Survey of Critical Biological Resources, Cougar Trail ... · consisted of surveying the proposed new trail alignments which had been marked with flagging tape and pin flags prior

Cougar Trail Alignments, Ken Caryl Ranch, Jefferson County, CO 2014 i

Survey of Critical Biological Resources,

Cougar Trail Alignments,

Ken Caryl Ranch, Jefferson County, CO

October 2014

ii Colorado Natural Heritage Program © 2014

CNHP’s mission is to preserve the natural diversity of life by contributing the essential scientific foundation that leads to lasting conservation of Colorado's biological wealth.

Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources

Colorado State University 1475 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523

(970) 491-7331

Report Prepared for: Ken Caryl Ranch Master Association

7676 S. Continental Divide Road Littleton, Colorado 80127

Recommended Citation: Sovell, J. and P. Smith. 2014. Survey of Critical Biological Resources, Cougar Trail Alignments, Ken Caryl Ranch, Jefferson County, CO. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University,

Fort Collins, Colorado.

Front Cover: View looking north along the proposed Cougar Connector Trail at Ken Caryl Ranch, Jefferson County, CO May 19, 2014. © Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Pam Smith

Cougar Trail Alignments, Ken Caryl Ranch, Jefferson County, CO 2014 iii

Survey of Critical Biological Resources,

Cougar Trail Alignments, Ken Caryl Ranch,

Jefferson County, CO

John Sovell and Pam Smith

Colorado Natural Heritage Program

Warner College of Natural Resources

Department of Biology College of Natural Sciences

Colorado State University

Fort Collins, Colorado 80523

October 2014

iv Colorado Natural Heritage Program © 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Site Description ................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Methods ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Surveys .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Results .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Raptor Survey ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Botany Survey .................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................................. 14

Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................ 15

References ................................................................................................................................................................................ 17

Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 20

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. List of target raptor species for the proposed Cougar Trail alignments at Ken Caryl Ranch. 3

Table 2a. List of target plant communiities for the Cougar Trail alignments at Ken Caryl Ranch. ........ 6

Table 2b. List of target plant and plant communities for the Cougar Trail alignments at Ken Caryl Ranch. ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Table 3. Ken Caryl Ranch Cougar Trail alignment rare animals, plants and plant communities documented during the 2014 survey. ............................................................................................................................. 8

Table 4. Redstem springbeauty (Claytonia rubra) occurrences along the proposed East Cougar Trail alignment. ................................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Cougar Trail Alignments, Ken Caryl Ranch, Jefferson County, CO 2014 v

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the proposed new Cougar Trail alignments and the boundaries of the existing “Mount Lindo to Plymouth Mountain” and “Massey Draw” PCAs that overlap Ken Caryl Ranch boundary, Jefferson County, Colorado. ........................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Locations of Biological Resources of Conservation Concern on or near the proposed Cougar Trail alignments 2014. ........................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 3. Location of eight populations of Claytonia rubra along the proposed East Cougar Trail. .... 11

Figure 4. Recommended alignment for the proposed Cougar Trail system with the east portion of the Cougar Connector and north end of the East Cougar Trails removed from the alignment. ........... 17

LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1. View looking west from the southern portion of the survey area showing variety of communities. Photo: P. Smith May 19, 2014. ............................................................................................................... 3

Photo 2. Ken Caryl Ranger Gary Norton pointing to location of rare plant occurrence under flagged section of the proposed Cougar Trail alignment. P. Smith: May 19, 2014. ...................................................... 5

Photo 3. View northeast from southern end of East Cougar trail alignment with the Gambel oak shrubland community in the foreground and the lowland grasslands to the east. Photo: J. Sovell 2014. ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Photo 4. Redstem springbeauty on the proposed East Cougar Trail alignment. Photo: P. Smith 2014. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Photo 5. Wild blue toadflax and Missouri ball cactus near the proposed Cougar Trail alignment. P.Smith: May 19, 2014. ........................................................................................................................................................ 14

Cougar Trail Alignments, Ken Caryl Ranch, Jefferson County, CO 2014 1

INTRODUCTION The Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) is Colorado’s only comprehensive source of information on the status and location of Colorado’s rarest and most threatened species and plant communities. CNHP tracks and ranks Colorado’s rare and imperiled species and habitat and provides scientific information and expertise to promote the conservation of Colorado’s biological resources. Established in 1979, the CNHP is a non-profit scientific organization affiliated with the Warner College of Natural Resources at Colorado State University.

CNHP conducted field surveys of the proposed Cougar Trail alignments at Ken Caryl Ranch in Jefferson County, Colorado in May through July, 2014. Rare plant and animal species have been documented within the vicinity in previous surveys by CNHP, although the specific study area had not been previously surveyed. Critical biological resources were targeted for survey as directed by the Ken Caryl Ranch Master Association: 1) Survey for raptors and rare plants around planned alignments of East Cougar, Cougar Connector and East Cougar Alternate Trails: 2) Identify the potential impacts of the new trails to any raptors, rare plants, or plant communities discovered in the survey area; and 3) document other elements of biodiversity when ecountered. All surveys were conducted following methodologies requested by Ken Caryl Ranch Masters Association which closely match the protocols currently used by CNHP.

Site Description

The proposed East Cougar, Cougar Connector and East Cougar Alternate Trails are located on the edge of the Great Plains and the Front Range foothills. They lie west of the town of Littleton near one of the most densely populated regions of the State of Colorado. The area for the proposed new Cougar Trails includes easterly facing steep rocky foothill slopes covered with shrubland communities and and the adjacent valley with large areas of grass dominated meadows crossed by intermittent streams. The elevation ranges from 6,100 to 6,840 feet within the project area. There are three proposed segments for the alignment that include the East Cougar, Cougar Connector, and Alternate East Cougar Trails. These three trail sections amount to a total survey length of 16,143 linear feet. The three trails are located south of Massey Draw and east of the Manor Ridge and Bradford Place neighborhoods within Ken Caryl Ranch (Figure 1).

2 Colorado Natural Heritage Program © 2014

Figure 1. Location of the proposed new Cougar Trail alignments and the boundaries of the existing “Mount Lindo to Plymouth Mountain” and “Massey Draw” PCAs that overlap Ken Caryl Ranch boundary, Jefferson County, Colorado.

A previous survey (Sovell et al. 2012) identified the area west of the trails as Potential Conservation Areas (Figure 1). Potential Conservation Areas (PCAs) are delineated based on occurrences of rare plants, plant communities and animals and are drawn to capture ecological processes to support the continued existence of a particular element (i.e. rare plants, plant communities and animals of natural heritage significance). PCAs are developed using CNHP Methodology (Appendix 1) as a means for resource managers to protect critical biological resources.

The area of the proposed trail alignments supports a rich diversity of plants and animals. Within this small area, three major ecosystems come together: 1) Rocky Mountain Lower Montane – Foothill Shrublands; 2) Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland; and 3) Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont Grassland. Each system is further subdivided into a number of different plant communities some of which are described and tracked by CNHP. For example, the Western Great Plains Foothill and Piedmont Grassland ecosystem includes 14 different plant communities. This ecosystem runs the length of Colorado along the Front Range forming a matrix with the other plant communities.


METHODS

Surveys

1) Animal Survey

A target survey list of rare raptors with potential to occur at the Cougar Trail alignments was prepared using information from a literature review and data from the Colorado Natural Heritage Program data base (CNHP 2014). A list of the target species developed for the survey area is provided in Table 1. A view of the habitat in the southern portion of the survey area is provided in Photo 1.

Photo 1. View looking west from the southern portion of the survey area showing variety of communities. Photo: P. Smith May 19, 2014.

Table 1. List of target raptor species for the proposed Cougar Trail alignments at Ken Caryl Ranch.

Scientific name Common Name

Previously

known from

area

Habitat

Present

Documented

in 2014 Survey

Falco sparverius American Kestrel X X X Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle X X Accipiter cooperi Copper's Hawk X X X Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle X X X Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk X X Falco mexicanus Prairie Falcon X X


Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk X X X Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk X X Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk X X Otus asio Eastern Screech Owl X Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl X Bubo virginianus Great Horned Owl X X Asio otus Long-eared Owl X X Glaucidium gnoma Northern Pygmy Owl X X Aegolius acadicus Northern Saw-whet Owl X

Systematic ground searches were conducted by CNHP Zoologist John Sovell and Ken Caryl Ranch Open Space Manager Sean Warren on June 8 and July 3, 2014. The systematic ground searches consisted of surveying the proposed new trail alignments which had been marked with flagging tape and pin flags prior to the survey work. One observer was positioned on each side of the proposed trail, 50 meters from the center point of the trail. Investigators walked along the transect stopping every 150 meters for 5 minutes (observation point) and recording raptor nests and sightings and other animal sign. The 50 meter observation points were marked by pin flags prior to initiation of the survey work allowing investigators to find each point and to resurvey the exact same points during the second field visit. Field data on raptors was recorded on datasheets during the field survey. The information recorded included the station (observation point), date, all the birds observed, and signs of raptor activity including the occurrence of whitewash. This data has been included in the CD attachment.

2) Plant Survey

Prior to the ground survey, a target list was compiled of plant communities and rare plants tracked by the CNHP that have the potential to be in the survey area based on CNHP element occurrences, distribution maps and herbaria records (Tables 2a and 2b, respectively). Botanical surveys were conducted by systematic ground searches consisting of two trained observers (one a professional botanist) walking the flagged trail alignments at about 25-50 feet apart using the flagged area as the center line (Photo 2). These surveys occurred on two different dates (May 19th and July 8th, 2014), in order to capture the bloom times of the target species. A Ken Caryl Open Space Ranger was present during the May 19th survey. A Garmin GPS60/Cx was used to document the location of the rare plant occurrences and to create digital shapefiles. Photographs were taken that document the identification and habitat of the rare plants observed.


Photo 2. Ken Caryl Ranger Gary Norton pointing to location of rare plant occurrence under flagged section of the proposed Cougar Trail alignment. P. Smith: May 19, 2014.


Table 2a. List of target plant communiities for the Cougar Trail alignments at Ken Caryl Ranch.

Scientific name

Previously

known from

area

Habitat

Present

Documented

in 2014

Survey Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) - Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) Western Great Plains Herbaceous Vegetation

x x

Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) –Prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa longifolia) Herbaceous Vegetation

x

Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii)- Mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus) –Mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia montana) Shrubland

x

Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) – Mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus) Woodland

x

Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)- Mountain mahogany – (Cercocarpus montanus) Woodland

x

Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) – Mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia montana) Woodland

x x

Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) – Gambel oak (Quercus gambelli) Woodland

Aspen (Populus tremuloides) – Hazelnut (Corylus cornuta) Forest

x


Table 2b. List of target plant and plant communities for the Cougar Trail alignments at Ken Caryl Ranch.

Scientific name Common Name

Previously

known from

area

Habitat

Present

Documented

in 2014 Survey

Asclepias uncialis Dwarf milkweed x Agastache foeniculum Lavender hyssop x x Ambrosia linearis Plains ragweed x Aristida basiramea Forktip three-awn x x Astragalus plattensis Platte milkvetch x Astragalus sparsiflorus Front Range milkvetch Carex oreocharis Grassyslope sedge x Carex saximontana Rocky Mountain sedge x x Claytonia rubra Redstem springbeauty x x x Crocanthemum bicknellii Hoary frostweed x Eustoma grandiflorum Showy prairie gentian x Geranium bicknellii Bicknell’s cranesbill x x Goodyera repens Lesser rattlesnake plantain Liatris ligulistylis Rocky Mountain blazingstar x Lilium philadelphicum Wood lily x Malaxis brachypoda White adder’s mouth orchid Nuttallia speciosa Jeweled blazingstar x x Phacelia denticulata Rocky Mountain phacelia x x Oligoneuron album Prairie goldenrod x x Physaria bellii Bell’s twinpod x Physaria vitulifera Rydberg twinpod x Physaria x1 Twinpod x Polypodium saximontanum Rocky Mountain polypody x Potentilla ambigens Rocky Mountain cinquefoil x x Ribes americanum American current x Smilax lasioneura Carion flower x Spiranthes diluvialis Ute ladies’ tresses Sisyrinchium pallidum Pale blue-eyed grass Triodanus leptocarpa Venus’ looking glass x x Viola pedatifida Prairie violet x x


RESULTS As a result of the field surveys, there were five biological elements of conservation concern identified along the proposed Cougar Trail alignments on Ken Caryl Ranch Open Space (Table 3). These biological resources included four raptors and one rare plant species.

Table 3. Ken Caryl Ranch Cougar Trail alignment rare animals, plants and plant communities documented during the 2014 survey.

Scientific name Common Name Global

Rank*

State

Rank*

Federal

Status State

Status CNHP Tracking Status

Raptors

Aquila chrysaetos

Golden Eagle G5 S3S4B -- -- NOT TRACKED

Accipiter cooperii

Cooper’s Hawk

G5 S3S4B -- -- NOT TRACKED

Buteo jamaicensis

Red-tailed Hawk

G5 S5B -- -- NOT TRACKED

Falco sparverius

American Kestrel

G5 S5B -- -- NOT TRACKED

Vascular Plants

Claytonia rubra

redstem springbeauty

G5 S1 -- -- FULLY TRACKED

*Information on the global, state and federal rankings are provided in Appendix 1.

Raptor Survey

The observation points where raptors were observed are concentrated along two portions of the proposed trail alignments; the Cougar Connector Trail and the south end of East Cougar Trail (Figure 2). There are four tracked species of birds that have been previously reported in the vicinity of this property (Table 1). The raptor survey did not document any CNHP fully-tracked animal species on the proposed Cougar Trail alignments, but did document four raptors on the target list that are not tracked species and are considered to be of conservation concern (Table 3). The Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) are the rarest species observed. Both are globally demonstrably secure (G5), but their breeding populations are vulnerable in Colorado (S3S4B). One Golden Eagle was observed flying within the vicinity of the south half of the proposed East Cougar Trail alignment during both survey days and Cooper’s Hawks were observed over the Gambel oak shrubland towards the south end of the proposed East Cougar Trail alignment during the May 8th survey. The breeding location of the observed Golden Eagle, was documented on a cliff due east of the Lockheed Martin facility within South Valley Park (Lisa Kluesner Jeffco Open Space pers. comm.). The nest is located approximately 0.5 miles from the south end of the proposed East Cougar Trail alignment. American Kestrel’s (Falco sparverius) were observed at multiple locations of the proposed Cougar Connecter Trail alignment and were probably nesting within the


cottonwoods along the drainage south of the proposed trail alignment, although no nest was located. Additionally, Red-tailed Hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) were observed at a distance within the area and whitewash from raptor activity was observed along the rocks above Massey Draw approximately 0.1 miles west of the north end of the proposed East Cougar Trail alignment. There were also numerous tree cavities in the cottonwood forest along the lower portion of Massey Draw approximately 0.05 miles from the proposed Alternate East Cougar Trail alignment that are suitable for nesting American Kestrel.

Figure 2. Locations of Biological Resources of Conservation Concern on or near the proposed Cougar Trail alignments 2014.

The area proposed for the Cougar Trail alignments exhibited a great deal of raptor activity during the surveys. The area of the alignments supports foraging and nesting habitat for numerous species of raptors. One of these species, the Golden Eagle, is extremely sensitive to human induced disturbances including urbanization and human-population growth which has rendered areas historically used by Golden Eagles unsuitable, particularly along the Colorado Front Range (Kochert et al. 2002). All along the Front Range urbanization is occurring in Golden Eagle habitat. Golden


Eagles are not as tolerant as Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) to human activity and are losing both nest sites and foraging habitat to urbanization. Additionally, energy developments including oil and gas facilities and wind farms have been linked to Golden Eagle deaths. The expansion of these two energy industries in Colorado over the last decade has increased Golden Eagle mortality, caused declines in populations, and increased the conservation concern for this species in the State. The area of the proposed trail alignments is still used by Golden Eagles, with a pair nesting approximately 0.5 miles from portions of the alignment, while much of the surrounding area is no longer suitable habitat because of human induced changes to the landscape. The Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) recommends seasonal restrictions to human encroachment within ½ mile radius of active nests from December 15 through July 15 (CPW 2014).

The other species of raptors observed are fairly tolerant of human activity. Populations of Cooper’s Hawks are thriving, owing mostly to this species’ ability to exploit human-altered landscapes. However, localized threats include the loss of appropriate woodlots for breeding and foraging (Curtis et al 2006). The American Kestrel is apparently secure throughout its North American range and although individual responses to human disturbance vary, Kestrel’s are generally quite tolerant of humans (Smallwood and Bird 2002). Maintaining nesting cavities is probably most important for conserving Kestrel’s. In Colorado, Red-tailed Hawks are tolerant of motorized human activity where food availability is high, but their winter perch-site selection was altered slightly in response to human recreation along well-used hiking trails (Preston and Beane 2009).

Botany Survey

The foothill shrublands and grasslands across the site contain a wide variety of plants including some rare and uncommon species and are part of a fairly unfragmented landscape (Photo 3). The grasslands across the survey area include a mix of native bunch grasses and non-native sod grasses that account for a large percentage of the cover. The common native species include: Needle-and-thread (Hesperostipa comata), western wheat (Pascopyrum smithii), green needle grasses (Achnatherum spp.), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) and blue grama (Chondrosum gracile). Sun sedge (Carex inops subsp. heliophila) was very common in the grassland meadows. The most common grass is a non-native species, smooth brome (Bromopsis (Bromus) inermis), which dominates not only the open grassy meadows but much of the Gambel oak understory. Other non-native grasses include: Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), cheatgrass Anisantha (Bromus) tectorum, and field brome (Bromus arvensis). Two fern species encountered along the trail in the shaded areas that could be impacted by the trail include fragile fern (Cystopteris fragilis), and woodsia (Woodsia oregana). Both of these species are globally demonstrably secure (G5), but the conservation status of both plants has not been assessed in Colorado and they are unranked in the State (SNR).

Common forbs (including subshrub species) include: yucca (Yucca glauca), prickly pear cacti (Opuntia macrorhiza, O. polyacantha), alyssum (Alyssum simplex), purple milkvetch (Astragalus agrestis), Drummond’s milkvetch (Astragalus drummondii), western groundsel (Senecio integerrimus), Nuttall’s larkspur (Delphinium nuttallii), cleavers (Galium aparine), Oregon grape


(Mahonia repens), western waterleaf (Hydrophyllum fendleri), white-flowered peavine (Lathyrus leucanthus) and blue-eyed Mary (Collinsia parviflora). Common woody species include Gambel oak (Quercus gambellii), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata), Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum), chokecherry (Padus virginiana), ninebark (Physocarpus monogynus) and wax current (Ribes cernuum). Aspen (Populus tremuloides) and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) were observed in the wetter drainages to the north.

Of the targeted plant species and plant communities, eight occurrences of one species of rare plant was documented that is tracked by CNHP, the redstem spring beauty (Claytonia rubra-Photo 4) and no tracked plant communities. The redstem spring beauty populations are clustered along the south half of the proposed East Cougar Trail alignment within the Gambel oak shrubland with one population located on the north end on the rim of Massey Draw (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Location of eight populations of Claytonia rubra along the proposed East Cougar Trail.


Photo 3. View northeast from southern end of East Cougar trail alignment with the Gambel oak shrubland community in the foreground and the lowland grasslands to the east. Photo: J. Sovell 2014.

Most of the area proposed for the trail alignments is in the lower elevation grasslands with lesser area in the Gambel oak shrublands upslope and wetter areas that were observed in a number of small foothill drainages originating from the west.

Photo 4. Redstem springbeauty on the proposed East Cougar Trail alignment. Photo: P. Smith 2014.


The eight populations of redstem springbeauty (Claytonia rubra) were found within or closely associated with the Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) communities and they ranged in size from 10 individuals to over 200 individuals (Table 4 and Figure 3). Six of the populations were directly on proposed trail alignments and the other two were within 10-15 feet.

Table 4. Redstem springbeauty (Claytonia rubra) occurrences along the proposed East Cougar Trail alignment.

Waypoint Number of Individuals Comments

Claytonia rubra

Clru1 10 Oak litter understory, on trail alignment




Clru5 ~200 Estimated number of individuals in area of 50 feet x 20 feet along the trail alignment in oak understory

Clrv6 20 Rocky outcrop near gulch, semi-open near oaks

Clru7 10 About 10 feet downslope from trail alignment, damp area with Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum)

Clru8 ~100 Estimated number of individuals in area of 10 feet x 5 feet on trail alignment, area of very old oak trees

There were two species observed in the vicinity of the trail but not directly on the alignment that are not tracked by CNHP but are considered to be “infrequent” in the state: wild blue toadflax (Linaria canadensis var. texana) and Missouri foxtail cactus (Escobaria missouriensis). Wild blue toadflax was observed near the proposed trail but not directly on the flagged alignment on a rock outcrop at the very south end of the East Cougar Trail (Photo 5). Wild blue toadflax is considered infrequent (Weber and Wittmann 2012) and only known from Boulder, Denver, Jefferson and Larimer Counties (Ackerfield 2013, USDA PLANTS, SEINet). Missouri foxtail cactus is known from about 10 counties and is infrequently encountered in outwash mesas and on the plains (Weber & Wittman 2012).


Photo 5. Wild blue toadflax and Missouri ball cactus near the proposed Cougar Trail alignment. P.Smith: May 19, 2014.

DISCUSSION The foothill plant communities associated with Colorado’s Front Range are the dominant feature of the landscape within the area of the proposed Cougar Trail alignments. The oak and mixed mountain mahogany shrublands and grasslands of the foothills ecosystem are some of the most threatened habitats in Colorado because the foothills are desirable places to live for humans and are under extreme development pressures (CNHP and TNC 2008). Efforts to preserve unfragmented sections of the foothills ecosystem, especially in northern and central Colorado, are extremely important to the continued existence of the local plant communities. The pressures from a growing population and related development are degrading the system at an alarming rate. These foothills are known to contain rare species and are considered important to rare raptors, songbirds, and butterflies and numerous species of rare plants and rare plant communities (CNHP 2014).

The foothills in the area of the proposed trail alignments contain two Potential Conservation Areas (PCA) developed by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (Sovell et al 2012). Two rare plant communities and one rare plant have been identified within the Massey Draw PCA and one rare songbird is identified in the Mount Lindo to Plymouth Mountain PCA, both of which lie adjacent and west of the proposed East Cougar Trail alignment. The rankings for PCAs are B1-B5, with B1 indicative of outstanding biodiversity significance and B5 of general or statewide biodiversity significance. The Massey Draw PCA has been ranked B3, indicating a high degree of biodiversity, while the Mount Lindo to Plymouth Mountain PCA is ranked B5 or indicating general biodiversity significance. (Details on determination of CNHP Biodiversity B ranks are included in Appendix 1.)

Small foothill drainages occur along the foothills complex in this area that are significant features, important to enhancing plant and wildlife diversity. It is along these riparian areas that songbird


diversity flourishes and plants associated with wetter habitats persist within this arid and dry climate. Wetlands account for about 2% of Colorado's lands and 90% of wildlife are dependent on these areas. The proposed Cougar Trail alignments cross these drainages at 11 different points.

Fragmentation of natural areas in general by recreational trails is a concern in both urban and natural environments in the Front Range foothills and the grassland ecosystem. Hiking trails create breaks that allow a corridor for predators (native and non-native), increasing their access to interior areas (Collinge 2009). The site of the proposed alignments is located close to residential developments that could include populations of free ranging domestic animals, especially dogs and cats.

“Recreation such as hiking, jogging, horseback riding, and photography can cause negative ecological impacts to ecosystems, plants and wildlife including trampling, soil compaction, erosion, disturbance (due to noise & motion), pollution, nutrient loading, and introduction of non-native invasive plant species. Corridors such as trails and roads also cause habitat fragmentation and edge effects which may impact some plant and animal species” (Jordan 2000).

Snetsinger and White (2009) found that even minor impacts from human disturbances can be magnified when either species or individuals are stressed from existing habitat loss or other risk factors. They conclude that it is important that the entire context of cumulative impacts be considered when recreational trails and other developments are being considered in areas to protect natural resources. Golden Eagles are particularly sensitive to human disturbance and are likely to abandon their nests during the incubation period if disturbed (Palmer 1988). Human disturbance is reported to be responsible for 85 percent of Golden Eagle nesting failures along the Front Range of the Rockies in Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico (Palmer 1988). The potential exists that development of the south end of the East Cougar Trail as it is currently aligned, could disturb the nesting activities of the Golden Eagles in South Valley Park. The core activity area of breeding Golden Eagles is about two square miles in size (Kochert et al. 2002). It is within this area that the eagles will concentrate their foraging activities. The south end of the proposed trail development is the only location within the immediate area of the eagle nest that has not been urbanized by either recreational trails or residential development. This location is the only local spot where foraging activities of the Golden Eagle can occur without potential for disturbance from either recreation or residential activity and as such, is important habitat for the nesting eagles.

RECOMMENDATIONS The entire trail alignment is fragmenting an previously unfragmented section of the Ken Caryl property. If it is required to constructed the trail as currently aligned, then it is very important that impacts be as low as possible to protect the biological diversity present. Based on our observations, and the location of the proposed trail alignments in relation to the presence of the rare and uncommon plants, Golden Eagles and the other raptors that indicate a healthy functioning system, we recommend the following:


Reduce redundant or unnecessary trails. The north section has two access points from the north. Consideration could be given to the trail alignments that cause the least amount of fragmentation and disturbance do to the northern section. The alignments that includes the East Cougar Alternate and the west portion of the Cougar Connector Trails would be preferred.

Reduce the number of crossings to the wetland drainages especially at the higher elevations. This will reduce the impacts to the plant communities in the drainages. The further east, the smaller the drainage, and the less the impacts. Currently, the proposed trails make at least 11 drainage crossings (Figure 4).

Avoid fragmentation of undisturbed areas when possible Most of the impacts on the northern section of the proposed East Cougar Trail can largely be avoided by utilizing the East Cougar Alternate and the west portion of the Cougar Connector. The northern most portion of the proposed East Cougar Trail fragments an undisturbed Gambel oak shrubland, crosses over a redstem spring beauty (Claytonia rubra) population that occurs there, and crosses a steep slope, making any trail more prone to erosion. Placement and design of this segment with slope, topographic position, and runoff patterns that minimize the potential for erosion is desirable.

The south terminus of the East Cougar Trail, as it is currently located, will likely be the most impactful area. It is within the line-of-site of the Golden Eagle nest and barely outside the CPW recommended avoidance buffer of ½ mile (Figure 4). About half of the drainage crossings and fragmentation of intact habitats, including impacts to the rare plant occurrences are along this proposed southern section of the East Cougar Trail alignment.


Figure 4. Recommended alignment for the proposed Cougar Trail system with the east portion of the Cougar Connector and north end of the East Cougar Trails removed from the alignment.

The foothills transition zone on the Colorado Front Range is among the rarest and most threatened of the ecological zones in Colorado. Grasslands, in general are regarded as the most imperiled ecosystems in North America (Knopf and Samson 1997). Efforts to protect the remaining undeveloped foothill ecosystems from the fragmenting effects of recreation and urbanization that has damaged many other similar areas along the Front Range is exceedingly important. Such protection will assist in conserving the critical biological resources persisting in unfragmented foothill communities that still exist, like the Golden Eagles nesting at this site.

REFERENCES Ackerfield, J. 2013. Plant Identification: The Flora of Colorado. Colorado State University Herbarium 512 pp.


Collinge, S.K. 2009. Ecology of Fragmented Landscapes. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore MD

CNHP [Colorado Natural Heritage Program]. 2014. Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS). Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Colorado Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy. 2008. A Biodiversity Scorecard for Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, and The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colorado. Unpublished report to The Nature Conservancy, draft of October 20, 2008.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2014. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptores. Unpublished report by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 6060 Broadway, Denver, Colorado. Accessed online at http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/RaptorBufferGuidelines2008.pdf

Curtis, O. E., R. N. Rosenfield and J. Bielefeldt. 2006. Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/075doi:10.2173/bna.75

Jordan, M. 2000. Ecological Impacts of Recreational Use of Trails: A Literature Review. The Nature Conservancy, 250 Lawrence Hill Road, Cold Spring Harbor, New York. Accessed online October 01, 2014: http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/795/files/ecologicalimpactsrecreationalusers.pdf

Knopf, F. and F.B. Samson. 1997. Ecology and Conservation of Great Plains Vertebrates. Ecological Studies 123. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Kochert, M. N., K. Steenhof, C. L. Mcintyre and E. H. Craig. 2002. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/684doi:10.2173/bna.684

Palmer, R. S., editor. 1988. Handbook of North American birds, R. S. Palmer (ed.). Volume 5. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 463 p.

Preston, C. R. and R. D. Beane. 2009. Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/052doi:10.2173/bna.52

Smallwood, J. A. and D. M. Bird. 2002. American Kestrel (Falco sparverius), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/602doi:10.2173/bna.602

Snetsinger, S.D. and K. White. 2009. Recreation and Trail Impacts on Wildlife Species of Interest in Mount Spokane State Park. Pacific Biodiversity Institute, Winthrop, Washington. 60 p. http://www.parks.wa.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/4673

http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/RaptorBufferGuidelines2008.pdf

http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/RaptorBufferGuidelines2008.pdf

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/075


http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/795/files/ecologicalimpactsrecreationalusers.pdf







http://www.parks.wa.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/4673


Sovell, J., P. Smith, D. Culver, S. Panjabi and J. Stevens. 2012. CNHP Final Report: Survey of Critical Biological Resources of Jefferson County, Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, CO. prepared for Jefferson County Open Space and US EPA. 322 pp.

SEINet 2014. Southwest Environmental Information Network specimen database; http://swbiodiversity.org/portal/index.php Accessed July 2014.

USDA, NRCS. 2014. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 1 October 2014). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA.

Weber, William Alfred, and Ronald C. Wittmann. Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope. University Press of Colorado, 2012.

http://swbiodiversity.org/portal/index.php%20Accessed%20July%202014

http://plants.usda.gov/


APPENDIX 1

Understanding Natural Heritage Program Conservation Status


Understanding Natural Heritage Conservation Status

Introduction Determining which plants and animals are thriving and which are rare or declining is crucial for targeting conservation towards those species and habitats in greatest need. As a member of the international Natural Heritage Network governed by NatureServe, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) employs a standardized method for evaluating the relative imperilment of both species and ecological communities. These assessments lead to the designation of a conservation status rank. For plant and animal species these ranks provide an estimate of extinction risk, while for ecological communities they provide an estimate of the risk of elimination. There are currently no conservation status ranks determined for Ecological Systems.

Conservation status ranks are based on a one to five scale, ranging from critically imperiled (G1) to demonstrably secure (G5). Status is assessed and documented at three distinct geographic scalesglobal (G), national (N), and state/province (S). These status assessments are based on the best available information, and consider a variety of factors such as abundance, distribution, population trends, and threats.

Interpreting NatureServe Conservation Status Ranks The conservation status of a species or community is designated by a number from 1 to 5, preceded by a letter reflecting the appropriate geographic scale of the assessment (G = Global), N = National, and S = Subnational). The numbers have the following meaning:

1 = critically imperiled 2 = imperiled 3 = vulnerable to extirpation or extinction 4 = apparently secure 5 = demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure.

For example, G1 would indicate that a species is critically imperiled across its entire range (i.e., globally). In this sense the species as a whole is regarded as being at very high risk of extinction. A rank of S3 would indicate the species is vulnerable and at moderate risk within a particular state or province, even though it may be more secure elsewhere. Extinct or missing species and ecological communities are designated with either an "X" (presumed extinct or extirpated) if there is no expectation that they still survive, or an "H" (possibly extinct or extirpated) if they are known only from historical records but there is a chance they may still exist. Other variants and qualifiers are used to add information or indicate any range of uncertainty. See the following conservation status rank definitions for complete descriptions of ranks and qualifiers.

Global, National, and Subnational Assessments The overall status of a species or ecological community is regarded as its "global" status; this rangewide assessment of condition is referred to as its global conservation status rank (G-rank). Because the G-rank refers to the species or community as a whole, each species or community can have just a single global conservation status rank. The condition of a species or community can vary from one country to another, and national conservation status ranks (N-rank) document its condition in a particular country. A species or community can have as many N-ranks as countries in which it occurs.

Similarly, status can vary by state or province, and thus subnational conservation status ranks (Srank) document the condition of the species or community within a particular state or province.


Again, there may be as many subnational conservation status ranks as the number of states or provinces in which the species or community occurs.

National and subnational status ranks must always be equal to or lower than the global rank for a particular species or community (in this sense a "lower" number indicates greater risk). On the other hand, it is possible for a species or community to be more imperiled in a given nation or state/province than it is range-wide. As an example, a species may be common and secure globally (G5), vulnerable in the United States as a whole (N3), yet critically imperiled in Florida (S1). In the United States and Canada, the combination of global and subnational ranks (e.g., G3S1) are widely used to place local priorities within a broader conservation context.

Global conservation status assessments generally are carried out by NatureServe scientists with input from relevant natural heritage member programs and experts on particular taxonomic groups. NatureServe scientists similarly take the lead on national-level status assessments in the United States and Canada, while state and provincial member programs assess the subnational conservation status for species found in their respective jurisdictions.

Status assessments ideally should reflect current conditions and understanding, and CNHP, NatureServe, and other member programs of the Natural Heritage Network strive to update these assessments with new information from field surveys, monitoring activities, consultation, and scientific publications. Persons with significant new or additional information are encouraged to contact CNHP.

To ensure that CNHP and other Natural Heritage Network programs databases represent the most current knowledge throughout the network, data exchanges are carried out each year between each individual program and NatureServe. The national and global conservation status ranks (G-ranks and N-Ranks) presented in CNHP data are therefore only as current as the last data exchange with NatureServe. Although most global and national conservation status ranks do not change frequently, the most current G-ranks and N-Ranks can be obtained directly from NatureServe.

Status Assessment Criteria Use of standard criteria and rank definitions makes CNHP and NatureServe conservation status ranks comparable across organism types and political boundaries. Thus, G1 has the same basic meaning whether applied to a salamander, a moss species, or a forest community. Similarly, an S1 has the same meaning whether applied to a species or community in Manitoba, Minnesota, or Mississippi.

This standardization in turn allows NatureServe scientists to use the subnational ranks assigned by local natural heritage programs to help determine and refine global conservation status ranks. Status assessments are based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative information. Criteria for assigning ranks serve as guidelines, however, rather than arithmetic rules. The assessor's overall knowledge of the species or community allows them to weigh each factor in relation to the others, and to consider all pertinent information. The general factors considered in assessing species and ecological communities are similar, but the relative weight given to each factor differs.

For species, the following factors are considered in assessing conservation status: • total number and condition of occurrences (e.g., populations) • population size • range extent and area of occupancy • short- and long-term trends in the above factors


• scope, severity, and immediacy of threats • number of protected and managed occurrences • intrinsic vulnerability • environmental specificity

For ecological communities, the association level generally is the classification unit assessed and ranked (see Classification of Ecological Communities for an explanation of the classification hierarchy). Only global conservation status ranks are currently available for ecological communities on NatureServe Explorer. The primary factors for assessing community status are:

Species known in an area only from historical records are ranked as either H (possibly extirpated/possibly extinct) or X (presumed extirpated/presumed extinct). Other codes, rank variants, and qualifiers are also allowed in order to add information about the element or indicate uncertainty. See the lists of conservation status rank definitions for complete descriptions of ranks and qualifiers.

• total number of occurrences (e.g., forest stands) • total acreage occupied by the community.

Secondary factors include the geographic range over which the community occurs, threats, and integrity of the occurrences. Because detailed information on these factors may not be available, especially for poorly understood or inventoried communities, preliminary assessments are often based on the following:

• geographic range over which the community occurs • long-term trends across this range • short-term trend (i.e., threats) • degree of site/environmental specificity exhibited by the community • imperilment or rarity across the range as indicated by subnational ranks assigned by local

natural heritage programs.

Relationship to Other Status Designations CNHP and NatureServe conservation status ranks are a valuable complement to legal status designations assigned by government agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service in administering the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Canadian Wildlife Service in administering the Species at Risk Act (SARA). CNHP and NatureServe status ranks, and the documentation that support them, are often used by such agencies in making official determinations, particularly in the identification of candidates for legal protection. Because the Natural Heritage Network assessment procedures-and subsequent lists of imperiled and vulnerable species-have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes, and taxonomic coverage than official lists of endangered and threatened species, they do not necessarily coincide.

The IUCN Red List of threatened species is similar in concept to NatureServe's global conservation status assessments. Due to the independent development of these two systems, however, minor differences exist in their respective criteria and implementation. Recent studies indicate that when applied by experienced assessors using comparable information, the outputs from the two systems are generally concordant. NatureServe is an active participant in the IUCN Red List Programme, and in the region covered by NatureServe Explorer, NatureServe status ranks and their underlying documentation often form a basis for Red List threat assessments.

Global Conservation Status Definitions


Listed below are definitions for interpreting NatureServe global conservation status ranks (G-ranks). These ranks reflect an assessment of the condition of the species or ecological community across its entire range. Where indicated, definitions differ for species and ecological communities.

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Ranks Rank Definition GX Presumed Extinct (species)— Not located despite intensive searches and virtually no

likelihood of rediscovery.

Eliminated (ecological communities)—Eliminated throughout its range, with no restoration potential due to extinction of dominant or characteristic species.

GH Possibly Extinct (species)— Missing; known from only historical occurrences but still some hope of rediscovery.

Presumed Eliminated— (Historic, ecological communities)-Presumed eliminated throughout its range, with no or virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered, but with the potential for restoration, for example, American Chestnut Forest.

G1 Critically Imperiled—At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors.

G2 Imperiled—At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors.

G3 Vulnerable—At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.

G4 Apparently Secure—Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.

G5 Secure—Common; widespread and abundant.

Variant Ranks Rank Definition G#G# Range Rank—A numeric range rank (e.g., G2G3) is used to indicate the range of

uncertainty in the status of a species or community. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank (e.g., GU should be used rather than G1G4).

GU Unrankable—-Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. Whenever possible, the most likely rank is assigned and the question mark qualifier is added (e.g., G2?) to express uncertainty, or a range rank (e.g., G2G3) is used to delineate the limits (range) of uncertainty.

GNR Unranked—Global rank not yet assessed. GNA Not Applicable—A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is not a

suitable target for conservation activities.

Rank Qualifiers Rank Definition ? Inexact Numeric Rank—Denotes inexact numeric rank (e.g., G2?) Q Questionable taxonomy—Taxonomic distinctiveness of this entity at the current level is

questionable; resolution of this uncertainty may result in change from a species to a subspecies or hybrid, or the inclusion of this taxon in another taxon, with the resulting taxon having a lowerpriority conservation priority.

C Captive or Cultivated Only—At present extant only in captivity or cultivation, or as a reintroduced population not yet established.


Infraspecific Taxon Conservation Status Ranks Infraspecific taxa refer to subspecies, varieties and other designations below the level of the species. Infraspecific taxon status ranks (T-ranks) apply to plants and animal species only; these T-ranks do not apply to ecological communities. Rank Definition T# Infraspecific Taxon (trinomial)—The status of infraspecific taxa (subspecies or varieties)

are indicated by a "T-rank" following the species' global rank. Rules for assigning T-ranks follow the same principles outlined above for global conservation status ranks. For example, the global rank of a critically imperiled subspecies of an otherwise widespread and common species would be G5T1. A T-rank cannot imply the subspecies or variety is more abundant than the species as a whole-for example, a G1T2 cannot occur. A vertebrate animal population, such as those listed as distinct population segments under under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, may be considered an infraspecific taxon and assigned a T-rank; in such cases a Q is used after the T rank to denote the taxon's informal taxonomic status. At this time, the T rank is not used for ecological communities.

National and Subnational Conservation Status Definitions Listed below are definitions for interpreting CNHP and NatureServe conservation status ranks at the national (N-rank) and subnational (S-rank) levels. The term "subnational" refers to state or provincelevel jurisdictions (e.g., Colorado, Ontario). Assigning national and subnational conservation status ranks for species and ecological communities follows the same general principles as used in assigning global status ranks. A subnational rank, however, cannot imply that the species or community is more secure at the state/province level than it is nationally or globally (i.e., a rank of G1S3 cannot occur), and similarly, a national rank cannot exceed the global rank. Subnational ranks are assigned and maintained by CNHP.

National (N) and Subnational (S) Conservation Status Ranks Status Definition NX SX Presumed Extirpated—Species or community is believed to be extirpated from the

nation or state/province. Not located despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered.

NH SH Possibly Extirpated (Historical)—Species or community occurred historically in the nation or state/province, and there is some possibility that it may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20-40 years. A species or community could become NH or SH without such a 20-40 year delay if the only known occurrences in a nation or state/province were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. The NH or SH rank is reserved for species or communities for which some effort has been made to relocate occurrences, rather than simply using this status for all elements not known from verified extant occurrences.

N1 S1 Critically Imperiled—Critically imperiled in the nation or state/province because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state/province.

N2 S2 Imperiled—Imperiled in the nation or state/province because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state/province.

N3 S3 Vulnerable—Vulnerable in the nation or state/province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or


other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. N4 S4 Apparently Secure—Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due

to declines or other factors. N5 S5 Secure—Common, widespread, and abundant in the nation or state/province. NNR SNR Unranked—Nation or state/province conservation status not yet assessed. NU SU Unrankable—Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially

conflicting information about status or trends. NNA SNA Not Applicable —A conservation status rank is not applicable because the species is

not a suitable target for conservation activities. N#N# S#S#

Range Rank —A numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank (e.g., SU is used rather than S1S4).

Not Provided

Species is known to occur in this nation or state/province. Contact the relevant natural heritage program for assigned conservation status

Breeding Status Qualifiers Qualifier Definition B Breeding—Conservation status refers to the breeding population

of the species in the nation or state/province. N Nonbreeding—Conservation status refers to the non-breeding population of the species in

the nation or state/province.

M Migrant—Migrant species occurring regularly on migration at particular staging areas or concentration spots where the species might warrant conservation attention. Conservation status refers to the aggregating transient population of the species in the nation or state/province.

Note: A breeding status is only used for species that have distinct breeding and/or non-breeding populations in the nation or state/province. A breeding-status S-rank can be coupled with its complementary non-breeding-status S-rank if the species also winters in the nation or state/province, and/or a migrant-status S-rank if the species occurs regularly on migration at particular staging areas or concentration spots where the species might warrant conservation attention. The two (or rarely, three) status ranks are separated by a comma (e.g., "S2B,S3N" or "SHN,S4B,S1M").

Other Qualifiers Rank Definition ? Inexact or Uncertain—Denotes inexact or uncertain numeric rank. (The ? qualifies the

character immediately preceding it in the S-rank.)

Reference The information on this page is a slightly modified version of the NatureServe Conservation Status page found on the NatureServe Explorer website at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm .


Introduction to Potential Conservation Areas (PCAs) In order to successfully protect populations or occurrences, it is necessary to delineate conservation areas. These potential conservation areas focus on capturing the ecological processes that are necessary to support the continued existence of a particular element of natural heritage significance. Potential conservation areas may include a single occurrence of a rare element or a suite of rare elements or significant features. The goal of the process is to identify a land area that can provide the habitat and ecological processes upon which a particular element or suite of elements depends for their continued existence. The best available knowledge of each species' life history is used in conjunction with information about topographic, geomorphic, and hydrologic features, vegetative cover, as well as current and potential land uses. The proposed boundary does not automatically exclude all activity. It is hypothesized that some activities will cause degradation to the element or the process on which they depend, while others will not. Consideration of specific activities or land use changes proposed within or adjacent to the preliminary conservation planning boundary should be carefully considered and evaluated for their consequences to the element on which the conservation unit is based. Element Occurrence An Element Occurrence (EO) is defined as a specific example of an Element at a geographic location characterized by a habitat capable of sustaining or contributing to the survival of the species, or by a landscape that supports the ecological integrity of the community. Element A biodiversity unit of conservation attention and action for which a Heritage Conservation Status Rank is assigned. Elements may be recognized at any taxonomic level (although typically are only recognized at the species level and below for organisms, and the Ecological System, Alliance, and Association levels for communities). Elements may also be recognized for biodiversity units for which there is no systematic hierarchy (e.g., animal assemblages, community Complexes). Elements may be native or exotic at a particular location and collectively represent the full array of biological and ecological diversity for the geographic area covered. Elements may serve as the targets of Heritage inventory. Typically, these targets include native, regularly occurring vulnerable species (including infraspecific taxa and populations) and exemplary ecological communities.