Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFRONT RANGE STORAGE - PDP230011 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ECS REPORT Ecological Characterization Study Front Range Storage – RV & Boat Facility (JR Engineering, LLC) City of Fort Collins Larimer County, CO Prepared For: Joey Frank, PE JR Engineering, LLC. 2900 S. College Avenue, Suite 3D Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Prepared By: John Whiteman, with review by John Giordanengo AloTerra Restoration Services 320 E. Vine Drive, Suite 314 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Report Submitted by ________________ 8/08/2023_______ John Whiteman Date Restoration Ecologist I AloTerra Restoration Services (757)506-8117 jwhiteman@aloterraservices.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Property Location ................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description ............................................................................................................................... 3 ECS Study Methods ............................................................................................................................... 6 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 7 Proximity to Designated Natural Areas, Open Spaces, and Natural Habitats ............................ 8 Site Description ........................................................................................................................ 9 Site Conditions and Status ....................................................................................................... 9 Existing Soils ............................................................................................................................ 9 Existing Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 11 Topography............................................................................................................................ 11 Natural Habitats and Features with Significant Ecological Value ........................................... 12 Wetlands and Riparian Communities ..................................................................................... 14 Agricultural ............................................................................................................................ 15 Upland Plant Communities .................................................................................................... 15 Noxious Weeds ...................................................................................................................... 16 Wildlife .................................................................................................................................. 16 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................... 23 Development Activities ...................................................................................................................... 23 Summary............................................................................................................................................. 24 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................... 25 Appendix A (Photo-points) ................................................................................................................. 28 Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 1 INTRODUCTION This report constitutes the Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) required for the proposed development of a RV and boat storage facility within the Industrial zone district. This ECS was completed by AloTerra Restoration Services to address requirements set forth in Article 3, section 3.4.1 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. PROPERTY LOCATION The 105-acre property is located at the southeast corner of NE Frontage Road and an unnamed dirt road, with I-25 to the west, the Larimer and Weld Canal, and Core and Main Waterworks Equipment Supplier to the south, and agricultural land to the North and East. The Larimer and Weld Canal defines most of the southern edge of the property, while NE Frontage Rd. defines the western edge. The center of the property lies approximately at 40.60400556 N Latitude and -104.99567500 W Longitude. Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 2 Figure 1. Property Location PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Front Range Storage – RV and Boat Facility project (hereafter referred to as “the project”) includes the development of a 10-acre outdoor and covered RV and Boat Storage lot, with the additional 95 acres remaining irrigated agriculture. To meet development needs, the current infrastructure will likely be demolished and removed. There will be public access easements constructed on the south and east borders of the facility, a right of way on the north border, and an 80 foot I-25 setback on the west borer. The construction of a detention pond will also occur on the southeast corner of the facility, within the irrigated agricultural land (Figure 2). During site assessments, AloTerra recorded an urban plains forest within the proposed development containing 19 mature trees of primarily non-native species providing corridor habitat for a variety of wildlife species. As a result of the facility, the non-native urban forest will be permanently impacted. There is one individual wetland Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 3 on the property running adjacent to the Larimer and Weld Canal, comprising a total of 0.75 acres of wetland habitat (Figure 3). Current wetland vegetation will not be permanently impacted. SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 4 FRONT RANGE STORAGE - RV & BOAT STORAGE FACILITY CONCEPT SITE PLAN Figure 2. Property map showing conceptual site plan developed by JR Engineering. Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 5 STUDY METHODS In fulfillment of the ECS requirements set forth in Article 3, section 3.4.1 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, AloTerra staff acquired desktop data and conducted field surveys in support of our characterization of existing ecological and wildlife conditions, as well as other natural features occurring on the site. Ecological Field Assessment: 07/23/2023 Wildlife Field Review: 07/27/2023 Desktop analysis included reviews and interpretations of aerial imagery, assessment of regional drainage patterns, IPAC database review (USFWS), and Colorado’s Conservation Data Explorer from the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP), groundwater conditions, soil conditions, and location of nearby natural areas. Field assessments included qualitative rapid assessments of native plant communities, weed populations, wetland and riparian areas, wildlife habitat conditions, and indicators of current wildlife occupation. A formal wetland delineation was not performed, but rather a rapid wetland assessment was performed, as the proposed development activities do not impact existing wetlands. The rapid assessment of vegetation was performed to compile a list of dominant and co-dominant species, and species present in each community at lower percent cover. For the purposes of this study, a plant was considered dominant or co-dominant if its relative cover is greater than approximately 20%. Due to the homogeneity of the vegetation resulting from agricultural practices, ocular assessments were conducted to characterize communities. Based on general disturbed site conditions, and the presence of above ground features of the dominant species that are present, we are confident that this survey captured the species that together represent approximately 98% of the above ground biomass of the site. SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 6 RESULTS The results of the field and desktop assessments are described below, with the associated natural features represented in Figure 3. Approximately 83% of the project site is characterized as historic agricultural fields, with about 17% of the site dominated by exotic plants, or comprised of wetland and riparian communities in a degraded state (e.g., ditch-side wetlands where concrete rip-rap provides primary substrate). Figure 3. Mapped Vegetation Communities Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 7 Proximity to Designated Natural Areas, Open Spaces, and Natural Habitats The nearest Natural Area or Open Space is the Riverbend Ponds Natural Area approximately 2.25 miles to the southwest. The nearest Natural Habitats are listed as Aquatic (Larimer and Weld Canal) running directly though the southern border. Other natural habitats are Non-Native Upland Plains Forest along the northern border, and wetland habitats surrounding Boxelder Creek to the East (Figure 4). These habitats will not be permanently impacted from the proposed development activities. Figure 4. Proximity of Front Range ECS to designated natural areas, open spaces, and natural habitats. Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 8 Site Description From a historical perspective, prior to modern development, we believe the project site to have been dominated by short- grass prairie within the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion (level III ecoregion). Given the proximity of the property to the Boxelder Creek floodplain, it is possible that the adjacent old growth cottonwood trees and associated understory riparian vegetation typical of plains riparian ecosystems existed prior to agricultural development, though they may also be associated with historic agricultural ditches. Currently, the upland areas are dominated by agroeconomic species, annual weeds, and highly disturbed soils. The wetland and associated riparian areas are of low native species diversity, low community complexity, and low structural diversity. The opportunity for wildlife to thrive in the existing conditions is low, with little connectivity to adjacent habitats. Soil analysis revealed that agricultural disturbance has homogenized soils to generally a sandy clay loam. The greatest native habitat features include the facultative wetland community and the non-native urban forest on site. However, agricultural habitat is also very important to the agricultural roots and future sustainable development of Larimer County. Site Conditions and Status The general ecological functions provided by the site and its features The greatest ecological functions provided by the project site include sediment entrapment by the wetland and organic matter production by the non-native vegetation. The urban forest also provides habitat for some bird species and insects, though it is not a typical ecological condition of this ecoregion. The wetland and associated riparian habitat provide some minor wildlife benefits, though those benefits are limited due to the highly fragmented condition of this small patch surrounded by urban development. Existing Soils Desktop analysis via the USGS Web Soil Survey (WSS) revealed primarily clay loams with sandy loams. As these are historically mapped soils, agricultural disturbance has homogenized these soils. There are no hydric soils historically. Table 1. USGS WSS results Soil Type/Composition Map Symbol Slope Profile Parent Material Drainage Class Depth to Water Table Hydric Soil Ascalon sandy loam 7 0-3% Ap – 0 to 6”: sandy loam Bt1 – 6 to 12”: sandy clay loam Bt2 – 12 to 19”: sandy clay loam Bk – 19 to 35”: sandy clay loam C – 35 to 80”: sandy loam Wind- reworked alluvium and/or calcareous sandy eolian deposits Well drained More than 80” No Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 9 Soil Type/Composition Map Symbol Slope Profile Parent Material Drainage Class Depth to Water Table Hydric Soil Kim loam 53 1-3% H1 – 0 to 7”: loam H2 – 7 to 60”: clay loam Mixed alluvium Well drained More than 80” No Kim loam 54 3-5% H1 – 0 to 7”: loam H2 – 7 to 60”: clay loam Mixed alluvium Poorly drained More than 80” No Longmont clay 63 0-3% H1 – 0 to 60”: clay Clayey alluvium derived from shale Well drained 24 to 30” No Nunn clay loam 73 0-3% Ap – 0 to 6”: clay loam Bt1 - 6 to 10”: clay loam Bt2 - 10 to 26”: clay loam Btk - 26 to 31”: clay loam Bk1 - 31 to 47”: loam Bk2 - 47 to 80”: loam Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Well drained More than 80” No Nunn clay loam 74 1-3% Ap – 0 to 6”: clay loam Bt1 - 6 to 10”: clay loam Bt2 - 10 to 26”: clay loam Btk - 26 to 31”: clay loam Bk1 - 31 to 47”: loam Bk2 - 47 to 80”: loam Pleistocene aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits Well drained More than 80” No Satana loam 94 0-1% Ap - 0 to 10”: loam Bt - 10 to 17”: clay loam C - 17 to 79”: loam Alluvium Well drained More than 80 inches No Satana loam 95 1-3% Ap - 0 to 10”: loam Bt - 10 to 17”: clay loam C - 17 to 79”: loam Alluvium Well drained More than 80 inches No Table Mountain loam 105 0-1% H1 - 0 to 36”: loam H2 - 36 to 60”: clay loam Alluvium Well Drained More than 80 inches No Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 10 Figure 5. Soil Map based on analysis through USGS Web Soil Survey Existing Infrastructure Existing infrastructure includes access roads, two residential buildings, a 24” waterline that runs East/West through the center of the site, and two primary culverts. There are buried utilities on the project site, which will be identified in future design and construction phases. There is an electric utility on the eastern border, with subsequent transmission lines that parallel the water line. The Larimer and Weld Canal constitutes the other primary infrastructure of the site. Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 11 Topography The project site is generally flat (< 5% slope). Greater slopes exist on the banks of the Larimer and Weld Canal (~40%). A topographical map can be viewed in Figure 1. Natural Habitats and Features with Significant Ecological Value In this section we provide a checklist of required features as outlined in the ECS. No significant native plant communities were documented on the site apart from the facultative and mesic meadow vegetation associated with the wetland and ditch-side riparian community. The plant cover in the remainder of the site is dominated by non-native, agroeconomic species with low structural and biological diversity. Natural Communities or Habitats Aquatic: yes; Wetland and wet meadow: yes; Native grassland: no; Riparian forest: no; Urban plains forest: yes; Riparian shrubland: yes; Foothills forest: no; Foothills shrubland: no Special Features (enter present/absent, indicate on map, and describe details below): Significant remnants of native plant communities: absent Based on field conditions and analysis of aerial imagery, it is apparent no significant remnant native plant communities exist on site. The existing riparian and wetland plant associates are a result of human-created topographic (e.g., stormwater drainages), hydrologic (e.g., irrigated farmland), and surface water alterations via the creation of a ditch. Potential habitats and known locations of rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants: absent No species of rare plants were observed during site visits. Due to agricultural activities and other current site conditions, rare, sensitive, threatened, or endangered species are not likely to exist. Raptor habitat features, including nest sites, communal roost sites and key concentration areas: present Redtail hawks were heard. Concentration areas for nesting and migratory shorebirds and waterfowl: absent Not likely due to minimal aquatic habitat. However, ephemeral waterfowl use is likely in the canal, and one black cormorant was noticed flying along the ditch. Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 12 Migratory songbird concentration areas: absent Not likely due to agricultural activities. One eastern kingbird was seen. Key nesting areas for grassland birds: minor presence Not likely due to agricultural activities. Two mourning doves were seen flying through the agricultural field and occupying barren road conditions. Fox and coyote dens: absent Not noticed, but possible along canal banks. Mule deer winter concentration areas: minor presen ce Tracks were noticed along eastern road. However, due to habitat type and lack of connectivity to other deer habitats, this is likely not a high concentration area. Prairie dog colonies one (1) acre or greater in size: absent Not present. Concentration areas for rare, migrant, or resident butterflies: present Concentrations of resident butterflies were noticed in dense patches of alfalfa. Areas of high terrestrial or aquatic insect diversity: absent Minimal diversity was present however, but species noticed include grasshoppers, mosquitoes, syrphid flies, and bumble bees. Areas of significant geological or paleontological interest: absent A cultural and historical resources survey was not conducted as part of this assessment. However, based on the history of the site and constant agricultural alteration, it is unlikely the site harbors significant cultural or historical resources. The desktop analysis of soils revealed a diverse set of soils for a small area, which was not confirmed in the field due to homogeneity resulting from agriculture. Irrigation ditches that serve as wildlife corridors: present; not likely Irrigation ditch (Larimer and Weld Canal) is present, but does not act as a wildlife corridor due to steep slopes with high low diversity, high noxious species presence, and concrete rubble present throughout. Minimal potential exists for an important wildlife corridor. Other Important Features Unobstructed views of mountains, rivers, or other notable landscape features: present Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 13 Viewing west, there is an unobstructed view of the mountains including the Front Range and snow-covered peaks in July. Pattern, species and location of any significant non-native trees. Within the non-native urban plains forest, there is Norway spruce (Picea abies) and honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos). Within the wetland community there are Russian olive (Eleangus angustifolia) trees. Special habitat features The special habitat features on the project site include the wetland. However, the quality of the wetland is of poor condition and function, and is likely 100% supported by anthropogenic hydrology resulting from canal seepage, highway run-off, and/or overflow water from historic cattle troughs. Habitats and Plant Communities The subsections below outline the conditions of habitats existing on site: wetlands, agricultural communities, and uplands. Refer to Figure 3 for locations of these features. Wetland and Riparian Communities AloTerra identified wetlands on site, however a formal wetland delineation was not completed. Also completed, was a review of other aquatic features such as ponds and streams. Because the vegetation and hydrology were primarily non- native, and field indicators of an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) were weak due to the artificial concrete dominated, steep banks, we did not perform an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) survey. Wetland The wetland is likely an anthropogenic wetland supported by groundwater seepage from the Larimer and Weld Canal, run-off from adjacent I-25, and/or a historic cattle trough. However, the area was assessed based on the presence of Facultative (FAC), facultative-wet (FACW), and some obligate (OBL) vegetation. Very low plant and structural diversity exists in this wetland, with very poor wildlife value. The dominant vegetation across all strata (herb, vine, and shrub/tree) is comprised of plants common threesquare (Schoeonoplectus punges; OBL), arctic rush (Juncus arcticus; FACW), tall scouring rush (Equisetum hymale; FACW), showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa; FAC), and facultative upland (FACU) plants smooth brome (Bromus inermis), meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and Curly dock (Rumex crispus). Also present in the canopy was Russian olive (Eleangus angustifolia; FAC ) however there seemed to be a recent treatment and removal Russian olive. Smooth brome was the dominant cover, accounting for approximately 80% of vegetation. Soil pits were not dug to identify whether hydric soils were present. Larimer and Weld Canal Larimer and Weld Canal was anthropogenically created, likely to support agricultural lands in the plains of Colorado. Minimal native vegetation habitat was present along the banks or within the stream. The stream is characterized as Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 14 primarily non-native with minimal sinuosity, steep banks, poor floodplain connectivity, and construction debris serving as “riffle” structures and bank stabilization. Ecological value is low with minimal vegetative and structural diversity. Dominant species along canal banks include: reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae), Emory’s sedge (Carex emoryi), smooth brome (Bromus inermus), and kochia (Bassia scoparia). Additional present species include common mullein (Verbascum thapsis), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvensis), squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), curly dock (Rumex crispus), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), and various annual mustards. Agricultural Communities Agricultural Community - 1 The project site is highly disturbed and predominately vegetated with agroeconomic species. The community is densely vegetated forming a monoculture (~95%) of common oat (Avena sativa). Other species present in small quantities (mostly along borders) include corn (Zea mays), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), amaranth species (Amaranthus spp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon spp.), foxtail species (Setaria spp.), common purslane (Portulaca oleracea), and kochia (Bassia scoparia). Due to the high cover of non-native vegetation, and low diversity of structure, the wildlife value of this field is very low. Agricultural Community - 2 This community did not seem to be currently active as an agricultural field. Due to the cover, and presence of agroeconomic species, AloTerra assumes consistent use for agricultural purpose. Dominant species include alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and kochia (Bassia scoparia). Also present in small amounts was Bermuda grass (Cynodon spp.). Due to low species and structural diversity, the wildlife value is very low. Large amounts of alfalfa correlated to an increase in pollinator value from Agricultural Community – 1. Upland Plant Communities Kochia - 1 Upland areas are highly disturbed and predominately vegetated by non-native flora. Minimal pollinators were noticed, and species diversity was low. Due to the high cover of bare ground, high cover of non-native vegetation, and low diversity of structure, the wildlife value of this field is very low. Dominant species include Kochia (Bassia scoparia), goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), and field bindweed (Convululus arvensis). Additional species presence includes prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), foxtail species (Setaria spp.), sow thistle (Sonchus), cutleaf vipergrass (Scorzonera laciniata), poinsettia plant (Euphorbia spp.), and Russian thistle (Salsola iberica). Non-Native Grassland This upland community is in an extremely degraded state, with historic signs of cattle grazing (trough). Minimal species and structural diversity are present, with a dominance of non-native grasses. Approximately 80% of the community is Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 15 composed of smooth brome (Bromus inermis), with minor presence of meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis), Kochia (Bassia scoparia), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Wildlife value is very low. Non-Native Upland Plains Forest The community is anthropogenically created, surrounding the current infrastructure. As structural diversity is low throughout the property, this location provides the only nesting habitat for most birds. The 19 trees are a mix of Norway spruce (Picea abies), Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos). The understory is primarily smooth brome (Bromus inermis). Turf Grass Adjacent to the current infrastructure stands a mowed stand of turf grass which is approximately 90% smooth brome (Bromus inermis). Minimal other vegetation exists, with no other structural diversity. Wildlife value is very low. Staging Area This location is currently being used as a staging area for agricultural operations such as straw, equipment, fencing material, etc. It will likely continue to be used as staging and access during construction of the storage facility. Approximately 90% of the ground is bare, but there is a presence of weedy annuals and some native species. Species present at low concentrations include Kochia (Bassia scoparia), goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.), common sunflower (Helianthus nutans), and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Wildlife value is very low. NOXIOUS WEEDS A preliminary weed (non-native plants) list is provided in the wetland, riparian, and upland plant community sections above. Of the weeds present, those species of greatest management concern include smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), kochia (Bassia scoparia), and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinaceae). Wildlife Review Background The proposed Front Range Storage Facility (hereafter referred to as The Project) is in Fort Collins, Colorado on Larimer County land (Figure 1) at approximately 4,990 feet in elevation. A 105-acre property sits adjacent to I-25 north and Frontage Rd and is bordered by the Larimer and Weld County Canal to the south and E Co Rd 50 to the north. The Project largely consists of old agricultural fields and is surrounded by Industrial and private lands to the south and a small parcel of Colorado Division of Wildlife land to the north. Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 16 On July 27, 2023 AloTerra Restoration Services (AloTerra) determined an approximately 0.75-acre facultative wetland south of the canal that was dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermis) with pockets of showy (Asclepias speciosa), arctic rush (Juncus arcticus), horsetail (Equisetum hymale), and three-square (Schoenoplectus pungens). The canal that flows east through the southwestern corner is defined by steep grades lined with reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae), Emory’s sedge (Carex emoryi), and smooth brome (Bromus inermus) with low presence of horsetail (Equisetum spp.), and Kochia (Bassia scoparia). The adjacent upland is dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermis) with pockets of common sunflower (Helianthus nutans), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and alfalfa (Medicago sativa). The western portion of the project north of the canal contains existing structures surrounded by 19 mature deciduous and conifer trees. The species consist of one Norway spruce (Picea abies), Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos). To the east of the structures lies agricultural fields dominated by common oat (Avena sativa) with residual corn (Zea mays), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), amaranth species (Amaranthus spp.), and kochia (Bassia scoparia). The proposed construction plan comprises of developing 10 acres of land for a recreational vehicle and boat storage facility. Construction will take place north of the Larimer and Weld County Canal on the 104-acre property and will be accessed on the west side via NE Frontage Rd. The remaining 95 acres to the east side will remain and be used for agricultural purposes. A large detention pond is proposed to be built south of the facility and public access buffers are designed to line the facility on the south and east side. Figure 1: Location of the proposed Mountain Vista and Boat Storage Facility in Fort Collins, CO. Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 17 Purpose The purpose of this wildlife review is to assess the probable effects on federally listed species and sensitive species in The Project site, per Section 7 of the 1973 Endangered Species Act. Under the actions, consultations, and recommendations of the USFWS, in cooperation with Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The authorized organization must ensure, with the best scientific data available, that there will be no negative change or destruction to critical habitats in The Project area (USFWS, 2013). Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species On July 29, 2023 an official species list was documented by U.S Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/). Information was obtained by using known ranges of federally listed species in the project area. A list was also unofficially obtained from the 2016 Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) database by looking at known sightings of sensitive species near The Project area. CNHP’s Colorado's Conservation Data Explorer (CODEX) was utilized as an additional resource to assess the possibility for sensitive habitats and wildlife corridors. On July 27, 2023 an AloTerra Restoration Services field technician conducted a site visit in order to assess suitable habitat for known listed and sensitive animal species. Table 1 provides a record of the Federally listed species that could occur within the area of the proposed project (104 acres). The table includes (a) the common name of the species (b) the scientific name of the species (c) the status of the species in question (d) whether the species should be excluded, and (e) an explanation for the resulting exclusion. The reasoning of excluding species from the list of concerned species is given based off a variety of reasons including: 1) No suitable habitat was found during site visit, The range of the species in is such that the species is highly unlikely to not known near occur within The Project site; 2) No suitable habitat was found during the site review; and/or 3) No records for the species exist within The Project site. Table 1. Federally listed terrestrial and aquatic species that may occur or be affected by actions within the project. Common Name Species Status Species Excluded Reason for Exclusion Mammals Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened No Gray Wolf Canis Lupis Endangered Yes Species and habitat are not present. Birds Eastern Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Whooping crane Grus americana Endangered Yes Species and habitat are not present. Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Yes Range does not overlap with project site Fish Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Yes Species and habitat are not present. Greenback cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Plants Ute ladies-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Yes Survey conducted on July 23 and 27, 2023 found no presence of species Western prairie fringed orchid Plantanthera praeclara Threatened Yes Survey conducted on July 23 and 27, 2023 found no presence of species Sourced from IPAC :http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ website. Note- Some species may be affected downstream from water source. *There are no federally designated critical habitats within The Project area. Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 18 Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) Since 1998, the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei; PMJM) has been federally listed as threatened by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. In Colorado, they are also listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Needs, considered sensitive by the US Forest Service, and critically imperiled according to the CNHP. Declining PMJM populations are due to predation, habitat degradation, and fragmentation. In Colorado, the PMJM can be found up to elevations around 7,000 feet east of the Front Range, and west to the shortgrass prairie. (USFWS, 2013) Preble’s meadow jumping mice are found in areas with natural hydrological processes that create a dense riparian area with biologically diverse herbaceous plants. PMJM have been found in environments with a variety of plant species, frequently in areas with a thick layer of grasses and forbs that create cover. Studies show that the specific species composition of herbaceous plants is not as important to supporting populations, but that suitable habitat needs to have a higher percentage of ground cover in the vicinity to open water. Most PMJM were found within areas with a higher density of the shrub layer consisting mostly of willows. The mice use adjacent grassy uplands as far as approximately 300 feet from the 100-year floodplain to “hibernate” during the colder months. These nests are called hibernacula and can be found under the cover of snowberry, chokecherry, cottonwoods, gooseberry, and other willow species. Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (1973) prevents any funded or authorized agency to take action that would negatively affect lands labeled as PMJM Critical habitat. Critical Habitat is defined by areas currently occupied by the species or potential areas in which the species could establish. In 2013, The Fish and Wildlife Service revised the critical habitat designation for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (shapefiles found at: https://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/es/species/mammals/preble/CRITICAL%20HABITAT/CRITICALHABITATindex.htm.). The approximate 50,000 acres designated for critical habitat occur adjacent to streams and rivers in the Colorado foothill and mountain regions. PMJM critical habitat is located in Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer and Teller Counties (USFWS, 2014). Currently there is no critical habitat designated in The Project area (USFWS, 2010). The project area does not have optimal habitat due to lack of desired upland and riparian vegetation and desired hydrology, presence of PMJM were not noticed, and are not likely. Rare Plants The rare plant surveys conducted on July 23 and 27, 2023 resulted in no evidence of Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) or Western prairie fringed orchid (Plantanthera praeclara) in the project area. Sensitive Species The sensitive species list is derived from the U.S. Forest Service (https://www.fs.usda.gov) and Colorado Parks and Wildlife data on present sensitive species ranges and distributions (USFS, 2005). The Regional Forester’s sensitive list is evaluated by examining viable risk of species; these species are categorized as R2 sensitive, not R2 sensitive, or, not a concern. Suitable habitat was also determined by a site visit conducted by AloTerra Restoration Services on July 27, 2023. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act no activity that “takes, transports, barters, or exports the listed migratory birds or eagles is permissible unless it is sanctioned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The sensitive species list includes migratory birds that could use The Project area as a breeding, over-wintering, or stopover site. The species found in Table 2 below are compiled from lists of at-risk species that have potential habitat or occurrence in The Project area, specifically in the vicinity of the documented wetland. The table is organized as followed: (a) The common name Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 19 of the species, (b) The scientific name of the species, (c) The status of the species in question, (d) Whether or not the species should be excluded, and (e) The reasons why the species should be excluded. Table 2: Sensitive Species that could occur in the project area Common name Species Status Species Excluded Reasons for exclusion Mammals Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Forest Service Sensitive Yes Found in coniferous forest and mixed pine Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Forest Service Sensitive No Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus Forest Service Sensitive Yes No colonies were found in The Project site White-tailed prairie dog (Ocynomys leucurus) Forest Service Sensitive Yes No colonies were found in The Project site Kit fox Vulpes macrotis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Species and habitat are not present. Swift fox Vulpes velox Forest Service Sensitive No Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Forest Service Sensitive No Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Bird of Conservation Concern Yes Species and habitat are not present. Black swift Cypseloides niger Forest Service Sensitive Yes Species and habitat are not present. Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Bird of Conservation Concern No Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Species and habitat are not present. Sandhill crane Antigone canadensis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Species and habitat are not present. Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Forest Service Sensitive No Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Federal Species of Concern No Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Species and habitat are not present. Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Species and habitat are not present. Fish Plains minnow Hybognathus plactius State Endangered Yes Species and habitat are not present. Plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Species and habitat are not present. Amphibians Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens Forest Service Sensitive No Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 20 Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris Forest Service Sensitive Yes Species and habitat are not present. Boreal toad Anaxyrus boreas boreas Forest Service Sensitive Yes Species and habitat are not present. Wood frog Lithobates sylvatica Forest Service Sensitive Yes Species and habitat are not present. Insects Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate No Species list was sourced from U.S. Forest Service https://www.fs.usda.gov Rocky Mountain Region and USFWS Migratory birds for the Mountain-Prairie Region updated 2020. Migratory bird list was sourced from USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php. Sensitive Species Information Mammals Townsend Big-eared Bat The Townsend big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) range through western Canada down to Mexico and can be found up to 10,800 feet in elevation. There population numbers have declined due to roosting loss that have stemmed from large mine closures and cave disturbance. (Ellison et al., 2003). These bats are found in all habitat types across Colorado including riparian corridors, aspen stands, juniper woodlands, and sagebrush/grass steppe with lower percentages found in mixed conifer. (Ulrich 1986). The bats require habitat with spacious caves or cave-like structures for roosting and are very sensitive to disturbance at roost sites. Diet mostly consists of insect species, including moths, flies, and beetles and foraging locations are not found far from their roosts. (Adams 2003). The site visit conducted by AloTerra on July 27, 2023 found no suitable habitat near the proposed construction site. Due to the location of the proposed project the Townsend big-eared bat should not be adversely affected. Swift Fox Historically, swift fox (Vulpes velox) populations declined due to habitat fragmentation and loss, competition, trapping, and collateral damage when trying to kill wolves. In Colorado, they are listed as Special Concern and classified as a sensitive species by USFS Region 2. They range throughout western United States but are found in higher abundances in Colorado than Montana, Nebraska, and South Dakota, where they still have not reached historical population levels. The fox appears to not be affected by heavily grazed ecosystems and can be found in a variety of habitat types that include short-grass and mid-grass prairies, including a variety of agricultural land types. In these areas, vegetation is typically dominated by blue grama, buffalograss, western wheatgrass, and sagebrush. Fox dens have been found in areas with low vegetation on slight slopes in well-drained sites, with soil types that include silty loam or loam. The species are not directly reliant on riparian areas and can be found up to 3 miles away from any source of water. (Marks et al., 2005). No dens were sighted in The Project area. Due to the size of the proposed project area, there should be minimal impacts to swift fox populations. Birds Bald Eagle The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is found only in North America (CPW, n.d.). Populations declined in the early-mid 20th century due to impacts from pesticides (mainly DDT), disturbance and loss of trees for nesting habitat. The eagle was Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 21 consequently placed on the Endangered Species List. However, with the ban on the pesticide DDT and protection of nesting habitat, the eagles have substantially recovered, with Endangered status reduced to Threatened in 1995 and with further recovery was de-listed nationally. The bald eagle was removed from the Colorado list of threatened and endangered species in 2009. Bald eagles can be found throughout much of Colorado during both summer and winter and can be observed near reservoirs and major rivers such as the South Platte River and the Poudre. Eagles will roost and nest in large cottonwood trees, roosting communally in the winter for warmth. Bald eagles have a varied diet, with nests often found near water in tall trees, building nests that can be 7 to 8 feet across. (Swenson et al., 1986) No nests or signs of bald eagles were seen during site visits on July 23 or 27, 2023. Any bald eagles that may be using the area should not be negatively affected by the project, especially if large trees can be protected from construction activities. Long-billed Curlew Long-billed curlews (Numenius americanus) breed in shortgrass and mixed-grass habitats, and occasionally in agricultural fields. They feed primarily on grasshoppers and other invertebrates. The breeding range in extensive; from British Columbia to Northern Texas. In Colorado, they primarily occupy the eastern plains, with individual territory range of 15-35 acres. (Mowat 1984) The birds arrive in Colorado to breed beginning of April and chicks fledge by June whereby adults usher the young from short grass to taller grasslands to protect the young birds from predation. By mid-July the breeding adults leave behind the young of that year for winter grounds along the California-Baja coast. Although long-billed curlews nest in dry areas, they do appear to need significant bodies of standing water nearby for reproductive success (Jones et al., 2008). The July 23 and 27, 2023 surveys conducted by AloTerra Restoration Services found no nests. Due to the minor size and duration of the proposed construction, long-billed curlew populations should be minimally impacted. Northern Harrier The northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) is a “Tier 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need” in Colorado and a USFS Sensitive Species in Region 2. These raptors reside in a variety of habitats year-around, including grasslands and marshes. They reside throughout Colorado, with higher densities on the eastern plains, short-grass prairies, and western valleys. In the eastern plains these birds breed in a variety of ecosystems, preferring large wetlands (>250 acres) with dense vegetation (7-10 inches in height). Nests are found either on the ground or on a platform usually near open water. More specifically, nests are commonly found hidden in wetland vegetation, where cover is taller than 60 cm. (Slater, 2005) During the site visits on July 23 and 27, 2023 no northern harriers were sighted, and no suitable nest habitats were found. The project development is unlikely to negatively impact the species due to the species range and scope of the proposed construction. Swainson’s Hawk The Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is found throughout Colorado in open areas, usually native short and tall grass prairies, and agricultural lands and less likely to be found in mountainous regions. Since the 1980s, Swainson hawk populations declined in many parts of its range due to removal of riparian habitat, and lack of nest site availability (Bechard, 2010). The raptors’ home range varies between about 170 to 21,550 acres depending on the amount of forage and water available. Nests will frequently be found in a lone tree or post in these grasslands, but they can also be found along riparian areas among a cluster of trees within their home range. The nests are found in a variety tree species including cottonwood (Populus sp.), willows (Salix sp.), sycamores (Platanus sp.), and walnut (Juglans sp.) These hawks are a migratory bird species, listed on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, traveling from North America to breed in the summer to South America for wintering. (Woodbridge, 1998) This raptor has a high tolerance for human disturbance and can be found in areas with high human activity, although there can be nest abandonment if there is high-intensity disturbance or construction near a nesting tree. When nests occur, they are usually found 15-30 feet above ground. AloTerra Restoration Service’s wildlife technician conducted a field assessment on July 27, 2023 and found no nests in the project area. The Swainson’s hawk should not be negatively affected by the project due to the extensive size of their home range and minimal effect to potential nesting sites from construction activities. Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 22 Amphibians Northern Leopard Frog Northern leopard frogs (Lithobates blairi) are found statewide in Colorado and are currently listed as a Tier 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Population declines are due to climate change, invasive diseases, habitat loss, pollution, and predation. The frogs can be found in the western United States in elevations up to 11,000 feet. This species can inhabit a variety of riparian areas including stream channels, sloughs, reservoirs, gravel pits, and oxbows. For breeding and foraging purposes, the frogs prefer dense vegetation with heights around 6 to 12 inches and more than 30 percent cover. Northern leopard frog breeding sites commonly occur in semi-permanent ponds or wetlands with water depths to 25 to 40 inches. Water quality is also an important factor for most amphibians, needing unpolluted sites with water that is well oxygenated and pH balanced (6.1-7) (CPW, 2005). Through the winter, leopard frogs hibernate on the bottom of ponds located beneath 1- 1.5 feet of rock where water depths were at least 2 feet. Construction associated with the project will have minimal impacts on individuals given the time of the construction and minimal suitable winter habitat. Insects Monarch Butterfly The Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is a candidate for official listing as of December 2020 and is Region 2 Forest Service Sensitive Species in Colorado. (USFS 2015). It is estimated that eastern subspecies of Monarch populations have declined by over 80% over the last several decades due to climate change and loss of foraging and overwintering habitat. Studies have shown that habitat loss has been largely linked to agricultural development and weed management. (Reichstein et al., 1968). The Monarch butterfly is found in a wide variety of habitats in Colorado including meadows, prairies, montane, and alpine and can be found in elevations up to 11.000 feet. (Thogmartin et al., 2017). They are more commonly found in lower elevations in south/central Colorado where their larval plant is found during their latitudinal migration in mid-June to September. The butterflies lay their eggs on milkweeds (Family Asclepias), a plant that contains a milky latex substance called cardenolides that is toxic to humans and most other species. The Monarch’s lifecycle (from egg to caterpillar, to chrysalis, then back to butterfly) can take up to 40 days and be as quick as 17 days. The adults can live from 2 to 5 weeks, while some in colder climates can suspend their reproduction and live up to 9 months. (Thogmartin et al., 2017). On July 27, 2023 AloTerra recorded potential breeding sites south of the Larimer and Weld County Canal just south of the proposed construction area. Due to the schedule and location of the proposed construction the monarchs butterfly should not be adversely affected towards significant population decline. Wildlife Effects and Mitigation Measures In order to mitigate possible harm to wildlife during the proposed project construction, locations of listed or sensitive species must be identified and mitigation measures should be put in place. During the July 27, 2023 site visit, several nests were identified. Swallow nests were located under the bridge on the southwestern border and mourning dove and western kingbird nests were found in the spruce and pine trees near the building structures onsite. No ground nests, raptor nests or prairie dog colonies were found within The Project area. Many common animal species have been observed throughout The Project including garter snakes, American Robins, golden finches, and House sparrows but The Project does not provide any critical habitat to federally listed or sensitive species. The following mitigation measures should be implemented when possible. Mitigation Measures • Avoid destruction of any large trees that contain nests or cavities that could provide nesting sites. • A mitigation plan for any large trees impacted should be created and implemented. Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 23 • If sensitive species nesting activity is detected, ensure guidelines for species protection are met (i.e., relocation, avoidance of destruction). • If construction is taking place adjacent to a wetland employ best practices to mitigate harm. • Install silt fencing upslope of the wetland or adjacent to any drainage ways that lead to the wetland. • Protect upland vegetation bordering the wetland as a buffer to slow runoff and filter sediment. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES The project is currently in the Concept Site Planning phase. AloTerra is not aware of a current estimate for project construction timeline. Issues regarding the timing of development-related activities stemming from the ecological character of the area. Because no active raptor nests exist on site, and the site does not provide significant migratory bird habitat, it is not likely that construction limitations would be imposed. No other issues regarding timing are known currently. Further detail regarding timing estimates for mobilization to the site is required to assess potential risks. Measures needed to mitigate projected adverse impacts of development on natural habitats and features. Since there are no proposed impacts to the identified wetland, a formal wetland survey is not needed, and mitigation is not required. Due to the potential loss of nesting habitat resulting from the destruction of the non-native urban plains forest, AloTerra recommends that a mitigation plan is created and implemented. All removed trees should be replaced at a 1:1 rate with native plains tree species, such as plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides var. monilifera), and tall shrub species such as peachleaf willow (Salix amygdaloides), as well as native plains riparian shrubs. SUMMARY In summary, we believe that the proposed development, would have minimal impact to sensitive or rare wildlife or plants, natural features, and other important ecological functions and conservation elements in the region. A potential mitigation of lost trees with native species would create overall ecological uplift of the site and enhance the quality of plant communities and connectivity of habitat for wildlife. Because the site is currently predominately covered in invasive species, the value to wildlife is not significant cont aining minimal structure and function. Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 24 LITERATURE CITATED Adams, R.A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West: natural history, ecology, and conservation. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. Bechard, M.J., Houston, C.S., Sarasola, J.H., and England, A.S., (2010). Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), In: The Birds of North America (Rodewald, P. G., [Ed.]), Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/swahaw. Carey, C. 1993. Hypothesis concerning the causes of the disappearance of boreal toads from the mountains of Colorado. Conservation Biology 7:355-362. City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department. 2017. Fossil Creek Natural Areas Management Plan. Retrieved from: https://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/fc-plan-draft17.pdf?1495234374 Coleman, M. A. 2007. Life-history and ecology of the Greenback Cutthroat Trout. Prepared for the Greenback Cutthroat Trout Recovery Team. Retrieved on January 16, 2017 from http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/documents/2007 /GBN_ Life_ History-Coleman4-26-07 .pdf Colorado Division of Wildlife. 1997. Boreal Toad Recovery Plan. Denver, CO. 45 pp. + appendix. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), (2005). Leopard Frogs: Assessing Habitat Quality for Wildlife Species in Colorado Wetlands. Retrieved from https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/WetlandsProgram/PrioritySpecies/Factsheet-and-Habitat- Scorecard_LeopardFrogs.pdf. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), (n.d.) Species Profiles. Retrieved from http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), 2011. Wildlife Research Report. Lynx Conservation. Retrieved from https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Research/Mammals/Lynx/Ivan2011AnnualReportLynx.pdf Ellison, L.E., M.B. Wunder, C.A. Jones, C. Mosch, K.W. Navo, K. Peckham, J.E. Burghardt, J. Annear, R. West, J. Siemers, R.A. Adams, and E. Brekke. 2003. Colorado bat conservation plan. Colorado Committee of the Western Bat Working Group. Available online at: http://www.wbwg.org/colorado/colorado.htm. Gruver, J. C., and D. A. Keinath. 2006. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus towsendii): A Technical Conservation Aseessment. Retrieved from https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5181908.pdf. Jones, Stephanie L.; Nations, Christopher S.; Fellows, Suzanne D.; McDonald, Lyman L. (2008). "Breeding abundance and distribution of Long Billed Curlews (Numenius americanus) in North America" (PDF). Waterbirds. 31 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1675/1524-4695(2008)31[1:BAADOL]2.0.CO;2 Lambert, B. 2002. Colorado Natural Heritage Program boreal toad survey and monitoring project 2002. Prepared by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program for the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the U.S. Forest Service. Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 25 Marks, R., Paul, R., Rewa, C., and Peak, M., (2005). Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) Wildlife Habitat Council and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/Grasslands/SwiftFox.pdf Reichstein, T., Euw, J. von, Parsons, J. A., & Rothschild, M. (1968). Heart Poisons in the Monarch Butterfly. Science, 161(3844), 861–866. Swenson, J. E., K. L. Alt, and R. L. Eng. 1986. Ecology of bald eagles in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildl. Monogr. 95: 1 -46. Slater, G.L. and Rock, C., (2005). Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Retrieved from https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182007.pdf The National Wildlife Federation, (2013). North American River Otter. Retrieved from https://www.nwf.org/Educational-Resources/Wildlife-Guide/Mammals/north-american-river-otter. Thogmartin, W. E., Wiederholt, R., Oberhauser, K., Drum, R. G., Diffendorfer, J. E., Altizer, S., Taylor, O. R., Pleasants, J., Semmens, D., Semmens, B., Erickson, R., Libby, K., & Lopez-Hoffman, L. (2017). Monarch butterfly population decline in North America: Identifying the threatening processes. Royal Society Open Science, 4(9), 170760 Ulrich, T. 1986. Mammals of the Northern Rockies. Mountain Press, Missoula, MT U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Critical Habitat: Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse. USFWS Mountain-Prairie Region Endangered Species Program. http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/preble/CRITICAL_HABITAT/CRITIALHABITATindex.htm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Division of Congressional and Legislative Affairs. https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/migtrea.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Colorado. 4310- 55-S U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Colorado; Proposed Rule. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2009-10-08/pdf/E9-24113.pdf#page=2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Frequently Asked Questions and Recommended Conservation Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei), the Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis), and the Colorado butterfly plant (Guara neomexicana ssp. coloradensis) from Emergency Flood Response Activities Along Streams, Rivers, or Transportation Corridors in Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Ecological Services Field Office. September 24, 2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Greenback Cutthroat trout (Onycorhynchus clarkia stomias). Retrieved from https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2775. Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 26 U.S. Forest Service (USFS), (2015). Sensitive Species List: Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5390116 Woodbridge, B., (1998). Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In: The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: A Strategy for Reversing the Decline of Riparian-associated Birds in California. California Partners in Flight. Retrieved from http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html Young, M. K., and P. M. Guenther-Gloss. 2004. Population characteristics of greenback cutthroat trout in streams: their relation to model predictions and recovery criteria. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 24: 184-197. Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 27 APPENDIX A: PHOTO-POINTS Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 28 Photo-point: P-1 Description: View from NE Frontage Road of the canal in the foreground with Agricultural fields in the back. Photo-point: P-2 Description: View of non-native grasslands surrounding the wetland community. Photo-point: P-3 Description: View of steep, non-native canal banks with concrete rubble, and agricultural activity behind. Photo-point: P-4 Description: Typical view of Agricultural community – 1. Ecological Characterization Study, Front Range Storage Page 29 Photo-point: P-5 Description: View of Kochia – 1 community Photo-point: P-6 Description: View of Agricultural Community - 2 Photo-point: P-7 Description: View of mule deer tracks along road.