inch dbh and 8 feet long) provide cover, feeding and nest sites for a great variety of species, including several woodpeckers, chipmunks, golden-mantled ground squirrels, cottontail rabbits, red squirrels, and blue grouse. Forest openings of less than four acres benefit blue grouse, chipmunks and golden-mantled ground squirrels, while minimizing the effects on other interior forest prey species of the goshawk (Reynolds et al. 1992). Nesting normally occurs from late April through early May. Incubation takes 28 to 38 days and fledging occurs once nestlings are 35 to 42 days old; they become independent at about 70 days old (NatureServe 2009). Considered vulnerable in Colorado (NatureServe 2009), the Northern goshawk is a rare to uncommon resident of the foothills and mountains. It is deemed a rare spring, summer migrant, and winter resident in western valleys, mountain parks, and on the eastern plains (Andrews and Righter 1992). Populations are difficult to determine due to paucity of historic quantitative data and because of biases in the various methods used to track populations (NatureServe 2009). In the Western United States, clearcut logging of old-growth forests, fire suppression, and catastrophic fire are postulated to be reducing habitat and thus populations (NatureServe 2009). Environmental Baseline: Historical timber harvest likey reduced available foraging and nesting habitat throughout the Parcel. Forest regeneration has likely reversed some loss of foraging and nesting habitat. Currently grazing, fire suppression, timber harvest and recreation could limit the amount of habitat available to goshawks througout their range. Timber harvest or the removal of beetle killed trees could open areas previously unavailable to other raptors, resulting in nest site competition and predation. Historical timber harvest and the current constant disturbance likely have reduced the potential for any of the Parcel to be used for nesting or as part of a Primary Family Area. However, because goshawk home ranges are quite large (2,185 ha – 5,399 acres) the Parcel could be part of a home range.

13

Survey Results: Thompson (2005b) did not report any previous surveys as having been conducted near the Parcel. No nest sites are known to be located near the Parcel. One nest site is located several miles from the Parcel and the Parcel may lie within that general home range. Surveys were conducted on July 16 and 20th 2009 within the Village at Wolf Creek Parcel and on nearby NFS lands. A total of 23 survey points were originally identified (Figure 4); however, five survey points were excluded as they were located near the WCSA and Forest Road 391, both of which see daily recreational use. The exclusion of these survey points was per the 2006 Northern goshawk inventory and monitoring technical guide (Woodbridge and Hargis 2006). In summary, goshawk surveys were conducted according to established begging call broadcast call survey protocols (Woodbridge and Hargis 2006). Calls were broadcast through a Fanon® handheld bullhorn to maximize projection capabilities of the call. At each survey call point surveyors directed three 10 second broadcasts directed 60, 180 and 300 from the direction of travel followed by a 30 second observation period. The broadcast call was again broadcast for 10 seconds at 60 with observation occurring for 30 seconds at 180 and 300. No northern goshawk were visually observed or aurally detected. 5.2.5 Olive-sided Flycatcher Distribution: The olive-sided flycatcher primarily breeds in montane and northern coniferous forests at altitudes up to 3,050 m (10,000 ft) in central Colorado (Scott et al. 1982). The olive-sided flycatcher breeds from the Canadian border south through Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, and Sierra Juárez and Sierra San Pedro Mártir of Baja California Norte. This bird also breeds from the Canadian border south through Idaho, western Montana, Utah, central and western Wyoming, and the western half of Colorado to the Mogollon Rim of Arizona (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). Olive-sided flycatchers are associated with forest openings and edges occurring in mature forests and following natural and anthropogenic disturbances (Kotliar 2007). Essential components of olive-sided flycatcher habitat include the juxtaposition of forest openings and mature forest, and the presence of snags (Kotliar 2007). They are often associated with the ecotone between wetlands and upland habitats. Natural history: Pairs form in late May and nest building begins shortly there after. One brood per year is typical, second broods are rare. In Colorado, egg laying is at its peak between June 23 and July 3 (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). Nests are open-cup structures placed at various heights above ground, typically in conifers. Typically three eggs are laid, but four is not uncommon. Incubation takes 14 – 16 days (Kotliar 2007). Females do all the brooding of the young but males do assist with some of the feeding. Young fledge at 19-21 days of age. The young are cared for by the adults for approximately one week and remain within the pair’s territory for approximately three weeks. This species shows high site fidelity for breeding and wintering locations (NatureServe 2009). Environmental Baseline: North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data indicate declines since 1966 across much of its North American range with a decline of 3.5% annually (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). This species could be at risk from impacts to its non-breeding habitat in Central and South America. Logged areas are reported to increase breeding areas, but logged areas may act as ‘ecological traps’ (an area that appears to have superior habitat and is thus actively selected for but in reality high rates of mortality occur and decrease the population [Altman and Sallabanks 2000]). Fire suppression throughout the breeding range undoubtedly limits the acreage of available habitat; large areas of dense, second growth forests growing up following cutting or fires are being maintained as closed canopy forests through intensive fire control (NatureServe 2009). Additionally, forest dominated by dead trees, like those impacted by beetle kill, will not support this species (Peterson and Fichtel 1992).

14

Current and historical timber harvest may appear to benefit flycatchers, but as stated previously these areas could be ecological traps and may be contributing factors to the overall decline of this species. Areas in which beetle kill is or has occurred will limit the amount of usable habitat. Project Area Use: Olive-sided flycatchers could occur along wetlands and nearby spruce-fir forests along these wetlands. 5.2.6 White-tailed Ptarmigan Distribution: The white-tailed ptarmigan is found in alpine areas at or above timberline (Braun et al. 1993) in North America. This bird is predominantly found in rocky areas, krummholz, moist vegetation near snowfields and streams, and willow-dominated plant communities. In the winter they generally use willow-dominated basins where wind action allows accumulation of snow (Braun et al. 1976). Natural history: Pairs form in late-April to mid May. Eggs are laid in early June, one brood per year being the norm. Nests average six eggs and young leave the nest within 6 -12 hours of hatching (Kingery 1998). White-tailed ptarmigan predominantly feed on buds, stems, and leaves, but will also consume insects. The single most important feature of habitats used by ptarmigan is the presence of willow (Salix spp.), which is their primary food source from late fall through spring. Any activity that reduces the distribution and abundance of willow will likely have negative consequences to ptarmigan (Hoffman 2006). Environmental Baseline: The white-tailed ptarmigan is considered secure throughout most of its range. Over-harvest during the mining boom likely reduced the local population. Project Area Use: The Parcel contains approximately 2.5 ha (6.2 acres) of riparian/wetland (scrub-shrub) habitat that could be used in the winter by ptarmigan. However, because of the high level of human activity that occurs near the Parcel during the winter it is unlikely that these areas are used. Furthermore, Thompson (USDA 2006) reported that during winter surveys, ptarmigan tracks were not observed in the snow. He additionally stated that the willow stands are relatively small and distant from wintering areas and that they are small in height and are quickly bent over and covered by deep winter snows, thus they are not available for use. 5.3 Amphibians

5.3.1 Northern Leopard Frog Distribution: The northern leopard frog is distributed throughout Colorado from an elevation of below 3,500 feet on the plains of the northeastern corner of the state to over 11,000 feet in the San Juan Mountains in the southwestern corner (Hammerson 1999). Although formerly abundant throughout its range, the northern leopard frog has become rare or extirpated from many areas, especially high elevation populations due to changes in habitat conditions (Hammerson 1999). Natural History: Northern leopard frogs occupy habitats throughout Colorado ranging in elevation from less than 3,500 feet to over 11,000 feet in elevation. Northern leopard frogs have diverse habitat requirements including wet meadows, the banks and shallows of marshes, ponds (glacial kettles or beaver ponds [Castor canadensis]), lakes, streams, or irrigation ditches. Within the Parcel, the most common habitat type would be wet meadow or man-made ponds/stock tanks. Winter months are spent in a state of torpor at the bottom of occupied bodies of water (Hammerson 1999). Breeding activity occurs in the shallow, quiet portions of occupied bodies of water, including seasonally flooded areas adjacent to perennial water sources. Calling typically starts in March or April at lower elevations, with activity starting later at higher elevations as ambient water temperatures warm, typically in late May. Egg masses are attached to vegetation near the surface in warm shallow water (Hammerson 1999).

15

Threats: Formerly abundant, northern leopard frog populations have decreased in recent years. Hammerson (1999) identified climatic variation (i.e., flooding and drought), as reasons for local shifts in populations. In low elevation habitats, the introduced bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) has been identified as a threat, as has the introduction of predatory game fishes to ponds and other habitats where leopard frogs were formerly common. Other threats include the human induced alteration of wetlands through filling, dredging or increases in overall water depth. Flood control activities and other water diversion efforts have also impacted leopard frog populations (Hammerson 1999). Environmental Baseline: Evidence of population declines in the mountainous regions of Colorado has been documented by Corn and Fogleman (1984) and Hammerson (1999), although these have been primarily restricted to the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. According to Hammerson (1999), northern leopard frogs occurred throughout western Colorado where suitable habitat was available including locations within the vicinity of the Parcel. Although the CDOW recognizes the northern leopard frog as a species of concern, no mapping of species occurrence is available through either the CDOW or the Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS). A petition to list the western United States population of the northern leopard frog as a threatened or endangered species was filed with the U.S. Department of the Interior on June 5, 2006 (Center for Native Ecosystems 2006). On 30 June 2009, the USFWS announced that the northern leopard frog may warrant federal protection as a threatened or endangered species. The USFWS accepted scientific information through 31 August 2009 on the historical and current status and distribution of the northern leopard frog; its biology and ecology; its taxonomy (particularly genetics of the western U.S., Wisconsin and Canada populations); ongoing conservation measures involving the species and its habitat; and threats to the species and its habitat. As of October 28, 2009 the USFWS was still seeking information on the northern leopard frog to fill-in data gaps. No new information on the review status is available at this time. Project Area Use: No surveys specifically for northern leopard frogs have occurred within the Parcel or on nearby private lands. However, this species was not been detected during surveys for western toads in 2000, 2002, and 2004 (Thompson 2005b). Suitable breeding habitat does exist at the pond located near owl survey point number 3. This location is not within the known dispersal range of this species and therefore it is unlikely that leopard frogs occur on or near the Parcel. 5.3.2 Western Toad (Boreal Toad) Distribution: The western toad was historically distributed throughout the Southern Rockies in Colorado New Mexico, and Wyoming at elevations between 2,438 – 3,657 m (8,000 – 12,000 ft) (CDOW 2010). The species is now considered rare throughout its historic range. Natural History: Western toads have diverse habitat requirements including wet meadows, the banks and shallows of marshes, ponds (glacial kettles or beaver ponds), lakes, and streams or irrigation ditches as long as the water is still. Within the Parcel, the most common habitat type would be wet meadow or man-made ponds/stock tanks. Winter months are spent in a state of torpor at the bottom of occupied bodies of water (Hammerson 1999) or within duff associated with lodgepole and spruce-fir forests. Breeding activity occurs in marshy areas from May to late July. Beaver ponds are an important habitat characteristic, but they can breed in most standing water if emergent vegetation is present (Hammerson 1999, CDOW 2009). Males and females both have quiet calls; males emit a soft chirp. Females typically lay 3,000 to 8,000 eggs and larvae development takes two months or more. Environmental Baseline: Evidence of population declines in the mountainous regions of Colorado has been documented since the mid 1980s. In 2006, 77 breeding sites (41 populations) were

16

known to exist in Colorado (CDOW 2010). Federal status of the Southern Rocky Mountain Population (SRMP) of western toads has not changed since the “not warranted” decision announced by the USFWS on September 29, 2005. Project Area Use: Habitat suitability surveys were conducted at the Parcel and surrounding private lands in 2000, 2002, and 2004 (Thompson 2005b). Breeding habitat surveys were conducted in 2004 at Alberta Park Reservoir and at the pond located at owl survey point number 3 (Figure 3). No western toads were found at either location and Alberta Park Reservoir was deemed not suitable for use as a breeding site (Thompson 2005b). The small pond was determined to offer suitable breeding habitat, however, this site is not within the known dispersal range of boreal toads from other sites and thus it is unlikely that this location could be colonized (Thompson 2005b). 6.0 Management Indicator Species

The seven Management Indicator Species of Table 1 are discussed below. 6.1 Mammals

6.1.1 Mule Deer

Distribution: Mule deer occur throughout Colorado in all ecosystems, but are most often associated with the foothills and mountains where shrubs are prevalent. Some mule deer will migrate many miles in the spring and fall to avoid areas of high snow accumulation. Natural history: Mule deer are mainly crepuscular and nocturnal during the summer becoming more diurnal during the winter. Mule deer have a broad diet that changes seasonally. In the winter, trees, shrubs, and forbs comprise most of the diet. In the spring less browse is used and forbs and grasses make up a greater proportion of the diet (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Summer diets are nearly 50/50 between browse and forbs. In the winter when heavy snows bury grasses and forbs, mule deer may be forced to consume high amounts of sage and junipers, which can lead to mortality from malnutrition (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Breeding occurs in November and December with gestation averaging 203 days. Yearling females typically produce one fawn; older females typically give birth to twins. Mortality varies with age class and region. Fawn mortality is linked to size; smaller fawns are more likely to starve than larger ones. Most mortality in older age classes is from hunting or winter starvation Environmental Baseline: Mule deer were over harvested at the turn of the 20th century because of uncontrolled market hunting. Over hunting, habitat loss, habitat alteration and deterioration of winter range can influence local populations. Project Area Use: The CDOW classifies the entirety of the Parcel as mule deer overall range and summer range. No critical habitat types (e.g., fawning areas) are identified within the Parcel. Mule deer use all habitat types within the Parcel. 6.1.2 Rocky Mountain Elk Distribution: Elk tend to inhabit coniferous forests associated with rugged, broken terrain or foothill ranges. During summer, elk spend most of their time in high mountain meadows in the alpine or subalpine zones or in stream bottoms (Adams 1982). Elk may use more open areas during spring and summer because of earlier spring green-up (Edge et al. 1987). During hot summer months, elk seek shaded, cool habitats. Use of forage areas depends on proximity to cover. Use is typically concentrated to within 200 to 600 feet of cover edge. Either cover or forage may be limiting to elk, particularly on winter ranges or calving habitats (Roderick and Milner 1991). A more recent study by Cook et al. (1998) illustrated that “it remains uncertain that thermal cover significantly influences the nutritional condition, survival, or productivity of wild

17

ungulates”. Cook et al. found no significant, positive effect of thermal cover on elk condition, and in fact found that “dense cover provided a costly energetic environment, resulting in significantly greater overwinter mass loss, fat catabolism and (in one winter) mortality”. Open road densities greater than 1.5 miles per square mile of habitat on summer range or one mile per square mile of habitat on winter range are also considered a limiting factor (Rodrick and Milner 1991). Natural history: Generalist feeders, elk are both grazers and browsers. In the northern and central Rocky Mountains, grasses and shrubs compose most of their winter diet, with grasses becoming of primary importance in the spring months. Forbs become increasingly important in late spring and summer, and grasses again dominate in the fall (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Forbs tend to be favored on drier sites, but browse on woody plants are preferred in riparian areas and moist meadows, with a high preference for aspen and willow. Elk breed in the fall with the peak of the rut occurring during the last week of September and the first week of October (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Breeding is typically over by late October. Most calves are born in late May to early June following a 240 to 255 day gestation period. Calving grounds are generally in areas where forage, cover, and water are in juxtaposition. In western Colorado, most females calve within 650 feet of water (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Elk tend to inhabit higher elevations during spring and summer and migrate to lower elevations for winter range. Snow depths of about six inches may trigger elk movement to winter ranges (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Environmental Baseline: The structure, composition, and landscape pattern of vegetation in many areas used by elk, particularly the lower montane zone, has been substantially altered from its pre-Euro American settlement conditions by cumulative human impacts including logging, grazing, and fire suppression. Before logging, grazing, and fire suppression, forest stands in Colorado were less dense, more open, and less vulnerable to diseases, insects, and large intense wildfires (Foster Wheeler 1999).

Forested areas shifted dramatically because of the effects of logging, grazing, fire suppression, and transplanting, all of which are likely to increase tree density. Logging decreased the amount of old-growth. Grazing probably reduced understory competition and establishment of new seedlings, and the lack of fire allowed seedlings to survive. The result was a sharp increase in tree density, expansion of the area having a significant Douglas-fir component, and the loss of openings that temporarily increased during intense logging during the late 1800’s (Kaufmann et al. in prep.). Many of these same activities also occurred on the remainder of the forest and yielded similar results in lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir and spruce-fir habitats. Project Area Use: Elk use the entirety of the Parcel once the snow level decreases in the spring and until the snow level becomes too deep in the fall for the animals to move through or get food. The CDOW maps the entirely of the Parcel as elk overall range, additionally, 18.7 ha (46.3 acres) are classified as an elk production area. 6.2 Birds

6.2.1 Brown Creeper Distribution: In Colorado, brown creepers occupy all varieties of coniferous forest and woodland habitats ranging from ponderosa pine to subalpine spruce/fir (Kingery 1998). They most frequently breed among mature spruce fir and lodgepole pine communities between 2,700-3,500m (9,000 -11,500 feet) in elevation. Natural history: Brown creepers feed on a variety of insects (spiders, beetles, etc.) they capture from the bark of trees. They start foraging at the base of the tree and work upward until branch density makes foraging too difficult, at which point they fly to the base of a nearby tree and begin the process over. The nest is placed behind a piece of bark that is peeling way from the tree trunk. Courtship, nest building, and egg laying all begin in late May and proceed into late July

18

(Kingery 1998). Five to six eggs are average and the eggs hatch in approximately two weeks. Both parents feed the young until approximately two weeks after fledging. Environmental Baseline: The species may be threatened by forest fragmentation (Keller and Anderson 1992) and forest management practices that eliminate dead trees. The species is apparently area-sensitive (i.e., requires large blocks of habitat) and is intolerant of heavy logging or thinning (NatureServe 2010). Nest failures have been caused by alteration of the nest site by wind or rain, predation, or human disturbance. Historical and current logging at and near the Parcel likely has reduced the amount of available nesting sites. Project Area Use: Brown creepers likely use spruce/fir trees for both nesting and foraging throughout the Parcel. This represents approximately 62 ha (152.5 acres) of suitable nesting and foraging habitat in all spruce fir tree size classes. 6.2.2 Hermit Thrush Distribution: The hermit thrush is one of the most widely distributed forest-nesting migratory birds in North America. In Colorado, it breeds in the mountains from 8,000 feet to timberline (Kingery 1998), mostly in spruce fir forests. Most nests in Colorado occur between 8,600-11,100 feet (2,620-3,383 m) in elevation. Natural history: Hermit thrushes eat a variety of insects but will also supplement their diet with wild fruits, berries, and some seeds. Most foraging occurs close to or on the ground. In Colorado, nests are built 3-10 feet above ground near the base of a tree; additionally, some nesting may occur on the ground (Kingery 1998). The nest is built by the female who also incubates the eggs. Courtship, nest building, egg laying and fledging of young occur between late May and mid-August. Jones and Donovan (1996) reported that in a study conducted in Ontario the average size of a territory was 0.772 ha (1.9 acres). Environmental Baseline: Kingery (1998) reports that the effects of logging are not wholly understood. Large clear cuts are deleterious to this forest obligate species, but selective thinning does not appear to decrease the local population. Other studies have differed, showing that even selective thinning can decrease the local population. Populations do decrease after fires, immediately and for some time after (NatureServe 2010). Project Area Use: The Parcel contains approximately 62 ha (152.5 acres) of spruce fir habitat that could be used for nesting. Based on the average size of the territory that is defended during nesting there could be 85 territories, however, this is highly unlikely to exist at the Parcel. Historical and current logging and thinning of the forest has removed suitable nesting and foraging habitat at the Parcel. Additionally, constant disturbance within and near the Parcel likely has resulted in displacement and a lower abundance than in areas where disturbance does not occur (Gutzwiller and Anderson 1999). Though no species specific surveys were conducted in 2009 and field work occurred in mid-July, hermit thrushes were heard singing, typically the easiest way to detect them. 6.2.3 Lincoln’s Sparrow Distribution: The breeding range extends throughout most of Alaska and Canada, southwards into mountainous areas along the Pacific coast in Washington, Oregon, and California, and southwards through the Rocky Mountains in Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico wherever suitable boreal habitat exists (Stephens and Anderson 2003). In Colorado, the Lincoln’s sparrow is fairly common during both the breeding season and migration (Kingery and Graul 1978). In Colorado they are most often associated with middle and high-elevation willow carrs but are also found in aspen groves and mesic or wet meadows dominated by shrubby cinquefoil (Kingery 1998) occurring between 2,135 m (8,000) and timberline.

19

Natural history: Males arrive on the breeding grounds in May and begin to establish breeding territories; nesting soon follows. Territory sizes vary substantially among locations, from an estimated diameter of 35 m in high-density populations of the Colorado Front Range (about 6–9 pairs/ha) to >100 m (0.5–0.7 pairs/ha) in lower-density populations (Ammon 1995). Kingery (1998) states that nest building in Colorado occurs before mid-June. Typically 3-5 eggs are laid. Both parents participate in feeding nestlings (Kingery 1998). Young leave the nest 10-12 day after hatching. It forages slowly and methodically for arthropods but also will eat some plant seeds; seeds become a larger proportion of the diet later in the year (Stephens and Anderson 2003). Environmental Baseline: Roads, reservoirs, towns, sub-divisions and cattle grazing are all factors that have reduced the available habitat for this species (Kingery 1998). Breeding Bird Survey data collected between 1996 and 2000 does not provide strong evidence of either increasing or decreasing population trends in Colorado (Ammon 1995). Within the Parcel roads have likely reduced the amount of usable nesting habitat. Project Area Use: Suitable habitat within the Parcel is found within the riparian/wetland (scrub-shrub) habitat where willows or cinquefoil are found. These habitat types represent approximately 2.5 ha (6.2) of potential nesting habitat. Depending on the overall quality of these habitats this represents the potential for 4 – 1.5 pairs/ha. 6.2.4 Wilson’s Warbler Distribution: The Wilson’s warbler breeds throughout Alaska, most of Canada, and south through the western United States to southern California and New Mexico (Ammon and Gilbert 1999) between 1,830 – 3,660 m (6,000 – 12,000 feet) in elevation. Wilson’s warbler breeding areas are closely tied to willow or alder thickets at the edges of streams, sloughs, lakes, and beaver onds (Kingery 1998). Montane carrs and subalpine willow carrs acounted for 91% of all Atlas habitat types in Colorado (Kingery 1998). Natural history: Wilson’s warblers are tied to high altitude willow carrs and riparian corridors. In Colorado courtship, nest building and breeding occurs between mid-May and early August. Males usually occupy the same or adjacent territories used in previous year(s), but females rarely return to same area, or nest with same male (Ammon and Gilbert 1999). Average territory size in northern Colorado is reported at 0.18 ha (0.44 acres) (Ammon and Gilbert 1999). Reported clutch sizes across their range vary from 3-4 in coastal California to 5-6 in Alaska. Incubation lasts 12-15 days and is done solely by the female. Both parents feed the young which leave the nest after 9-10 days. Foraging occurs throughout available vegetation where most food is obtained from leaves by gleaning or during flight. The diet is comprised predominantly of insects (wasps, ants, flies, beetles, caterpillars, etc.). Environmental Baseline: Wilson’s warbler populations in Colorado are thought to have declined 6.8 percent per year from 1980 to 2000 (Johnson and Anderson 2003). Roads, reservoirs, and cattle grazing are all factors that have reduced the available habitat for this species. Ammon (1995) reports that in Colorado nest desertion is higher in areas where recreation occurs versus more remote areas. Habitat loss at the Parcel in the form of roads and associated traffic likely has reduced the amount of suitable habitat. Project Area Use: Suitable nesting habitat within the Parcel occurs within wetland/riparian areas, equaling approximately 2.5 ha (6.2 acres). During the 2009 field review no Wilson’s warblers were observed foraging within the Parcel. 6.3 Fish

6.3.1 Brook Trout Distribution: Brook trout are not native to the Rocky Mountains of Colorado but have adapted to these habitats exceptionally well. They require clean, cold, well oxygenated water. They

20

typically inhabit mid- to high elevation streams and rivers. At lower elevations, brook trout are not as abundant, likely because of competition with brown trout. Natural history: Life history characteristics of brook trout are similar to those of other salmonids of the western United States. Brook trout spawn in the fall and spawning generally lasts 4-5 weeks. Brook trout prey items include aquatic invertebrates such as diptera, ephemeroptera, trichoptera, and coleoptera, but can include terrestrial invertebrates as well. Brook trout habitat relationships are well known. Optimal stream habitat for brook trout is characterized by clear, cold water; silt-free rocky substrate in riffle-run areas; well vegetated stream banks; abundant instream cover; deep pools; relatively stable flow regime and stream banks; and productive aquatic insect populations (Raleigh 1982). Beaver ponds are also important brook trout habitat (Winkle et al. 1990; Johnson et al. 1992). See Raleigh (1982) for a more detailed description of brook trout habitat needs. Environmental Baseline: The timing of flow, water quality, and availability of various habitat features such as deep pools, cover, and spawning gravels influence trout abundance. Geology, elevation, temperature, gradient, and substrate distribution are other factors that commonly influence trout abundance. As habitats are degraded, either by chemical pollutants, increased sediment, or unfavorable changes in flow (especially severe reductions), trout typically respond with lower abundance and poor year class distribution. Survey Results: Fish sampling of the North Tributary to Pass Creek was conducted on September 23, 2009 using a Smith Root back-pack shocker. Designated sections of the North Tributary to Pass Creek within the Parcel were electrofished to determine if Rio Grande Cutthroat trout were present. Pool, riffle, and run habitats were sampled in each stream. A 736 meter (2,415 feet) long section of the North Tributary to Pass Creek was sampled (Figure 5). Brook trout were the only fish species sampled in this stream, with adult, juvenile, and young of the year age groups being represented. The upper section of this stream had many small tributaries, making the main stream small in this area and lower in available in-stream habitat. Willow cover was abundant throughout this area. Adult brook trout in pocket water in the upper section of North Tributary to Pass Creek were found, indicating that either the fish can find over-winter habitat in the upper section, or they can migrate down stream to appropriate refugia. 7.0 Federally Listed Species

The USFWS identifies eight federally listed species as present in Mineral County, Colorado (Table 4). However, as documented in Table 1, only the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and the Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis) have potential habitat on the Parcel. As discussed in Section 4.0, the USFWS (Thompson 2005a) stated that suitable breeding habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher is not present on the Parcel. Therefore, the Canada lynx and the Rio Grande cutthroat trout are the only federally listed species discussed below. 7.1 Canada Lynx

Distribution: The historic and present North American range of the Canada lynx includes Alaska and parts of Canada extending from the Yukon and Northwest Territories south into the United States and east to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (USFWS 1997). In the contiguous United States, the Canada lynx historically occurred in the Cascade Range of Washington and Oregon, south in the Rocky Mountains to Utah and Colorado and east along the Canadian border to the Great Lakes States and Northeast region (McCord and Cardoza 1982). Canada lynx are high elevation, temperate forest-dwelling carnivores. In Colorado, Canada lynx are predominately found above 2,377 meters (7,800 feet) in forests of Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta).

21

Colorado is at the current and historical southernmost distributional limit of the Canada lynx (Halfpenny and Miller 1981, McCord and Cordoza 1982). Lynx habitat in Colorado is found in a mountainous landscape where upper elevation forests are naturally fragmented by alpine zones and broad open valleys. The fragmented nature of the available lynx habitat in Colorado, combined with potential competitors, produces lower snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) populations due to hare preference for dense cover as a means of predator avoidance (USFWS 1997). As a result of predator avoidance, hares do not use large openings in forests common to fragmented habitats (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). A detailed discussion of hare ecology in montane habitats can be found in Ruggiero et al. (2000). Consequently, Canada lynx populations are higher in less fragmented portions of their range. According to Koehler (1990), both species occur in Colorado at densities comparable to those found during low-density prey seasons in Canada and Alaska. Due to these low levels of prey, it is suggested that complete protection of Canada lynx populations in the western states is appropriate to insure their population success (Ruggerio et al. 1994).

Previously thought to be an uncommon species, Canada lynx are now considered to be endemic to this ecosystem and were probably relatively common through at least the first quarter of the 20th century. Trapping records show that approximately 120 lynx pelts were recorded in Colorado between the years 1898 to 1900 (Buys and Associates 2004). This time frame coincides with the large-scale forest regeneration occurring in response to mining disturbances and settlement booms.

From 1999 through 2006, the CDOW reintroduced a total of 218 Canada lynx in an effort to reestablish a population in the southern Rocky Mountains. Prior to this recent reintroduction, the last documented positive occurrence of Canada lynx in Colorado was in 1973 in the Vail area (Mushroom Bowl). Extirpation of Canada lynx is Colorado was primarily a result of predator control efforts such as poisoning and trapping. Data from radio collars on reintroduced Canada lynx indicate that they may choose to move north from their reintroduction areas in the San Juan Mountains of southwestern Colorado.

Natural history: Denning habitat for Canada lynx occurs on northern aspects in dense, mature, conifer forests with large woody debris that provides security and thermal cover for kittens (Ruggerio et al. 1994). Canada lynx in western Montana preferentially denned in structures composed of woody debris from downed trees (Squires et al. 2008).

In Colorado, denning habitat typically occurs in mature spruce-fir forests, although it can occur in lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir forests containing dense shrub stands with multi-layered overstories and large volumes of dead and down material (Squires et al. 2008).

In 2003, the CDOW documented six females that had produced a total of 16 kittens. Reproduction was also documented in 2004, 2005, and 2006. No reproduction was documented in 2007 or 2008, but 10 young were found in the spring of 2009. A total of 126 kittens are known to have been born in Colorado since reintroduction efforts were initiated. All dens were within Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir forests in areas of extensive downfall at elevations between 3,240 and 3,557 meters (10,630 to 11,670 feet) in elevation. Females may move kittens to new dens many times to find more adequate prey or to avoid disturbance (Koehler and Brittell 1990). These moves necessitate a complex of suitable denning sites and the importance of travel corridors between sites. In low-quality habitats, kitten mortality is increased because of the female’s inability to change dens (Koehler and Brittell 1990). Environmental Baseline: The Parcel is located within the 71,407 ha (176,750 acre) Trout-Handkerchief Lynx Analysis Unit. The Parcel is also part of the Wolf Creek Pass Lynx Linkage, a critical movement corridor for lynx and other wildlife species. Project Area Use: Thompson prepared a Biological Assessment of impacts associated with improvements to Highway 160 near the WCSA (Thompson 2005a). In the document Thompson

22

provided a wealth of information on lynx habitat types and usage near the Parcel. Thompson (2005a) characterized lynx use of the Parcel and surrounding NFS lands as “opportunistic foraging that occurs during dispersing and exploratory movements not associated with established home ranges.” Lynx are known to use this area and other nearby areas (Thompson 2005a). The Parcel is mapped as having three lynx habitat types. These types are non-habitat, other, and winter. Based on GIS analyses of USFS provided lynx habitat mapping, there are approximately 4.7 ha (11.6 acres) non-habitat, 57 ha (140 acres) other, and 10.2 ha (25.3 acres) of winter habitat within the Parcel. 7.2 Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout

Distribution: Behnke (2002) states that Rio Grande cutthroat trout are native to the Rio Grande and Pecos River drainages of Colorado and New Mexico and likely are native to the Canadian River drainage of Colorado and New Mexico. The fish is found in less than 7% of its historic range. The decline can be attributed in part to the introduction of non-natives, such as the German brown trout and rainbow trout. Alberta Park Reservoir is a state Wildlife Management Area managed to provide vehicle accessible catch and release Rio Grande cutthroat trout recreational fishing. Natural history: Existing Rio Grande populations are restricted to small, remote, high elevation streams and lakes where populations often have been protected by natural or man-made fish migration barriers. Many of these habitats are colder, less productive and undergo significant flow fluctuations, leading to small, slow-growing trout populations. Environmental Baseline: The timing of flow, water quality, and availability of various habitat features such as deep pools, cover, and spawning gravels influence trout abundance. Geology, elevation, temperature, gradient, and substrate distribution are other factors that commonly influence trout abundance. As habitats are degraded, either by chemical pollutants, increased sediment, or unfavorable changes in flow (especially severe reductions), trout typically respond with lower abundance and poor year class distribution. Alberta Park Reservoir, owned and operated by the CDOW as a Rio Grande cutthroat trout hatchery, is managed as the only drive-to destination where anglers can catch and release trophy-sized fish. In 1999 and again in 2002 attempts were made by the CDOW to establish South Fork of Pass Creek as a naturally reproducing Rio Grande Cutthroat trout fishery. Survey Results: Fish sampling of the North Tributary to Pass Creek was conducted on September 23, 2009 using a Smith Root back-pack shocker. Designated sections the stream were electrofished to determine if Rio Grande Cutthroat trout were present (Figure 5). Brook trout were the only fish species present in this stream, with adult, juvenile, and young of the year age groups being represented. Pool, riffle, and run habitats were sampled in each stream. No Rio Grande cutthroat trout were found. However, suitable habitat is present but is currently occupied by brook trout which out-compete the native species. 8.0 Summary

Habitat capable of supporting most of the preceding species is available at the Parcel. For some species with small home ranges or defended territories, habitat within the Parcel is large enough to support those species for all life history needs. For other species, the Parcel is likely part of a much larger home range. Regardless, most of the previously assessed species likely use the Parcel and surrounding private and U.S. Forest Service lands annually.

23

9.0 References Adams, A. W. 1982. Migration. In: Thomas, Jack Ward; Toweill, Dale E., eds. Elk of North

America: ecology and management. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books: 301-322. Altman, B. and R. Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), The Birds of

North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/502doi:10.2173/bna.502

Ammon, E. M. 1995. Reproductive strategies and factors determining nest success in subalpine

ground-nesting passerines. Unpubl. Ph.D. thesis. Univ. of Colorado, Boulder. In: Ammon and Gilbert 1999.

Ammon, E. M. and W. M. Gilbert. 1999. Wilson's Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla), The Birds of North

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/478doi:10.2173/bna.478

Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado birds: a reference to their distribution and habitat.

Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, Colo. 442pp. Arsenault, D.P., G.E. Wilson, and L. Neel. 2002. Flammulated Owls in the Spring Mountains,

Nevada. Sierra Nevada Avian Center. Aubry, K. B., K. S. McKelvey, and J. P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and broadscale habitat

relations of the wolverine in the contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2147–2158.

Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. In: Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; Buskirk, S.W. [and others]. The

scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the Western United States. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: Chapter 2.

Behnke, R.J. 2002. Trout and salmon of North America. New York, Free Press. Beecham, J.J. Jr., C.P. Collins, and T.D. Reynolds. (2007, February 12). Rocky Mountain Bighorn

Sheep (Ovis canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rockymountainbighornsheep.pdf [Accessed September 3, 2009]

Braun, C. E., R. W. Hoffman, and G. E. Rogers. 1976. Wintering areas and winter ecology of

White-tailed Ptarmigan in Colorado. Colo. Div. Wildl. Spec. Rep. No. 38. Braun, C. E., K. Martin and L. A. Robb. 1993. White-tailed Ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura), The Birds

of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/068doi:10.2173/bna.68

Buys and Associates. 2004. Biological Assessment for EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc.’s East

Mamm Creek Natural Gas Well, Access Road and Pipeline Right-of-way Section 15, T8S, R93W, the P.M. USDA Forest Service, White River National Forest, Mesa County Colorado. Prepared for USDA Forest Service, White River National Forest, Rifle Ranger District, Rifle, Colorado.

24

Center for Native Ecosystems. 2006. Petition before the Secretary of the Interior: Petition to list

the western United States population of northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens) as threatened. 200 pp.

Cilimburg, A. and J. Young. 2005. Northern Region Landbird Monitoring Program, Flammulated

Owl Survey Techniques. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2009a. CDOW online wolverine species profile

(http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/Mammals/Wolverine.htm). Accessed: September 1, 2009.

______. 2009b. CDOW online Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep species profile. Available:

http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/Profiles/Mammals/.htm. Accessed: September 3, 2009.

______. 2010. Report on the status and conservation of the boreal toad bufo boreas boreas in

the Southern Rocky Mountains 2006-2007.Available: http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/E5465171-80A3-4AE5-9BF9-B065BC7BCB2A/0/BorealToadStatusConservation20062007.pdf. Accessed: February 19, 2010.

Cook, John G., Larry L. Irwin, Larry D. Bryant, Robert A. Riggs, and Jack Ward Thomas. 1998.

Relations of forest cover and condition of elk: a test of the thermal cover hypothesis in summer and winter. Wildlife Monographs. 141:1-61.

Corn, P.S. and J.C. Fogleman. 1984. Extinction of Montane Populations of the Northern Leopard

Frog (Rana pipiens) in Colorado. Journal of Herpetology. Vol. 18:147-152. Dalrymple, R. E-mail from R. Dalrymple regarding species list for the Village at Wolf Creek to

Jerry Powell, Wildlife Specialties, L.L.C. July 17, 2009. Edge, W. D, C. L. Marcum, S.L. Olson-Edge. 1987. Summer habitat selection by elk in western

Montana: a multivariate approach. Journal of Wildlife Management. 51(4): 844-851. Fitzgerald, J.P, C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver

Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado. 467 pp. Finch, Deborah M. 1992. Threatened, endangered, and vulnerable species of terrestrial

vertebrates in the Rocky Mountain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-215. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 38 p. [18440]

Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 1999. Landscape Assessment, Upper South Platte

Watershed. Volumes 1, 2, and 3. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Colorado State Forest Service, Denver Water Board, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Gutzwiller, K.J. and S.H. Anderson. 1999. Spatial extent of human-intrusion effects on subalpine

bird distributions. Condor 101:378-389. Halfpenny, J.C., and G.C. Miller. 1981. Lynx and wolverine verification. Pages 53-82. Colorado

Division of Wildlife, Wildl. Res. Rep., Part I. Denver, CO. Hammerson, G.A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. 2nd edition. University Press of

Colorado and Colorado Division of Wildlife. 484 pp.

25

Hayward, G. D. and P. H. Hayward. 1993. Boreal Owl (Aegolius funereus), The Birds of North

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/063doi:10.2173/bna.63

Hoffman, R.W. (2006, April 4). White-tailed Ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/whitetailedptarmigan.pdf [December 8, 2009].

Johnson, A.S. and S.H. Anderson (2003, December 9). Wilson’s Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla pileolata): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http:// www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/wilsonswarbler.pdf [accessed January 18, 2010].

Johnson, S.L., Rahel, F.J. and W.A. Hubert. 1992. Factors influencing size structure of brook trout

populations in beaver ponds in Wyoming. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:118-124.

Jones, P. W. and T. M. Donovan. 1996. Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus), The Birds of North

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/261doi:10.2173/bna.261

Keller, M. E., and S. H. Anderson. 1992. Avian use of habitat configurations created by forest

cutting in southeastern Wyoming. Condor 94:55-65. Kingery, Hugh, editor. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and

CDOW. Denver, CO. Kingery, H.E. and W.D. Graul, editors. 1978. Colorado bird distribution latilong study. Denver,

CO: Colorado Division of Wildlife. Koehler, G.M., and J.D. Brittell. 1990. Managing spruce-fir forest for lynx and snowshoe hare.

Journal of Forestry 88(10):10-15. Kotliar, N.B. 2007. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi): a technical conservation

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/olivesidedflycatcher.pdf [Accessed 09/23/09]. February 20.

Linkhardt, B.D., R.T. Reynolds, and R.A. Ryder. 1998. Home Range and Habitat of Breeding

Flammulated Owls in Colorado. Wilson Bulletin. 110(3):342–351. McCallum, D.A. 1994a. Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus), Birds of North America online

(A. Poole, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online.

______. 1994b. Chapter 6. Conservation Status of Flammulated Owls in the United States. In:

Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner, tech. editors. Flammulated, Boreal and Great Gray Owls in the United States. A technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM 253. Fort Collins, CO: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. 74-79 pp.

26

McCord, C.M., and J.E. Cardoza. 1982. Bobcat and lynx. Pp 728-766 In J.A. Chapman and G.A.

Felhamer, (eds.) Wild mammals of North America. John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD.

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: January 12, 2010).

NatureServe Explorer. 2009. An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 1.6.

Arlington, VA, USA: NatureServe. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Peterson, J. M. C., and C. Fichtel. 1992. Olive-sided flycatcher, Contopus borealis. Pages 353-367

in K. J. Schneider and D. M. Pence, editors. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 400 pp.

Raleigh, R.F. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Brook trout. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.24. 42 pp.

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, G.

Goodwin, R. Smith, and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the southwestern United States. USDA For. Ser., Rocky Mt. For. Range Exp. Stn. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Reynolds, R.T. 1987. Census of flammulated owls. Pages 308-309 in R.W. Nero, R.J. Clark, R.J.

Knapton, and R.H. Hamre, editors. Biology and conservation of northern forest owls. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-142.

Rodrick, E. and R. Milner, eds. 1991. Management Recommendations for Washington Priority

Habitats and Species. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO). 2004. PIF Landbird Population Estimates Database.

Available online at: http://www.rmbo.org/pif_db/laped/PED1.aspx. Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R.

Squires. 1994. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado, Boulder. 480 pp.

Scott, V. E., G. L. Crouch, and J. A. Whelan. 1982. Response of birds and small mammals to

clearcutting in a subalpine forest in central Colorado. For. Serv. Res. Note RM-422. U.S. Dept. Agric.

Squires, J.R., Copeland, J. P., Ulizio, T. J., Schwartx, M. K. and L. F. Ruggiero. 2007. Sources and

patterns of wolverine mortality in Western Montana. Journal of Wild. Mang. 71(7):2213-2220.

Squires, J.R., N.J. Decesare, J.A. Kolbe, and L.F. Ruggiero. 2008. Hierarchical den selection of

Canada lynx in Western Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(7):1497 – 1506. Stephens, R.M. and S.H. Anderson (2003, May 8). Lincoln’s Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii): a

technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/lincolnssparrow.pdf [Accessed January 14, 2010].

27

Thompson, R. 2005a. Biological Assessment for Transportation and Utilities Systems and

Facilities for the Village at Wolf Creek, Divide Ranger District, Rio Grande National Forest Colorado.

Thompson, R. 2005b. Wildlife Biological Evaluation and Specialist Report for the Village at Wolf

Creek Environmental Impact Statement, Rio Grande National Forest, Mineral County, Colorado.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2006. Application for Transportation and Utility Systems

and Facilities for the Village at Wolf Creek Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vols. I and II. USDA Forest Service, Rio Grande National Forest, Divide District. March 2006.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2005. Draft R2Veg User’s Guide. Provided by Mark

Applequist San Luis Valley Public Lands Center, GIS Coordinator (719)852-6217. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:

12-Month Finding for a Petition to List the Contiguous United States Population of the Canada Lynx. Federal Register: May 27, 1997. 62(101): 28653-28657.

Wiggins, D. (2004, July 1). American Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis): a technical

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/americanthreetoedwoodpecker.pdf [Accessed December 10, 2009].

Winkle, P.L., Hubert, W.A. and F.J. Rahel. 1990. Relations between brook trout standing stocks

and habitat features in beaver ponds in southeastern Wyoming. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 10:72-79.

Woodbridge, B. and D. Hargis. 2006. Northern Goshawk Inventory and Monitoring Technical

Guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-71. Washington, D.C; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 80 p.

28

10.0 Figures

29

341600

341600

342000

342000

342400

342400

342800

342800

343200

343200

343600

343600

344000

3440004146

800

4146

800

4147

200

4147

200

4147

600

4147

600

4148

000

4148

000

4148

400

4148

400

4148

800

4148

800

4149

200

4149

200

4149

600

4149

600

4150

000

4150

000

LegendExchange ParcelSurvey AreaAspen -Basalt ForestSpruce-Fir ForestMeadow

Riparian/WetlandAquaticVolcanic TuffDisturbed/Barren

Figure 2. Wildlife Habitat TypesVillage at Wolf Creek

Federal Exchange Parcel

301:15,000

Date: July 2010Background: 2005 NAIP AerialGrid Ticks: UTM NAD83 Z13

1 inch = 1,250 feet

Survey Point #1

Survey Point #2Survey Point #3

Survey Point #4

Survey Point #5

Survey Point #6

Survey Point #7

Survey Point #8

Survey Point #9

Survey Point #10

Survey Point #11

341200

341200

341600

341600

342000

342000

342400

342400

342800

342800

343200

343200

343600

343600

344000

344000

344400

344400 4146

400

4146

800

4146

800

4147

200

4147

200

4147

600

4147

600

4148

000

4148

000

4148

400

4148

400

4148

800

4148

800

4149

200

4149

200

4149

600

4149

600

4150

000

4150

000

4150

400

4150

400

LegendExchange ParcelSurvey AreaOwl Survey Point

Figure 3. Owl Broadcast Survey PointsVillage at Wolf Creek

Federal Exchange Parcel

31

Grid Ticks:UTM NAD83 Z13

1:18,000 1 inch = 1,500 feet

Date: July 2010Background: USGS 7.5' Wolf Creek

Pass Quadrangle

NOGO #9

NOGO #8

NOGO #7NOGO #6

NOGO #5

NOGO #4

NOGO #3

NOGO #2

NOGO #1

NOGO #23

NOGO #22

NOGO #21

NOGO #20

NOGO #19

NOGO #18

NOGO #17

NOGO #16

NOGO #15

NOGO #14

NOGO #13NOGO #12

NOGO #11

NOGO #10

341200

341200

341600

341600

342000

342000

342400

342400

342800

342800

343200

343200

343600

343600

344000

344000

344400

344400 4146

400

4146

800

4146

800

4147

200

4147

200

4147

600

4147

600

4148

000

4148

000

4148

400

4148

400

4148

800

4148

800

4149

200

4149

200

4149

600

4149

600

4150

000

4150

000

4150

400

4150

400

LegendExchange ParcelSurvey AreaGoshawk Survey Point

Figure 4. Goshawk Broadcast Survey PointsVillage at Wolf Creek

Federal Exchange Parcel

32

Grid Ticks:UTM NAD83 Z13

1:18,000 1 inch = 1,500 feet

Date: July 2010Background: USGS 7.5' Wolf Creek

Pass Quadrangle

340800

340800

341200

341200

341600

341600

342000

342000

342400

342400

342800

342800

343200

343200

343600

343600

344000

344000

344400

344400

344800

344800

4146

000

4146

000

4146

400

4146

400

4146

800

4146

800

4147

200

4147

200

4147

600

4147

600

4148

000

4148

000

4148

400

4148

400

4148

800

4148

800

4149

200

4149

200

4149

600

4149

600

4150

000

4150

000

4150

400

4150

400

4150

800

4150

800

4151

200

4151

200

LegendParcel BoundarySurvey AreaFish Sampling Transect

Figure 5. Fish Sampling MapVillage at Wolf Creek

Federal Exchange Parcel

33

N. TributaryPass Creek

S. TributaryPass Creek

Pass Creek

Grid Ticks:UTM NAD83 Z13

1:24,000 1 inch = 2,000 feet

Date: July 2010Background: USGS 7.5' Wolf Creek

Pass Quadrangle

34

11.0 Tables

35

Table 1. Habitat Types TABLE 1

Habitat Types Village at Wolf Creek

Federal Exchange Parcel

Habitat Type Acres Percent

Spruce-Fir Forest 152.5 85.9 Aspen Forest 0.2 0.1 Meadow

Natural Meadow 1.9 1.0 Forest Clearing 0.3 0.1

Meadow Subtotal 2.1 1.2 Riparian/Wetland

Forested 6.1 3.5 Herbaceous 2.4 1.4 Scrub-Shrub 6.2 3.5

Riparian/Wetland Subtotal 14.7 8.4 Aquatic 1.1 0.6 Volcanic Tuff Barrenlands 3.2 1.8 Disturbed/Barren 3.6 2.0

GRAND TOTAL 177.6 100.0

36

Table 2. Wildlife Species Considered in this Report TABLE 2

Wildlife Species Considered in this Report Village at Wolf Creek

Federal Exchange Parcel Page 1 of 3

Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Association

Suitable Habitat Present for

Occurrence?

Mammals American marten Martes americana FS Subalpine spruce-fir forests,

alpine tundra, montane forests Yes

Canada lynx Lynx Canadensis FT Alpine and subalpine forests; will range into lodgepole forests.

Yes

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus

MIS A wide variety of habitat types including alpine, sub-alpine forests, mountain parks, and pinyon-juniper lowlands.

Yes

North American wolverine

Gulo gulo FS Rare; boreal spruce-fir forest and tundra

Yes

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep

Ovis canadensis canadensis

FS Rocky cliffs with adequate forage, water, and lambing grounds within mountainous country.

Yes

Rocky Mountain elk

Cervus elaphus nelsoni

MIS A wide variety of habitat types including alpine, sub-alpine forests, mountain parks and pinyon-juniper lowlands.

Yes

Birds American peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus anatum

FS Breeds on cliffs, often in association with riparian areas.

No

American three-toed woodpecker

Picoides dorsalis FS Mature spruce-fir forests; post-fire areas, especially stand replacement events; spruce bark beetle outbreaks critical to healthy populations.

Yes

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

FS Primary nest and roost habitat usually associated with large, open-branched trees near large lakes, rivers and other water-bodies.

No

Boreal owl Aegolius funereus FS Mature spruce-fir forests with high canopy closures and abundant snags; cavity-dependent species.

Yes

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri FS Primarily sagebrush but also mixed shrubs (rabbitbrush, greasewood, etc.)

No

37

TABLE 2 Wildlife Species Considered in this Report

Village at Wolf Creek Federal Exchange Parcel

Page 2 of 3

Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Association

Suitable Habitat Present for

Occurrence?

Brown creeper Certhia americana MIS Large, unfragmented, mature and old-growth stands with high canopy coverage and high densities of large trees and snags in high elevation spruce-fir and lodgepole pine forest and, to a lesser extent, in mid-elevation ponderosa pine.

Yes

Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus FS Open ponderosa pine forests; dry montane conifer or aspen forests, often with dense saplings

Yes

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus MIS Coniferous and hardwood forests that contain leaf litter for foraging.

Yes

Lewis’s woodpecker

Melanerpes lewis FS Primarily utilizes riparian cottonwood in and near the San Luis Valley.

No

Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii

MIS High-elevation riparian-willow habitats (approximately 1,500 to 3,400 m) throughout the western United States. These riparian-willow habitats are commonly surrounded by large, contiguous tracts of upland forest.

Yes

Northern goshawk

Accipiter gentilis FS Ponderosa pine, aspen, mixed-conifer, and spruce-fir forests; nests primarily in mature aspen locally.

Yes

Olive-sided flycatcher

Contopus cooperi FS Mature spruce-fir and mixed-conifer; often on steep slopes, snags, riparian edges, and natural openings preferred.

Yes

South-western willow flycatcher

Empidonax traillii extimus

FE Riparian woodlands consisting of willows or other riparian species.

No

White-tailed ptarmigan

Lagopus leucurus FS Alpine tundra, especially with rock fields and willow carrs.

Yes

Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla MIS Mesic shrub communities along the edges of beaver ponds, lakes, riparian zones, fens, bogs and overgrown clear-cuts. Breed at mid to high elevations within Colorado and Wyoming, ranging from 2500 to 3000 m.

Yes

38

TABLE 2 Wildlife Species Considered in this Report

Village at Wolf Creek Federal Exchange Parcel

Page 3 of 3

Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Association

Suitable Habitat Present for

Occurrence?

Fish Brook trout Salvelinus

fontinalis MIS Require cold, clean, well-

oxygenated water. Often associated with small streams and beaver ponds.

Yes

Rio Grande cutthroat trout

Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis

FC, FS Streams, rivers and lakes. Most frequently found in headwaters.

Yes

Amphibians Northern leopard frog

Rana pipiens FS Water’s edge; wet meadows, banks of marshes and ponds

Yes

Western toad (boreal toad)

Anaxyrus boreas boreas

FS Damp conditions; marshes, wet meadows, streams, ponds, and lakes in spruce/fir forests

Yes

39

Table 3. BLM and FS Sensitive Wildlife Species List and Habitat Associations TABLE 3

San Luis Valley Public Land Center BLM and FS Sensitive Wildlife Species List and Habitat Associations

Updated May 19, 2009 Page 1 of 3

Species Agency/Local Status Habitat Association

Birds American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

BLM Associated with large water-bodies, where they usually nest on islands.

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum

BLM and FS Breeds on cliffs, often in association with riparian areas; regular breeder on the PLC

American three-toed woodpecker Picoides dorsalis

FS Mature spruce-fir forests; post-fire areas, especially stand replacement events; spruce bark beetle outbreaks critical to healthy populations.

Barrow’s Goldeneye Bucephala islandica

BLM Associated with small mountain lakes; nest in tree cavities, usually close to shore but could be over a mile away.

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

BLM and FS Primary nest and roost habitat usually associated with large, open-branched trees near large lakes, rivers and other water-bodies.

Black swift Cypseloides niger

FS Vertical rock faces near waterfalls or in dripping caves; mosses important for nesting material.

Black Tern Chlidonias niger

BLM Edges of bulrush and cattail marsh; known to occur on BLM lands (Blanca Wetlands); Also R2 FS sensitive but does not occur on FS lands on SLVPLC

Boreal owl Aegolius funereus

FS Mature to LS spruce-fir forests with high canopy closures and abundant snags; cavity-dependent species.

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri

FS Primarily sagebrush but also mixed shrubs (rabbitbrush, greasewood, etc.)

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis

BLM and FS Grasslands and semi-desert shrub; a few nests on BLM lands; regular winter resident on SLVPLC

Flamulated owl Otus flammeolus

FS Open ponderosa pine forests; dry montane conifer or aspen forests, often with dense saplings

Gunnison sage grouse Centrocercus minimus

BLM and FS

Sagebrush grasslands; one small population on BLM at north end of valley; Also R2 FS sensitive and may utilize summer habitat on FS however primarily a BLM species

Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

FS Primarily utilizes riparian cottonwood in our area. Rare on FS, primarily on BLM or private.

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus

FS Lowland riparian, pinyon-juniper woodlands, semi-desert shrublands

40

TABLE 3 San Luis Valley Public Land Center BLM and FS

Sensitive Wildlife Species List and Habitat Associations Updated May 19, 2009

Page 2 of 3

Species Agency/Local Status Habitat Association

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis

BLM and FS Ponderosa pine, aspen, mixed-conifer, and spruce-fir forests; nests primarily in mature aspen locally.

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus

FS Grasslands, agricultural lands, mountain sagebrush, and marshes; requires abundant cover for nesting.

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi

FS Mature to LS spruce-fir and mixed-conifer; often on steep slopes, snags, riparian edges, and natural openings preferred.

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus

BLM and FS Shortgrass prairie species that is rare to uncommon in the SLV; not known to occur on FS, nests on BLM.

Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia

FS Prairie dog colonies with vacant burrows; grasslands, shrublands, deserts. No known occurrence on FS, primarily BLM and private.

Western Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus

BLM Associated with playa wetlands locally, where they nest in alkali shorelines.

Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus

BLM (Federal Candidate)

Riparian; gallery cottonwoods with dense understory. Also FS sensitive but only occurs/nests on BLM.

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi

BLM Spring/Fall migrant only; wet meadows, marsh edges, and reservoir shorelines.

White-tailed ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus

FS Alpine tundra, especially with rock fields and willow carrs.

Insects

Nokomis fritillary butterfly Speyeria nokomis nokomis

FS Riparian; mostly tied to springs and bogs at low elevation.

Mammals

American marten Martes americana

FS Subalpine spruce-fir forests, alpine tundra, montane forests

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes pahasapensis

BLM and FS Pinyon-juniper and other coniferous woodlands

Gunnison’s prairie dog Cynomys gunnisoni

BLM and FS (Federal Candidate)

Grasslands and semi-desert and montane shrublands. Primarily BLM. Recently became a Candidate species.

NM Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius luteus

BLM and FS (Federal Candidate)

Primarily associated with tall grass and sedge component in riparian areas along perennial streams; elevation limit suspected to be about 9000 feet.

41

TABLE 3 San Luis Valley Public Land Center BLM and FS

Sensitive Wildlife Species List and Habitat Associations Updated May 19, 2009

Page 3 of 3

Species Agency/Local Status Habitat Association

North American wolverine Gulo gulo

FS Rare; boreal spruce-fir forest and tundra

River otter Lontra canadensis

FS Stream and river riparian. No known occurrence yet so not on “official” analysis template.

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis canadensis

FS Rocky cliffs with adequate forage, water, and lambing grounds within mountainous country.

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii

BLM and FS Abandoned mines and caves important for roosts, hibernacula, and breeding. Usually low to moderate elevations.

Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis

BLM Pinyon-juniper, semi-desert; closely associated with riparian systems.

Reptiles

Milk Snake Lampropeltis triangulum taylori

BLM Occurs in a variety of habitats including grassland, p-j woodlands, shrubby hillsides, canyons, open ponderosa pine. Usually nocturnal. Documented locally on SLV floor.

Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum

BLM Low-elevation grasslands with large patches of bare ground, especially where soil is sandy, gravelly, or loamy.

Amphibians

Boreal toad Bufo boreas

FS Damp conditions; marshes, wet meadows, streams, ponds, lakes in spruce/fir forests

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens

BLM and FS Water’s edge; wet meadows, banks of marshes and ponds

Fish

Flathead Chub Hybopsis gracilis

BLM Moderate to strong current in streams above shifting sand substrates. Usually found in highly turbid waters, with high levels of dissolved solids.

Rio Grande Chub Gila pandora

BLM and FS Flowing pools of headwaters, creeks & small rivers, often near inflow of riffles and in association with cover such as undercut banks and plant debris.

Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis

BLM and FS (Federal Candidate)

Streams, rivers and lakes. Most frequently found in headwaters.

Rio Grande Sucker Catostomus plebeius

FS Pools, runs and riffles of small to moderately large streams; usually over gravel and/or cobble.

42

Table 4. Wildlife Survey Types Per Species TABLE 4

Wildlife Survey Types Per Species Village at Wolf Creek

Federal Exhange Parcel

Species Status Survey Type Survey Date

Southwestern willow flycatcher

FE Nest surveys using tape playback. Habitat assessment/ mapping.

Tape playback calls: 15 May -17 July. Habitat assessment/ mapping year round.

Canada lynx FT Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

North American wolverine

Sensitive Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

American marten Sensitive Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

Rocky mountain bighorn sheep

Sensitive Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

Northern goshawk Sensitive Nest surveys using tape playback.

11 July – 20 August

Boreal owl Sensitive Nest surveys using tape playback.

Can survey into August.

Olive-sided flycatcher

Sensitive Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

American peregrine falcon

Sensitive Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

Bald Eagle Sensitive Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

White-tailed ptarmigan

Sensitive Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

Lewis’s woodpecker

Sensitive Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

Flammulated owl Sensitive Nest surveys using tape playback.

Survey period ends second week of July.

American three-toed woodpecker

Sensitive Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

Brewer’s sparrow Sensitive Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

Boreal toad Sensitive Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

Northern leopard frog

Sensitive Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

Rio Grande cutthroat trout

FC Electro fishing. Low flow -September into October

Brown creeper MIS Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

Hermit thrush MIS Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

Lincoln’s sparrow MIS Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

Wilson’s warbler MIS Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

Rocky Mtn. elk MIS Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

Mule deer MIS Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

Brook trout MIS Habitat assessment/mapping Year round.

43

Table 5. Federally Listed Species TABLE 5

Federally Listed Species Mineral County, Colorado

Village at Wolf Creek Federal Exchange Parcel

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Suitable Habitat Present for Occurance?

Mammals

Canada lynx Lynx canadensis T Yes Gunnison's prairie dog Cynomys gunnisonii C No Birds

Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus E No Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus C No Fish

Colorado pikeminnow* Ptychocheilus lucius E No Razorback sucker* Xyrauchen texanus E No Rio Grande cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis C Yes Insect

Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly Boloria acrocnema E No

Legend T = Threatened E = Endangered C = Candidate

* Water depletions in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River Basins may affect the species and/or critical habitat in downstream reaches in other states.

Source: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, January 2010, Colorado Field Office County List (Mineral)

www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/endspp/countylists/Colorado.pdf

44

12.0 Photographs

45

Photo 1. Spruce-Fir Forest (July 28, 2009).

Photo 2. Aspen Forest with basalt boulders (July 28, 2009).

46

Photo 3. Upland Natural Meadow – Wetland/upland transition (July 28, 2009).

Photo 4. Upland Natural Meadow – Depressional area (July 28, 2009)

47

Photo 5. Volcanic Tuff Barrenlands (July 28, 2009).

Photo 6. Forested Wetland/Riparian Habitat

48

Photo 7. Scrub-Shrub Wetland Habitat (July 28, 2009).

Photo 8. Herbaceous Wetland around pond (July 28, 2009).