United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Biological Evaluation and Management Indicator Species Report

DOI-BLM-CO-S080-2017-0030-EA

Palisade Plunge Trail Mesa County, Colorado

March 2018

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests 2777 Crossroads Blvd Grand Junction, CO 81506 Phone: (970) 242-8211 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 Proposed Action ...... 2 2.1 Purpose and Need ...... 2 2.2 Project Area Location and Legal Description ...... 2 2.3 Proposed Action ...... 2 2.4 Alternative 2 - No Action ...... 2 3.0 Methodology for Analysis ...... 4 4.0 Affected Environment ...... 4 5.0 Sensitive Species ...... 5 5.1 GMUG Sensitive Species Considered ...... 5 5.2 Evaluated Species ...... 10 5.2.1 Bat Species ...... 10 5.2.2 American Marten (Martes americana) ...... 11 5.2.3 Pygmy Shrew (Sorex hoyi) ...... 11 5.2.4 Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) ...... 11 5.2.5 Boreal Owl (Aegolius funereus) ...... 12 5.2.6 Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) ...... 12 5.2.7 Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) ...... 12 5.2.8 American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) ...... 13 5.2.9 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ...... 13 5.2.10 Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) ...... 13 5.2.11 Flammulated Owl (Psilocops flammeolus) ...... 13 5.2.12 Purple Martin (Progne subis) ...... 14 5.2.13 Boreal Toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas) ...... 14 5.2.14 Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens) ...... 14 5.2.15 “Blue Lineage” Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii c.f. pleuriticus) ...... 15 5.2.16 Western Bumblebee (Bombus occidentalis) ...... 15 5.2.17 Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) ...... 15 5.2.18 Paradox Moonwort (Botrychium paradoxum) ...... 15 5.2.19 Sageleaf Willow (Salix candida) ...... 16 5.2.20 Colorado Tansy-Aster (Xanthisma coloradoense) ...... 16 6.0 Management Indicator Species ...... 16 6.1 Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) ...... 17 6.2 American Marten (Martes americana) ...... 21 6.3 Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) ...... 21 6.4 Merriam’s Wild Turkey (Melleagris gallopavo merriami) ...... 21 6.5 Red-naped Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nuchalis) ...... 21 6.6 Common Trout ...... 22 7.0 Project Effects ...... 24 7.1 General Project Effects ...... 24 7.1.1 No Action ...... 24 7.1.2 Proposed Action ...... 24 7.2 Sensitive Species ...... 25 7.2.1 Bat Species ...... 26 7.2.2 American Marten ...... 27 7.2.3 Pygmy Shrew ...... 27 7.2.4 Northern Goshawk ...... 28 7.2.5 Boreal Owl ...... 29 7.2.6 Northern Harrier ...... 30 7.2.7 Olive-sided Flycatcher ...... 30 7.2.8 American Peregrine Falcon ...... 31 7.2.9 Bald Eagle ...... 31 7.2.10 Lewis’s Woodpecker ...... 32 7.2.11 Flammulated Owl ...... 32

i Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

7.2.12 Purple Martin ...... 33 7.2.13 Boreal toad ...... 34 7.2.14 Northern Leopard Frog ...... 34 7.2.15 Blue Lineage Colorado River Cutthroat Trout ...... 35 7.2.16 Western Bumblebee ...... 35 7.2.17 Monarch Butterfly ...... 36 7.2.18 Paradox Moonwort ...... 36 7.2.19 Sageleaf Willow ...... 37 7.2.20 Colorado Tansy-Aster ...... 37 8.0 Management Indicator Species ...... 38 8.1 No Action ...... 38 8.2 Proposed Action ...... 38 8.2.1 Rocky Mountain Elk ...... 38 8.2.2 Merriam’s Wild Turkey ...... 40 8.2.3 Red-naped Sapsucker ...... 41 8.2.4 Common Trout ...... 42 9.0 Literature Cited ...... 42

List of Maps Map 1 General Project Location ...... 3 Map 2 Area of Influence Around Trails and Roads ...... 20

List of Tables Table 1 GMUG Sensitive Species Considered and Evaluated ...... 6 Table 2 Management Indicator Species for GMUG ...... 17 Table 3 Turkey Habitat on the GMUG, Based on Habitat Parameters and Quality ...... 21 Table 4 Summary of Impact Determinations ...... 26

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

BBS Breeding Bird Survey BE Biological Evaluation BLM Bureau of Land Management CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife DAU Data Analysis Unit EA Environmental Assessment FLPMA Federal Land Policy Management Act Forest Service U.S. Forest Service FSM Forest Service Manual GIS Geographic Information System GMU Game Management Unit GMUG Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest MIS Management Indicator Species NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act NFS National Forest System OHV off-highway vehicle R2 Region 2 USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

ii Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION As part of the environmental review process pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (FLPMA) of 1976, and pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this Biological Evaluation and Management Indicator Species (BE/MIS) report was produced to address potential impacts to United States Forest Service (Forest Service) Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2 or R2) Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG), or species that are located adjacent to, or downstream of, the project that could potentially be affected by the Proposed Action. The Palisade Plunge Trail is a proposed approximate 34-mile non-motorized trail in Mesa County, Colorado. The primary usage of the trail is envisioned as a long-distance descent for mountain bikers from the top of the Grand Mesa down to the Town of Palisade; however, the trail would be open to two-way traffic, and non-motorized users who wished to ascend from the Palisade Rim Trailhead, or from other points that may be accessible, could do so. This report utilizes the standards for development of a BE to address possible impacts to Forest Service R2 sensitive terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species as well as plant species. The Forest Service developed policy regarding the designation of sensitive species (Forest Service Manual - FSM 2670; Supplement 2600-94-2). Under FSM 2672.41, the objectives for completing BEs for proposed Forest Service programs or activities 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, thus reducing negative impacts to species and enhancing opportunities for proactive conservation. The list of Sensitive Species addressed in this report was identified in cooperation with the Forest Service. The information and analysis in this report was developed from field reconnaissance, published and unpublished reports and documents, and contact with agency resource personnel. The local area for this report is the Grand Valley Ranger District for the GMUG. This report only addresses Sensitive Species and MIS species for project components on National Forest System (NFS) lands, or species which may be impacted indirectly from activities on NFS lands. Portions of the trail occur on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Mesa County, the Town of Palisade, and private lands. On those lands an assessment of potential environmental impacts to species of concern is conducted through the NEPA process, and is documented in the Environmental Assessment (EA). WestWater Engineering was contracted to conduct field surveys and habitat assessments within the entire project area. The survey effort included documentation of incidentally observed Forest Service Sensitive Species, with species-specific surveys occurring for nesting raptors. This BE tiers to that assessment report (WestWater 2017). Federally listed species which may be directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affected from implementation of the project are described in a Biological Assessment which has been prepared separately.

1 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 Purpose and Need The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide additional mountain biking trails for recreational use that would primarily provide a downhill riding opportunity from the Mesa Top Trailhead to the Town of Palisade, Colorado. The need for this project is to address public requests for additional recreation opportunities and subsequently in trail development recommendations from the public and recreation user groups (Colorado Plateau Mountain Bike Trail Association - COPMOBA). The need for the project is established by the BLM's responsibility FLPMA to respond to requests for construction of recreational trails across public lands managed by the BLM, the Forest Service, and the BOR. The Proposed Action is consistent with and supports the objectives of the 1991 Amended Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the GMUG.

2.2 Project Area Location and Legal Description The Palisade Plunge Trail would be located in Mesa County, Colorado (Map 1). The trail would begin at the top of Grand Mesa and descend for approximately 34 miles to the Town of Palisade. The EA lists the trail’s entire legal description, and an abbreviated description is presented here. National Forest System Lands T. 12 S., R. 95 W., sec. 7 T. 12 S., R. 96 W., sec. 11, 12, 14-19 T. 12 S., R. 97 W., sec. 4, 5, 9, 10, 13-15

2.3 Proposed Action The Palisade Plunge Trail is a proposed 34-mile non-motorized trail in Mesa County, Colorado. The primary usage of the trail is envisioned as a long-distance descent for mountain bikers and other non-motorized recreationists from the Grand Mesa to the Town of Palisade. However, the trail would be open to two-way traffic for hikers and bikers who wish to ascend from the Palisade Rim Trailhead or from other points of access. The trail would also be open to equestrian use from the Mesa Top Trailhead to the west side of the City of Grand Junction property. The trail would be closed to equestrian use from this point to the terminus at the west end. A detailed description of the Proposed Action is provided in the EA. 2.4 Alternative 2 - No Action A No Action Alternative is analyzed alongside the Proposed Action (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1502.14d). The No Action Alternative represents a continuation of existing management practices without changes, additions, or upgrades to existing conditions. Thus, the No Action Alternative provides a baseline for comparing the effects of the Proposed Action. For this project, the No Action Alternative consists of denial of the proposed Palisade Plunge Trail. Because the majority of the Trail is located on federally-managed lands, the denial would mean that none of the proposed Project Components would be constructed. However, currently permitted activities and other ongoing activities in the project area would continue. These include activities and impacts associated with existing and potential timber harvesting, water resource development, livestock grazing, and a wide variety of motorized and non-motorized recreational uses on the GMUG.

2 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

Map 1 General Project Location

3 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

3.0 METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYSIS The entire proposed trail alignment was visited in the spring and summer of 2017, and traversed on foot for biological surveys and an assessment of habitats. Various portions of the alignment within NFS lands were accessed by the closest available road sections, predominantly the Lands End Road (Forest Service Road - FSR 100), which generally parallels the portion of the trail that is on top of the Grand Mesa. Field surveys included an assessment of the following resources: • Federally Endangered and Threatened Plant Species (limited to Sclerocactus glaucus) • Federally Endangered and Threatened Animal Species • Forest Service Sensitive Plant Species (none observed) • Forest Service Sensitive Animal Species • Raptors and raptor-nesting habitat • Colorado-listed Noxious Weeds • Hydrologic features and wetlands • Vegetation Zones and common plant species within those zones • Soils Species-specific survey efforts on NFS lands focused on mature forests within 300 meters of the centerline of the proposed trail, and consisted primarily of call playback for nesting northern goshawk and other raptors. In addition to the information reported in the survey report, aerial photography, digital datasets, and published research were used to determine preliminary species which may be impacted by the project, as well as species which may need further examination. Reviews were conducted to determine which species are known from the area or have suitable habitat present and could potentially occur. Primary sources included district wildlife sightings records, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) databases, and information from species assessments prepared for Sensitive Species in Region 2 (Forest Service, various years). Surveys for some species may be required after this analysis and prior to project implementation; if actual results of those surveys differ substantially from predicted occurrences, additional analysis may be required, or specific design criteria or mitigations may needed to protect species. Geographic Information System (GIS) data provided for this project includes the proposed alignment of the trail, and the location of existing roads, trailheads, and other infrastructure. The precise width of surface disturbance along the trail will vary dependent on terrain and design features, and has not been finalized at the time this report was prepared. Temporary construction and staging areas have also not been finalized at this time. Other GIS data used for this analysis includes mapped locations of wildlife species, known seasonal ranges of species, and hydrologic data regarding streams and wetland habitats. 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Three main ecological zones were classified along the Palisade Plunge Trail (subalpine, foothills, and semidesert). • Subalpine Zone: The subalpine zone occurs on the Grand Mesa at the higher elevations and consists of Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmanii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), and aspen (Populus tremuloides) woodlands with an understory of currant (Ribes spp.), rose (Rosa woodsii) and mixed forbs/grasses, grass and wet meadows,

4 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

and mixed grasslands and shrublands. The tree height in this zone ranges from approximately 50 feet to 80 feet. • Montane Zone: As the trail traverses over the rim of the Grand Mesa, it passes through the montane zone and the vegetation community becomes predominately dense mountain shrublands composed of Gambel oak (aka oakbrush; Quercus gambelii), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), and Utah serviceberry (Amelanchier utahensis); scattered pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) and Utah juniper (Juniperus [Sabina] osteosperma) woodlands are also present. The oakbrush shrublands are mature stands that range in height from 8 feet to greater than 20 feet; most of these habitats occur on BLM lands. • Semi-desert Zone: The lower elevation portions of the trail enter into the semi-desert shrublands zone which is composed of sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) shrublands, scattered pinyon-juniper woodlands, with a mixed grass/forb understory. This zone occurs outside the boundaries of Forest Service-managed lands, and is not addressed in detail in this report. Wetlands and Creeks. Mapping of wetlands and creeks in accordance with guidance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 manual and regional supplement was conducted to assist project planning. National Wetland Indicator data (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - USFWS 2016) was queried to also assist showing potential wetland habitat areas. In summary: • 34 drainages may be affected by the proposed trail. All are tributary to Kannah Creek or Whitewater Creek, and eventually to the Gunnison and Colorado rivers. • 16 wetlands may be affected by the proposed trail. All are located on top of the Grand Mesa and on the upper slopes near Whitewater Creek and Cliff Lake reservoir. • A large-scale inventory of fens was conducted on the Grand Mesa National Forest, including the project area (Johnston et al. 2012); no fens would be impacted by the Proposed Action. 5.0 SENSITIVE SPECIES 5.1 GMUG Sensitive Species Considered The Forest Service Region 2 (R-2) Regional Forester (Forest Service 2017a) and GMUG identified 57 species of sensitive terrestrial wildlife (12 species), birds (18 species), amphibians (two species), invertebrates (three species), fish (five species) and plants (17 species) that could occur within the GMUG. There are several sensitive species that are known to be, or are potentially present, in the project area. There are also species which may occur on the GMUG, but are not known or expected to occur in the project area, due to absence of suitable habitats or range limitations; these species were not carried forward for analysis, and would not be affected by the project. Information on distribution, dispersal capability, abundance, population trends, habitat trends, habitat vulnerability, and risks based on life history and demographics has been reviewed for Forest Service R-2 Sensitive Species (Forest Service 2017b). This information has been incorporated where relevant, but extensive life histories of species are not described herein, nor are individual species assessments cited where those species are not carried forward for detailed analysis. No further analysis is needed for species that are not known or are not suspected to occur on NFS lands in the project area, and for which no suitable habitat is present. Table 1 documents

5 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

the rationale for excluding a species. If suitable but unoccupied habitat is present, then species presence is assumed. Species listed below in Table 1 were considered for this project. Species in bold may have habitat or may be indirectly or cumulatively impacted by this project and are therefore assessed in further detail in this report. Table 1 GMUG Sensitive Species Considered and Evaluated Species Range or Suitable Habitat in Project area? Considered Species Habitat Association (Yes/No) in Analysis? Rationale for Exclusion Mammals Widespread across shrublands Townsend’s big-eared bat and montane forests, needs Yes Yes (Corynorhinus townsendii) caves, mines or structures for roosts/hibernacula Project area does not Arid shrublands/grasslands in Gunnison’s prairie dog support suitable habitat montane areas and southern No No (Cynomys gunnisoni) and is outside the known Colorado range of the species Arid shrublands/grasslands in White-tailed prairie dog Project area does not western Colorado, eastern Utah No No (Cynomys leucurus) support suitable habitat and Wyoming Wide range of habitats from Spotted bat desert shrub to coniferous Yes Yes (Euderma maculatum) forest Hoary bat Deciduous woodlands, roosts Yes Yes (Lasiurus cinereus) in dense foliage Montane and boreal forests American marten with higher amounts of coarse Yes Yes (Martes americana) woody debris Fringed myotis Ponderosa pine/pinyon-juniper Yes Yes (Myotis thysanodes) woodlands and oak brush River Otter Larger streams and rivers with Project area does not No No (Lontra canadensis) higher prey bases (fish) support suitable habitats Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep Montane areas with escape cover Project area outside of No No (Ovis canadensis) (cliffs) known range Desert Bighorn sheep No habitat and project area Arid shrublands with cliffs No No (Ovis canadensis nelson) outside known range Pygmy shrew Mesic forests and riparian Yes Yes (Sorex hoyi) areas Project area outside of Kit Fox known range, too high in Arid grasslands and shrublands No No (Vulpes macrotis) elevation and winters are too snowy Birds Northern goshawk Montane and boreal forests Yes Yes (Accipiter gentilis) Boreal owl Boreal forests Yes Yes (Aegolius funereus) Xeric sagebrush shrublands Sagebrush sparrow Project area does not (primarily larger stands of No No (Artemisiospiza nevadensis) support suitable habitat Artemisia tridentata tridentata) Burrowing owl Grasslands, prairies and xeric Project area does not No No (Athene cunicularia) shrublands; associated with support suitable habitat

6 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

Species Range or Suitable Habitat in Project area? Considered Species Habitat Association (Yes/No) in Analysis? Rationale for Exclusion prairie dog colonies Project area does not American bittern Wetlands No No support extensive (Botaurus lentiginosus) emergent wetlands Ferruginous hawk Grasslands, prairies and open Project area does not No No (Buteo regalis) shrublands support suitable habitat Northern harrier Moist meadows, grasslands, Yes Yes (Circus cyaneus) low shrublands Olive-sided flycatcher Montane and boreal forests Yes Yes (Contopus cooperi) around openings Black swift Breeds on cliffs near wetlands Project area does not No No (Cypseloides niger) and waterfalls support suitable habitat American peregrine falcon Widespread, needs large cliffs Yes Yes (Falco peregrinus anatum) for nesting Summers near larger rivers Bald eagle and reservoirs/lakes, winters Yes Yes (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) along larger open rivers White-tailed ptarmigan Project area does not Alpine habitats No No (Lagopus leucurus) support suitable habitat Project area does not Loggerhead shrike Xeric woodlands and shrublands No No support suitable habitat, (Lanius ludovicianus) out of elevational range Montane deciduous woodlands Lewis’s woodpecker (aspen and cottonwood), in Yes Yes (Melanerpes lewis) ponderosa pine as well Flammulated owl Ponderosa pine woodlands, Yes Yes (Otus flammeolus) aspen stands on western slope Purple martin Aspen stands near open water Yes Yes (Progne subis) or larger wetlands Brewer’s sparrow Project area does not Sagebrush shrublands No No (Spizella breweri) support suitable habitat Columbian sharp-tailed grouse CSTG extirpated from (Tympanuchus phasianellus Mixed mountain shrublands No No south of I-70 columbianus) Amphibians Boreal toad Montane and boreal wetlands Yes Yes (Anaxyrus boreas boreas) Northern leopard frog Grassy wetlands in montane Yes Yes (Lithobates pipiens) areas Fishes Project area does not Bluehead sucker Montane and larger lower support habitat; stream No No (Catostomus discobolus) elevation streams within project area have been inventoried Flannelmouth sucker Montane and larger lower Project area outside of No No (Catostomus latipinnis) elevation streams known range Mountain sucker Project area outside of Montane streams No No (Catostomus platyrhynchus) known range Roundtail chub Larger lower elevation and Project area does not No No (Gila robusta) montane streams support habitat

7 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

Species Range or Suitable Habitat in Project area? Considered Species Habitat Association (Yes/No) in Analysis? Rationale for Exclusion Blue Lineage” Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Montane streams Yes Yes (Oncorhynchus clarkii c.f. pleuriticus) Insects Western bumblebee Widespread in areas with Yes Yes (Bombus occidentalis) wildflower food sources Monarch butterfly Widespread, but requires Yes Yes (Danaus plexippus) milkweeds for caterpillars Nokomis fritillary (aka Great Project area does not Basin silverspot) Wet areas in arid landscapes No No support habitat and is (Speyeria nokomis nokomis) outside of known range Plants Talus slopes composed of ash- Project area does not Stonecrop gilia flow tuff; 11,800 to 13,400 feet; No No support habitat and is (Aliciella sedifolia) San Juan and Hinsdale counties outside of known range Occurs on dry hillsides in Project areas is outside of oakbrush and or sagebrush Violet milkvetch known range, species was communities at elevations No No (Astragalus iodopetalus) not observed during ranging from 6,000 feet to 8,000 surveys. feet Project areas is outside of Occurs in moist meadows at Park milkvetch known range, species was elevations from 7,800 feet to No No (Astragalus leptaleus) not observed during 8,000 feet surveys. Grassy meadows, gravelly road sides, low herbaceous cover Paradox moonwort under small conifer saplings; Yes Yes (Botrychium paradoxum) probably at 5,000 to 9,000 feet; two small sites in Colorado Tranquil goldenweed Occurs on gravelly flats, Suitable habitat on Grand (Pyrrocoma clematic var. intermountain parks, and dry No No Mesa, but not within villosa) limestone tundra project area Sparsely vegetated slopes above timberline, especially on Arctic braya Project area does not calcareous substrates; 12,000 to No No (Braya glabella) support suitable habitat 13,000 feet; Chaffee, Gunnison, Park, and Pitkin counties Found to occur amongst Sphagnum on the margins of ponds, fens, and floating peat Roundleaf sundew Project area is outside of mats; 9,100 to 9,800 feet; No No (Drosera rotundifolia) known range Gunnison and Jackson counties. Also, a new collection from “North Park” Alpine wetlands; 10,400 feet; the Colorado distribution of this species is not known, partially Chamisso’s cottongrass Project area does not due to taxonomic issues (the No No (Eriophorum chamissonis) support suitable habitat species is often confused with Eriophorum altaicum var. neogaeum) Slender cottongrass Montane and subalpine wetlands, Project area is outside of No No (Eriophorum gracile) wet meadows and pond edges; known range

8 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

Species Range or Suitable Habitat in Project area? Considered Species Habitat Association (Yes/No) in Analysis? Rationale for Exclusion 8,100 to 12,000 feet; Jackson, Las Animas, and Park counties Alpine areas including tundra, Simple bog sedge fens, moist gravel, and glacial Project area is outside of No No (Kobresia simpliciuscula) outwash; 8,900 to 12,000 feet; known range Park and Clear Creek counties Alpine slopes and summits amongst rocks and scree; 12,000 Project area does not Ice cold buttercup to 14,100 feet; central Colorado, support habitat and is No No (Ranunculus grayi) including Chaffee, Clear Creek, below elevational range of Gunnison, Lake, Park, and the species Summit counties Wetlands in willow carrs and Dwarf raspberry mossy streamsides; 8,600 to Project area is outside of Rubus arcticus var. acaulis No No 9,700 feet; Clear Creek and Park known range (= Cylactis arctica ssp. acaulis) counties Fens and pond and stream Sageleaf willow edges in foothill/montane Yes Yes (Salix candida) wetlands; 8,800 to 10,600 feet Acidic fens with high Sphagnum Project area does not concentrations of iron and other No No (Sphagnum angustifolium) support suitable habitat ions Acidic fens with high concentrations of iron and other Baltic sphagnum ions. Known from the GMUG and Project area does not No No (Sphagnum balticum) San Juan National Forests, but support suitable habitat the full Colorado distribution is unknown Dry shale barren communities; 6,200 to 8,800 feet; northwestern Colorado in Garfield, Rio Blanco, Cathedral Bluffs meadow rue Project area does not and Mesa counties; Known from No No (Thalictrum heliophilum) support suitable habitat the San Juan National Forest, but the full Colorado distribution is unknown Shallow water of subalpine ponds; 5,500 to 9,000 feet; north- Suitable habitat on Grand Lesser bladderwort central and west-central No No Mesa, but not within (Utricularia minor) Colorado; little is known about the project area Colorado distribution of this easily overlooked plant Mountain parks, slopes and rock outcrops and dry tundra; 8,500 to 12,500 feet; Gunnison, Colorado tansy-aster Hinsdale, La Plata, Lake, Yes Yes (Xanthisma coloradoensis) Mineral, Park, Pitkin, Saguache, and San Juan counties

9 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

5.2 Evaluated Species The following species have suitable habitats, are known or expected to occur, or have documented ranges within or near the project area. These species will therefore be considered in greater detail as to potential direct or indirect effects from implementation of the project. 1. Townsend’s big-eared bat 2. Spotted bat 3. Hoary bat 4. Fringed myotis 5. American marten 6. Pygmy shrew 7. Northern goshawk 8. Boreal owl 9. Northern harrier 10. Olive-sided flycatcher 11. American Peregrine falcon 12. Bald eagle 13. Lewis’s woodpecker 14. Flammulated owl 15. Purple martin 16. Boreal toad 17. Northern leopard frog 18. Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (blue lineage) 19. Western bumblebee 20. Monarch butterfly 21. Paradox moonwort 22. Tranquil goldenweed 23. Sageleaf willow 24. Lesser bladderwort 25. Colorado tansy-aster

5.2.1 Bat Species The project area occurs within suitable foraging habitats for Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes). Townsends’s big-eared bat and spotted bat could occur throughout the project area, while hoary bat and fringed myotis are likely to be limited to the deciduous and shrubby woodlands below the rim of the Grand Mesa, but may forage on the mesa and in the project area. The mosaic of open shrublands, meadows, and subalpine forest patches above the rim are suitable foraging and diurnal roosting habitat for all of these species, during the summer season. Foraging activity for aerial insects would likely be concentrated near the creeks, reservoirs, wetlands, and lakes that are common on the top of the Mesa. The large rocky outcrops along the rim, and patchy aspen and oakbrush habitats below the rim provides foraging and diurnal roosting for all four bat species. The likely limiting factor for more consistent use of the area by Townsend’s big-eared bat is the lack of caves. Cliff roosting habitat is abundant on the basalt cliffs around the Grand Mesa, and the deep cracks in the rock faces provide temporary roosting sites. However, the geologic makeup of the basalt flows does not typically create cave formations, which limits the value of the habitat for hibernacula.

10 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

5.2.2 American Marten (Martes americana) Martens occur in Colorado at elevations between 8,000 and 13,000 feet (Towry 1984). In this elevational range, they inhabit late-successional Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) forests, alpine willow carrs, high-elevation riparian areas, and occasionally montane forests (Fitzgerald 1994). They are known to occur on the Grand Mesa in the mature spruce/fir forests. A critical component of their habitat appears to be an abundance of complex physical structure near the ground, such as coarse woody debris, sweeping lower branches of trees, rock fields in forests, shrubs, herbaceous plants, and squirrel middens. Martens are generally absent from stands dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) or pinyon pine/Utah juniper trees. The main threat to martens is vegetation management of their typical forest interior habitat. Treatments that result in the development of early seral conditions dominated by the grass/forb structural communities decrease the available habitat, at least in the short-term. American marten is a true forest-interior adapted species. They forage in small open spaces within a forested area but have rarely been documented crossing any clearings larger than 300 feet in width. Although it was not directly observed during surveys for this project, observations of martens have occurred in proximity to the trail during winter snow track surveys conducted by the Forest Service.

5.2.3 Pygmy Shrew (Sorex hoyi) The pygmy shrew appears to be mainly a boreal and arctic species. Habitat affinities of this species are not well known, but in Colorado this species has been reported from a diverse array of habitats including aspen-fir and spruce-fir forests, willow carrs (DeMott and Lindsey 1975), sphagnum bog, marshes surrounded by spruce/fir and lodgepole forests (Spencer and Pettus 1966), and subalpine meadow with scattered spruce and fir (Vaughan 1969). All captures to date have been above 9,600 feet in elevation. Pygmy shrew forage on small invertebrates, primarily small arthropods and larval insects (including moths, butterflies, and true flies). Suitable habitat occurs for this species in proximity to the trail.

5.2.4 Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) This species occurs on the GMUG and was documented within the project area. Nesting occurs in mature forest types (spruce-fir, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine and aspen). Foraging habitat may include younger or more open canopy forests. The goshawk may be vulnerable to nest abandonment due to disturbance within the area. Alternate nests are commonly used, but nest tree fidelity was stronger in uncut forests compared to treated forests (Forest Service 2005a). Records of known goshawk nest activity on the GMUG show that numbers of breeding goshawks and nest success has remained relatively stable, although they have been relatively low over a 17-year period (Forest Service 2001). The amount of breeding goshawk pairs is relatively low in suitable habitat on the Grand Valley Ranger District of the GMUG (Freels 2017). Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data show a slight increasing trend for this species in Colorado from 1966-2015 (Sauer et al. 2017), although this is based on limited data because this is an uncommon species. The primary threat to goshawk populations is alteration of its preferred habitat from timber management practices, sudden aspen decline, bark beetle infestations, and wildfire. Although the goshawk uses a wide range of forest communities during the breeding season, it prefers mature and old growth forest for nesting and hunting. There is some evidence goshawks are resilient against forest fragmentation and can re-establish when cleared areas are reforested,

11 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report but the thresholds for population persistence under these conditions have not been identified. Issues related to habitat alteration include forest fragmentation, creation of even-aged, monotypic stands, potential increase in area of younger age class, and loss of tree species diversity (Kennedy 2003). All likely nesting habitat within 300 meters of the trail centerline or Lands End Road was surveyed using call playback methodology (WestWater 2017). One occupied goshawk nest was identified, approximately 178 meters (584 feet) from the trail, in an aspen stand below the rim of the Grand Mesa on NFS lands. Goshawks were also incidentally observed hunting on top of the mesa (one individual was observed flying over meadows).

5.2.5 Boreal Owl (Aegolius funereus) The boreal owl is a widespread but rare to locally uncommon resident of high elevation forests in Colorado (Palmer and Ryder 1984). They appear to be widely distributed in Colorado between 9,200 feet and 10,400 feet in elevation (Andrews and Righter 1992) within the subalpine ecotype. They occur in mature to old-growth spruce-fir and spruce-fir/lodgepole pine forests interspersed with small meadows, streams, and wetlands. Boreal owls reside year-round and nest exclusively in live or standing dead tree cavities constructed by woodpeckers, or in artificial nest structures (Mikkola 1983). Nesting owls have been found in a wide variety of trees in the Rocky Mountains, including in suitable habitats on the Grand Mesa. Boreal owls hunt primarily after dark, feeding almost exclusively on red-backed voles, but they do take other microtine rodents, including deer mice and shrews, and other small rodents and birds. The presence of cavities for nesting appears to be a primary limiting factor for boreal owls. Important considerations include maintenance of mature and old-growth spruce/fir forests with large snags and suitable roosting trees dispersed throughout. Suitable habitat exists in spruce/fir forests in proximity to the trail.

5.2.6 Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) Northern Harriers breed in wide-open habitats ranging from Arctic tundra to prairie grasslands to fields and marshes, but they typically prefer large tracts (250 acres) of wetlands with dense vegetation to hide their nests. In Colorado, northern harriers occur in lower elevation grasslands, agricultural lands, and marshes but commonly range up to the tundra in the summer and fall. The most common breeding habitats are emergent wetlands, croplands, and tall desert shrublands. Their current distribution in Colorado favors the shortgrass prairie and lower elevations of the western slope (Wickersham 2016). In migration and in winter, harriers typically move south away from areas that receive heavy snow cover, ending up in open habitats similar to those in which they breed. This species forages in open meadows and wetlands, flying close to the ground looking and listening for small mammal, amphibian and reptile prey. The larger wetland areas and meadows on the top of the Grand Mesa provide potential foraging habitat for harriers. Because of a lack of nesting records in western Colorado mountains, and the high elevation of the potential habitat on the top of the Mesa, nesting is not anticipated to occur within the project area. Use of the area for foraging would probably be limited to migrating individuals or from dispersal of known populations in the Grand Valley. Raptor surveys did not detect any nests or individuals within the Project Area, but this species was observed during other habitat assessments.

5.2.7 Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) This species occurs in mature coniferous forests, usually near wetlands, creeks and ponds. If forages from the top of trees, and is seasonally migratory. The conifer forests of the project area, including the spruce-fir groves on top of the mesa and the Douglas-fir stands just below

12 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report the rim, are suitable habitat for this species. The olive-sided flycatcher would be absent from the project area from early fall to late spring, but is likely to be present during the summer. The species was not observed incidentally during the 2017 raptor survey effort, but targeted surveys for the species were not performed.

5.2.8 American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) American peregrine falcon is one of the most widespread species in the world, occupying all continents except Antarctica (White et al. 2002). In Colorado, peregrine nests are typically located on cliffs overlooking riparian systems with abundant prey, including white-throated swifts, swallows, doves, nighthawks and robins; ducks will also be readily taken. In other areas of the world, peregrines still feed primarily on passerines. Peregrines will abandon nest sites if disturbed repeatedly. The many cliff bands throughout the project area provide cliff-nesting sites for peregrine falcons, and one active nest was documented (outside NFS lands) (WestWater 2017). The species was also observed incidentally during the survey effort outside of NFS lands. The proximity of the project to multiple water bodies on top of the mesa, and the nearby occupied cliff-nesting habitat, makes it likely that the species could forage above the project area on NFS lands.

5.2.9 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) In Colorado, bald eagles are locally common winter residents and recently are more common breeders. Most of the migratory birds arrive in mid-November and depart between mid-February and mid-March. They feed on fish, waterfowl, rabbits, and muskrats, and in the winter, can also utilize lower-elevation big game winter ranges and prairie dog towns where they feed more on winter- or road-killed big game and other carrion. Bald eagles most frequently hunt from perches and range widely (up to 10 miles) during daily hunting flights.

Bald eagles are year-round residents along the main channel of the Colorado River, and commonly nest and breed in cottonwood groves along the river bottom. CPW maps the Colorado River corridor as bald eagle winter range and foraging habitat, and active nest sites are located both upstream from the project area near De Beque, as well as downstream near Clifton. Bald eagles may forage near some of the larger lakes and reservoirs on the mesa in the summer. This species was not detected during surveys of the project area.

5.2.10 Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) Distributed in the United States west of the Great Plains, Lewis’s woodpecker favors open forests, ranging in altitude from low-elevation riparian areas to higher-elevation burns and pine forests. Like all other woodpeckers, it requires larger trees (live, dead, or partly dead trees) for nesting. Much of the forest types on the Grand Mesa and below the rim are dense and not highly suitable; however, the aspen woodlands below the rim do have a more open structure and could support the species during the summer. Lewis’s woodpeckers in the project area likely migrate lower into the Colorado River valley during winter where snag and foraging opportunities are more abundant in deciduous tree galleries. The species was not incidentally observed during the raptor survey effort.

5.2.11 Flammulated Owl (Psilocops flammeolus) Flammulated owls have a strong association with ponderosa pine, but also use aspen forests in the montane life zone. There is very little ponderosa pine in or near the project area, but aspen

13 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report occurs in large areas between approximate mileposts 12 and 16 along the proposed trail alignment below the rim of the Grand Mesa between Shirttail Point and Whitewater Creek. These owls are migratory, but adults show high site tenacity. They depend on cavities for nesting, open forests for catching insects, and brush or dense foliage for roosting (Wickersham 2016). Flammulated owls forage primarily on moths. The project area and surrounding habitats provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this species, including montane conifers, aspen, and large Gambel’s oaks. Flammulated owls were not detected during the raptor survey effort, but owl-specific surveys were not conducted.

5.2.12 Purple Martin (Progne subis) This species is known to occur on the Forest and is primarily associated with patches of mature to decadent aspen, usually near open water or wetlands, where it nests in woodpecker- excavated cavities (Wiggins 2005). Nest site availability may be a key limiting factor to populations in R-2 (Forest Service 2005b) although suitable habitat appears to be currently abundant outside of the project area, but in the nearby northern portion of the Paonia district (Garrison 2017). This species shows an upward population trend in Colorado based on limited data, but is relatively stable to slightly decreasing across the United States (Sauer et al. 2017). The species was not observed during surveys, but the preferred habitat of decadent aspen with nearby water sources is available within the project area.

5.2.13 Boreal Toad (Anaxyrus boreas boreas) Boreal toads live in a wide range of habitats including wetlands, forests, woodlands, sagebrush, meadows, and floodplains in the mountains and valleys of Colorado and other mountain states (Stebbins 1985; Keinath and McGee 2005). While they primarily use wetland habitats, which is required for breeding and tadpole development, boreal toads may be observed in other habitats during dispersal to and from breeding sites. This species has not been recorded below 6,000 feet in Region 2, and generally occurs from 7,500 to 12,000 feet. The boreal toad was once widely distributed in Region 2 from the mountains of southeastern Wyoming through the Rocky Mountains in Colorado to the San Juan Range in northern New Mexico (USFWS 1995). Their populations declined dramatically in the late 1990’s due to chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis). The numerous lakes, wetlands and ponds across the Grand Mesa provide suitable habitat for this species; while it was not observed during surveys, its presence is assumed. Species-specific surveys for boreal toad have not been conducted for this project. There is one known population on the Grand Mesa, but it is approximately 40 air miles from the project area. Surveys have been conducted on throughout the mesa and no known populations occur in the project area.

5.2.14 Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens) This species is widespread within grassy, sunny wetlands on the GMUG, and is known to occur on the Grand Mesa. Habitats include perennial wetlands, and this species hibernates under water, therefore deeper pools that still have free water underneath the ice are needed for species persistence. Summertime foraging habitats include a variety of wetlands, but this species is most often found in and near wetlands with little tree-shading. During the summer months, this species also disperses widely through upland habitats at night, and can be found far from water sources. In the fall this species begins to concentrate in wetlands, and especially around hibernation pools.

This species was not observed during survey efforts, but as mentioned, its presence is known from other documentation on the Grand Mesa.

14 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

5.2.15 “Blue Lineage” Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii c.f. pleuriticus) Recent genetic and meristic studies (Metcalf et al. 2012, Bestgen et al. 2013) have shown that two lineages of Cutthroat Trout are native in the greater Colorado River Basin. One of these, the Green Lineage, is being managed as a threatened species under the ESA. The Blue Lineage Colorado River Cutthroat Trout is being managed as a Forest Service sensitive species. The Blue Lineage Colorado River Cutthroat Trout is native to the Yampa and White Rivers. It is a cold water fish, and is associated with streams with clear, cool water and gravel bottoms. Whitewater Creek crossed by the trail, and Brandon Ditch downstream from the trail are known to contain CPW Core Conservation Population of Blue Lineage Colorado River Cutthroat Trout. Kannah Creek and North Fork of Kannah Creek, also crossed by the proposed are known to contain non-native rainbow trout and therefore would not contain genetically pure Colorado River Cutthroat Trout due to hybridization. Spawning in the region may extend from April through July, with the peak typically occurring in May and June. Eggs hatch in the spaces between gravels, where the fry remain until emerging from August through October (depending upon the time of spawning and water temperature). Juveniles may require 3 years to mature to adults (Dare et al. 2011). 5.2.16 Western Bumblebee (Bombus occidentalis) In forested areas, bumblebees commonly utilize habitats along stream courses, in meadows, in recently burned or logged areas, or along roadsides. Western bumblebees’ primary food plants are in the genus’s Melilotus, Cirsium, Trifolium, Centaurea, Chrysothamnus, and Eriogonum. Its distribution was historically from the Pacific coast to the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Bumblebees are generalist foragers, feeding on the pollen and nectar gathered from the flowers of a variety of native and non-native shrubs and herbaceous plants, as well as from crop species such as fruits, berries, alfalfa, and clover. They overwinter in the ground (in old rodent burrows), and in the summer, they make nests for their small colonies in burrows, holes in building foundations, or piles of wood and downed trees. The project area supports widespread habitats for this species.

5.2.17 Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) This migratory species is dependent on milkweeds (Asclepias spp.) for their caterpillars, but adult butterflies are known to forage for nectar on most flowering plants. The species produces multiple generations during northern and southern migrations, and may be found throughout the project area during these movements. The monarch butterfly is likely present in the project area during the summer and almost certainly uses the abundant flowering forbs on top of the Grand Mesa during migration and dispersal to some extent. Showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa) is the species commonly associated with monarch butterfly caterpillars in western Colorado. It likely occurs on the Grand Mesa, but it is not known to what extent the area is used by Monarchs to support reproduction, if at all.

5.2.18 Paradox Moonwort (Botrychium paradoxum) Paradox moonwort is a perennial herb in the adder’s-tongue fern family (Ophioglossaceae). It inhabits mesic to wet subalpine meadows. It ranges from southwestern Canada to Montana, Idaho, and Utah, but populations are small and widely scattered. This plant is small, easily over- looked, and may not produce above-ground structures every year. Threats to the species are like those faced by other moonworts and includes road maintenance and construction, mining, mine reclamation activities, ski area expansion and management, trampling by hikers or all- terrain vehicles, over-collection, and alteration of soil and hydrological regimes.

15 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

The species is known from two sites in the state with one of the locations supporting only 13 plants counted during a 2012 survey. However, like many other members of the genus, the plant is considered a habitat generalist and apparently appropriate but unoccupied habitat is widespread in the state. The current trend in the state is unknown. Given the broad suitable habitat for this species, the project area may support suitable habitats. The most likely habitat areas are in places that have seen historic disturbance, such as old road grades and skid trails from past timber operations.

5.2.19 Sageleaf Willow (Salix candida) Sageleaf willow is a woody shrub of the willow family (Salicaceae) found in pond and stream edges as well as in fens in foothill and montane wetlands. The species is found in Alaska, Canada, and across the northern tier of United States. It reaches its southernmost distribution in Colorado where it is found from 8,800 10,600 feet in Gunnison, Hinsdale, La Plata, Lake, Larimer, and Park counties. It has not been documented as occurring in Mesa County. The project area supports suitable habitat for this species, but specific surveys for this species were not conducted, and this species was not observed incidentally during surveys for the project. Its presence is assumed to occur within suitable habitats in the project area as part of this assessment.

5.2.20 Colorado Tansy-Aster (Xanthisma coloradoense) Colorado tansy-aster is a perennial herb of the sunflowers family (Asteraceae) that inhabits mountain parks, slopes, rock outcrops and dry tundra at elevations ranging from 8,500 to 12,500 feet. The species is found only in Wyoming and Colorado. In Colorado known occurrences exist in many of the mountainous counties (Beatty 2004). The project area supports suitable, albeit marginal habitats, for this species. Specific surveys for this species were not conducted, and this species was not observed incidentally during surveys for the project. Its presence is assumed to occur within suitable habitats in the project area as part of this assessment.

6.0 MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES The NFMA (National Forest Management Act) requires National Forests to do specific monitoring tasks. The Code of Federal Regulations - 36 CFR 219.19 (a) (6) states that population trends of MIS will be monitored and relationships to habitat changes determined. MIS are “plant and animal species, communities, or special habitats selected for emphasis in planning, and which are monitored during Forest Plan implementation to assess the effects of management activities on their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs which they may represent (FSM 2620.5)”. Management Indicator Species are monitored in collaboration with the Forest Plan. Furthermore, this monitoring will be done in cooperation with state fish and wildlife agencies to the extent possible. The very nature of MIS selection is to select species that would show impacts of the project and to monitor impacts of Forest-wide management over the plan period. Species that may be present infrequently, or for which critical habitat components are not found in habitats affected by the proposed activities, may not be appropriate for selection at the project scale. For each of the selected MIS, this section provides a review of Forest-wide status, Forest Plan estimates of population and habitat trend, Forest Plan monitoring data, and a discussion of habitat and population conditions in the project area in the context of Forest Plan expectations. Not all MIS discussed in detail were detected or surveyed for in the project area. MIS not selected for analysis were discounted because there were no suitable habitats in the project area, their

16 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report distributional ranges were outside of the project area, or they would not be affected by the activities on NFS lands related to the project. Based on the GMUG revised MIS list (Forest Service 2005c), Rocky Mountain elk, American marten, northern goshawk, Merriam’s wild turkey, red-naped sapsucker, and common trout are MIS species/groups that have suitable habitats within the project area (Table 2). Species selected for MIS analysis may be directly influenced by changes in habitat quality, composition, structure, or function due to ecological processes and/or human activities. Habitat changes may be the result of active management (specifically, the proposed project activities) or ecological succession whether human-caused or not. This project would have no effects to Abert’s squirrel or Brewer’s sparrow due to the lack of habitat and known occurrences in the project area. These species are not discussed further. Table 2 Management Indicator Species for GMUG Habitat Considered in in Detail in Management Project this Rationale for Species Indicator Community Area? Analysis? Exclusion Mammals Rocky Mountain Elk Mixed conifer, Douglas-fir, (Cervus elaphus lodgepole pine, aspen and Yes Yes nelson) shrub communities Abert’s squirrel Late succession ponderosa No suitable habitat in No No (Sciurus aberti) pine project area American marten Late successional mixed Yes Yes (Martes americana) conifer subalpine forests Birds Northern goshawk Mixed conifer and aspen Yes Yes (Accipiter gentilis) forests Merriam’s turkey Mountain shrub, pinyon- (Meleagris gallopavo juniper and low-elevation Yes Yes merriami) ponderosa pine Red-naped sapsucker (Sphyrapicus Mature aspen Yes Yes nuchalis) Brewer’s sparrow Project area does not Sagebrush No No (Spizella breweri) support suitable habitat Fish Aquatic habitat Common trout Yes Yes management

6.1 Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) In the 1991 Amended Land and Resource Management Plan for the GMUG (Forest Service 1991), elk were identified as a MIS due to its association with early succession spruce-fir, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, aspen, and shrub vegetation types. In 2005, the Forest Plan Amendment (Forest Service 2005c) retained elk as a MIS primarily to address travel management objectives and because of their high economic importance to the state of Colorado and communities surrounding the Forest (Holland et al. 2005). Elk are widespread and disperse readily across landscapes, with few habitat-related limitations. Populations are abundant (and stable or increasing) on the Forests in R-2, including the GMUG. The value and importance of habitats on Forests is increasing as habitat on adjacent private

17 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report lands are lost to human development. Females are sensitive to disturbance during calving season and herds are sensitive to disturbance in the winter (Forest Service 2005d). Elk use a combination of open meadows for foraging and woodlands for cover, calving, and thermal regulation. The primary issues affecting elk distribution are lack of habitat security areas due to motorized and non-motorized travel and recreation activities (Forest Service 2005d). In 2010, the Grand Valley Ranger District implemented the Grand Mesa Mechanized Travel EA. Motorized travel on the Grand Mesa was addressed in the 1994 Travel Management plan revision. These planning efforts aimed to minimize impacts to resources and wildlife habitat. Existing designated forest system routes within and around the project area would remain open to motorized use, including off-highway vehicles (OHVs), passenger vehicles, and commercial vehicles.

Current Population Status Elk populations are intensively monitored by CPW. The project area is within the CPW Game Management Units (GMUs) 41 and 411, which is part of elk Data Analysis Unit (DAU) E-14. The elk population estimate for this DAU, based on 2016 post-hunting surveys, is 14,478 elk, within the objective population of 15,000 to 19,000. CPW reports that during the 2014 hunting season (the last for which data is currently available) there were 3,503 total hunters, who harvested 693 elk, a 20% success rate. The bull:cow ratio in 2016 was 24.1 (24 bulls per 100 cows), which is within the objective range. The calf:cow ratio was 42.3 (or 42 calves per 100 cows), this ratio is below a more desirable ratio, and has been on a steady decline since 1980; this ratio usually remains between 40-55 calves:100 cows (Durno 2017). It is possible that declining habitat quality is impacting this ratio, but recreation impacts to elk on summer ranges is also a concern (Ward and Cupal 1979, Philips 1998, Philips and Alldredge 2000, Wisdom et al. 2005, CPW 2010).

Factors Influencing Elk Population Numbers and Causes of Population Fluctuations Over the last two decades, many elk herds in Colorado have changed their habits due to ongoing destruction of habitat through development and the increasing disturbance by humans in their natural habitats (Holland et al. 2005). To avoid disturbance, many elk herds move to winter ranges on private lands early in the season. Game damage problems have become common in areas where elk use large tracts of private land to avoid hunting pressure or other disturbances such as OHVs and other recreationists. Numerous factors may influence elk habitat preference, seasonal distribution, and habitat use. These include snow depth, forage quality and availability, competition with domestic livestock, and disturbance from human activity, all of which in turn may influence population numbers and cause population fluctuations. Impacts on elk that occupy the Forest include habitat alteration from recreational activities, logging, mineral development, and livestock grazing (Holland et al. 2005). If habitat alteration or disturbance is severe enough, areas may become unsuitable, forcing elk into less disturbed areas on Forest or nearby adjacent private lands. The shift from public to private lands during the hunting seasons may be attributing to below objective harvest, thus allowing elk numbers to increase above CPW objectives (Holland et al. 2005).

18 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

Project Area Elk Utilization and Occurrence The elk herds in the project area are migratory, using higher elevation forests and meadows during the summer, and lower elevations and exposed south-facing slopes during the winter to avoid deeper snows. The project area on the Forest lies in CPW-mapped elk summer range, but not within a mapped calving area (Production Area); the nearest calving areas are approximately 2.2 miles to the south, in the Kannah Creek drainage. After elk have calved (mostly in the Kannah Creek drainage, but another Production Area occurs 3.2 miles to the north of the trail, on the northern slopes of the Grand Mesa), some elk disperse up onto the top of the Grand Mesa. The existing high levels of summertime camping and dispersed recreation would likely limit more extensive elk use to areas away from existing roads, trails, camping areas, and larger lakes. Elk would similarly concentrate their foraging and summertime loafing in more secluded areas on the Grand Mesa. In the fall, hunting seasons keep elk herds moving, but again, areas away from roads and trails would be sought out by elk as hunting refugia. The Kannah Creek drainage to the south of the project area also provides an area with few roads and trails, and elk do show strong affinity for this area. With that said, Map 2 shows the various routes in the project area with a 200-meter buffer (100-meter on each side of the route) that would represent the “area of influence” around a given trail or route.

The area of influence is commonly referred to when discussing the scope of disturbance to wildlife from a given activity. This map includes the proposed trail route. This buffer distance is a conservative average from multiple studies that have looked at impacts from various recreational activities to a wide-array of wildlife species (Miller and Knight 1998; Miller et al. 2001, Taylor and Knight 2003). This area of influence increases greatly with motorized trails and roads. One study shows that the area of influence to a high traffic road (>4 vehicles per 12 hours) can be as high as 1,300m to each side of the road (Gaines et al. 2002). Lands End Road (FSR 100) is anticipated to have a considerable increase in vehicle traffic to access the trail at the rim of the mesa where the trail drops off. This could add significantly to the area of influence for elk and other animals along this route.

While the Palisade Plunge project area on the Forest may see year-round use by elk, the highest elevations on the mesa would likely only be utilized by elk in the summer and fall months. The area below the rim provides year-round habitat, but more importantly habitat during the winter and crucial early spring time and fall periods (called “transition” habitats). The proposed trail below the rim would be mostly inaccessible to recreational uses during the late fall, winter, and early spring seasons due to snow and mud on the trail. On the mesa top, the trail parallels FSR 100 (Lands End Road). Elk likely avoid Lands End Road during busy recreational periods and during hunting season due to the amount of traffic it receives. Traffic during these busy summer and fall months would likely increase and cause additional avoidance. Though the trail stays within ¼ mile of the Lands End Road along the mesa top, there are areas that the trail is further from the road due to geographic or natural features. This could expand the amount of area that is avoided by elk and reduce the amount of Refugia on this area of the mesa as a whole. State Highway 65 (SH-65), near the Mesa Top Trailhead, is also a feature that causes habitat fragmentation for elk populations on the mesa, and elk avoidance of this corridor is already occurring to some degree. The trail could increase the amount of traffic along this corridor over the life of the trail and cause increased avoidance.

19 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

Map 2 Area of Influence Around Trails and Roads

20 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

6.2 American Marten (Martes americana) American marten is discussed as a Sensitive Species above in Section 5.2.2.

6.3 Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Northern goshawk is discussed as a Sensitive Species above in Section 5.2.4.

6.4 Merriam’s Wild Turkey (Melleagris gallopavo merriami) Merriam’s turkey (listed by R-2 as “Merriam’s wild turkey”) are widespread and locally abundant across the Grand Valley Ranger District, especially in oak and other shrub habitats. Turkeys are known to occur in and near the entire project area, particularly the lower habitats below the mesa rim. They are tolerant of human activities, and in winter are commonly found in yards and along roadways near humans. They nest in a variety of habitats, although typically in areas with dense local cover. Nesting typically begins in late April for turkeys, generally before all shrubs are leafed out. Nests usually occur within very dense local cover, and in forested stands usually in areas with at least 60% canopy cover. If nests fail, turkeys will make an additional nesting attempt. Brood-rearing frequently occurs in areas such as openings, riparian areas, springs, burns, and aspen stands, all of which provide the invertebrates needed for food for the young birds. Breeding Bird data shows a strong upward trend in populations of this species in Colorado (Sauer et al. 2017). However, populations of turkey are directly controlled by hunting seasons determined by CPW and are less influenced by habitat than many other species. Other population pressures include predation from species such as coyotes (Canis latrans). Habitat alteration can have both harmful and beneficial impacts to turkeys, and treatments which provide a mosaic of habitat features, allowing for all life stages of turkeys, are desired for this species (Forest Service 2005e) (Table 3). Table 3 Turkey Habitat on the GMUG, Based on Habitat Parameters and Quality 1 Habitat quality Habitat Parameter Primary Secondary Total acres Winter feeding/cover 293,157 27,912 321,069 Summer feeding/cover 490,131 1,281,664 1,771,795 Nesting 9,587 101,595 111,182 Brood rearing 718,345 45,879 764,224 Roosting 43,974 200,047 244,021 1 Source: Forest Service 2014.

The lower portion of the trail on NFS lands (approximate MPs 14 to 18) currently supports a mosaic of oak and mixed shrub habitats. This mosaic is maintained by human activities such as grazing and infrastructure maintenance, and supports the highest quality habitats in the project area; however, this species may be found throughout the project area on the Forest.

6.5 Red-naped Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nuchalis) The red-naped sapsucker is a management indicator species for mature aspen stands on the GMUG (Forest Service 2014). The northern goshawk is also used as a MIS for mature aspen due to their dependency upon mature aspen for nesting habitat on the Forest, however goshawks are not limited to aspen and they are often associated with aspen/conifer mixes where aspen may not always be the dominant tree type (Forest Service 2005c). The red-naped sapsucker is more closely associated with pure aspen stands for cavity nesting and they create

21 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report sap wells in both aspen and willow for foraging. Further, researchers consider the red-naped sapsucker as a “keystone” species in that their sap wells provide an important food resource for numerous other species and their excavated nesting cavities are used by secondary cavity nesters. In Colorado, red-naped sapsuckers forage in aspen, willows and cottonwoods close to their nest sites, which are almost exclusively in mature aspen stands. Typical nest stands, dominated by large aspen, have a variety of diseases that create the heart rot needed for suitable cavity excavation (Wickersham 2016). Nest stands have trees infected with shelf or heartwood fungus (for drilling nest cavities) and nearby willow stands (for drilling sap wells). Published literature on this species is limited, with the most recent data and information collected by the Forest in its update to the species assessment (Forest Service 2014). With limited survey and monitoring data due to this species relatively low abundance, it is difficult to determine overall trends in population. According to BBS, populations appear to be stable or increasing in the United States, with areas of local declines. From the period 1966 to 2015, species shows a positive trend of +3.0% in Colorado (Sauer et al. 2017). Although red-naped sapsucker populations appear to be stable to increasing at the national, regional, and forest levels, their habitats have and continue to be impacted by land management activities. On the GMUG, some aspen stands are susceptible to conifer invasion and there is little aspen regeneration, which is likely attributed to fire suppression. Over half (65%) of the aspen dominated habitats on the Forest are in a mature to decadent condition and are declining in vigor (Forest Service 2014). While decadent aspen (aspen > 100 yrs old) may be beneficial to red-naped sapsuckers in the short term, a lack of regeneration and conversion to conifer dominated aspen stands may adversely affect the species in the long term. As part of the GMUG’s Grand Valley Spruce Beetle and Sudden Aspen Decline Treatments project, the GMUG identified that approximately 8% of aspen stands on the Grand Valley Ranger District are being affected by Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD). The GMUG has implemented stand initiation treatments to help regenerate these stands. Degradation and loss of willow riparian habitat due to livestock and elk use (foraging on aspen seedlings, saplings, and bark feeding) could also reduce habitat for the red-naped sapsucker. The species is present in low densities throughout the aspen woodlands of the GMUG. Red- naped sapsuckers were not incidentally observed during the survey effort for the proposed project, but the extent of mature aspen suggests that the species is likely to be present in the area.

6.6 Common Trout Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), brown trout (Salmo trutta), and their hybrids are included in the Common Trout MIS category. The Species Assessments for brook trout (Adams et al. 2008a), brown trout (Adams et al. 2008b), and rainbow trout (Adams et al. 2008c) provides extensive amounts of information and status data for these species, and this report tiers to, and summarizes, information presented in those reports. Common trout were selected as a MIS category in the 1991 Forest Plan revision for montane streams. Trout occur in most of the perennial water bodies on the GMUG, including streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Trout may be excluded from some areas due to chemical contamination below mines or by natural or human-caused barriers or larger diversions. Streams within the GMUG historically held two species of native trout, the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus), and greenback Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias); however, due to genetic uncertainties, these species are currently referred to by

22 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report respective lineage types. Widespread and repetitive stocking of brook, rainbow, and brown trout and/or rapid expansion of these non-native trout populations in Colorado have resulted in the restriction of native Cutthroat Trout to headwater streams or lakes above natural barriers to trout movement. Non-native trout now occur widely across the Forest, and are an important recreation attraction, and are mostly managed as either a put and take fishery, or as self- sustaining fisheries for recreation opportunities. In Colorado, CPW primarily manages fisheries, with coordination and assistance from Forests; when native Cutthroat Trout are involved, additional coordination occurs. Most areas of the Forest are within the suitable range of habitats to support trout; however, at high elevations, trout may be absent due to low water temperatures that may impede reproduction and recruitment, and at the lower elevations of the Forest, some stream temperatures may be too warm to allow for trout reproduction. The only drainage that has the potential to support trout in the project area is the North Fork of Kannah Creek, and only rainbow trout have been documented as occurring in this creek (CPW 2013); additional species information and an assessment of potential impacts to rainbow trout is presented here. Distribution and Abundance Rainbow trout have been documented by CPW as occurring in the North Fork Kannah Creek. The native range of the rainbow trout includes southwestern Alaska to the Sierra Madre Occidental in Mexico, as well as tributaries of the Pacific Ocean in Asia (Adams et al. 2008c). Rainbow trout have been introduced all over the world and self-sustaining populations have proliferated. Domestically, rainbow trout are currently distributed throughout 46 states within the United States, and ten provinces throughout Canada. Within the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region, rainbow trout are most widely distributed in Colorado and Wyoming. These fish were introduced in the 1880’s and have become the mainstay of Colorado’s hatchery system. Per CPW, millions of catchable and sub-catchable sized fish are stocked annually. Many rainbow trout populations across the GMUG are self- sustaining populations and provide excellent recreational fishing opportunities. Rainbow trout can be found in most mountain lakes and streams, as well as many reservoirs (Adams et al. 2008c). Quantitative population sampling has been conducted across the GMUG from 2000-2007 (Adams et al. 2008c). Rainbow trout were sampled in 65 of 339 total reaches (19%), which represent approximately 34 of 69 sampled streams/rivers (49%), and are found in 29 6th level watersheds. Thus, rainbow trout are considered widely-distributed throughout the Forest. Populations within the Upper and Lower Gunnison River basins are particularly well distributed, which is likely the result of some fluvial behavior patterns and residualized populations in tributaries. The number of adult fish (>6 inches) per stream mile range from a low of nine fish/mile in North Fork Mesa Creek to a high of over 1,600 fish/mile in the Big Cimarron River. The large range in abundance and size reflect different growth rates for populations residing in large streams/rivers (bankfull width >40 feet) compared to smaller streams. Because self-sustaining populations of rainbow trout are widely distributed across the Forest, there is inherent resilience to natural disturbances. Population estimates indicate that rainbow trout on the Forest are in a relatively stable and/or increasing trend. Additionally, many rainbow trout populations across the Forest are stocked annually to supplement populations that are experiencing low recruitment or high angling pressure. The greatest threats to the viability of rainbow trout on the Forest include water development and depletion, whirling disease, habitat

23 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report fragmentation via restriction of fish passage, livestock grazing, road design impacts, and to a lesser extent - angling.

Habitat Associations The timing of flow, water quality, and availability of various habitat features such as deep pools, cover, and spawning gravels influence trout abundance. Geology, elevation, temperature, gradient, and substrate distribution are other factors that commonly influence trout abundance. As habitats are degraded, either by chemical pollutants, increased sediment, or unfavorable changes in flow (especially severe reductions), trout typically respond with lower abundance and poor year class distribution.

Project Area Habitats North Fork Kannah Creek is the only stream bisected by the trail that supports suitable trout habitat. In this area, the creek is approximately 10-15 feet wide, and varies in depth from 6- inches to over 3-feet. There is a good distribution of riffle and run habitats within this area, and little evidence of fine sediment embeddedness. While cattle grazing seasonally reduces riparian vegetation along the creek, there are still good amounts of riparian and wetland vegetation along the creek banks. Where the trail would cross the creek, there is an existing culvert for FSR 109. Some minor amounts of sedimentation are likely occurring into the creek from this and other nearby roads, but noticeable amounts were not identified during site visits in the fall of 2017.

7.0 PROJECT EFFECTS 7.1 General Project Effects 7.1.1 No Action No direct or indirect human-caused change in existing condition of current vegetation and habitat is anticipated if no action is undertaken for this project. Conditions would continue as they currently exist, modified as per the other actions given in the cumulative effects contributions described in the EA, and existing natural processes.

7.1.2 Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects of the project include habitat alterations from construction of the trail. Given the relatively level terrain across the top of the Grand Mesa, the trail width would vary from 18 inches to 30 inches, and the short-term corridor disturbance (during construction) would be up to 48 inches. The trail bed would be altered from existing habitat to unsuitable habitat of native soils surface with adjacent tree and brush thinning, moving of logs, and especially rocks on steeper sections for the life of the trail. Over time, temporary disturbances to vegetation along the trail sides would grow back within a couple of years, but yearly trail clearing of fallen trees, rocks, and maintenance of stormwater controls would occur. Such changes may result in direct and indirect impacts to breeding, roosting, or foraging wildlife. Access to the project area would be on State Highway 65 (SH-65) from both the north and south (the Grand Mesa Scenic Byway) to the existing Mesa Top Trailhead and Lands End Road (FSR 100) to Shirttail Point. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on SH-65 from the north is 520 vehicles per day and from the south in Delta County, AADT ranges from 460 vehicles per day to 850 vehicles per day (Colorado Department of Transportation [CDOT] 2017). The Forest Service has a 2013 traffic count of 183 vehicles per day on Lands End Road measured approximately 0.5 mile west from intersection with SH-65 (Ennist 2017).

24 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

Changes in traffic use of existing roads may result in direct mortality to wildlife due to collisions; traffic on SH-65 can reach speeds of 55 miles per hour, although Lands End Road (FSR 100) and other roads are low-speed roads and such collisions are therefore unlikely. Off-Forest traffic is anticipated to increase slightly over current levels. As stated in the MIS elk discussion above, the area of avoidance from even four cars per day can be extensive. Increases in traffic due to the public use of the trail and by commercial guides shuttling trail users along any of the routes described would likely increase the area of avoidance around the proposed route and the roads that access them. This increase in traffic would degrade the overall habitat quality within this area of influence for species that may be nesting, roosting, feeding, or traveling. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for the project contains an area roughly from Powderhorn Ski Area to the north, southeast along SH-65 for approximately 12 miles to the south-facing slopes of the Grand Mesa, and then west across the top of the Grand Mesa to Lands End and Shirttail Point. The southern edge of the cumulative effects area includes the northern portions of the Kannah Creek drainage. The cumulative effects area also encompasses Lands End Road (FSR 100), from SH-65, across the top of the Grand Mesa and then down the western flanks of the Grand Mesa. The EA lists a wide variety of actions within that area, which have differing relevance for each species addressed herein. Actions with the potential to interact with project activities include past and future timber harvest (for spruce beetle and sudden aspen decline treatments), past and future trail construction, livestock grazing, recreational hunting and permitted outfitting, and motorized recreation such as OHV or snowmobile riding. Other projects such as water uses (ditches, reservoirs) would also contribute. 7.2 Sensitive Species Summary of Species Evaluation and Determinations Table 4 summarizes the effects and impact determinations for the evaluated species. The detailed species impact assessment follows this section. Selection of the No Action Alternative would have no change to existing conditions. Forest Service management activities would continue to occur and all activities currently permitted or occurring in the project area and adjacent lands would continue to occur. This includes continued timber management, water resource projects, livestock grazing, noxious weed management, recreational access, haying and ranching, and wildlife habitat management. The Forest Service provides specific effect or impact determinations for sensitive species. The Forest Service determinations are: • “No impact'” -- where no effect is expected; “NI.” • “Beneficial impact'” -- where effects are expected to be beneficial, and no negative effects are expected to occur; “BI.” • “May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing” -- where effects in the project area are not expected to be significant, and the species and its habitat will remain well distributed; “MAII.” • “Likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, or in a trend toward federal listing” -- where effects are expected to be detrimental and substantial, and the species and its habitat will not be maintained in sufficient numbers or distribution through time; “LV.”

25 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

Table 4 Summary of Impact Determinations No Action Proposed Action Species Determination Determination Fringed Myotis No Impact MAII Hoary bat No Impact MAII Spotted bat No Impact MAII Townsend’s big-eared bat No Impact MAII American marten No Impact MAII Pygmy shrew No Impact MAII Northern goshawk No Impact MAII Boreal owl No Impact MAII Northern harrier No Impact NI Olive-sided flycatcher No Impact NI American Peregrine falcon No Impact MAII Bald eagle No Impact NI Lewis’s woodpecker No Impact MAII Flammulated owl No Impact MAII Purple martin No Impact MAII Boreal toad No Impact MAII Northern leopard frog No Impact MAII Blue Lineage Colorado River No Impact MAII Cutthroat Trout Western bumblebee No Impact MAII Monarch butterfly No Impact MAII Paradox moonwort No Impact MAII Sageleaf willow No Impact MAII Colorado tansy-aster No Impact MAII

No Action Alternative The direct and indirect impacts of the No Action Alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of any Forest Service sensitive species in the short term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, current succession of vegetative types, and other actions within the project area, as indicated in the cumulative effects section of the EA and discussions in this analysis. Aspen decline and impacts to spruce and fir trees may result in both short- and long-term loss of trees at a landscape scale in this area.

7.2.1 Bat Species Direct and Indirect Effects The primary direct impact to bat species would be disruption to a larger diurnal roost site in the rocky outcrops near Shirttail Point (near Milepost 11.8). Construction of the switchbacks down the rocky outcrop could disturb roosting bats, and moving of rocks could cause direct impacts to bats roosting in crevices. However, at this location, the trail is existing, and would require less extensive construction, which limits the potential direct impacts. Mountain bikers and other foot- traffic using the trail would have the potential to disturb roosting bats through noise and vibration.

Other impacts to bat species may include decreased foraging habitats through vegetation removal, and the potential for disturbance to day-time roosting in trees near the trail or on cliffs, which could cause bats to flush in the day-time (when they could become susceptible to predation). Prey bases would not likely be affected. Daytime use of the trail is not coincidental

26 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report with nocturnal bat activities. Impacts to bat foraging would be discountable (extremely unlikely to occur) due to the small scale of the project footprint and large expanses of similar foraging habitat throughout the watershed. Cumulative Effects None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, including livestock grazing, water management projects, recreation activities, and forest management, when combined with the Proposed Action, are likely to contribute to substantial negative long-term cumulative impacts to this species. Other activities within the cumulative effects area have similar minimal potential impacts to this species, primarily through changes to foraging habitat. Determination Implementation of 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 towards federal listing” for the fringed myotis, hoary bat, spotted bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat. This is primarily based on the potential for disturbance to bats roosting in basalt cliffs, and less so for disturbances to bats roosting in trees near the trail. If pre-construction surveys are conducted to detect bat roosts, and these can either be avoided, or if none occur, then a determination of “no impact” is likely warranted.

7.2.2 American Marten Direct and Indirect Effects Trail construction would impact a few individual trees, and would not change habitat conditions for this species, or their prey. This species, while being mostly nocturnal, could be active during the daylight hours when trail use would be occurring, but most trail use would occur outside of this species most active time periods (at night). Martens may avoid habitats closest to the trail, resulting is some foraging behavior modifications, and some avoidance of otherwise available habitats. Cumulative Effects None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, when combined with the Proposed Action, are likely to contribute to substantial negative long-term cumulative impacts to this species. Other activities within the cumulative effects area have similar minimal potential impacts to this species, primarily through changes to foraging habitat through logging, and spruce beetle epidemics. However, widespread and consistent snowmobiling activities may have other indirect impacts on this species use of spruce/fir habitat types, and on microtine rodent prey bases. The Proposed Action would have very minor cumulative contributions to these impacts. Determination Implementation of 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 towards federal listing” for American marten. This is primarily based on the potential of indirect disruption to foraging individuals; little disturbance to their habitats or prey base would occur.

7.2.3 Pygmy Shrew Direct and Indirect Effects Trail construction occurring in mesic vegetation types, primarily in spruce/fir forests and near subalpine wetlands, could directly impact this species. Given how small this shrew is, avoidance of impact would be very difficult. After construction, the trail width is likely not large enough to create a dispersal barrier, but it would conceptually create a soft barrier for dispersal, and may change foraging behaviors. Long-term trail use may also create direct and indirect impacts to

27 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report this species through trampling, disturbance of travelways, and changes in prey species abundance adjacent to the trail. Given the limited extent of the project, measurable impacts to pygmy shrew populations are unlikely. Cumulative Effects None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, when combined with the Proposed Action, are likely to contribute to substantial negative long-term cumulative impacts to this species. Other activities within the cumulative effects area have similar minimal potential impacts to this species, primarily through changes to foraging habitat through logging, livestock grazing, water management and development projects, over-the-snow winter sports (which can crush subnivean habitats and alter foraging opportunities, refugia, and fecundity), and spruce beetle epidemics. This Proposed Action would have minor cumulative contributions to these impacts. Determination Implementation of 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 towards federal listing” for pygmy shrew. This is primarily based on the potential for indirect impacts during construction and during summertime trail use, impacts to foraging behaviors, and prey densities.

7.2.4 Northern Goshawk Direct and Indirect Effects Human disturbances to goshawk nests have been a suspected cause of nest abandonment (Reynolds et al. 1992). Similarly, human encroachment near nest sites can cause flushing of incubating adults, reduced feeding frequency to chicks, and nest abandonment. The project area supports at least one goshawk territory, given that an active nest was identified 178 meters (584 feet) from the trail, and other goshawks were incidentally observed near the trail. Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in any direct loss or impact to known nests, but pre-construction nest surveys would be conducted the season prior to trail construction. Goshawks begin nest initiation in March, and a new nest could be established a few months before trail construction starts. If trail construction is proposed within 0.50-mile of an active nest, it could cause disruption to nesting activities of a varying degree, depending on how close the nest is to active construction. To minimize impacts to nesting goshawks documented in the project area, no construction activities would occur within 0.5 mile of northern goshawk nests from May 15 to August 15. Portions of the trail would not likely be open for use in the spring until after nesting season has commenced. Use of the trail may therefore impact goshawk nesting and foraging activities around the trail; however, goshawks may still forage around the trail. Changes to foraging opportunities in these areas would be minimal due to the minimal actual losses of vegetated cover, and that the amount of similar habitat remaining in the area is substantial. However, it is likely that some goshawk avoidance of the trail area and adjacent habitats is likely due to human activities on the trail (both during and after construction). Given the abundant foraging opportunities around the Grand Mesa, some goshawk avoidance of areas near the trail would not be expected to result in significant impacts. Cumulative Effects The GMUG conducted an analysis of habitat trends on the Forest; aspen remained the same in the 1983 to 2000 period (Forest Service 2005a), but because of SAD, some aspen forests are in decline in the cumulative effects area, and 13% of the aspen state-wide has been affected by SAD since 2005. This declining trend in aspen, as well as potential insect infestation in spruce- fir forest, is the most likely reason for widespread habitat changes for this species.

28 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

Within the cumulative effects area, timber harvest is the primary project type likely to directly impact goshawk habitat. However, prior harvest does not appear to always result in nest failure or abandonment on the GMUG (Garrison 2017). Future timber harvest in the cumulative effects analysis area is possible but not likely at any large scale, nor are any large timber sales proposed at this time. Recreational use of existing and new trails, or other human activities in suitable habitats may also contribute to impacts to this species. Personal use and commercial fuelwood cutting are unlikely to contribute to functional habitat loss because these do not usually substantially alter stands and occur almost exclusively within 300 feet of open roads, where goshawks are less likely to nest. Most other activities are unlikely to contribute to any impacts to this species. Determination Implementation of 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 towards federal listing”. This is based on the assumption that pre-construction surveys for nesting goshawk would occur, and direct or indirect take of a nest would be avoided. The loss of a few individual trees from trail construction is not anticipated to have any measurable impact on goshawk, but consistent trail use through occupied habitats may reduce goshawk foraging opportunities, and if a nest is established near the trail, impacts to an active nest may occur given goshawks may establish a nest near the trail before the trail opens for the season. The potential effects from the Proposed Action are of small magnitude and do not result in a Forest-wide decrease in trends or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the Forest Plan.

7.2.5 Boreal Owl Direct and Indirect Effects Direct impacts to boreal owls could result from cutting down a nest tree, but based on the current trail alignment and the fact that trail construction standards avoid tree felling to the maximum extent practical, this occurrence would be highly unlikely. Trail construction immediately adjacent to a boreal owl nest could cause nest abandonment, and pre-construction nesting surveys would occur to avoid such impacts. Trail construction immediately adjacent to a boreal owl roosting in a tree may cause an owl to flush, but this would result in negligible impacts. Boreal owls are active during the nighttime hours, and therefore would not see any disruption in its ability to continue utilizing spruce/fir habitats around the trail. Given the small scale of project impact, the proposed trail would not be anticipated to impact boreal owl prey densities or availability. This species is also very tolerant of human activity, and any impacts to habitat availability or effectiveness around the trail due to long-term use of the trail would be discountable. Boreal owl courting and nesting seasons would be outside of the trail-use period, but some owlet rearing and fledging may occur while the trail is open; but again, this would not likely result in any impact to the species. Cumulative Effects Within the cumulative effects area, timber harvest is the primary project type likely to directly impact boreal owl habitat. Future timber harvest in the cumulative effects analysis area is possible but not likely at any large scale, nor are any large timber sales proposed at this time. The Forest Service also conducts boreal owl surveys to avoid potentially impacting a stand supporting nesting owls. Personal use and commercial fuelwood cutting are unlikely to contribute to functional habitat loss because these do not usually substantially alter stands and occur almost exclusively within 300 feet of open roads, where owls are less likely to nest. Most other activities are unlikely to contribute to any impacts to this species.

29 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

Determination Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a determination of “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing.’’ This is based on the assumption that pre-construction surveys for nesting owls would occur, and direct or indirect take of a nest would be avoided. The loss of a few individual trees from trail construction is not anticipated to have any measurable impact on boreal owl, and long-term use of the trail would not be anticipated to change boreal owl’s use of otherwise available habitats around the trail. However, because boreal owls establish nests late in the winter, before the trail is open, a nest may be established near the trail, and then subsequent use of the trail may indirectly impact boreal owl nest success and fledgling survival.

7.2.6 Northern Harrier Direct and Indirect Effects Northern harriers may migrate through, or disperse through the project area in the open subalpine meadows on Grand Mesa, but this species would avoid timbered areas and steeper slopes. Harriers may forage in this area, but no nesting near the trail would be anticipated. The construction and use of the trail may reduce some potential foraging habitat for this species in open meadows, but the amount of impact would be insignificant and discountable, and would not impact any suitable nesting habitat. Cumulative Effects Other projects occurring in this area which may impact northern harriers includes livestock grazing in open meadows, water management projects, and recreational activities which could impact larger meadows and wetlands. However, none of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, when combined with the Proposed Action, are likely to contribute to long-term negative cumulative impacts to this species, because this species use of the project area, or cumulative effects area, would be limited to transitory and incidental use. Determination Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a determination of “no impact” for the northern harrier. This is due to only incidental and temporary potential disturbances to foraging activities by this species, in transient foraging habitats. No nesting or more suitable habitats would be impacted. The Proposed Action would have an extremely small amount of habitat change across the landscape and would be offset by the relative abundance of suitable habitat outside of the project area, in more suitable habitat types.

7.2.7 Olive-sided Flycatcher Direct and Indirect Effects This species is known to occur in the project area and utilize suitable habitats for foraging. Given the small size of the trail, nest tree cutting is anticipated to be very limited, and only a few sub-optimal trees may be cut below the edge of the mesa. Disturbance to nearby nesting individuals during trail construction and trail use is highly unlikely, given this species tendency to nest towards the top of trees, and its relatively tolerant nature of humans. Long-term use of the trail would not be anticipated to result in direct or indirect impacts to this species, and any impacts would be insignificant and discountable. Cumulative Effects Other projects occurring in this area which may impact olive-sided flycatchers are commercial and personal use firewood cutting and timber harvest, as well as any other projects which impact conifer stands. However, none of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within

30 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report this area, when combined with the Proposed Action, are likely to contribute to long-term negative cumulative impacts to this species, due to the small scale of past and future projects, the abundance of spruce-fir habitats across the landscape, and as other projects would have very minor impacts on this habitat type. Determination Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a determination of “no impact” to the olive-sided flycatcher. This is due to no anticipated direct loss of suitable nesting habitats, and discountable potential disturbances to nesting and foraging birds during construction or trail use. The Proposed Action would have negligible impact to habitat across the landscape, and this project is offset by the relative abundance of suitable habitat across the landscape.

7.2.8 American Peregrine Falcon Direct and Indirect Effects The project area is close to large cliffs suitable for nesting, and nesting peregrine falcon were documented on nearby BLM lands (WestWater 2017). No impact to known nest sites on NFS lands would occur. This species forages widely from cliff nest locations/eyries; and while it would forage more consistently near its nest location, they are known to travel far from the nest. Given that this species could conceivably forage over any habitat type that provides prey species (passerines and waterfowl), it could forage widely over the project area. Although some native vegetation habitats would be removed, given the small scale of impact, and the very large area that peregrines forage over, any effects to prey species densities or availabilities at the scale of a home range would be negligible. Human use of the trail, as long as it does not occur close to an active nest site, is not likely to have any meaningful impact on peregrines ability to utilize areas around these project components. Cumulative Effects Peregrine falcon is known to occur in the cumulative effects analysis area, given the large cliffs associated with the rim of the Grand Mesa, and numerous desert rock outcrops along the flanks of the Grand Mesa, and nearby riparian and river systems. Other projects in this area which may impact peregrines and their prey species are very limited; given this species nests on relatively inaccessible cliffs, and no projects are foreseeable near such cliffs, no impacts to their important nesting areas would be anticipated. Because this species can forage widely for a variety of bird species, any effects from other projects to their prey base (including swifts, swallows, and other communally nesting species) would be discountable. However, this trail would be near active aeries off the Forest, and some interrelated and interdependent impacts to nesting peregrines or their foraging behaviors, may occur. Determination Implementation of 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 towards federal listing” on the American peregrine falcon; the project area is close to active nest sites, and construction and trail use may disrupt or disturb perched and foraging individuals both on and off the Forest. The Proposed Action would not have any effect on peregrines prey species availability or density at the scale that peregrines forage. The Proposed Action would not be anticipated to change how this species utilizes habitats throughout the project area.

7.2.9 Bald Eagle Direct and Indirect Effects This project area is not near large ponds or reservoirs on the Grand Mesa, and no nest locations are known to occur within proximity of the proposed trail. Given the abundance of

31 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report lakes and ponds on the mesa, some individual bald eagles may be seen in the area, or may be seen scavenging on large carcasses (if they ever occurred) near the proposed trail. No direct impact to nest locations, or important foraging areas is anticipated. Incidental flushing of an eagle near the trail (if it occurred), would not likely rise to a level of significant impact to this species. Cumulative Effects Bald eagles are known to occur within the cumulative effects analysis area. The primary cumulative risk to this species is likely tied to when and how many big game species (elk and mule deer) winter in the area; bald eagles have been documented foraging for many days on end near traditional elk winter ranges in Colorado. Other risks to this species include the availability of summertime prey, or disturbance to larger nesting habitats along major river corridors. Determination Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a determination of “no impact” for the bald eagle. This is largely due to a lack of suitable nesting habitat and foraging habitat near the trail on NFS lands.

7.2.10 Lewis’s Woodpecker Direct and Indirect Effects Potential impacts to Lewis’s woodpecker would be primarily limited to impacts within and immediately adjacent to aspen habitats, at the western end of the trail on NFS lands. Impacts could include cutting of a nest tree (and direct take of adult and/or nestlings), or construction in close proximity to a nest tree which could result in delayed feeding schedules, reduce incubation, or nest abandonment in the worst case). Lewis’s woodpeckers nest relatively late in the season, and trail use would likely already be occurring, so Lewis’s woodpeckers would be able to assess the distance of a nest tree to the trail, and the level of trail use before deciding on a nest location. Long-term, some loss of habitat effectiveness may occur near the trail, but this species is relatively tolerant of human activities (e.g., it is a common resident of towns), and no long-term impacts to its habitats or its ability to continue utilizing habitats would be anticipated. Cumulative Effects Lewis’s woodpecker are known to occur within the cumulative effects analysis area. The primary cumulative risk to this species is likely tied to large scale aspen cutting, wildfire, or urban forestry practices. The Proposed Action is not anticipated to cumulatively impact this species. Determination Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a determination of “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” for Lewis’s woodpeckers. This is largely predicated on pre-construction nest surveys being conducted before cutting down potential nest trees, and because long-term habitat effectiveness may be reduced near the trail.

7.2.11 Flammulated Owl Direct and Indirect Effects These owls are very tolerant of humans, nesting close to occupied areas and even tolerating observation by flashlight at night (Garrison 2017). The effects of loud trail construction has not been assessed, but moderate disturbance may not have an adverse impact on the species (Hayward and Verner 1994).

32 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

The territory occupancy begins in late April or early May, with fledging in mid to late July (Hayward and Verner 1994), and therefore, project activities, including removal of suitable habitat (albeit a very small amount), may occur during the nesting period, and may result in loss of nests and young. Disturbance to individuals nesting along the trail, after construction, may also occur, although bike use along a trail would not likely impact this species, unless the trail was very close to a nest (such as within 20 to 30 feet of a nest); this species would likely initiate a nest after the trail is open for the season, so owls would be exposed to trail use, which would assist in an owls ability to determine a suitable nest location. Surveys prior to construction would be conducted to determine presence or absence of this species and construction would be delayed to avoid impact to a nest site. This species is relatively tolerant of human activities, and long-term use of the trail would likely only result in impacts if the trail happened to be extremely close to a nest tree. Cumulative Effects Flammulated owls are known to occur in the cumulative effects analysis area. Other projects occurring in this area which may impact flammulated owls are commercial and personal use firewood cutting and timber harvest, as well as any past or future energy development or other projects which impact aspen stands. None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, when combined with the Proposed Action, are likely to contribute to cumulative impacts to this species, due to the small scale of past and future projects and the abundance of aspen habitats across the landscape. Determination Implementation of 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 towards federal listing” for the flammulated owl. This is based potential direct and indirect impacts to suitable nesting habitat in the project area and the potential for direct loss of nests or young during the breeding season, long-term use of the trail through aspen habitat could result in a potential minor disturbance to nesting individuals during project activities; these impacts would be offset by the quantity of aspen habitat remaining in the cumulative effects area.

7.2.12 Purple Martin Direct and Indirect Effects Potential effects to this species include: short-term effects of disturbance during construction; short-term potential for loss of nests or young during construction; and long-term changes to habitat. The nest-building through fledging period runs from late May through late July/early August for this species (Wickersham 2016). Project construction, including removal of suitable habitat, is likely to occur during the nesting period, and if a nest was near the trail alignment, disturbances may result in loss of nests and young. However, given how small the project footprint is, this is a highly unlikely event. Surveys prior to construction would be conducted to determine presence or absence of this species and construction would be delayed to avoid impact to the nest site. This species is relatively tolerant of human activities, and long-term use of the trail would likely only result in impacts if the trail happened to be extremely close to a nest tree. Cumulative Effects Purple martins are known to occur at some locations within this area, primarily to the south and east of the project area. Other projects occurring in this area which may impact purple martin are commercial and personal use firewood cutting and timber harvest, as well as any past or future energy development or other projects which impact aspen stands. However, none of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, when combined with the Proposed

33 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

Action, are likely to contribute to long-term negative cumulative impacts to this species, due to the small scale of past and future projects and the abundance of aspen habitats across the landscape. Determination Implementation of 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 towards federal listing” for the purple martin. This is based primarily on potential cutting down of occupied or unoccupied nest trees (which is a relatively low likelihood), and long-term trail use through aspen stands; this may preclude potential nesting in some areas. This is somewhat offset by the quantity of aspen habitat remaining in the cumulative effects area.

7.2.13 Boreal toad Direct and Indirect Effects The trail alignment would be constructed through wetlands and adjacent uplands in areas supporting suitable boreal toad habitats. The construction process may therefore result in direct impacts to toads (through trampling or excavation activities). Indirect impacts would also include increased sediment mobilization through wetland habitats, which could negatively impact down- gradient boreal toad habitats. Given the small footprint of the trail, the likelihood of direct impacts is very minor, and the scale of indirect impacts is also very small. Long-term trail use could also directly impact dispersing toads. No breeding areas (ponds) would be impacted. Cumulative Effects Activities in this area which may impact boreal toads include grazing management, surface activities associated with motorized travel, recreation, and water development and potential water depletions. Grazing can result in loss of riparian vegetation (foraging habitat and cover) and trampling of toads and egg masses. Motorized travel of all types may result in mortality to individuals moving from wetlands into upland areas. However, toad populations are more likely to be regulated by chytrid fungus infection rates. The Proposed Action is unlikely to contribute extensively to negative cumulative impacts for this species. Determination Implementation of 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 towards federal listing” for the boreal toad. This is based on the possibility of individual mortality by construction and long-term trail use, and the low likelihood of water quality impacts; and no aquatic habitat loss would be associated with the project.

7.2.14 Northern Leopard Frog Direct and Indirect Effects The trail alignment would be constructed through wetlands and adjacent uplands in areas supporting suitable leopard frog habitats. The construction process may therefore result in direct impacts to frogs (through trampling or excavation activities). Indirect impacts would also include increased sediment mobilization through wetland habitats, which could negatively impact down- gradient habitats. Given the small footprint of the trail, the likelihood of direct impacts is very minor, and the scale of indirect impacts is also very small. Long-term trail use could also directly impact dispersing frogs. No breeding or overwintering areas (ponds) would be impacted. Cumulative Effects Activities in this area which may impact northern leopard frogs include grazing management, surface activities associated with motorized travel, recreation, and water development and potential water depletions. Grazing can result in loss of riparian vegetation (foraging habitat and

34 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report cover) and trampling of frogs and egg masses. Motorized travel of all types may result in mortality to individuals moving from wetlands into upland areas. The Proposed Action is unlikely to contribute extensively to negative cumulative impacts for this species. Determination Implementation of 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 towards federal listing” for the northern leopard frog. This is based on the possibility of individual mortality by construction and long-term trail use, and the low likelihood of water quality impacts; no aquatic habitat loss would be associated with the project.

7.2.15 Blue Lineage Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Direct and Indirect Effects Blue Lineage Colorado River Cutthroat Trout may spawn in several of the drainages within or downstream of Project Area (Whitewater Creek, Brandon Ditch, North Fork Kannah Creek, and Kannah Creek). Trail construction would remove vegetation and expose soil, and alter patterns of surface water drainage, which could increase the potential for sediment delivery into drainages used by this species, affecting reproductive success. Crossings of these drainages during trail use could also increase the potential of erosion in the creek bed and increase sediment load in the stream. There is a chance that the Proposed Action could degrade suitable spawning habitats within or downstream of the trail crossing, but soil erosion-control measures implemented would contain sediment and minimize these effects. Cumulative Effects None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, when combined with the Proposed Action, are likely to contribute to substantial negative cumulative impacts to this species. Other activities within that area may have similar minimal potential impacts to this species, primarily through direct disturbances (such as earthmoving activities) or herbivory (livestock grazing) near waterbodies, as well as water development and potential water depletions. Determination Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a determination of “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing” for the Blue Lineage Colorado River Cutthroat Trout. This is based on the low likelihood of water quality and spawning substrate impacts, and no aquatic habitat loss would be associated with the project. 7.2.16 Western Bumblebee Direct and Indirect Effects Under the Proposed Action, the conversion of native habitats to the trail would result in very minor direct conversion of otherwise suitable foraging habitat (flowering plants) to unsuitable, unvegetated surfaces. Because this species uses burrows for hibernation and colony development, the construction process may also bury adults and larvae. Once trail construction is complete, other indirect impacts (trampling or removal of flowering plants) would be relatively limited to areas immediately adjacent to the trail. Cumulative Effects None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, when combined with the Proposed Action, are likely to contribute to substantial negative long-term cumulative impacts to this species. Other activities within that area may also have similar minimal potential impacts to this species, primarily through changes to foraging habitat, including livestock

35 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report grazing, or other surface-disturbing activities which may bury colonies or individuals, and change foraging opportunities. Actions that reduce flowering forbs, including livestock grazing or roadside spraying of weeds, can reduce foraging plants for bumblebees. Any impacts to this species are offset by the larger available habitat areas in the cumulative effects analysis area. Determination Implementation of 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 towards federal listing” for the monarch. This is based on a reduction in potential foraging areas (native rangelands with flowering forbs), and potential trampling of nests and individual bees during construction. The reduction in potential foraging areas may have some very minor impacts on foraging opportunities. 7.2.17 Monarch Butterfly Direct and Indirect Effects Under the Proposed Action, the conversion of native habitats to the trail surface would result in direct conversion of otherwise suitable foraging habitat (flowering plants) to unsuitable, unvegetated surfaces. This species only lays eggs on milkweeds and therefore, the actual impact to potential reproduction host plants is much smaller; essentially these impacts would potentially be limited to a few individual Asclepias plants. Use of forbs in seed mixes would benefit this species. Cumulative Effects None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, when combined with the Proposed Action, are likely to contribute to substantial negative long-term cumulative impacts to this species. Other activities within that area have similar minimal potential impacts to this species, primarily through changes to foraging habitat, include livestock grazing, logging, water management and development projects, and some dispersed recreational activities. Actions that reduce flowering forbs, including roadside spraying of weeds, can reduce foraging plants for monarchs, and as milkweeds can be common along roadsides, this could also impact reproduction host plants. Any impacts to this species are offset by the larger available habitat areas in the cumulative effects analysis area. Determination Implementation of 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 towards federal listing” for the monarch. This is based on a reduction in potential foraging areas (native rangelands with flowering forbs). This reduction in potential foraging areas may have some extremely minor impacts on adults; impacts to larvae host plants could also occur, but would likely be extremely minor in the scope and scale of impact.

7.2.18 Paradox Moonwort Direct and Indirect Effects Trail construction may bury individuals or impact seed banks. However, this species is extremely rare (only two known occurrences in the state of Colorado), and very difficult to detect given its diminutive size, cryptic coloring, and rarity. The likelihood of this species occurring in the project area is highly unlikely, and it is even less likely that the Proposed Action would result in direct impacts to this species. Cumulative Effects None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within this area, when combined with the Proposed Action, are likely to contribute to substantial negative long-term cumulative

36 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report impacts to this species, given the infrequency at which this species occurs in the State. Other activities within that area may have similar minimal potential impacts to this species, primarily through direct disturbances (such as earthmoving activities), or herbivory (livestock grazing). Moonworts in general, favor places such as old pipeline corridors, roadsides, ski runs, and old mining areas, and actions in these areas have a higher likelihood of impacting this species. Determination Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a determination of “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing” for the paradox moonwort. Given how difficult it is to actually detect this species presence, even with intensive survey efforts, there is a chance that the Proposed Action could directly impact individuals and occupied or potentially suitable habitats.

7.2.19 Sageleaf Willow Direct and Indirect Effects Trail construction could directly impact plants and potentially suitable habitats; however, the trail has been designed to avoid the larger and wetter habitats, which would be the areas more suitable for this species. Therefore, direct impacts to this species have been minimized, and trail construction is not likely to impact the species, especially when considering the trail location and narrowness of the trail. Indirect impacts could occur from trampling of vegetation adjacent to the trail, both during construction and during long-term trail use. Cumulative Effects Within this area, higher elevation habitats, including higher elevation wetlands, fens and wet meadows, could be impacted by livestock grazing and water management activities and development, and other activities that could impact suitable wetland habitats that may cumulatively impact this species and its habitats. Given the location of the trail and relatively small amount of disturbance, the Proposed Action would not cumulatively contribute to these other ongoing impacts. Determination Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a determination of “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing” for sage-leaf willow. The likelihood of impacts has been mostly minimalized through trail routing out of the larger and wetter wetland areas; long-term trail use may also have insignificant direct and indirect impacts to this species and potentially suitable habitats.

7.2.20 Colorado Tansy-Aster Direct and Indirect Effects This species may occur in open meadows and on rocky outcrops in the project area. Trail construction may bury or remove individual plants, and could convert otherwise suitable habitats to non-habitat. Indirect impacts could also include trampling of nearby plants during the actual construction process, or in the long-term in areas where trail users stray from the trail. Other indirect impacts could include localized erosion, given this species’ tendency to occur in rocky, poorly vegetated areas. Cumulative Effects Within this area, the higher elevation habitats, including scree fields, rocky outcrops, alpine habitats, and open meadows are more likely to support this species; indeed, there are widespread suitable habitats for this species on the Grand Mesa. In these areas, livestock

37 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report grazing, water resource development and management projects, recreation, logging, and other activities that could impact suitable habitats may cumulatively impact this species and its habitats. Given the location of the trail and relatively small amount of disturbance, the Proposed Action would not cumulatively contribute to these other ongoing impacts. Determination Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a determination of “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the planning area, nor cause a trend towards federal listing” for Colorado tansy-aster. Trail construction and long- term trail use are not likely to have significant direct and indirect impacts to this species and potentially suitable habitats.

8.0 MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES 8.1 No Action The direct and indirect impacts of the “no action” alternative would not change current habitat or population conditions of any MIS in the short-term. Long-term changes would continue to be dependent on existing conditions, succession of vegetative types, and other actions within the project area. Seasonal winter recreation (including snowmobiling, non-motorized over-the-snow activities), summer recreation, livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and water resource management activities would continue to involve noises and human activities at these locations which could indirectly impact wildlife habitat use in adjacent areas, including along existing trails and roads.

8.2 Proposed Action 8.2.1 Rocky Mountain Elk Direct and Indirect Effects Potential effects to this species include: • short-term direct effects during construction (visual or auditory disturbance or displacement of individuals from machinery, vehicles and humans) • reduction in habitat effectiveness due to increased presence of humans Construction of the trail would convert a small area of native-vegetation to non-habitat (a trail surface); this small of a habitat impact would not rise to a level directly impacting foraging opportunities for elk. In addition to the fact that this loss of habitat is extremely small, forage availability is also not considered to be a limiting factor for elk in this area and such losses should not result in any changes to elk population within the project area. Declines in big game use of habitat adjacent to trails have been documented in many studies (Freddy et al. 1986; Taylor and Knight 2003; Papouchis et al. 2001; Naylor et al. 2009). Elk travel time (i.e., associated with flight) increased in response to disturbances, which reduced time spent feeding or resting. Travel time was highest during ATV exposure, followed by exposure to mountain biking, hiking, and horseback riding. Feeding time decreased and resting decreased when elk were subjected to mountain biking and hiking disturbances. Further, elk show no evidence of habituation to mountain biking. Reduction in foraging time as a result of disturbances was not compensated after the disturbance ended, because elk did not increase feeding intensity or duration beyond that of controls. Results demonstrated that elk activities can be substantially affected by off-road recreation, and specifically, off-road recreation produces a change in elk behavior and different types of human activity cause different behavioral responses in elk.

38 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

The spatial extent of the impacts to elk from mountain bikers using a trail varies with vegetative screening, distance, and topography. This “area of influence” is not completely abandoned by elk, but use of this area (i.e., the habitat effectiveness) may be reduced depending on a number of factors. Greater trail volume through more open habitats generally produces a wider area of avoidance. Elk (and deer) in areas that do not currently have existing roads or trails are not habituated to human activities. With trail construction and trail use in these “roadless and trail-less” areas, elk avoidance of the trail and adjacent habitats would see the highest amount of new avoidance, and highest new reductions in elk habitat effectiveness (i.e., the most reduction in elk use over current habitat use levels). In these areas near the trail, it would be expected that elk would spend less time feeding and loafing, and would be forced to find areas further from the trail. This would reduce the availability of habitats for elk, and would reduce available summertime elk habitats when considering the impacts of other trials and roads in the western Grand Mesa area. The trail is not within mapped elk production areas (calving areas). However, some individual elk likely calve in the vicinity of the trail, especially where it occurs away from existing roads and trails. Individual cows have been observed in the area in late May over a number of years, implying that some limited calving is likely to occur in the area. Therefore, if activities occur during calving season (and within suitable calving habitat), individual elk may be disturbed, disrupted, or displaced by project activities. This would likely have negative impacts on calf health and survivorship. Because of elk’s strong reaction to mountain bikers and hikers, the anticipated consistent use of the trail would likely preclude elk from moving back into habitats near the trail, with the caveat that elk will often utilize habitats at night that are close to roads (and trails). When the trail is not being used during the early spring, late fall, and winter months, elk would likely use the area with little regard for the presence of the trail. The trail bisects an elk Winter Concentration Area, and a small portion of an elk Migration Corridor in the vicinity of Milepost 21, off of the GMUG. The interrelated and interdependent effects of the trail on the GMUG were considered for these off-Forest habitats. Elk generally start to migrate when snows accumulate in the high county, which would be well after the trail has closed for the season; thus, because the trail is closed during the winter, impacts to elk Winter Concentration Area habitats outside of the Forest would also not occur. In the spring when elk are moving to higher elevations, trail conditions would still likely have snow drifts and mud, precluding use of the trail. Based on this, interrelated and interdependent effects of the trail off the Forest would not be anticipated to have large or significant impacts to these elk movement corridors, or winter ranges. Cumulative Effects Due to the scale and type of this project, with limited habitat alteration, habitat impacts of the project at this scale are negligible. Other actions within the cumulative impacts area, including livestock grazing, existing recreation trails and other routes, water management projects and logging, would also result in incremental impacts to habitat suitability and availability for elk and could result in changes to elk distribution. However, this project would cumulatively increase human activities within elk transitional and summer ranges, which would reduce the habitat effectiveness for elk within approximately 200 meters to 400 meters of the trail, especially where the trail is not already near existing trails and roads. This impact is visualized in Map 2 which buffers the proposed route and all existing trails and roads in the project area by 250 meters. The cumulative area of avoidance from the existing trails and roads leave marginally sized security areas for elk and other wildlife. The potential for additional trails and increased visitor use on NFS lands would add to this overall habitat degradation. This project would also cumulatively add additional vehicle traffic to a number of roads in the area, which would

39 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report cumulatively reduce elk’s ability to safely cross higher speed roads (such as SH-65) or use habitats near slower speed roads (such as NFS roads). Summary and Conclusion The effects from this project would be long-term, but limited to the trail use season (summer to early fall). Because most of the proposed trail alignment follows the Lands End Road on top of the mesa, there is already a considerable reduction in habitat effectiveness (up to 1,300 meters on each side of the road). Additionally, the Proposed Action would add more traffic to existing roads, incrementally reducing habitat effectiveness near these roads and likely expanding the area of avoidance due to this traffic. Elk are very sensitive to human disturbances from hikers and mountain bikers, and do not show signs of habituation; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that while the trail is open in the summer, there would be decreased habitat effectiveness near the trail - possibly anywhere from 200 meters to 400 meters from the trail, depending on the buffering effects of topography and vegetation. However, at night elk would be able to access habitats, likely right up to the edge of the trail, and also during times of no trail use, or low trail use (such as during poor weather). The Proposed Action is relatively small in scale, but would be a new long-term impact, especially when trying to quantify the impacts for a considerable increase in vehicle traffic from trail users in the project area.

Given the small scale of the Proposed Action, and the limited time that the trail is open during the year, it would not result in a Forest-wide decrease in trends or deter the Forest from meeting the MIS objectives in the Forest Plan.

Mitigations associated with this proposal for Elk:

• The proposed trail and project area would be closed to mechanized and motorized use from the top of the Grand Mesa rim to the boundary with the BLM from December 1 through May 1. This closure would help to maintain winter and transitional habitat for elk and deer, especially during low snow years when use of this trail may still be available.

• A gate would be installed at the top of the Grand mesa where the Lands End Road drops down from the rim. In low snow years that allow access to this point, this gate would be closed starting on December 1st to restrict motorized and mechanized travel in the area below the mesa rim.

8.2.2 Merriam’s Wild Turkey Direct and Indirect Effects Potential effects to turkey include: • short-term direct effects during construction (visual or auditory disturbance or displacement of individuals from machinery, vehicles and humans) • short-term direct mortality of eggs/nests during construction activities • long-term indirect effects as a result of consistent human activity Individual nests could be directly lost or abandoned because of project construction activities; however, this is relatively unlikely, because nesting surveys would be conducted prior to construction activities that occur during the nesting season. Direct mortality to eggs or displacement of adults and young is possible, but highly unlikely given the requirement for pre- construction surveys. Long-term effects in cover type and foraging abundance are not anticipated to have any impacts to turkeys, because they utilize a wide variety of habitats in this area. Turkeys would likely try to avoid nesting near the trail once constructed, but there are ample nesting habitats in the project area.

40 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

Cumulative Effects Due to the scale and type of this project, with limited habitat alteration, effects of the project at this scale are negligible. None of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future activities within this area, when combined with the Proposed Action, are likely to contribute to substantial long- term negative cumulative impacts to turkeys. Turkeys are increasing in numbers and show little regard for human presence in the area, and are commonly seen near roads and trails. Summary and Conclusion The effects to turkey from this project would be of low magnitude, but long-term, and would not result in a substantial Forest-wide decrease in trends, or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the Forest Plan.

8.2.3 Red-naped Sapsucker Direct and Indirect Effects Potential effects to red-naped sapsucker include: • short-term effects of disturbance during construction • short-term potential for loss of young during construction • long-term indirect impacts from human activities The nest-building through fledging period runs from about May 20 through August 25 for this species (Wickersham 2016). Project activities during this time may result in abandonment of nests or alteration of territorial boundaries in the project area. This would most likely be either from nest abandonment due to construction disturbance close to a nest, or through direct mortality (from felling a tree with an active nest). However, if construction is to occur during the migratory bird nesting season, then pre-construction surveys are required, which dramatically reduces the risk of taking a tree with an active nest. Habitat changes in this area would be limited to only a few mature aspen trees; currently suitable habitat is widespread for nesting and foraging, and the Proposed Action would not significantly impact habitat availability. Indirectly, there would be some diminished habitat effectiveness near the trail, for both foraging and nesting; however, this species is relatively tolerant of humans, so the level of indirect impacts, and diminished habitat effectiveness would be very minimal. Cumulative Effects Due to the scale and type of this project, with limited habitat alteration, effects of the project at this scale are negligible. Forest-wide habitat for the red-naped sapsucker includes a total of 1.5 million acres of potentially suitable habitat, so the amount of forest-wide habitat affected would be negligible. Other projects in the cumulative effects area, including aspen regeneration activities, livestock grazing, and energy exploration and development, would cumulatively add to habitat and species impacts, but the Proposed Action would not result in significant cumulative effects. Summary and Conclusion The effects from this project are of short duration and magnitude and would not result in a substantial Forest-wide decrease in trends, or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the Forest Plan for the red-naped sapsucker.

41 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

8.2.4 Common Trout Direct and Indirect Effects Potential effects to common trout include: • short-term effects of increased sediment deliver during construction • long-term risk of sediment delivery Only the North Fork Kannah Creek is known to support rainbow trout, and the trail crossing point would use an existing road crossing (at FSR 109). Where the trail is in proximity to North Fork Kannah Creek, there is a small likelihood that there could be increased sediment delivery to the creek, but given how the trail crossing generally is perpendicular to the creek, and the trail alignment is generally not paralleling the creek, stormwater and sediment from the trail is not anticipated to reach or impact the creek, at least to a level that would produce measurable impacts to potential trout populations. Long-term maintenance of the trail would be needed near this crossing to prevent trail degradation, and to reduce long-term risks of sedimentation issues from the trail. The Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in any direct impacts to trout, and only very minor potential indirect impacts from sediment delivery near the North Fork Kannah Creek crossing. Long-term use of the trail is not anticipated to have any impacts to trout populations or habitat in North Fork Kannah Creek. Cumulative Effects Livestock grazing would continue to reduce riparian vegetation, which reduces bank stability and stream shading, and water management projects will continue to capture and divert water from local creeks, but would also create larger lentic habitats for trout. This project is not anticipated to cumulatively add to other ongoing and anticipated impacts to trout habitat. Forest- wide habitat for trout species includes hundreds if not thousands of streams and creeks, so the amount of forest-wide habitat potentially affected would be negligible. Summary and Conclusion Based on project design, the risk of increased sedimentation has been reduced. Potential impacts to habitats have also been reduced. Any negative effects from this project are likely to be of short duration and magnitude, and would not result in a substantial Forest-wide decrease in trends, or deter from meeting the MIS objectives in the Forest Plan. 9.0 LITERATURE CITED Adams, P., C. James and C. Speas. 2008a. Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) Species and Conservation Assessment. GMUG National Forest. Delta, Colorado. _____. 2008b. Brown trout (Salmo trutta) Species and Conservation Assessment. GMUG National Forest. Delta, Colorado. _____. 2008c. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Species and Conservation Assessment. GMUG National Forest. Delta, Colorado. Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1994. Colorado birds, a reference to their distribution and habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History. 442 pp. Beatty, B.L., W.F. Jennings, and R.C. Rawlinson. 2004. Machaeranthera coloradoensis (Colorado tansyaster): a technical conservation assessment. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Bestgen, K. R., K. B. Rogers, and R. Granger. 2013. Phenotype predicts genotype for lineages of native cutthroat trout in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Final Report to U. S. Fish and

42 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office , Denver Federal Center (MS 65412), Denver, CO. Larval Fish Laboratory Contribution 177. Colorado Department of Transportation. 2017. Online Transportation Information System (OTIS). Traffic Data Explorer. Accessed online: http://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/TrafficDate. September 13. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2010. Grand Mesa DAU E-14 herd Management Plan. Grand Junction, Colorado. Accessed online: http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/DAU/Elk/E-14DAU.pdf _____. 2013. Statewide fish database. Ft. Collins, Colorado. Dare, M., M. Carrillo, and C. Speas. 2011. Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) Species and Conservation Assessment for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests, Delta, CO. DeMott, S.L. and G.P. Lindsey. 1975. Pygmy shrew, Microsorex hoyi, in Gunnison County, Colorado. Southwestern Naturalist 20:417-418. Durno. S. 2017. Wildlife Biologist, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Grand Junction, Colorado. Personal communication with Edge Environmental, Inc. December 28, 2017. Ennist, H. 2017. Forest Sustainable Operations and Assistant Facility Manager. U.S. Forest Service, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest. E-mail communication with Edge Environmental, Inc. October 26. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History. University Press of Colorado. P.O. Box 849, Niwot, Colorado 80544. Forest Service. 1991. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. July. _____. 2001. Management Indicator Species Assessment, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, Colorado. Accessed online. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gmug/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fsbdev7_003229. _____. 2005a. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Species Assessment. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, Colorado. Accessed online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5199933.pdf. _____. 2005b. Purple Martin (Progne subis) Species Assessment. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, Colorado. Accessed online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5199934.pdf. _____. 2005c. Environmental Assessment. Management Indicator Species Forest Plan Amendment, to the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests, Delta, Colorado. _____. 2005d. Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) Species Assessment Draft. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, Colorado. Accessed online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5199934.pdf. _____. 2005e. Merriam’s Turkey (Meleagris gallapovo merriami) Species Assessment. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Delta, Colorado. Accessed online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5202737.pdf.

43 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

_____. 2014. Update to the Management Indicator Species Assessment for the Red-naped Sapsucker. Delta, Colorado. Accessed online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3837155.pdf. _____. 2017a. Regional Forester’s list of Sensitive Species for the Rocky Mountain Region. Accessed online: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5390116. January. _____. 2017b. Species Conservation Assessment. Accessed online: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5177128. Freddy, D. J., W.M. Bronaugh and M.C. Fowler. 1986. Response of mule deer to disturbance by persons afoot and snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 14:63-68. In Joslin, G., and H. Youmans, coordinators. 1999. Freels, E. 2017. District Wildlife Biologist. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests, Grand Valley Ranger District. Personal communication with Edge Environmental. December. Gaines, W.L., P.H. Singleton, and R.C. Ross. 2002. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanagan and Wenatchee National Forests. Gen. Tech Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Garrison, D. 2017. District Wildlife Biologist, Paonia Ranger District, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests. Personal communication with MountainWest. Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner, Technical Editors. 1994. Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the United States: A Technical Conservation Assessment. GTR-RM-253. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Pgs. 41, 119. Holland, T., M. Vasquez, L. Spicer, and C. Speas. 2005. Rocky Mountain Elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) Species Assessment Draft. GMUG National Forest. Delta, Colorado. Johnston, B., B.T. Stratton; W.R. Young; L.L. Mattson; J.M. Almy; and G.T. Austin. 2012. Inventory of Fens in a Large Landscape of West-Central Colorado: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. Report to Forest Supervisor, 209 pp. Delta, Colorado: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. April 6, 2012. Accessed online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233905718_Inventory_of_fens_in_a_large_landsc ape_of_west- central_Colorado_Grand_Mesa_Uncompahgre_and_Gunnison_National_Forests. Keinath, D. and M. McGee. 2005. Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Accessed online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/borealtoad.pdf. Kennedy, P.L. 2003. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Accessed online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182005.pdf. Metcalf, J.L., S.L. Stowell, C.M. Kennedy, K.B. Rogers, D. McDonald, J.E. Keepers, A. Cooper, J.J. Austin, and A.P Martin. 2012. Historical Stocking Data and 19th Century DNA Reveal Human-induced Changes to Native Diversity and Distribution of Cutthroat Trout. Molecular Biology 21(21):5194-5207. Mikkola, M. 1983. The owls of Europe. Buteo Books, Vermillion, South Dakota.

44 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of Recreational Trails on Breeding Bird Communities. Ecological Applications, 8; 162-169. _____. 2001. Wildlife Responses to Pedestrians and Dogs. Wildlife Society Bulleting, Vol. 29, No. 1. Pp. 124-132. Naylor, L.M., M.J. Wisdom and R.G. Anthony. 2009. Behavioral responses of North American elk to recreational activity. Journal of Wildlife. Management. 73, 328-338. Palmer, D. A. and R. A. Ryder. 1984. The first documented breeding of Boreal Owl in Colorado. Condor 86:251-217. Papouchis, C. M., F.J. Singer and W.B. Sloan. 2001. Responses of Desert Bighorn Sheep to Increased Human Recreation. Canyonlands Research Bibliography. Paper 94. Accessed online: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/crc_research/94. Phillips, G.E. 1998. Effects of human-induced disturbance during calving season on reproductive success of elk in the upper Eagle River Valley, Colorado. PhD. Diss. Colorado State Univ. Ft. Collins, CO. 101 pp. Phillips, G.E. and A.W. Alldredge. 2000. Reproductive success of elk following disturbance by humans during calving season. J. Wildl. Manage. 64:521-530. Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. Accessed online: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr217.pdf. Sauer, J. R., D. K. Niven, J. E. Hines, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr, K. L. Pardieck, J. E. Fallon, and W. A. Link. 2017. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2015. Version 2.07.2017 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. Spencer, A.W. and D. Pettus. 1966. Habitat preferences of five sympatric species of long-tailed shrews. Ecology 47:677-683. Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians, Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, Massachusetts. 336 pp. Taylor, A.R. and R.L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor perceptions. Ecol. Appl. 13:951–963. Towry, R.K., Jr. 1984. Wildlife habitat requirements. Pages 72-209 in R.L. Hoover and D.L. Wills eds. Managing forested lands for wildlife. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding for a petition to list the Southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad as endangered. Federal Register 60:15281-15283. _____. 2016. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed online: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Vaughan, T.A. 1969. Reproduction and population densities in a montane small mammal fauna. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Miscellaneous Publications 51:51-74. Ward, A.L. and J.J. Cupal. 1979. Telemetered heart rate of three elk as affected by activity and human disturbance. Pp. 47-56 in K. Downing, ed. Symp. On dispersed recreation and natural resource management. Utah State Univ. Logan, UT. WestWater Engineering. 2017. Palisade Plunge Trail Project, Biological Survey Report, Mesa County, Colorado. September 2017. Grand Junction, Colorado.

45 Palisade Plunge Trail Biological Evaluation & MIS Report

White, C. M., N. J. Clum, T.J. Cade and W. Grainger Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America. Accessed online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/660doi:10.2173/bna.660. Wickersham, L.E. (editor). 2016. Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Denver, Colorado. Wiggins, D. 2005. Purple Martin (Progne subis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Accessed online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182038.pdf. Wisdom, M.J., A.A. Ager, H.K. Preisler, N.J. Cimon and B.K. Johnson. 2005. Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer and elk. Pp. 67-80 in Wisdom, M.J., tech. ed., The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

46