HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.27 Ecological Impact ReportLake Springs Ranch
Subdivision Preliminary Plan/PUD Amendment December 2025
Exhibit 27 | Ecological Impact Report
Prepared for:
TG Malloy Consulting, LLC
402 Park Drive
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
November 29, 2023
Prepared by:
RedMountain Environmental, LLC.
802 Palmer Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Ecological Impact Report
Lake Springs Ranch, PUD Amendment
Garfield County, Colorado
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 2
2.0 Project Setting .................................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 Impacts to Vegetation and Wildlife Resources .................................................................................. 8
Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Federally Listed Species ................................................................................................................ 9
3.2.1 Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) ................................................................................................... 10
3.2.2 Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus) ........................................................... 11
3.2.3 Silverspot (Speyeria nokomis nokomis) ........................................................................... 12
State-Listed Species .................................................................................................................... 13
3.3.1 Bat Species ...................................................................................................................... 13
3.3.2 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ............................................................................ 14
Big Game Species ........................................................................................................................ 16
3.4.1 Big Game Species & Traffic ............................................................................................. 16
3.4.2 Elk (Cervus canadensis) ................................................................................................... 17
3.4.3 Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) .................................................................................. 21
3.4.4 Black Bear (Ursus americanus) ........................................................................................ 24
Wildlife Impact Minimization Recommendations ...................................................................... 26
4.0 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................. 27
List of Tables
Table 1. Impacts to Vegetation Types ........................................................................................................... 8
Table 2. Federally-Listed Species Initially Considered .................................................................................. 9
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Vicinity ............................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Proposed Development ................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 3. Vegetation Communities ............................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4. Bald Eagle Habitats ...................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 5. Elk Winter Ranges ........................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 6. Mule Deer Habitats ...................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 7. Black Bear Habitats ...................................................................................................................... 25
Appendices
Appendix A – State Listed Species ............................................................................................... 29
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Lake Springs Ranch (the “Project”) is a proposed residential subdivision supporting 84 single family lots and
8 multi-family lots, located on 203.7 acres. This Planned Unit Development (PUD) would also incorporate
77.87-acres of open space (or 38 percent of the Project area), under the management of a Homeowners
Association (HOA). The area is approximately 3.8 miles from State Highway 82 on County Road 114 (CMC
Road), and secondary access to the general area is also on CR 115 (Spring Valley Road).
The PUD amendment is reducing the total number of residential lots by approximately 113 single family
lots and approximately 10 affordable housing units to the current proposal. This dramatically reduces the
impact of the project on wildlife habitats.
This report presents the baseline conditions of wildlife, wildlife habitat, and other ecological resources on
the amended Lake Springs Ranch PUD. This analysis addresses significant, present wildlife use of the Ranch,
evaluates potential effects of development on wildlife and other important ecological resources, and
recommends actions to reduce ecological impacts.
This report provides all wildlife and wildlife habitat information required by the Garfield County Land Use
Code (LUC) – specifically, Land Suitability Analysis, Impact Analysis, and Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife
Habitat Areas.
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
3
Figure 1. Project Vicinity
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
4
Figure 2. Proposed Development
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
5
2.0 PROJECT SETTING
The Ranch is situated in the Foothills Shrubland (21d) level IV ecoregion, which is within the Southern
Rockies (21) level III ecoregion (Chapman et al. 2006). The elevation of Lake Springs Ranch ranges from
approximately 6,900 to 7,315 feet above mean sea level and lies within Section 5 of Township 7 South,
Range 88 West and Sections 33, and 34 of T6S, R88W, and Sections 3 and 4, T7S, R88W (6th Principal
Meridian; Figures 1 and 2).
Habitats on the Ranch are dominated by sagebrush
shrublands, mixed mountain shrublands, and
Gambel oak stands (Figure 3). Dominant vegetation
within these community types are as follows:
Sagebrush Shrublands. Vegetation is dominated by
mountain sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var.
bonevillensis), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata),
potato cactus (Opuntia fragilis), mountain ball
cactus (Pediocactus simpsonii), Indian ricegrass
(Achnatherum hymenoides), needle and thread
grass (Hesperostipa comata), crested wheat grass
(Agropyrum cristatum), desert alyssum (Alyssum
desertorum), spiny phlox (Phlox hoodii), death
camas (Toxicoscordion venenosum), mariposa lily
(Calochortus ssp.), and other native forbs.
Mixed Mountain Shrublands. This community type
is dominated by Utah serviceberry (Amelanchier
utahensis), snowberry (Symphoricarpos
occidentalis), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana),
sagebrush, and Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii).
Understory species comprised of elk sedge (Carex
geyeri), crested wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, desert
alyssum, tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum),
and Osterhout’s beardtongue (Penstemon
osterhouitii).
Gambel Oak Shrublands. This community type is
strongly dominated by Gambel oak, with a sparse
understory comprised of elk sedge, desert alyssum,
and smooth brome (Bromus inermis).
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
6
Pasture Grasses. At the southern end of the Ranch,
there are areas of cleared sagebrush where
agricultural grasses were planted for cattle grazing.
Dominant grass species here include crested
wheatgrass, smooth brome, and Kentucky bluegrass
(Poa pratensis).
Along CR-114, there is a large spring that feeds a
perennial pond. Vegetation in this mesic area is
dominated by smooth brome, reed canary grass
(Phalaris arundinacea), beaked sedge (Carex
utriculata), and red top (Agrostis gigantea) and the
pond is ringed with cattails (Typha latifolia) and
bullrush (Scirpus pungens). The pond supports use
by a number of wildlife species, including a number
of waterfowl species. Aside from the pond area,
there are no other wetlands or notable washes on
the property (potentially supporting an ordinary
high water mark).
A number of ranch roads cross the parcel, which are
used for local ranching operations. Currently, the property is not agriculturally grazed, but historically saw
some cattle grazing pressure.
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
7
Figure 3. Vegetation Communities
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
8
3.0 IMPACTS TO VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
Vegetation
The majority of the proposed project (48 percent) would occur within mixed mountain shrublands, 41
percent would occur in sagebrush shrublands, and 11-percent would occur in pasture grasses (Table 1).
These vegetation types provide year-round habitat for a variety of wildlife species, including nesting birds,
small mammals, elk, mule deer, carnivores, and other wildlife groups. Most of the impacts would be the
conversion of sagebrush shrublands to homesites and access roads, which would no longer provide suitable
wildlife habitat. Around homesites, additional indirect impacts would be from a conversion of shrub-
dominated habitats to more landscaped vegetation profiles. Due to wildfire concerns, areas around roads
and homesites would also need to be mowed and shrub species would be thinned, but these areas would
still provide native vegetation habitats.
As detailed in the Weed Management Plan, the project area has cheatgrass (Anisantha tectorum), whitetop
(aka hoary cress, Lepidium draba), and thistle infestations, therefore there is a high potential for the spread
of noxious weeds in and around the project area, and aggressive noxious weed management will need to
be followed as specified in the Weed Management Plan to keep undisturbed native habitat types from
becoming infested by adventitious weed species.
Table 1. Impacts to Vegetation Types
Vegetation Disturbance
Vegetation Community Type
Permanent
Disturbance
(Acres)
Percent
Sagebrush Shrublands 83.17 41%
Mixed Mountain Shrublands 98.43 48%
Pasture grasses 21.71 11%
Total Project Disturbance 203.30 100%
Successful weed control programs may require aggressive and persistent revegetation efforts of areas
formerly occupied by noxious weeds. In the case of this project, low growing grasses and forbs with good
ground cover should be seeded in to reduce erosion issues. Since most weeds are ruderal species that
prefer disturbed sites, coverage should be provided as soon as possible following disturbance. This will
minimize the likelihood that existing weed populations will infest newly disturbed soil. Please see the
Noxious Weed Management Plan for more information.
The undeveloped areas (open space) of the Property would not be significantly disturbed, aside from brush
thinning; therefore, it is unlikely that weed abundance will increase dramatically in these areas. With fuels
management, some light surface disturbance may nevertheless occur, and weed management is highly
recommended to keep native vegetation conditions weed-free.
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
9
Federally Listed Species
Information on species status, distribution, and ecology was derived from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) recovery plans, geographic information system (GIS) databases, various scientific studies and
reports, and field reviews.
Listed or candidate wildlife species considered and evaluated for this assessment include those identified
by the USFWS as potentially occurring in the development areas of the proposed Project area. While all
listed species were initially considered, species where there would be No effect from the project were
eliminated from further consideration. The decision to eliminate a species from consideration was based
on known range distributions and/or complete habitat incompatibility (Table 2).
Table 2. Federally-Listed Species Initially Considered
Species1 Occurrence Habitat Association
Potential
Habitat in
Project Area?
Potential
Impact/Issue?
MAMMALS
Gray wolf (E)
Canis lupus
Lone, dispersing gray
wolves may be present
throughout Colorado; two
packs known in northern
Colorado
Variety of habitats, generally
away from population centers. Yes No
BIRDS
Mexican spotted-owl (FT, ST)
Strix occidentalis lucida
Southwest Colorado, and
along Wet Mountains,
Rampart Range
Deep shaded canyons with
closed canopy conifers and cliffs No No
Yellow-billed cuckoo (FT)
Coccyzus americanus
North Fork of Gunnison,
Colorado, Dolores, Yampa
and Rio Grande rivers
Large cottonwood stands along
larger rivers No No
FISHES
Bonytail chub (FE, SE)
Gila elegans
No known populations
remain in Colorado
Large, swift-flowing waters of
the Colorado River system No
No new water
depletions
associated
with project.
Colorado pikeminnow (FE, ST)
Ptychocheilus lucius
Colorado, Dolores, Green,
Gunnison, San Juan, White
and Yampa
Large, swift-flowing rivers that
are seasonally turbid with warm
backwaters
No
Humpback chub (FE, ST)
Gila cypha
Green, Yampa and
Colorado Rivers
Pools and eddies in areas of
fast-flowing, deep, turbid
water, often associated with
cliffs and boulders
No
Razorback sucker (FE, SE)
Xyrauchen texanus
Lower Yampa and lower
Colorado Rivers
Deep, clear to turbid waters of
large rivers and reservoirs, with
silt, mud, or gravel substrate.
Quiet, soft-bottom river
backwaters
No
PLANTS
Ute Ladies’-tresses (FT)
Spiranthese diluvialis
Northwest Colorado, the
Roaring Fork Valley, and
the northern Front Range
Moist meadows, seasonal river
terraces, and irrigation channels
below 7000 feet in elevation
No No
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
10
Species1 Occurrence Habitat Association
Potential
Habitat in
Project Area?
Potential
Impact/Issue?
INSECTS
Monarch butterfly (C)
Danaus plexipps
Migrates throughout
much of Colorado
Lays eggs and larvae feed on
milkweeds, adults nectar on
variety of flowering forbs
Yes Yes
Silverspot butterfly (PT)
Speyeria nokomis nokomis
19 colonies from 10
known extant populations
in Conejos, Costilla, La
Plata, Mesa, Montrose,
Ouray, San Miguel, Mora,
and Taos counties. 5,000
to 8,500 feet
Perennial spring-fed meadows,
seeps, marshes and boggy
streamsides, larval host plant is
Viola nephrophyulla (bog violet)
Yes Yes
Source: CPW 2015, USFWS 2023
FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened; C = Candidate; PT = Proposed Threatened; SE = State Endangered;
ST = State Threatened; SGCN = Species of Greatest Conservation Need
The following Federally listed species have suitable habitats, are known or expected to occur, or have
documented ranges within, downstream, or in the vicinity of the Project area. While an assessment was
conducted for all listed species, these species are considered in greater detail regarding poten�al direct or
indirect effects from implementa�on of the Proposed Ac�on.
• Gray wolf - Endangered
• Monarch butterfly - Candidate
• Silverspot – Proposed Threatened
3.2.1 Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)
Status: Endangered
The gray wolf, being a keystone predator, is considered an integral component to ecosystems to which it
typically belongs. The wide range of habitats in which wolves can thrive reflects their adaptability as a
species, and includes temperate forests, mountains, tundra, taiga, and grasslands. Gray wolves hunt in
packs, targeting larger prey, such as deer, elk, and moose. Gray wolves were originally listed as a subspecies
or as regional populations of subspecies in the contiguous United States and Mexico. In 1978, the USFWS
reclassified the gray wolf as an endangered population at the species level (C. lupus) throughout the
contiguous United States and Mexico, except for the Minnesota gray wolf population, which was classified
as Threatened. Gray wolf populations in Idaho and Montana were delisted due to recovery in 2011. In 2021,
gray wolves were documented as reproducing and as continuously occupying habitat in Colorado, and in
2022, the USFWS listed the gray wolf as Endangered in Colorado. Critical habitat for this species is outside
of Colorado. CPW is currently developing a plan to supplement gray wolves in western Colorado. Introduced
gray wolves may be managed differently than native populations.
Impact Assessment. USFWS guidance states that lone, dispersing gray wolves may be present throughout
the state of Colorado. The proposed Project does not involve a predator management program, which is a
key item of interest for consultation with USFWS. The project area is not within the occupied range of the
known packs in Colorado but does occur within potentially suitable habitat. The project would have no
activities which would meaningfully impact the ability for wolves to disperse through the area and would
have no meaningful impact on prey populations. At this time there are no known gray wolves in the greater
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
11
Roaring Fork River valley, and this project would have “No Effect” on the gray wolf or their ability to forage,
disperse, or reproduce in the greater area.
3.2.2 Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus)
Status: Candidate
The adults feed (gather nectar) from a variety of flowering plant species; nectar from flowers is needed for
adults throughout the breeding season, migration and overwintering. However, monarch butterflies only
lay eggs and larvae only feed on milkweeds (Asclepias spp.). By consuming milkweed plants, monarchs
obtain toxins, called cardenolides, that provide a defense against predators.
Monarchs have multiple generations during their migrations; the second, third and fourth generations
return to their northern locations in the United States and Canada in the spring. For overwintering
monarchs, habitat with a specific microclimate is needed for protection from the elements, as well as
moderate temperatures to avoid freezing. These conditions vary between populations. For the eastern
North American population, most monarchs overwinter in oyamel fir tree roosts located in mountainous
regions in central Mexico at an elevation of 2,400 to 3,600 meters. Monarchs living west of the Rocky
Mountains primarily overwinter in California at sites along the Pacific Coast, roosting in eucalyptus,
Monterey pines and Monterey cypress trees, as well as in central Mexico.
Most breeding adult butterflies live approximately two to five weeks, but overwintering adults that enter
into reproductive diapause can live six to nine months. As temperatures warm at the overwintering sites in
the spring, monarchs begin to breed and lay eggs on milkweed throughout their northern migration. The
following generations breed and lay eggs throughout the summer. In the fall, monarchs enter a state where
they stop reproducing, known as diapause. This allows them to focus their energy and resources on the
long-distance migration and surviving the winter. Some non-migratory monarchs in warmer climates breed
year-round.
Surveys occurred in the summer identified showy milkweed plants (Asclepias speciosa) around the pond
area, but no monarchs (adults, larvae, or chrysalis) were observed. Monarchs are known to migrate through
western Colorado in the later summer/fall months during the fall southern migration period. The project
vicinity is not part of a major migratory flyway for the monarch butterfly and is far outside of monarch’s
wintering grounds.
Direct Effects. As the project area supports milkweeds along roadsides and around the pond, it is possible
that eggs, larvae, or chrysalis could be in the project area. As the project is anticipated to be constructed in
the spring, summer, and fall months, mowing and construction process would likely directly impact
milkweeds, and thus could also impact eggs, caterpillars, or chrysalis, resulting in direct mortality. Adult
monarchs would likely be flushed and fly away from human activities, and direct impacts to adults would be
very limited. Minimal work is anticipated around the pond, and only noxious weed management activities
would be occurring, which could nevertheless impact milkweeds.
Indirect Effects. The construction process would remove all vegetation from construction areas, and
reclamation would reduce potential foraging habitats for adult monarch butterflies for a few years. Long-
term impacts to milkweeds would be very limited. Dust from the construction area could also reduce nearby
plant vigor, and negatively impact foraging opportunities outside of the project footprint. The construction
process would also flush any monarchs utilizing nearby (within 50-feet) habitats, reducing the availability of
other foraging and reproduction habitats for the season(s) of construction.
Cumulative Effects. Along with other regional projects which impact milkweeds and other flowering forbs,
this project would cumulatively contribute minor, and very localized impacts to vegetation profiles and
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
12
foraging habitats for potentially breeding and migrating monarch butterflies during construction and for a
few years post-construction. These cumulative impacts would have very minor impacts on northward and
southward migrating individuals including both short and long-term conversion of habitats to a temporary
non-habitat condition. Landscaping around homes would likely introduce a number of flowering forbs,
which would likely increase foraging habitats for migrating adults. The effect of this project would be a
temporary contribution in reductions to foraging and reproduction habitat for this species. Long-term, the
Project is not anticipated to have any meaningful impacts to monarch butterflies or their habitats.
Determination of Effects. There are no formal consultation requirements for Candidate species. The project
may impact monarch eggs, larvae, or chrysalis given the presence of milkweeds in the project area. Most
adults would be able to avoid direct take, but indirect impacts would occur. There would be a short-term
loss of flowering forbs, which adults feed on, and short-term loss of milkweed breeding habitats, but long-
term there would likely be more adult foraging habitats (due to ornamental landscaping). Therefore, a
determination of “Not likely to jeopardize” is warranted for this Candidate species, as the proposed action
and its interrelated and interdependent actions may affect individuals but are not expected to alter the
species’ overall range, life history patterns or meaningfully impact populations.
3.2.3 Silverspot (Speyeria nokomis nokomis)
Status: Proposed Threatened
The silverspot buterfly occurs in permanent spring-fed meadows, seeps, marshes, and boggy streamside
meadows (USFWS 2021). The only known larval host plant is Viola nephrophylla/V. sororia var. affinis (bog
violet). Microhabitat for the bog violet is soggy soil and shade o�en under willows or other shrubs that are
typically at the margins of the habitat or sparsely mixed in with herbaceous. The violet is widely distributed
in the western U.S. but occurs in naturally scarce habitats subjec�ng it to threats from development or
excessive grazing or hydrological altera�on. Forbs, which serve as nectar sources for adult silverspot, include
na�ve and introduced thistles, horsemint (Agastache), joe pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum), and other
na�ve or introduced forbs (USFWS 2021).
Silverspots are known to occur from roughly 5,200 feet to just over 8,300 feet in eleva�on. Eggs are typically
laid in mid-September and take 10-18 days to hatch. Eggs are generally laid on vegeta�on within 3-feet of
bog violets. Soon a�er hatching, the 1st instar larvae seek shelter for winter diapause, which they stay in for
approximately 225 days. In approximately mid-May when fresh violet leaves are present, larvae emerge from
diapause and start feeding on the violets un�l about mid-July. A�er feeding on violets and sheltering on
them and adjacent debris for approximately two and a half months, the larvae form a chrysalis and enter
pupa�on where they metamorphose into adults (in October).
Surveys for bog violet (and silverspots) have not occurred, and poten�al habitats are limited to the seeps
and wetlands around the pond.
Direct Effects. In perennial wetlands in the project area, it is unlikely that bog violets and silverspot
buterflies occur, given the known condi�on and type of wetlands around the pond. No construc�on or other
disturbance is planned for the area around the pond, and no direct impacts are an�cipated.
Indirect effects. Noxious weed management of thistles around the pond could reduce poten�al foraging
habitat for adults.
Cumula�ve effects. This project is not an�cipated to introduce meaningful impacts to poten�al habitats for
this species. The localized noxious weed control around the pond is not an�cipated to impact silverspots,
given the generally unsuitable wetland habitats around the pond.
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
13
Determina�on of Effects. The project area is rela�vely far from the nearest known colony, and the majority
of wetlands in the project area are mostly unsuitable for bog violets. Therefore, it is unlikely that the project
area would support bog violet or silverspots (however, surveys have not occurred). Disturbance to wetlands
is not an�cipated, and noxious weed management would be limited. Therefore, a determina�on of “Not
likely to jeopardize” is likely warranted for this Proposed species, as the proposed ac�on and its interrelated
and interdependent ac�ons are not an�cipated to affect individuals and are not expected to alter the
species’ overall range and life history paterns. USFWS consulta�on is not required by the ESA but can occur
on a voluntary basis for impacts to Proposed species that do not rise to the level of a jeopardy determina�on.
State-Listed Species
Informa�on on species status, distribu�on, and ecology was derived from CPW habitat mapping, Colorado
Natural Heritage Program maps and reports, GIS databases, various scien�fic studies and reports, and field
reviews.
CPW’s list of Threatened and Endangered species and Species of Greatest Conserva�on Need (SGCN; Tier 1
and Tier 2 species; State Wildlife Ac�on Plan 2015) was reviewed to determine if any species had poten�al
habitat in or adjacent to the Project Area. While all listed species were ini�ally considered, an elimina�on
of unlikely species from further considera�on is provided in Appendix A. These decisions are based on
known range distribu�ons being either outside of the Project Area or complete habitat incompa�bility.
3.3.1 Bat Species
CPW lists the fringed myo�s (MyoƟs thysanodes), litle brown myo�s (MyoƟs lucifugus), spoted bat
(Euderma maculatum), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii townsendii) as having suitable
habitats, and having ranges which encompass the Project area. All these species are considered SGCN
(please see Appendix A for more species informa�on). The Project area could provide some roos�ng
opportuni�es during the summer months, but the area lacks larger caves, rock outcrops and other features
suitable for hibernacula or longer-term roost sites, or migra�on stopover sites. Rather, the project area does
support the open meadows and nearby woodlands suitable for nigh�me foraging ac�vi�es, especially
around the pond. Most of these species would u�lize the project area for catching insects from the air, or
by gleaning insects off nearby vegeta�on. The presence of the pond likely atracts a number of bats,
especially during the migra�on season in the fall; bats need open waters almost daily for hydra�on.
Impact Analysis. The Project area does not support rock outcrops, caves, cliffs, or other features that could
provide hibernacula, larger roos�ng areas, or other congrega�on sites. Therefore, no impacts to
hibernacula, maternity sites or other congrega�on areas would be expected from this project. During the
construc�on phase, ac�vi�es are primarily limited to daylight hours, when bats are not ac�ve. Bats would
s�ll be able to forage about the Project area with litle poten�al for direct impact. Grubbing, grading, and
clearing of vegeta�on in the project area will make foraging in the disturbance area much less effec�ve, and
there would be some, albeit very minor, decreases in poten�al prey species (insects) availability in the
project area during the construc�on phase. As there would be no impacts around the pond, this important
habitat component would not be impacted. A�er construc�on, the presence of the homes should not have
any meaningful nega�ve impacts on bats foraging in the area during the nigh�me hours, aside from the fact
that there would be less open shrublands available for foraging; however, with landscaping and likely
addi�onal irriga�on of landscaping, some increased insect densi�es may occur. Pet cats are known to prey
on bats, and this may have increased poten�al impacts on bats if cats are allowed to roam free.
In summary, the project is an�cipated to have minor reduc�ons in otherwise available open meadow and
shrubland habitats for foraging, but this project is not an�cipated to have any significant or meaningful
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
14
impacts to these bat species or their cri�cal habitat components, or life history needs, aside from pet cats,
which may increase preda�on on bats.
3.3.2 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Bald eagles are federally protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protec�on Act of 1940. They are also
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. In addi�on, CPW tracks bald eagle popula�ons,
nes�ng sites, roos�ng habitat, and foraging areas and has developed protec�ve s�pula�ons for the species,
with specific recommenda�ons for nests, winter night roosts, and hun�ng perches (CPW 2008).
As currently mapped, the Project is located within bald eagle Winter Range and in Winter Foraging habitats
which generally coincide with big game winter ranges, where bald eagles opportunis�cally forage on winter-
killed big game. The Project is approximately four miles from the nearest roost sites, and five miles from the
nearest nes�ng areas along the Roaring Fork River (Figure 4).
No nests are currently located within or adjacent to the Project area. There are no habitats of the type
preferred by nes�ng eagles (large deciduous tree adjacent to flowing water) on the Property. Bald eagles
occurring the Project area would likely be limited to scavenging on winter-killed big game species.
No significant impacts to eagles are an�cipated given there are no suitable perching sites or nes�ng trees in
the project area, and development of the project is not an�cipated to change the poten�al availability of
winter-killed big game species. The presence of homesites would likely deter bald eagles from scavenging
on nearby winter killed big game. Bald eagles would s�ll be able to scavenge, but human ac�vi�es would
likely flush eagles. The project is an�cipated to have no impact on local bald eagle popula�ons but may
rarely increase flushing of eagles if they happen to be scavenging on carcasses in the area.
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
15
Figure 4. Bald Eagle Habitats
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
16
Big Game Species
3.4.1 Big Game Species & Traffic
Traffic in Colorado is often the leading indirect impact to wildlife habitat and direct contributor to wildlife
mortality. Highways and busier roads are often located in areas of flat benches adjacent to river systems,
which bisect upland habitats from riparian habitats. As riparian habitats often attract upland wildlife species,
and in some cases congregate wildlife for significant periods of time, increased traffic levels on roadways can
often form effective barriers to wildlife movement and can then fragment habitats by dissuading wildlife
from crossing roadways. For some species, the draw of traditional habitats or water can override the fear of
traffic, and wildlife will often attempt to cross busy roadways, incurring mortality and thus resulting in
negative impacts to population levels. Further, for species such as deer and elk, vehicle strikes can often
cause significant financial impacts to commuters, through increased insurance rates, direct costs of repairing
or “totaling” of vehicles, to costs of hospitalization, injury, and even death to drivers and passengers in
vehicles.
Research on traffic impacts to habitat connectivity and wildlife use patterns indicate that traffic levels of
4,000 to 5,000 vehicles per day (VPD) begin to create significant deterrents to wildlife crossings (Ruediger et
al. 2000, Alexander et al. 2005, Gagnon et. al. 2007). Some of the other actions wildlife take when having to
cross a road with 4,000-5,000 VPD includes animals avoiding highways altogether (not even trying to cross),
failed attempts (animal tries to cross, but turns around due to traffic), injury in crossing (from vehicles
strikes), or death.
Current traffic levels on CR-114 are estimated at approximately 2,340 VPD, with peak traffic times during the
morning and evening commute times (SGM 2023). 2,340 VPD is not likely a barrier to wildlife crossing CR-
114, especially when considering the bulk of the traffic occurs within a one-hour block in the morning, and a
one-hour block in the evening. Also when considering the slower road speeds, wildlife likely can cross the
road with relatively low risk; however, given the dense vegetation on either side (which can hide animals
approaching the road), and higher rates of traffic in the morning and evening commuter times, traffic on CR-
114 likely produces some behavior movement changes to mule deer and elk trying to cross during the
morning and evening hours. Some direct impacts (vehicle strikes) are also known to occur.
Impact Analysis. According to the SGM traffic study, CR-114 carries commuter traffic from residential
subdivisions in Coulter Creek, Elk Springs, and other smaller subdivisions, as well as students, faculty and staff
to the Spring Valley campus (and associated construction and service traffic to those areas). Most of this
existing traffic is generated south of the Project area. Additionally, CR-114 provides access to the northern
ends of Missouri Heights and can also access Cottonwood Pass (which is mostly an unpaved road to Gypsum
and is generally only open in the snow-free months). As mentioned, much of the existing traffic is generated
during the morning and evening rush hours, coinciding with daily commuter traffic between the Spring Valley
area, and work destinations in the Glenwood Springs and Aspen areas.
At full build out, the development would generate approximately 914 VPD, which would result in
approximately 3,254 VPD, an approximately 39 percent increase in VPD over current levels; the further south
on CR 114, the lower the percent increase in traffic (given larger baseline traffic volumes). At the intersection
with State Highway 82, the percent increase in traffic is only 15 percent. As traffic levels would still be well
below the 4,000 to 5,000 VPD level, wildlife would still be able to cross CR-114 relatively easily. Further,
given the 25-35 mph road speeds, traffic impacts are also mitigated by the slower road speeds.
These volumes may produce temporary barriers to wildlife movement during the peak commute hours in
the morning and evening but would not produce long-term or more significant barriers to wildlife movement
across CR-114. Anticipated traffic from the development, when combined with existing traffic levels, may
nevertheless produce conditions hazardous for wildlife crossings, and increased wildlife mortality is likely.
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
17
Additional wildlife mortality is not expected to rise to a level which could meaningfully impact local wildlife
populations.
3.4.2 Elk (Cervus canadensis)
In the southern Rocky Mountains, as elsewhere in North America, elk are often associated with edge
(ecotone) habitats where forested and meadow/shrubland systems are intermingled. During much of the
year, elk are typically found near edges where forests grow adjacent to parks, meadows, or alpine tundra
(Skovlin 1982, Fitzgerald et al. 1994). During the summer months, elk may spend significant amounts of time
feeding in open alpine environments above tree line. Use of alpine habitats is thought to be associated with
the cooler temperatures, persistent snowbanks, and breezy conditions that keep bothersome flying insects
to a minimum (Adams 1982, Lyon and Ward 1982). During the winter elk may congregate in low elevation
sagebrush expanses, pinyon and juniper woodlands, irrigated meadows, and other open habitats that are
significant distances from forested cover (Lyon and Ward 1982). On winter ranges, elk form mixed herds of
bulls, cows, and calves (Fitzgerald et al. 1994), but in the more developed areas in Colorado, bulls may avoid
traditional winter ranges that are near high-use roads, homes, and other human developments (B. Andree,
CPW pers. comm. 2006, Dodd et al. 2007).
Generally, elk feed at twilight and at night, but they readily forage and disperse through the daylight hours.
Most elk mortality is due to predation on calves, hunting, and winter starvation. Localized mortality from
vehicle strikes may also produce impacts on herds where traffic exceeds 1,000 VPD and where traffic travels
at high speeds (Gagnon et al. 2007).
Elk are generalist feeders, but usually prefer to graze on grasses, grass-like plants, and forbs during the non-
winter months (Nelson and Leege 1982, Fitzgerald et al. 1984). The specific diet for elk in a particular locality
is largely determined by the season and palatability of available forage plants (Nelson and Leege 1982). In
Colorado, elk show a clear preference for grasses and grass-like plants (Hoover and Wills 1984). Browse
species can also vary by site and palatability of available plants. Shrubs, deciduous trees, and sometimes
conifers compose much of the winter diet when snow depth limits access to grasses, sedges, and forbs
(Nelson and Leege 1982).
On Colorado winter ranges, Gambel oak, aspen (Populus tremuloides), serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.),
sagebrush, and snowberry (Symphorocarpos spp.) are the major browse species used by elk (Hoover and
Wills 1984). Locally heavy feeding on aspen bark during the winter and spring can be very significant and can
leave long-lasting impacts on aspen stands.
Issues of Concern. CPW staff have indicated that most herds near mountain communities have decreased
in size from 50 to 60 percent since their peak population sizes in the mid- to late-1990s. While direct habitat
loss has slowed from the 2000s, there has been a widespread increase in outdoor uses around mountain
communities, primarily through increased trail construction, and now almost year-round recreation in elk
habitats (C. Wescoatt and B. Andree, CPW District Wildlife Managers, as cited in Vail Daily, 6/16/2018; J.
Mao, CPW Terrestrial Biologist, pers. comm. 10/10/2018, M. Yamashita 12/10/2020). There is no single
definitive activity or habitat impact that can be strongly linked to elk population declines, but the current
hypothesis is that the long-term reduction in winter ranges and increased year-round human pressure
(primarily through recreation) in a variety of habitats are having cumulative impacts at a level where elk’s
ability to produce viable numbers of calves is unable to replace yearly mortality (J. Mao pers. comm.
10/10/2018).
The Project area occurs within a large area of CPW-mapped elk Winter Range and a Winter Concentration
Area (Figure 5), which encompasses much of the greater Spring Valley area. Elk winter range is described as
an area where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the winter (five of ten years). Winter
concentration areas are areas within a species’ winter range where individual densities are at least 200
percent greater than surrounding winter range. Winter range, winter concentration areas and severe winter
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
18
range are critical areas of habitat for a species. These areas provide needed forage, cover from predators and
retreat from stressors during the period of the year when the animals are most vulnerable. CPW biologists
indicated the area is actively used as both winter range and for winter concentration.
At this time, elk use of project area is mostly limited to the winter, with elk moving to higher elevations to
the north and east as summer progresses. As snow accumulates during the early winter, elk are slowly
pushed to lower elevations; in the past, elk would continue west and down to benches along the Roaring
Fork River, but due to high mortality rates of elk crossing SH-82, game fences were erected along the
highway, which has significantly decreased highway mortality, but has also blocked these traditional
migration routes. Elk now will begin to winter in the Spring Valley area in late November or December,
depending on snowfall, congregating on more southerly exposures where snow depths are shallower, and
browse is more available.
As part of the project, Lake Springs Ranch has removed development from 240 acres of land west of CR-114.
Keeping trails and other human impacts off these lands would help provide offsetting habitats for elk (and
mule deer) use.
Impact Analysis. Development of the property would not have meaningful impacts to elk summer range
habitats, or any elk Production (calving) areas; during the summer elk utilize much higher elevations. The
primary impacts would be during the winter months, as discussed below.
Most construction would occur in the spring, summer, and fall months, when most elk are not in the area;
and therefore, up until early winter, construction activities should have little impact on elk. Once residents
move into the subdivision, human activities and their presence will occur year-round, with the majority of
potential impacts occurring in the winter. Once elk begin to filter into the area (in November and early
December), the daily human activities in the development, including noise, motion, equipment operations,
traffic, lighting, snowplowing, etc., would preclude most elk use within and around the project site. While
elk will generally avoid areas of high human activity by up to ½ mile, they can also become accustomed to
some levels of regular or “anticipatory” human activities, especially when those activities are limited to a
relatively confined area. Regardless, it is assumed that most available winter ranges in and around the
property would see greatly diminished elk use during the winter season. However, elk would still likely
migrate through, and even linger in some areas of the property, similar to how they linger around the busy
CMC campus, nearby.
Use of any trails in the PUD during the winter months will greatly expand the potential impact to wintering
elk in the area; because of this, it is strongly recommended that there be a wintertime trail closure (if trails
are proposed or contemplated).
After development, there would be approximately 125 acres of winter range habitats being directly
converted to housing and infrastructure, and unavailable for elk use; because of the indirect impacts
associated with human activities, elk use of the remaining 78-acres of open space and undeveloped areas
around homesites may still see some incidental elk use during the winter months, but elk would be subject
to frequent stressors and disturbance from human activities, dog walking, and residential traffic. While many
subdivisions have prohibitions from off-leash dogs, loose dogs are extremely common, and can have
significant impacts on elk (and mule deer) when they bark and chase wintering animals. Elk use of the
remaining 78-acres of open space would likely be transitory and infrequent.
The 240 acres of removed/undeveloped lands on the west side of County Road 114 would help in offsetting
some of the direct and indirect impacts of development. Management of the conserved lands for winter
range (by removing fencing, forbidding the development of trails, or human occupancy of the area during
the winter months, and by keeping browse species in good condition) should be considered to maximize
habitat effectiveness.
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
19
While it is unlikely that development of the Project would result in any noticeable or significantly detrimental
impacts to elk at the herd level, the development would cumulatively reduce winter range foraging areas,
which is a very important habitat component given the poor condition most elk are in during the winter
season and would cumulatively reduce available elk winter range habitats. Please see Impact Minimization
Recommendations, below for items that could be incorporated to help reduce wildlife impacts.
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
20
Figure 5. Elk Winter Ranges
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
21
3.4.3 Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)
Mule deer occur throughout Colorado and are relatively common in the west. Mule deer occupy all
ecosystems in Colorado from grasslands to alpine tundra, but they reach their greatest densities in
shrublands on rough, broken terrain, which provides abundant browse and cover. Their wide distribution
and general adaptability make for broad diets. However, deer are considered to be browsers (primarily
eating shrubs and twigs), as opposed to grazers (which eat mostly grasses). In Colorado the winter diets of
mule deer consist of browse from a variety of trees, shrubs (74%) and grasses and forbs (26%), depending
on local browse availability. In the spring and summer, browse contributes around 50% of the diet, and
forbs and grasses make up the remainder (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Browse use increases again in the fall to
60% and forb consumption decreases to 30% (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Several studies in Colorado have
indicated that diets containing 30% or more of sagebrush or juniper (Sabina spp.) reduce rumen microbes
and are therefore deleterious (Carpenter 1976, Nagy and Tengerdy 1967, Nagy et al. 1964, Alldredge et al.
1974). When heavy snows bury grasses and forbs on rangelands and force mule deer to consume high
amounts of sage and juniper, mortality rates increase due to malnutrition.
Mule deer are mostly nocturnal and crepuscular in the warmer summer months and become more diurnal
during winter. Activity depends on local conditions including temperature, season, weather, and forage.
Over much of Colorado the species is migratory, summering at higher elevations and moving downslope to
winter ranges. In some areas of Colorado migrations may be over 55 miles, but in most areas, migrations
are closer to about 5 miles. The routes followed are often habitual, and deer show a certain amount of
fidelity to these routes. Snow depths of 8 to 16 inches appear to trigger fall movements, and depths over 3
feet prevent use of an area (Loveless 1967). In some areas of northwestern Colorado mule deer begin
migrations before snow accumulation (Garrott et al. 1987, as cited in Fitzgerald et al. 1994). These authors
suggest that better-quality forage on winter range at that time of year triggers the movements. Throughout
the winter mule deer will move about winter ranges, depending on snowfall and snow-melting events, but
prefer to linger on more south-facing slopes where snow depth is shallowest.
Spring and summer ranges are most typically a mosaic of meadows, aspen woodlands, alpine tundra and
Krummholz, or montane forest edges. Montane forests and pinyon-juniper woodlands with good shrubby
understories are often favored winter ranges. Because of the mule deer’s seasonal migratory movements,
estimation of home ranges is somewhat difficult; however, deer appear to be seasonally sedentary, staying
within areas of 100 to 2,200 acres. In areas where the animals do not migrate significant distances, annual
home ranges are 1,700 acres to 5,400 acres (Mackie et al. 1982).
Mortality in mule deer varies with age class and region. In Colorado, annual fawn mortality can vary as
much as from 27% to 67% (Anderson and Bowden 1977). Fawn mortality is primarily due to predation and
starvation. Larger fawns are more likely to survive, and smaller fawns are more likely to starve. However,
predators will take any size of fawn. Winter mortality of fawns may approach 75% annually. The mortality
of adult deer is mostly from hunting and starvation (Carpenter 1976). Predators include coyotes, bobcats,
golden eagles, mountain lions, black bears, and domestic dogs. Locally, coyote and mountain lion predation
on fawns can account for significant mortality within populations. Fawns comprise about half of the yearly
mortality; while mature females and bucks comprise the remaining 15% and 35% of the annual mortality,
respectively.
Similar to elk, impacts to mule deer from human activities, recreational activities, trails and dogs have been
well studied and documented in the scientific literature. Trail use can create large areas of “empty habitat”
where mule deer avoid areas near trails, or at least reduce use to nighttime hours when human activities
generally cease.
Issues of Concern. Historically, mule deer would have utilized a wide swath of habitat throughout the
Roaring Fork and Spring Valley areas, but development and conversion of rangelands to pastures has
constrained most movement to areas with less disturbance, where natural topography, native shrublands
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
22
and an absence of development creates preferable conditions. While conversion of shrublands to meadows
and pastures has removed some important habitat components, mule deer can continue to use the edges
of pastures for grazing. The presence of existing residential developments and centers of human activity
adjacent to the project area has compounded a situation where mule deer movement and migration in the
immediate vicinity has been impacted.
Mule deer use of the project area occurs year-round. Similar to elk, the presence of other development and
roads adjacent to the project area likely has reduced habitat effectiveness across portions of the Property,
and mule deer use likely avoids areas with high levels of human activity or near roads.
As part of the project, Lake Springs Ranch has put 240 acres of land into open space, west of CR-114. Keeping
trails and other human impacts off these lands would help provide offsetting habitats for mule deer (and
elk) use. As previously mentioned, mule deer (and elk) use of these open spaces as winter range may still
occur but may be at reduced levels due to the proximity of homes and associated human activities.
CPW has mapped the project as being within Winter Range, and is partially within a Production Area (i.e.,
fawning area; Figure 6). However, mule deer are subject to much the same snow depth limitations as elk:
snow accumulations deeper than a foot can preclude significant site utilization. Winter habitat utilization
would be concentrated on more southerly slopes which retain significantly less snowpack due to greater
wind scour and greater solar exposure and are preferred habitat for mule deer in the winter.
Impact Analysis. Mule deer occur on the property year-round, and therefore summertime construction
would cause mule deer to avoid the immediate project area, at least during the daytime hours (deer may
still use areas near construction areas at night). After construction, the daily human activities from residents
would likely push mule deer into open space areas, and into areas off the of the property. Development of
the Project would convert approximately 125-acres of native habitats to “non-habitat” conditions. While it
is unknown how many mule deer utilize winter range habitats in the area, any losses of winter range habitat
can be concerning, and would have cumulatively negative impacts on mule deer. Some mule deer use of
the Production Area may continue, but disturbance from humans, and especially dog-walking (or off leash
dogs) will likely diminish fawning activities in this area.
The conservation of 240 acres of open space on the west side of CR-114 would help in offsetting the direct
and indirect impacts of development. Management of the conserved lands for winter range (by removing
fencing, forbidding the development of trails, or human occupancy of the area during the winter months,
and by keeping browse species in good condition) should be considered to maximize habitat effectiveness.
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
23
Figure 6. Mule Deer Habitats
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
24
3.4.4 Black Bear (Ursus americanus)
Black bears are a significant wildlife management issue in the State of Colorado. Bears are commonly
supplementing their diets by raiding garbage cans, breaking into homes, and are a hazard and a nuisance.
Habitat on the Property itself is dominated by sagebrush shrublands, mixed mountain shrublands, and
Gambel oak shrublands, which provides relatively good foraging opportunities for bears. The Project area
is outside of Human Conflict Areas but is within a Fall Concentration area (Figure 7).
Impact Analysis. This development would have minor to insignificant impacts on bear populations or bear
habitat availability, but black bears are in the area. The Project will need to ensure trash is not available
during the construction phases or during long-term residential occupancy. See section 3.5 Wildlife Impact
Minimization Recommendations for additional recommendations.
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
25
Figure 7. Black Bear Habitats
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
26
Wildlife Impact Minimization Recommendations
The following section discusses considerations to minimize the potential impacts to wildlife from the
proposed development. Many of these recommendations are considered to be “best management
practices” for wildlife, which would allow for continued wildlife use of areas within the development.
Lighting: Because the area would still be used by mule deer and elk around the periphery at night, nighttime
lighting of open spaces and beyond building envelopes is not recommended. Downcast lighting, when
needed, is recommended.
In areas where vehicle headlights “spotlight” into open spaces, vegetated berms or dense, screening
vegetation planting is recommended to help minimize disturbance to wildlife.
Fencing: Aside from fencing to keep pets within building envelopes, the development should minimize and
remove other fencing. Any fencing should be wildlife friendly (see CPW’s Fencing with Wildlife in Mind
brochure; Fencing With Wildlife In Mind brochure (wildlifefriendly.org).
Landscaping & Revegetation: Because the surrounding area will be used as winter range, reclamation of
road cuts, infrastructure routes and temporarily disturbed areas should occur using similar native plant
species and vegetation profiles. Noxious weeds should be treated aggressively in the first few years after
construction to minimize weed spread and thus minimize impacts on winter range and increase the success
of revegetation activities.
Planting of fruit-bearing trees or shrubs should not occur in order to avoid an attractive nuisance for bears.
Domestic Pets: Dogs can have a significant impact on wildlife and the ability for wildlife to effectively use
otherwise-available habitats. Dogs can chase and kill wildlife, or so exhaust and injure wildlife that it dies
later. To minimize the impacts of dogs on wildlife, the following practices should be employed:
1. Dogs should be prohibited from running loose within the subdivision, including contractor’s dogs.
2. In areas such as this where mountain lions are a concern, the kennel should include a top panel to
prevent access to the kennel by the lion.
3. One benefit to keeping animals under control is that they are less likely to become prey for
mountain lions, coyotes, bobcats, foxes or raptors.
4. Pets should not be fed outside, and pet food should be stored in an enclosed area.
Trash: Trash should be kept inside a secure enclosure until the morning of trash pickup. Bears, skunks, and
raccoons are attracted to garbage and do become habituated. Individual bearproof trash receptacles can
be used by homeowners and should be required to assist in mitigating these conflicts. There should be no
dumps that have edible materials associated with construction and post-construction activities.
Construction Timing: In the past, CPW has recommended that because the project occurs in winter range(s),
construction activities should not occur from November 30th through April 1st. At the least, external
construction should be avoided during this time period (CPW 2012).
Open Space Management: An important part of the proposed development is the 240 acres of
undeveloped lands west of CR-114. To maximize the habitat effectiveness of these lands, trails should not
be constructed in this area; even with seasonal closures, trespass on closed trails is very commonplace,
and dog walking and other activities would likely preclude or severely diminish the habitat values of the
conservation area. Conserved areas should be managed for the benefit of wildlife, including noxious weed
control, removal of unnecessary fencing, and management of brush species for wildlife browsing.
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
27
4.0 LITERATURE CITED
Adams, A.W. 1982. Migration (Chapter 7), in Thomas, J.W. and D.E. Toweill, eds. Elk of North America:
ecology and conservation. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, PA.
Alexander, S.M., N.M. Waters and P.C. Paguet. 2005. Traffic volume and highway permeability for a
mammalian community in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. The Canadian Geographer, 49(4), pg 321-
331
Alldredge, A.W., J.F. Lipscomb, and F.W. Whicker. 1974. Forage intake rates of mule deer estimated with
fallout cersium-137. J. Wildl. Mgmnt., 38:508-516.
Anderson, A.E. and D.C. Bowden. 1977. Mule deer-coyote interactions. Pp. 15-16 in Colorado Game Res.
Review, 1975-1976 (O.B. Cope, ed.). Colorado Div. Wildl., Ft. Collins, CO. 73pp.
Andree, W.M. 2005-2006. Personal communications. Vail District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of
Wildlife.
Carpenter, L.H. 1976. Nitrogen-herbicide effects on sagebrush deer range. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation,
Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, C). 159pp.
Chapman, S.S., Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Price, A.B., Freeouf, J., and Schrupp, D.L., 2006, Ecoregions of
Colorado (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston,
Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,200,000).
Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2015. State Wildlife Action Plan. Denver, CO.
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, CO 80544.
Gagnon, J.W., T.C. Theimer, N.L. Dodd, S. Boe, and R.E. Schweinsburg. 2007. Traffic Volume Alters Elk
Distribution and Highway Crossings in Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(7):2318-2323;
2007.
Hoover, R. L. and D. L. Wills, eds. 1984. Managing forested lands for wildlife. Published by Colorado Parks
and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 459pp.
Loveless, C.M. 1967. Ecological characteristics of a mule deer winter range. Tech. Bull., Colorado Div.
Game, Fish and Parks, 20:1-124.
Lyon, L.J. and A.L. Ward. 1982. Elk and land management. Pages 443-477 in J.W. Thomas and D.E. Toweill,
eds. Elk of North America: Ecology and Management. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington,
D.C.
Mackie, R.J., K.L. Hamlin, and D.F. Pac. 1982. Mule deer. Pp. 862-877, in wild mammals of North America:
biology, management, and economics (J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, eds.) Johns Hopkins Univ.
Press. Baltimore, 1147pp.
Mao, J. 2018. Personal Communications. Colorado Parks and Wildlife Terrestrial Biologist. Glenwood
Springs, CO. 10/10/2018.
Nelson, J.R. and T.A. Leege. 1982. Nutritional requirements and food habits. Pages 323-367 in J.W. Thomas
and D.E. Toweill, eds. Elk of North America: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg,
PA.
Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gnidek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinalki, J. Trick, A.
Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, A. Williamson. 2000 (updated 2003). Canada Lynx
Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
28
Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53,
Missoula, MT. 142p.
SGM. 2023. Lake Springs Ranch Traffic Impact Study, Garfield County, Colorado. Glenwood Springs, CO.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021a. Species Status Assessment Report for Speyeria nokomis nokomis.
Western Colorado Field Office, USFWS Ecological Services. Grand Junction, CO.
Yamashita, M. 2020. Personal communications, 12/10/2020. CPW Area Wildlife Manager. Glenwood
Springs, CO.
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
29
APPENDIX A – STATE LISTED SPECIES
Species1 Occurrence Habitat Association
Potential
Habitat in
Project Area?
Potential
Impact/Issue?
MAMMALS
American pika (SGCN)
Ochotona princeps
Throughout state in
suitable habitats Alpine, rocky habitats No No
Black-footed ferret (FE, SE)
Mustela nigripes
Rio Blanco & Moffat
Counties
Reintroduced to Rio Blanco
County, in white-tailed prairie
dog colony
No No
Black-tailed prairie dog
(SGCN)
Cynomys ludovicianus
Eastern plains Shortgrass prairies No N
Botta’s pocket gopher (SGCN)
Thomomy bottae rubidus Northern Front Range Foothills No No
Gray wolf (SE)
Canis lupus
Northern counties, no
packs in State at this time
Shrublands, forests and areas
away from human habitation No No
Grizzly bear (SE)
Ursus arctos
Rare visitor from
Wyoming Forests, alpine and shrublands No No
Fringed myotis (SGCN)
Myotis thysanodes
Throughout Colorado in
suitable habitats
Roosts in montane and
foothills conifers and
oakbrush; may forage to as
low as greasewood and
saltbush shrublands. Roosts
and hibernates in caves,
mines, and buildings.
Yes Yes
Gunnison prairie dog (SGCN)
Cynomys gunnisoni Parks in central Colorado Shortgrass steppe, open
shrublands in parks No No
Little brown myotis (SGCN)
Myotis lucifigus
Throughout Colorado in
suitable habitats Widespread habitat types. Yes Yes
Lynx (FT, SE)
Lynx canadensis
High mountain areas with
large expanses of conifer
forests in Colorado
Spruce/fir and lodgepole pine
forests, sometimes aspen,
shrublands
No No
New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse (FE, SGCN)
Zapus hudsonius leuteus
Southwestern counties in
Colorado
Wet, lush, grassy meadows
and some hydric shrublands No No
Olive-backed pocket mouse
(SGCN)
Perognathus fasciatus
Southern grasslands in
Colorado
Arid and semiarid grasslands
with sparse vegetation, sandy
to clayey soils
No No
Preble’s meadow jumping
mouse (FT, ST)
Zapus hudsonius preblei
Front range of Colorado
north into Wyoming
Foothills riparian areas and
along front range streams No No
Spotted bat (SCGN)
Euderma maculatum
Throughout Colorado in
suitable habitats
Areas near cliffs, including
piñon-juniper woodlands
and streams or water holes
within ponderosa pine or
mixed coniferous forest.
Usually captured around a
water source, including
desert pools or cattle tanks.
Yes Yes
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
30
Species1 Occurrence Habitat Association
Potential
Habitat in
Project Area?
Potential
Impact/Issue?
Townsend's big-eared bat
(SGCN)
Plecotus townsendii
townsendii
Documented in
Colorado in several
cave locations
Semidesert shrublands, P-J,
open montane forests; caves
and abandoned mine roosts.
Yes Yes
White-tailed prairie dog
(SGCN)
Cynomys leucurus
Western Colorado Arid grasslands and sparse
arid shrublands in western CO No No
River otter (ST)
Lontra canadensis
Throughout state in
suitable habitats
Larger rivers with high fish
population levels No No
Wolverine (FT, SE)
Gulo gulo
Historical documentation
several locations in
Colorado-likely extinct
Boreal forests and tundra-
large ungulate populations
important
No No
BIRDS
Brown-capped rosy-finch
(SGCN)
Leucosticte australis
High mountains
throughout state
Alpine and high-elevation
coniferous forests No No
Bald eagle (SGCN)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Throughout state near
suitable habitats
Larger rivers and streams,
near prairie dog towns Yes Yes
Burrowing owl (ST)
Athene cunicularia
Mostly found in eastern
grasslands, some
occurrence on west slope
Arid grassland and shrublands No No
Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse (SGCN)
Tympanuchus phasianellus
columbianus
Mixed
grassland/shrublands in
northwest Colorado
Mixed shrubland/grasslands No No
Ferruginous hawk (SGCN)
Buteo regalis
Eastern plains, larger
parks
Grasslands and extensive
shrublands No No
Golden eagle (SGCN)
Aquila chrysaetos
Throughout Colorado in
suitable habitats
Open habitats in alpine,
shrublands, badlands, and
grasslands
No No
Greater sage-grouse (SGCN)
Centrocercus urophasianus Northwestern Colorado Large sagebrush shrublands No No
Sandhill crane (SGCN)
Grus canadensis tabida
Migrant through plains,
west slope and mountain
valleys, some nesting in
northern parks
Large wetlands, agricultural
fields No No
Gunnison sage-grouse
(SGCN)
Centrocercus minimus
Gunnison Basin and
western counties Sagebrush shrublands No No
Least tern (FE, SE)
Sterna antillarum Eastern plains Larger rivers, larger reservoir
beaches No No
Lesser prairie chicken (FT, ST)
Tympanuchus pallidicinctus
Extreme southeastern
Colorado
Great plains grasslands and
shrublands No No
Long-billed curlew (SGCN)
Numenius americanus
Eastern plains and larger
parks
Grasslands and sparse
shrublands No No
Mexican spotted-owl (FT, ST)
Strix occidentalis lucida
Southwest Colorado, and
along Wet Mountains,
Rampart Range
Deep shaded canyons with
closed canopy conifers and
cliffs
No No
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
31
Species1 Occurrence Habitat Association
Potential
Habitat in
Project Area?
Potential
Impact/Issue?
Mountain plover (SGCN)
Charadrius montanus
Eastern plains of
Colorado
Summers on eastern plains in
native short-grass steppe,
winters in S. California &
Mexico
No No
Peregrine falcon (SGCN)
Falco peregrinus anatum
Throughout state, but
near cliffs and tall
buildings
Needs tall cliffs or buildings for
nesting, usually occurs near
water
No No
Plains sharp-tailed grouse
(SE)
Tympanuchus phasianellus
Extreme northeastern
Colorado Grasslands, river canyons No No
Piping plover (FT, ST)
Charadrius melodus
circumcinctus
Eastern plains Large rivers, sandy shores
around reservoirs in plains No No
Southern white-tailed
ptarmigan (FP, SCGN)
Lagopus leucura altipetens
Southern Rocky
Mountains Alpine habitats No No
Southwestern willow
flycatcher (FE, SE)
Empidonax traillii extimus
Extreme southwest
Colorado, and Rio Grande
River
Brushy riparian habitats at
lower elevations No No
Western snowy plover
(SGCN)
Caradrius alexandrius
Eastern plains Sandy bars in rivers and
around reservoirs, playas No No
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
(SGCN)
Coccyzus americanus
North Fork of Gunnison,
Colorado, Dolores,
Yampa and Rio Grande
rivers
Large cottonwood stands
along larger rivers No No
Whooping crane (FE, SE)
Grus americana
Migrates through eastern
plains, possibly San Luis
Valley
Migrant No No
AMPHIBIANS
Boreal toad (SE)
Anaxyrus boreas boreas
Small disjunct
populations across higher
elevations in the State
Subalpine forest habitats with
marshes, wet meadows,
streams, beaver ponds, and
lakes.
No No
Couch’s Spadefoot (SGCN)
Scaphiopus couchii Southeastern Colorado Sandy, dry soils with creosote
bush and mesquite No No
Great Plains narrowmouth
toad (SGCN)
Castrophryne olivacea
Eastern Colorado Grasslands, edges of marshes,
rocky hills No No
Northern cricket frog (SGCN)
Acris crepitans Eastern Colorado Edges of slow-moving bodies
of water No No
Northern leopard frog
(SGCN)
Lithobates pipiens
Common throughout
mid-and lower-elevations
of Colorado
Wet meadows, marshes,
ponds, beaver ponds, streams. No No
Plains leopard frog (SGCN)
Rana blairi Eastern Colorado Sunny, grassy wetlands No No
Wood frog (SGCN)
Rana sylvatica
Larimer and Grand
Counties Forested wetlands No No
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
32
Species1 Occurrence Habitat Association
Potential
Habitat in
Project Area?
Potential
Impact/Issue?
FISHES
Arkansas darter (ST)
Etheostoma cragini
Arkansas River drainage
in eastern Colorado
Clear, shallow, spring-fed
streams with moderate current
and lots of rooted aquatic
vegetation
No No
Bonytail chub (FE, SE)
Gila elegans
No known populations
remain in Colorado
Large, swift-flowing waters of
the Colorado River system No No
Brassy minnow (ST)
Hybognathus kankinsoni
Native to Republican and
South Platte basins,
possibly in Colorado River
drainage
Moderately clear tributary
streams with sand or gravel
bottoms, also in small ponds
No No
Colorado pikeminnow (FE,
ST)
Ptychocheilus lucius
Colorado, Dolores, Green,
Gunnison, San Juan,
White and Yampa
Large, swift-flowing rivers that
are seasonally turbid with
warm backwaters
No No
Colorado River cutthroat
trout (SGCN)
Oncorhynchus clarkii
pleuriticus
Widespread localized
reaches Headwater streams and lakes No No
Colorado Roundtail chub
(SGCN)
Gila robusta
Colorado River through
Glenwood Canyon,
downstream on White
River, Milk and Divide
Creeks
Larger rivers of Colorado River
basin No No
Common shiner (ST)
Luxilus cornutus South Platte basin
Lakes, rivers and streams,
most common in the pools of
streams and small rivers
No No
Flannelmouth sucker (SGCN)
Catostomus latipinnis Western Colorado rivers Utilizes mid-sized rivers and
streams No No
Flathead chub (SGCN)
Platygobio gracilis Arkansas River basin
Main branches of turbid
streams and rivers, fast
currents with sand or gravel
substrates
No No
Greenback cutthroat trout
(FT, ST)
Oncorhynchus clarkia stomias
Front Range mountain
streams, recently on west
slope
Montane clear, cold streams No No
Humpback chub (FE, ST)
Gila cypha
Green, Yampa and
Colorado Rivers
Pools and eddies in areas of
fast-flowing, deep, turbid
water, often associated with
cliffs and boulders
No No
Iowa darter (SGCN)
Etheostoma exile Plains rivers Springs No No
Lake chub (SE)
Couesius plumbeus North Platte Gravel bottomed pools and
streams No No
Mountain sucker (SGCN)
Catostomus platyrhynchus
Numerous small to
medium streams below
8600’ elevation.
Throughout west on both sides
of Continental Divide-prefer
clear cold creeks and small to
medium rivers with rubble,
gravel, or sand substrate
No No
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
33
Species1 Occurrence Habitat Association
Potential
Habitat in
Project Area?
Potential
Impact/Issue?
Northern redbelly dace (SE)
Phoxinus eos South Platte basin
Small slow-flowing streams
and connected lakes with
vegetation
No No
Orangespotted sunfish
(SGCN)
Lepomis humilis
Widespread across
middle and eastern U.S.
Shallow silt-laden waters,
floodplain pools, backwater
pools of larger streams on
plains
No No
Plains orangethroat darter
(SGCN)
Etheostoma spectabile
Arikaree and Republican
River drainages
Small, clear, spring-fed
streams with sand, gravel or
rocky bottoms and no silt
No No
Plains minnow (SE)
Hybognathus placitus
Arkansas & South Platte
basins
Main channels of rivers, also in
pools below diversion projects No No
Razorback sucker (FE, SE_
Xyrauchen texanus
Lower Yampa and lower
Colorado Rivers
Deep, clear to turbid waters of
large rivers and reservoirs,
with silt, mud, or gravel
substrate. Quiet, soft-bottom
river backwaters
No No
Rio Grande Chub (SGCN)
Gila pandora Rio Grande basin
Pools and streams with gravel
substrate and overhanging
banks and brush
No No
Rio Grande cutthroat trout
(SGCN)
Oncorhynchus clarkia
virginalis
Rio Grande basin
Clear, cold, swift moving creeks
and streams in montane
environs
No No
Rio Grande sucker (SE)
Catostomas plebeius Rio Grande basin Stream obligate using slow
moving reaches No No
Southern redbelly dace (SE)
Phoxinus erythrogaster Arkansas River basin
small, low-order streams
where the habitat includes
permanent springs, seeps, and
mats of vegetation
No No
Stonecat (SGCN)
Noturus flavus
South Platte and
Republican basins
Fast riffles and runs in streams
with sand or gravel bottoms
with some rocks- found under
rocks and debris
No No
Suckermouth minnow SE)
Phenacobuis mirabilis
South Platte and
Arkansas River drainages
Shallow, clear riffles with sand
and gravel substrates No No
REPTILES
Triploid Checkered whiptail
(SGCN)
Cnemidophorus neotesselatus
Arkansas drainage in
Eastern Colorado
Hillsides, arroyos and canyons
associated w/ Arkansas River
valley
No No
Massasagua (SGCN)
Sistrurus catenatus
Southeast Colorado
below 5,500’
Dry plains grasslands and
sandhills No No
MOLLUSKS
Cylindrical papershell (SGCN)
Anodontoides ferussacianus Boulder County Headwater creeks and streams
with silty/muddy substrates No No
Rocky Mountain Capshell
(SGCN)
Acroloxus coloradensis
Rocky Mountains into
Canada
8,500 to 10,000’ mountain
lakes No No
Lake Springs Ranch Ecological Impact Review
34
Species1 Occurrence Habitat Association
Potential
Habitat in
Project Area?
Potential
Impact/Issue?
FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened; SE = State Endangered; ST = State Threatened; SGCN = Species
of Greatest Conservation Need