No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC17-248 ECO Resolution LLCAGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO AND ECO -RESOLUTIONS, LLC THIS AGREEMENT ('Agreement') is effective as of 07/11/2017 , by and between ECO - RESOLUTIONS, LLC a Colorado limited liability company (hereinafter "Consultant' or "Conntractor") and Eagle County, Colorado, a body corporate and politic (hereinafter "County'). RECITALS WHEREAS, County desires to have Consultant identify and map wildlife linkages in the I-70 corridor region of Eagle County, conduct stakeholder review and validation process and develop mitigation, protection and management recommendations for properties within identified wildlife linkage areas (the "Project'); and WHEREAS, Countyhired Consultant in 2016 to complete Phase 1 of the Project, which included submittal of the Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Phase 1, Identification of Habitat Linkages across Major Highways in October 2016; and WHEREAS, Consultant is authorized to do business in the State of Colorado and has the time, skill, expertise, and experience necessary to provide the Services as defined below in paragraph 1 hereof; and WHEREAS, this Agreement shall govern the relationship between Consultant and County in connection with the Services. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the following promises Consultant and County agree as follows: Services. Consultant agrees to diligently provide all services, labor, personnel and materials necessary to perform and complete the services described in Exhibit A (" Services") which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Services shall be performed in accordance with the provisions and conditions of this Agreement. a. The Parties agree that the Services shall also include the following: i. Meeting Attendance. Consultant shall meet regularly with the Eagle County Project Representative (defined below) to discuss progress, present material and innfonnationn and respond to questions regarding the Project. C 17-248 ii. Preparation of Deliverables: Consultant shall prepare the documents and reports set forth in Exhibit A and shall recommend alternative solutions as necessary. Further, Consultant shall review documents and reports with the Eagle County Project Representative so as to eliminate areas of conflict and for coordination, accuracy and completeness. b. Consultant agrees to furnish the Services no later than June 30, 2018, and in accordance with the schedule established in Exhibit B. If no completion date is specified in Exhibit B, then Consultant agrees to furnish the Services in a timely and expeditious manner consistent with the applicable standard of care. By signing below Consultant represents that it has the expertise and personnel necessary to properly and timely perform the Services. C. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B and the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement shall prevail. d. Consultant agrees that it will not enter into any consulting or other arrangements with third parties that will conflict in any manner with the Services. 2. Project Representatives. Adam Palmer, Sustainability Director, shall be Eagle County's Project Representative and shall be Consultant's contact with respect to this Agreement. Julia Kintsch shall be Consultant's Project Representative and shall be County's contact with respect to this Agreement. Neither County's nor Consultant's representative shall be changed with less than ten (10) days prior written notice to the other party. 3. Term of the Ag figment. This Agreement shall commence upon the date first written above, and subject to the provisions of paragraph 12 hereof, shall continue in full force and effect through the 3e of June, 2018. 4. Extension or Modification. This Agreement may not be amended or supplemented, nor may any obligations hereunder be waived, except by agreement signed by both parties. No additional services or work performed by Consultant shall be the basis for additional compensation unless and until Consultant has obtained written authorization and acknowledgement by County for such additional services in accordance with County's internal policies. Accordingly, no course of conduct or dealings between the parties, nor verbal change orders, express or implied acceptance of alterations or additions to the Services, and no claim that County has been unjustly enriched by any additional services, whether or not there is in fact any such unjust enrichment, shall be the basis of any increase in the compensation payable hereunder. In the event that written authorization and acknowledgment by County for such additional services is not timely executed and issued in strict accordance with this Agreement, Consultant's rights with respect to such additional services shall be deemed waived and such failure shall result in non-payment for such additional services or work performed. Compensation. County shall compensate Consultant for the performance of the Services in a sum computed and payable as set forth in Exhibit A. The performance of the Services under this Agreement z Eagle County Pmf Serviocs Final 5/14 shall not exceed $27,758. Consultant shall not be entitled to bill at overtime and/or double time rates for work done outside of normal business hours unless specifically authorized in writing by County. a. Payment will be made for Services satisfactorily performed within thirty (30) days of receipt of a proper and accurate invoice from Consultant. All invoices shall include detail regarding the hours spent, tasks performed, who performed each task and such other detail as County may request. b. Any out-of-pocket expenses to be incurred by Consultant and reimbursed by County shall be identified on Exhibit A. Out-of-pocket expenses will be reimbursed without any additional mark-up thereon and are included in the not to exceed contract amount set forth above. Out-of-pocket expenses shall not include any payment of salaries, bonuses or other compensation to personnel of Consultant. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for expenses that are not set forth on Exhibit A unless specifically approved in writing by County. C. If, at any time during the term or after termination or expiration of this Agreement, County reasonably determines that any payment made by County to Consultant was improper because the Services for which payment was made were not performed as set forth in this Agreement, then upon written notice of such determination and request for reimbursement from County, Consultant shall forthwith return such payment(s) to County. Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, unexpended funds advanced by County, if any, shall forthwith be returned to County. d. County will not withhold any taxes from monies paid to the Consultant hereunder and Consultant agrees to be solely responsible for the accurate reporting and payment of any taxes related to payments made pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. e. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, County shall have no obligations under this Agreement after, nor shall any payments be made to Consultant in respect of any period after December 31 of any year, without an appropriation therefor by County in accordance with a budget adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in compliance with Article 25, title 30 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the Local Government Budget Law (C.R.S. 29-1-101 et. seq.) and the TABOR Amendment (Colorado Constitution, Article X, Sec. 20). b. Sub -consultants. Consultant acknowledges that County has entered into this Agreement in reliance upon the particular reputation and expertise of Consultant. Consultant shall not enter into any sub -consultant agreements for the performance of any of the Services or additional services without County's prior written consent, which may be withheld in County's sole discretion. County shall have the right in its reasonable discretion to approve all personnel assigned to the subject Project during the performance of this Agreement and no personnel to whom County has an objection, in its reasonable discretion, shall be assigned to the Project. Consultant shall require each sub -consultant, as approved by County and to the extent of the Services to be performed by the sub -consultant, to be bound to Consultant by the terms of this Agreement, and to assume toward Consultant all the obligations and responsibilities which Consultant, by this Agreement, assumes toward County. County shall have the right (but not the obligation) to enforce the provisions of this Agreement against any sub -consultant hired by Consultant 3 Eagle County Pmf Serviocs Final 5114 and Consultant shall cooperate in such process. The Consultant shall be responsible for the acts and omissions of its agents, employees and sub -consultants or sub -contractors. 7. Insurance. Consultant agrees to provide and maintain at Consultant's sole cost and expense, the following insurance coverage with limits of liability not less than those stated below: a. Types of Insurance. i. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by law. ii. Auto coverage with limits of liability not less than $1,000,000 each accident combined bodily injury and property damage liability insurance, including coverage for owned, hired, and non -owned vehicles. iii. Commercial General Liability coverage to include premises and operations, personal/advertising injury, productslcompleted operations, broad form property damage with limits of liability not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate limits. b. Other Requirements. i. The automobile and commercial general liability coverage shall be endorsed to include Eagle County, its associated or affiliated entities, its successors and assigns, elected officials, employees, agents and volunteers as additional insureds. ii. Consultant's certificates of insurance shall include sub -consultants as additional insureds under its policies or Consultant shall furnish to County separate certificates and endorsements for each sub -consultant. All coverage(s) for sub -consultants shall be subject to the same minimum requirements identified above. Consultant and sub -consultants, if any, shall maintain the foregoing coverage in effect until the Services are completed. In addition, all such policies shall be kept in force by Consultant and its sub -consultants until the applicable statute of limitations for the Project and the Services has expired. iii. Insurance shall be placed with insurers duly licensed or authorized to do business in the State of Colorado and with an "A.M. Best" rating of not less than A -VII. iv. Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary and non-contributory with respect to all other available sources. Consultant's policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation against Eagle County. V. All policies must contain an endorsement affording an unqualified thirty (30) days' notice of cancellation to County in the event of cancellation of coverage. vi. All insurers must be licensed or approved to do business within the State of Colorado and all policies must be written on a per occurrence basis unless otherwise provided herein. a Eagle County Pmf Serviocs Final 5/14 vii. Consultant's certificate of insurance evidencing all required coverage(s) is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Upon request, Consultant shall provide a copy of the actual insurance policy and/or required endorsements required under this Agreement within five (5) business days of a written request from County, and hereby authorizes Consultant's broker, without further notice or authorization by Consultant, to immediately comply with any written request of County for a complete copy of the policy. viii. Consultant shall advise County in the event the general aggregate or other aggregate limits are reduced below the required per occurrence limit. Consultant, at its own expense, will reinstate the aggregate limits to comply with the minimum limits and shall furnish County a new certificate of insurance showing such coverage. ix. If Consultant fails to secure and maintain the insurance required by this Agreement and provide satisfactory evidence thereof to County, County shall be entitled to immediately terminate this Agreement. X. The insurance provisions of this Agreement shall survive expiration or termination hereof. xi. The parties hereto understand and agree that the County is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Agreement, the monetary limitations or rights, immunities and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to County, its affiliated entities, successors or assigns, its elected officials, employees, agents and volunteers. xii. Consultant is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits except as provided by the Consultant, nor to unemployment insurance benefits unless unemployment compensation coverage is provided by Consultant or some other entity. The Consultant is obligated to pay all federal and state income tax on any moneys paid pursuant to this Agreement. S. Indemnification. The Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless County, and any of its officers, agents and employees against any losses, claims, damages or liabilities for which County may become subject to insofar as any such losses, claims, damages or liabilities arise out of, directly or indirectly, this Agreement, or are based upon any performance or nonperformance by Consultant or any of its sub -consultants hereunder; and Consultant shall reimburse County for reasonable attorney fees and costs, legal and other expenses incurred by County in connection with investigating or defending any such loss, claim, damage, liability or action. This indemnification shall not apply to claims by third parties against the County to the extent that County is liable to such third party for such claims without regard to the involvement of the Consultant. This paragraph shall survive expiration or termination hereof. 9. Ownership of Documents. All documents prepared by Consultant in connection with the Services shall become property of County. Consultant shall execute written assignments to County of all rights (including common law, statutory, and other rights, including copyrights) to the same as County shall S Eagle County Pmf Serviocs Final 5/14 from time to time request. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "documents" shall mean and include all reports, plans, studies, tape or other electronic recordings, drawings, sketches, estimates, data sheets, maps and work sheets produced, or prepared by or for Consultant (including any employee or subconsultant in connection with the performance of the Services and additional services under this Agreement). 10. Notice. Any notice required by this Agreement shall be deemed properly delivered when (i) personally delivered, or (ii) when mailed in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, or (iii) when delivered by FedEx or other comparable courier service, charges prepaid, to the parties at their respective addresses listed below, or (iv) when sent via facsimile so long as the sending party can provide facsimile machine or other confirmation showing the date, time and receiving facsimile number for the transmission, or (v) when transmitted via e-mail with confirmation of receipt. Either party may change its address for purposes of this paragraph by giving five (5) days prior written notice of such change to the other party. COUNTY: Eagle County, Colorado Attention: Adam Palmer, Sustainability Director 500 Broadway Post Office Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Telephone: 970-328-8734 Facsimile: 970-328-7185 E -Mail: adam.palmer@eaglecounty.us With a copy to: Eagle County Attorney 500 Broadway Post Office Box 850 Eagle, Co 81631 Telephone: 970-328-8685 Facsimile: 970-328-8699 E -Mail: atty @eaglecounty.us CONSULTANT: ECO -Resolutions, LLC Attention: Julia Kintsch 812 Aspen Road Golden, CO 80401 Telephone: 303-818-1460 E -Mail: julia@eco-resolutions.com 6 Eagle County Pmf Serviocs Final 5/14 it. Coordination. Consultant acknowledges that the development and processing of the Services for the Project may require close coordination between various consultants and contractors. Consultant shall coordinate the Services required hereunder with the other consultants and contractors that are identified by County to Consultant from time to time, and Consultant shall immediately notify such other consultants or contractors, in writing, of any changes or revisions to Consultant's work product that might affect the work of others providing services for the Project and concurrently provide County with a copy of such notification. Consultant shall not knowingly cause other consultants or contractors extra work without obtaining prior written approval from County. If such prior approval is not obtained, Consultant shall be subject to any offset for the costs of such extra work. 12. Termination. County may terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time and for any reason, with or without cause, and without penalty therefor with seven (7) calendar days' prior written notice to the Consultant. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant shall immediately provide County with all documents as defined in paragraph 9 hereof, in such format as County shall direct and shall return all County owned materials and documents. County shall pay Consultant for Services satisfactorily performed to the date of termination. 13. Venue, Jurisdiction and Applicable Law. Any and all claims, disputes or controversies related to this Agreement, or breach thereof, shall be litigated in the District Court for Eagle County, Colorado, which shall be the sole and exclusive forum for such litigation. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted under and shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. 14. Execution by Counterparts; Electronic Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. The parties approve the use of electronic signatures for execution of this Agreement. Only the following two forms of electronic signatures shall be permitted to bind the parties to this Agreement: (i) Electronic or facsimile delivery of a fully executed copy of the signature page; (ii) the image of the signature of an authorized signer inserted onto PDF format documents. All documents must be properly notarized, if applicable. All use of electronic signatures shall be governed by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, C.R.S. 24-71.3-101 to 121. 15. Other Contract Requirements. a. Consultant shall be responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the Services, including all supporting data or other documents prepared or compiled in performance of the Services, and shall correct, at its sole expense, all significant errors and omissions therein. The fact that the County has accepted or approved the Services shall not relieve Consultant of any of its responsibilities. Consultant shall perform the Services in a skillful, professional and competent manner and in accordance with the standard of care, skill and diligence applicable to Consultants performing similar services. Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and personnel necessary to properly perform the Services and covenants that its professional personnel are duly licensed to perform the Services within Colorado. This paragraph shall survive termination of this Agreement. 7 Eagle County Prof Serviocs Final 5114 b. Consultant agrees to work in an expeditious manner, within the sound exercise of its judgment and professional standards, in the performance of this Agreement. Time is of the essence with respect to this Agreement. C. This Agreement constitutes an agreement for performance of the Services by Consultant as an independent contractor and not as an employee of County. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to create a relationship of employer-employee, master -servant, partnership, joint venture or any other relationship between County and Consultant except that of independent contractor. Consultant shall have no authority to bind County. d. Consultant represents and warrants that at all times in the performance of the Services, Consultant shall comply with any and all applicable laws, codes, rules and regulations. e. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all other agreements or understanding between the parties with respect thereto. f. Consultant shall not assign any portion of this Agreement without the prior written consent of the County. Any attempt to assign this Agreement without such consent shall be void. g. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective permitted assigns and successors in interest. Enforcement of this Agreement and all rights and obligations hereunder are reserved solely for the parties, and not to any third party. h. No failure or delay by either party in the exercise of any right hereunder shall constitute a waiver thereof. No waiver of any breach shall be deemed a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach. i. The invalidity, illegality or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision hereof. j. Consultant shall maintain for a minimum of three years, adequate financial and other records for reporting to County. Consultant shall be subject to financial audit by federal, state or county auditors or their designees. Consultant authorizes such audits and inspections of records during normal business hours, upon 48 hours' notice to Consultant. Consultant shall fully cooperate during such audit or inspections. k. The signatories to this Agreement aver to their knowledge, no employee of the County has any personal or beneficial interest whatsoever in the Services or Property described in this Agreement. The Consultant has no beneficial interest, direct or indirect, that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services and Consultant shall not employ any person having such known interests. s Eagle County Pmf Serviocs Final 5/14 1. The Consultant, if a natural person eighteen (18) years of age or older, hereby swears and affirms under penalty of perjury that he or she (i) is a citizen or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (ii) to the extent applicable shall comply with C.R.S. 24-76.5-103 prior to the effective date of this Agreement. 16. Prohibitions on Government Contracts. As used in this Section 16, the term undocumented individual will refer to those individuals from foreign countries not legally within the United States as set forth in C.R.S. 8-17.5-101, et. seq. If Consultant has any employees or subcontractors, Consultant shall comply with C.R.S. 8-17.5-101, et. seq., and this Agreement. By execution of this Agreement, Consultant certifies that it does not knowingly employ or contract with an undocumented individual who will perform under this Agreement and that Consultant will participate in the E -verify Program or other Department of Labor and Employment program ("Department Program") in order to confirm the eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment to perform Services under this Agreement. a. Consultant shall not: i. Knowingly employ or contract with an undocumented individual to perform Services under this Agreement; or ii. Enter into a subcontract that fails to certify to Consultant that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an undocumented individual to perform work under the public contract for services. b. Consultant has confirmed the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment to perform Services under this Agreement through participation in the E -Verify Program or Department Program, as administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security. Information on applying for the E -verify program can be found at- http://www. dhs. ovlxprevprot1programslgc_1185221678150.shtm C. Consultant shall not use either the E -verify program or other Department Program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while the public contract for services is being performed. d. If Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the public contract for services knowingly employs or contracts with an undocumented individual, Consultant shall be required to: i. Notify the subcontractor and County within three (3) days that Consultant has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an undocumented individual; and H. Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to subparagraph (i) of the paragraph (d) the subcontractor does not stop s Eagle County Pmf Serviocs Final 5/14 employing or contracting with the undocumented individual; except that Consultant shall not terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three (3) days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an undocumented individual. e. Consultant shall comply with any reasonable request by the Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that the department is undertaking pursuant to its authority established in C.R.S. 8-17.5-102(5). f. If Consultant violates these prohibitions, County may terminate the Agreement for breach of contract. If the Agreement is so terminated specifically for breach of this provision of this Agreement, Consultant shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to County as required by law. g. County will notify the Colorado Secretary of State if Consultant violates this provision of this Agreement and County terminates the Agreement for such breach. [REST OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 10 Eagle County Prof Serviocs Final 5/14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first set forth above. Attest: s,o..-s—.—... w By: Regina O'Brien, Clerk to the Board COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, By and Through Its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 0 ]illian H. Ryan, Chair CONSULTANT: ECO- ESQ j,71rTr%3�j! T T �GGLGGl� �L�2:�CLGL By: . ss=,=ea.=e a<da Print Name: Julia Kintsch Title: Principal and Ecologist ii Eagle County Pmf Serviocs Final 5/14 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES and FEES This scope of work includes all the tasks required to identify and map wildlife linkages in the I-70 corridor region of Eagle County referred to as Next Steps and Phase 2 from the Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Phase 1, Identification of Habitat Linkages Across Major Highways attached as EXHIBIT D hereto. Assumptions • Eagle County will provide GIS layers such as boundaries, parcel data. • GIS mapping of wildlife linkages will be based on the compilation and analysis of existing data sets. • Eagle County will collaborate on GIS mapping and printing, stakeholder engagement and workshop logistics. • The County will host, manage logistics and assume costs for all stakeholder workshops and the community open house. • Target species for identifying wildlife movement areas may include: o Canadalynx o Mule deer o Elk o Slack bear o Mountain lion o Medium-sized fauna (e.g., coyote, fox) o Small fauna (e.g., small mammals, reptiles and amphibians) Tasks Task 1: Phase 2 kickoff meeting with expanded group of stakeholders. • Consultant Hours: S o Travel Time: 4 • Subcontractor Hours: 2 o Travel Time: 4 Task Z: Conduct linkage analysis for other county roads identified by stakeholders in Phase 1 [Cottonwood Pass, Gypsum Creek and Colorado River Roads] and create maps for Task 3. • Consultant Hours: 4 • Subcontractor Hours: 30 12 Eagle County Pmf Serviocs Final 5/14 Task 3: Stakeholder workshops to provide more extensive review of the identified linkage areas and determine criteria for prioritizing linkages. May hold two workshops representing different portions of the county. • Consultant Hours: 16 o Travel Time: 4 • Subcontractor Hours: 9 o Travel Time: 4 Task 4: Conduct field assessment of prioritized linkage areas and identify potential crossing structure locations [includes creating fields maps]. The field assessment will exclude the portion of SH 82 in Eagle County due to travel time. • Consultant Hours: 26 • Subcontractor Hours: 32 Task 5: Preliminary linkage descriptions and mitigation opportunities. • Consultant Hours: 20 • Subcontractor Hours: 10 Task 6: Stakeholder meeting to review findings, conduct prioritization of linkage areas, and identify additional opportunities and challenges within linkage priorities. • Consultant Hours: 12 o Travel Time: 4 • Subcontractor Hours: 6 o Travel Time: 4 Task 7: Site -visits with stakeholders and engineers to priority linkage areas [assuming visits with different sub -groups over 2 days]. • Consultant Hours: 14 o Travel Time: 4 • Subcontractor Hours: 14 o Travel Time: 4 Task 8: Reporting - update linkage descriptions and maps with site visit information, other roads, trails, zoning and management information. Focus on specific recommendations, and communication materials [easily accessible maps, visuals and recommendations], and final data management for submission of GIS data to County. • Consultant Hours: 20 • GIS Subcontractor Hours: 15 Task 9: Final stakeholder meeting - review final linkage p rio ritiz atio ns; discuss potential funding opportunities and next steps for implementation in priority linkages. • Consultant Hours: 15 13 Eagle County Pmf Serviocs Final 5/14 o Travel Time: 4 • GIS Subcontractor Hours: 8 o Travel Time: 4 Task 10: Open house to share linkage assessment findings and engage with the broader community. Assumes that county staff can assist in developing and printing materials for an open house. • Consultant Hours: 6 o Travel Time: 4 • Subcontractor Hours: 5 o Travel Time: 4 Task 11: Final presentation to BOCC • Consultant Hours: 10 o Travel Time: 4 Deliverables 1. GIS map and layers of wildlife highway linkages 2. Stakeholder prioritization of wildlife highway linkages 3. Prioritized list of preliminary highway connectivity recommendations. May include recommendations for new mitigation structures, enhancements to existing infrastructure, habitat management, and land protection. 4. Final recommendations report, including capital project improvement recommendations. Budget Detail Item Hours Rate Subtotal Labor ECO -resolutions 179 $100/lir $17,900 GIS subcontractor 155 $50 $7,750 Labor Subtotal $25,650 T ravel Mileage 2,800 $0.54/mile $1,512 Lodging 2 nights $150 $300 Per Diem 2 days/person $74 $296 Travel Subtotal $2,108 TOTAL $27,758 14 Eagle County Prof Serviocs Final 5/14 EXHIBIT B PROJECT SCHEDULE 15 Eagle County Pmf Serviocs Final 5/14 2015 2017 Task AugSet Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 1 — Stakeholder X Kickoff Meeting 2 — Linkage X X Analyses 3 — Stakeholder X Workshops 4 — Field X X Assessments S — Linkage Descriptions X X 5 — Prioritization WorkshopX 7 — Engineering X Site Visits 8 — Reporting X X X 9 — Final Stakeholder X Meeting 10 — Open House X 11— Final X Presentation 15 Eagle County Pmf Serviocs Final 5/14 EXHIBIT C Insurance Certificate ss Eagle County Pmf Serviocs Final 5/14 AC�RQ® CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE {M ANDDNYYY}6/13/2017 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy[ies] must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such en dorsement[s]. PRODUCER CONTACT Gissol Salazar NAME: PHONE (303740-9223 WC �:(866)472-1406 Wave Financial Partners E-MAIL issol@m avoa ont.corn ADDRESS:g g 307$ S Parlifr Rd Ste 110 INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIL # INSURER A Aentin of Ins Cc 11000 Aurora CO 20014 INSURED INSURERB, INSURERC: Eco—Rosclutions, LLC INSURERD, 212 Aspen Rd INSURER E DAMAGE TO RENTED $ 1,000,000 PREMISES Ea occurrence) INSURER F: Golden CO 80401 COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:CLI.761301806 REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTR TYPEDFINSURANCE ADDLSUBR POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF MWDnrVYY POLICY EXP MMIDIYYYY UMTS A Abeyta Gornaz /ALEABE X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 A CLAMS -MADE X OCCUR DAMAGE TO RENTED $ 1,000,000 PREMISES Ea occurrence) MED EXP (Any one person) $ 10,000 X 34SRAIWO043 2/1/2017 2/1/2018 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 X POLICY JECT u PRD LOC PRODUCTS - COMPMP AGG $ 2,000,000 Employment Practices Uab Ins $ 10,000 OTHER. AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ Ea accident BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ ANY AUTO ALLOV4NED SCHEDULED AUTOS AUTOS BODILY NJURY (Per accident) $ PROPERTY DAMAGE $ Per accident NON -OM ED HIRED AUTOS AUTOS UMBRELLA LIABOCCUR HCLAIMS-MADE EACH OCCURRENCE $ AGGREGATE $ EXCESS UAB DED RETENTION SS WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY YIN ANY PROPRIETORIPARTNERIEXECLMNE PER DTH - STATUTE ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ OFFICEMMEMBER EXCLUDED? ❑ NIA E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYE $ (Mandatary in NH) K describe under DESCRIPTION DF OPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ DESCRIPTION OF 0 PE R AT] ONS I LOG ATIONSI VEHICLES (AGO RD 141, Additional Remarks Schedule, maybe attached if more space is required) Tho commercial gonoral liability covorago has boon ondorsod to include Eagle County, its associated or affiliated ontitios, its successors and assigns, oloctod officials, omployoos, agents and voluntoors as stated per contract, as additional insurod's. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION AGO RD 25 (2014111) INRri7ri1a01a011 ©1988-2014 AGO RD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The AGO RD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE Eagle County THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN PO Box 850 ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. Eagle, CO 81631 A UTHORI ZE D R EP R ESENTATI VE A Abeyta Gornaz /ALEABE AGO RD 25 (2014111) INRri7ri1a01a011 ©1988-2014 AGO RD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The AGO RD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD ' ® ,4coo RINSURANCE BINDER `� DATEIMINDDIYYYY) 081I 7: 20 16 THIS BINDER IS A TEMPORARY INSURANCE CONTRACT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SHOWN ON PAGE 2 OF THIS FORM. AGENCY COMPANY BINDER# Safran Insurance Agency TRAVELERS assigns, elected officials, employees, agents and Volunteers 8357 N. Rampart Range Road DATE EFFECTIVE TRITE DATE EXPIRATION TIME RETRO DATE FOR CLAIMS MADE: EACH OCCURRENCE X AM up"Y"Ir4 RENTED PREMISES $ X 12:01 AM Suite #A201 Littleton CO 80125 08/28/2016 PM 08/28/2017 NOON PHONE AX !AIC, No, EA): 303-649-1715 IFAIC, No): 303-649-1955 THIS BN DER IS ISSUED TO EXTEND COVERAGE N THE ABOVE NAMED COMPANY PER EXPIRING POLICY#: 9343242853117 CODE: OCFG360000 SUB CODE: CAGENCY USTOMER ID: DESCRIPTIDN OF OPERATIONS I VEHICLES I PROPERTY {Inckiding Locafionl 2013 Ford Escape I FMCU9 H 90DUB640 5 8 INSURED AND MAILING ADDRESS JULIA KINTSCH 812 ASPEN RD BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ GOLDEN CO 80401-9404 COVERAGES LIMITS TYPE OF INSURANCE COVERAGE 1 FORMS DEDUCTIBLE COINS % AMOUNT PROPERTY CAUSES OF LOSS BASIC FIBROAD FISPEC assigns, elected officials, employees, agents and Volunteers LOAN #: GENERAL LIABILITY MMERCIALGENERAL LIABILITY CLAMS MADE OCCUR i RETRO DATE FOR CLAIMS MADE: EACH OCCURRENCE $ up"Y"Ir4 RENTED PREMISES $ MED EXP(Any one person) $ PERSONAL&ADV INJURY $ G EN ERAL AGG R EGAT EId $ PRODUCTS - COMPIOPAGG $ VEHICLE LIABILITY ANY AUTO OWNED AUTOS ONLY SCHEDULEDAUTOS HIRED AUTOS ONLY NON -OWNED AUTOS ONLY COM BIN EDSNGLE LM IT $ 500000 X BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ PROPERTY DAMAGE $ MEDICAL PAYMENTS $ 5000 PERSONAL INJURY PROT $ UNINSURED MOTORIST $ 500000 VEHICLE PHYSICAL DAMAGE DED COLLISION, OTHER THAN CDL: ALL VEHICLES SCHEDULED VEHICLES ACTUAL CASH VALUE STATED AMOUNT $ GARAGE LIABILITY ANY AUTO AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT $ OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: EACH ACCIDENT $ AGGREGATE $ EXCESS LIABILITY X UMBRELLA FORM OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM 12J3116 to 1213117 RETRO DATE FOR CLAIMS MADE: EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1000000 AGGREGATE $ 1000000 SELF-INSURED RETENTION $ WORKER'S COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY PER STATUTE E.L EACH ACCIDENT $ E.L DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ E.L DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ SPECIAL Reference: CONDITIONS! OTHER COVERAGES SubagTeemcnt No. W VXY5907-S 17-0001 FEES $ TAXES $ ESTIMATED TOTAL PREMIUM $ NAME& ADDRESS Page 1 of 2 © 1993.2016 ACO RD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 75 (2016103) The ACO RD name and logo are registered marks of ACO RD X ADDITIONALNSUREDLOSSP.AYEE Ll MORTGAGEE Nagle County, its associated or affiliated entities, its successors and LENDER'S LOSS PAYABLE assigns, elected officials, employees, agents and Volunteers LOAN #: PO BOX 850 AUTHORED REPRESENTATIVE Melissa Safran Eagle CO 81631 Page 1 of 2 © 1993.2016 ACO RD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 75 (2016103) The ACO RD name and logo are registered marks of ACO RD EW =► [O 141114 Cell, I =A1 019 CONDITIONS This Company binds the kinds} of insurance stipulated on page 1 of this form. The Insurance is subject to the terms, conditions and limitations of the policy(ies) in current use by the Company. This binder may be cancelled by the Insured by surrender of this binder or by written notice to the Company stating when cancellation will be effective. This binder may be cancelled by the Company by notice to the Insured in accordance with the policy conditions. This binder is cancelled when replaced by a policy. If this binder is not replaced by a policy, the Company is entitled to charge a premium for the binder according to the Rules and Rates in use by the Company. Applicable in Arizona Binders are effective for no more than ninety (90) days. Applicable in California When this form is used to provide insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) or more, the title of the form is changed from "Insurance Binder" to "Cover Note". Applicable in Colorado With respect to binders issued to renters of residential premises, home owners, condo unit owners and mobile home owners, the insurer has thirty (30) business days, commencing from the effective date of coverage, to evaluate the issuance of the insurance policy. Applicable in Delaware The mortgagee or Obligee of any mortgage or other instrument given for the purpose of creating a lien on real property shall accept as evidence of insurance a written binder issued by an authorized insurer or its agent if the binder includes or is accompanied by: the name and address of the borrower; the name and address of the lender as loss payee; a description of the insured real property; a provision that the binder may not be canceled within the term of the binder unless the lender and the insured borrower receive written notice of the cancellation at least ten (10) days prior to the cancellation; except in the case of a renewal of a policy subsequent to the closing of the loan, a paid receipt of the full amount of the applicable premium, and the amount of insurance coverage. Chapter 21 Title 25 Paragraph 2119 Applicable in Florida Except for Auto Insurance coverage, no notice of cancellation or nonrenewal of a binder is required unless the duration of the binder exceeds 60 days. For auto insurance, the insurer must give 5 days prior notice, unless the binder is replaced by a policy or another binder in the same company. Applicable in Maryland The insurer has 45 business days, commencing from the effective date of coverage to confirm eligibility for coverage under the insurance policy. Applicable in Michigan The policy may be cancelled at any time at the request of the insured. Applicable in Montana No binder shall be valid beyond the issuance of the policy with respect to which it was given or beyond 90 days from its effective date, whichever period is the shorter. If the policy has not been issued, a binder may be extended or renewed beyond such 90 days with the written approval of the insurer. Applicable in Nevada Any person who refuses to accept a binder which provides coverage of less than $1,000,000.00 when proof is required: (A) Shall be fined not more than $500.00, and (B) is liable to the party presenting the binder as proof of insurance for actual damages sustained therefrom. Applicable in Oklahoma All policies shall expire at 12:01 a.m. standard time on the expiration date stated in the policy. Applicable in Oregon Binders are effective for no more than ninety (90) days. A binder extension or renewal beyond such 90 days would require the written approval by the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services. Applicable in the Virgin Islands This binder is effective for only ninety (90) days. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of this binder, you should request an insurance policy or certificate (if applicable) from your agent and/or insurance company. ACDRD 75 (2016103) Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT D: Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Phase 1, Identification of Habitat Linkages across Major Highways October 2016 17 Eagle County Pmf Serviocs Final 5/14 Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Phase 11 Identification of Habitat Linkages Across Major Highways October 2016 Mule deer crossing under span bridge at West Vail Pass © ECD -resolutions, Rocky Mountain Wild & CDT Report to Eagle County Government, Eagle, Colorado Prepared by: Julia Kintsch, ECO -resolutions, LLC Golden, Colorado and Paige Singer, Rocky Mountain Wild Denver, Colorado ECO -resolutions The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of Eagle County government. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. Acknowledgements The authors would like to than Adam Palmer, Eagle County Environmental Health Department, and Jim Daus, Eagle Valley Land Trust, for supporting and facilitating this work, and the Walking Mountain Science School for hosting stakeholder workshops. This work relied heavily on participants at stakeholder workshops on December 14, 2015; February 8, 2016; and May 11, 2016. These include: Bill Andree (Colorado Parks and Wildlife), Jennifer Austin (USDA Forest Service), Kristen Bertugila (Town of Vail), Markian Fed uschak (Walking Mountains Science School), Kim Langmaid (Vail Town Council), Cinnamon Levi -Flinn (Colorado Department of Transportation), Ray Merry (Eagle County), Martha Miller (Colorado Department of Transportation), John Staight (Town of Eagle), Ricky Davies (Eagle County), Craig Wescoatt. (Colorado Parks and Wildlife), Brian Woodrich (Colorado Parks and Wildlife). Glossary and Acronyms CDOT: Colorado Department of Transportation Connectivity: A conceptual measure of the degree that landscape elements facilitate or impede the movement of organisms and the flow of ecological processes, i.e., the degree to which the landscape is permeable to wildlife movement. Care Habitat Areas: Contiguous patches of suitable, un -fragmented habitat for a species of interest. CPW: Colorado Parks and Wildlife Crossing Zane: Segments of roadway where wildlife preferentially attempt crossings. FHWA: Federal Highway Administration GIS: Geographic Information System Habitat Fragmentation: The division of natural habitat blocks into smaller, discontinuous pieces. Habitat fragmentation has been identified as a major threat to biodiversity worldwide. Habitat Linkages: Identified connections between core habitat areas that facilitate movement for a species or group of species. Linkages may be broad swaths of permeable habitat or they may be narrow chokepoints. Linkages may be intact or may require conservation actions to protect or restore the ability of wildlife to move through a linkage. For this study, the following terms are distinguished; these terms do not indicate priority levels, but rather the scale of the linkage area. o Primary Habitat Linkage: focused highway crossing zones. o Secondary Habitat Linkage: broader habitat linkages. o Tertiary Habitat Linkage: landscape -level connections. Habitat Permeability: Synonymous to 'connectivity'. Habitat permeability refers to the ability of a species to move across the landscape. Habitat permeability varies across species depending on their movement capabilities and tolerances or sensitivities to features in the landscape (natural or human -made). Linkages provide permeability outside of core habitat areas. Habitat Suitability: Refers to the habitat usage by a given species, ranging from preferred habitat types (high suitability), to suboptimal, to avoided (low suitability). Habitat suitability is species-specific and is used to inform model parameterization. Linkage Area: A large, regional connection between habitats that facilitates animal movements between different sections of a landscape. A linkage area may provide connectivity for daily movements within a seasonal range; migratory movements between seasonal ranges; or dispersal movements from an animal's natal area to new territories. Linkage Interference Zane (LIZ): A term developed by a group of interagency stakeholders along the 1-70 Mountain Corridor (the ALIVE Committee) to denote highway segments of concern with regards to wildlife movement and wildlife -vehicle collisions on 1-70. Later work on 1-70 to refine and revise these priority segments continued use of this term. Wildlife Corridor: A suitable habitat connection connecting two or more blocks of core wildlife habitat. Corridors are generally conceived as discrete, linear connections. WVC: Wildlife -Vehicle Collison. Vehicular collisions with wildlife may be reported to law enforcement and compiled as accident reports, but many go unreported for a variety of reasons. WVCs typically result in wildlife mortality. Table of Contents Introductionand Objectives ...............................................................................................................I Methodology......................................................................................................................................3 FocalSpecies................................................................................................................................................3 GISLinkage Modeling...................................................................................................................................4 StakeholderWorkshops...............................................................................................................................5 Habitat linkages and Recommendations...........................................................................................6 Interstate70...............................................................................................................................................10 USH ighway 24...........................................................................................................................................23 StateHighway 131.....................................................................................................................................31 StateHighway 82 ........................................................... BrushCreek Road.......................................................................................................................................39 NextSteps .........................................................................................................................................43 References............................ ............................................................................................................47 Appendices........................... .......................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix A: Wildlife Linkage Modeling Technical Methods❑esc0ptlon................................................. A-1 Supplementary Files: Printable map county -wide maps (44" x 34") Introduction and Objectives Landscape connectivity - the degree to which wildlife are able to move freely across the landscape (Bissonette and Cramer 2008) - is an essential component of healthy ecosystems and wildlife populations, allowing animals to disperse into new territories, access seasonal resources and breeding habitat, and maintain the flow of individuals and genes across the landscape (Rudnick et al. 2012). As development, roads and other human activities leave animals with smaller and more isolated pockets of intact habitat, active landscape planning and protection efforts are needed to allow wildlife continued access to seasonal habitats and the ability to disperse into new habitat areas. Landscape connectivity has been described as one of the most critical elements of biodiversity conservation planning, and is essential for allowing species to move and adapt to shifting habitats and an altered climate (Heller and Zavaleta 2009). In addition, protecting wildlife movements across the landscape is anticipated to reduce the risk of negative impacts to wildlife populations, including listed species, and important for preserving habitat quality and biodiversity in general. Landscape connectivity for wildlife is complex and variable depending on species and the context of the landscape itself (Rudnick et al. 2012). Conserving landscape connectivity to simultaneously serve the movement needs of multiple animal species is challenged by the different needs and tolerances of different species. Integrating these multi -species needs with other land use values further complicates planning and land use decision-making. Proactive, science -based planning is our best approach towards achieving balanced and integrated land use decision-making. Several studies have demonstrated that wildlife do not cross roads randomly, and that crossing zones tend to be spatially and temporally clustered, influenced by habitat, terrain or road characteristics (Barnum 2003; Neumann et al. 2012). These findings underscore the value of focusing connectivity protection and restoration efforts in identified wildlife habitat linkages. While a road may present the most visible barrier to wildlife movement and directly contribute to wildlife mortality, other types of barriers may also constrain wildlife movements, including livestock fencing, residential development, commercial or industrial activities, recreational activities and other land uses. The objective of the Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment is to provide a vision for preserving and improving habitat connections for wildlife that inevitably traverse roads and other barriers, and transcend jurisdictional and land use boundaries. The original scope was expanded beyond Interstate 70 to include major roadways in the county: 1-70, US 24, State Highways 131 and 82, and Brush Creek Road. While state, federal, county, municipal and private entities have individual interests and separate land use decision-making processes, the wildlife that share this landscape are aware only of the habitat and food they need to survive. A landscape connectivity plan for Eagle County will serve as a common vision for land use and land management decision-making across jurisdictionaI boundaries to maintain the flow of ecological processes while balancing among competing land uses and community values. The Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 1 plan is designed to be used in conjunction with other layers of information and can assist in positioning the county to work proactively with partners to achieve connectivity goals at the road interface and beyond, such that critical connections for wildlife are preserved in the face of the ongoing pressures on the land and transportation infrastructure in Eagle County. This Phase I Connectivity Report does not attempt to prioritize among the identified linkages — we leave that as a next step for a future phase of this work. The results presented herein identify mapped habitat linkages for large mammals across major roadways in Eagle County, and identify some of the challenges and opportunities to protecting wildlife connectivity through these linkages. While habitat linkages are not the only places where wildlife may cross roads, they identify the best habitat connections between core habitat areas that are bisected by major roads. Phase I of the Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment (this report) identifies wildlife linkages across major roads in Eagle County. A stakeholder effort to further refine and prioritize among the linkages is proposed for Phase 11. Despite the value of a connected landscape, efforts to protect or restore connectivity may not be warranted everywhere that it has been lost. In some cases, wildlife populations have adapted to infrastructure barriers and other changes in the landscape; in others, reduced connectivity may be desirable to limit the spread of wildlife diseases. To achieve the greatest ecological benefit and cost-effectiveness, it is important to focus connectivity strategies and highway mitigation in the highest priority linkages. Preliminary recommendations for conserving wildlife movements for the target species are offered, including roadway mitigation, land protection and land management needs. Few counties have produced wildlife connectivity plans. Eagle County's leadership in developing a vision for a connected landscape and a framework for integrating this information into county planning, permitting and partnerships will serve as a model for other counties in Colorado and across western states. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 2 Methodology Linkage mapping for Eagle County was an iterative process involving a linkage analysis in a geographic information system (GIS) and stakeholder meetings. The GIS analysis provided a standardized framework for initial identification and delineation of habitat linkages across roadways for select focal species. This analysis process was valuable for systematically mapping highway crossing zones as well as adjacent habitat parcels that comprise the broader linkages between core habitat areas. The stakeholder process was essential for obtaining expert review of the modeled linkage areas and refining the linkage analysis based on on -the -ground expertise. A variety of connectivity modeling techniques have been developed over recent years, each designed to meet different objectives, and with different data requirements and resulting in different outcomes. Connectivity models are generally based on landscape resistance as a function of how well a given species can traverse different structural and functional components of a landscape (Rudnick et al. 2012). Consequently, the reliability of a linkage model may depend on the accuracy of the input resistance surface and the parameters with which it was created (Zeller et al. 2015). The researchers evaluated multiple connectivity modeling techniques, based on the following considerations: • The need to base the linkage analysis on existing, available input data layers; • The need to produce model output at a scale relevant for county -level planning; • The objective of connecting suitable wildlife habitat on either side of a major road, regardless of the protected status of the land. After investigating several linkage modeling techniques, the researchers concluded that Corridor Design (www.corridordesign.org) offered an appropriate analysis process using the available input data layers and providing fine -scale model output suitable for county -level planning. Corridor Design is a freeware GIS tool developed by researchers at Northern Arizona University to aid in the design of landscape -scale corridors in a heterogeneous environment. The ArcGIS tool encompasses a series of spatial analyses that walk the user through three major steps: defining suitable habitat for target species; identifying core habitat areas; and mapping the optimal corridors between core habitat areas. Focal Species The linkage analysis was conducted for three focal species: Canada lynx, elk and mule deer. These three species were among the focal species for which habitat suitability models had been previously created (SREP 2008) and whose habitat preferences and movement needs encompass a range of ecological systems and capture the needs of other mammalian species in Eagle County, such as black bear, mountain lion, and forest -dwelling species. Bighorn sheep was excluded from the analysis as it is present in only the far reaches of the county and its movement patterns and habitat, while in places adjacent to roads, are not perceived to be affected by the roads included in this study. Other species of interest have very specific habitat requirements and fine -scale movements, such as the state endangered boreal toad or the Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 3 northern leopard frog, and are best addressed at a site-specific scale, including known or potential wetland habitat and breeding areas. GIS Linkage Modeling The input habitat suitability model layers for each of the focal species were initially developed by the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project (SREP 2008). The parameters for the habitat suitability models were derived from extensive review of the published literature and a number of wildlife experts across the state. They include four primary factors, depending on the species: land cover, elevation, topographic position and distance to roads. As no changes in our understanding of these factors have emerged since the initial development of the habitat suitability models, the researchers retain confidence in the habitat suitability models as the basis for the linkage analysis in Eagle County. Notably, habitat suitability is only a partial predictor of wildlife movements, which may also be influenced by finer -scale landscape features (Nogeire et al. 2015). In addition, dispersing individuals may be more tolerant of unsuitable habitat types than individuals that are established within a home range, and many species show little aversion to moderately unsuitable habitat conditions within a home range (Keeley et al. 2015). To the extent possible, these nuances have been captured through extensive expert review of the model parameters for the individual focal species. Additional parameters are used to define core habitat areas on either side of each of the individual study roads. These core areas serve as the endpoints between which the linkage analysis model runs. Core habitats are defined as contiguous patches of preferred or usable suboptimal habitat that are, at a minimum, large enough to support one breeding event (i.e., the minimum home range size of the focal species). Defining suitable core habitat patches is preferred to defining endpoints for the linkage analysis based on protected area boundaries, which may or may not contain sufficient suitable habitat for a given focal species. Each road in the study was then buffered by a static distance of 500 meters, and the buffered roads layer was then clipped from the suitable habitat patches layer for each focal species to define species-specific core habitat areas. Rail corridors were not buffered separately from these road corridors to define core areas, even where the railroad falls outside of the 500 -meter road buffer. The Union Pacific line over Tennessee Pass to Glenwood Canyon is inactive and does not currently present a significant barrier to wildlife movement. Once the core habitat areas were defined, the researchers employed the Corridor Designer toolbox to conduct the linkage analysis across each of the roads included in the study. Refer to Appendix A for a more detailed technical description of the linkage analysis process. Rather than adhering to a pre -defined corridor width that generally assumes corridors are narrow pathways between suitable habitats (La Point et al. 2013), the researchers instead observed how the I i n kages 'be haved' at different width cut-offs, recognizing that in some cases a linkage may be a narrow bottleneck, whereas in others, the linkage is less constrained by either natural or human features of the landscape. Through this process and in consultation with the Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 4 stakeholder review group, the following linkage boundaries were selected for each focal species (note, percentages refer to the most permeable portion of the landscape for that species): Focal Species Primary Habitat Linkage Secondary Habitat Linkage Tertiary Habitat Linkage Canada lynx 0.60/0 1% 5% Elk 0.60/0 1% 5% Mule deer 0.2% 1% 5% These three linkage boundary cutoffs define focused highway crossing zones (primary habitat linkages), broader habitat linkages (secondary habitat linkages), and landscape -level connections (tertiary habitat linkages). These terms are used to differentiate the scale of the linkage area and do not suggest a prioritization among the identified linkage areas. Interstate 70 at West Vail Pass did not emerge at the level of a primary habitat linkage for lynx, and instead was categorized by the model results as a tertiary habitat linkage. However, West Vail Pass was identified through the stakeholder review process and by CPW as an important linkage area for lynx. As a result of this feedback, the researchers adjusted the model output to include the West Vail Pass lynx linkage as an identified linkage area despite it not be classified as a primary habitat linkage area. To create multi -species habitat linkages, the primary habitat linkage areas for each focal species were combined together through the 'union' function. While the multi -species linkage depictions focus on primary linkage areas (with the exception of West Vail Pass, as noted above), users of this plan are encouraged to also reference the mapped secondary and tertiary linkage areas as appropriate for land use planning purposes. Stakeholder Workshops The GIS -based linkage analysis offered a consistent methodology for identifying spatially defined linkages across the entire county. Stakeholder input on these preliminary linkages was solicited to complement the analysis by bringing on -the -ground expertise to refine the model output. Ultimately, any linkage model is based on a defined set of assumptions and the model results are an approximation of wildlife preferences and tolerances, which may vary based on the experiences of a population or even an individual animal. Stakeholder review and validation is essential and can result in adjustments to the modeling process or be used to augment the model output so that it provides a more accurate approximation of wildlife movement patterns. Stakeholder meetings were also useful for receiving input on specific opportunities and challenges within individual linkage areas that may affect the feasibility of implementing conservation actions, as well as for identifying stakeholder interests or concerns in specific linkage areas. Multiple meetings were convened to launch the project, at several interim steps (in some cases with a smaller group of experts) and at the end of this phase of the project. Additional linkage review and feedback was conducted over email. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 5 Habitat Linkages and Recommendations Thirteen multi -species habitat linkages are identified across Interstate 70, U5 Highway 24, State Highway 131, State Highway 82 and Brush Creek Road, as described in the following sections. Where linkages for individual focal species overlap, the linkages were combined to create multispecies linkages. The highest quality areas for wildlife movement (i.e., the most permeable portions of the landscape relative to land use and the focal species' habitat preferences) are generally in the more rural/forested portions of the county. Mapped linkage areas suggest the best potential connections between suitable habitat cores for each of the focal species. They do not indicate the absence of a roadway barrier through the linkage. In some cases, existing bridges or culverts within a linkage area may provide a functional passageway under the road. In other areas, new crossing structures will be needed to restore the habitat connection. Mitigation recommendations for multispecies linkages must consider the needs of all pertinent focal species. In addition, this study focuses on major roads and the lack of suitable habitat as the primary barriers to wildlife movement; however, other non -natural barriers may also impede wildlife movements, including fencing and recreational activities. Further consideration of potential barriers to wildlife movement should be addressed on a site-specific basis during future phases of this work. For each focal species, primary habitat linkages provide a narrow focus that is helpful in identifying suitable habitat immediately adjacent to the roadway and potential road crossing locations. Secondary and tertiary habitat linkages indicate the broader linkage areas and, in some cases, demonstrate suitable habitat connections between roadways (see county -wide focal species maps: Maps 1-3). Overall, these linkages represent priorities at the county -scale; other areas not identified herein may also be of conservation value at a local or municipal scale. The habitat linkage maps are designed to be used in conjunction with CPW species habitat layers (winter range, severe winter range, migration corridors and lynx suitable habitat). Overlays of species-specific linkages with the respective habitat data begins to paint the picture of how wildlife use these linkage areas. Ultimately, land use decision-making will depend on these and other land use values. The habitat linkage maps are intended to inform these decision-making processes by identifying habitat connectivity for wildlife as a value guiding land use planning in Eagle County, along with other habitat and community values. Each of the identified habitat linkages are described below. ❑ue to the nature of the modeling, milepost ranges are approximate. While the model output depicts boundaries that are helpful in identifying both highway crossing zones and suitable habitat approaches on either side of road, wildlife movements are rarely starkly confined. The model output should be viewed as a guide and should be supplemented with additional on -the -ground expertise and field surveys. For each of the linkage areas, a description of the linkage area is provided, with suggestions for preliminary conservation actions and highway mitigation. These may be augmented and refined during future phases of this work, as outlined in the following section, Next Steps. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 6 II nod w r . A I 1 w 00 c' I • �auno WILY Rd Ri � `r. tl m e 0110 U� Z a 2 a � iia a x m a x m x k6 0011 �m JT � m a E a o N O � n Im o p ❑ � I 11i Ri Interstate 70 The interstate parallels riparian corridors through the county— from east to west, Gore Creek, the Eagle River and the Colorado River. U5 Highway 6 parallels 1-70 through much of the county and this highway was not evaluated independently of 1-70 in the linkage modeling. The Union Pacific Railroad also parallels the highway corridor from Minturn to Glenwood Canyon. Development in Eagle County is concentrated in the valleys around the highway corridor. In some places along the highway corridor, it is likely that wildlife has adapted to the barrier of the interstate and associated infrastructure; however, in others, wildlife still requires connections across the interstate to accommodate seasonal, migratory or dispersal movements. 1-70 through Eagle County was included in the 2011 studyA Regional Ecosystem Framework far Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Along the I-70 Mountain Corridor in Colorado: An EcoLogical Field Test, funded by FHWA and CDOT (hereafter referred to as the EcoLogical study; Kintsch et al. 2011). The EcoLogical study employed an approach that drew on the synthesis and analysis of ecological data layers in a G15, field surveys, wildlife monitoring at select locations, and an interagency stakeholder process. This process resulted in the identification of 17 Linkage Interference Zones (LIZs) between Golden and Dotsero that have been prioritized for wildlife mitigation on the 1-70 Mountain Corridor. Within each LIZ, milepost -specific connectivity recommendations were developed to provide an initial guide for incorporating connectivity needs into transportation projects on 1-70. Where preliminary highway mitigation recommendations were developed as a result of the EcoLogical study, these are reiterated or, in some cases, refined here. Data analysis for the EcoLogical study was based on combined focal species habitat presence and did not incorporate a linkage analysis between suitable habitat cores, as has been done here for the Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Plan. As a result, while in most cases the primary habitat linkages coincide with the EcoLogical LIZs, there are also some differences. To a large extent, the primary habitat linkages suggest more focused highway crossing zones than the LIZs. Notably, all LIZs are encompassed by either the primary, secondary or tertiary habitat linkages for elk, deer and lynx. Much of the area between Eagle -Vail to Wolcott is mapped as winter range and severe winter range for elk. In addition, the north side of the interstate is mapped as deer winter range and is a known migration corridor between down valley winter habitat and the mountainous summer habitat to the east, towards Vail Pass. The area around Wolcott also provides winter range and severe winter range habitat for deer. Two Linkage Interference Zones (LIZs) were identified in the 2011 EcoLogical study in this segment (Kintsch et al. 2011) — the Wolcott LIZ (MP 155.3- 156.3) and the East Wolcott LIZ (MP 157.1-159.6). Yet only one narrow primary habitat linkage for deer was identified in this study at MP 159.4. The EcoLogical study was based primarily on habitat presence, whereas this study went the next step in modeling linkages between suitable core habitats. Thus, despite the presence of wildlife activity in this area, including reported wildlife mortalities on 1-70, suitable habitat connections across 1-70 were not identified as a primary habitat linkage through this segment. Indeed, over recent decades CDOT has erected wildlife exclusion fencing through much of this segment and adding fencing where gaps remain. In 2016, CDOT will construct additional wildlife exclusion fencing on 1-70 from MP 131.5 to MP Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 10 140 between Dotsero and Gypsum, and from MP 166 to MP 172 between Avon and Dowd Junction. The project also includes the construction of escape ramps and painted strips across on/off ramps where there are breaks in the fencing. The construction of this fencing will result in the interstate having continuous wildlife fencing from 1-70 from Glenwood Canyon to West Vail. Connectivity across U5 6 may necessitate additional highway mitigation to provide safe wildlife passages, particularly where the Eagle River runs between 1-70 and U5 6, and wildlife must cross U5 6 to access a water source. Specific mitigation recommendations for U5 6 would require further field survey and analysis, and are not provided in this report. Several existing structures provide some passage for wildlife under 1-70 — some of these were constructed for wildlife use, others were not. Where existing bridges or culverts are present within the identified wildlife habitat linkages, these are discussed below. 1-70: West Vail Pass Focal Species: Elk, Mule Deer, Lynx Road Type: 4 -lane highway Land Ownership: National Forest Milepost 182-189 This linkage area connects high elevation elk and mule deer summer range, as well as lynx habitat north and south of the interstate (Map 4). The entire linkage area is identified for mule deer connectivity. Elk connectivity is centered around the existing bridges between MP 182.5- 185, as well as along the higher reaches of the pass around MP 188-189. The lynx linkage area is primarily between MP 183-185. This linkage encompasses the West Vail Pass LIZ, which was identified primarily for lynx and secondarily for elk, moose, mountain lion, mule deer and northern leopard frog. While two lynx mortalities have been documented on the upper portion of West Vail Pass (MP 187.4 and MP 188.7), the linkage model focuses on the lower portions of the pass as a tertiary linkage for lynx movement. This model output appears to be due to the smaller extent of suitable lynx habitat on the north side of 1-70, where the alpine peaks of the Gore Range offer limited forested habitat. Such alpine terrain is considered permeable for lynx movement, but does not offer suitable core habitat. The value of the West Vail Pass linkage area was confirmed through the stakeholder review and has been identified as a priority linkage for lynx by several previous studies (SREP 2005; Crooks et al. 2006; Kintsch et al. 2011). Accordingly, this linkage is included as an identified linkage area in Eagle County. Wildlife -vehicle collisions (WVC) with deer and elk are relatively low along this segment of interstate. In the lower portions of the linkage area (MP 182-185), five large bridge structures span drainages over Black Gore Creek and its tributaries. Wildlife regularly pass under these bridges despite the absence of wildlife exclusion fencing between the bridges to prevent wildlife from entering the roadway (Singer et al. 2011; SREP 2007). High traffic volumes of 20,000 average annual daily traffic (AADT) likely deter many animals from attempting to cross at grade. Traffic flows are regular throughout the course of the day, with 11% truck traffic and higher volumes on weekends and holidays. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 11 The linkage area is almost entirely on USFS lands — a small portion of the mapped linkage area extends onto private lands around East Vail. The Eagles Nest Wilderness abuts the northeastern extent of the linkage. The Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area is located at the summit of Vail Pass and extends along the northwest side of 1-70, over Shrine Pass and towards Vail Ski Resort and the Town of Minturn. Very high levels of winter motorized and non -motorized activity appear to be deterring lynx activity (USDA Forest Service, unpublished data), and may also influence deer and elk movements through this portion of the linkage area. A recreation path parallels the west side of 1-70 throughout the linkage area. The path is not believed to present a barrier to wildlife movement, though any mitigation improvements in the linkage area should include provisions to prevent interference between the path and the mitigation. Black Gore Creek parallels the interstate through the linkage area. CBOT intends to expand the road footprint with the addition of a climbing lane on the westbound lanes through this linkage area. A request for proposals for this project is being released Fall 2016. Connectivity Recommendations and Opportunities Conservation Actions: • Coordinate with CPW and the Forest Service to manage human activity (e.g., recreation, hunting) in a manner that is compatible with wildlife activity, particularly where recreation trails pass under the existing bridges. Highway Mitigation: • Five existing span bridges in this linkage area currently provide functional wildlife passages under 1-70. Wildlife exclusion fencing between the bridges may help to guide wildlife, and particularly lynx, to these structures. • There are no structures that may function as wildlife passages in the upper portions of the linkage (MP 186-189). A new wildlife crossing structure and wildlife exclusion fencing would be the preferred mitigation solution here, however, the terrain and geotechnical challenges may preclude the construction of a new crossing structure in this segment (A. Pulley, FHU, pers. comm.). Due to the need for wildlife connectivity here, continued investigations into feasible wildlife mitigation alternatives are warranted, particularly as new roadway projects increase the roadway footprint and the barrier effect of the road, such as the proposed West Vail Pass climbing lanes project. • The West Vail Pass linkage was ranked a #Z statewide priority for the lynx in lieu fee mitigation fund based on an expert review process led by CBOT and involving CPW and USFS. This prioritization does not guarantee available mitigation funds; however, as these funds become available, they may be directed towards the highest priority areas in the state Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 12 ■® N 'd' LO �! L � a L Q ❑ V7 CL [p m EL E N � Q M L F— 0 vi OJ � [p Y 0 C L J � [p � V7 [p � V7 Q] CL V) .� S� L G L V7 V7 }� m CL L V7 0 V Q� n V) LL a m ryp my �ry E 7m E V a ern Ew E_ u �i Ep Ep y y 5 [ 0-9 R 3 a a Z� V � � � � b N m `° N N N N C N V 4 r—� 1:1 V i 1 � all y J i'• yr ry � c ye J O 0 m x � y ❑ 06 E � O �f W ww T L v vX11 1011 v E 4o co - c m oQ1a 49 - O u H d 2 m v o V Zr « ® A V 2 L [fl = o 2 }� m d � 3 s u L � a L Q ❑ V7 CL [p m EL E N � Q M L F— 0 vi OJ � [p Y 0 C L J � [p � V7 [p � V7 Q] CL V) .� S� L G L V7 V7 }� m CL L V7 0 V Q� n V) LL a m 1-70. Gore Creek/East Vail Milepost 178-181.5 Focal Species: Elk, Mule Deer Road Type: 4 -lane highway Land Ownership: Mostly private, Town of Vail The Gore Creek/East Vail linkage is identified for elk and mule deer, with the model suggesting several bottleneck connections through the least developed areas as well as developed residential areas (Map 5). The linkage connects elk winter and summer range, and deer summer range north and south of 1-70. The hillsides behind the Vail Golf Club along the south side of I- 70 is mapped winter range for elk. Access to this forage likely drives elk movements across 1-70 between MP 178-178.5. The linkage area overlaps with the Gore Creek (MP 180.9-182.1) and East Vail (MP 176.8-180.1) Linkage Interference Zones (Kintsch et al. 2011); however, the model results define a more focused primary habitat linkage area than the LIZs. Almost the entire linkage area immediately adjacent to 1-70 is privately held lands within the Town of Vail. Beyond the town boundaries is the White River National Forest connecting core wildlife habitat to the north and south of the interstate. Traffic volumes through this linkage are very high, at 20,000-23,000 AADT, with the highest traffic volumes in the eastern portion of the linkage. Wildlife -vehicle collisions range from low in in the western portion of the linkage area to moderate in the eastern portion. Other barriers to wildlife movement through the linkage include residential development and human activity, including dogs. There are several existing structures under 1-70 within the linkage area. A large, divided span bridge at MP 181 is flanked by steep slopes to the north and the East Vail neighborhood to the south. A chain link fence extends across the south entrance to the bridge and along the south side of the highway in both directions; however, gaps in the fence allow wildlife passage. At MP 180.6, a paved access road passes through a concrete box culvert and likely sees only incidental wildlife use. Connectivity Recommendations and Opportunities Conservation Actions: Coordinate with East Vail neighborhood on the development of highway mitigation measures while considering the neighborhoods concerns regarding wildlife activity and damage to landscaping. Highway Mitigation: The 1-70 EcoLogical report (Kintsch et al. 2011) offers the following recommendations for this linkage area. These recommendations may be revised through further investigation and coordination with partner entities. o New wildlife underpass at MP 177.8; o Replace the Booth Creek pipe culvert at MP 179 with a wildlife underpass; o Determine with CPW whether there are connectivity needs for boreal toad around MP 179.2; o New wildlife underpass around MP 179.4-179.5; o Replace Bighorn Creek pipe culvert at MP 180.6 with a large arch culvert or three -sided box to enhance connectivity for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 14 ca V U f6 OJ L a c -A +-A +' rp 4 U7 [p L W L L C L i Q CL CLC A mC [p C Q CL M � C � C N :3 O U N N � OJ � qA 0 4+ L 42 J w 4- 41 -y � OJ CL .� Ln C:3 'y C � > c 4 W M N NU N L O O L (D . 2. o c O lIl N OJ d �U Q w Ln a a r2 D s m p w N 58��s�NS x `a m Z� r'' .4 c� E o m E r d �• --- m � � ❑ T � of i v v a n1 of W T � w 2 -LTi G. d yC Y .St V ❑« y r g a� `o p o r9 1 1 w @h a E� E m a Q P' �i - I- V ro 2 a+ rf 3 � �e o ca V U f6 OJ L a c -A +-A +' rp 4 U7 [p L W L L C L i Q CL CLC A mC [p C Q CL M � C � C N :3 O U N N � OJ � qA 0 4+ L 42 J w 4- 41 -y � OJ CL .� Ln C:3 'y C � > c 4 W M N NU N L O O L (D . 2. o c O lIl N OJ d �U Q w Ln 1-70. Dowd Junction Milepost: 170-172.8 Focal Species: Elk, Mule Deer, Lynx Road Type: 4 -lane highway Land Ownership: State, National Forest, Town of Vail The Dowd Junction linkage is characterized by the joining of the Gore Creek drainage from the east and the Eagle River drainage from the south, and also marks the intersection of 1-70 and US 24 (Map 6). Despite considerable levels of human activity through this linkage, these two drainages continue to act as an important nexus of wildlife activity for elk, mule deer and lynx. The linkage encompasses a mule deer migration corridor through the Dowd Junction box culvert at MP 171.8 between winter range down valley and the mountainous summer range around Vail Ski Resort and Vail Pass. A variety of other wildlife have also been documented passing through this culvert, including black bear and mountain lion. The linkage area is also included within the Dowd Junction LIZ (MP 169.4-172.8; Kintsch et al. 2011). Traffic volumes are very high through this linkage, ranging from 35,000 to 37,000 AADT. Despite these high volumes, wildlife still attempts crossing 1-70 at -grade, as reflected by WVC rates, which range from high from West Vail to Minturn, and moderate from Minturn to Eagle -Vail. A recreation path runs parallel to the interstate through the linkage, along with a frontage road (US 6) and a railroad track from Minturn to Eagle -Vail. The railroad is currently inactive. Much of the linkage area is in public ownership. The eastern portion of the linkage is within the Town of Vail. MP 170-172 is held by State Land Board, CPW or the White River National Forest, except for a sliver of river frontage between MP 170-170.5, which is zoned community center. There are two existing bridges and two box culverts within the linkage area, including one (Dowd Junction box at MP 171.8) that was installed to accommodate the mule deer migration. In additional to the deer culvert, wildlife exclusion fencing is present in the eastern portion of the linkage area from the Minturn exit (MP 171) to MP 173. In 2016, CDOT will replace some of this fencing and construct additional wildlife exclusion fencing from MP 166-172. Connectivity Recommendations and Opportunities Conservation Actions: • Coordinate with Vail and Eagle -Vail to develop a plan for compatible recreation access at key mitigation locations in the linkage area. To the greatest extent possible, divert human activity from these locations. • Create a permanent enclosure around the bike path at MP 171.8 to increase cyclist safety from 1-70 and to create a visual barrier reducing impacts to wildlife passing beneath 1-70 and the bike path. Highway Mitigation: The 1-70 EcoLogical report (Kintsch et al. 2011) offers the following recommendations for this linkage area. These recommendations may be revised through further investigation and coordination with partner entities. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 16 o Investigate opportunities to convert (or replace) the Whiskey Creek box culvert at MP 170 into a wildlife crossing structure. Would require moving traiIhead parking on the south side of 1-70 and addressing traffic/mitigation on U5 G; o Install new carnivore crossing structure at MP 170.5; o Implement wildlife passage enhancements through large span bridge at MP 171.1 over U5 24, Eagle River and the railroad. o Replace Dowd Junction box culvert at MP 171.8 with a bridge underpass. • Investigate the feasibility of an existing structure for ungulate and carnivore passage to tie into the eastern fence end. The Dowd Junction linkage was ranked a #15 statewide priority for the lynx in lieu fee mitigation fund based on an expert review process led by CDOT and involving CPW and U5F5. This prioritization does not guarantee available mitigation funds; however, as these funds become available, they may be directed towards the highest priority areas in the state. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 17 O ��°eLLaz�pg - e e V E E m li q 2 y G � aN z, L L EL L ❑ Q N (n CL A m rp E C Q m E 4-A C N :3 L 0 a i.+ L hdh +U CU CU H a CL U 0.1 U C U v cn a w 1-70. Avon to Walcott Focal Species: Mule Deer Road Type: 4 -lane highway Land Ownership: Private Milepost: 159.5 This linkage connects winter and severe winter range north and south of 1-70 (Map 7). While the entire Eagle River drainage from Avon to Wolcott provides winter range and severe winter range for both mule deer and elk, it is mostly identified as a tertiary habitat linkage for mule deer and is not identified as a linkage area for elk. The linkage model identified only the area around MP 159.5 as primary habitat linkage. Wildlife -vehicle collisions on this stretch of interstate have been very high, though the construction of wildlife exclusion fencing on both sides of 1-70 is expected to have decreased collision rates. Some gaps in the fencing remain, for example, at on/off ramps. The presence of this wildlife exclusion fencing further contributes to the barrier that this segment of 1-70 presents to wildlife movement. Traffic volumes are high at 24,000 AAT. A local access road passes under 1-70 through a box culvert at MP 154.9. Land ownership immediately adjacent to 1-70 is private, zoned agricultural. A planned unit development is zoned along the south side of US G towards Edwards. The slopes of the mesa on the south side are BLM, however the top of the mesa is subdivided into low density residential lots. On the other side of 1-70, a small drainage extends north. This valley bottom is agricultural in nature, while the adjacent ridgelines remain undeveloped BLM lands. Connectivity Recommendations and Opportunities Conservation Actions: • Coordinate with landowners to reduce development and human activities in the vicinity of a planned wildlife crossing structure. Where necessary, replace domestic livestock fencing with a wildlife -friendly alternative. Highway Mitigation: • Replace box culvert at MP 159.4 with a bridge spanning the creek and access road, and designed to provide passage for mule deer and other wildlife. Tie bridge into wildlife exclusion fencing. • Much of the segment between Wolcott and Edwards is not identified as a primary habitat linkage, although wildlife habitat, including winter and severe winter range for deer and elk is present throughout the Eagle River drainage. While wildlife has largely habituated to the barriers presented by the road and, more recently, wildlife exclusion fencing, there are several opportunities to accommodate incidental wildlife movements at existing structures, for example at a large span bridge over US G and the Eagle River at MP 158.7 (see Ecological study recommendations; Kintsch et al. 2011). Improving these structure for wildlife movement would help to reduce the barrier effect of the interstate and the wildlife fencing, and accommodate some wildlife movement. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 19 q'EsRR 3 .4 r �5 p S a W jiu LFes,'' • �� a �EIM,g�s''�.'�,�5 ❑ e a a � `w w r- Tv w a j � Y y- ---_. a N .ti- �4•a `((Llf�, d��.ZE L01 +{�f� il��r 3� �! .' .� �il, T� + �• i+� iR{ d•_ a a � m 'S a` cn � n ;iif or .r1 "'ft di'?di�;� "� ad' •d f;'. r a p kE --'-'----- r-d`�r6i;♦�+•.i`£9!r%f- ifs t. e;� t R N + to � 4 J s m I-70. Wolcott to Eagle Focal Species: Elk, Mule Deer Road Type: 4 -lane highway Land Ownership: Mostly BLM Milepost: 151-153 This linkage connects winter range habitat north and south of 1-70 for both elk and mule deer (Map 8). The north side of the interstate is part of the mule deer migration corridor that extends between winter range habitat and mountainous summer range further up the valley, and also crosses over SH 131. Movements through this linkage tend to be shorter and more localized. Existing structures under 1-70 include two span bridges (MP 153 & 154) and a concrete box culvert (MP 153.3) that provide passage for wildlife. Small pockets of suitable lynx habitat are present both to the north and south of the linkage area (see Map 3); however, this area was not identified as a habitat linkage for lynx. The linkage area is included within the Wolcott West LIZ (MP 151.2-154.1; Kintsch et al. 2011), which also encompasses additional mule deer linkage areas (secondary and tertiary habitat linkages) and a historically high WVC zone east of the primary habitat linkage. Wildlife exclusion fencing on both sides of the interstate have reduced these collisions. In addition to the interstate, the linkage is bisected by US G and the railroad. The Eagle River parallels US G through the linkage. The linkage area lies primarily on BLM lands. The western linkage extent approaches the town of Eagle, including a planned unit development between US G and I-70. The eastern linkage extent falls onto private lands zoned for agricultural use. Traffic volumes through the linkage are very high, averaging 25,000 AADT. Connectivity Recommendations and Opportunities Conservation Actions: • Coordinate with the BLM to ensure compatible land management within the linkage area, particularly around locations proposed for new wildlife crossing structures. • Coordinate with private landowners whose properties abut 1-70 or US G within the linkage area, particularly at locations where existing structures may provide safe wildlife passage (i.e., bridge at MP 153 and box culvert at MP 153.3). • Retain agricultural zoning on private lands within the linkage area. Highway Mitigation: • Steep slopes north of 1-70 may limit opportunities for installing new wildlife crossing structures. Investigate opportunity to construct wildlife crossing structure for elk and deer between MP 151.2-152.5, as recommended by Kintsch et al. (2011), and enhance the suitability of the bridge at MP 153 for deer and elk passage and the culvert at MP 153.3 for deer passage. A second bridge located at MP 154 spans US G, the railroad and the Eagle River and may also be enhanced to promote wildlife passage. • Tie new and existing bridges and culverts into wildlife exclusion fencing and ensure that fencing connects across the open median between eastbound and westbound lanes at structure locations. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 21 N a� W Q. N U U [G G! L N Gi CLQ m Y C 4.1 q �p L Ln M N E -1-- 4-1 4.1 CL a a Q. �a m Q. E _N u E ' A N4-jL C: U to W O J 4-•+ L �+ W ai L t0 y 2 � N N OJ ro to CLLm OJ �, CLQ N t0 4.1 W O 4.1 � O U O � O U O y Cd - CL 5, Q C: U5 Highway 24 US 24 is an east -west highway that runs south of 1-70, through Minturn, Red Cliff and over Tennessee Pass to Leadvi Ile. The route descends from the Continental Divide at the top of the pass. The headwaters of the Eagle River originate from these mountains. The road passes through the flat meadows of Camp Hale and the WWII army training grounds. The road then descends into the broad Homestake Creek. Below Red Cliff, the valley becomes steep and narrow, and the highway runs above the cliff line on the east side of the valley. The Union Pacific Railroad line parallels the highway. While inactive since the turn of the century, the tracks remain and future reactivation is possible. US 24, Minturn Milepost: 144, 145.8-146.7 Focal Species: Elk Road Type: 2 -lane highway Land Ownership: Private, National Forest This linkage is focused around two primary habitat linkages identified for elk across US 24 around Minturn (Map 9). They are discussed jointly here. These linkages connect winter range habitat for elk on the east and west sides of US 24, though year-round activity is common. The northernmost area is a narrow linkage at MP 144. This linkage connects to Meadow Mountain on the west side of US 24. The White River National Forest borders both sides of US 24 at this location. The southernmost linkage crosses through the southern portion of the town of Minturn. Much of this linkage is privately held, except where the White River National Forest abuts the highway at the southern linkage extent. Also, Colorado Open Lands holds several conservation easements on the west side of US 24 in the vicinity of this linkage area. Traffic volumes are variable in each of these linkage areas. Average Annual Daily Traffic in the northern linkage is 7,300, and ranges from 2,600 — 5,400 for the southern linkage. The northern linkage is influenced by traffic between 1-70 and Minturn. The southern linkage is influenced by in -town traffic. The lowest traffic volumes occur beyond the south end of the town. Connectivity Recommendations and Opportunities Conservation Actions: • Coordinate with the CPW, USFS and the town of Minturn to identify potential corridors and engage local landowners as needed. Determine with CPW biologists how elk movements have shifted and/or habituated to development and how these movements may be affected by future growth. • Given the developed nature of this linkage area, any mitigation and conservation actions should be conducted in conjunction with a public education and outreach effort. Highway Mitigation: Collaborate with local CPW biologists and CDOT engineers to identify potential crossing structure mitigation for elk passage. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 23 a c N N N Q N [p V L u (v Q] Q] qA [p [p � ro � a L L Q ❑ V)N CL [p m Q N 0.7 Q m � a F- ❑ vi U ro +� c � J L [p � cu cu N L N Q � k =5 L L 7 4- C C: L N [p D CF) V N C S¢ L G ❑ LL US 24, Cross Creek Milepost: 147-148,149.7 Focal Species: Elk, Mule Deer Road Type: 2 -lane highway Land Ownership: Private, National Forest This linkage is focused around two primary habitat linkages identified for elk across U5 24 around Minturn (Map 10). They are discussed jointly here. These linkages connect winter range habitat for elk on the east and west sides of U5 24, though year-round activity is common. The northernmost linkage is defined by the Cross Creek drainage from the east. The west side of U5 24 is part of the Eagle Mine Superfund Site and includes a capped tailings pile and tailings ponds. The southernmost area is a narrow linkage at MP 144 identified for deer where a small drainage from the east feeds into the Eagle River along the valley bottom. South of this area the terrain becomes increasingly cliff -ridden through Eagle Gulch. The mine site is in private ownership. These lands and Battle Mountain to the southeast were annexed by the town of Minturn in 2008 to facilitate a private resort development. No development has occurred to date, however the approved plan would result in major impacts to elk winter range and the size of the elk population. A further increase in traffic volume from the current level of 2,600 AADT due to the new development and increasing commuter traffic from LeadviIle would impact wildlife movement through these linkages. Connectivity Recommendations and Opportunities Conservation Actions: • Coordinate with the CPW, USFS and the town of Minturn to identify potential corridors and engage local landowners as needed. Highway Mitigation: • Collaborate with local CPW biologists and CDOT engineers to identify potential crossing structure mitigation for deer and elk passage. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 25 H 0 - z Z u m .� �"qp 15 E E S',a m E E �•E � � o cs 40 � °00 a ? ° Z� a E as v ❑ � d N t N V 2 m V � y OqJ ❑ ui a O Y W is �y � `� % a ob W X y vCL 11-11D11� �-ai aj a r T s � w •i '•�� z •' / .,1� } N c 4 a d E r E O _ N z Q m V r •. aj w n c0000 1 m m y lJJ I US 24, Homestake Creek Milepost: 152-159 Focal Species: Elk, Lynx, Mule Deer Road Type: 2 -lane highway Land Ownership: National Forest with private This linkage encompasses the broad Homestake Creek drainage (Map 11). The linkage connects suitable lynx habitat from the Homestake Creek drainage to Vail Pass. The linkage is also important for elk and mule deer movements. Elk winter range extends up the Homestake Creek drainage and around Camp Hale. Much of the linkage area is within the White River National Forest. There are multiple private inhold ings, and the northern portion of the linkage area abuts the town of Red Cliff. The Holy Cross Wilderness lies to the west. Traffic volumes range from 1,700 to 2,300 ADDT near Red Cliff. Due to the low traffic volumes, the road barrier effect is also low, meaning the highway valley is relatively permeable for wildlife movements, particularly during nighttime hours. Conflicts are most likely to arise around dawn and dusk when commuter traffic between LeadviIle and the Vail is at its highest. There are two span bridges in the linkage area that may also be used by wildlife. One is a high span over the Eagle River and the road into Red Cliff; the other spans the railroad tracks at the south end of Camp Hale. Signs of ungulate passage under this span have been observed (SREP 2006). Connectivity Recommendations and Opportunities Conservation Actions: • Assess land use status of private inhold ings within the linkage area, particularly as they relate to potential road mitigation opportunities. Highway Mitigation: • Given the current traffic volumes, efforts to preserve wildlife passage through the linkage may be best served through efforts to increase driver awareness and reduce speeds. • Install short segments (1/4-1/2 mile) of wildlife exclusion fencing into the existing span bridge over the railroad tracks at MP 158.4 to encourage wildlife use and discourage at - grade road crossings. • Future infrastructure expansions and increasing traffic volumes would threaten wildlife movements through the linkage. Any new highway projects to expand the roadway should include structural mitigation measures • US 24 from Red Cliff to Tennessee Pass was ranked as a #4 statewide priority for the lynx in lieu fee mitigation fund based on an expert review process led by CBOT and involving CPW and USFS. This prioritization does not guarantee available mitigation funds; however, as these funds become available, they may be directed towards the highest priority areas in the state. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 27 - 1 41 q ma?rvpg E E Z� x o r d 1 ❑ Q N as M j V h Ny - x d ca N W J W CL W J W L T 7- r 60 r 2 4ig T Y N ❑a V d E a c m � E � 3 LM m ►+ G Im E a O �'' S y o ❑ H a m a my c _ ❑ _ 3 a m v C i�Cl l' p � z �v � m 3 T 4' m mo M ro C 0 ❑ - m a c 9 Y3 c v o I}c4 US 24, Tennessee Pass Focal Species: Elk, Lynx Road Type: 2 -lane highway Land Ownership: National Forest Milepost: 161.5-165 This linkage extends from the southern extent of Camp Hale to the top of Tennessee Pass, and continues into neighboring Lake County (Map 12). The Tennessee Pass linkage connects lynx year-round habitat and elk summer range. It is part of a broader corridor for lynx dispersing north out of southwest Colorado. The linkage area was also identified as a tertiary linkage for mule deer. The value of the Tennessee Pass linkage is also highlighted by several previous studies (Shenk 2005; SREP 2005; Crooks et al. 2006). The linkage lies entirely within the White River National Forest, although multiple private inholdings are within the linkage areas. Both motorized and non -motorized routes are present through the linkage, but activity levels are generally low outside of Camp Hale and the summit of the pass. Traffic volumes are low through the linkage at 1,700 AAT. Due to the low traffic volumes, the road barrier effect is also low, meaning the highway is relatively permeable for wildlife movements, particularly during nighttime hours. Conflicts are most likely to arise around dawn and dusk when commuter traffic between Lead viIle and the Vail valley is at its highest. No existing culverts or bridges are present under the highway through this linkage. Connectivity Recommendations and Opportunities Conservation Actions: • Engage partners in a proactive dialogue with the objective of minimizing the consequences to wildlife movement should the railroad line ever be reactivated. • Assess land use status of private inhold ings within the linkage area, particularly as they relate to potential road mitigation opportunities. • Assess the impacts of recreation activities, including new backcountry huts, on wildlife movement through this linkage. Highway Mitigation: • The terrain within this linkage area offer few clear opportunities for installing new wildlife crossing structures. Given the current low traffic volumes, efforts to preserve wildlife passage through the linkage may be best served through efforts to increase driver awareness and reduce speeds. • Future infrastructure expansions and increasing traffic volumes would threaten wildlife movements through the linkage. Any new highway projects to expand the roadway should include structural mitigation measures. US 24 from Red Cliff to Tennessee Pass was ranked as a #4 statewide priority for the lynx in lieu fee mitigation fund based on an expert review process led by CBOT and involving CPW and USFS. This prioritization does not guarantee available mitigation funds; however, as these funds become available, they may be directed towards the highest priority areas in the state. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 29 U W L U m L V7 �Q �_ Cp [p � co ❑ C N C Q �L cL E N ❑- 3 N � 4-1 Q C M E ❑ U BOhJn a-1 m aj 4 -- QJ J 4� N 4a W S] � aj _ w N U � OJ Q G7 � a-+ N � a � v � N C C 0 CCD dy N H � N C ry ,� CL Q Q V) Q t� • �•I E E w �gg -25 LS .��. are 0 - O f Z NE E r o N 2 m V 6 o El a t9 V y � N C .. ❑ w b r r �1 i • .r .. 2 °�-' ❑ � � a otl otl � J N `o •: •� W — W — a - � n�]1 u SL Q N a AWE it v ❑«� m w r � c = p 0) Z c 3 a E E a a a p m a z a = o-� m a w Y 3 2 `F f' C d 3 IJ a m M'rm mww W 3 v I Io i s U W L U m L V7 �Q �_ Cp [p � co ❑ C N C Q �L cL E N ❑- 3 N � 4-1 Q C M E ❑ U BOhJn a-1 m aj 4 -- QJ J 4� N 4a W S] � aj _ w N U � OJ Q G7 � a-+ N � a � v � N C C 0 CCD dy N H � N C ry ,� CL Q Q V) Q t� State Highway 131 State Highway 131 runs north from 1-70/Wolcott to U5 40. From State Bridge north, the highway runs parallel to the Colorado River and the railroad. The railroad line is open to both passenger and freight traffic. The highway serves as the only alternate route around Glenwood Canyon when 1-70 is closed, and is subject to heavy traffic increases during these times. Much of the roadway from 1-70 to the Routt County line is identified as elk and mule deer winter or severe winter range, and was mapped as a primary, secondary or tertiary habitat linkage for mule deer and elk (see Maps 1 & 2). SH 131, Wolcott Milepost: 1-9 Focal Species: Elk, Mule Deer Road Type: 2 -lane highway Land Ownership: BLM, Denver Water Board, Private The broader linkage area from Wolcott to Wolcott Divide (approximately MP 1-9) is considered a linkage for both deer and elk by CPW, and is an identified migration corridor. This area is mapped as a primary, secondary or tertiary habitat linkage for mule deer and, through much of the segment, for elk. A primary habitat linkage between MP 1.5-2.5 is identified by CPW as a critical bottleneck over SH 131 connecting elk habitat and a mule deer migration corridor (Map 13). A second primary habitat linkage for elk is mapped between MP 5-5.5 (Map 14). CPW notes that the entire segment from 1-70 north to State Bridge is a high value linkage due to the lack of development and excellent habitat connectivity, despite being bisected by the highway. Wildlife -vehicle collisions are high throughout the linkage area. Traffic volumes are moderate at 3,600 AADT, but increase steeply when 1-70 through Glenwood Canyon is closed. When such a closure coincides with ungulate migration, higher WVC rates are anticipated. Much of the linkage area from MP 1-8 is BLM or Denver Water Board land. The northern portion of the linkage is in private ownership. The Denver Water Board has developed a proposal to construct a 300,000 -acre-foot reservoir on either side of SH 131, which poses a critical threat to the mule deer migration and wildlife movements through the linkage. Connectivity Recommendations and Opportunities Conservation Actions: • Coordinate with the CPW, BLM and Denver Water Board to identify potential corridors and develop a plan to protect wildlife movement through this linkage. CPW notes the urgency of the development threat and the significant value of the linkage to deer migration. Highway Mitigation: • Collaborate with local CPW biologists and CDOT engineers to identify potential crossing structure mitigation for deer and elk passage at MP Z where a narrow corridor of BLM land abuts the highway as well as other locations throughout the segment. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 31 t U ro G! w N OJ OA f6 +' -0 � L7 [p L i -A Q[Cp L Q Q mC N C Q N 3 Q4 -AM c E :3 N ❑U H 4 - OJ qQ - L C J L y 4� [6 2 � N OJ [per N � Q = S: L G Ln -0 N � Ln Ca � C C ❑ v' U L ❑ U- M m ❑ T) U7 U M CL Q U 2 ❑ N m ka m m U E p i pp94p C ro s s 4° fj Q 0 y 8 & a CL ITJ 3 3 a a 2 M EL M E u ° 2 m 3 a VI 1 kJ u N Q mC `J 1 8 C y L a d g — 0 x Q1 ob x T o a y/ A Y a '°a 2 N Am a > > a p Q E r Ln L N W Q ry Ln 4- � W 2 t w� �0 m LL a In 1 I I Qj iJ F CQ C Q f!1 m m SH 131, State Bridge to County Line Focal Species: Elk, Mule Deer Road Type: 2 -lane highway Land Ownership: BLM, Private Milepost: 12-21.5 This linkage area is defined as a broad area of winter and severe winter range habitat for deer and elk through the Colorado River drainage. Wildlife movements over SH 131 through the linkage area appear to be dispersed, rather than concentrated and may be influenced by access to the Colorado River (Maps 15 & 16). CPW notes that there are multiple barriers to wildlife movement through this linkage, including the railroad tracks and an active rail line, the Colorado River, and the highway itself. Wildlife -vehicle collisions range from moderate to high and occur primarily during the winter and early spring months. Traffic volumes are low, ranging from 770 AADT between State Bridge and the county line to 1,600 south of State Bridge. Much of the linkage area is in BLM ownership; however, between MP 16-20 most of the highway frontage is in private ownership. Except around State Bridge, parcels tend to be large and zoned for agricultural use. Connectivity Recommendations and Opportunities Conservation Actions: • Coordinate with the CPW, BLM and Routt County to identify potential corridors and engage local landowners as needed. Highway Mitigation: • Collaborate with local CPW biologists and CDOT engineers to identify potential wildlife mitigation for deer and elk passage through this linkage area. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 34 i 7 11 Ir i L J ®r E C -RF rvG y�slk �E rE a� &apggg a� yy E pp pp_ y 0 E�3 a 4- E CL u� n L7 cc ❑ E J � ❑ C ajN ❑ U V v CL ❑ y 4� OJ CLQ U CCI U M 4.+ QJ M L iN 12 5"i WV) T1 W Ln C Ln 4- M a� Z � E E r w 2 V a E 3 a a « 4 a Wz El pp ow V � � r t N O � b a � � g E v r E O z � q G 3 w4 � Q � a o s" m z a z� d� d m a S 4- E CL u� n L7 cc ❑ E J � ❑ C ajN ❑ U V v CL ❑ y 4� OJ CLQ U CCI U M 4.+ QJ M L iN 12 5"i WV) T1 W Ln C Ln 4- M a� creek A 9 z � -0 Vf �T L � 4- � }1 CC L 0 .L N CL CL VI m E w CL3 1 E V' ❑ U QJ N L QJ 4� taA ❑ f0 4-+ J QJ 4 L f y QJ (� L QJ QJ � U QJ Q Ln 7 7 2 N n 4-' N � C1 C � QJ ❑ U QJ J N T L LL : T U ❑ N QJ N QJ L CL caVI State Highway 82 State Highway 82 is the principal route between Glenwood Springs and Aspen. While only a short section of the highway traverses through Eagle County, this segment bisects elk winter range and an elk habitat linkage across SH 82 and the Roaring Fork Valley. SH 82, El Jebel Milepost: 18.5-22 Focal Species: Elk Road Type: 4 -lane highway Land Ownership: Private, State Wildlife Area, private conservation lands This linkage connects elk winter and severe winter range through the Roaring Fork Valley (Map 17). Most of the linkage area adjacent to SH 82 is in private ownership and is comprised of various intensities of commercial and residential development, with the exception of a state wildlife area in the northeast portion of the linkage and private conservation lands in the southeast. Outside of the developed areas, the valley bottom is largely agricultural. The linkage connects BLM lands to the southwest with national forest to the northeast. Traffic volumes of 20,000 AADT include regional traffic to and from Aspen, as well as local traffic from the communities of EI Jebel and Basalt. Connectivity Recommendations and Opportunities Conservation Actions: Coordinate with the CPW, Aspen Valley Land Trust, and the town of Basalt and EI Jebel community center to identify potential corridors through developed areas and engage local landowners as needed. The best opportunity for creating a safe passage for elk movement may be on the west side of Basalt, where the state wildlife area borders the north side of SH 82 and private conservation lands lie south of SH 82. Determine with CPW biologists how elk movements have shifted and/or habituated to ongoing development and how these movements may be affected by future growth. Given the developed nature of this linkage area, any mitigation and conservation actions should be conducted in conjunction with a public education and outreach effort. Highway Mitigation: Collaborate with local CPW biologists and CDOT engineers to identify potential crossing structure locations for elk passage. Highway mitigation will also need to address the frontage road. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 37 z� N a V !p 2 m` cs a ❑ 0 3 W gv s - _ a a gi c a ❑ v c Al 1 11 e Fe � r2 C .� Tp N die a to a A a c a a� U OJ Q N [p U a U O N OJ qA [p C 4- m 4� tp to LD [p W i_4, L L Q O kA CAQ m mC C Q N N Q m C N 4-A �_ �o U OZ [p 4� 0 4- 4- Y 4F 4° W U � Q m S: G Ip w 4. w C: r6 00 Ln C n O U OJ d N S¢ L G — Brush Creek Road Brush Creek Road from south of the town of Eagle to the Pitkin County line is mapped as a primary, secondary, or tertiary habitat linkage for deer, elk and, in the southern portions of the linkage, lynx. The northern portion of the Brush Creek valley is characterized by ranch lands. Ten miles south of Eagle is Sylvan Lake State Park. From the park, south to the county line is characterized by conifer forest on National Forest lands. On the south side of Crooked Creek Pass, the road descends along Crooked Creek towards the Frying Pan River valley. The road is open to winter motorized travel, but is not maintained for vehicular traffic beyond Sylvan Lake State Park. Brush Creek Road Milepost: South of Eagle to Pitkin County Focal Species: Elk Road Type: Z -lane road; paved road turns to gravel south of Sylvan Lake State Park Land Ownership: National Forest This linkage is focused around of three primary habitat linkages identified for elk and mule deer across Brush Creek Road. They are discussed jointly here. The lower elevation portions of the linkage area towards Eagle and around the Frying Pan River connect winter as well as summer range for elk and mule deer. The higher elevation portions of the linkage connect ungulate summer range as well as suitable lynx habitat. The northern primary habitat linkage area lies south of the town of Eagle, and was identified for elk and mule deer (Map 18). The middle primary habitat linkage area is focused around Sylvan Lake State Park and was identified for elk, lynx and mule deer (Map 19). The southern primary habitat linkage area lies north of the Pitkin County line, just north of the Frying Pan River (Map 20). This linkage area was identified for elk and lynx primarily, as well as mule deer. Most of the linkage area is within the White River National Forest or Sylvan Lake State Park, with the exception of several private inholdings near the Pitkin County line and private lands along the valley bottom at the southern extent of the town of Eagle. Connectivity Recommendations and Opportunities Conservation Actions: • Coordinate with the CPW, the White River National Forest and Sylvan Lake State Park to identify potential corridors and engage local landowners as needed. Maintaining landscape connectivity through this linkage will require close coordination with private landowners, USFS and State Parks. Highway Mitigation: • Given the rural, forested nature of much of this linkage area, low traffic volumes and low speeds, it is unlikely to require wildlife crossing structures mitigation. Other roadway mitigation strategies to reduce speeds may be warranted. Should the road over Crooked Creek Pass become paved, additional mitigation may be required. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 39 t v rC G! L ❑ N OJ Y [p � L renn L V C� C � L 4-j L N MQ Q mCC N C � OJ m 3 [p C N 4-j �0 ❑ hN U _Ile i -j C ❑ J y 4 m L [p Vi 2 [6 N Q U7 M y C 7 OJ � M QJ LU w 4, 4..-0 4 L ❑ CU -0 t/7 C z7' ❑ � U ❑ N C= OJ Ll- OJ V 1 C -r- ❑ N L OJ m U CO Q r -I Vf a - CQ U C ❑ Q ei Y 2 .If E E z� ry u " E E E E r n � � N U a 3 m u ad S a a o p 0m W 2 S El C s� CL � a ❑ � dI ry J O N v a � Ob Y x J 4 0 2 % Ob OiI a( .y a O 7 E g aj aj a a°a c .-- —_. a g 4� m � � 7 UT t v rC G! L ❑ N OJ Y [p � L renn L V C� C � L 4-j L N MQ Q mCC N C � OJ m 3 [p C N 4-j �0 ❑ hN U _Ile i -j C ❑ J y 4 m L [p Vi 2 [6 N Q U7 M y C 7 OJ � M QJ LU w 4, 4..-0 4 L ❑ CU -0 t/7 C z7' ❑ � U ❑ N C= OJ Ll- OJ V 1 C -r- ❑ N L OJ m U CO Q r -I Vf a - CQ U C ❑ Q at 13 Z �p O I.EF>js� LL- E�� n 9� r❑� w;d jos �w4w br 0 m nn c c gg 6 W 13 Z N to fu C Q m mC i Q N Q Cm i 4-A � C H ❑ U N � C ❑ J L Y �F y N N � Q L 2 ❑ a u �p O = J G d 0 m F d W V TLV N V G4 ❑ Lop G4 w � y c O = _ V daj u a Q 5 W E Q ° s dx m d V y� ry a ME c U v Ao O as w s n a a a W U9 01,I ds N to fu C Q m mC i Q N Q Cm i 4-A � C H ❑ U N � C ❑ J L Y �F y N N � Q L 2 ❑ a u tp 41 4 41 i6 N Z LD fu a 41 L L [p O i.n.L Q CL mCC N C a � [p Q N 3 a Q y m C :3 O N U N O J y vi y L 2 � N OJ Q y [p :3 If 41 �1 J � y L C � O O V C � }I L d O U_ O a o a A u C m G m r + q LLeE zry-o - ` ww m Y c p w g f fd E Z I � � a ° _ GV ^ El ® m + x a x a T otl a . 06 06 06 o a j = u, 3 u w 3 W s d N2 2 V £ m I+ LJ G m N l 1 1 1 L +t OE' m m Fe I w N m 9 f22 5 a ulIII {'s01:o tp 41 4 41 i6 N Z LD fu a 41 L L [p O i.n.L Q CL mCC N C a � [p Q N 3 a Q y m C :3 O N U N O J y vi y L 2 � N OJ Q y [p :3 If 41 �1 J � y L C � O O V C � }I L d O U_ O a o a A u Next Steps This Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Plan serves as a first step towards identifying wildlife connectivity priorities for conservation and highway mitigation. The following steps are suggested to continue the process of refining and implementing a vision for landscape connectivityfor wildlife in Eagle County. 3. Broader Stakeholder Review and Linkage Validation While this initial linkage assessment included a stakeholder process and stakeholder review of the modeled linkage areas, the plan would benefit from additional stakeholder and expert participation. Linkage areas may also be validated with available data sets to empirically test wildlife use of mapped linkage areas relative to other portions of the landscape that cross roads. Collar data provides the best mechanism for testing and validating linkage models. Limited mule deer or elk collar data may be available for portions of the county (available from the CPW Area office); however, older data sets may not provide a relevant test due to intervening land use changes that may have caused shifts in wildlife movement patterns. Such a validation process was beyond the scope of this project, but would lend greater confidence in the plan results and recommendations. 2. Conduct Linkage Analysis for Other County Roads Participants of the stakeholder workshops recommended that the linkage analysis be conducted for other county roads. In particular, Cottonwood Pass Road increasingly serves as an unofficial bypass route around Glenwood Canyon and traffic volumes along this route are expected to increase. Other routes of interest include: Gypsum Creek Road and Colorado River Road. 3. Develop Shelf -Ready Mitigation Solutions and Benefit -cost Assessment Preliminary highway mitigation recommendations have been developed for 1-70 via the EcoLogical study; however, other roadways in Eagle County lack milepost -specific mitigation recommendations. Field surveys by biological experts and engineers are recommended to develop specific highway mitigation recommendations for all of the roadways in this study and US G. Shelf -ready mitigation recommendations and benefit -cost assessments are necessary for Eagle County and its partners to pursue a proactive strategy of funding and implementing mitigation for wildlife movement, and to be in advance of upcoming transportation projects. 4. Conservation Partnerships and Mitigation Funding Inter -organizational partnerships across jurisdictionaI boundaries are essential in funding and implementing on -the -ground landscape conservation and mitigation projects. Wildlife move irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries, emphasizing the need for conservation actions that are consistent across boundaries in areas that are important for wildlife. Successful landscape conservation efforts engage many partner entities, including municipalities, counties, state and federal agencies, non-profit organizations, community and interest -based groups, and industry. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 43 In addition, several linkage areas fall entirely or primarily on public lands managed by the BLM or USFS, and are not directly managed by the county. Eagle County may assume a leadership role in engaging agency partners to advance conservation actions and highway mitigation in these linkage areas, but must rely on additional partners and stakeholders to effectively implement connectivity strategies and achieve conservation goals. Funding conservation and mitigation is similarly dependent upon partnerships and the multiple funding sources that each party may bring to the table. Large-scale projects result from a combination of federal, state and, increasingly, private funding sources. CBOT is currently in the initial stages of planning a regional Wildlife Crossing Summit, slated for Spring 2017, to engage agencies, elected officials, nonprofit organizations, and the public in a discussion about creating a statewide wildlife mitigation program aimed at building innovative partnerships and leveraging resources. In Eagle County, further work is needed to convene relevant partners for each of the highest priority linkage areas, define each partner's role in pursuing connectivity objectives within a linkage area, and create a list of potential contributors to help fund mitigation, including wildlife crossing structures. Such a list may include federal programs, wildlife and transportation agencies, sportsmen/women groups, land trusts and non-profit organizations, private landowners, and other entities as applicable. In northern California, for example, a dedicated Linkage Stakeholder Group was created to develop a coordinated, multi -partner strategy to pursue funding for wildlife crossing structures in a priority linkage area. S. Citizen Outreach and Public Education Landscape connectivity for wildlife is a complex concept. It is species -dependent and scale - dependent, and may vary depending on the ecological objectives. These attributes render landscape connectivity a nuanced conservation objective that may be difficult for decision - makers and the public to fully comprehend. A public education and outreach campaign is recommended to create a public discussion on connectivity: What is connectivity for wildlife? Why is it important? How can connectivity be protected or restored? How should the Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Plan be used to guide decision-making? The objective of such a campaign would be to build public and political support for connectivity conservation and highway mitigation. For several wildlife crossing projects in the West (e.g., SH 9 in Colorado, US 93 in Montana, and 1-90 in Washington), citizen involvement proved the catalyst for funding and constructing wildlife crossing structures. One technique for creating such a public dialogue may be drawn from the example of La Plata County, Colorado where a Living with Wildlife advisory board was developed to advise county commissioners on methods of preventing and resolving wildlife conflicts, including wildlife - vehicle collisions. The board seeks to address these issues by working proactively with residents and area land managers. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 44 6. Wildlife Corridors and Transportation Policy Wildlife corridors policy at the county, state or federal level is an important tool for advancing the planning, funding and implementation of projects. Over recent years, a number of organizations have sought to introduce wildlife corridors legislation into Congress, including a current effort to establish a National Wildlife Corridors System via a bill to be introduced to the 114th Congress by Representative Beyer (D -VA). Federal transportation policy is guided by the 2015 bill, Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). The FAST ACT and its predecessors (MAP -21 in 2012, and SAFETEA-LU in 2005) include funding for programs, such as the Federal Lands Transportation Program, which is a source of funding for transportation infrastructure on federal lands, and stipulates federal regulations and practices, including the requirements to consult with wildlife agencies and integrate ecological considerations into transportation planning, design and construction. At the state level, Senate Bill 09-108 known as the Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery Act (FASTER) was passed in 2009. This bill established the Road Safety Fund to support the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance of projects to improve highway safety, including the reduction of wildlife -vehicle collisions. To date, wildlife mitigation projects funded by FASTER have focused on the construction of wildlife exclusion fencing to reduce WVC; however, there may also be opportunities to direct these funds to the construction of wildlife crossing structures. In Wyoming, the Game and Fish Commission recently approved guidelines that call on state wildlife officials to continue efforts to map the long-distance seasonal migrations undertaken by deer, elk and pronghorn. The study will also consider how to counter threats to these migrations, in particular oil and gas development. The guidelines are not regulatory, but offer recommendations for state biologists to refer to when advising federal agencies on wildlife populations on federal land. At the county level, only a few counties in the nation have made advances towards developing wildlife corridors policy and establishing funding mechanisms to help pay for wildlife crossing structures. These include: • Pima County, Arizona residents approved a sales tax in 2006 to fund transportation and transit improvements, including $45 million over ZD years that is allocated for wildlife linkage projects. The multi -jurisdictional Wildlife Linkages Working Group recommends projects and decides how to distribute these funds to projects. In 2015, a wildlife overpass, an underpass and associated wildlife exclusion fencing were constructed using these funds. • Pasco County, Florida, where a proposed ordinance is nearing approval to establish criteria and regulations for seven proposed wildlife corridors that, in part, would pass through private lands. The ordinance would determine compensation for land acquired by the county from willing private landowners. The ordinance would apply only if a landowner sought to rezone property for land uses of greater density or intensity, and had some portion of the corridor within the property's boundaries. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 45 Teton County, Wyoming, is in the initial stages of developing a wildlife crossing master plan, as directed by the county's Integrated Transportation Plan and supported by the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, private citizens, led by the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, are urging county officials to include an initiative on the 2016 ballot that would allow voters to decide whether to use sales tax to fund the construction of wildlife crossing structures. La Plata County, Colorado hired a consultant team to produce the report Best Management Practices for Wildlife and Roads In La Plata County in 2010. This document preliminarily identifies wildlife crossing zones on the county roads network and provides general guidance for evaluating potential mitigation alternatives. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 46 References Barnum, S.A. 2003. Identifying the best locations along highways to provide safe crossing opportunities for wildlife. Report No. CDOT-DTD-UCD-2003-9. Colorado Department of Transportation Research Branch. Denver, CO. Bissonette, J. A. and P. C. Cramer. 2008. Evaluation of the use and effectiveness of wildlife crossings. NCHRP Report 615. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Academies, Washington, D.C., USA. Crooks, K. R., D.M. Theoba Id, S. Baruch-Mordo, M. Sherburne, J. Norman, and K. Wilson. 2006. Highway corridor wildlife mitigation/habitat connectivity study. Phase I Report: Biological Prioritization of Highway Segments in Colorado Based on Landscape Connectivity. Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, CO. Heller, N.E. and Zavaleta, E.S. (2009). Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation, 142: 14-32. Keeley, A.T.K. 2015. Comparing Estimates of Landscape Resistance to Animal Movement. Ph.D. thesis. Northern Arizona University. Kintsch, J., P. Singer, M. Huijser, J. Crane, and A. Huyett. 2011. A regional ecosystem framework for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife along the 1-70 Mountain Corridor in Colorado: An EcoLogicaI field test. Federal Highway Administration and Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, CO. LaPoint, S., P. Gallery, M. Wikelski, and R. Kays. 2013. Animal behavior, cost -based corridor models, and real corridors. Landscape Ecology 28(8):1615-1630. Neumann, W., G. Ericsson, H. Dettki, N. Bunnefeld, N.S. Kueler, D.P. Helmers, and V.C. Radeloff. 2012. Difference in spatiotemporal patterns of wildlife road -crossings and wildlife vehicle collisions. Biological Conservation 145, 70-78. Nogeire, T.M., F.W. Davis, K.R. Crooks, B.H. McRae, L.M. Lyren and E.E. Boydston. 2015. Can orchards help connect Mediterranean ecosystems? Animal movement data alter conservation priorities. The American Midland Naturalist 174(1):105-116. Rudnick D. A., P. Beier, S. Cushman, F. Dieffenbach, C. W. Epps, L. Gerber, J. Hartter, J. Jenness, J. Kintsch, A. M. Merenlender, R. M. Perkl, D. V. Preziosi, S. J. Ryan, and S. C. Trombulak. 2012. The Role of Landscape Connectivity in Planning and Implementing Conservation and Restoration Priorities. Issues in Ecology, 16. Shenk, T. 2005. General locations of lynx (Lynx canadensls) reintroduced to southwestern Colorado from February 4, 1999 through February 1, 2005. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. Singer, P., A. Huyett, J. Kintsch and M. Huijser. 2011. Interstate 70 Eco -Logical Monitoring and I- 70 Wildlife Watch Report. Final Report to the Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, CO. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 47 SREP. 2005. Linking Colorado's landscapes: A statewide assessment of wildlife linkages. Phase I Report. Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, Denver, CO. SREP. ZQQG. US Highway 24 Tennessee pass North Linkage Assessment. Linking Colorado's Landscapes Phase II Report. Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project. Denver, CO. SREP. 2007. Citizen science wildlife Monitoring on Vail Pass. Unpublished Data. Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, Denver, CO. SREP. 2008. Making connections for wildlife: Aligning transportation planning with state wildlife action plans, a step-by-step guide for integrated conservation planning. Report to the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Zeller, K.A., K. McGarigal, P. Beier, S.A. Cushman, T.W. Vickers, W.M. Boyce. 2015. Using step and path selection functions for estimating resistance to movement: pumas as a case study. Landscape Ecology:1-17. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report 48 Appendices Appendix A: Wildlife Linkage Modeling Technical Methods Description Data Sources Type Source Eagle County Boundary Eagle County Highways CDOT County Roads Eagle County Habitat Suitability Models (elk, lynx and mule deer) Rocky Mountain Wild GIS Methodology 1. The Eagle County boundary layer was buffered by 5 miles to create analysis area to account for edge effects. The boundary layer was first re -projected into NAD 1983 UTM Zone 13N as specified by the Corridor Designer manual. 2. Only state and federal highways (1-70, US 5, US 24, SH 82, and SH 131) and one county road (Brush Creek Rd) were included in the analysis. a. The CDOT Highway layer was clipped to the analysis area and 170/US G, US 24, SH 131 and SH 82 were selected out. Segments for 70E, 70 G or 131A (looks like emergency turn-around/auxiliary) were excluded as were any state and federal roads outside the county boundaries. b. Brush Creek Road was selected from CDOT local and major roads data and augmented in a few segments with street centerline data provided by the county. The road segment was selected from 1-70 to about 5 miles beyond the county line (to account for edge effects). In the CDOT data, the route is called Brush Creek Road up until the county line. After the county line, it turns into Eagle -Thomasville Road for a short segment before turning into Frying Pan Rd. Frying Pan Road continues on but turns back north and west, so Wildcat Road was selected to get beyond the 5 mile buffer. c. Railroads were also not included in the analysis because there are too many variables with them (i.e. inactive vs. active, degree of activeness for the active ones). This is something the county can analyze later if they want to do a more detailed analysis. 3. Buffering the road layer: The roads layer from above was buffered using a static distance of 500 m across species. Based on the parameters for the distance from roads Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report - Appendix A-1 used to create the habitat suitability model for each species, this distance roughly clips out the most strongly avoided and occasionally used habitat, thus creating cores from the most strongly preferred and usable but suboptimal habitat which is the most ideal to connect. The final buffered layer was dissolved to create a single polygon layer, effectively combining all roads, in particular 1-70 and U5 G, into one layer. This roads layer was later clipped/erased out of all core areas despite what road is being analyzed (i.e. SH 131 and U5 24 are erased out of the core areas used for the 1-70 analysis). Because the Brush Creek analysis was added later in the project, this roadway was not clipped out for the 1-70, U5 G, U5 24, SH 82, and SH 131 analyses. However, it was confirmed that clipping out Brush Creek originally would not have affected the results of these analyses. 4. The habitat suitability models used for this project were created in 2008 for the project Making Connections for Wildlife: Aligning Transportation Planning with State Wildlife Action Plans (SREP 2008). The parameters for the habitat suitability models were derived from the published literature and expert opinion and include four primary factors: land cover (SWreGAP - reclassified to a smaller number of habitat groupings), elevation (30m resolution NED), topographic position (created from 30-m NED) and distance from roads (buffered by species from highways, major roads, local roads, and FS roads). Each parameter was weighted 0-100% depending on the degree of influence for a given target species' habitat use, with all the factors adding up to 100%. For these target species (elk, lynx and mule deer), elevation was not an individually weighted factor because these species are not sensitive to elevation to an extent greater than what is already captured by the land cover variable. Topographic position (i.e., canyon bottom, flat or gentle slope, steep slope, ridgetop) was weighted for mule deer, but was not weighted for elk or lynx. Within any one 30m pixel, this variable is not presumed to be influential for these species. For each focal species, these factors were then combined to create the habitat suitability model, where every pixel is assigned a value relating to the habitat value of the combined factors for that species. For each factor with a weight greater than zero, the weighted geometric mean was calculated by raising each factor by its weight and by multiplying the factors. 5. In ArcCata log, the statewide habitat suitability model for each target species was clipped to the analysis area using the "Clip layers to analysis area" tool within the CorridorDesigner toolbox (first tool under 1. Layer Preparation"). G. Core habitat areas for each focal species were defined to serve as the endpoints, or areas, between which the linkage model was run. Corridor Designer derives these patches from the habitat suitability model by weighting the land cover data layer based on habitat preferences as defined by species experts, 1-3 (strongly preferred, l is best), 4-5 (usable but suboptimal habitat), 6-7 (not breeding habitat, but occasionally used), 8 - Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report - Appendix A -Z 10 (strongly avoided, 10 is worst). Potential core habitat patches were derived from the habitat suitability model and based on expert identified parameters for minimum potential habitat core sizes (i.e. support core population for at least 10 years) and/or potential breeding habitat (home range or enough to support one breeding event) and were used to define the endpoints (actual areas) for the linkage analysis model. 7. Run habitat patch analysis for each species using the "Create habitat patch map" tool in ArcCata log (last tool under "II. Habitat Mod eling") a. Parameters for Elk— i. Moving window radius (based on Daily Dispersal Distance (the distance a species might move between patches within the same home range)) - Circle 33 CELL ii. Threshold 70 iii. Breeding (home range or enough to support one breeding event) = 1500 ha iv. Minimum potential habitat core size (i.e. support core pop for at least 10 years) = 7500 ha b. Parameters for Lynx — i. Moving window radius (based on Daily Dispersal Distance (the distance a species might move between patches within the same home range)) _ Circle 100 CELL ii. Threshold = 70 iii. Breeding (home range or enough to support one breeding event) = 7200 ha iv. Minimum potential habitat core size (i.e. support core pop for at least 10 years) = 75500 ha c. Parameters for Mule Deer - i. Moving window radius (based on Daily Dispersal Distance (the distance a species might move between patches within the same home range)) _ Circle 24 CELL ii. Threshold = 70 iii. Breeding (home range or enough to support one breeding event) = 1295 ha iv. Minimum potential habitat core size (i.e. support core pop for at least 10 years) = 6475 ha d. Naming convention — SPECIES —PatchTHRESHOLD e. Threshold (% good quality habitat) = 70 (or 70 to 100 best habitat) used for MCW in most cases, used for this project although can potentially use other thresholds if not enough good habitat to do analysis f. NOTE: The text files will have information on what inputs were used for any of the Corridor Design tools. Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report - Appendix A-3 8. Output patch shapefile should include: GRIDCODE 3 = Potential Population Patch GRIDCODE Z = Potential Breeding Patch GRIDCODE 1 = Smaller than Potential Breeding Patch Preferably want GRIDCODE 3 and at least GRIDCODE Z to run corridor model 9. Create core areas a. Clip patch shapefile to analysis area again (polygons overflow after patch analysis) (SPECIES_ patchTHRESHOLD_clip) b. Select out only GRIDCODE 3 and Z, eliminating any GRIDCODE 1, from patch shapefile (SPECIES_patchTHRES HOLD_cIip_GDZ_3) c. Dissolve patch polygons into one layer ( SP ECI ES_patc hTH RE SH O L D_cl i p_G ❑Z_3_d sl v ) d. Erase buffered road layer out of patch shapefile ( SP ECI ES_patc hTH RE SH O L D_cl i p_G ❑2_3_d sl v_e ra se) e. Explode Multipart feature to create separate polygons on either side of each highway i. Merge any smaller polygons with their larger corresponding polygons ii. Delete any disconnected slivers (very small polygons (only necessary once on mule deer) iii. Done during editing so naming convention remains the same as the last ste p f. Export areas on either side of focus roadway as core 1 and core Z i. Naming convention: HWY_SpeciesTHRESHOLD_Blockl; H WY_SpeciesTH RESHOLD_BlockZ ii. For SH8Z, the east side core area includes everything up to US24 but not east of US24 1. Note: original analysis run prior to including Brush Creek in the project iii. For US24, the west side core area includes everything up to SH82 but not west of SH82 1. Note: original analysis run prior to including Brush Creek in the project iv. For Brush Creek, the east side core area includes everything up to US24 but not east of US24 and the west side core area includes everything up to SH82 but not west of SH82 10. Create slices using "Create corridor model" tool in ArcCatalog (first tool under "III. Corridor Modeling") a. Creates slices .1%, 1-9% Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report - Appendix A-4 b. Use same inputs as number 7 above. 11. If necessary, create additional slices using "Create corridor slices" tool in ArcCatalog (second tool under 'III. Corridor Modeling') a. Input= 1, 10, 41 (if enter 40, only makes slices up to 39). 12. Union all highway desired display %slices by species using "Create union of all corridors" in ArcCatalog. 13. Naming convention = SPECIESTHRESHOL❑_%SLICE_corridor_allhighways (i.e. elk70_O_6_percent_corridor_allhighways where _0_6_percent = .G%) 14. If desired, clip cst raster file to the desired display slice for each highway in order to display the various raster values. Naming convention = SPECIES_HWY_cstc 15. The final display linkage shapefiles were unioned (using the "Union" tool in ArcGIS). a. Primary linkages: .2% chosen for mule deer, .G% chosen for elk, .G% chosen for lynx exceptfor Vail Pass where 5% chosen. b. Used unioned allhighways shapefiles created for each species c. Added column in each shapefHe for chosen display slice %, highway and species. d. Once unioned, began editing and used "Explode multipart feature" tool to separate the linkages into individual features. e. While still editing, selected and merged separated individual polygons to create final discrete linkages. i. All touching polygons were considered in the same linkage even if just touching by a corner. Any cross highway unions were removed (i.e. 1-70 for elk and US 24 for mule deer) Eagle County Wildlife Connectivity Phase I Report - Appendix A-5