HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.07 Exhibit G - Ecological Impact Report
Prepared for:
The Land Studio, Inc. Mitchell Creek Community
365 River Bend Way 50235 US-6 West
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
February 23, 2026
Prepared by:
Red Mountain Environmental, LLC.
802 Palmer Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Ecological Impact Report
Mitchell Creek Community
Garfield County, Colorado
Ami’s Acres Campground Ecological Impact Review
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 2
2. Project Setting .................................................................................................................................... 5
3. Impacts to Vegetation and Wildlife Resources .................................................................................. 6
3.1. Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 6
3.2. Soils .............................................................................................................................................. 6
3.3. Big Game Species ......................................................................................................................... 9
3.3.1. Elk (Cervus canadensis nelsoni) ......................................................................................... 9
3.3.2. Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) .................................................................................. 12
3.3.3. Black Bear (Ursus americanus) ........................................................................................ 15
3.4. Streams and Wetlands............................................................................................................... 17
3.5. State-Listed Species ................................................................................................................... 18
3.5.1. Bat Species ...................................................................................................................... 18
3.5.2. Bird Species ..................................................................................................................... 19
3.6. Federally Listed Species ............................................................................................................. 19
3.6.1. Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus) ........................................................... 21
3.6.2. Suckley’s Cuckoo Bumble Bee (Bombus suckleyi) ........................................................... 22
3.6.1. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ............................................................................ 23
4. Wildlife Impact Minimization Recommendations ............................................................................ 25
5. References ........................................................................................................................................ 26
List of Tables
Table 1. Federally-Listed Species Considered ............................................................................................. 20
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Vicinity ............................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Proposed Development ................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 3. Soil Types ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4. CPW Elk Habitat Areas ................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 5. Mule Deer Habitats ...................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 6. Black Bear Habitats ...................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 7. Bald Eagle Habitats ...................................................................................................................... 24
Appendices
Appendix A – State Listed Species Considered and evaluated (2025) 28
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
2
1. INTRODUCTION
The Mitchell Creek Community project is proposing to redevelop the Ami’s Acres Campground
under a Planned Unit Development application, to provide a single-family home community with
approximately 97 home sites. The development would require complete site regrading, and
would also include new utility corridors for electric, water, and sewer to each lot. Utilities would
be placed in roadways. Home sizes will range from 1,312 square feet to 2,607 square feet, with
on-lot parking (either surface parking or in a garage). New water and sewer lines would run from
west Glenwood Springs along US Highway 6 (US-6) to the development. The new community
would no longer offer camping or other temporary accommodations.
This report presents the baseline conditions of wildlife, wildlife habitat, and other ecological
resources in the project area, in support of the Major Impact Review for a Planned Unit
Development and Sketch Plan application. This analysis addresses significant and present wildlife
use of the area, 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.
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
3
Figure 1. Project Vicinity
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
4
Figure 2. Proposed Development
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
5
2. PROJECT SETTING
The project is situated in the Sedimentary Subalpine Forests (21e) level IV ecoregion, which is within
the Southern Rockies (21) level III ecoregion (Chapman et al. 2006). The elevation of the project
area ranges from 5,695 feet to 5,845 feet (msl), occurring on south-facing slopes. The parcel lies at
the western side of Section 6, Township 6 South, Range 89 West (6th Principal Meridian; Figures 1
and 2).
Habitats within the development are mostly dominated by landscaping trees and shrubs (Russian
olive, apple, Siberian elm, etc.) and some remnant patches of native species such as oakbrush,
pinyon-juniper woodlands, mountain sagebrush, and understory grasses and forbs. Dominant
vegetation within these community types are as follows:
Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands. Within the
project area, and more commonly on the
outside of the project area, vegetation is
dominated by pinyon-juniper woodlands,
which are dominated by pinyon pine (Pinus
edulis), Utah juniper (Juniperus
osteosperma), and patches of oakbrush (aka
Gambel oak; Quercus gambelii), with
understories dominated by infrequent
mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus
montanus), Utah serviceberry (Amelanchier
utahensis), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana),
mountain sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata
subsp. vaseyana), broom snakeweed
(Gutierrezia sarothrae), Indian ricegrass
(Oryzopsis hymenoides), western wheatgrass
(Pascopyrum smithii), brittle cactus (Opuntia
fragilis), and other species. Also common are
ruderal (weedy) species such as cheatgrass
(Anisantha tectorum), storksbill filaree
(Erodium cicutarium), and musk thistle
(Carduus nutans). As mentioned, other
volunteer species such as Siberian elm
(Ulmus pumila), Russian olive (Elaeagnus
angustifolia), and apple trees (Malus
domestica) are common within the existing
campground area. Many other understory
species were not identifiable given the time
of year of the site visit.
Of note, a few pinyon pine have been infested with Pinyon Ips (aka Ips, or pinyon beetle; Ips
confusus) at the upper end of the parcel. This bark beetle can quickly take advantage of stressed
tree conditions from warm and dry periods, and can spread rapidly, quickly killing off a large number
of pinyon pine in just a few seasons.
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
6
3. IMPACTS TO VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
The majority of the proposed project would occur in previously disturbed areas which are
dominated by non-native vegetation. Given the extent of needed grading, the small patches of
native vegetation within the development would mostly be removed as well. This would impact
individual oakbrush, pinyon pine, Utah juniper, and mountain sagebrush (along with minor amounts
of native grasses and forbs). Impacts to more continuous and intact native habitats are very limited
and would occur mostly at the upper end of the development, across the upper eight parcels. These
impacts are in areas currently used as walk-in and dispersed campsites.
Based on the presence of weeds across and around the campground (and the extensive weeds on
the adjacent MMME WG LLC parcel to the west), there is a high potential for the spread of noxious
weeds in and around the project area, and aggressive noxious weed management would need to
occur as specified in the Weed Management Plan to keep both areas within the development and
undisturbed native habitats outside of the development from becoming infested by adventitious
weed species.
Successful weed control programs may require timely 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 to reduce erosion issues and slow weed establishment. Since
most weeds are ruderal species that prefer disturbed sites, revegetation 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 Weed Management Plan for more
information.
The undeveloped areas of the property would not be significantly disturbed, aside from minor brush
thinning for wildfire concerns, and possibly some Ips beetle mitigation work; therefore, it is unlikely
that weed abundance would increase dramatically outside of the development. With fuels
management, some light surface disturbance may nevertheless occur, and weed management is
highly recommended to keep native vegetation conditions weed-free.
Reclamation within the residential development is likely to be dominated by more urban
revegetation themes. Use of local native species which are more drought tolerant would be
encouraged and given the ubiquity of black bears in the area, no trees or brush producing fruit
should be planted.
The project area occurs in three NRCS-mapped soil types. Most of the development would occur in
the Atencio-Azeltine complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes. The eastern part of the development would
also occur on a small area of Torriorthents-Rock outcrop complex, steep (mostly on the Torriorthents
soils). The extreme eastern portion of the development is adjacent to Arle-Ansari-Rock outcrop
complex 12 to 65 percent slopes.
The Atencio series is derived from red sandstone and shales, and supports deep, well-drained fine
loams over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed soils formed in alluvium. In and adjacent to the draws,
soils are Azeltine series, which are formed in gravelly and cobbly alluvium from mixed sedimentary
and igneous rocks. The Atencio-Azeltine complex is very common throughout western Colorado,
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
7
and these soil types are not hydric, nor are they soils supporting Farmlands of Statewide
Importance. The project does not present significant concerns regarding potential negative impacts
to these soil types.
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
8
Figure 3. Soil Types
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
9
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, serviceberry, sagebrush, and snowberry 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,
expansion of mountain bike and OHV use, and subsequent 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).
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
10
The Project area occurs within a large area of a mapped Severe Winter Range, and the upper
portions of the development occur within a Winter Concentration Area (Figure 4), which
encompasses much of the lands north of the I-70 corridor. Elk Severe Winter Range are areas where
90 percent of the individuals are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or
temperatures are at a minimum in the two worst winters out of 10. Winter Concentration Areas
are defined as the part of the winter range where elk densities are at least 200 percent greater than
the surrounding winter range density during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy
snowfall to spring green-up. Winter Concentration Areas and Severe Winter Range are critical areas
of habitat for elk (and mule deer). These areas provide needed forage, cover from predators and
retreat from stressors during the period of the year when the animals are most vulnerable.
At this time, elk use of project area is mostly transitory and occurs on slopes to the north of Ami’s
Acres, and elk also concentrate on more level terrain to the west. During mild winters, elk stay
higher on slopes, where grass cover is higher. Some elk may linger at the edges of the campground,
but most activity is at night and is transitory. During the summer months, elk would have migrated
into higher elevations north of the area, into the Flat Tops. The nearest Production Areas (calving
areas) occurs around 0.1 miles to the northeast, much higher on the ridgeline, and continues north
into the Mitchell Creek drainage.
Impact Analysis. Redevelopment of the campground would not have meaningful impacts to elk
summer range habitats, or any elk Production (calving) areas. While the development is only 0.1
miles from Production habitats, the terrain separating the development from calving areas is
extremely steep, and is visually separated and effectively distant from the development.
In the winter (especially snowy winters), elk will migrate into the greater area, lingering on the south
facing slopes, and may venture into the development to browse on native and planted landscaping.
Elk would be expected to linger just outside of the development during the winter months.
While it is unlikely that redevelopment of the campground would result in any noticeable or
significantly detrimental impacts to elk at the herd level, the development would increase human
occupancy levels and would increase the presence of domestic dogs. While direct impacts to elk
habitats would be negligible, indirect effects from increased human activity and pet dogs will
increase stress on wintering elk in the area. Off lease dogs can chase and harass elk, and even
barking dogs (which are not chasing elk) can also increase elk stress levels. Despite leash laws, off
leash dogs are very common and increased levels of elk harassment would be expected. This would
result in elk being pushed higher or further from the development, effectively reducing the amount
of potential elk winter range in the area.
Any fencing should be wildlife-friendly in order to keep elk habitat connectivity across the area.
Residents may encounter elk during the winter months, especially in the early morning hours. Dogs
should therefore be leashed when elk may be in the area, and the development should reinforce
that dogs should be leashed and prevented from barking or chasing wildlife.
Please see Impact Minimization Recommendations below for items that could be incorporated to
help reduce wildlife impacts.
Ami’s Acres Campground Ecological Impact Review
11
Figure 4. CPW Elk Habitat Areas
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
12
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 and
forbs). 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 reduce rumen microbes and are therefore
deleterious (Carpenter 1976, Nagy and Tengerdy 1967, Nagy et al. 1964, Alldredge et al. 1974).
When heavy snow buries grasses and forbs on rangelands and force mule deer to consume high
amounts of sagebrush 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 ranges at that time of year likely 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.
Montane forests and pinyon-juniper woodlands with good shrubby understories are often favored
winter ranges.
Spring and summer ranges are most typically a mosaic of meadows, aspen woodlands, alpine
tundra and Krummholz, or montane forest edges. 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
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
13
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 scientific literature for many years. The proposed
development is mostly outside of mapped mule deer Severe Winter Range, but the upper areas do
overlap these habitats (Figure 5). Site reviews revealed common mule deer use of native habitats
just outside of the current campground area. Similar to elk, mule deer concentrate in the winter
on the lower slopes around the project area but generally stay within native pinyon-juniper
woodlands. Some individual mule deer may venture within the campground area (especially at
night).
Issues of Concern. Historically, mule deer would have utilized a wide swath of habitat throughout
the greater Ami’s Acres area, but nearby development (City of Glenwood Springs) and conversion
of rangelands to pastures has constrained movement to areas with less disturbance, where natural
topography, native shrublands 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 pastures for grazing. The presence of existing
residential developments has shifted mule deer movement and migration in the greater area.
Similar to elk, extensive recreation use of areas around towns, and the ubiquitousness of off-leash
dogs has reduced the availability of otherwise intact native habitats around mountain
communities.
Impact Analysis. Similar to elk, the project would have very minor direct impacts to mule deer
winter range habitats, but indirect effects from increased human activities and dogs will extend
the level of impacts into habitats around the development. As mule deer may be on the property
at any time of the year (albeit in mostly low numbers), human activities would likely reduce the
amount of time mule deer spend on the property, especially during the summer when human
activities and the presence of dogs would be highest. Residents walking through the development
in the morning and evening hours will likely encounter mule deer, and dogs should always be
leashed. Residents should be encouraged to give mule deer time and space to minimize
disturbances and impacts. While the project may have impacts to individual mule deer, the project
is not likely to result in measurable or meaningful impacts at the herd level.
Please see Wildlife Impact Minimization Recommendations below for items that could be
incorporated to help reduce wildlife impacts.
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
14
Figure 5. Mule Deer Habitats
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
15
Black bears are a significant wildlife management issue in the State of Colorado. Bears commonly
supplement their diets by raiding garbage cans, breaking into homes, and have become a hazard
and a nuisance in some areas. The presence of apple and other fruit trees in the campground have
likely created a very high level of bear activity in the area. The Project area is within a Human
Conflict Area but is not within a Fall Concentration area (which occurs higher on hillslopes above
the development); bear sign and bear occurrences are known to be very common in the
campground and in nearby areas.
Impact Analysis. This development would have minor to insignificant impacts on bear habitat
availability, but black bears are in the area. After redevelopment, there is a high likelihood that
black bears would show continued interest in foraging around the development. Black bears are
an existing issue in the area, and during some years black bear activities in the area can be
problematic. As long as precautions regarding mitigating bear attractants are implemented, and
containment of trash, black bear conflicts can be minimized. Residents and guests should be well
informed regarding the risks associated with black bears, and bear-proof food storage and bear
proof trash containers should be provided and rules enforced.
See section 3.6 Wildlife Impact Minimization Recommendations for additional recommendations.
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
16
Figure 6. Black Bear Habitats
Ami’s Acres Campground Ecological Impact Review
17
A site review occurred to determine if any wetlands, other waters of the U.S., or waters of the State
occur within the project area. Site investigations followed guidance from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE). Site reviews
were conducted using the Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987), the Regional Supplement to
the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West (USACE 2010), and the guidance
document “Information Needed for Jurisdictional Determinations - US Army Corps of Engineers.”
Drainages were investigated utilizing the standards set forth in the 2008 “A Field Guide to the
Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western
United States” (ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12) and were reviewed internally against the 2025 National
Ordinary High Water Mark Field Delineation Manual for Rivers and Streams (ERDC/CRREL TR-25-
1). The investigations referenced the joint agency March 12, 2025 guidance memo “WOTUS Notice;
The Final Response to SCOTUS” (33 CFR part 328), which is detailed in the Memorandum to the
Field 1.
As the draws do not support consistent
evidence of ephemeral flows, the draws
would not fall under the jurisdiction of the
CDPHE, Water Quality Control Act (§ 25-8-
205(1)(h), and §5 CCR 1002-87, CRS).
While the draws may support surface flows
every few years, the infrequency of those
flows do not meet the definition of
“ephemeral” flows, and the draws are
more accurately termed “upland erosional
features.”
In summary, the project area does not
support any wetlands; the steep slopes
and ephemeral nature of precipitation
does not support hydrology which could
produce wetlands.
Impact Analysis. TetraTech was retained by the applicant to assess the risk of debris flows from
these draws. Their recommendations were to construct debris basins and levee parts of the draws
to direct flows away from homesites. These activities would not require permitting by the USACE
or CDPHE. Given the very infrequent flow regimes, this in-channel work is not expected to result in
any meaningful impact to hydrologic resources within the project area, or to downstream water
resources.
1 2025cscguidance.pdf
Larger draw on west side of development.
Ami’s Acres Campground Ecological Impact Review
18
Information on species status, distribution, and ecology was derived from CPW habitat mapping,
Colorado Natural Heritage Program maps and reports, GIS databases, various scientific studies and
reports, and field reviews.
CPW’s list of Threatened and Endangered species and Species of Greatest Conservation Need
(SGCN; Tier 1 and Tier 2 species; State Wildlife Action Plan 2025) was reviewed to determine if any
species had potential habitat in or adjacent to the Project Area. While all listed species were initially
considered, an elimination of unlikely species from further consideration is provided in Appendix
A. These decisions are based on known range distributions being either outside of the Project Area
or complete habitat incompatibility.
CPW lists the California myotis (Myotis californicus), fringed myotis (M. thysanodes), little brown
myotis (M. lucifugus), long-eared myotis (M. evotis ), long-legged myotis (M. volans), northern hoary
bat (Lasiurus cinereus), western small-footed myotis (M. ciliolabrum), Yuma myotis (M. yumaensis),
silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), 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 information). The
Project area could provide foraging opportunities and roosting opportunities during the summer
months. Along the nearby canyons and rock outcrops, there is the potential for nearby caves and
other features suitable for hibernacula or longer-term roost sites, or migration stopover sites. The
actual parcel does not support features suitable for larger hibernacula. Rather, the project area
supports shrublands and pinyon-juniper woodlands suitable for nighttime foraging activities,
especially given the presence of the Colorado River, which attracts bats due to the higher densities
of flying insects as well as important drinking water sources. Most of these species would utilize
the project area for catching insects from the air, or by gleaning insects off nearby vegetation, but
some of these species could roost in the larger cottonwood and spruce trees along the creek.
Impact Analysis. The redevelopment area does not support rock outcrops, caves, cliffs, or other
features that could provide hibernacula, larger roosting areas, or other congregation sites.
Therefore, no impacts to hibernacula, maternity sites or other congregation areas would be
expected from this project. During the construction phase, activities are primarily limited to
daylight hours, when bats are not active. Bats would still be able to forage about the project area
with little potential for direct impact. Clearing of vegetation and removal of older buildings and
trailers in the project area will make diurnal roosting habitats less available, but given the
surrounding habitats, continued bat use of the area, especially for foraging, is anticipated. After
construction, the presence of the homes should not have any meaningful negative impacts on bats
ability to forage in the area during the nighttime hours, aside from the fact that there would be less
diurnal roosting sites. Domestic cats are known to prey on bats, and keeping pet cats indoors would
reduce the risk to sensitive bat species.
In summary, the project is anticipated to have minor reductions in diurnal roost sites from removal
of larger trees and older buildings and vehicles, and from the minor amounts of shrublands habitats
removed, but this project is not anticipated to have any significant or meaningful impacts to these
Ami’s Acres Campground Ecological Impact Review
19
bat species or their critical habitat components, or life history needs. Pet cats, if left to roam, are
likely to prey on some bats.
CPW lists the pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus), broad-tailed hummingbird (Selasphorus
platycercus), Calliope hummingbird (Sealasphorus calliope), Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga
columbiana), rufous hummingbird (S. rufus), Grace’s warbler (Setophaga graciae), and Virginia’s
warbler (Leiothlypis virginiae) as having habitats or range overlap with the project area. Only the
pinyon jay and Clark’s nutcracker may occur in the project area year-round, the other species are
mostly migratory (either latitudinally or elevationally). The pinyon jay is a communal nester, and
colonies of nesting pinyon jays are not known to occur in the project area.
Impact Analysis. The primary potential impact to these species would be from direct take of active
nests during the spring and early summer nesting and fledging seasons. Vegetation removal during
this time may result in take of active nests; adults would likely fly away and avoid take. Due to the
small amounts of vegetation removal, notable reductions in habitats would not occur. Human
activities in the development during the nesting season may result in disturbances to active nests
but would not result in a meaningful or measurable impact to populations of these species.
Increased planting of flowering plants and hummingbird feeders will likely increase foraging
opportunities for hummingbirds in the area, but pet cats are also known to prey on hummingbirds
(and other bird species). Pet cats should be kept indoors to reduce the risk of predation on bird
species.
Information on species status, distribution, and ecology was derived from U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation portal (IPaC; Project Code 2026-
0052916), 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 1).
Ami’s Acres Campground Ecological Impact Review
20
Table 1. Federally-Listed Species Considered
Species1 Occurrence Habitat Association
Potential
Habitat in
Project Area?
Potential
Impact/Issue?
MAMMALS
Gray wolf (EXP, SE)
Canis lupus
Lone, dispersing gray
wolves may be present.
Variety of habitats, generally
away from population centers. No No
Canada lynx (FT)
Lynx canadensis Mountains of Colorado Subalpine forests with long,
snowy winters. No 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
INSECTS
Monarch butterfly (PT)
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
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)
No No
Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee
(PE)
Bombus suckleyi
Western North American
Mostly montane and subalpine
meadows with flowering forbs
but can occur in other habitats.
Yes Yes
Source: CPW 2015, USFWS 2026
FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened; C = Candidate; PT = Proposed Threatened; SE = State Endangered;
ST = State Threatened; ENE = Experimental, Non-Essential; SGCN = Species of Greatest Conservation Need
Ami’s Acres Campground Ecological Impact Review
21
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 potential direct or indirect effects from implementation of the Proposed Action.
• Monarch butterfly – Proposed Threatened
• Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee – Proposed Endangered
Status: Proposed Threatened
The adults feed (gather nectar) from a variety of flowering plant species. By consuming milkweed
plants (Asclepias spp.), monarchs obtain toxins, called cardenolides, that provide a defense against
predators. Additionally, nectar from flowers is needed for adults throughout the breeding season,
migration and overwintering. The monarch butterfly only lays eggs and larvae only feed on
milkweeds.
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 Mountain range in North America primarily overwinter
in California at sites along the Pacific Coast, roosting in eucalyptus, Monterey pines and Monterey
cypress trees.
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 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.
No surveys for milkweed have occurred. 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. The area around the project is known to support milkweeds along roadsides, around
ditches, and in other un-mowed areas. It is highly unlikely that eggs, larvae, or chrysalis could be
around the project area, but individual adults may pass through the project area. Therefore, it is
also relatively unlikely that any eggs would be taken from construction activities. Adult monarchs
would likely be flushed and fly away from human activities, and direct impacts to adults would be
very limited.
Indirect Effects. The construction process would remove all vegetation from the construction area,
Ami’s Acres Campground Ecological Impact Review
22
and reclamation would reduce potential foraging habitats for monarch butterflies for a few years.
Additionally, it would take a number of years before milkweeds would revegetate impacted areas
at a level where reproduction could occur. 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 habitats (roughly within
50-feet), reducing the availability of other foraging and reproduction habitats for the season(s) of
construction. Long term, flowering plants from landscaping would likely increase potential foraging
habitats for adult Monarchs migrating through the area.
Determination of Effects. The project is not expected to affect monarch eggs, larvae, or chrysalis
due to the limited presence of milkweed within the project area. Should activities coincide with
periods when adult monarchs are active, direct impacts are likely to be minimal as most adults can
avoid harm; however, indirect impacts may occur, principally through vehicle strikes associated
with site access. Temporarily impacted areas will experience a short-term reduction in flowering
forbs, which serve as food sources for adult monarchs. This could temporarily convert suitable
foraging sites into unsuitable habitats, resulting in minor and localized effects on monarch
butterflies. These impacts are not anticipated to influence monarch populations at a broader scale.
Accordingly, the proposed action and its related activities warrant a determination of Not Likely to
Jeopardize for this species, as individual monarchs may be affected but there is no expectation of
changes to the species’ overall distribution or life history characteristics.
Status: Proposed Endangered
This species is considered to be relatively rare, even though it has historically been found
throughout much of western North America, and on the White River National Forest south of
Aspen, and in the Lime Park area in the upper Frying Pan River drainage. This species ranges from
Arizona to northern Canada, and as far east as Newfoundland. This species is an obligate social
parasite of social bumble bees in the genus Bombus. Cuckoo bumble bee females emerge from
hibernation in the spring and usurp the nest of a suitable host colony, where host workers provision
their young. Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee is described as a semi-specialist parasite and is
confirmed to usurp nests of Western bumble bees (Bombus occidentalis) and Nevada bumble bees
(Bombus nevadensis), with other potential hosts in subgenus Bombus throughout the extent of its
range. The species has been collected in various habitat types from 6 to 10,500 feet in elevation.
Direct and Indirect Effects. The project area is within the geographic range for this species, and the
project area supports wildflowers suitable for Bombus species foraging. It is therefore assumed
that this species may occur in or near the project area. The project would involve earthmoving
activities, and therefore Bombus colonies would likely be directly impacted by construction,
possibly taking eggs, larvae, and adults. Foraging plants (flowers) would also be removed through
the construction process, which could temporarily reduce the availability of food sources for
Bombus species, which are hosts to Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee. Long term, landscaping would
likely increase the availability of flowering forbs, and more habitat for Bombus species.
Determination of Effects. Given the small scale of the project, and as most of the project is within
area with somewhat low wildflower coverage, significant or meaningful impacts to this species or
its habitats would not be expected. Because of the likelihood of potential direct, indirect, and
Ami’s Acres Campground Ecological Impact Review
23
cumulative impacts to this species, its host species, and host species foraging plants, this project
likely warrants a determination of Not Likely to Jeopardize for the Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee.
Bald eagles are federally protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. They are
also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, and as such are considered a USFWS
trust resource. In addition, CPW tracks bald eagle populations, nesting sites, roosting habitat, and
foraging areas and has developed protective stipulations for the species, with specific
recommendations for nests, winter night roosts, and hunting perches (CPW 2008).
As currently mapped, the Project is located within bald eagle Winter Range and Winter Foraging
habitats, which generally coincide with big game winter ranges where bald eagles opportunistically
forage on winter-killed big game, and is within two ½-mile Nest Site buffers (Figure 7).
There are no roosting habitats of the type preferred by nesting eagles (large deciduous tree
adjacent to flowing water). Bald eagles occurring the Project area would likely be limited to
scavenging on winter-killed big game species on habitats above the project area.
Impact Analysis. No significant impacts to eagles are anticipated given there are limited suitable
perching sites. Development of the project is not anticipated to change the potential availability of
winter-killed big game species. The presence of the development is not likely to deter bald eagles
from scavenging on nearby winter killed big game, as human activities in the winter would be very
limited. The project is separated from the two nearby nest sites by topographic features, and I-70
and the Colorado River. The project is not anticipated to have any meaningful impact on local bald
eagle populations as there would be no impact to their prey bases or availability and given how far
the project is from nearby nest sites (and features separating the nest sites from the development).
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
24
Figure 7. Bald Eagle Habitats
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
25
4. 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.
Vegetation Removal:
• Cutting down trees and brush should be conducted outside of the spring and summer
months when nesting birds and roosting bats would be utilizing trees and brush.
Fencing: Aside from fencing to keep pets adjacent to homes, the development should minimize
and remove other unneeded fencing. New fencing should be wildlife friendly fencing (see
FencingWithWildlifeInMind.pdf, and Protect Your Home from Wildlife | Colorado Parks and Wildlife)
Landscaping & Revegetation: Because the surrounding area is used as habitat for a number of
wildlife species, 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 wildlife habitat 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 and cats 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 impact of dogs on wildlife, the following practices
should be employed:
1. Dogs (and cats) should be prohibited from running loose within or around the development,
including contractor’s dogs. Excessive dog barking should be discouraged.
2. One benefit to keeping animals under control (especially cats) is that they are less likely to
become prey for mountain lions, coyotes, bobcats, or foxes.
3. Pets should not be fed outside, and pet food should be stored in an enclosed area (and not
in a bear accessible area).
Trash and Food: Bear-proof trash containers should be kept inside a secure enclosure until the
morning of trash pickup. Bears, skunks, and raccoons are attracted to garbage and will become
habituated. There should be no dumps that have edible materials associated with construction and
post-construction activities, including no compost piles. All fruit bearing trees (apple trees) within
the current campground area should be removed.
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
26
5. REFERENCES
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
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
27
Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53,
Missoula, MT. 142p.
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.
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
28
APPENDIX A – STATE LISTED SPECIES CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED (2025)
Species1 Occurrence Habitat Association
Potential
Habitat in
Project Area?
Potential
Impact/Issue?
MAMMALS
American Pika
(Ochotona princeps)
In suitable habitats
throughout state Alpine, rocky habitats No No
Black-footed Ferret
(Mustela nigripes)
Rio Blanco & Moffat
Counties
Reintroduced to Rio Blanco
County, in white-tailed prairie
dog colony
No No
California Myotis
(Myotis californicus) Western Colorado
Rocky canyons and flats
near water sources, riparian
groves
Yes Yes
Canada Lynx
(Lynx canadensis)
High mountain areas with
large expanses of conifer
forests in Colorado
Spruce/fir and lodgepole pine
forests, sometimes aspen,
shrublands
No No
Canyon Bat
(Parastrellus hesperus) Southwest Colorado Deserts and lowlands with rock
crevices and other refugia No No
Fringed Myotis
(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
Gray Wolf
(Canis lupus)
Throughout Colorado in
suitable habitats
Shrublands, forests and areas
away from human habitation No No
Gunnison's Prairie Dog
(Cynomys gunnisoni) Parks in central Colorado Shortgrass steppe, open
shrublands in parks No No
Little Brown Myotis
(Myotis lucifugus)
Throughout Colorado in
suitable habitats Widespread habitat types. Yes Yes
Long-eared Myotis
(Myotis evotis)
Documented in
Colorado in several
cave locations
Semidesert shrublands, P-J,
open montane forests; caves
and abandoned mine roosts.
Yes Yes
Long-legged Myotis
(Myotis volans) Western Colorado Western forests and
shrublands, into deserts Yes Yes
New Mexico Meadow
Jumping Mouse
(Zapus hudsonius luteus)
Southwest Colorado Wetlands and riparian areas No No
Northern Hoary Bat
(Lasiurus cinereus) Throughout Colorado Variety of forested habitats. Yes Yes
Preble’s Meadow Jumping
Mouse
(Zapus hudsonius preblei)
Front range of Colorado
north into Wyoming
Foothills riparian areas and
along front range streams No No
Tricolored Bat
(Perimyotis subflavus) Southwest Colorado
Woodlands in summer,
migrates to lower elevations in
winter.
No No
Western Small-footed
Myotis
(Myotis ciliolabrum)
Throughout Colorado
Arid and semi-arid habitats,
forests and woodlands, up to
subalpine forests
Yes Yes
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
29
Species1 Occurrence Habitat Association
Potential
Habitat in
Project Area?
Potential
Impact/Issue?
White-tailed Prairie Dog
(Cynomys leucurus) Western Colorado Arid grasslands and sparse
arid shrublands in western CO No No
Wolverine
(Gulo gulo)
Historical documentation
several locations in
Colorado-likely extinct
Boreal forests and tundra-
large ungulate populations
important
No No
Yuma Myotis
(Myotis yumanensis) Western Colorado Lowland shrublands and
forests, near water Yes Yes
Big Brown Bat
(Eptesicus fuscus) Throughout Colorado Most habitat types aside
from alpine. Yes Yes
Bighorn Sheep
(Ovis canadensis) Mountains of Colorado Canyons and mountains No No
Black-tailed Prairie Dog
(Cynomys ludovicianus) Eastern plains Shortgrass prairies No N
Eastern Red Bat
(Lasiurus borealis) Eastern Colorado Woodlands near rivers No No
Plains Spotted Skunk
(Spilogale interrupta) Eastern Colorado Grasslands and riparian areas No No
Silver-haired Bat
(Lasionycteris noctivagans) Throughout Colorado Woodlands and near water. Yes Yes
Townsend's Big-eared Bat
(Corynorhinus townsendii
pallescens)
Mountains and western
Colorado
Woodlands and shrublands,
near larger caves and mines Yes Yes
BIRDS
American Goshawk
(Astur atricapillus) Mountains Montane and subalpine
forests, including aspen No No
Black Rosy-Finch
(Leucosticte atrata) Mountains Alpine habitats, sometimes
down to montane forests No No
Black Swift
(Cypseloides niger) Western Colorado Nests behind waterfalls (Rifle
Gap SP) No No
Brown-capped Rosy-Finch
(Leucosticte australis) Mountains Alpine habitats, sometimes
down to montane forests No No
Columbian Sharp-tailed
Grouse
(Tympanuchus phasianellus
columbianus)
Mixed
grassland/shrublands in
northwest Colorado
Mixed shrubland/grasslands No No
Eastern Black Rail
(Laterallus jamaicensis
jamaicensis)
Eastern seaboard,
wetlands in great plains Wetlands on plains No No
Golden Eagle
(Aquila chrysaetos)
Throughout Colorado in
suitable habitats
Open habitats in alpine,
shrublands, badlands, and
grasslands
Yes No
Greater Sage-Grouse
(Centrocercus urophasianus) Northwestern Colorado Large sagebrush shrublands No No
Gunnison Sage-Grouse
(Centrocercus minimus)
Gunnison Basin and
western counties Sagebrush shrublands No No
Lesser Prairie-Chicken
(Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) Eastern plains Larger rivers, larger reservoir
beaches No No
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
30
Species1 Occurrence Habitat Association
Potential
Habitat in
Project Area?
Potential
Impact/Issue?
Mountain Plover
(Anarhynchus montanus) Eastern Colorado Great plains grasslands No No
Pinyon Jay
(Gymnorhinus
cyanocephalus)
Western Colorado Pinyon-juniper woodlands Yes Yes
Prairie Falcon
(Falco mexicanus)
Eastern plains and
western
deserts/grasslands
Grasslands and sparse desert
shrublands No No
Scaled Quail
(Callipepla squamata) Southeast Colorado Arid grasslands and deserts No No
Southern White-tailed
Ptarmigan
(Lagopus leucura altipetens)
Mountains Alpine and krummholz
habitats No No
Southwestern Willow
Flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii extimus)
Extreme southern
Colorado
Riparian areas in southwestern
Colorado No No
Thick-billed Longspur
(Rhynchophanes mccownii) Eastern Colorado Grasslands No No
Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis)
Western Colorado Large riparian woodlands No No
American Kestrel
(Falco sparverius) Throughout Colorado Wide variety of habitats, most
open areas. No No
American Peregrine Falcon
(Falco peregrinus anatum) Throughout Colorado Nests on cliffs/tall buildings,
forages widely No No
Barrow's Goldeneye
(Bucephala islandica) Mountains Mountain lakes, winters along
larger ice-free rivers No No
Broad-tailed Hummingbird
(Selasphorus platycercus)
Foothills and
mountains Wide variety of habitats Yes Yes
Burrowing Owl
(Athene cunicularia)
Western deserts and
eastern plains Grasslands, open shrublands No No
Calliope Hummingbird
(Selasphorus calliope)
Foothills and
mountains in Colorado
Shrublands, woodlands up to
alpine habitats. Yes Yes
Chestnut-collared Longspur
(Calcarius ornatus) Eastern Colorado Grasslands No No
Clark's Nutcracker
(Nucifraga columbiana)
Montane and subalpine
Colorado
Montane and subalpine
forests Yes Yes
Golden-crowned Kinglet
(Regulus satrapa) Mountains Subalpine forests, winders in
lower elevations. No No
Grace's Warbler
(Setophaga graciae) Western Colorado Montane shrublands Yes Yes
Greater Sandhill Crane
(Antigone canadensis tabida)
May migrate throughout
state
Nests in montane parklands
and irrigated fields. Winters in
low elevation ag-lands
No No
Lark Bunting
(Calamospiza melanocorys) Eastern Colorado Grasslands No No
Long-billed Curlew
(Numenius americanus) Lower elevations Grasslands, wet meadows in
open habitats. No No
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
31
Species1 Occurrence Habitat Association
Potential
Habitat in
Project Area?
Potential
Impact/Issue?
Mexican Spotted Owl
(Strix occidentalis lucida)
Southwest Colorado,
southern Front Range
Forested canyons in southern
portions of state No No
Mountain Bluebird
(Sialia currucoides) Throughout state Open habitats (grasslands,
alpine meadows
Northern Harrier
(Circus hudsonius) Montane and lower areas Open grasslands, meadows,
and wetlands. No No
Piping Plover
(Charadrius melodus) Eastern Colorado Larger river corridors, larger
reservoirs No No
Plains Sharp-tailed Grouse
(Tympanuchus phasianellus
jamesi)
Eastern Colorado Grasslands No No
Rufous Hummingbird
(Selasphorus rufus) Mountains
Migrates through mountains
in mid-summer (fall
migration)
Yes Yes
Sage Thrasher
(Oreoscoptes montanus) Western Colorado Lower elevation sagebrush and
salt desert shrublands No No
Virginia's Warbler
(Leiothlypis virginiae)
Western Colorado and
Front Range foothills
Montane and lower
elevation shrublands Yes Yes
Western Bluebird
(Sialia mexicana) Western Colorado
Montane and lower
shrublands, mountains
meadows in summer
No No
White-faced Ibis
(Plegadis chihi) Throughout state Larger wetlands and wet
meadows No No
Wilson's Phalarope
(Phalaropus tricolor) Throughout state Shallow, open waters (lakes,
reservoirs) No No
AMPHIBIANS
Boreal toad
(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
Northern leopard frog
(Lithobates pipiens)
Common throughout
mid-and lower-elevations
of Colorado
Wet meadows, marshes,
ponds, beaver ponds, smaller
streams.
No No
Western narrow-mouth toad
(Gastrophryne olivacea) Eastern Colorado Sunny, grassy wetlands No No
FISHES
Arkansas Darter
(Etheostoma cragini)
Arkansas River drainage
in eastern Colorado
Clear, shallow, spring-fed
streams with moderate current
and lots of rooted aquatic
vegetation
No No
Bluehead Sucker
(Pantosteus discobolus) Western Colorado Larger streams No No
Bonytail
(Gila elegans) Western Colorado Larger rivers No No
Brassy Minnow
(Hybognathus hankinsoni)
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
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
32
Species1 Occurrence Habitat Association
Potential
Habitat in
Project Area?
Potential
Impact/Issue?
Colorado Pikeminnow
(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
(Oncorhynchus clarkii
pleuriticus)
Widespread localized
reaches Headwater streams and lakes Yes No
Common Shiner
(Luxilus cornutus) South Platte basin
Lakes, rivers and streams,
most common in the pools of
streams and small rivers
No No
Eagle River Sculpin
(Cottus annae) Eagle River Eagle River and tributaries No No
Flannelmouth Sucker
(Catostomus latipinnis) Western Colorado rivers Utilizes larger and mid-sized
rivers and streams No No
Flathead Chub
(Platygobio gracilis) Arkansas River basin
Main branches of turbid
streams and rivers, fast
currents with sand or gravel
substrates
No No
Greenback Cutthroat Trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias)
Front Range mountain
streams, recently on west
slope
Montane clear, cold streams No No
Humpback Chub
(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
Northern Redbelly Dace
(Chrosomus eos) South Platte basin
Small slow-flowing streams
and connected lakes with
vegetation
No No
Orangespotted Sunfish
(Lepomis humilis)
Widespread across
middle and eastern U.S.
Shallow silt-laden waters,
floodplain pools, backwater
pools of larger streams on
plains
No No
Orangethroat Darter
(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
(Hybognathus placitus)
Arkansas & South Platte
basins
Main channels of rivers, also in
pools below diversion projects No No
Plains Topminnow
(Fundulus sciadicus)
North Platte basin,
Yampa and Green River
basins
Slow, shallow, clear waters
with heavy vegetation; sloughs,
backwaters and ponds.
No No
Razorback Sucker
(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
Mitchell Creek Community Ecological Impact Review
33
Species1 Occurrence Habitat Association
Potential
Habitat in
Project Area?
Potential
Impact/Issue?
Rio Grande Chub
(Gila pandora) Rio Grande basin
Pools and streams with gravel
substrate and overhanging
banks and brush
No No
Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii
virginalis)
Rio Grande basin
Clear, cold, swift moving creeks
and streams in montane
environs
No No
Rio Grande Sucker
(Pantosteus plebeius) Rio Grande basin Stream obligate using slow
moving reaches No No
Roundtail Chub
(Gila robusta) Colorado River basin Mid-sized to larger rivers No No
Southern Redbelly Dace
(Chrosomus erythrogaster) Arkansas River basin
small, low-order streams
where the habitat includes
permanent springs, seeps, and
mats of vegetation
No No
Stonecat
(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
(Phenacobius mirabilis)
South Platte and
Arkansas River drainages
Shallow, clear riffles with sand
and gravel substrates No No
Lake Chub
(Couesius plumbeus) Platte River system
Cold water lakes with clean
gravels, and in cold water
rivers and streams.
No No
Mountain Whitefish
(Prosopium williamsoni)
Yampa and White River
basins, introduced to
upper Cahe la Poudre
and Colorado River
High mountain lakes and rivers No No
REPTILES
Colorado Checkered Whiptail
(Aspidoscelis neotesselatus)
Arkansas drainage in
Eastern Colorado
Hillsides, arroyos and canyons
associated w/ Arkansas River
valley
No No
Desert Massasauga
(Sistrurus tergeminus) Southeast Colorado Grasslands and sparse
shrublands No No
Eastern Hog-nosed Snake
(Heterodon platirhinos) Southeast Colorado Grasslands and shrublands No No
Hernandez's Short-horned
Lizard
(Phrynosoma hernandesi)
Lower elevations in
Colorado
Sparse grasslands and
shrublands at lower elevations No No
Long-nosed Leopard Lizard
(Gambelia wislizenii) Western Colorado Arid and semiarid plains and
shrublands No No
Ornate Box Turtle
(Terrapene ornata) Southeast Colorado Grasslands and plains
shrublands No No
Plains Hog-nosed Snake
(Heterodon nasicus) Southeast Colorado Grasslands and plains
shrublands No No
Round-tailed Horned Lizard
(Phrynosoma modestum)
Southeast Colorado
below 5,500’
Dry plains grasslands and
sandhills No No