Beaver Creek Resort Mccoy Park Terrain Development

BEAVER CREEK RESORT MCCOY PARK TERRAIN DEVELOPMENT

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION MIGRATORY BIRD REPORT SPECIES OF LOCAL CONCERN REPORT

Eagle County, Colorado September 6, 2018

Prepared For:

Vail Resorts & USDA Forest Service White River National Forest Eagle / Holy Cross Ranger District

Prepared By:

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 31040 Willow Lane, Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80487 970-846-8223

McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. ALTERNATIVES ...... 1 2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ...... 1 2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION ...... 3 2.2.1 Terrain ...... 3 2.2.2 Chairlifts ...... 5 2.2.3 Snowmaking ...... 5 2.2.4 Skier Services ...... 5 2.2.5 Ski Patrol Facilities ...... 6 2.2.6 Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing Trails ...... 6 2.2.7 Construction, Maintenance, and Utility Access ...... 6 2.3 DISTURBANCE ACREAGE SUMMARY ...... 7 2.4 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 11 2.5 ANALYSIS AREA ...... 12 2.6 TIERING ...... 12 2.7 PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA ...... 12 3. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE FOR THE SPECIES EVALUATED ...... 14 3.1 PROJECT AREA VEGETATION BASELINE ...... 14 3.2 OPERATIONS BASELINE ...... 15 3.3 PRE-FIELD REVIEW AND FIELD SURVEYS ...... 15 3.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ...... 16 3.5 FOREST SERVICE MANUAL CONSISTENCY ...... 16 3.6 FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY ...... 1 7 4. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE ...... 19 4.1 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR SENSITIVE TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES ...... 19 4.1.1 Sensitive Wildlife Species Considered for Analysis ...... 19 4.1.2 Species Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...... 23 4.1.3 Sensitive Species Accounts ...... 24 4.1.4 Direct and Indirect Impacts of Alternative 1 - No Action ...... 24 4.1.5 Direct and Indirect Impacts of Alternative 2 - The Action Alternative ...... 24 4.1.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis ...... 31 4.1.7 Sensitive Species’ Determinations ...... 33 4.2 SPECIES OF LOCAL CONCERN EVALUATION ...... 38 4.2.1 Elk ...... 38 4.3 MIGRATORY BIRDS ...... 44 4.3.1 Baseline Conditions ...... 44 4.3.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts ...... 45 4.3.3 Cumulative Impacts ...... 46 4.3.4 Determination ...... 46 5. AQUATIC SPECIES ...... 47 5.1 FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY ...... 4 7 5.1.1 Colorado River Cutthroat Trout ...... 47 5.1.2 Boreal Toad and Leopard Frog ...... 47 5.2 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR SENSITIVE AQUATIC SPECIES ...... 49 5.2.1 Environmental Baseline ...... 50 5.2.2 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts ...... 51 5.2.3 Determinations ...... 51 6. LITERATURE CITED ...... 53

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services i McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY DISTURBANCE TYPE ...... 7 TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY VEGETATION COVER TYPE ...... 9 TABLE 3. IMPACTS BY DISTURBANCE TYPE AND VEGETATION COVER TYPE ...... 9 TABLE 4. PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA ...... 12 TABLE 5. SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES AND RATIONALE FOR ELIMINATION...... 19 TABLE 6. IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE SPECIES BY PROJECT ...... 25 TABLE 7. SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES DETERMINATION SUMMARY ...... 36 TABLE 8. USFWS BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN ...... 44 TABLE 9. SENSITIVE AQUATIC SPECIES AND DETERMINATION SUMMARY...... 49

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. BEAVER CREEK RESORT VICINITY MAP ...... 2 FIGURE 2. PROPOSED ACTION ...... 4 FIGURE 3. PROJECT AREA VEGETATION COVER TYPES ...... 8 FIGURE 4. ACREAGE BY VEGETATION COVER TYPES IN MCCOY PARK PROJECT AREA ...... 14 FIGURE 5. MCCOY PARK ELK PRODUCTION RANGE ...... 40

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services ii McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

1. INTRODUCTION

Beaver Creek Resort is located on the Holy Cross Ranger District of the White River National Forest (WRNF), approximately 105 miles west of Denver, in Eagle County, Colorado (Figure 1). Beaver Creek is proposing to provide new and complimentary recreation opportunities aimed at fun and safe winter experiences for kids and families. McCoy Park is proposed to be added to the ski area’s lift served terrain. The area provides an ideal kids and family zone that is contained and safe, given its gentle park-like terrain. There will be no high speed skier/boarder "cross traffic" to diminish the experience. The project is within the Beaver Creek Special Use Permit (SUP) Area and is part of Beaver Creek’s approved 2010 master development plan (MDP). The ski area intends to develop this terrain with a very light touch and highlight the pastoral beauty of McCoy Park. Beaver Creek’s SUP is administered by the USDA Forest Service. The Forest Service reviews programs and activities as part of the NEPA process through a Biological Evaluation (BE), to determine their potential effect on sensitive species. The objectives (FSM 2672.41) for completing Biological Evaluations are 1) to ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non-native plant or animal species; 2) to ensure that activities do not cause any species to move toward federal listing; and 3) to incorporate concerns for sensitive species throughout the planning process, reducing negative impacts to species and enhancing opportunities for mitigation. This document is the BE for the proposed project. The following sections provide a review of the impacts of the proposed action in sufficient detail to determine how Forest Service approval may affect species listed by the Regional Forester as sensitive. A separate Biological Assessment has been prepared addressing the effects of the proposed action on species federally listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed for such listing.

2. ALTERNATIVES

2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION The No Action Alternative, required by NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.14), provides a baseline for comparing the effects of the Action Alternatives. The No Action Alternative essentially reflects a continuation of existing management practices without changes, additions, or upgrades. Improvements to McCoy Park would not be approved under the No Action Alternative.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 1 McCoy Park

White River National Forest Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District

Beaver Creek Resort McCoy Park Terrain Development Environmental Assessment Figure 1 – Vicinity Map Vicinity – 1 Figure º 0 5 10 Miles June 2018 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 – PROPOSED ACTION A detailed description of the individual project components follows. Each project component meets the Purpose and Need described below. Figure 2 shows the Proposed Action Alternative. Pending Forest Service approval, Beaver Creek Resort anticipates that construction could begin during the winter of 2019. The McCoy Park project consists of various lift, terrain, snowmaking, skier service, and operational improvements associated with providing lift-served terrain in McCoy Park. All the proposed projects are within Beaver Creek’s existing SUP area and are depicted on the attached figure. Natural resource considerations (e.g., wetland avoidance and seasonal wildlife closures) have been accounted for in the planning of this project, and the result is a low-impact design considering the acreage of lift-served terrain that would be provided. With the exception of necessary maintenance, no organized summer use of McCoy Park is proposed or would occur.

2.2.1 Terrain The McCoy Park project would add approximately 250 acres to Beaver Creek Resort’s skiable terrain. The project would develop gladed terrain and access/egress skiways, much of which would be groomed. Approximately 75 percent (190 acres) of this terrain would be rated beginner, with the remaining 25 percent (60 acres) rated intermediate. Vegetation clearing for gladed terrain and skiways would total approximately 26.5 acres. Currently, a large percentage of the vegetation in the area consists of dead or dying lodgepole pine trees, many of which were affected by the mountain pine beetle. These trees would be removed first, and trail layout would connect existing open spaces. Minimal additional clearing may be necessary to facilitate grooming operations; thus, the completed trails would appear to be natural glades instead of clear-cut trails. Most dead lodgepole pine trees would be removed within McCoy Park. Access to beginner and intermediate terrain in McCoy Park would be made possible via three proposed skiways from the top of Larkspur Express chairlift, Strawberry Park Express chairlift/ Upper Beaver Creek Mountain Express chairlift and the proposed McCoy Park Express chairlift. 1) From the top of the Larkspur Express chairlift, an approximately 1,500-foot-long proposed skiway (Skiway A) would travel northwest, entering McCoy Park approximately 980 linear feet northeast of and below the proposed McCoy Park Express chairlift top terminal (described in the section Chairlifts below). Skiway A would only require vegetation clearing to achieve a 20-foot width; no grading is proposed for Skiway A. 2) From the top of the Strawberry Park Express and Upper Beaver Creek Mountain Express chairlifts, an approximately 4,600-foot-long proposed skiway (Skiway B) would traverse on an approximate 8 percent slope to the bottom terminals of the proposed McCoy Park Express and McCoy Park Egress chairlifts. Skiway B would cross McCoy Creek via a 30-foot-wide by 60- foot-long bridge to avoid wetland impacts. As indicated in the section Snowmaking below, snowmaking coverage is proposed along Skiway B. Skiway B would require vegetation removal (approximately 1.7 acres) and grading (approximately 4.9 acres) to achieve a 30-foot width and 8 percent slope. 3) From the top of the proposed McCoy Park Express chairlift, an approximately 4,300-foot-long skiway (Skiway C) would provide access to beginner terrain on the west side of McCoy Park. Limited vegetation clearing and no grading would be required to create Skiway C. To exit McCoy Park, skiers would descend a proposed skiway (Skiway D) that starts at the top of the proposed McCoy Park Express chairlift and connects to the existing Primrose trail. The proposed skier egress route would continue below Primrose to the northeast to facilitate access to Beaver Creek Mountain Expressway, the Talons Restaurant, and Beaver Creek Village. Currently, beginner skier access

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 3

Date: April 2018. Features represented on this map are approximate. Contour = 20' = Contour approximate. are map this on represented Features 2018. April Date:

Construction Staging Construction Skiway

Fi gu r e 2 – Pr opose d t d Fi r Ac gu i e 2 Al t on – opose t Pr er na i e v

Cross Country Ski and Snowshoe Trail Areas Trail Snowshoe and Ski Country Cross Boundary SUP

Cross-Country Ski Trail Ski Cross-Country Environmental Assessment Environmental

Glading

Wetlands

McCoy Park Terrain Development Terrain Park McCoy

º Novice - Centerline Trail Ski

Beaver Creek Resort Creek Beaver

Vegetation Clearing Vegetation Streams Ski Trail Centerline - Intermediate Intermediate - Centerline Trail Ski

Grading Chairlift Chairlift

Proposed: Existing:

Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District Ranger Cross Eagle-Holy

White River National Forest National River White

Legend

' 1,000 500 250 0

9500

9000

8900

9000

9100

Elkhorn

9300

Private

USFS

9400

9200

9400

9300

9500

9600 Area Area 5K

Composting Toilet Composting

po ro o t n r y - s Cou d e os Cr os rP op 9700

USFS !

9800 USFS

Trimmed for Skiway for Trimmed

Willows to be to Willows

Upper Beaver Creek Mountain Express Mountain Creek Beaver Upper

9900

McCoy Park Express Park McCoy Strawberry Park Express Park Strawberry

10000

McCoy Park Egress Park McCoy

at Candy Cabin Candy at

Composting Toilets Composting

Additional

Skiway C Skiway

(Spanning Wetlands) (Spanning

Skier Bridge Skier

10200

Snowmaking Coverage) Snowmaking

Skiway B (Includes (Includes B Skiway

7K n h one e Zo sho w Sno

psed C ss-Cu t r y - r s a Coun A e d e os Cr rP opos psed Fam l mi d a e F y rP opos

Decommissioned

Road to be to Road

for Cross Country Skiing Country Cross for

Existing Seasonal Yurt Seasonal Existing

10100 Skiway D Skiway

10200

9600

/Ski Patrol Access Patrol /Ski

10300

9700 Proposed Utility Installation Utility Proposed

Skiway A Skiway

Larkspur Express Larkspur

! 3K psed C ss-Cu t r y - r s a Coun A e d e os Cr rP opos

10100 !

Proposed Warming Hut/Composting Toilet Hut/Composting Warming Proposed

Proposed Ski Patrol Building Patrol Ski Proposed

9700 10400

9900

9800

10500

10000

9800 9700 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report from the top of the Larkspur Express chairlift to the Talons Restaurant requires guests to traverse a long, flat catwalk on Primrose. Skiway D would follow a more consistent grade that eliminates the need for skating, poling, or walking, which are especially difficult for lower ability-level guests. Skiway D would require vegetation removal (4.5 acres) and grading (approximately 6.5 acres).

2.2.2 Chairlifts Two chairlifts – the McCoy Park Express chairlift and the McCoy Park Egress chairlift would be constructed. The McCoy Park Express chairlift would provide primary lift service for the proposed terrain in McCoy Park. Because the area would predominantly serve beginner and low intermediate-level skiers, the lift would be a high-speed detachable quad, which would facilitate easy and efficient loading and unloading for beginner and low-intermediate skiers. The chairlift would be constructed with a design capacity between 2,000 and 2,400 people per hour (pph) and a length of approximately 5,900 feet. The chairlift would have a bottom terminal elevation of approximately 9,500 feet with a vertical rise of approximately 840 feet. Construction of the McCoy Park Express chairlift would require approximately 2 acres of vegetation removal (primarily dead lodgepole pine) and approximately 1 acre of grading. The McCoy Park Egress chairlift would provide a second egress option out of McCoy Park to the top of the Strawberry Park Express chairlift and Upper Beaver Creek Mountain Express chairlift, facilitate quicker egress, and enable skiers to avoid the skiway from the top of the McCoy Park Express chairlift. The McCoy Park Egress chairlift would be constructed as a fixed-grip triple with a total length of approximately 3,100 feet. The chairlift would have a bottom terminal located at an elevation of approximately 9,500 feet with a vertical rise of approximately 480 feet. From the top of the chairlift, lower ability-level skiers could follow Primrose to Bachelor Gulch, the Beaver Creek Mountain Expressway to the Beaver Creek Village or download on the Strawberry Park Express chairlift to return to Beaver Creek Village. Construction of the McCoy Park Egress chairlift would require approximately 1.5 acres of vegetation removal (primarily aspen) and 0.5 acre of grading.

2.2.3 Snowmaking Snowmaking infrastructure is proposed to provide coverage along the southeast-facing Skiway B from the top of the Strawberry Park Express and Upper Beaver Creek Mountain Express chairlifts to the bottom of the proposed McCoy Park Express chairlift (refer to Figure 2). Approximately 5,800 feet of snowmaking water lines would be buried within Skiway B and the construction/maintenance access road. At the proposed bridge crossing, the snowmaking pipeline and power line would be insulated and hung beneath the bridge to avoid wetland and stream channel impacts. Snowmaking coverage along Skiway B, totaling approximately 3.2 acres, would ensure reliable access. The ridge separating McCoy Park from the East Lake Creek drainage to the west deposits above-average snow, in the north-facing bowl, naturally throughout the winter. The eastern side of McCoy Park receives less of this natural snow deposit and would also see a high amount of skier traffic as it would be the main access route under the Proposed Action. Thus, snowmaking would be necessary only along Skiway B.

2.2.4 Skier Services To provide a quality experience for guests, skier services are proposed in and around McCoy Park. A new skier services building would be approximately 1,500 square feet in size with a 1,000 square foot deck. This building would be constructed at the top of the proposed McCoy Park Express chairlift, which would include composting toilets. To provide drinking water at this location, a below ground 10,000-gallon water storage tank would be installed and filled annually by a water truck. Composting toilets would be constructed at the bottom terminal of the McCoy Park Express chairlift, and two additional composting

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 5 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report toilets would be constructed at the existing Candy Cabin near the top of the Strawberry Park Express chairlift. The locations of these facilities would specifically avoid wetlands. Beaver Creek would include interpretative/educational displays within the skier services building to include topics such as the surrounding environment, including wildlife habitat.

2.2.5 Ski Patrol Facilities A new ski patrol service building would be constructed at the top of the Larkspur Express chairlift. Construction of this ski patrol facility would provide emergency services to both the Larkspur Bowl and McCoy Park areas of Beaver Creek Resort. This new building would be approximately 1,000 square feet in size.

2.2.6 Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing Trails With implementation of the Proposed Action, cross country skiing and snowshoeing trails would be relocated to the periphery of McCoy Park (refer to Figure 2). Existing trails within these areas will be used to the greatest extent possible, with a goal of providing approximately 15 kilometers (km) (9 miles) of cross-country trails. No grading is proposed for these trails and overstory vegetation clearing would be minimized to not remove more than 5 acres of overstory vegetation, which is primarily aspen. These trails would avoid wetlands within the area. Guest access to these areas would be achieved by riding Strawberry Park Express chairlift. Cross-country skiers would access the cross-country areas on the east side of McCoy Park via a proposed cross-country trail from the top terminal of the Strawberry Park Express chairlift to the bottom terminal of the proposed McCoy Park Express chairlift. To access proposed trails east and west of the top terminal and west of McCoy Park, cross-country guests would then ride the proposed McCoy Park Express chairlift. Additionally, guests accessing the proposed cross- country trails west of McCoy Park could ski to the proposed skier bridge along Skiway B and traverse directly west across proposed beginner terrain. The proposed Family Snowshoe Area would be developed on the eastern side of McCoy Park. Vegetation removal and grading would not occur as the trails would meander through forested and open settings with appropriate signage/markers. From the top terminal of this chairlift, snowshoeing guests would access the snowshoeing area on the east side of McCoy Park. Beaver Creek would provide interpretative/educational signage within the cross-country skiing and snowshoeing trail network related to the surrounding environment, including wildlife.

2.2.7 Construction, Maintenance, and Utility Access The majority of construction and maintenance access would be provided by service roads that follow the same alignment as existing and proposed access/egress skiways. Access to the bottom terminals of the proposed McCoy Park Express and McCoy Park Egress chairlifts would follow an approximately 4,600- foot-long new service road (0.9 mile, the majority of Skiway B) from the top of the Strawberry Park Express and Upper Beaver Creek Mountain Express chairlifts. In order to avoid wetlands, the access road would diverge from Skiway B near the bottom terminal of the McCoy Park Express chairlift and would only be used for construction and maintenance access. Skiway B would continue through the scrub-shrub wetland complex; however, no grading would be required and approximately 0.1 acre of willows would be trimmed, not removed or filled. Snowmaking infrastructure and utilities would be buried within the road/Skiway B (see above Snowmaking section). Access to the upper terminal of the McCoy Park Express chairlift would follow the existing Larkspur Express chairlift access road to a location where a new proposed access road would diverge from the existing road and extend to the southwest to the proposed McCoy Park Express top terminal location.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 6 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

This new access road would be approximately 2,500 linear feet (0.5 mile) (refer to Figure 2). This proposed road also functions as a portion of Skiway D. Approximately 2,475 linear feet (0.5 mile) of an existing access road to the top of the Larkspur Express chairlift, including upper portions of Primrose, would be reclaimed and revegetated, eliminating a historic source of soil erosion and drainage concerns. A snowmobile access route (approximately 2,000 linear feet) designated for mountain operations would be constructed between the top terminal of the Larkspur Express chairlift and the top terminal of the proposed McCoy Park Express chairlift. This route would separate guests from snowmobile traffic and provide expedited ski patrol access. Construction of this route would require approximately 0.65 acres of vegetation removal (primarily lodgepole pine) and 0.4 acre of grading. Utilities would be buried within this route to provide power to the top terminal of the McCoy Park Express chairlift. Overstory vegetation would be cleared and disposed of through a variety of methods. The majority of tree removal is anticipated to be cleared over the snow with mechanized equipment, including snowcat for removal. In more remote locations, and to minimize temporary ground disturbance, vegetation may also be moved into small piles and burned and/or left as wildlife habitat. Additionally, in some areas vegetation may be lopped and scattered and/or chipped. Five areas for construction staging and log decking have been identified within the project area (refer to Figure 2). These would be located in open spaces not requiring overstory vegetation removal. Each area would be approximately 1 acre in size resulting in temporary impacts to herbaceous vegetation. These areas would be revegetated with a native seed mix, as necessary. To the greatest extent possible, vegetation clearing would occur during the winter months over the snow to minimize temporary ground disturbing impacts. Vegetation could be cleared and pulled behind snowcats to the log decking areas. Existing corridors exist within the forested areas from when McCoy Park was historically logged and these corridors would be utilized for this project. These corridors that would be temporarily affected would be revegetated and re-claimed.

2.3 DISTURBANCE ACREAGE SUMMARY The following tables display the results of the disturbance analysis by a variety of measures: Overall Disturbance Acreage (Table 1), Disturbance Acreage by Vegetation Cover Type (Table 2), and Disturbance Acreage by Project and Vegetation Cover Type (Table 3). Vegetation cover types in the project area are displayed in Figure 3.

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY DISTURBANCE TYPE Disturbance Type Acres Bridge 0.04 Cross Country Veg Clearing 5.00 Grading 7.91 Staging 4.15 Veg Clearing 18.83 Veg Clearing/Grading 6.63 Wetland Trimming 0.14 Grand Total 42.70

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 7 9600 10400 10300 10600

10500

9700 9700

9800

9700 9900

10100 9600 10200 10000

10100

10000

9900 Larkspur Express

9700

9600

10200

McCoy Park Express

McCoy Park Egress

Strawberry Park Express

9700

Upper Beaver Creek Mountain Express

USFS

9400

9600 9300

9500

USFS

Private 9200

9300 9100

9400 Elkhorn

9000

9500

9200

8900

Legend 0 250 500 1,000 ' White River National Forest Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District Existing: Vegetation Cover Type: TAA - Aspen

Chairlift FOR - Forb TDF - Douglas-Fir Beaver Creek Resort

McCoy Park Terrain Development SUP Boundary SMS - True Mountain Mahogany TLP - Lodgepole Pine

Proposed: Environmental Assessment SWI - Willow TSF - Spruce/Fir Figure 3 – Vegetation Disturbance Vegetation – 3 Figure Chairlift º Proposed Action Disturbance

Date: June 2018. Cross Country Ski Trail Areas Features represented on this map are approximate. Contour = 20' McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY VEGETATION COVER TYPE Vegetation Cover Acres Aspen 9.25 Forb 12.80 Lodgepole Pine 19.33 Spruce/Fir 0.73 Willow 0.55 Grand Total 42.70

TABLE 3. IMPACTS BY DISTURBANCE TYPE AND VEGETATION COVER TYPE

Disturbance Type

Project / Vegetation Veg Grand Veg Willow Cover Bridge Grading Staging Clearing/ Total Clearing Trimming Grading

Candy Cabin 0.05 0.05

Forb 0.05 0.05

Cross Country Trails 5.75 5.75

Aspen 2.89 2.89

Forb 0.07 0.07

Lodgepole Pine 0.50 0.50

Glading 12.52 12.52

Forb 0.86 0.86

Lodgepole Pine 11.54 11.54

Willow 0.12 0.12

McCoy Park Egress Lift 0.68 1.35 0.09 2.12

Aspen 1.26 1.26

Forb 0.68 0.07 0.09 0.83

Willow 0.02 0.02 McCoy Park Express 1.23 1.87 0.00 3.11 Lift Aspen 0.10 0.10

Forb 1.23 0.20 0.00 1.44

Lodgepole Pine 1.33 1.33

Willow 0.24 0.24

Pit Toilet 0.09 0.09

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 9 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

TABLE 3. IMPACTS BY DISTURBANCE TYPE AND VEGETATION COVER TYPE

Disturbance Type

Project / Vegetation Veg Grand Veg Willow Cover Bridge Grading Staging Clearing/ Total Clearing Trimming Grading

Forb 0.09 0.09

Restaurant 0.11 0.11

Forb 0.11 0.11

Ski Patrol Hut 0.02 0.02

Forb 0.02 0.02

Skier Bridge 0.04 0.04

Forb 0.02 0.02

Willow 0.02 0.02

Skiway A 0.95 0.95

Forb 0.09 0.09

Lodgepole Pine 0.76 0.76

Spruce/Fir 0.09 0.09

Skiway B 3.44 1.76 5.20

Aspen 0.56 1.39 1.95

Forb 2.61 0.23 2.83

Lodgepole Pine 0.27 0.14 0.41

Willow 0.00 0.01 0.01

Skiway C 1.08 1.08

Forb 0.15 0.15

Lodgepole Pine 0.86 0.86

Spruce/Fir 0.03 0.03

Willow 0.04 0.04

Skiway D 2.14 0.05 4.54 6.73

Aspen 0.21 2.73 2.95

Forb 1.63 0.05 0.34 2.02

Lodgepole Pine 0.30 1.46 1.77

Willow 0.00 0.00

Staging 4.15 4.15

Aspen 0.14 0.14

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 10 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

TABLE 3. IMPACTS BY DISTURBANCE TYPE AND VEGETATION COVER TYPE

Disturbance Type

Project / Vegetation Veg Grand Veg Willow Cover Bridge Grading Staging Clearing/ Total Clearing Trimming Grading

Forb 4.01 4.01

Utility 0.15 0.27 0.24 0.65

Forb 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.17

Lodgepole Pine 0.03 0.18 0.16 0.37

Spruce/Fir 0.05 0.05 0.11

Willow Trimming 0.14 0.14

Forb 0.04 0.04

Willow 0.10 0.10

Grand Total 0.04 7.91 4.15 23.83 6.63 0.14 42.70

2.4 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED The WRNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) allocated the McCoy Park area as Management Area 8.25 – Ski Areas (Existing and Potential) this management area allocation directly supports the Purpose and Need for the project. The purpose of the project is to provide guests with a dedicated beginner and low-intermediate ability level area with appropriate slope angles in an engaging setting that is also separated from advanced ability level terrain, and which offers high-quality snow conditions throughout the season. There is a need for Beaver Creek Resort to offer a dedicated beginner and low-intermediate area that is removed from intermediate and advanced trails; provides longer, consistently comfortable beginner and low- intermediate trails; and experiences high-quality, natural snow coverage through the season. There is an overall deficiency of lower ability level terrain (beginner, novice, and intermediate) at Beaver Creek Resort. Based on market conditions, 45 percent of Beaver Creek Resort’s terrain capacity should serve beginner through low-intermediate ability level guests; however, only 40 percent of Beaver Creek Resort’s terrain capacity currently serves these ability levels. The current teaching areas at Beaver Creek include the Highlands and Red Buffalo Park. The Highlands area is served by the Buckaroo Gondola, Highlands chairlift, and several surface lifts (carpets). This teaching area is at the intersection of several intermediate and advanced ability level trails in one of Beaver Creek Resort’s busiest areas. Specifically, as advanced skiers make their way down to the base of the Centennial Express chairlift on the Latigo, Gold Dust, and Assay trails, user conflicts occur between advanced skiers and beginner/low-intermediate skiers. While the Highlands area is practical for first-time skiers, it does not offer longer beginner and low-intermediate trails that are essential for skier progression. Red Buffalo Park is served by the Red Buffalo Express chairlift, with guest access primarily achieved via the Centennial Express chairlift and Cinch Express chairlift. Red Buffalo Park offers longer beginner trails; however, the area is utilized by advanced skiers accessing Rose Bowl and Stone Creek Chutes.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 11 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

Additionally, this area requires guests to download the Centennial Express or down the Cinch catwalk, which intersects with multiple intermediate and advanced ability level trails.

2.5 ANALYSIS AREA The analysis area for this project varies, depending on the species under evaluation, and includes the disturbance footprint and the broader “zone of influence” associated with construction and use of the project. The zone of influence varies dependent on individual species’ response to disturbance.

2.6 TIERING This document tiers to several previously completed Species Conservation Assessments, NEPA documents, plans, and biological opinions. Specifically incorporated by reference are following documents: 1) Beaver Creek Mountain Improvements Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-FS 2012) 2) White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 revision (USDA-FS 2002a). 3) Appendix N - Biological Evaluation to accompany the Land and Resource Management Plan - 2002 Revision (USDA-FS 2002b). 4) White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 revision. Record of Decision (USDA-FS 2002c). 5) Final environmental impact statement, Volume 1, for the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 revision (USDA-FS 2002d).

2.7 PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA Project Design Criteria (PDC) would be implemented to avoid and minimize potential resource impacts from construction and implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. This list supplements the list of Best Management Practices Beaver Creek Resort will be required to prepare for Forest Service review prior to the start of construction and implementation.

TABLE 4. PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA

General

All proposed activities and facilities shall meet WRNF Forest Plan and all applicable agency management direction (e.g. Forest Service Handbook and Manual) for all affected resource areas.

The following project elements will follow guidelines set forth in the White River National Forest Mountain Sports Program’s Facility Design Review Guide March 2017 v3: • Ski Patrol Building (Type B Design Review) • Warming Hut/Composting Toilet (Type B Design Review) • Composting Toilets (Type A Design Review) • McCoy Park Express and McCoy Park Egress chairlifts, associated top and bottom terminals and associated skier bridge (Type B Design Review) The facility design review for each element is anticipated to take 30 days from initial submission to Notice to Proceed.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 12 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

TABLE 4. PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA

Prior to starting construction activities on NFS lands, Beaver Creek Resort shall develop a Construction Implementation Plan for Forest Service review and authorization. All proposed construction methodologies and practices will be reviewed for compliance with the decision and resource management direction. This plan shall include the following information: 1. Construction Management 2. Project timelines, project contacts, disturbance boundaries, grading and site plans, staging and parking areas, construction access, and any required survey information. Timber Management • Defined logging deck areas and skid paths, and protocol for timber removal. 3. Erosion Control and Drainage Management • Erosion control and drainage management activities. 4. Post-Construction Revegetation and Restoration • Methodology, locations, vegetative mixes, and soil amendments. 5. Noxious Weed Management • Weed control methodologies including equipment cleaning, pretreatment, and post-construction monitoring and treatment. 6. Best Management Practices (BMPs) • Resort BMP list to be employed and adhered to during project implementation. Beaver Creek Resort shall obtain all required county, town, and state permits prior to the start of construction.

Pre-Construction

If tree, shrub, or willow cutting activities are proposed between March 1 and July 31, surveys for active migratory bird nests should be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to cutting. Vegetation with confirmed or suspected active nests should be retained when practicable or as otherwise approved by the Forest Service Responsible Official. Prior to implementation of projects, a stream health survey shall be completed by the Forest hydrologist or an approved contractor within McCoy Creek proximate to the bottom terminal site. This will establish a baseline condition for future monitoring of stream health.

Beaver Creek will restore two miles of decommissioned trail (#N227) to deter mountain bike use in the McCoy Park area during elk summer use of the area.

Beaver Creek will develop, in coordination with FS staff, wildlife interpretive signage that will be subsequently installed in the proposed Warming Hut.

During Construction

Beaver Creek Resort will adhere to the mandatory Supervisor’s Closure within McCoy Park, which excludes all human activity from May 6 through June 30 (dates inclusive) to facilitate continued elk calving and calf-rearing. No construction or maintenance activities shall occur during this time. Wetlands trimmed for Skiway B shall be accomplished by hand treatment.

Post Construction

Perform post-construction stream health surveys for 3 consecutive years from the established monitoring location or until a time determined by the Forest hydrologist that the stream health is maintained. Should surveys reveal stream health is not being maintained due to implementation of approved projects, a restoration plan would be developed by the Forest Service and Beaver Creek Resort. If restoration is necessary as a result of the project, Beaver Creek Resort shall fund the restoration.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 13 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

3. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE FOR THE SPECIES EVALUATED

3.1 PROJECT AREA VEGETATION BASELINE The 840 acre project area is located within Beaver Creek’s existing NFS SUP Area, approximately three miles south of Avon in Eagle County, Colorado, in T5S, R82W, Sections 23, 26, and 27. Elevation ranges from 9,280 to 10,480 feet. The land slopes and drains to the north into McCoy Creek, which is a perennial tributary to the Eagle River. Lands to the east and north include the Beaver Creek and Bachelor Gulch Ski Resorts and lands to the west and south are undeveloped NFS lands.

willow, 51

aspen, 171 forblands, 373

lodgepole pine, 211

spruce-fir, 33

FIGURE 4. ACREAGE BY VEGETATION COVER TYPES IN MCCOY PARK PROJECT AREA

Forest cover types within the project area include Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir (3.9%), lodgepole pine (25.1%), and aspen (20.4%). Non-forested sites include native forblands (44.4% of the project area) interspersed with willow-dominated shrublands (6.1%). Of note, in comparing vegetation cover types in the project area with the overall vegetation composition in the Beaver Creek Ski Area, is that upland willow vegetation and forbland vegetation is more prevalent within McCoy Park, and spruce-fir cover is less represented. Also of note is that the Forest Service forbland cover type mapping included several acres of willow shrublands. For the purposes of our analysis, we split out the willow-dominated sites and re-mapped them with greater resolution. Vegetation types are briefly discussed below. Engelmann Spruce - Subalpine Fir Forest. These forests occur on the higher elevations in the southern portion of the project area. They have been historically logged and have a variable understory depending on the degree of shading. Common understory species include blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus), fringed brome (Bromopsis canadensis), purple oniongrass (Melica spectabilis) and mountain brome (Bromus carinatus), along with butterweed groundsel (Senecio serra), subalpine fleabane (Erigeron peregrinus),

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 14 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

Richardson's geranium (Geranium richardsonii), nodding ragwort (Ligularia bigelovii), silvery lupine (Lupinus argenteus), and heartleaf arnica (Arnica cordifolia), among others. Lodgepole Pine Forest. The western portion of the project area supports a lodgepole pine forest mixed with Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir. A significant number of the lodgepole pine show evidence of recent attack and mortality from the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae). In general, the understory is rather sparse with species such as heartleaf arnica (Arnica cordifolia), strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) and gooseberry currant (Ribes montigenum) predominating. Aspen Forest. Located in the northern lower elevations of the project area, this forest is dominated by mature aspen trees with a lush understory comprised of blue wildrye, silvery lupine, strawberry, aspen fleabane (Erigeron speciosus), sweet cicely (Osmorhiza depauperata), American vetch (Vicia americana), Engelmann aster (Eucephalus engelmannii), fringed brome, butterweed groundsel, and yellow Indian paintbrush (Castilleja sulphurea). Forbland / Upland Herbaceous Meadow. This herbaceous vegetation community comprises a significant portion of the McCoy Park project area. Common plant associates include Vasey oatgrass (Danthonia intermedia), spiked false oat (Trisetum spicatum), blue wild rye, purple onion grass, and a variety of forbs including showy goldeneye (Heliomeris multiflora), butterweed groundsel, harebell (Campanula rotundifolia), manyray goldenrod (Solidago multiradiata), leafy bracted aster (Aster foliaceus), Fendler meadowrue (Thalictrum fendleri), yarrow (Achillea lanulosa), beautiful cinquefoil (Potentilla pulcherrima), strawberry, and mariposa lily (Calochortus gunnisonii). Upland Willow Shrublands. Several areas are dominated by willows, but do not meet the criteria of wetlands. These upland willow shrublands are dominated by Bebb willow (Salix bebbiana) with scattered hydrophytes and upland plants. Common associates include monkshood (Aconitum columbianum), butterweed groundsel, silvery lupine, blue wild rye, American vetch, fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), Richardson's geranium, and yellow Indian paintbrush. Wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. A wetland delineation was conducted in 2014 by Western Ecological Resources (WER 2015) and additional wetlands were mapped in 2017. These studies resulted in the identification and mapping of wetlands throughout the project area.

3.2 OPERATIONS BASELINE Beaver Creek is a four-season resort that receives heavy year-round recreational use (skiing and snowboarding in winter; hiking and mountain biking in summer). Ski area construction started in the summer of 1978. Most of the ski area’s opening configuration was built in 1979 and 1980. The BCR SUP area, located at the northern tip of the Sawatch Range in Eagle County, Colorado contains approximately 3,849 acres (Beaver Creek 2010), of which 2,695 acres are on NFS lands managed by the USDA Forest Service (2010). The SUP area has a permitted management objective of about 11,000 people/day. The ski area generally operates between Thanksgiving weekend and mid-April and contains 146 ski trails, 28 lifts, and 1,625 acres of skiable terrain on private and NFS lands. Annual snowfall averages 310 inches. Other general resort characteristics are contained in the project file.

3.3 PRE-FIELD REVIEW AND FIELD SURVEYS Prior to conducting field surveys, Forest Service fish and wildlife biologists were interviewed, and relevant information pertaining to species considered herein was reviewed, including the following: • R2 and WRNF sensitive species list • Colorado Natural Heritage Program’s (CNHP) Biological and Conservation Datasystem

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 15 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

• CPW habitat mapping • NDIS species observations mapping • Scientific studies and reports relative to species considered herein • WRNF Land and Resource Management Plan The landscape within and surrounding the project area was surveyed for the existence of habitat for species addressed herein. Surveys were conducted by Kelly Colfer, Western Bionomics’ President and Biologist. Field surveys were initiated outside appropriate biological survey windows for many of the species considered in this study. As a consequence, Project Design Criteria were included with each alternative that require surveys during the appropriate survey windows prior to project initiation. Field surveys enable the wildlife biologist to determine the resources present on and adjacent to the project area, identify and characterize habitat types and habitat structure classes present relative to the habitat affinities of species considered in this document, and in many cases search for evidence of the presence of species included in this analysis.

3.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE Past and present actions affecting sensitive species are summarized below and incorporated into the project baseline by reference. Urban expansion, development, and water projects in Colorado have in some cases eliminated, and in other cases fragmented, habitat for fish and amphibians on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list. Valley floor development continually erodes the amount of non-forest and riparian habitat that provides fish and amphibian habitat, as well as habitat for terrestrial sensitive species. The expansion of homes and some municipal facilities up mountain slopes, into forests of aspen and conifer, and also into mountain shrublands have reduced habitat for many of the species addressed in this document, and has increased fragmentation of habitat. Past development of the Beaver Creek Ski Area as a winter and summer recreational area and associated maintenance activities have converted mixed conifer forest to the grass/forb cover type within the SUP Area, fragmenting forests that provided forage, denning/nesting, and travel habitat for sensitive species. Past federal and private activities have in some cases cumulatively affected habitat for sensitive species. Designation of the Holy Cross Wilderness provided conservation of potential habitat and potential refugia for many sensitive species. Continuous increases of traffic on highways into mountain towns and resorts increase the amount of habitat fragmentation, conversion, and road kills in the Colorado Mountains. Finally, ongoing recreational activities during the summer and winter throughout NFS lands and within the Beaver Creek SUP Area may impact some species. The elevated level of human activity and presence is likely to have created conditions that cause some species to avoid the more highly utilized Beaver Creek SUP Area while summer and winter recreation activities are occurring.

3.5 FOREST SERVICE MANUAL CONSISTENCY The proposed action and this BE/Specialist Report satisfies the requirements of FSM 2670.32, which provides the following guidance for complying with the ESA and Forest Service directives. • Assist States in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 16 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

• Review programs and activities as part of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 process through a biological evaluation, to determine their potential effect on sensitive species. • Avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern. • Analyze, if impacts cannot be avoided, the significance of potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole. • Establish management objectives in cooperation with the states when a project on National Forest System lands may have a significant effect on sensitive species population numbers or distribution.

3.6 FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY The White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP, USDA-FS 2002a) provides direction for management activities on the forest in the forms of goals1, objectives, standards2, and guidelines3. The proposed action is designed to provide for recreation opportunities while minimizing environmental effects on resources. The desired conditions related to Sensitive Species and Wildlife are designated in the LRMP and are based on ecosystem capability, sustainability, variability, and functions on human desires and needs. The standards and guidelines discussed in this section are only those which are applicable to the proposed action. The entire wildlife and fisheries consistency analysis is included in the project file.

3.6.1 Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species, and General Wildlife Forest Plan Standards

3.6.1.1 Wildlife General Standard 1 Seasonal restrictions will be applied to reduce disturbance in key wildlife habitats. • The proposed action is consistent with this standard. Seasonal restrictions for elk, sensitive species, and migratory birds are included in the project PDC (Table 4).

3.6.1.2 Wildlife General Standard 5 Protect known active and inactive raptor nest areas. Extent of the protection will be based on proposed management activities, human activities existing before nest establishment, species, topography, vegetative cover, and other factors. A no-disturbance buffer around active nest sites will be required from nest-site selection to fledging (generally March through July). Exceptions may occur when animals are adapted to human activity. • The proposed action is consistent with this standard. PDC require pre-project nest surveys and protection of identified nest sites.

1 Forest goals and objectives are not addressed at the project level. 2 A standard is defined as a course of action that must be followed, or a level of attainment that must be reached, to achieve forest goals. Adherence to standards is mandatory. Standards are used to assure that individual projects are in compliance with the forest plan. They should limit project-related activities, not compel or require them. Deviations from standards must be analyzed and documented in a forest plan amendment. 3 A guideline is a preferred or advisable course of action or level of attainment. Guidelines are designed to achieve desired conditions (goals). Deviation from a guideline and the reasons for doing so are recorded in a project-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document; a forest plan amendment is not required.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 17 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

3.6.1.3 Wildlife General Standard 6 In riparian areas, vegetation cover will be managed to provide suitable wildlife habitat along a minimum of 80 percent of the length of riparian zones within the project area. New corridor interruptions will be spaced to minimize interruptions to habitat connectivity. • The proposed action is consistent with this standard. The 51 acres of willow-dominated cover type within the project area provides habitat for abundant birds and other terrestrial wildlife. Project components would impact 0.1 acre of riparian willow habitat, through trimming for Skiway D. To the extent possible, vegetation clearing would occur during the winter months over the snow to minimize temporary ground disturbing impacts. The project would have no wetland impacts; a bridge will be built across McCoy Creek for construction access, in order to avoid riparian impacts. Far less than 20% of the vegetation in riparian areas within McCoy Park would be impacted, thereby preserving the vast majority of riparian habitat in the project area.

3.6.1.4 Wildlife General Standard 7 Vegetation treatments and new roads and trails will not reduce the elk habitat effectiveness index below 0.40 by Data Analysis Unit (DAU), or further reduce effective habitat in DAUs that are already at or below 0.40 on National Forest System lands. • The proposed action is consistent with this standard. Vail Resorts is currently in the process of restoring approximately two miles of Trail #N227, which would offset any increase of roads associated with the proposed action. Furthermore, the project includes a component to restore 0.5 miles of an existing access road, further offsetting the impact of proposed new roads.

3.6.1.5 Wildlife PTES Standard 2 Restrict activities to avoid disturbing proposed, threatened, or endangered species during breeding, young rearing, or at other times critical to survival. Exceptions may occur when individuals are adapted to human activity, or the activities are not considered a threat. • The project is consistent with this standard. The only federally listed species within the project area is Canada lynx. The project will not impact lynx during breeding or other critical time periods, and is consistent with all Standards and Guidelines in the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment.

3.6.1.6 Wildlife PTES Standard 3 Activities will be managed to avoid disturbance to sensitive species that would result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. The protection will vary depending on the species, potential for disturbance, topography, location of important habitat components, and other pertinent factors. Special attention will be given during breeding, young rearing, and other times that are critical to survival of both flora and fauna. • The project Biological Evaluation for sensitive species has not identified any project component that would result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of population viability. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with this Standard.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 18 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

4. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE

4.1 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR SENSITIVE TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES It is the objective of the Forest Service to develop and implement management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions (FSM 2670.22). To facilitate achievement of this objective, the Regional Forester has identified a list of sensitive animal species for which population viability is a concern (FSM 2672.11, R2 Supplement 2600-2013-1). The Regional Forester’s list, most recently updated on July 13, 2017, and edited to include species with potential to occur on the WRNF, is included in Table 5.

4.1.1 Sensitive Wildlife Species Considered for Analysis Based on documented habitat affinities, the species listed in bold in Table 5 below were determined to have potential habitat in the project areas. Sensitive species for which there is no habitat in the project area were eliminated from further analysis.

TABLE 5. SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES AND RATIONALE FOR ELIMINATION FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS.

Occurrence on Detailed Rationale if Not Carried Species Habitat Association WRNF Analysis? Forward for Analysis

Mammals Semidesert shrublands, P-J, Documented on NO IMPACT. No habitat. No Townsend's Big-eared bat open montane forests; caves and WRNF in several N caves or abandoned mines in (Corynorhinus townsendii) abandoned mine roosts (Gruver cave locations project area. and Keinath 2006). Lower montane forests, P-J, Rifle District (one NO IMPACT. No habitat Spotted bat open semidesert shrublands; record south rim of N present in project area as (Euderma maculatum) rocky cliffs for roosts (Luce and Glenwood Canyon) described in column 3. Keinath 2007). Solitary tree roosting bat using mixed conifer, lodgepole pine, Hoary Bat Statewide from the ponderosa pine, piñon-juniper, Y Carried forward (Lasiurus cinereus) plains to timberline cottonwood/willow riparian (Snider 2011). Rare occurrence of Riparian habitats that traverse a NO IMPACT. No habitat River otter recent transplants, variety of other habitats. Mainly N present in project area as (Lontra canadensis) Summit and Eagle larger river systems (Boyle described in column 3. Co. 2006).

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 19 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

TABLE 5. SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES AND RATIONALE FOR ELIMINATION FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS.

Occurrence on Detailed Rationale if Not Carried Species Habitat Association WRNF Analysis? Forward for Analysis

Mesic, dense coniferous forests with complex physical structure. During winter, prefer mature conifer. Stand structure may be Widespread in American Marten more important than species spruce/fir and Y Carried forward (Martes americana) composition (Buskirk and lodgepole pine Ruggiero 1994). Relatively common even in lodgepole pine stands that have been impacted by MPB (USDA-FS 2012). NO IMPACT. No habitat Low elevation conifer, present in project area as Fringed myotis Western portions of oakbrush, shrublands; caves, N described in column 3. Project (Myotis thysanodes) WRNF up to 7,500' mines, building roosts (Keinath area well above known 2004). elevation range. Rocky, steep, or rugged terrain Upper reaches of the for escape cover with open NO IMPACT. No habitat Elk Mountains from Rocky Mountain bighorn grass-dominated habitats nearby present in project area as Taylor Pass to sheep for foraging. Summer range at described in column 3. CPW McClure Pass. Upper N (Ovis canadensis high elevation and winter range bighorn sheep habitat mapping reaches of the canadensis) in valley bottoms or where snow does not include the project Tenmile Range from depth is minimal (Beecham et al area. Peak 10 southward. 2007) Southern Rocky Mesic boreal environments; Mountains of wide range of habitats, s-f Colorado. forests, clear-cuts, boggy Pygmy shrew Documented from 2 meadows, willow thickets, aspen Y Carried forward (Sorex hoyi) locations on WRNF; and subalpine parklands. All also documented both captures in Colorado above north and south of 9,600’ elevation (Beauvais and WRNF. McCumber 2006) Birds Open forests, mainly mixed Northern goshawk Widespread conifer and aspen, above 7,500' Y Carried forward (Accipiter gentilis) elevation (Kennedy 2003).

Mature S-F or S-F/lodgepole Boreal owl Widespread pine interspersed with meadows Y Carried forward (Aegolius funereus) (Hayward 1994).

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 20 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

TABLE 5. SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES AND RATIONALE FOR ELIMINATION FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS.

Occurrence on Detailed Rationale if Not Carried Species Habitat Association WRNF Analysis? Forward for Analysis

Not documented on WRNF, found NO IMPACT. No habitat Sage sparrow Sagebrush shrublands (Holmes adjacent to SW Rifle N present in project area as (Amphispiza belli) and Johnson 2005a). District and in described in column 3. western Eagle Co. Grasslands and semi-desert NO IMPACT. No habitat Ferruginous hawk Migrant on WRNF on shrublands (Collins and N present in project area as (Buteo regalis) large grassland areas Reynolds 2005) described in column 3. Widespread historic records on forest; Currently in N. Summit Co. and Greater sage-grouse NO IMPACT. No habitat adjacent to Eagle- Large sagebrush shrublands (Centrocercus N present in project area as Holy Cross District in (Stiver et al 2006) urophasianus) described in column 3. Routt & N Eagle Co, Extirpated south of I- 70 on Eagle-Holy Cross District. Marshes, wetlands, alpine tundra NO IMPACT. No habitat Northern harrier Migrant in fall migration, shrublands N present in project area as (Circus cyaneus) (Slater and Rock 2005). described in column 3. Breeds in mature spruce/fir and Douglas fir, esp. on steep slopes; Olive-sided flycatcher ponderosa pine at Derby Mesa Widespread Y Carried forward (Contopus borealis) (Kotliar 2007). Also inhabit aspen-dominated mixed forest (Wickersham 2016). Nests behind waterfalls; forage Several documented NO IMPACT. No habitat Black swift at high elevations over montane nesting areas on N present in project area as (Cypseloides niger) and lowland habitats (Wiggins WRNF described in column 3. 2004). NO IMPACT. The closest known eyrie is 8 miles southeast between Minturn and Several documented Nest on cliffs, forage over American peregrine falcon Gilman. The project would not nesting aeries on forests and shrublands (Andrews N (Falco peregrinus anatum) impact birds nesting at these WRNF and Righter 1992). eyries. No nest habitat is present in project area as described in column 3. In Central Colorado, primarily Documented nest site uses low elevation riparian off forest near habitat along the Colorado, NO IMPACT. No nest or Bald Eagle Carbondale on Eagle, and White River winter roost habitat present in N (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Roaring Fork. No drainages and their major project area as described in known nest sites on tributaries. Roosts and nests in column 3. WRNF. trees near open water (Andrews and Righter 1992).

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 21 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

TABLE 5. SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES AND RATIONALE FOR ELIMINATION FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS.

Occurrence on Detailed Rationale if Not Carried Species Habitat Association WRNF Analysis? Forward for Analysis

NO IMPACT. No habitat Alpine tundra, high-elevation present in project area as White-tailed ptarmigan willow thickets, krummholz, described in column 3. All Widespread in alpine N (Lagopus leucurus) spruce-fir (winter) (Hoffman sites located beyond the limits 2006). of CPW-mapped ptarmigan habitat. Primary WRNF records from W NO IMPACT. Only 3 records Open riparian areas, grasslands portions of Flat tops; of shrikes breeding in Eagle & shrublands, esp. semidesert Loggerhead shrike seen above Sylvan County (Wickersham 2016). shrublands, and sometimes P-J N (Lanius ludovicianus) Lake (Eagle Dist.) No habitat present in project (Wiggins 2005). Below 9,000’ along sagebrush area as described in column 3. (Andrews and Righter 1992). edges during Above known elevation range. migration Not documented on Lowland and foothill riparian NO IMPACT. No habitat Lewis’ woodpecker WRNF, found forests, mature cottonwood N present in project area as (Melanerpes lewis) adjacent to Forest groves (Abele et al 2004). described in column 3. Ponderosa pine, aspen, aspen- mixed conifer, mature P-J; to 10,000’ elevation (Wickersham 2016). In Colorado, over 50% of Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Flammulated owl Scattered records (Wickersham 2016) Y Carried forward (Otus flammeolus) across WRNF flammulated owl detections came from aspen stands (20% in pure aspen, 36% in mixed aspen-conifer). All nesting records occurred in aspen or mixed aspen habitats. NO IMPACT. Habitat is present in aspen stands in the project area. PDC that require Purple martin Western half of Breeds in mature aspen near pre-project cavity nest surveys N (Progne subis) WRNF water and parks (Wiggins 2005). and subsequent delay of tree- clearing activity if colonies are found would eliminate the potential for impact. Sagebrush shrublands, mountain NO IMPACT. No habitat Brewer’s sparrow parks; may be found in alpine Widespread N present in project area as (Spizella breweri) willow stands. (Holmes and described in column 3. Johnson 2005b). NW corner of Blanco District, NE Eagle Mid elevation mountain NO IMPACT. No habitat Columbian sharp-tailed County and very sagebrush/ grassland habitat present in project area as grouse north end of Summit usually adjacent to forested N described in column 4. Beyond (Tympanachus phasianellus Co.-population areas (Hoffman and Thomas southern-most limits of columbianus) adjacent to forest in 2007). Colorado range. southern Routt Co.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 22 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

TABLE 5. SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES AND RATIONALE FOR ELIMINATION FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS.

Occurrence on Detailed Rationale if Not Carried Species Habitat Association WRNF Analysis? Forward for Analysis

Insects Dependent on wetlands fed by Great Basin silverspot Confirmed in Moffat NO IMPACT. No habitat springs or seeps; hosts on Viola (Speyeria nokomis and Mesa Co., but not N present in project area as nephrophylla (V. sororia ssp nokomis) on WRNF described in column 3. affinis)(Selby 2007). Habitats for Monarch Butterfly are quite diverse, and include Species or habitat forests, woodlands, shrublands, Monarch Butterfly NO IMPACT. No habitat suspected to occur on grasslands, cropland, and urban (Danaus plexippus N present in project area as WRNF, but areas. The common factor plexippus) described in column 3. unconfirmed among habitats is the presence of milkweeds, the larval host plant (USDA-FS No Date) Western Bumblebees inhabit high elevation areas. They are Species or habitat most frequent in montane and Western bumblebee suspected to occur on subalpine meadows with N Carried Forward. (Bombus occidentalis) WRNF, but abundant and diverse wild unconfirmed flower populations (Toretta 2013).

* MAII - May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a lack of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards Federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide.

4.1.2 Species Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Of the 8 terrestrial mammal species included on the WRNF Sensitive Species List, 5 have been eliminated from detailed analysis. Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, and fringed myotis utilize lower elevations, caves, and cliff habitats that are not present in the analysis area. There are no rivers that would be affected by the proposed project of sufficient size to support river otters. There is no habitat, in terms of rocky, steep, or rugged terrain to provide escape cover for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Therefore, these mammalian species have been eliminated from detailed analysis. All but 5 of the avian species are associated with habitats that occur outside the project area. These habitats include sagebrush shrublands, marshes, waterfalls, cliffs, forested riparian areas, alpine tundra, lower elevations, and piñon/juniper woodlands. Therefore, sage sparrow, ferruginous hawk, greater sage-grouse, northern harrier, black swift, American peregrine falcon, bald eagle, white-tailed ptarmigan, loggerhead shrike, Lewis’ woodpecker, Brewer’s sparrow, and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are eliminated from further analysis. There are 2 sensitive insects on the WRNF sensitive species list. Monarch butterfly larvae are dependent on milkweed, which is not present within the analysis area. The project area is beyond the known range of the Great Basin Silverspot. Therefore, these 2 species have been eliminated from further analysis. For the reasons discussed in this section, the proposed action will have NO IMPACT on the species that were eliminated from further analysis and described in this section.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 23 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

4.1.3 Sensitive Species Accounts Detailed species accounts representing the best available science are available for most of the species in Table 5 at the USDA Forest Service Region 2 Species Conservation Project homepage (http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/). In some cases, the Species Conservation Project has not addressed individual species and other sources representing the best available science are relevant. For each species in Table 5, the relevant source(s) have been cited and incorporated into this document by reference. Surveys for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species were conducted in the project area during the winter and summer of 2018 to confirm presence or absence of many of these species, and/or to detect new occurrences of species already known to exist in the project area.

4.1.4 Direct and Indirect Impacts of Alternative 1 - No Action The No Action Alternative reflects a continuation of existing operations and management practices at Beaver Creek without changes, additions or upgrades on NFS lands. In the short term (<20 years), and barring disturbance such as new insect infestations, disease, or wildfire, vegetation communities within the project areas would remain much the same as described in the environmental baseline. The project areas would continue to provide habitat for species that currently utilize habitat in the SUP Area. Potential disturbance to these species would remain at current levels. The natural process of Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) mortality in lodgepole pines would continue with additional trees deteriorating and falling to the ground to either decompose naturally or accumulate on the forest floor. Removal of overhead safety hazards in the form of deteriorating dead trees would not occur.

4.1.5 Direct and Indirect Impacts of Alternative 2 - The Action Alternative

4.1.5.1 Direct Impacts by Habitat The proposed action involves 18.8 acres of vegetation clearing, 6.6 acres of vegetation clearing and grading, 7.9 acres of grading, and 0.14 acres of wetland trimming. The proposed skiway bridge over McCoy Creek will impact less than 0.1 acre. Willow shrubs will be trimmed on 0.1 acre for skiways. Additionally, vegetation will be cleared for cross country ski trails. With the exception of activities taking place in mountain shrub stands, all of these actions will impact sensitive species habitat to some degree. Habitat exists in some or all of the projects areas for the sensitive wildlife species selected for detailed analysis in Table 5. The direct physical impact on habitat for each species under analysis, of each specific project component, under both action alternatives, is summarized in Table 6. Projects implemented in spruce/fir have the potential to impact habitat for marten, hoary bat, pygmy shrew, northern goshawk, boreal owl, and olive-sided flycatcher. Projects implemented in lodgepole pine have the potential to impact habitat for marten and northern goshawk. Projects implemented in aspen may impact habitat for northern goshawk, flammulated owl, and purple martin. Projects implemented in grass/forblands may affect pygmy shrew.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 24 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

TABLE 6. IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE SPECIES BY PROJECT (For each project, impacts by vegetation type were quantified. If the impacted vegetation provides habitat for sensitive species, the acreage was added to the tally and totaled at the bottom row of each species column.)

Impacts to Habitat for Individual Sensitive Species SOLC Species Codes M=Marten, HB=Hoary Bat, PS=Pygmy Shrew, NG=Northern Project / Impact Goshawk, BO=Boreal Owl, OSF=Olive Sided Flycatcher, FO=Flammulated Impacted Cover Type (ac) Owl, PM=Purple martin, WB=Western Bumble Bee Elk M HB PS NG BO OSF FO PM WB

Candy Cabin 0.05

Forb 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

Cross Country TrailA 0.75

Aspen 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.04 0.64 0.64 0.64

Forb 0.07 0.07 0.07

Lodgepole Pine 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04

Glading 12.52

Forb 0.86 0.86 0.86

Lodgepole Pine 11.54 11.54 11.54 11.54 11.54 11.54 11.54

Willow 0.12 0.12 0.12

McCoy Park Egress Lift 2.12

Aspen 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26

Forb 0.83 0.83 0.83

Willow 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

McCoy Park Express Lift 3.11

Aspen 0.10 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Forb 1.44 1.44 1.44

Lodgepole Pine 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33

Willow 0.24 0.24 0.24

Pit Toilet 0.09 0.09

Forb 0.09 0.09 0.09

Restaurant 0.11

Forb 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11

Ski Patrol Hut 0.02

Forb 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

Skier Bridge 0.04

Forb 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

Willow 0.02 0.02 0.02

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 25 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

Skiway A 0.95

Forb 0.09 0.09 0.09

Lodgepole Pine 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76

Spruce/Fir 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09

Skiway B 5.20

Aspen 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95

Forb 2.83 2.83 2.83

Lodgepole Pine 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41

Willow 0.01 0.01 0.01

Skiway C 1.08

Forb 0.15 0.15 0.15

Lodgepole Pine 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86

Spruce/Fir 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03

Willow 0.04 0.04 0.04

Skiway D 6.73

Aspen 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95

Forb 2.02 2.02 2.02

Lodgepole Pine 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77

Willow 0.00 0.002 0.002

Staging 4.15

Aspen 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14

Forb 4.01 4.01 4.01

Utility 0.65

Forb 0.17 0.17 0.17

Lodgepole Pine 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37

Spruce/Fir 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11

Cross Country Ski Trails B 5.00

Aspen 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 26 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

Lodgepole Pine 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25

Spruce/Fir 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Willow Trimming 0.14

Forb 0.04 0.04 0.04

Willow 0.1 0.1 0.1

Grand Total 42.7 20.1 20.1 21.1 29.4 20.1 28.8 9.8 9.3 12.8 30.1

A This is the proposed xc trail leading from the top of Upper Beaver Creek Mountain Express lift to the bottom of the two proposed McCoy Park lifts.

B Additional cross country ski trails within the Proposed Cross-Country Area will be designed in the field at the time of construction and will result in no more than 5 acres of tree clearing where shown in the drawings. For the purposes of this analysis, Beaver Creek estimates that based on vegetation composition in the XC ski area, the impacts would approximate the following: aspen-2.25 ac, lodgepole pine-2.25 ac, spruce-fir-0.5 ac. No willow trimming would occur. Should the actual impacts vary from this estimate, the effects would not occur at a scale large enough to alter the determinations in this biological evaluation.

The habitat impacts referenced in Table 6 may or may not have direct impacts on the individual species under analysis. A detailed examination of the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action on specific species is provided in the following sections.

4.1.5.2 Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts of the proposed action include increased skier presence and associated noise and visual stimuli, along with increased grooming activities during the evening. These indirect impacts would occur only during the winter, when many species such as migratory birds, elk, deer, black bear, and others are absent (or in the case of bears, hibernating). The potential for disturbance to wildlife during this time period is far lower than during the summer when far more species use habitat present in McCoy Park. Of the sensitive species analyzed below, only the marten has been studied relative to its reaction to human disturbance.

4.1.5.3 Direct and Indirect Impacts, by Species The impacts to individual species listed in Table 6 are presented in detail below. The level of detail included in each analysis is in direct proportion to the level of risk or concern for each species.

(a) American Marten Information relevant to the distribution, abundance, population trend, habitat, feeding habits, breeding biology, population demography, and community ecology of the American marten has been well documented in the literature (Fitzgerald et al 1994, Ruggiero et al 1994, Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994,

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 27 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

Stone 2010, Armstrong 2011, NatureServe 2016). This analysis incorporates these documents by reference, and presents an analysis specific to the proposed action. Martens are widespread in spruce/fir forests and lodgepole pine stands on the WRNF. As has been discussed, the mountain pine beetle epidemic has killed countless thousands of acres of pure lodgepole pine stands that historically provided habitat for marten. Optimal marten habitat consists of mesic, dense coniferous forests with complex physical structure near the ground. During the winter, martens seek out mature conifer stands, most likely as a result of the dense overhead cover, availability of prey species, and adequate woody and rocky structure beneath the snow to provide subnivean travelways and roost dens for marten to live and hunt beneath the snow. Marten presence within the McCoy Park project area was confirmed during site visits conducted in March 2018. The Medicine Bow-Routt (MBR) National Forest completed a small, unpublished study (USDA- FS 2012) to detect marten across Gore Pass, which is an area that was heavily impacted by the bark beetle and has been readily managed (i.e. harvested beetle-killed lodgepole pine). With the completion of the pilot study, the marten occupancy was determined to be 76%, which suggests that this species is relatively common even in bark beetle areas that have been managed. Project components would impact 20.1 acres of potential marten habitat (Table 6). The majority of these impacts result from glading in lodgepole pine forest (13.79 acres), focusing first on removal of beetle- killed lodgepole pine, and then removing green trees where necessary to create suitable skiable terrain. Remaining impacts would in large part result from clearing trees for the McCoy Park Express Lift and the 4 skiways. Based on the results of the MBR study, glading will not eliminate marten habitat, but will diminish habitat effectiveness by removing forest cover for martens and their prey. The remnant stands will still provide habitat for marten. Forest stands cleared for skiways and chair lifts will similarly diminish habitat effectiveness for martens in the remnant stand, but will not be of a scale to preclude continued use of the remnant stand. Auditory and visual stimuli resulting from winter recreational activities at ski areas have not been documented to affect marten distribution or abundance (Cablk and Spaulding 2002). Furthermore, martens are largely nocturnal during the winter (Zielinski 1993, Cablk and Spaulding 2002), providing a behavioral separation between marten and human skiing activities. The potential impacts of nighttime maintenance activities during the winter ski season such as grooming and snowmaking represent a discrete and concentrated disturbance that is easily avoided during the period of the disturbance. Grooming is not continuous in nature like when skiers are present. Grooming is also restricted to ski slopes and does not occur in forested tracts or tree islands within the ski runs. Therefore, the indirect impact of increased human presence during the winter is not expected to have an adverse effect on marten, or any other species present in McCoy Park during the winter.

(b) Hoary Bat The hoary bat is the most widespread of American bats. Hoary bats are found statewide in Colorado from the plains to timberline. This solitary tree roosting bat uses mixed conifer, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, piñon-juniper, and cottonwood/willow riparian habitats. Individuals have been captured at elevations exceeding 9,000 feet. The information presented in Table 6 demonstrates that the proposed action will impact 20.1 acres of forest stands that provide potential roost habitat for the hoary bat. It is possible that individuals roosting in trees within suitable habitat could be killed during tree clearing activities associated with the various components of the proposed action.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 28 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

Subsequent winter recreational use will not affect bats, and summer recreation is not a component of the proposed action. Remnant conifer stands will continue to provide habitat for these bats upon completion of the project.

(c) Pygmy Shrew Pygmy shrews have been documented at 2 locations on the WRNF and both north and south of the Forest. In the southern Rocky Mountains, all captures have been in the wet spruce or spruce/fir with coarse woody debris, dense stream networks, bogs, marshes, and other wetlands. In Colorado, all captures have been at elevations over 9,600’. However elsewhere throughout their range they have been captured in aspen, streamside willows, sphagnum- and sedge-dominated bogs, and subalpine meadows. In almost all situations where the species has been captured in a non-forest cover type, those types have been small patches enclosed by coniferous forest and in close proximity to streams or wetlands. It is likely that pygmy shrews exist in suitable habitat within the Beaver Creek SUP Area, including within the current project areas. The information presented in Table 6 documents that the proposed action would impact 21.1 acres of habitat that could potentially provide habitat for pygmy shrews. It is unlikely that shrews occupy the entirety of that area; however where suitable moist, boreal environments are present, suitable habitat for shrews is available. Should shrews inhabit any portions of the project areas, it is possible that construction equipment and activities could crush or otherwise kill individual shrews. Upon termination of construction activities, shrew habitat would still be present in suitable wet areas.

(d) Northern Goshawk On the WRNF, goshawks often construct their nests in either lodgepole pines or aspens. In evaluating published demographic data on goshawks generated from 9 studies, Kennedy (1997) did not find persuasive evidence of an overall goshawk population decline in western North America or continent- wide. However, the widespread lodgepole pine mortality due to the MPB epidemic may have altered the population stability reported by Kennedy. For example, nest monitoring on the Routt National Forest to the north of the WRNF suggests a declining trend for goshawks, most likely related to declining nest site conditions, at least in lodgepole pine stands, due to the mountain pine beetle epidemic (Dressen, M. 2017, Wildlife Biologist, Routt National Forest, personal communication with Kelly Colfer). While the MPB has infested lodgepole pine stands across much of the WRNF, the Forest has not been impacted to the severity that has the Routt NF. The proposed action would impact 29.4 acres of aspen, lodgepole pine, and spruce/fir forest that provides potentially suitable habitat for northern goshawk. For this analysis, lodgepole pine was considered to provide potential nest habitat, even though pure pine stands in the project area contain many dead trees as a result of the MPB epidemic. Dead lodgepole stands can provide nest habitat until snags begin falling over (Graham et al 1999). PDC require pre-project surveys of all project areas for Northern goshawks and other nesting raptors. If a nest is found to be active by a northern goshawk, then a no disturbance buffer and timing restrictions will be implemented to protect the nest until birds have fledged.

(e) Boreal Owl Boreal owls are considered to be widespread in suitable habitat throughout their range. Suitable habitat consists of mature spruce, spruce/fir, or spruce/fir/lodgepole pine, most commonly in proximity to open grassy meadows. Changes in forest structure and/or species composition may affect boreal owls directly and indirectly. The presence of cavities for nesting appears to be the primary limiting factor for boreal owls (Hayward 1994). Important considerations include maintenance of mature and old growth spruce/fir

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 29 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report forests with large snags and suitable roosting trees dispersed throughout. Boreal owls require large tree cavities or artificial nest structures to breed. This is the most obvious habitat requirement of the species and one that has important consequences. Unless artificial structures are provided, boreal owls will not persist in landscapes without large nest trees or artificial structures. Natural tree cavities (produced by branch loss or other breakage) are used occasionally by boreal owls but unlikely to be common enough to support a population of owls. Breeding activities in Colorado extend from late March through late June (Wickersham 2016). Boreal owls were not located during tape callback surveys conducted in suitable habitat within the project area in 2018. Project components within the proposed action will be implemented in 20.1 acres of potentially suitable but currently unoccupied boreal owl habitat.

(f) Olive Sided Flycatcher Olive-sided flycatchers nest primarily in conifer and mixed conifer forests, especially on steep slopes or near cliffs, between 7,000 and 11,000 feet (Andrews and Righter 1992). This species is most often associated with forest edges and openings caused by natural (blowdown) or human-caused (ski trails, clear cuts) disturbances. While they are not commonly observed in mature lodgepole pine stands, it has been conjectured (Kotliar 2007) that beetle-killed stands may potentially create improved habitat for this species. They can occasionally be found in other types of coniferous forests, montane and foothill riparian areas, and aspen forests. Their territories commonly contain tall conifers and bogs and /or meadows. They prefer unusually large, tall, exposed perches in snags or conspicuous dead branches and stands with diminished canopy cover. Loss of tall perch snags is a possible threat to the species (Finch 1992). Olive sided flycatchers have been detected in previous surveys of Beaver Creek ski area (Thompson 2011). This species uses habitat with similar general characteristics to that of the marten, hoary bat, and boreal owl. Additionally they are commonly heard and observed in aspen forest. As a consequence, projects proposed under the action alternative would impact 28.8 acres of habitat for this species. Construction activities associated with the proposed action during the nesting season (May 15 – July 30) could disturb nesting adults, if nests occur within the zone of influence of the project. If the disturbance occurs prior to fledging, it may result in abandonment of the nest by the adults, and subsequent mortality of nestlings. Avian surveys required by PDC may alleviate, but not eliminate, the potential for cutting a nest tree. Because of the difficulty of detecting individual nests deep within the tree canopy, it is likely that even with focused surveys, nests would remain undetected. However, such losses would likely be offset by the increase in edge habitat and open forest that would be created as a result of implementation of the proposed action.

(g) Flammulated Owl Flammulated owls, like boreal owls, require cavities for nesting. In addition, they prefer open forests for catching insects and brush or dense foliage for roosting. Ponderosa pine and aspen are the most common forest cover types where these small owls are found. In addition, they utilize mixed forests of ponderosa, Douglas fir, aspen, lodgepole pine, and/or Engelmann spruce. Scattered records exist for flammulated owls across the WRNF. The proposed action would impact 9.8 acres of potentially suitable aspen habitat for flammulated owls. Construction activities associated with the proposed action during the nesting season (June 1 – July 15 in Colorado [Wickersham 2016]) could disturb nesting adults, if nests occur within the zone of influence of the project. If the disturbance occurs prior to fledging, it may result in abandonment of the nest by the adults, and subsequent mortality of nestlings. Tree removal operations targeting standing dead will remove potential nest trees for flammulated owls.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 30 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

(h) Purple martin Purple Martins breed primarily along the edges of late-seral, aspen-dominated woodlands, usually near water. They are obligate secondary cavity nesters, using abandoned woodpecker cavities in isolated live aspen or aspen snags and rarely in ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir. Key habitat features include live aspen trees or snags containing cavities and averaging 14” dbh, located within 175’ of the edge of mountain parks, and within 1,000’ of surface water. While the project area contains aspen stands with suitable trees for cavity nests, it is not likely that waters associated with McCoy Creek provide suitable habitat in any of the project areas. The projects would impact 9.3 acres of aspens in the Project Area, which would reduce the availability of suitable nest trees for the life of the ski area’s permit. Because nest habitat is often associated with open water such as ponds, and because open standing water adjacent to aspen is limited in the analysis area, there is a low probability of this species occurring in the project areas.

(i) Western Bumble Bee The western bumble bee was historically broadly distributed from the west coast of North America, east through Alberta and western South Dakota, and south to Arizona and New Mexico, although it has undergone severe recent declines in distribution and abundance. The leading hypothesis for this decline suggests that an exotic strain of parasite was introduced from Europe by the commercial bumble bee industry in the early 1990s, and then spread to wild populations. Although it has not been proven, the hypothesis is supported by the timing, speed and severity of the decline (Torreta 2013). Because bumble bees thrive in high latitude and high elevation locations, the Rocky Mountain Region has a high species richness of bumble bees; there are records from 22 Bombus spp. on Region 2 forests. Of all of those species, the western bumble bee is the second most abundant species. However, the relative abundance over the last 10 years has declined within Region 2 also (Torreta 2013). Bumblebees are social insects that live in colonies like honey bees, although the colonies are much smaller (50-500 members) and their life cycle is different. Honey bee colonies are perennial, with the colony surviving the winter by consuming stored honey reserves and the queen living several years. In contrast, bumble bee colonies are annual, with only the queens living through the winter. These queens emerge from hibernation in the spring and start foraging for pollen and nectar and begin the search for a nest site. Nests are often located underground in abandoned rodent nests, or above the ground in tufts of grass, old birds’ nests, cavities in dead trees, or under rock piles (Hatfield et al 2013). Habitat fragmentation is the leading cause of bumble bee declines in Europe, but has not been documented in North America. However, since bumble bees nest and overwinter under or at ground level, any ground disturbance has the potential to destroy nesting and/or overwintering sites (Hatfield et al 2012). The project area contains 373 acres of forblands providing potential habitat for western bumble bee. The project would impact 12.8 acres of forblands, or about 3.4% of the potential habitat in the project area.

4.1.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis

4.1.6.1 Scope of the Analysis Cumulative effects as defined by NEPA include the incremental effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable related future actions without regard to land ownership boundaries. Past projects, including past Beaver Creek projects, are considered within the Environmental Baseline description as they are a component of the baseline condition.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 31 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

The temporal bounds for this cumulative effects analysis extends from prior to Beaver Creek’s development as a ski area in 1980, through the foreseeable future in which Beaver Creek can be expected to operate. The spatial bounds of the cumulative effects analysis varies by species and is discussed above in the Baseline Conditions.

4.1.6.2 Impacts of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects with relevance to wildlife were included in the Cumulative Effects Environmental Baseline, Section 3.5 of this document. There are no reasonably foreseeable projects that would have effects on sensitive species habitat. The action alternatives would result in varying levels of cumulative impacts for the variety of species considered. For example, urban expansion and development in Colorado has in some cases eliminated, and in other cases fragmented, habitat for a variety of species on the sensitive species list. Valley floor development continually erodes the amount of non-forest and riparian habitat for species such as fringed myotis, northern harrier, and loggerhead shrike. The expansion of homes and some municipal facilities up mountain slopes, into forests of aspen and conifer habitat reduces forested habitat and increases fragmentation of habitat for sensitive species including marten, pygmy shrew, northern goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, American peregrine falcon, boreal toad, flammulated owl, and purple martin. The cumulative effect of private land development has reduced and fragmented forest cover types for these species throughout Eagle County and elsewhere in Colorado. Large scale MPB timber salvage projects occurring across the WRNF, in combination with unharvested stands that have succumbed to mortality as a result of the MPB epidemic are likely to cause negative, cumulative effects over the short and mid-term for several species, including pine marten, hoary bat, and northern goshawk. These 3 species’ populations are expected to display short term population stability with potential for mid- or long-term (>20 years) declines due to MPB-induced changes in habitat until the lodgepole pine community regenerates to mature forest conditions. As ski areas are developed, they add to the overall fragmentation of the landscape in Colorado. If these developed areas occur jointly with other ski areas or abut the expansion occurring on private land, then fragmentation and cover type conversion pose increased cumulative effects. Past development of the Beaver Creek as a winter recreational area and associated maintenance activities has converted mixed conifer forest to the grass/forb cover type within the SUP Area. Mixed conifer forest provides cover and/or forage habitat for sensitive species including marten, pygmy shrew, northern goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, American peregrine falcon, and boreal toad. Similarly, past development and maintenance of Beaver Creek has converted aspen stands to subalpine grasslands. Such stands provide cover and/or forage habitat for sensitive species including northern goshawk, flammulated owl, and purple martin. For some of these species, habitat conversion has reduced the availability of suitable habitat and may be associated with population declines. For other species, such as the northern goshawk (Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 124, June 29, 1998) and pygmy shrew (Pettus and Lechleitner 1963), habitat conversion may not be associated with population declines. In the case of the goshawk the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS; Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 124, June 29, 1998) does not believe that habitat is limiting the overall populations or that significant curtailment of the species’ habitat or range is occurring. The goshawk forages in both forested stands and along the edges of openings, therefore the initial development of the ski area and subsequent maintenance activities are unlikely to have had a substantially positive or negative effect on this species.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 32 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

The pygmy shrew is able to survive under a variety of ecological conditions, including subalpine forests of spruce/fir and lodgepole pine, clear cuts, selectively logged forests, forest meadow edges, boggy meadows, willow thickets aspen fir forests, and subalpine parklands. Ski trail construction is unlikely to have had a long-term positive or negative effect on this species. Construction and maintenance of existing ski trails may periodically impose short-term impacts on shrew habitat and/or individuals, but the long-term population effects are likely negligible. Some of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions identified above have cumulatively affected habitat for sensitive species. Designation of the Holy Cross Wilderness provided conservation of potential habitat for the most of the species described above. However, wildfire prevention and control may have reduced cavity nesting opportunities for species such as the purple martin. Increased traffic on highways providing access to mountain towns and resort communities increase the amount of habitat fragmentation, conversion, direct vehicular mortality, and loss in the Colorado Mountains. Agricultural, residential, and commercial development along the major drainages adjacent to the Beaver Creek SUP Area has reduced potentially suitable habitat for many riparian dependent species such as boreal toad and northern leopard frog. This development, which is occurring in a variety of cover types, adds to the fragmentation of naturally fragmented habitats found within region. Activities that occur on private lands can add to the cumulative effects of management actions planned on the Forest. Finally, ongoing recreational activities during the summer and winter throughout NFS lands and within the Beaver Creek SUP Area may impact sensitive species, such as the pine marten, which are documented to avoid areas of intensive human activities. Potential future activities that have not yet been proposed or approved may add to this impact, if and when they are approved by the Forest Service. The currently proposed action would be implemented within the existing SUP Area that is currently subject to winter and summer recreation. The projects would contribute further to recreation-related fragmentation of forest habitat; they would add to the cumulative zone of disturbance due to human recreation that has taken place throughout Colorado, Eagle County, and the landscape within the SUP Area. These activities will add incrementally to the effects of human recreation on marten, pygmy shrew, northern goshawk, boreal owl, olive-sided flycatcher, flammulated owl, purple martin, and boreal toad.

4.1.7 Sensitive Species’ Determinations The determinations presented below are a direct result of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impact analyses presented in this document.

4.1.7.1 Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action Alternative reflects a continuation of existing operations and management practices at Beaver Creek without changes, additions or upgrades on NFS lands. In the short term (<20 years), and barring disturbance such as new insect infestations, disease, or wildfire, vegetation communities within the project area would remain much the same as described in the environmental baseline. The project area would continue to provide habitat for those species listed as present in Table 5. Potential disturbance to these species would remain at current levels. The natural process of MPB mortality in lodgepole pines would continue with additional trees deteriorating and falling to the ground to either decompose naturally or accumulate on the forest floor. Implementation of Alternative 1 would have NO IMPACT on WRNF sensitive species.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 33 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

4.1.7.2 Alternative 2 – Action Alternative

(a) American Marten Marten presence within McCoy Park was documented during wildlife surveys in the SUP Area, and it is assumed that martens are present in suitable spruce/fir and lodgepole pine habitat throughout the ski area. Project components would directly impact 20.1 acres of potential marten habitat, which would reduce the carrying capacity of the project area for martens. The proposed action would add to cumulative impacts to the species rangewide. As a result, the proposed project MAY ADVERSELY IMPACT INDIVIDUALS, BUT IS NOT LIKELY TO RESULT IN A LACK OF VIABILITY IN THE PLANNING AREA, NOR CAUSE A TREND TOWARDS FEDERAL LISTING.

(b) Hoary Bat The proposed project would convert 20.1 acres of forested hoary bat habitat to non-habitat. While it is not known whether or not hoary bats exist within the project areas, it is possible that individual bats could be killed if roosting in trees that are cleared during the construction period. The response of hoary bats to recreational disturbance is not known. Consequently, since roosting individuals could be killed during tree clearing, Forest Service approval of the action alternative MAY ADVERSELY IMPACT INDIVIDUALS, BUT IS NOT LIKELY TO RESULT IN A LOSS OF VIABILITY ON THE PLANNING AREA, NOR CAUSE A TREND TO FEDERAL LISTING.

(c) Pygmy Shrew It is likely that pygmy shrews exist in suitable habitat within the Beaver Creek SUP Area, including within the current project areas. Proposed action would impact 21.1 acres of habitat that could be occupied by pygmy shrews. Where suitable moist, boreal environments are present, suitable habitat for shrews is available. Should shrews inhabit any portions of the project areas, it is possible that construction equipment and activities could crush or otherwise kill individual shrews. Upon termination of construction activities, shrew habitat would still be present in adjacent areas and within ski trails as well. Since individuals may be subjected to direct mortality, the proposed activity MAY ADVERSELY IMPACT INDIVIDUALS BUT IS NOT LIKELY TO RESULT IN A LOSS OF VIABILITY ON THE PLANNING AREA, NOR CAUSE A TREND TO FEDERAL LISTING.

(d) Northern Goshawk Activities proposed under the action alternative would impact, via tree clearing for ski ways and chair lifts, 29.4 acres of conifer and aspen forests that provide potentially suitable goshawk habitat. The impacted areas would still provide goshawk foraging habitat following implementation. There are indications that the MPB epidemic has caused negative, short to mid-term effects on the lodgepole component of goshawk nest habitat. Implementation of the action alternative would have additive, negative impact to the cumulative MPB effects. Although direct and cumulative effects are anticipated under the proposed action, Northern goshawk populations will likely remain stable across the planning unit over the next 10-20 years since nesting components are protected elsewhere throughout the forest. Furthermore, PDC require pre-project surveys during the year of implementation. If goshawk a goshawk nest is found during these pre-project surveys, PDC would require a delay in project implementation until after nestlings have fledged, which typically occurs by July 30. Therefore, implementation of the action alternative would have NO IMPACT on northern goshawk.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 34 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

(e) Boreal Owl Boreal owls were not located during wildlife surveys of the project area. Regardless, potentially suitable habitat exists for these owls. Tree removal operations will target standing dead trees that provide nest habitat for boreal owls. Yet the project will not lead to impacts on natality, fecundity, or survival, since no owls were located during wildlife surveys. PDC require pre-project surveys during the year of implementation. If owls are found during these pre-project surveys, PDC would require a delay in project implementation until after owls are presumed to have fledged, which occurs by June 30. As a consequence of the foregoing information, the proposed action will have NO IMPACT on boreal owl.

(f) Olive sided Flycatcher Olive-sided flycatchers have been detected during previous surveys within the Beaver Creek ski area. Projects proposed under the action alternative would be implemented in 28.8 acres of conifer and aspen stands that provide suitable habitat for this species. This acreage of impact is inconsequential at the scale of the planning area; potential habitat exists across 1.4 million acres of conifer and aspen forest documented on the WRNF (WRNF 2002b). Olive-sided flycatchers typically choose open forest habitat patches with unusually tall, standing dead trees on which to perch and sing. Tree clearing that focuses on removal of dead lodgepole pine first would reduce habitat quality by removing perch snags preferred for these birds. Conversely, lift alignment and ski trail clearing will increase forest edge habitat that is preferred by olive-sided flycatchers. It is likely that overall, olive-sided flycatchers may benefit, in terms of increased acreage of improved quality habitat, from implementation of the proposed action. However, construction activities associated with the proposed action during the nesting season (May 15 – July 30) could disturb nesting adults, if nests occur within the zone of influence of the project. If the disturbance occurs prior to fledging, it may result in abandonment of the nest by the adults, and subsequent mortality of nestlings. Avian surveys required by PDC may alleviate, but not eliminate, the potential for cutting a nest tree. Because of the difficulty of detecting individual nests high in the tree canopy, it is likely that even with focused surveys, nests would remain undetected. Therefore, implementation of the action alternative MAY ADVERSELY IMPACT INDIVIDUALS, BUT IS NOT LIKELY TO RESULT IN A LOSS OF VIABILITY ON THE PLANNING AREA, NOR CAUSE A TREND TO FEDERAL LISTING.

(g) Flammulated Owl The proposed action would impact 9.8 acres of potentially suitable aspen habitat for flammulated owls. Construction activities associated with the proposed action during the nesting season (June 1 – July 31 in Colorado [Wickersham 2016]) could disturb nesting adults, if nests occur within the zone of influence of the project. If the disturbance occurs prior to fledging, it may result in abandonment of the nest by the adults, and subsequent mortality of nestlings. PDC require pre-project surveys during the year of implementation. If owls are found during these pre- project surveys, PDC would require a delay in project implementation until after owls are presumed to have fledged, by July 31. The project would thus not lead to impacts on natality, fecundity, or survival, upon implementation of PDC. As a consequence of the foregoing information, the proposed action will have NO IMPACT on flammulated owl.

(h) Purple Martin While the project area contains aspen stands with suitable trees for cavity nests, it is not likely that waters associated with McCoy Creek provide suitable habitat in any of the project areas. The projects would impact 9.3 acres of aspen in the Project Area, which would reduce the availability of suitable nest trees for the life of the ski area’s permit. Because nest habitat is often associated with open water such as

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 35 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report ponds, and because open standing water adjacent to aspen is limited in the analysis area, there is a low probability of this species occurring in the project area. PDC require pre-project surveys for this species and delay in project implementation until post-nesting to avoid impacts if martins are found. Consequently, with the incorporation of design criteria, and because suitable open water habitat is not present, Forest Service approval of the action alternative would have NO IMPACT to the species.

(i) Western Bumble Bee The project area contains 373 acres of forblands providing potential habitat for western bumble bee. The project would impact 12.8 acres of forblands, or about 3.4% of the potential habitat in the project area. Since habitat fragmentation is a cause of bumble bee declines in Europe, and may be a North American cause, and since bumble bees nest and overwinter under or at ground level, any ground disturbance has the potential to destroy nesting and/or overwintering sites (Hatfield et al 2012). Since construction activities would disturb 12.8 acres in forb habitat, the proposed action MAY ADVERSELY IMPACT INDIVIDUALS, BUT IS NOT LIKELY TO RESULT IN A LOSS OF VIABILITY IN THE PLANNING AREA, NOR CAUSE A TREND TOWARD FEDERAL LISTING.

4.1.7.3 Determination Summary The proposed project would impact 4 species on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list, but would not be likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning area (White River National Forest), nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide. The 4 impacted species are: American marten, hoary bat, pygmy shrew, olive-sided flycatcher. For all other species, there will be no impact. A summary of these determinations is included in Table 7.

TABLE 7. SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES DETERMINATION SUMMARY Determination / Criteria Species Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Spotted bat NI. No habitat present. NI. No habitat present. (Euderma maculatum) River otter NI. No habitat present. NI. No habitat present. (Lontra canadensis) MAII. The effect of tree clearing in Marten NI. No change to current management. marten habitat may reduce the carrying (Martes americana) capacity of the area for martens. Fringed myotis NI. No habitat present. Project area well NI. No habitat present. (Myotis thysanodes) above known elevation range. MAII. Individual bats could be Hoary Bat impacted if they are roosting in trees NI. No change to current management. (Lasiurus cinereus) that are cleared during the construction. Townsend’s Big-eared bat NI. No habitat. No caves or abandoned (Plecotus townsendii NI. No caves or abandoned mines. mines. townsendii) Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep NI. No habitat present. NI. No habitat present. (Ovis canadensis canadensis) Pygmy shrew MAII. Individuals could be crushed NI. No change to current management. (Sorex hoyi) during project implementation. NI. PDC require pre-project surveys Northern goshawk NI. No change to current management. during the year of implementation and (Accipiter gentilis) protection of nest, if found. Boreal owl NI. No change to current management. NI. PDC require pre-project surveys

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 36 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

TABLE 7. SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES DETERMINATION SUMMARY Determination / Criteria Species Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action (Aegolius funereus) during the year of implementation and protection of nest, if found. Sage sparrow NI. No sagebrush habitat. NI. No sagebrush habitat. (Amphispiza belli) Ferruginous hawk NI. No grassland habitat. NI. No grassland habitat. (Buteo regalis) Greater sage-grouse NI. No sagebrush habitat. NI. No sagebrush habitat. (Centrocercus urophasianus) Northern harrier NI. No habitat present. NI. No habitat present. (Circus cyaneus) MAII. Avian surveys required by PDC may alleviate, but not eliminate, the Olive-sided flycatcher NI. No change to current management. potential for cutting a nest tree or (Contopus borealis) otherwise disturbing to the point where nests are abandoned. Black swift NI. No waterfall habitat. NI. No waterfall habitat. (Cypseloides niger) American peregrine falcon NI. No habitat present. NI. No habitat present. (Falco peregrinus anatum) Bald Eagle NI. No habitat present. NI. No habitat present. (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) White-tailed ptarmigan NI. No habitat present. NI. No habitat present. (Lagopus leucurus) Loggerhead shrike NI. No habitat present. NI. No habitat present. (Lanius ludovicianus) Lewis’ woodpecker NI. No habitat present. NI. No habitat present. (Melanerpes lewis) NI. PDC require pre-project surveys Flammulated owl NI. No change to current management. during the year of implementation and (Otus flammeolus) protection of nest, if found. Purple martin NI. No change to current management. NI. No habitat present. (Progne subis) Brewer’s sparrow NI. No habitat present. NI. No habitat present. (Spizella breweri) Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanachus phasianellus NI. No change to current management. NI. No habitat present. columbianus) MAII. Construction activities would NI. Impacts to montane and subalpine Western bumblebee disturb 12.8 acres of forblands that may habitat insignificant in comparison with (Bombus occidentalis) provide habitat for the western bumble available habitat. bee. Monarch Butterfly NI. No milkweed in project area. NI. No milkweed in project area. (Danaus plixippus plexippus) Great Basin silverspot NI. No impacts to wetland habitat. NI. No impacts to wetland habitat. (Speyeria nokomis nokomis) Notes: NI = No Impact MAII = May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a lack of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing. In other words, effects in the project area are not expected to be significant, and the species and its habitat will remain well distributed.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 37 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

4.2 SPECIES OF LOCAL CONCERN EVALUATION Species of Local Concern is an informal term that denotes no special status to individual wildlife species. Wildlife described in this document as Species of Local Concern were identified during scoping for the McCoy Park Terrain Development as requiring specific analysis, but are not included on other lists, such as sensitive, threatened, endangered, or proposed. According to CPW's species activity maps, the McCoy Park project area contains elk production range and summer range for elk, mule deer, and moose. Summer range for these species is not limiting on the WRNF; consequently species for which only summer range exists in the project area are not further analyzed in this section. The project area does provide production range for elk, in addition to summer range. Therefore, elk were identified as Species of Local Concern and are addressed in this section.

4.2.1 Elk CPW has mapped the project area as elk production4 range (Figure 7). As a consequence, elk are addressed in this document as a species of local concern.

4.2.1.1 Baseline Conditions CPW estimates elk herd populations and sets management objectives at the scale of “Data Analysis Units” (DAUs). The Beaver Creek SUP Area is located within DAU E-16, specifically Game Management Unit (GMU) 45, which is a sub-unit of DAU E-16.

(a) DAU E-16 DAU E-16 comprises 864,500 acres, or 1350 square miles of land in portions of Eagle, Pitkin, and Garfield Counties (CPW 2013). Eighty percent of the DAU is public land, and 20% is private. Elk winter range in DAU E-16 is 63% public and 37% private land. E-16 includes the Holy Cross and Hunter- Fryingpan Wilderness areas. From 1988 through 2013, elk in E-16 had been managed for a population objective of 5100 animals. Through the 1990s and early 2000s, the herd numbers increased to over 10,000 elk. To reduce the population toward the 1988 population objective, liberal antlerless licenses were provided to achieve increased cow elk harvest. This management strategy allowed the population to be reduced to what in the 2013 herd management plan was estimated at 7,100 elk (CPW 2013). As an over-the-counter (OTC) DAU with unlimited bull licenses in 2nd and 3rd rifle seasons, E-16 is not specifically managed for a sex ratio objective, but rather to provide ample hunting opportunities. The 2009-2011 three-year average was 28 bulls:100 cows, and the long-term average since 2000 is 25 bulls:100 cows. The post-hunt calf:cow ratio in E-16 has been in a general decline for the past 2 decades. From the 1970s to the mid-1990s the calf ratio was relatively stable, averaging 54-57 calves per 100 cows. However, the observed calf ratio began declining in the late 1990s, and by the 2000s, the average was 40. The 3-year average from 2009-2011 was 35. CPW believes the declining ration may be a result of a combination of factors, including increasing human recreational disturbance, land development, limited winter range, unfavorable winter range condition, and predation (CPW 2013).

4 That part of the overall range of elk occupied by the females from May 15 to June 15 for calving. (Only known areas are mapped and this does not include all production areas for the DAU)

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 38 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

The current population objective for DAU E-16, set forth in the 2013 Herd Management Plan, is 5,500- 8,500 elk. The expected sex ratio range for E-16 is 18-30 bulls:100 cows. The most recent population estimate for E-16 is 8500 elk (CPW 2015). Within DAU E-16, outdoor recreation activities (including hiking, dog-walking, cross-country skiing, mountain biking, ATV riding/4-wheeling, dirt-biking, snowmobiling, and antler shed hunting) have increased in the past few decades. Altogether, these recreational activities are occurring throughout all elk seasonal ranges, particularly on winter and transitional ranges and during critical periods of winter and calving. These increases in some portions of the DAU, specifically within Game Management Unit (GMU) 45, may be impacting elk populations on a localized basis.

(b) Game Management Unit 45 GMU 45 comprises 214,643 acres, or 335 square miles in Eagle County. Eighty nine percent of the GMU is public, 11% public, which is a slightly higher ratio of public to private than across the DAU as a whole. Within GMU 45, conditions are different than elsewhere in DAU E-16 (Bill Andree, CPW, 2016 personal communication with Kelly Colfer). There are no ranches for elk to retreat to during severe winters, and movements are confined due to the present of I-70 to the north and high elevation mountain passes to the other directions. The elk population within GMU 45 has decreased by 82% since 2004. The past several years have seen the most significant decline since 1975 (Bill Andree, CPW, 2016 personal communication with Kelly Colfer). In general, winter range may be the most limiting habitat factor for the GMU 45 herd, especially during winters with deep snow. However with the increasing human population and year round recreational demands, the importance of summer5 and transitional range has become more evident (Bill Andree, CPW, 2016 pers. comm.). Evidence of elk utilization is apparent throughout the McCoy Park project area. The entire project area is mapped by CPW as elk summer range. Lower elevations below McCoy Park to the north and west provide winter and severe winter range. The McCoy Park project area itself falls within a polygon mapped by CPW as production range.

(c) McCoy Park Elk Production Range In general, elk calve at the point where climatic factors have made an area accessible at the time of parturition6, typically mid-May to mid-June. This, in turn, is related directly to the receding snowline and plant phenology7. There is little evidence of annually repeated use of calving areas by specific cows beyond the normal happenstance of a herd being at about the same locality during migration in successive years (Skovlin 2002). There are exceptions, however, that suggest habitual use of calving areas by certain elk cows (Zahn 1974, cited in Skovlin et al 2002). Cow elk normally calve on transitional spring ranges at about the same locations, but in years of abnormal weather conditions, they may calve above or below this range. It is therefore likely that in springs that follow winters with heavy snowfall, elk calve lower. During springs following winters with light snow, they likely calve higher. Typical calving habitat includes hiding cover that is within easy reach of each cow if she does not actually calve within that cover type. Most calving occurs in the vicinity of the edge between rather open foraging areas and adjacent forest escape cover. Free water is important, and calving areas are usually

5 That part of the home range of a species where 90 percent of the individuals are located during summer. 6 The action of giving birth. 7 Phenology is related to periodic plant and animal life cycle events and how these are influenced by seasonal and inter-annual variations in climate, as well as habitat factors such as elevation.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 39 9600

9700

10600

9700

10500 9800

10400 9900 10100 9700

10000 9600

10000

Larkspur Express

10300

10200

9700

9600

10200

10100

McCoy Park Express

McCoy Park Egress

9900

Strawberry Park Express

9800

9700

9600

9500

Upper Beaver Creek Mountain Express

USFS 9400

USFS 9300

9200

USFS

Private

9300

9400 Elkhorn

9000

9500

9200

9100

8900 8800

0 250 500 1,000 '

White River National Forest Legend Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District Existing: Proposed: Elk Range: Beaver Creek Resort Chairlift Production Area McCoy Park Terrain Development Chairlift

Environmental Assessment SUP Boundary Proposed Action Disturbance Elk Production Areas are part of the

overall range of elk occupied by females from May 15 to June 15 for calving. Figure 5 - Elk Production Range Cross Country Ski Trail Areas º

Date: June 2018. Features represented on this map are approximate. Contour = 20' McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report located within ¼ mile of a water source. Calving areas are often located on gentle slopes (20 – 30%) with southerly exposures that offer ground cover concealment in the form of broken terrain, shrubs or down logs, and other coarse debris. Hiding cover is widely available and well distributed throughout McCoy Park by not only aspen and conifer forests, but also by the abundant cover provided by willows scattered throughout the area. There are currently no roads or maintained hiking/biking trails within the McCoy Park project area itself. However, numerous roads currently exist that access the periphery of the project area, and game trails have become used as hiking trails along Nordic ski trail routes. Roads within the production range, but outside of McCoy Park, include the following: • Roads accessing residential subdivisions at Daybreak Ridge, Bachelor Gulch, and Arrowhead • The McCoy Park Spur, a Beaver Creek access road which extends from Beano’s to the top of Chairs 12&18 • The McCoy Park Road itself, which runs from Daybreak Ridge, Bachelor Gulch, and Arrowhead to the top of Chair 11. All of these roads, along with the residential areas they service, are located within the mapped calving area. A mandatory Supervisor’s closure exists within McCoy Park, which excludes all human activity from May 6 through June 30 (dates inclusive) to facilitate continued elk calving and calf-rearing.

4.2.1.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts

(a) Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action Alternative reflects a continuation of existing operations and management practices at Beaver Creek without changes, additions or upgrades on NFS lands. In the short term (<20 years), and barring disturbance such as new insect infestations, disease, or wildfire, vegetation communities within the project areas would remain much the same as described in the environmental baseline. The project areas would continue to provide seasonal ranges for elk. Disturbance to elk, where it exists, would remain at current levels. Elk would be likely to continue calving at historic elevations and locations dependent on the level of the annually receding snow line. Implementation of Alternative 1 would have NO IMPACT on elk.

(b) Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Under the action alternative, the proposed activities would directly impact 30.1 acres of vegetation that provides forage and/or cover for elk in CPW-mapped summer and production range. The project would also construct 1.35 miles of new access roads into the McCoy Park project area. Sites that are cleared for ski trail and lift construction would continue to provide forage for elk; their value as cover would, however, be reduced or eliminated. At the scale of the 214,643 acre GMU 45, or at the scale of the 864,500 acre DAU, the impact to cover resources would not be detectable in terms of a decrease in elk survival or fecundity. The McCoy Park area would still provide adequate cover for elk throughout the spring calving season, the summer, and into the fall transition period. Therefore, the conclusion of this analysis is that the vegetation impacts would not impact DAU E-16 or GMU-45 elk population numbers. Relative to the value of McCoy Park during the calving period, cover and water resources are well distributed throughout the project area. While the project would reduce hiding cover by 30.1 acres within the 5,800 acre McCoy Park production range polygon, this equates to impacts on 0.5% of the total production range acreage. Hiding cover will still be widely available within McCoy Park and throughout the mapped production range. Specifically of note, the well distributed cover provided by willow

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 41 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report shrublands throughout McCoy Park would not be significantly disturbed (0.1 acre out of 51 acres available), preserving this high value cover throughout the project area. In other words, it is not likely that the direct impact of vegetation clearing would impact elk, especially during the important calving season. The project Hydrology Report (Passerini 2018) indicates that the additional snowmaking input into McCoy Park would be, in part, responsible for a 7% increase in watershed yield in the McCoy Creek watershed. Intuitively, then, it may be conjectured that snow cover may remain on the ground for a longer period in the spring, potentially impacting elk calving use in McCoy Park. However, the Hydrology Report further presented a WRENSS Model that demonstrated that while peak flows would be greater under the proposed action within McCoy Creek, the timing of flows would not change. The Hydrology Report concluded that the increased water yield and peak flows would be entirely within the existing range of natural variation. Given the propensity for elk calving to occur at elevations determined largely by snow melt-off, and that the current project would remain within the range of natural variability for volume and rate, and that the timing of peak flows would not change, it is not likely that any temporal variation in snowmelt would impact the suitability of the McCoy Park calving polygon for such use by elk. New roads that would be built as a component of the project have the potential to introduce additional human presence into McCoy Park. Previous studies at Beaver Creek, Vail (Morrison et al 1995) and elsewhere have shown that elk are less likely to habituate to the disturbance created by human presence as compared with habitat disturbance (ski ways and chair lifts). With the current precipitous decline in the GMU 45 elk herd, and the declining calf ratio in the DAU as a whole, disturbance during the spring calving period has the potential to indirectly impact calf recruitment within the GMU 45 herd. PDC that would preclude construction and maintenance activities between May 6 and June 30 would prevent human disturbance related to ski area operations during the key calving period. With these PDC in place, the potential for increased human presence (due to new roads) during calving season would be minimized or eliminated. The solitude provided by maintenance avoidance during these time periods would help to foster continued use of the area by elk during the calving season. Installation of gates on the new roads to deter recreational access during the calving period would provide additional benefits. Signage explaining the reason for the gates would further deter recreational access. Construction activities, including road construction, have the potential to introduce noxious weeds into the project area. Weed infestations can affect the suitability of forage for elk over widespread areas. However, PDC that require pre-construction equipment cleaning, pretreatment of existing infestations, and post-construction monitoring and treatment would reduce the potential for new weed infestations to become established in the project area.

4.2.1.3 Cumulative Impacts Urban expansion and development, along with increased human recreation in their spring/summer/fall ranges in DAU E-2 and specifically within GMU 45 may have fragmented habitat and/or decreased the effectiveness of available habitat for elk. Residential development in Eagle County, the presence of the heavily used I-70, and increased human recreation in elk winter range has likely impacted elk survival, natality, and fecundity in the past and will undoubtedly continue in the future. While production range is protected where it occurs on public lands, few protections exist on private lands. Summer range has been modified through wildfire prevention and control, timber management, livestock grazing, ski area habitat conversion, the MPB infestation, and human recreational activities. Designation of the Holy Cross Wilderness provided conservation of summer range for elk, and has provided a summertime refuge for the some portions of the DAU E-2 elk herd.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 42 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

While the direct impact of 25.1 acres of habitat conversion in summer and calving range would not directly impact elk, it would add to the cumulative impact of habitat loss in these ranges across DAU E- 16. However, CPW (2013) believes that habitat losses and degradation within winter and transitional ranges have had the greatest adverse cumulative impact on elk in DAU E-16. The proposed action would not impact winter range, and PDC would prevent impacts during spring to transitional and calving range.

4.2.1.4 Determination Forest Service approval of the proposed action would not result in direct impacts that would be detectable at either the GMU or DAU level. PDC to avoid construction and maintenance between May 6 and June 30 would prevent indirect impacts of human-related disturbance during calving. The proposed action would not add to cumulative effects that are currently believed to be limiting to elk in DAU E-16 or GMU 45. Therefore, the proposed action would not have direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on elk.

4.2.1.5 Recommended Mitigation Measures The following measures are recommended to be included in PDC for the project: • To prevent disturbance during the elk calving season, new roads should be gated and signed to deter recreational access to McCoy Park during the May 6 through June 30 elk calving closure. • Prohibit construction workers from bringing dogs onsite during construction. • Utilize bear-proof trash receptacles for any activities that may be occurring during months when bears are active. • Ensure secondary containment for any fuel storage sites during and after construction.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 43 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

4.3 MIGRATORY BIRDS In 2008, the Forest Service Chief signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the USFWS to promote the conservation of migratory birds (USDA-FS 2008). This MOU was pursuant to Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (66 Fed. Reg 11, 3853- 3856, 2001). The Executive Order directs agencies to take certain actions to further comply with the migratory bird conventions, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and other pertinent statutes. The purpose of the MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation by identifying strategies that promote conservation and avoid or minimize negative impacts on migratory birds.

4.3.1 Baseline Conditions Table 12 presents a list of birds of conservation concern for USFWS Bird Conservation Region 16 (Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau), as well as information about potential occurrence in the McCoy Park Project Area. Suitable nesting habitat is present in the project area for some of the birds on the USFWS list.

TABLE 8. USFWS BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN Addressed Occurrence in Species Occurrence on WRNF 1 Habitat Association elsewhere in Project Area? 2 analysis? Gunnison Sage- No Sagebrush, SW Colo No No grouse Large wetlands with dense emergent American Bittern No No No vegetation Foraging likely, no nesting on Forest. Numerous nests on private Nesting – No Cottonwood/conifer nests adjacent to Bald Eagle lands adjacent to the Foraging - No large rivers and lakes Forest, including one 5 Likely miles from the project area on the Eagle River. Yes, but only Ferruginous Hawk Yes, migration only Prairie grasslands and shrub-steppe during No migration. Yes, portions of WRNF Cliff or tree nests. Forage over Yes, foraging Golden Eagle may be part of large No grasslands, sagebrush, alpine. only. hunting range. Yes; closest eyrie 8 miles No, too far from Cliff nests. Hunt predominately over Peregrine Falcon east of the project area closest Yes, BE P/J, ponderosa, spruce/fir near Minturn. occurrence. Cliff nests. Hunt over grasslands, Prairie Falcon No No No woodlands, and shrublands. Snowy Plover No Reservoir shorelines No No Mountain Plover No Prairie grasslands No No Long-billed Curlew No Shortgrass prairies No No Yellow-billed No Deciduous Riparian No Yes, BA Cuckoo Scattered records across Aspen-mixed conifer forests, aspen Flammulated Owl Unknown Yes, BE WRNF forest, P-J woodlands, ponderosa pine;

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 44 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

TABLE 8. USFWS BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN Addressed Occurrence in Species Occurrence on WRNF 1 Habitat Association elsewhere in Project Area? 2 analysis? to 10,000’ elevation Burrowing Owl No Plains/grasslands No No Lewis’s Woodpecker No Mid-elevation riparian cottonwood No Yes, BE Middle and high elevation willow and Willow flycatcher Likely Likely No alder carrs Gray Vireo No Open P/J woodlands No No Pinyon Jay No P/J woodlands No No Juniper Titmouse No P/J woodlands No No Veery No Riparian thickets, deciduous woodland Likely No Bendire’s Thrasher No Rare spp of arid areas No No Grace’s warbler No Ponderosa pine/scrub oak No No Brewer’s Sparrow No Sagebrush shrublands, mountain parks. No Yes, BE Grasshopper Sparrow No Prairie grasslands No No Chestnut-collared No Prairie grasslands No No longspur Black Rosy-finch Unknown Alpine cliffs Unknown No Brown-capped Rosy- Unknown Alpine cliffs, talus, mines, caves, bldgs Unknown No finch Cassin’s Finch Yes Conifers Unknown No

1 Source: Wickersham 2016

More detailed information on the habitat requirements, status, distribution, abundance, and key habitat components of most species is on file at the Forest Service Supervisor’s Office in Glenwood Springs and the USFWS’s Western Colorado Field Office in Grand Junction, and is not reviewed here.

4.3.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts

4.3.2.1 Alternative 1 The No Action Alternative reflects a continuation of existing operations and management practices at Beaver Creek without changes, additions or upgrades on NFS lands. In the short term (<20 years), and barring disturbance such as new insect infestations, disease, or wildfire, vegetation communities within the project areas would remain much the same as described in the environmental baseline. The project areas would continue to provide avian habitat. Disturbances in avian habitat would remain at current levels. The natural process of MPB mortality in lodgepole pines would continue with additional trees deteriorating and falling to the ground to either decompose naturally or accumulate on the forest floor. Standing dead trees would continue to provide habitat components to birds that nest or forage on snags. Implementation of Alternative 1 would have NO IMPACT on birds of conservation concern for Bird Conservation Region 16.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 45 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

4.3.2.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Under this alternative, there would be 42.7 acres of vegetation removal and grading within potential forest, shrubland, and grassland nest habitat for migratory birds. PDC requires nest surveys to be conducted prior to construction. The project has been designed, to the extent practicable, to minimize incidental take during construction through the implementation of this PDC. Construction may occur within the nesting period if surveys show no active bird nests present, or as otherwise approved by the Forest Service. However, it is possible that undetected active nests of migratory birds could occur in project areas during tree removal, possibly resulting in the incidental take of eggs, nestlings, or adults. Avian nesting and foraging effectiveness could be impaired adjacent to the cleared and/or graded areas. While some affected birds could experience reduced recruitment during the construction period, such potential effects would be limited to a low number of individual birds and would not measurably affect bird abundance or community composition in the short or long term within the Beaver Creek SUP Area or within the WRNF.

4.3.3 Cumulative Impacts Past projects, including past Beaver Creek projects, are considered within the Environmental Baseline description as they are a component of the baseline condition. The temporal and spatial bounds for this migratory bird analysis are the same as that described above for sensitive species. There are no reasonably foreseeable projects that would have effects on migratory bird habitat. Large numbers of birds are killed due to collisions with human structures and equipment, poisoning by pesticides and contaminants, and attacks by cats and other introduced predators. Diseases such as botulism, avian cholera, salmonellosis, and emerging West Nile virus can also have significant population impacts. Human activities, such as overuse of pesticides (enhancing the survival of pesticide-resistant mosquitoes), for example, can help spread certain diseases. The greatest threat to birds, and all wildlife, continues to be loss and/or degradation of habitat due to human development and disturbance. For migratory birds and other species that require multiple areas for wintering, breeding, and stopover points, the effects of habitat loss can be complex and far-reaching. Added to deaths from natural causes, such as adverse weather, predation, or starvation, human-related bird deaths may result in greater mortality than a population can withstand. While the impact of the current project may not result in detectable impacts at the scale of the SUP Area or the WRNF, the impacts inherent within the action alternative are additive to the sum of all cumulative effects on migratory birds nation-wide.

4.3.4 Determination PDC that require nest surveys prior to project activities will assist in protecting birds of conservation concern. Under such circumstances, the activities proposed under Alternative 2 would be consistent with the USFS/USFWS Migratory Bird MOU because of the requirements of PDC intended to avoid the incidental take of migratory birds.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 46 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

5. AQUATIC SPECIES

5.1 FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY The WRNF Land and Resource Management Plan provides direction for management activities on the forest in the forms of goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines. The proposed action is designed to provide for recreation opportunities while minimizing environmental effects on resources. The desired conditions related to Sensitive Species and Wildlife are generated by the LRMP and are based on ecosystem capability, sustainability, variability, and functions on human desires and needs. The standards and guidelines discussed in this section are only those which are applicable to the proposed action. The entire wildlife and fisheries consistency analysis is included in the project file.

5.1.1 Colorado River Cutthroat Trout

5.1.1.1 Standard 1 • For management activities that have the potential to impact occupied cutthroat trout habitat, tributaries of occupied cutthroat trout habitat, or identified reintroduction areas, maintain or enhance existing cutthroat trout habitat. At minimum and where necessary: o Reduce sediment from existing roads and trails. o Maintain pool depths. o Maintain riparian vegetation. o Retain large woody debris in streams. McCoy Creek does not contain Colorado River Cutthroat Trout. Therefore, the proposed action is consistent with this standard.

5.1.1.2 Standard 2 • When implementing management activities in 6th field Hydrologic Unit Codes (subwatersheds) containing cutthroat trout identified as recovery populations in the Colorado River Cutthroat Recovery Plan, maintain or reduce existing net density of roads (open or closed) to restore or prevent alteration of the hydrologic function of the sub- watershed. Temporary roads must be decommissioned upon project completion. McCoy Creek is not included in the most recent mapping of conservation populations (Hirsch et al 2013). Therefore, the proposed action is consistent with this standard.

5.1.2 Boreal Toad and Leopard Frog

5.1.2.1 Standard 1 • Allow no loss or reduction in habitat quality of occupied or known historic boreal toad or leopard frog habitat.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 47 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

There are no known historic boreal toad or leopard frog occurrences in McCoy Creek. Surveys failed to detect their presence in 2018. Therefore, the proposed action is consistent with this standard.

5.1.2.2 Standard 2 • Maintain adequate vegetation cover around occupied boreal toad or leopard frog breeding ponds when implementing management activities to minimize avian predation on newly metamorphosed frogs and toads. There are no known historic boreal toad or leopard frog occurrences in McCoy Creek. Surveys failed to detect their presence in 2018. Therefore, the proposed action is consistent with this standard.

5.1.2.3 Standard 3 • Use only chemical herbicides shown to have no effect on boreal toads or leopard frogs, or use other vegetation management techniques, within 300 feet of occupied or known historic boreal toad sites. There are no known historic boreal toad or leopard frog occurrences in McCoy Creek. Surveys failed to detect their presence in 2018. Therefore, the proposed action is consistent with this standard.

5.1.2.4 Standard 4 • Do not use fish toxins with the potential to harm boreal toads or leopard frogs in occupied boreal toad and leopard frog habitats. There are no known historic boreal toad or leopard frog occurrences in McCoy Creek. Surveys failed to detect their presence in 2018. Therefore, the proposed action is consistent with this standard.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 48 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

5.2 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR SENSITIVE AQUATIC SPECIES The Regional Forester has identified a list of sensitive aquatic species for which population viability is a concern (FSM 2672.11, R2 Supplement 2600-2013-1). The Regional Forester’s list, most recently updated on July 13, 2017 and edited for the WRNF, is included in Table 13. Based on documented habitat affinities, the species highlighted in green in each table were determined to have potential habitat in the project areas. The last 2 columns in each table present the determination and criteria for each of the species on the regional forester’s list. The Region 2 Species Conservation Program has produced species conservation assessment reports that represent the best available science for the species included in Table 13. Rather than include an extensive description for each species within the text of this report, the details of their habitat are provided in the table, along for a reference to the relevant R2 Species Conservation Assessment and/or additional relevant literature. The cited documents are incorporated into this BE by reference, and cited in the table and in the Reference section.

TABLE 9. SENSITIVE AQUATIC SPECIES AND DETERMINATION SUMMARY.

Potential Occurrence on Occurrence Species Habitat Association Determination / Criteria WRNF in Project Area? Amphibians NO IMPACT. Nearest known breeding population of boreal toads is more than 11 miles away in Katsos Pond just east of the Vail Golf Club adjacent to Gore Creek. McCoy Park is well outside of the migration Subalpine forest habitats with Small disjunct range from this population; Boreal toad marshes, wet meadows, streams, populations across the Y however potential habitat exists (Bufo boreas boreas) beaver ponds, and lakes WRNF in McCoy Creek. Surveys (Keinath and McGee 2005). conducted in 2018 failed to detect the presence of boreal toads in McCoy Creek. There will be no physical impacts to this habitat. The proposed project will not adversely impact stream health. NO IMPACT. No known 2 known populations populations on Eagle/Holy on Rifle and Blanco Cross District. Potential Wet meadows, marshes, ponds, Northern leopard frog Districts. Widespread habitat exists in McCoy Creek; beaver ponds, streams (Smith Y (Rana pipiens) in low elevation however there will be no and Keinath 2007). private land in Routt physical impacts to this habitat. County to the north. The proposed project will not adversely impact stream health. Fish Colorado River to Granby, Milk, NO IMPACT. No large, Bluehead sucker Larger rivers of western slope of Piceance, Rifle, N western slope rivers impacted (Catostomus discobolus) Colorado (Ptacek et al 2005). Alkali, and Divide by project. Creeks

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 49 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

TABLE 9. SENSITIVE AQUATIC SPECIES AND DETERMINATION SUMMARY.

Potential Occurrence on Occurrence Species Habitat Association Determination / Criteria WRNF in Project Area? Colorado River to NO IMPACT. No large, Flannelmouth sucker Granby, Milk, Larger rivers of western slope of N western slope rivers impacted (Catostomus latipinnis) Piceance, and Divide Colorado (Rees et al 2005a). by project. Creeks Numerous small to Throughout west on both sides NO IMPACT. No direct medium streams of Continental Divide- clear cold disturbance of wetland or Mountain sucker below 8600’ elevation creeks & small- medium rivers stream habitat. Aquatic (Catostomus N draining into the with rubble, gravel, or sand surveys conducted in 2018 platyrhynchus) White River, Deep substrate (Belica and Nibbelink failed to detect mountain Creek 2006) suckers in McCoy Creek. Colorado River through Glenwood NO IMPACT. No large, Roundtail chub Larger rivers of Colorado River Canyon, downstream N western slope rivers impacted (Gila robusta) basin (Rees et al 2005b). on White River, Milk by project. and Divide Creeks NO IMPACT. Aquatic Colo. River cutthroat trout surveys conducted in 2018 Widespread localized Headwater streams and lakes (Oncorhynchus clarki Y failed to detect Colorado River reaches (Young 2008). pleuriticus) cutthroat trout in McCoy Creek.

5.2.1 Environmental Baseline The McCoy Park project area contains 27.3 acres of wetlands that provide potential habitat for boreal toad and leopard frog, including 26.8 acres of willow-dominated palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, 0.5 acre of palustrine emergent herbaceous wetland, and on 0.005 acre site with ponded water that is part of a larger wetland. There are 5 wetland fens totaling approximately one acre scattered within the project area. Wetland vegetation is primarily dominated by Bebb willow with a variety of common wetland graminoids and forbs including beaked sedge, water sedge, tufted hairgrass, bluejoint reedgrass, swordleaf rush, field horsetail, elephant's head, Rocky Mountain grass-of-Parnassus, globeflower, monkshood, brook saxifrage, and bishop's cap. Wetlands are fed largely by a shallow water table, with a smaller contribution from surface waters of McCoy Creek headwaters flowing into and through wetlands. McCoy Creek in the majority of the project area is intermittent or ephemeral, meaning that waters do not flow throughout the growing season. For this reason, most of the McCoy Creek headwaters do not provide high quality habitat for aquatic species. Suitable breeding habitat (per Keinath and McGee 2005) does exist in McCoy Park in shallow flowing water and small ponded sites. However such habitat is widely available throughout the WRNF. Neither leopard frogs nor boreal toads were detected during 2018 amphibian surveys within the project area. The closest known boreal toad breeding population is located well beyond the documented boreal toad migration distance, over 11 miles distant from the project area. The closest known occurrences of leopard frogs are on the Blanco and Rifle Ranger Districts, also well outside of the frog’s migration ability. Regardless of the fact that these two species were not detected in McCoy Park, the proposed action would not introduce barriers to migration for any amphibians, including boreal toad and leopard frog.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 50 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

For fish, the lower reach of McCoy Creek in the project area may be perennial, however the upper reaches are intermittent or ephemeral, providing, at best, transitory habitat during and shortly after runoff. Stream substrates in lower perennial reaches are fine-grained, providing poor spawning habitat. Surveys conducted by the Forest Service in July 2018 detected no fish in the project area (Mark Hane, WRNF Aquatic Wildlife Technician, pers. comm.).

5.2.2 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts

5.2.2.1 Alternative 1 The No Action Alternative reflects a continuation of existing operations and management practices at Beaver Creek without changes, additions or upgrades on NFS lands. In the short term (<20 years), and barring disturbance such as new insect infestations, disease, or wildfire, aquatic resources within the project areas would remain much the same as described in the environmental baseline. The project areas would continue to provide aquatic habitat that exists at the current time. Implementation of Alternative 1 would have NO IMPACT on aquatic wildlife.

5.2.2.2 Alternative 2 Construction and implementation of the Proposed Action following the mitigation measures outlined in the project Hydrology Technical Report (Passerini 2018) will be consistent with the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (WCPH) and Forest Plan standards and will not adversely impact the condition of study watersheds that provide habitat for these aquatic species. Past ski area development at Beaver Creek Resort has cumulatively affected riparian areas on NFS lands within the Resort’s SUP area. Residential development has also resulted on impacts to the Beaver Creek and McCoy Creek watersheds. Regarding ski area development at Beaver Creek, there have been cumulative impacts to the Beaver Creek watershed from ground disturbance activities related to construction of ski trails, mountain restaurants, and ski lifts. The 3.6 acres of additional tree removal proposed in the Beaver Creek watershed would not have a measurable direct or indirect effect on watershed yield or peak stream flows (Passerini 2018). The Proposed Action would remove selected trees on approximately 26.3 acres within the McCoy Creek watershed. Despite direct project effects of the Proposed Action, when considered cumulatively, in addition to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, implementation of Alternative 2 would maintain stream health and watershed condition through successful implementation of mitigation measures and PDC described in the project’s Hydrology Technical Report (Passerini 2018). By maintaining the health of the study watersheds, Alternative 2 would not exhibit a negative influence upon watershed conditions in a cumulative context.

5.2.3 Determinations

5.2.3.1 Boreal Toad and Leopard Frog The nearest known breeding population of boreal toads is more than 11 miles distant from the McCoy Park project area in Katsos Pond just east of the Vail Golf Club adjacent to Gore Creek. McCoy Park is well outside of the migration range from this population; however potential habitat exists in McCoy Creek. Surveys conducted in 2018 by Western Bionomics failed to detect the presence of boreal toads in McCoy Creek. There will be no physical impacts to this habitat and the proposed action would not introduce barriers to migration. The proposed project is consistent with the WCPH and Forest Plan standards and will not adversely impact the condition of McCoy Creek. The proposed project would

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 51 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report maintain stream health and watershed condition. Therefore, implementation of the Action Alternative will have NO IMPACT on boreal toad or leopard frog.

5.2.3.2 All Fish There were no fish detected in the project area during 2018 surveys. There will be no direct disturbance of wetland or stream habitat associated with the project. There will be no physical impacts to this habitat and the proposed action would not introduce barriers to migration. The proposed project is consistent with the WCPH and Forest Plan standards and will not adversely impact the condition of McCoy Creek. The proposed project would maintain stream health and watershed condition. Therefore, implementation of the Action Alternative will have NO IMPACT on fish in the McCoy Creek watershed.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 52 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

6. LITERATURE CITED

Abele, S.C., V.A. Saab, and E.O. Garton. (2004, June 29). Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/lewisswoodpecker.pdf . Adams, R. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West. University Press, Boulder, CO. Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO. 442 p. Beauvais, G.P. and J. McCumber. (2006, November 30). Pygmy Shrew (Sorex hoyi): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/pygmyshrew.pdf . 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 . Belica, L.T. and N.P. Nibbelink. (2006, August 23). Mountain Sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainsucker.pdf . Boyle, S. (2006, September 2). North American River Otter (Lontra canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northamericanriverotter.pdf . Buchanan, J. 2017. Forest Service Manual 2600, Chapter 2670 (July 13, 2017) Updated list of Region 2 Sensitive species. Jacqueline Buchanan, Acting Deputy Regional Forester. Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO. Buskirk, S.W., and Ruggiero, L.F. 1994. American marten. Pages 7-37 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest Carnivores. USDA-FS Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. 184 pp. Cablk, M.E. and S. Spaulding. 2002 Dec. Baseline and initial monitoring assessment of Martes americana, the American marten, at Heavenly Ski Resort, Lake Tahoe. California: US Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. 87 p. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2008. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptors. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). Frying Pan River Elk Herd E-16 Data Analysis Unit Plan. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Glenwood Springs, CO. Collins, C.P. and T.D. Reynolds (2005, September 2). Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ferruginoushawk.pdf . Delaney, D.K., T.G. Grubb, P. Beier, L.L. Pater and M.H. Reiser. 1999. Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 60-76.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 53 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

Dressen, M.A. 2009. Response of snowshoe hare to environmental conditions resulting from a mountain pine beetle epidemic – under a no-action alternative. Unpublished document on file at the Hahn’s Peak / Bears Ears Ranger District, Steamboat Springs, CO. Federal Register. February 4, 2013a. Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the North American Wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico; Proposed Rules. Vol 78 No 23, 7864-7890. Federal Register. February 4, 2013b. Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the North American Wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico. Vol 78 No 23, 7890-7905. Federal Register. 2001. Executive Order 13186 of January 10, 2001 , Responsibilities of Federal Agencies To Protect Migratory Birds. 66FR11,3853-3856. Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath (2006, October 25). Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf . Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, E. Mader, SH Black, and M. Shepherd. 2012. Conserving Bumble Bees, Guidelines for Creating and Managing Habitat for America’s Declining Pollinators. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. www.xerces.org Hayward, G.D. 1989. Habitat use and population biology of boreal owls in the northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. 113pp. Hayward, G.D. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: boreal owls. In (G.D. Hayward and J. Verner, eds) Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the United States: A Technical Conservation Assessment. General Technical Report RM-253. Fort Collins, CO. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 213 p. Hayward, G.D. 2008. Response of pine squirrel under a no-action alternative to tree morality resulting from a mountain pine beetle epidemic. Unpublished document on file at the Hahn’s Peak / Bears Ears Ranger District, Steamboat Springs, CO. Hirsch, C.L., M.R. Dare, and S.E. Albeke. 2013. Range-wide status of Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): 2010. Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Conservation Team Report. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Fort Collins. 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 . Hoffman, R.W. and A.E. Thomas. (2007, August 17). Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/columbiansharptailedgrouse.pdf . Holmes, J.A. and M.J. Johnson (2005a, January 11). Sage Sparrow (Amphispiza belli): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/sagesparrow.pdf . Holmes, J.A. and M.J. Johnson (2005b, January 13). Brewer's Sparrow (Spizella breweri): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/brewerssparrow.pdf . Keinath, D.A. (2004, October 29). Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/fringedmyotis.pdf .

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 54 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

Keinath, D.A. and M. McGee. (2005, May 25). Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/borealtoad.pdf . Kennedy, P.L. and D.W. Stahlecker. 1993. Responsiveness of nesting northern goshawks to taped broadcasts of 3 conspecific calls. Journal of Wildlife Management. 57: 249-257. Kennedy, P.L. (2003). Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf [accessed May 15, 2014]. Kotliar, N.B. (2007, February 20). 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 . Kozlowski, S. 2009. Response of American marten to epidemic mountain pine beetle=caused mortality under a no-action alternative. Unpublished document on file at the Hahn’s Peak / Bears Ears Ranger District, Steamboat Springs, CO. Loose, S. 2008. Response of three-toed woodpecker to environmental conditins under a no-action alternative. Unpublished document on file at the Hahn’s Peak / Bears Ears Ranger District, Steamboat Springs, CO. Luce, R.J. and D. Keinath. (2007, October 31). Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/spottedbat.pdf . McCallum, D.A. 1994. Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus). In The Birds of North America, No. 93, (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' Union. 24 p. Muths, E., S. Rittman, J. Irwin, D. Keinath, and R. Scherer. (2005, March 24). Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/woodfrog.pdf [accessed 5/5/17]. Naylor, LM, MJ Wisdom, and RG Anthony. 2009. Behavioral Responses of North American Elk to Recreational Activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(3). 11p. Pettus, D., and R.R. Lechleitner. 1963. Microsorex in Colorado. J. Mamm. 44:119. Ptacek, J.A., D.E. Rees, and W.J. Miller. (2005, April 25). Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus discobolus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/blueheadsucker.pdf . Rees, D.E., J.A. Ptacek, R.J. Carr, and W.J. Miller. (2005a, April 6). Flannelmouth Sucker (Catostomus latipinnis): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/flannelmouthsucker.pdf . Rees, D.E., J.A. Ptacek, and W.J. Miller. (2005b, May 3). Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/roundtailchub.pdf . Reynolds, R.T. (2016, June 23). Personal communication via email by Melissa Dressen with Richard Reynolds (Rocky Mountain Research Station) on goshawk populations following bark beetle epidemic on the Routt National Forest.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 55 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

Selby, G. (2007, April 25). Great Basin Silverspot Butterfly ((Speyeria nokomis nokomis [W.H. Edwards]): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/greatbasinsilverspotbutterfly.pdf . Siemers, J.L. 2009. Pygmy shrew (Sorex hoyi) survey on the White River National Forest. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Skorkowsky, R. 2009. Response of northern goshawk under a no-action alternative to tree mortality resulting from a mountain pine beetle epidemic. Unpublished document on file at the Hahn’s Peak / Bears Ears Ranger District, Steamboat Springs, CO. Skovlin, J.M., P. Zager, and B.K. Johnson. 2002. Elk habitat selection and evaluation. In Toweill, D.E. and J.W. Thomoas, eds, North American Elk: Ecology and Management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 962p. Slater, G.L. and C. Rock. (2005, September 30). Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernharrier.pdf . Smith, B.E. and D.A. Keinath. (2007, January 16). Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northernleopardfrog.pdf . Snider, E.A. 2011. Region 2 sensitive species evaluation form: Hoary bat, Lasiurus cinereus. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5350842 Squires, J. R. and P. L. Kennedy. 2006. Northern goshawk ecology: an assessment of current knowledge and information needs for conservation management. Studies in Avian Biology 31: 8-62. Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, C.W. McCarthy, and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Stone, Katharine. 2010. Martes americana, American marten. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/maam/- all.html [2016, October 27]. Taylor, A.R. & R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor perceptions. Ecological Applications, 13(4), pp. 951-963. Towry, R.K. 1984. Wildlife Habitat Requirements In Managing Forested Lands for Wildlife, R.L. Hoover and D.L. Wills (eds.). Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. USDA Forest Service. 2007. Sphagnum angustifolium. Species Evaluation Form. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/evalrationale/evaluations/nonvascular/sphagnumangustifolium.pdf . USDA Forest Service. 2002a. 2002 Revision to the Land and Resource Management Plan. White River National Forest. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region. USDA Forest Service. 2002b. 2002 Revision to the Land and Resource Management Plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement. White River National Forest. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region. USDA Forest Service. 2002c. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix N - Biological Evaluation to accompany the Land and Resource Management Plan - 2002 Revision. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 56 McCoy Park Terrain Development Biological Evaluation Migratory Bird Evaluation SOLC Report

USDA Forest Service. May 2012. Beaver Creek Mountain Improvements Project. Final Environmental Impact Statement. White River National Forest. Eagle-Holy Cross Ranger District. USDA Forest Service. 2012. Unpublished data on file at the MBR-Hahn’s Peak Bears Ears District Office, Steamboat Springs, CO. USDA Forest Service. 2014. Medicine Bow National Forest and Routt National Forest 10- and 15-Year Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Report. On file at the HPBE Ranger District Office, Steamboat Springs, CO. USDA-FS and USFWS. 2008. Memorandum of understanding between the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds. FS Agreement # 08-MU-1113-2400-264, Washington DC. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the North American Wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico; Proposed Rule. Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 156, August 13, 2014. Pages 47522-47545. Wiggins, D. (2004, January 26). Black Swift (Cypseloides niger): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/blackswift.pdf . Wiggins, D. (2005, March 31). Purple Martin (Progne subis): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/purplemartin.pdf . Wiggins, D. (2005a, February 10). Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/loggerheadshrike.pdf . Woodbridge, B.; Hargis, C.D. 2006. Northern goshawk inventory and monitoring technical guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-71. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 80 p. Young, M.K. (2008, October 10). Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/coloradorivercutthroattrout.pdf . Zielinski, W.J., and Spencer, W.D., and Barrett, R.H. 1983. Relationship between food habits and activity patterns of pine martens. J. Mamm. 64: 387-396.

WESTERN BIONOMICS INC. Natural Resource Management Services 57