Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.15 Wildlife ReportWildlife and Vegetative Impact Analysis PDC Energy Piceance Centralized Soil Treatment Facility OLSSON ASSOCIATES OA Project No. 011 -2627 760 Horizon Drive, Suite 102 1 Grand Junction, CO 81506 1 TEL 970.263.7800 1 FAX 970.263.7456 PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PICEANCE CENTRALIZED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY Impact Analysis: Section 4 -502 E (8) Environmental Effects Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution 2008 Cover Photo: View of landscape conditions surrounding project area (center). Prepared for: Petroleum Development Corporation 1775 Sherman Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80203 Prepared by: WestWater Engineering, Inc. 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 November 2011 INTRODUCTION At the request of Petroleum Development Corporation (PDC), WestWater Engineering (WWE) biologists conducted field surveys and assessments of wildlife, wildlife habitats, and sensitive plant species for a land parcel that is the site of a proposed centralized soil treatment facility (Cover Photo; Figure 1). PDC is proposing to create the centralized soil treatment facility to store and reclaim soil impacted by Exploration and Production (E &P) wastes generated during PDC's drilling and production operations. The project site is located 6.8 miles east of Parachute, Colorado in Section 25, Township 6 South, Range 95 West (Figure 1). The project area lies within Garfield County, Colorado, and is located on private land. Access to the site is currently available via Highway 6 east from Parachute and onto a private access road. This document reports the results and analysis of the findings that are pertinent to Garfield County Land Use regulations (2008) that apply to this project. SURVEY METHODS A preliminary review of the project area using aerial photographs was conducted to familiarize biologists with the site and as an aid to help determine the potential presence of wildlife and any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species including plants. Field data collected during the survey were documented and /or recorded with the aid of a handheld global positioning system (GPS) receiver utilizing NAD83 map datum, with all coordinate locations based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system in Zone 12. WWE biologists conducted pedestrian surveys to identify and locate wildlife species, wildlife sign, vegetative communities, and wildlife habitats. Vegetation types were determined through field identification of plants, aerial photography, and on- the - ground assessments of plant abundance. Visual searches for raptor and other bird species nests focused on tree nesting habitat within a 0.25 -mile radius of the project site and cliff nesting raptor habitat within 0 5 -miles if it existed. Nest searches and bird identification were aided with the use of binoculars. Biologists searched for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants within 100 meters of the parcel and in suitable habitat. Weed surveys were conducted within an approximate 100 foot radius of the parcel. Photographs were taken of the general project location, vegetation, and terrain. SECTION 4 -502 E. - ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WATERS OF THE U.S. - -Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) The project area lies north of the Colorado River on an upland terrace. Terrain is relatively flat at an elevation of approximately 5,200 ft above sea level. Steep slopes and low hills lie north of the project site and are bisected by dry washes (Figure 1). WWE biologists determined that no wetlands or drainages showing characteristics of Waters of the U.S. (WOUS) were located within the boundaries of the proposed soil treatment facility. VEGETATION Vegetation communities around the project area are disturbed by Interstate 70 (I -70), natural gas development, and nearby industrial development. The surrounding area is dominated by sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) shrublands with a WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 10 November 2011 mixed forb /grass understory consisting of mostly annual plants. Pinyon juniper woodlands are widely scattered on the hillsides and ridgetops near the project area and are dominated by Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) with an occasional pinyon pine (Pinus edulis). Other vegetation observed in the area includes shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), and crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) throughout the understory. Approximately 30 percent of the centralized soil treatment facility parcel has been previously disturbed by a pipeline Right -of -Way (ROW). Vegetation found along the pipeline ROW is primarily composed of crested wheatgrass, annual wheatgrass (Eremopyrum triticeum), kochia (Kochia scoparia), and Russian thistle (Salsola spp). Table 1. Common plant species observed near the proposed access road. Plants Species Occurring Within 100 feet. Annual wheatgrass Lambsquarters Cheatgrass Rabbitbrush, yellow Clasping pepperweed Red -stem filaree Crested wheatgrass Russian thistle Greasewood Sagebrush Kochia Shadscale Additional Common Plant Species Occurring Within 0.25 Miles _ Astragalus sp. Poa sp. Crested wheatgrass Prickly -pear cactus Indian ricegrass Snakeweed Juniper Wheatgrass, intermediate Needlegrass sp. Wheatgrass, western Pinyon Yarrow, western Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Plant Species A review of the Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide (Spackman, et. al. 1997) indicated that no sensitive plant species would be expected to occur within the project area. No threatened, endangered, or sensitive plants or suitable habitat for these plants was observed within the survey buffer. Noxious Weeds Intensive weed surveys were conducted within 100 ft of the parcel (Figure 1). Cheatgrass, Canada thistle, and halogeton were found in the project area (Table 2). Table 2. Observed Noxious Weed Locations in the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name General Location and Comments Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum Scattered throughout the project area and nearby habitat. State C List. WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 10 November 2011 Table 2. Observed Noxious Weed Locations in the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name General Location and Comments Canada thistle A single location within the boundary of the proposed development. State B List and Garfield County List. Halogeton Scattered broadly along an existing pipeline corridor. State C List. WILDLIFE Threatened & Endangered Wildlife No threatened, endangered, or candidate species of wildlife or suitable habitat for these species was observed within the survey area. Two federally - endangered fish species, the Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), are known to occur in the Colorado River which is approximately 0.15 miles from the parcel. Raptors Twelve raptor species would be expected to nest within the general project area and are listed in Table 3. The most common raptor species observed in the area include American Kestrel, Cooper's Hawk, and Red - tailed Hawk. Table 3. Raptor species that may be present in the nroiect area. Common Name Scientific Name BCC* American Kestrel Falco sparverius No Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii No Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus No Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Yes Long -eared Owl Asio otus No Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus No Northern Saw -whet Owl Aegolius acadicus No Peregrine Falcon § Falco peregrines Yes Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Yes Red - tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis No Sharp - shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus No Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni No * BCC =U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bird of Conservation Concern. § BLM Sensitive Species Raptor surveys were conducted on November 2, 2011. One potential raptor nest, which was first documented in 2009, was observed within the 0.25 -mile tree nest survey area and did not appear to have been occupied recently (Figure 1; Table 4). This nest was likely first built by magpies and would most likely be occupied by Long -eared Owls if it were to be used by raptors WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 10 November 2011 in the future. There were no cliff nests documented in the limited cliff habitat within 0.5 mile of the project area. Table 4. Raptor nest locations in the nroiect area. Label (Fig. 1) Easting Northing Species Occupancy UNRA -1 246028 4375965 Unknown Unoccupied The vegetation near the proposed site is mainly composed of sagebrush and greasewood shrublands, which are of limited suitability for most raptor nesting. Woodlands dominated by small junipers along the slopes of the ridge provide poor to fair raptor nesting habitat near the project. The project area mainly provides foraging habitat for raptors. Red - tailed Hawk and Northern Harrier were observed in the area. Migratory, Non - migratory, and Birds of Conservation Concern (other than raptors) WWE biologists surveyed the project area for the presence of any bird species that could potentially be affected by the project. Particular attention was given to searching for birds that are listed as sensitive by the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW- formerly the Colorado Division of Wildlife). Species with potential to occur in the project area are listed in Table 5. Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) are species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that are priorities for conservation action (USFWS 2008). The goal is to prevent or remove the need for additional endangered species act (ESA) bird listings by implementing proactive management and conservation actions. Table 5. BLM sensitive species, BCC, and state species of concern that may occur within roiect area. Species Common Name Species Scientific Name * Status Habitat Description Habitat and Species Observations Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri P BCC BLM Inhabits sagebrush dominated shrublands. Habitat Yes Species — No nesting observed, but is possible. Juniper Titmouse Baeolophus griseus BCC er un Pin on- i woodlands. Pinyon-juniper Habitat — Yes Species — No nesting observed, but is possible. Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus BCC Pinyon juniper woodlands. Habitat — Yes Species — No nesting p g observed, but is possible. BCC =Bird of Conservation Concern C= federal candidate, and SC =CPW special concern. BLM =BLM Sensitive Species The survey was conducted in early November and most migrant bird species had left the area. Nests for these species are usually well hidden and are best detected when the adults are building, incubating, or tending a brood (early summer), so nest detection was unlikely during this survey. A 100 -foot buffer is the typical distance stipulated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for protection of nesting migratory birds, excluding raptors. No bird nesting was observed within a 100 -foot radius of the boundary of the parcel. WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 10 November 2011 The sagebrush and greasewood shrublands in the area surrounding the project site provide nesting and foraging habitat for various migratory and non - migratory bird species, including Brewer's Sparrow, depending on the season of the year (Andrews & Righter 1992). Bird species observed during the survey included Black- billed Magpie (Pica hudsonia), Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris), Mountain Bluebird (Sialia currucoides), and Dark -eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis). American Elk and Mule Deer The proposed site is located in CPW Game Management Unit (GMU) 32. The parcel is within CPW -NDIS mapped mule deer overall and severe winter range and is near elk overall winter range (NDIS 2011) (Figures 2 and 3). Deer and elk sign was observed during the survey. Black Bear and Mountain Lion CPW -NDIS mapping shows the site to be within overall range for black bear and mountain lion (NDIS 2011). During the survey no sign of either species was observed. The site provides little habitat value for black bear. Mountain lions likely inhabit the general project area during the winter months when wintering mule deer inhabit the site. Small Mammals Common small mammal species in the project area include bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote (Canis latrans), cottontail (Sylvilagus spp.), and a variety of rodent species. Reptiles Short-horned lizards (Phrynosoma hernandesi), sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus), plateau striped whiptail (Cnemidophorus velox), and gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer) likely inhabit the site, in addition to several less common species (Hammerson 1999). Amphibians Since there are no permanent water sources near the proposed project area, no amphibian species are expected to occupy the area and none would be potentially affected. SECTION 4 -502 (8) (a) Determination of Long and Short -term Effects on Flora and Fauna FAUNA Raptors No direct impacts will occur to raptor nesting habitat and no nest sites are located where removal of the nest tree is a concern. Short-term indirect impacts in the form of raptor avoidance of the area due to human presence and disturbance from construction are possible. A loss of foraging habitat would occur. American Elk and Mule Deer The proposed soil treatment facility would be located within Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Game Management Unit 32. Project development will reduce available cover and forage although vegetative conditions on the site have been previously altered and are of marginal quality for big -game. The physical presence of the facility will mostly impact deer or elk habitat use within the footprint of the site itself, as these species have become mildly habituated to WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 10 November 2011 increased human presence and vehicle traffic in this area. It is unlikely that operation of the facility would influence population densities or distribution as the site is situated near I -70 and experiences a high degree of human activity both on the freeway and on existing natural gas developments in the area. The condition of the roads and internal policies of the companies operating in the area restrict vehicle speeds to less than 25 miles - per -hour, and therefore vehicle related mortality for these species is not expected. Black Bear and Mountain Lion Indirect effects from development of this project should not impact either bears or mountain lions. Small Mammals, Birds (BCC), and Reptiles Affects of habitat loss for birds would include the lost of nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of species. The removal of existing vegetation contributes to the cumulative effects of resource development in the project area, although suitable habitat for most bird species in the project area is abundant. Affects to small mammals and reptiles are expected to be minimal due to the large amount of habitat available in the surrounding area, although the development could contribute to increased predation of these species by creating "edge" habitat. Vehicle related mortality for birds, small mammals, and reptiles may occur, but should not significantly affect populations of these species. FLORA Native vegetation including sagebrush and greasewood communities will be removed for construction. No TESS plants would be affected. Implementation of an integrated vegetation management plan would reduce the effects of disturbance to the project site. SECTION 4 -502 (8) (c) (1) Determination of the effect on significant environmental resources -- critical wildlife habitat The development and expansion of the site is not expected to significantly affect any critical wildlife habitat for any wildlife species. Potential issues are outlined below. • Creation of hazardous attractions: No project feature will create hazardous attractions for wildlife or introduce features that would likely entrap or harm wildlife that occur in the area. Proper fencing would prevent big -game from entering the facility. • Indirect Construction Effects: Project construction factors such as the presence of construction personnel and noise has a potential to affect wildlife in a negative manner, particularly within big -game winter range from late -fall to early- spring. Since construction and operation of this facility is limited to a relatively small area, and the project takes place adjacent to significant human presence related to the presence of a major I -70 and other activities in the area, the amount disturbance from this project is likely to be negligible at other times of the year. • Alteration of Existing Vegetation: The existing vegetation within the approximately 9.5 -acre project footprint will be lost for the duration of the facility's existence. The vegetation affected is neither unique, nor in limited availability relative to the large WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 10 November 2011 expanse of similar vegetation in the area. Soil disturbances and removal of native vegetation will create an opportunity for noxious weeds to spread. • Big Game Migration Corridors: No specific deer or elk migration corridors will be affected, though big game certainly migrates into the project area. • Roadkill: Vehicle speeds would be low (less than 25 miles - per -hour) though traffic volumes along the access road would likely increase. Since the gravel access road does not allow for high speeds, the chance for increased roadkill of big -game wildlife is remote. Potential for roadkill on small mammals and reptiles exists, but should not affect populations significantly. • Bird Nesting Habitat: Bird nesting habitat will be lost due to project development. REFERENCES Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado. Garfield County. 2008. Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution. Final Draft dated July 1, 2008. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Hammerson, G. A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado, Second Edition. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. NDIS. 2011. Natural Diversity Information Source — Colorado Parks and Wildlife. http: / /ndis.nrel .colostate.edu/wildlife.asp. Accessed September 2011. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide, Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 10 November 2011 • UNRA -1 Legend • Canada Thistle Unoccupied Raptor Nest Property Boundary est atertngineer BLM Figure 1. Petroleum Development Corporation Soil Treatment Facility Garfield County Impact Analysis Location, Raptor Nests, Noxious Weeds \NestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 MiiNovember 2011 November 2011 ap • urce: Z:1PDC1Land Farming Parcel (soli trt. facility)120111GIS\Fig_2.mxd November 2011 ntj 40) svoi vw, "*".441 - dAtit I • 4 It FA-vr‘prvrIr4 4044,.. 4* 64 iieor -Pr • Np • t, eso • e 44 4i■ • • 0.41 4 • Si to* • • 04 • 0+40 • o 04 .4 pilto8 4 AP 4104A 0'4 iff t let "SW. 4 04 ea ir • EmageN-fmi • .4* 44404. ***A / 4- -*Aka .4* r )I.UIt Aui, *-4414. Ar_ 004 • 40 t 0 .40 4 4 PI s i° i s 040� • 4 4 4 441 kk 4, 4 • - 40.4*". • 'IP r. 4.• tet Atel 4,4 rir 4 1 *4-4 100 - 1 Figure 2. 40.1 .♦ ♦: ♦....♦♦.♦♦ Petroleum Development Corporation '♦��♦♦.♦♦ ♦.♦♦, Soil Treatment Facility .-- --��♦�♦� Garfield County Impact Analysis Mule Deer Winter Range W/ Legend Property Boundary Severe Winter Range Int once ration estWater Engm: Overall Winter Range 4040.. ****1 4404110,41 0 WestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 025 0.5 MNvvember 2011 November 2011 Map Source: Z:IPDCILand Farming Parcel (soil trt. facilityil20111GISlFig_2.mxd November 2011 ntj • • • r0 R $1 • .Vs'i tog 56 '..C) I p R • I/I Legend ��•�`��® �� ;��'��•� Property Boundary ' * * * ** t ♦�� �* Severe Winter Range ,� ** * 1=1 int once ration , � � � � � ` , . 4 Overall Winter Range• =��_ AlP+d�i♦�.AL Figure 3. Petroleum Development Corporation Soil Treatment Facility Garfield County Impact Analysis Elk Winter Range _WestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists Map Source: Z:\PDClLand Farming Parcel (sod trt. facility)12011\GISVFig_3.mxd November 2011 nt PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PICEANCE CENTRALIZED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY Section 7 -202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution 2008 SECTION 7 -202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas Mitigation Recommendations WILDLIFE Raptors Activities associated with the project have low potential to impact raptor populations as no nesting habitat will be directly affected and no occupied raptor nests were documented near the site in 2011. Since the project area is located next to I -70, it is unlikely that any raptors that choose to nest in this area would be greatly affected by the additional disturbance created by construction or operation of the soil treatment facility. To further ensure that there is no indirect affect to nesting raptors, it is recommended that the site be re- inventoried by qualified biologists if project construction is not completed prior to any future nesting season. Raptor nesting in this area typically begins in mid - March. If any raptors are found behaving in a manner consistent with nesting, every effort should be made to apply timing limitation and buffer distance guidelines provided below. WWE recommends the following temporal and spatial avoidance (Table 1) for activities near active nests, which have been adapted from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) recommendations (Craig 2002 and Klute 2008) and literature review of nesting season timing for raptors in the Roan Plateau region (Andrews and Righter 1992, Kingery 1998, Poole 2005). Table 1. Timing and buffer recommendations for active raptor nests Species Buffer Zone Seasonal Restriction American Kestrel * * Bald Eagle 0.50 mile 15 October — 31 July Cooper's Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April — 15 August Ferruginous Hawk 0.50 mile 1 Feb — 15 July Flammulated Owl 0.25 mile 1 April — 1 August Golden Eagle 0.50 mile 15 December —15 July Great Horned Owl * * Long -eared Owl 0.25 mile 1 March - 15 July Northern Goshawk 0.50 mile 1 March — 15 September Northern Harrier 0.25 mile 1 April — 15 August Northern Saw -whet Owl 0.25 mile 1 March —15 July Osprey 0.25 mile 1 April — 31 August Peregrine Falcon 0.5 mile 15 March — 31 July Prairie Falcon 0.5 mile 15 March — 15 July Red - tailed Hawk 0.33 mile 15 February - 15 July Sharp - shinned Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April — 15 August WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 4 November 2011 Table 1. Timing and buffer recommendations for active raptor nests Species Buffer Zone Seasonal Restriction Swainson's Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 July * Great Horned Owls and Kestrels are relatively tolerant of human activity. Keep activity to a minimum during breeding season. American Elk and Mule Deer The construction of the proposed facility would remove native vegetation and reduce the amount of available wildlife habitat Implementation of a noxious weed management plan would reduce the likelihood of noxious weed infestations and the establishment of nuisance plants such as kochia and Russian thistle. A reclamation plan should be implemented both to reduce the establishment of noxious weeds in disturbed areas and to provide some mitigation for the loss of wildlife habitat. Reclamation of disturbed areas not utilized as part of the footprint of the soil treatment facility would decrease the presence of noxious weeds and provide forage for mule deer and elk. Any fencing that may be necessary should be constructed to exclude big -game from the site without restricting access to winter range along I -70 on either side of the facility. It is recommended that the fence surrounding the facility should be constructed of chain -link a minimum of eight feet tall to completely exclude deer and elk. CPW has published guidelines for construction of fencing that reduces impacts to wildlife in a brochure available online called "Fencing with Wildlife in Mind" (CPW http: wildlife.state.co.us). Following wildlife friendly fencing standards reduces the chance of mortality from animals becoming tangled in fencing and improves the opportunity for less restrictive movements throughout the area. Black Bear Black bear are unlikely to be found on the site unless there is some food - related attraction (trash). All garbage and any food items should be removed from the site on a daily basis. Personnel should not feed bears at any time. Bears should not be approached if encountered in the project area. Mitigation of Habitat Loss to Birds Brush clearing should be done outside of the nesting season, which is generally considered to occur between April 1 and July 31 in this area. May 15 to July 15 is the peak period when most incubation and brood rearing takes place. If vegetation clearing can occur prior to April 1, potentially affected birds will relocate to alternate nesting sites. After mid -to -late July, most fledging has occurred and site clearing impacts would be minimized. Small Mammals and Reptiles There are no seasonal restrictions or special requirements for development related to these species. PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION The best method to mitigate loss of wildlife habitat is to increase the availability of native forage in the form of grasses and shrubs. Native plants would provide the greatest benefit for wildlife. Application of an integrated vegetation management plan would provide a basis for appropriate mitigation. WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 4 November 2011 Treatment and Control of Noxious Weed Infestations In addition to reclamation implemented within the disturbed area of the project site, the highest priority for noxious weed management (prevention) is to prevent the establishment of any noxious weed infestation of the project site. Noxious weeds aggressively compete with native vegetation. Most have come from Europe or Asia, either accidentally or as ornamentals that have escaped. Once established they tend to spread quickly because the insects, diseases, and animals that normally control them are absent. Prevention is especially valuable in the case of noxious weed management. Noxious weeds are spread by man, animals, water, and wind. Prime locations for the establishment of noxious weeds include roadsides, construction sites, wetlands, riparian corridors, and areas that are overused by animals or humans. Subsequent to soil disturbances, vegetation communities can be susceptible to infestations of invasive or exotic weed species. Vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction can create optimal conditions for the establishment of invasive, non - native species. Construction equipment traveling from weed - infested areas into weed -free areas could disperse noxious or invasive weed seeds and propagates, resulting in the establishment of these weeds in previously weed -free areas. Several simple practices should be employed to prevent most weed infestations. The following practices should be adopted for any activity to reduce the costs of noxious weed control through prevention. The practices include: • Prior to delivery to the site, equipment should be thoroughly cleaned of soils remaining from previous construction sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds. • If working in sites with weed -seed contaminated soil, equipment should be cleaned of potentially seed - bearing soils and vegetative debris at the infested area prior to moving to uncontaminated terrain. • All maintenance vehicles should be regularly cleaned of soil. • Avoid driving vehicles through areas where weed infestations exist. WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 4 November 2011 REFERENCES Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado. Craig, Gerald R. 2002. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Kingery, H. E. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Klute, D. 2008. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Poole, A. (Editor). 2005. The Birds of North America Online: http : / /bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 4 November 2011 Petroleum Development Corporation Proposed Centralized Soil Treatment Facility Wildlife Mitigation December 2009 Cover Photo: View of dominant vegetation found at the soil treatment facility parcel. Prepared By: WestWater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 Prepared For: Petroleum Development Corporation Denver, CO Wildlife Mitigation Report Proposed Centralized Soil Treatment Facility Petroleum Development Corporation 1.0 INTRODUCTION At the request of Petroleum Development Corporation (PDC), WestWater Engineering (WWE) has prepared a Wildlife Mitigation Report for a proposed centralized soil treatment facility. PDC is proposing to create a centralized soil treatment facility to store and reclaim soil impacted by Exploration and Production (E &P) wastes generated during PDC drilling and production operations. The project site is located 6 8 miles east of Parachute, Colorado in Section 25, Township 6 South, Range 95 West (Figure 1). The project area lies within Garfield County, Colorado, and is located on private land. Access to the project area is currently available via Highway 6 east from Parachute onto a private access road. The primary use of the site and adjacent area is natural gas extraction/development and wildlife habitat. The general project area is currently undergoing natural gas development including the drilling of wells, and the construction of pipelines and access roads. The project area is located within mule deer and American elk overall ranges. The site is also situated within mule deer overall winter range and mule deer severe winter range as mapped by the CDOW "NDIS" (CDOW 2009a). According to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's amended rules, effective April 1, 2009, elk and mule deer overall ranges and mule deer overall winter range is excluded from the rules as sensitive wildlife habitat. However, mule deer critical winter range which includes mule deer severe winter range is included in the new 2009 rules, and the project area is located within this sensitive wildlife habitat (COGCC 2008 and 2009). In order to minimize impacts to sensitive wildlife habitat at the project area PDC proposes mitigation on a 4.1 acre parcel near the project area. Consultation between the project proponent and the CDOW is recommended in order to agree upon mitigation within the project area which would allow PDC to continue activities at the centralized soil treatment facility site during critical times of the year for mule deer. 2.0 CENTRALIZED SOIL TREATMENT FACILITY PARCEL DESCRIPTION The centralized soil treatment facility site and the proposed mitigation area were surveyed in September 2009. The survey was conducted to determine wildlife habitat present at the location, potential impacts to wildlife and potential wildlife mitigation options. During the survey, mule deer and elk droppings were observed scattered throughout the project area. The proposed centralized soil treatment facility parcel is approximately 15 acres, but only 9.5 acres would be developed for the centralized soil treatment facility. The site is located on an upland terrace north of the Colorado River with relatively flat terrain. Interstate 70 borders the centralized soil treatment facility parcel on the southern edge of the property. Approximately 30 WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 5 December 2009 percent of the centralized soil treatment facility property has been disturbed in the past by a pipeline Right -of -Way (ROW). Vegetation along the ROW is primarily composed of crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), kochia (Kochia scoparia), and Russian thistle (Salsola spp). The portion of the centralized soil treatment facility parcel that has not been previously disturbed is composed of sagebrush shrublands, widely scattered pinon- juniper trees, and thinly scattered cheatgrass (Cover Photo). Potential affects due to project development include the temporary loss of a small amount of elk and mule deer winter ranges, mule deer critical winter range, and mule deer severe winter range. Human presence and activities related to the project may result in disturbance for elk and mule deer populations within and immediately adjacent to the project area. This disturbance may add stress to these species during critical times of the year and may also cause avoidance of the area. Disturbance associated with construction equipment and personnel may cause wintering elk and mule deer to select habitats in more secluded areas away from the proposed centralized soil treatment facility. Any construction and /or operational activities during the winter months will impact mule deer winter range as mapped by the CDOW "NDIS" (Figure 1). 3.0 POTENTIAL MITIGATION PARCEL DESCRIPTION The proposed mitigation site is located west of the centralized soil treatment facility parcel in Section 26, Township 6 South, and Range 95 West. The site is approximately 4.1 acres and located on an upland terrace north of the Colorado River (Figure 2). The proposed mitigation site was once used as a stock pond, but is no longer functional. North of the proposed mitigation site are steep slopes that are bisected by several large draws. These large draws are valuable wildlife habitat, particularly during the winter months. The draws allow animals to seek seclusion and cover from environmental elements and human related activities. The vegetation community present at the site is composed of scattered sagebrush and rabbitbrush with an understory of various forbs and grass species (Photo 3). Piiion juniper trees are widely scattered along the slopes and draws near the proposed mitigation parcel, other species found at the site are described in Table 1. Table 1. Vegetation found at the potential mitigation parcel. Species Common Name Artemesia tridentata Big sagebrush Gutierrezia sarothrae Broom snakeweed Ericameria nauseosa Rabbitbrush Agropyron cristatum Crested wheatgrass Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 5 December 2009 Photo 3: Southwestern view of proposed mitigation parcel. Several draws drain into the proposed mitigation area (Figure 2). The drainages are dry washes that carry water during precipitation events and during spring run -off. A dense infestation of tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima), approximately 3.5 acres, is present throughout the pond area (Photo 3). Rabbitbrush and scattered sagebrush are also present in the proposed mitigation area which indicates that the site has not held standing water in several years. Photo 3: Looking west at the pond area; dense infestation of tamarisk is in background. WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 5 December 2009 The habitat within and near the proposed mitigation parcel provides forage and cover to wintering mule deer and other wildlife species. The pifion juniper trees are of sufficient density to afford good escape, resting, and thermal cover as well as good movement corridors for wildlife. The upper ends of the larger draws provide some seclusion for wintering mule deer. The sagebrush shrublands and various grasses within the proposed mitigation parcel provide forage in the form of browse for wintering mule deer. 4.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION The proposed mitigation parcel remains undeveloped and has value to wildlife habitat. In order to offset disturbance that may be created by development of the centralized soil treatment facility to wildlife species and habitat, PDC proposes to complete the following mitigation practices: • Remove tamarisk from the proposed mitigation parcel to enhance wildlife habitat. • Keep activities confined to the immediate area of disturbance at the centralized soil treatment facility. No activity should be allowed in the proposed mitigation site unless authorized during wildlife enhancement projects (i.e. removal of tamarisk). • Keep all traffic /vehicles on developed roads. • Rebuild an earthen dam to 3 feet in height in order to store stormwater runoff creating a water source for wildlife in the area. The proposed mitigation actions proposed by PDC would offset impacts to wildlife that may be caused due to activities associated with the centralized soil treatment facility. It is recommended that PDC consult with CDOW to determine if the proposed mitigation is adequate to offset project impacts to sensitive wildlife habitat. An Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) was observed along the channels that drain into the pond area. The Army Corp of Engineers (COE) may have jurisdiction over these channels and it is recommended that PDC consult with the COE for a jurisdictional determination. References CDOW. 2009a. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Natural Diversity Information Source. http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlife.asp. COGCC. 2008. Final Rules Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2 CCR 404 -1, December 2008. COGCC. 2009. Amended Rules. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Department of Natural Resources. Denver, CO. WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 5 December 2009 * Unoccupied Raptor Nest Z'roposed Mitigation Site Land Farm Perna! �/ J \-\7^N� Mule Deer Critical Winter Range i/ Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area MI I Mule Deer Severe Winter Range 'ELM WestWater En rineerin Figure 1 PDC Soil Treatment Facility Parcel Biological & Cultural Survey September 2009 \NestWater Engineering Environmental Consulting Services 0 0.15 0.3 Miles Z:IFDCGISIPDCLandFarming.mxd Nov. 2009bnu • 0• • ea di* e • ir g's _ C. le& ,i . • 1 A p Proposed Mitigation Area Proposed Mitigation Site - 4.11 ac. Tamarisk infestation 3.64 ac. WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 5 "� December 2009 0 Figure 2 PDC Soil Treatment Facility Parcel Biological Survey September 2009 WestWater Engineering Environmental Consulting Services 150 300 Feet CISIFIr2 Map Source. Z IPDC _PDCLandFarmmg crud Nov 2009 hms