Colorado Wildlife Science Ecological Research, Management & Consulting

MOORE OPEN SPACE Wildlife Baseline Surveys

September 2019

Submitted to— Pitkin County Open Space & Trails 530 E. Main Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611

Submitted by— Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC 0100 Elk Run Drive, Suite 128 Basalt, CO 81621

Page left intentionally blank

MOORE OPEN SPACE WILDLIFE BASELINE SURVEYS Pitkin County, Colorado

revision date: September 12, 2019

Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC Jonathan Lowsky, MS Wildlife Biology

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 LANDSCAPE CONTEXT, TOPOGRAPHY & CURRENT USE ...... 1

3.0 PLANT COMMUNITIES ...... 2

4.0 WILDLIFE ...... 2 4.1 Methods ...... 3 4.2 Results ...... 3 4.2.1 Birds ...... 3 4.2.2 Mammals ...... 5 4.2.3 Herpetofauna – Amphibians & Reptiles ...... 7 4.3 Rare, Threatened & Endangered Species ...... 7

5.0 DISCUSSION & MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS ...... 8 5.1 Wildlife Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 9 MIS – Mountain Big Sagebrush Shrubland ...... 9 Brewer’s Sparrow ...... 9 MIS – Mixed Shrublands ...... 9 Green-tailed Towhee ...... 9 MIS – Gambel Oak Shrublands ...... 10 Virginia’s Warbler ...... 10 MIS – Broad-scale Habitat Generalist ...... 10 Mule Deer ...... 10 5.2 Management Recommendations: ...... 11

6.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 11

APPENDIX I. MAPS ...... 14

APPENDIX II. USFWS LIST OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...... 16

APPENDIX III. ADDITIONAL PHOTOS ...... 24

Moore Open Space Baseline Wildlife Surveys -i- Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC TABLES Table 1. Birds of Conservation Concern Known or With the Potential to Occur at Moore Open Space ...... 3 Table 2. Birds Detected in 2000 and 2019 at Moore Open Space ...... 4 Table 3. Mammals Known or With the Potential to Occur at Moore OS ...... 5 Table 4. Herpetofauna Known or With the Potential to Occur at Moore OS ...... 7

MAPS Map 1. Conservation Landscape & Transect Locations ...... 15

PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 1. Dog walker observed at Moore OS during field work ...... 1 Photo 2. Bike trail within the area cleared for Nordic trail (Note that grass is the dominant cover type) ...... 1 Photo 3. Mountain big sagebrush shrubland at Moore OS ...... 2 Photo 4. Gambel oak and serviceberry dominated shrublands occur on the rocky outcrops and slopes above the bus stop & Maroon Creek Road ...... 2 Photo 5. Mule deer doe & fawn observed on the south side of Moore OS between the Nordic trail and Maroon Creek Road ...... 5 Photo 6. Fresh mule deer pellets observed at Moore OS along survey transect ...... 7 Photo 7. Gambel oak, serviceberry and other shrubs preferred by deer and elk as forage are heavily browsed ...... 8 Photo 8. Brewer’s sparrow ...... 24 Photo 9. Mule deer doe in dense Gambel oak-serviceberry shrublands adjacent to Maroon Creek Road ... 24 Photo 10. Mule deer doe observed within stand of serviceberry ...... 25 Photo 11. Higher plant diversity on rocky outcrops provide habitat for a variety of species ...... 25 Photo 12. Moore OS is an important patch of native habitat embedded in a developed landscape ...... 26

Moore Open Space Baseline Wildlife Surveys -ii- Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report should be considered an update to the wildlife related sections of the 2001 Moore Open Space Resource Management Plan (Lowsky et al. 2001). The wildlife conservation value of Moore Open Space (Moore OS) is largely due to its remaining native plant communities and its adjacency to the ecologically significant Maroon Creek valley. Although it is not very large and is open to limited year-round recreation, Moore OS provides an important patch of native habitat in a heavily developed area (Map 1). In addition, the dominant plant community on the property, mountain big sagebrush shrubland, is particularly important to the wildlife of the Roaring Fork Watershed. Sagebrush shrublands are important to migrating and wintering Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer and many medium and small Photo 1. Dog walker observed at Moore OS during field work mammals. These relatively xeric shrublands are also very important to a suite of sagebrush dependent bird species. Although sagebrush dominated habitats do not support as high a diversity of wildlife species as other habitats (e.g., aspen forest, riparian forest), some of the most common bird species are primarily restricted (as breeders) to this habitat (e.g., Brewer’s sparrow) (Andrews and Righter 1992, Rotenberry et al. 1999).

2.0 LANDSCAPE CONTEXT, TOPOGRAPHY & CURRENT USE Moore Open Space is situated on the floor of Roaring Fork River Valley between the State Highway 82 (SH-82) - Maroon Creek Road – Castle Creek Road roundabout and the Maroon Creek gorge (Map 1). It is embedded within what can be described as a suburban landscape with residential subdivisions to the north and south, golf courses to the east and west, and the Aspen School District campus to the south. Moore OS is within the Southern Rocky Mountain Steppe-Open Woodland- Coniferous Forest-Alpine Meadow Ecoregional Province (Atwood 1940, Bailey et al. 1976, Omernik Photo 2. Bike trail within the area cleared for Nordic trail (Note that grass is the dominant cover type) 1987, Bailey 1995, Bailey et al. 1998). Topography of Moore OS is relatively flat with anomalous rocky outcrops that are likely glacial remnants, with elevations ranging from approximately 7,910 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to 7,970 feet AMSL. No surface water occurs on the property.

Moore Open Space Baseline Wildlife Surveys -1- Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC Recreational use of Moore OS varies seasonally. The groomed cross country ski trails at Moore OS are heavily used in the winter and are part of the Aspen/Snowmass Nordic Trail System. In the non-winter months, these trails are used for dog walking (Photo 1), nature appreciation (e.g., bird watching), and as connector trails (Photo 2) for cyclists commuting to Aspen and elsewhere.

3.0 PLANT COMMUNITIES Although vegetation is addressed in a separate report, it is important to briefly describe the dominant cover types as they comprise the habitat that supports the wildlife species discussed below. The dominant cover type or plant community is Mountain Big Sagebrush- Snowberry shrubland (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana – Symphoricarpos oreophilus) which occupies most of the property (Photo 3). In addition, and not insignificant from a habitat perspective, are the Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) and Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) dominated rocky outcrops which provide Photo 3. Mountain big sagebrush shrubland at Moore OS important food, cover, and structural heterogeneity (Photo 4). Gambel oak – Saskatoon serviceberry shrublands also occur on the southeast facing slopes adjacent to the Roaring Fork Transportation Agency (RFTA) bus stop and Maroon Creek Road. Interspersed with these native shrublands are disturbed areas of native and non-native grasses that occur as a result of past and current management. The Nordic trails represent the greatest acreage of these grass- dominated areas (Photo 2).

4.0 WILDLIFE Given its size, Moore OS provides habitat for a surprisingly high number of wildlife species. This is due, to a large degree, to its adjacency to the Maroon Creek gorge which supports intact riparian habitat and upland Photo 4. Gambel oak and serviceberry dominated shrublands occur on the rocky outcrops and slopes above shrublands, and serves as a the bus stop & Maroon Creek Road seasonal and daily movement corridor for many species. The relatively intact mountain big sagebrush shrublands interspersed with oak-serviceberry shrublands provides important habitat for a variety of birds and mammals including some that occur primarily in high quality sagebrush habitats.

Moore Open Space Baseline Wildlife Surveys -2- Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC 4.1 METHODS CWS biologists conducted pedestrian surveys on June 21, 2019 along two transects separated by at least 200 meters (Map 1). Beginning at 6:00 AM, two CWS biologists followed each transect at approximately 10 meter spacing recording all directly observed wildlife as well as all wildlife sign (e.g., beds, nests, fur or feathers, burrows, dens, pellets or scat, prey remains, food caches, and markings on the ground or on tree bark) and sounds (i.e., bird songs and calls). Both transects were completed by 10:00 AM. In addition, we evaluated the current condition of the habitat at Moore OS.

4.2 RESULTS Our field surveys found that Moore OS continues to provide wildlife habitat including species known to be strongly associated with sagebrush shrublands and Gambel oak mixed montane shrublands. The property is also valuable for both mule deer and elk and an array of smaller mammals.

4.2.1 BIRDS Sixty-seven individuals of 21 species of birds were detected. These included many species known to be tolerant of human activity (e.g., black-capped chickadee, brown-headed cowbirds) but also a few species that are more sensitive to human activity (e.g., green-tailed towhee, Virginia’s warbler) and sagebrush shrubland obligates (e.g., Brewer’s sparrow). Those species with more narrow habitat tolerances (e.g., specific vegetation and/or high quality habitat) can be indicative of effective habitat. Considered a sagebrush obligate, the Brewer’s sparrow is tightly associated with sagebrush shrublands that have abundant, scattered shrubs and short grass. In studies of sagebrush shrubland habitat components, Brewer’s sparrows are positively correlated with sagebrush, shrub cover, above-average vegetation height, bare ground, and measures of horizontal habitat heterogeneity, and are negatively correlated with grass cover. In contrast, green-tailed towhees are strongly associated with mixed mountain shrublands in Colorado. They breed in dry shrubby hillsides and in sagebrush flats (Dobbs 2006). Twenty-one green-tailed towhees were documented at Moore OS during our survey.

TABLE 1. BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN KNOWN OR WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR AT MOORE OPEN SPACE U B F P Known or S Common Name Scientific Name L W I CNHP CPW Likely* F M S F S Columbidae – Pigeons & Doves Band-tailed pigeon Patagioenas fasciata Known G4 S4B SGCN T2 Passerines Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri Known S C G5 S2 SGCN T2 Virginia’s warbler Oreothlypis virginiae Known W G5 S5 SGCN T2 *Known = Direct observation during 2019 surveys; Likely = Recently observed in area or similar habitat nearby or preferred habitat of locally extant species observed. Special management designations: USFS=United States Forest Service, S=US Forest Service Region 2 Sensitive Species; FWS=U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, C=Bird of Conservation Concern for Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) 16 & 18; BLM=Bureau of Land Management, S=BLM Sensitive Species in Colorado; CPW=Colorado Parks & Wildlife, SGCN=Species of Greatest Conservation Need; PIF=Partners In Flight, W=Watch List. Breeding birds were sampled on Moore OS for the first time in 2000. Three point-transects were implemented at that time which resulted in the detection of 38 species. Of those, 18 detected in 2000 were not detected in 2019 and 4 detected in 2019 were not detected in 2000. Of those detected in 2000 but not 2019, one was likely an error (Cassin’s finch are unlikely to occur at Moore OS) and the rest are likely due to the stochasticity inherent in single year sampling plus the difference in sampling intensity (i.e., 3 transects vs. 2). Of the species of

Moore Open Space Baseline Wildlife Surveys -3- Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC conservation concern listed in Table 1, all 3 were detected in 2019 but only 1, Brewer’s sparrow, was detected in 2000.

TABLE 2. BIRDS DETECTED IN 2000 AND 2019 AT MOORE OPEN SPACE

Common Name Scientific Name 2000 2019

American crow Corvus brachyrynchos No Yes American kestrel Falco sparverius Yes No American robin Turdus migratorius Yes Yes Band-tailed pigeon Patagioenas fasciata No Yes Black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia Yes Yes Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus Yes Yes Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Yes Yes Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri Yes Yes Broad-tailed hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus Yes Yes Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater No Yes Cassin’s finch* Carpodacus cassinii Yes No Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina Yes No Common raven Corvus corax Yes Yes Cordilleran flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis Yes No Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis Yes No Dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri Yes Yes Dusky grouse Dendragapus obscurus Yes No Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus Yes Yes Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus Yes No House finch Carpodacus mexicanus Yes No House wren Troglodytes aedon Yes Yes MacGillivray's warbler Geothlypis tolmiei Yes Yes Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides Yes Yes Mountain chickadee Poecile gambeli Yes Yes Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Yes No Northern flicker Colaptes auratus Yes Yes Orange-crowned warbler Oreothlypis celata Yes Yes Plumbeous vireo Vireo plumbeus Yes No Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Yes No Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus Yes No Steller's jay Cyanocitta stelleri Yes No Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Yes Yes Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineu Yes No Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina Yes Yes Virginia's warbler Oreothlypis virginiae No Yes Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus Yes Yes Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana Yes No Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus Yes No White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Yes No Woodhouse’s scrub-Jay (formerly western scrub-jay) Aphelocoma woodhouseii Yes No

Moore Open Space Baseline Wildlife Surveys -4- Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC TABLE 2. BIRDS DETECTED IN 2000 AND 2019 AT MOORE OPEN SPACE

Common Name Scientific Name 2000 2019

Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia Yes Yes Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata Yes No Note: Grey shaded species were detected in 2019 but not 2000. Tan shaded species were detected in 2000 but not 2019. *Indicates that the identification of Cassin’s finch is likely an error given the absence of appropriate habitat.

4.2.2 MAMMALS We recorded 41 detections of 7 mammal species (voles were detected by sign only which could have been created by any of 3 species: long-tailed vole, montane vole, western heather vole) at Moore OS during our surveys: elk, golden- mantled ground squirrel, least chipmunk, mule deer, northern pocket gopher, vole species, and Wyoming ground squirrel. An additional 31 species of mammals are known or suspected to occur based on past observations and/or habitat affinity and known occurrence in similar habitats and elevation in the area (Table 3). Moore OS is used by Photo 5. Mule deer doe & fawn observed on the south side of Moore OS between the Nordic trail and Maroon Creek Road mule deer (Photo 5) throughout the non-winter months and by elk during the transition periods between winter and summer. Five deer were observed during our surveys. In addition, 21 separate occurrences of mule deer were detected by sign such as pellets (Photo 6) and beds, and thirteen occurrences of elk sign were detected on the property. Browse on preferred forage shrubs such as Gambel oak and serviceberry is heavy throughout the property (Photo 7) indicating the level of use by both deer and elk. Given the healthy condition of preferred forage shrubs at Moore OS, the observed level of browse is likely sustainable and unlikely to result in habitat degradation. In contrast to the deer and deer sign, all of the elk sign was older, from the early spring or previous fall, with no direct observations, beds, or tracks. Although expected, we did not document any direct or indirect observations of American black bears, coyotes, or red foxes.

TABLE 3. MAMMALS KNOWN OR WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR AT MOORE OS

Known CNHP / CPW Common Name Scientific Name How or Likely Status Canids Coyotes Canis latrans Likely Habitat/ Distribution G5 S5 Red fox Vulpes vulpes Likely Habitat/ Distribution G5 S5 Chiroptera Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Likely Habitat/Distribution G5 S5 Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Possible Habitat/Distribution G4 S3 / SGCN T1

Moore Open Space Baseline Wildlife Surveys -5- Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC TABLE 3. MAMMALS KNOWN OR WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR AT MOORE OS

Known CNHP / CPW Common Name Scientific Name How or Likely Status G3G4 S3S4B / Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Possible Habitat/Distribution SGCN T2 Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus Possible Habitat/Distribution G3 S4 / SGCN T1 Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis Possible Habitat/Distribution G5 S4 Long-legged myotis Myotis volans Possible Habitat/Distribution G4G5 S5 Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Possible Habitat/Distribution G3G4 S3S4 Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum Possible Habitat/Distribution G5 S4 Felids Bobcat Lynx rufus Likely Habitat/ Distribution G5 S5 Mountain lion Puma concolor Likely Habitat/ Distribution G5 S5 Mustelids American badger Taxidea taxus Likely Habitat/ Distribution G5 S4 Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata Likely Habitat/ Distribution G5 S5 Short-tailed weasel Mustela erminea Possible Habitat/ Distribution G5 S4 Rodents Bushy-tailed woodrat Neotoma cinerea Likely Habitat/ Distribution G5 S5 Deer mouse Permomyscus manilculatis Likely Habitat/ Distribution G5 S5 Long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus Likely Habitat/ Distribution G5 S5 Montane vole Microtus montanus Likely Habitat/Distribution G5 S5 North American porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Likely Habitat/ Distribution G5 S5 Western heather vole Phenacomys intermedius Likely Habitat/ Distribution G5 S4 Western jumping mouse Zapus princeps Likely Habitat/Distribution G5 S5 Lagomorphs Mountain cottontail Silvilagus nuttalii Likely Habitat/ Distribution G5 S5 Sciurids Golden-mantled ground squirrel Callospermophilus lateralis Known Observation Least chipmunk Neotamias miimus Known Observation G5 S5 Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Known Observation G5 S5 Rock squirrel Otospermophilus variegatus Known Observation G5 S5 Uinta chipmunk Neotamias umbrinus Possible Habitat/Distribution G5 S5 Wyoming ground squirrel Urocitellus elegans Known Habitat/Distribution G5 S5 Yellow-bellied marmot Marmota flaviventris Possible Habitat/Distribution G5 S5 Soricids & Fossorial Mammals American water shrew Sorex palustris Possible Habitat/Distribution G5 S4 Masked shrew Sorex cinereus Possible Habitat/Distribution G5 S5 Montane shrew Sorex monticolus Likely Habitat/Distribution G5 S5 Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides Known Sign G5 S5 Ungulates Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus hemionus Known Observation G5 S5 Rocky Mountain elk Cervus elaphus nelsoni Known Sign G5 S5 Ursids & Procyonids American black bear Ursus americanus Likely Habitat/Distribution G5 S5

Moore Open Space Baseline Wildlife Surveys -6- Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC TABLE 3. MAMMALS KNOWN OR WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR AT MOORE OS

Known CNHP / CPW Common Name Scientific Name How or Likely Status Raccoon Procyon lotor Likely Habitat/Distribution G5 S5 It is important to note that although mule deer and elk accounted for 83% of the detections, deer and elk are large animals that are easy to see and their sign, such as pellets or tracks, are also quite visible. So, although a substantial majority of the detections were of deer and elk, this is not necessarily correlated with their relative abundance among all wildlife species at Moore OS. As reported in the 2001 Management Plan, small mammals were sampled for the first time in 2000. In 247 trap nights 110 animals were caught (44.5% capture rate). Of these, 3 (2.7%) were montane voles, 106 (96.4%) were Photo 6. Fresh mule deer pellets observed at Moore OS along survey transect deer mice, and 1 was a long-tailed weasel (0.90%). Wyoming ground squirrels, mountain cottontails, red squirrels, and rock squirrels were observed on the property during the 2000 field season. The small mammal monitoring effort has not been continued.

4.2.3 HERPETOFAUNA – AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES Herpetofauna sampling has not been conducted at Moore OS. Western terrestrial garter snakes likely occur at Moore OS (Hammerson 1999) but their presence has not been confirmed. In addition, plateau fence lizards may occur on Moore OS. The property encompasses suitable habitat but it is near the upper level of their elevational distribution (Hammerson 1999, Leache and Reeder 2002, Leache and Cole 2007). CWS has observed these small lizards above 7,000 feet in the Roaring Fork Valley and their distribution appears to be moving upwards in elevation perhaps as a result of climate change (Parmesan 2006, Bezeng et al. 2017).

TABLE 4. HERPETOFAUNA KNOWN OR WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR AT MOORE OS

Known CNHP / CPW Common Name Scientific Name How or Likely Status Western terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis elegans Known Observation G5 S5 Plateau fence lizard Sceloporus tristichus Possible Habitat/ Distribution G5 S3

4.3 RARE, THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES On June 21, 2019, the property boundary was submitted to USFWS via the IPaC system (http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) requesting an official list of threatened, endangered, or candidate species that may occur on or within proximity of Moore OS or may be affected by implementation of the 2019 management plan update. No federally protected species are expected to occur on Moore OS. No designated critical habitat exists

Moore Open Space Baseline Wildlife Surveys -7- Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC for any listed species within or adjacent to the property. In addition, the State of Colorado list of endangered and threatened species was reviewed and no state endangered or threatened species are known or suspected to occur on the property. The property, however, provides suitable habitat for 6 CPW Species of Greatest Conservation Need: band-tailed pigeon, Brewer’s sparrow, fringed myotis, hoary bat, little brown bat, and Virginia’s warbler.

5.0 DISCUSSION & MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Moore OS encompasses a remnant of a once very common mosaic of habitat types in the Roaring Fork Valley. The interspersion of mountain big sagebrush shrubland with patches of Gambel oak – serviceberry shrubland adjacent to cottonwood – spruce riparian forest once dominated the valley floor above Basalt. Most of that habitat, however, has been lost to development. As a result, Moore OS is ecologically valuable as a refuge for those wildlife species that depend on those habitat types and their adjacency. In addition, Moore OS provides valuable transition habitat for migrating elk and mule deer that continue to use the Maroon Creek valley as a movement corridor Photo 7. Gambel oak, serviceberry and other shrubs preferred by deer and elk as forage are heavily between summer and browsed winter habitat. Currently, Moore OS is regularly used by people throughout the year (Photo 1). Consequently, the effectiveness of the habitat on the property is diminished for those species that are less tolerant of human activity. Bird species composition, for example, has been shown by multiple studies to vary significantly across gradients of urban/suburban development (Temple 1988, Temple 1991, Odell and Knight 2001, Crooks et al. 2004, Miller et al. 2007, Gnass Giese et al. 2015). Researchers have found that a variety of these so-called “human-sensitive species” (Odell and Knight 2001) respond negatively to landscape disturbance (Miller et al. 2007). Our surveys, however, revealed that some areas of effective habitat for some human-sensitive species remain on Moore OS due to the current level and distribution of the recreational trails. Birds species known to be sensitive to human activity and/or anthropogenic habitat alteration, such as green-tailed towhees and Virginia’s warblers, were detected primarily on the northern portion of the property where there are no trails but also, to a lesser degree, south of the southern portion of the Nordic loop. All of the mule deer and substantially greater densities of mule deer sign were observed on the slopes above Maroon Creek Road where topography and greater density of tall shrubs obscures them from people using the trail to the north. Although no mule deer were observed in the northern “trail-free” zone, we found greater occurrences of mule deer sign in this area than in the center area between the trails. Our results suggest that Moore OS continues to support wildlife including some species of conservation concern with the current levels and patterns of recreational use. It is likely, however, given the limited areas of refuge on the property, any trail expansion into relatively undisturbed portions of the property will further reduce habitat effectiveness for those species that are sensitive to human activity and/or habitat fragmentation.

Moore Open Space Baseline Wildlife Surveys -8- Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC 5.1 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS) OST plans to update the management plan for Moore OS in 2019. This plan will incorporate the MIS concept as an integral part of the adaptive management effort. Since managers cannot measure everything of potential interest within an ecosystem, the choice of what to measure is critical. According to Noss et al. (1997), this step is among the most difficult and controversial in developing a monitoring program. Valuable indicators may possess some or all of the following characteristics: • Provide early warning of natural responses to environmental impacts (Noss 1990, Munn 1993, Woodley 1996b). • Directly indicate the cause of change rather than simply the existence of change (e.g., Measuring fecundity and survival rather than simple measurements of abundance) (Woodley 1996a). • Provide continuous assessment over a wide range and intensity of stresses (Woodley 1996a). This allows the detection of numerous impacts on the ecosystem and also means that an indicator will not bottom out or level off at certain thresholds (Noss 1990, Woodley 1996b). • Are cost-effective to measure and can be accurately estimated by a broad-range of all personnel (including even non-specialists) involved in the monitoring (Davis 1989, Castri et al. 1992). No MIS were identified in the 2001 Management Plan.

MIS – MOUNTAIN BIG SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND

BREWER’S SPARROW Selection: This species was selected for monitoring to answer the question, “Is sagebrush habitat being managed adequately to provide the quality and quantity of habitat for species dependent or strongly associated with sagebrush?” The Brewer’s sparrow is a sagebrush obligate, and has experienced population declines as the sagebrush cover type throughout its range has decreased. Conservation Issues: Brewer’s sparrows have experienced population declines as the acreage of sagebrush shrublands throughout its range have decreased. Brewer’s sparrows are strongly associated with sagebrush shrublands that have abundant, scattered shrubs and short grass. In studies of sagebrush shrubland habitat components, Brewer’s sparrows are positively correlated with sagebrush shrub cover, above-average vegetation height, patches of bare ground, and measures of horizontal habitat heterogeneity, and are negatively correlated with grass cover (Rotenberry and Wiens 1980, Wiens and Rotenberry 1981, Larson and Bock 1984, Rotenberry and Wiens 1998). The negative correlation with grass cover indicates that they prefer areas dominated by sagebrush shrubs compared to areas dominated by grass. Brewer’s sparrows are listed as a Colorado Partners In Flight (COPIF) Priority Species because of range wide population declines and the importance of Colorado to the overall species (Colorado Partners in Flight 2000). Widespread loss and degradation of sagebrush habitats as discussed above is the leading contributor to this species’ decline. Introduction of aggressive, non-native grasses such as crested wheatgrass and cheatgrass have also contributed to the Brewer’s sparrow decline. The minimum acceptable stand size has not been determined but isolated stands of sagebrush smaller than 2 ha (5 ac) are not likely to be nesting habitat (Knick and Rotenberry 1995).

MIS – MIXED SHRUBLANDS

GREEN-TAILED TOWHEE Selection: This species was selected for monitoring to answer the question, “Does current management maintain populations of species dependent on both Gambel oak mixed montane shrubland habitat and sagebrush shrubland habitat?” Breeding green-tailed towhees prefer xeric shrubby hillsides dominated by mountain

Moore Open Space Baseline Wildlife Surveys -9- Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC mahogany, serviceberry and sagebrush; more mesic Gambel oak dominated montane shrublands; sagebrush shrublands; within hillside shrublands around rock outcrops where fruit-bearing shrubs are found; and, to a lesser extent, piñon-juniper woodlands (Kingery 1998). Green-tailed towhees tolerate shrublands interspersed with sparse trees or saplings, but they typically avoid forests. Between 1999 and 2003, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO) found the highest densities of green-tailed towhees in montane shrublands, and the second or third-highest densities consistently in sagebrush (Blakesley and Hanni 2009). Conservation Issues: Conflicts related to the nesting, resting, and foraging of green-tailed towhees include mining, road construction, hiking trails, fire, conversion of rural areas to urban subdivisions, and intentional alteration of habitat to enhance livestock grazing. Destruction of large areas of sagebrush and xeric shrublands and reseeding with grasses probably has substantial negative impact on green-tailed towhees (Braun et al. 1976). Towhees show a strong preference for sagebrush habitats in many areas, and widespread alteration of sagebrush probably impacts the species, possibly altering the species' distribution (Dobbs 2006).

MIS – GAMBEL OAK SHRUBLANDS

VIRGINIA’S WARBLER Selection: This species was selected for monitoring to answer the question, “Does current management maintain populations of species dependent on dense Gambel oak dominated montane shrubland habitat?” Virginia’s warblers are strongly associated with mature Gambel oak and are fairly abundant in appropriate habitat. They also use scrubby brush, piñon-juniper woodland with a well-developed shrubby understory and Gambel oak component, and ravines covered with Gambel oak (Colorado Partners in Flight 2000). Conservation Issues: The greatest threats to this species are habitat fragmentation and habitat loss due to residential, infrastructure, and recreation development. At Moore OS they nest in the dense Gambel oak and serviceberry dominated shrublands. Virginia's warblers are Tier 2 SGCN (Colorado Parks & Wildlife 2015) and ranked “high global priority” by PIF, reflecting the vulnerability of populations throughout the species range, and Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) figures show a moderate population decline (Colorado Partners in Flight 2000). Virginia’s warblers have a rather restricted breeding and wintering range which lends more susceptibility to catastrophic events (Kingery 1998).

MIS – BROAD-SCALE HABITAT GENERALIST

MULE DEER Selection: Mule deer have been chosen for three reasons: (1) they are sensitive to the size and configuration of habitat patches across a landscape; (2) they are good indicators of ecological conditions at broad scales and, therefore, are helpful in the process of landscape scale conservation planning; and (3) they are charismatic and provide excellent watchable wildlife opportunities. Mule deer use of the property could be monitored via seasonal counts, cameras, winter track surveys, pellet counts, and browse assessments. Mule deer are a habitat generalist occupying many types of habitat in mountains and lowlands, including various forests and woodlands, forest edges, shrublands, grasslands with shrubs, and residential areas. Mule deer are browsers feeding on herbaceous plants and the leaves and twigs of woody shrubs. Mule deer are selective feeders. Instead of eating large quantities of low-quality feed like grass, they must select the most nutritious plants and parts of plants. Because of this, mule deer have more specific forage requirements than cattle or elk that share their habitat. Mule deer require access to permanent water (Ordway and Krausman 1986). In winter, mule deer tend to move to warmer slopes or other areas with minimal snow cover. Snow depth in excess of 25-30 cm can impede movement, and snow depths greater than 51-60 cm discourage continuous occupation (Loveless 1967, Gilbert et al. 1970). Conservation Issues: As discussed above, Moore OS provides valuable non-winter (i.e., transition range, summer range) habitat for mule deer and provides important connectivity to the Maroon Creek gorge. Extensive,

Moore Open Space Baseline Wildlife Surveys -10- Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC intensive land use by humans can reduce, eliminate, or displace local mule deer populations, but many kinds of human activities, particularly those that generate patches of early successional growth in areas where fire suppression has resulted in extensive, over-mature shrubland habitat may improve the habitat for deer. Residential, commercial, and infrastructure development in mule deer winter range and migration corridors is the greatest threat to mule deer in the Roaring Fork Valley and western Colorado. Recreation can cause problems for mule deer. The disruption of migration routes, loss of seasonal habitat, and the reduction in habitat security is a serious problem for many mule deer populations. Studies have found that mule deer response to cross country skiers involve more running and are of greater duration and required greater energy expenditures than for disturbance from snowmobiles (Freddy 1986b, Freddy 1986a).

5.2 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Wildlife habitat should be managed for maintenance of large, unfragmented, undisturbed blocks of shrublands. 2. Maintain and improve the habitat of MIS, human-sensitive species, species with narrow habitat tolerances. a. Strive to produce landscape-scale mosaics of open and dense shrubland habitats. b. Maintain and restore sagebrush shrublands in a variety of age classes with a native grass-forb understory. c. Reduce percent cover of non-native grasses. d. Avoid additional trails that will fragment healthy or recovering sagebrush shrublands. e. Survey areas for breeding birds before considering altering shrublands by herbicide treatment, mechanical alteration, or burning. f. Maintain existing larger (>20 acres) stands of sagebrush and oak-serviceberry shrublands and continuity between stands wherever possible. g. Schedule habitat manipulations and/or prescribed burning in early spring before birds arrive and not during the bird’s breeding season (May 1 – July 20). 3. Preserve the “trail-free” areas on the north end of the property and south of the southern trail. 4. Protect mule deer fawning and rearing at Moore OS by restricting people and dogs on leash to existing trails from April 1 through June 21. 5. Increase public awareness through interpretive/educational materials about responsible dog ownership in the context of wildlife disturbance during any and all outdoor recreational pursuits. 6. Avoid spraying herbicides between May 15 to July 31 to protect nesting songbirds. a. If deemed necessary, only use backpack sprayers and apply carefully.

6.0 LITERATURE CITED Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado birds : a reference to their distribution and habitat. 1st edition. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, Colo. Atwood, W. W. 1940. The physiographic provinces of North America. Ginn and company, Boston, New York, etc. Bailey, R. G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. 2nd edition. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. Bailey, R. G., United States Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States. U.S. Forest Service, [Washington].

Moore Open Space Baseline Wildlife Surveys -11- Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC Bailey, R. G., United States Geological Survey, and United States Forest Service. 1998. Ecoregions of North America. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Bezeng, B. S., S. G. Tesfamichael, and B. Dayananda. 2017. Predicting the effect of climate change on a range-restricted lizard in southeastern Australia. Current Zoology 64:165-171. Blakesley, J. A., and D. J. Hanni. 2009. Monitoring Colorado’s Birds, 2008. Tech. Rep. M-MCB08-01. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, Brighton, CO. Braun, C. E., M. F. Baker, R. L. Eng, J. S. Gashwiler, and M. H. Schroeder. 1976. Conservation committee report on effects of alteration of sagebrush communities on the associated avifauna. Wilson Bulletin 88:165-171. Castri, F. d., J. R. Vernhes, and T. Younés. 1992. Inventoring and monitoring biodiversity: a proposal for an international network. Biology International 27. Colorado Parks & Wildlife. 2015. Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan - A Strategy For Conserving Wildlife in Colorado. Colorado Parks & Wildlife, Denver, CO. Colorado Partners in Flight. 2000. Partners in Flight Land Bird Conservation Plan -- Colorado. Colorado Partners in Flight, , Estes Park, CO. . Crooks, K. R., A. V. Suarez, and D. T. Bolger. 2004. Avian assemblages along a gradient of urbanization in a highly fragmented landscape. Biological Conservation 115:451-462. Davis, G. E. 1989. Design of a long-term ecological monitoring program for Channel Islands National Park, California. Natural Areas Journal 9:80-89. Dobbs, R. C. 2006. Green-tailed Towhee (Pipilo chlorurus): a technical conservation assessment. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/greentailedtowhee.pdf. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO. Freddy, D. J. 1986a. Quantifying capacity of winter ranges to support deer -- evaluation of thermal cover used by mule deer. Pages 9-18 Wildlife Research Report. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. Freddy, D. J. 1986b. Responses of adult mule deer to human harassment during winter. Page 286 in Proceedings II. Issues and technology in the management of impacted western wildlife. Thorne Ecological Institute, Boulder, Colorado. Gilbert, P. F., O. C. Walmo, and R. B. Gill. 1970. Effect of snow depth on mule deer in Middle Park,Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 34:15-23. Gnass Giese, E. E., R. W. Howe, A. T. Wolf, N. A. Miller, and N. G. Walton. 2015. Sensitivity of breeding birds to the “human footprint” in western Great Lakes forest landscapes. Ecosphere 6:art90. Hammerson, G. A. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles in Colorado. 2nd edition. University Press of Colorado; Colorado Division of Wildlife, Niwot, Colo. Kingery, H. E. 1998. Colorado breeding bird atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership : Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colo. Knick, S. T., and J. T. Rotenberry. 1995. Landscape characteristics of fragmented shrubsteppe habitats and breeding passerine birds. Conservation Biology 9:1059-1071. Larson, D. L., and C. E. Bock. 1984. Determining avian habitat preferences by bird-centered vegetation sampling. Pages 37-43 in J. Verner, M. L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph, editors. Wildlife 2000: Modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Leache, A., and T. Reeder. 2002. Molecular Systematics of the Eastern Fence Lizard (Sceloporus undulatus): A Comparison of Parsimony, Likelihood, and Bayesian Approaches. Systematic biology 51:44-68. Leache, A. D., and C. J. Cole. 2007. Hybridization between multiple fence lizard lineages in an ecotone: locally discordant variation in mitochondrial DNA, chromosomes, and morphology. Molecular Ecology 16:1035- 1054.

Moore Open Space Baseline Wildlife Surveys -12- Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC Loveless, C. M. 1967. Ecological characteristics of mule deer winter range. Technical Publication No. 20. . Colorado Division of Game, Fish, and Parks, Denver, CO. Lowsky, J., M. Craig, L. Tasker, and D. Will. 2001. Moore Open Space Resource Management. Pitkin County, Aspen, CO. Miller, C., G. J. Niemi, J. M. Hanowski, and R. R. Regal. 2007. Breeding Bird Communities Across an Upland Disturbance Gradient in the Western Lake Superior Region. Journal of Great Lakes Research 33:305-318. Munn, R. E. 1993. Monitoring for Ecosystem Integrity. Pages 105-116 in J. K. S. Woodley, and G. Francis, editor. Ecological Integrity and the Management of Ecosystems. St-Lucie Press, Florida. Noss, R. F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4:355-364. Noss, R. F., M. A. O'Connell, and D. D. Murphy. 1997. The science of conservation planning : habitat conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Odell, E. A., and R. L. Knight. 2001. Songbird and medium-sized mammal communities associated with exurban development in Pitkin County, Colorado. Conservation Biology 15:0-0. Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000). Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77:118-125. Ordway, L. L., and P. R. Krausman. 1986. Habitat Use by Desert Mule Deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management 50:677-683. Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37:637-669. Rotenberry, J. T., M. A. Patten, and K. L. Preston. 1999. Brewer's Sparrow (Spizella breweri).in A. Poole, editor. The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/390. Rotenberry, J. T., and J. A. Wiens. 1980. Habitat structure, patchiness, and avian communities in North American steppe vegetation: A multivariate analysis. Ecology 61:1228-1250. Rotenberry, J. T., and J. A. Wiens. 1998. Foraging patch selection by shrubsteppe sparrows. Ecology 79:1160-1173. Temple, S. A. 1988. When is a bird’s habitat not habitat? Passenger Pigeon 50:37-41. Temple, S. A. 1991. The role of dispersal in the maintenance of bird populations in a fragmented landscape. Acta Congressus Internationalis 20:2298-2305. Wiens, J. A., and J. T. Rotenberry. 1981. Habitat associations and community structure of birds in shrubsteppe environments. Ecological Monographs 51:21-41. Woodley, S. 1996a. Monitoring, assessing and reporting upon ecological change: implications for planning and management. Environments 24:60–68. Woodley, S. 1996b. A scheme for ecological monitoring in national parks and protected areas. Environments 23:50– 59.

Moore Open Space Baseline Wildlife Surveys -13- Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC APPENDIX I. MAPS

Moore Open Space Baseline Wildlife Surveys -14- Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC 106°50'50"W 106°50'25"W 39°12'0"N

Maroon Creek Club PitkinPitkin CountyCounty OpenOpen SpaceSpace && TrailsTrails BiologicalBiological BaselineBaseline SurveysSurveys Moore Open Space Pyramid View Subdivision Aspen Golf Club Map 1. Baseline Wildlife Surveys ¬«82

¬«82

S&J Investments II LLC (Private Parcel)

dic Loo p or N

Maroon Creek Gorge M oore Trail 39°11'40"N 39°11'40"N

Marolt/Thomas OS City of Aspen o

Meters

Maroon Creek Road 0 25 50 100 150 200

Legend:

Meadowood Moore Open Space

Trails

Aspen School Survey Transect District Campus

Coordinate System: NAD83 State Plane Basemap Sources: Colorado Central Aspen Pitkin GIS Project No. 1422.2019 2018 Orthophotos Date Prepared: 2019-SEP-09

COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE LLC 0100 Elk Run Dr, Ste 128, Basalt, CO 81621 970.927.4549 [email protected] 106°50'50"W 106°50'25"W http://coloradowildlifescience.com APPENDIX II. USFWS LIST OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Moore Open Space Baseline Wildlife Surveys -16- Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Office 445 West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 240 Grand Junction, CO 81501-5711 Phone: (970) 243-2778 Fax: (970) 245-6933 http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/Colorado/ http://www.fws.gov/platteriver/

In Reply Refer To: June 21, 2019 Consultation Code: 06E24100-2019-SLI-0423 Event Code: 06E24100-2019-E-01104 Project Name: Moore Open Space Baseline Surveys

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. 08/20/2019 Event Code: 06E24100-2019-E-01104 2

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF

Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/ eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats.

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http:// www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http:// www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/ comtow.html.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Attachment(s):

▪ Official Species List ▪ USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries ▪ Migratory Birds ▪ Wetlands

08/20/2019 Event Code: 06E24100-2019-E-01104 1

Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".

This species list is provided by:

Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Office 445 West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 240 Grand Junction, CO 81501-5711 (970) 243-2778

08/20/2019 Event Code: 06E24100-2019-E-01104 2

Project Summary Consultation Code: 06E24100-2019-SLI-0423

Event Code: 06E24100-2019-E-01104

Project Name: Moore Open Space Baseline Surveys

Project Type: LAND - MANAGEMENT PLANS

Project Description: Baseline Surveys for Open Space Management Plan Update

Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/place/39.19534557378684N106.84471878048936W

Counties: Pitkin, CO

08/20/2019 Event Code: 06E24100-2019-E-01104 3

Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 9 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Note that 4 of these species should be considered only under certain conditions.

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

Mammals NAME STATUS Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Population: Wherever Found in Contiguous U.S. There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3652

Birds NAME STATUS Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8196

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened Population: Western U.S. DPS There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911

08/20/2019 Event Code: 06E24100-2019-E-01104 4

Fishes NAME STATUS Bonytail Gila elegans Endangered There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: ▪ Water depletions in the upper Colorado River basin adversely affect this species and its critical habitat. This species does not need to be considered if the project is outside of its occupied habitat and does not deplete water from the basin. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1377

Colorado Pikeminnow (=squawfish) Ptychocheilus lucius Endangered Population: Wherever found, except where listed as an experimental population There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: ▪ Water depletions in the upper Colorado River basin adversely affect this species and its critical habitat. This species does not need to be considered if the project is outside of its occupied habitat and does not deplete water from the basin. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3531

Greenback Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2775

Humpback Chub Gila cypha Endangered There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: ▪ Water depletions in the upper Colorado River basin adversely affect this species and its critical habitat. This species does not need to be considered if the project is outside of its occupied habitat and does not deplete water from the basin. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3930

Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus Endangered There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: ▪ Water depletions in the upper Colorado River basin adversely affect this species and its critical habitat. This species does not need to be considered if the project is outside of its occupied habitat and does not deplete water from the basin. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/530

Flowering Plants NAME STATUS Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2159

08/20/2019 Event Code: 06E24100-2019-E-01104 5

Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

APPENDIX III. ADDITIONAL PHOTOS

Photo 8. Brewer’s sparrow

Photo 9. Mule deer doe in dense Gambel oak-serviceberry shrublands adjacent to Maroon Creek Road

Moore Open Space Natural Resource Surveys 24 Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC Photo 10. Mule deer doe observed within stand of serviceberry

Photo 11. Higher plant diversity on rocky outcrops provide habitat for a variety of species

Moore Open Space Natural Resource Surveys 25 Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC Photo 12. Moore OS is an important patch of native habitat embedded in a developed landscape

Moore Open Space Natural Resource Surveys 26 Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC