HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.14 Biological surveyJUSTUS, JULIE A From: 'Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Julie: MW Klish [mwk@westwaterco.com) Tuesday, April 27, 2010 12:36 PM JUSTUS, JULIE A Summary Biological Survey Findings for SKR-698-10-BV
GarCoSummary042710.pdf A brief summary report is attached. MWKlish Michael W. Klish Principal Environmental Scientist WestWater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO
81505 Phone: 970-241-7076 Fax: 970-241-7097 Cell: 970-260-8142 1
Summary Biological Survey Findings for SKR-698-10-BV WestWater Engineering (WWE) biologists made numerous biological surveys in Clear Creek from 2007 through 2009. The site of Pad SKR-698-10-BV
and the surrounding area (Illustration I) was included in those surveys (WWE 2009, WWE 2008a, WWE 2008b, WWE 2008c, WWE 2007). Vegetative findings in this summary are based primarily
on 2008 observations. Wildlife findings are based on 2007,2008, and 2009 observations. 1) Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species Plants (TESS) No TESS plants were found onsite or
in close proximity to the site. The nearest known population of TESS (Roan Cliffs blazingstar, Mentzelia rhizomata) is greater than 3000 feet from SKR-698-10-BY. 2) Noxious Weeds Musk
thistle (Carduus nutans), a GarCo listed weed, was found as a few scattered individual plants within 200 feet of the site. Common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), a State C listed weed,
was found as a few scattered individual plants within 200 feet of the site. Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), a Garco listed and a State B listed weed, was found in a dense 38 acre
infestation immediately adjacent to the northeast boundary of the site. 3) Wildlife WWE biologists have conducted surveys in Clear Creek each year beginning in 2007. The lower portion
of Deer Park Gulch, including the site of the SKR-698-IO-BV pad, falls within mule deer and elk winter range and is an elk winter concentration area, according the species distribution
maps shown in the Colorado Division of Wildlife NDIS maps. When disturbed, elk in the lower portion of Deer Park Gulch trail up the hillside, across the ridge that divides Deer Park
Gulch from Doe Gulch, and exit the canyon up a steep game trail that goes through the rim on the east side of Clear Creek. Pad 698-1 O-BV does not inhibit this movement ofthe animals.
Although the area is also mapped as mule deer winter range, most deer observed by WWE biologists winter at lower elevations in main Clear Creek. During the three field seasons that WWE
biologists conducted surveys in Clear Creek, no occupied raptor nests were located closer than 0.9 miles of the site. Golden eagles were observed flying over the area on numerous occasions,
but no nests were located in the cliffs
above the site on the east side of Clear Creek. The existence of the pad should not adversely impact any raptors in the area. The Deer Park Gulch stream is ephemeral and does not provide
habitat for any sensitive aquatic species. Brushy areas near the site may provide nesting habitat for migratory bird species but no nests have been discovered. In summary, pad SKR-698-IO-BV
should not provide hazardous attractions to any wildlife species or block migration routes for mule deer or elk. As described above, elk move in and out of Deer Park Gulch using a route
east of the pad, and should be unaffected by the pad itself. Jl/ustration 1: SKR-698-10-B V. Looking east in Deer Park Gulch. April 2009. 2 )
References WWE. 2009. Chevron Rigline Raptor Reports. March, April, May, June 2009. WWE. 2008a. Chevron -Clear Creek Biological Survey. Garfield County, Colorado. October 2008. WWE.
2008b. Chevron -Buck, Doe, Deer Park, and Scott Gulches Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan. Garfield County, Colorado. August 2008. WWE. 2008c. Chevron -Deer Park
to Tom Creek Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan. Garfield County, Colorado. May 2008. WWE. 2007. Chevron -Clear Creek Biological Survey. Garfield County, Colorado.
May 2007. 3
) Chevron Buck, Doe, Deer Park, and Scott Gulches Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan Garfield County, Colorado Lower Deer Park Gulch looking west towards Clear Creek
Prepared for: Chevron North America Prepared by: WestWater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 August 2008
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description Chevron is planning a series of projects on Shell Oil surface lands in four gulches east of Clear Creek in Garfield County, approximately 15
miles northwest of DeBeque, Colorado. These projects include the construction of one well pad (698-10-DV) in Buck Gulch, construction or enlargement of seven pads/facilities in Deer
Park Gulch (698-10-AV through 698-12-3), and construction of two pads in Scott Gulch (698-23-AV and 698-23-BV). Included in those projects are road access and utility corridors. Doe
Gulch is scheduled for a utility corridor only (Chevron 2008). Poor quality dirt roads extend partly up Buck and Scott gulches. A short dirt road extends from Clear Creek to an abandoned
house in Doe Gulch, after that is an overgrown unusable two-track that extends slightly farther. A well maintained dirt road runs the length of Deer Park Gulch to the easternmost pad
already in place (698-12-3). 1.2 General Survey Informatiou WestWater Engineering (WWE) biologists had recently conducted biological surveys along Clear Creek to the west of, and adjacent
to, the four gulches in this survey. Those reports were referred to as needed (WWE 2008a and b). A field inspection of Buck, Doe, Deer Park, and Scott Gulches was conducted by WWE biologists
on June 25, 26, 30, and July 1 and 2, 2008. WWE biologists surveyed the area 150 ft on either side of the proposed facilities to identify vegetation communities and to search for, identify,
and map noxious weed species (Figure 1). Vegetation types were determined through field identification of plants, aerial photography, and on-the-ground assessments of plant abundance
visible during the survey. Identification of plant species was aided by using pertinent published field guides (Whitson et al. 2001, CWMA 2007, Kershaw et al. 1998, Weber and Wittmann
2001). Photographs were taken of the general project location, vegetation, and terrain, and can be found in Appendix C. Locations of weeds and other features included in this report
were recorded with the aid of a handheld global positioning system instrument (GPS) using NAD83/WGS84 map datum, with all coordinate locations based on the Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM) coordinate system in Zone 12S. Mapped soil types, as published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), were reviewed to determine
the soil types and vegetation characteristics of the survey site and surrounding property (NRCS 2008). 2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING 2.1 Terrain and Soil Types The terrain in the Chevron -Buck,
Doe, Deer Park and Scott Gulches Weed Survey Project Area is typically steep to moderate mountain side-slopes and moderate to gently sloping bottomland along narrow riparian corridors.
The bottomland broadens at the mouth of each gulch, especially in lower Doe Gulch and Deer Park Gulch (Cover Photo). Elevations range from about 5,800 feet near the Clear Creek drainage
to about 6,900 feet near the heads of the gulches. Each gulch had WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 17 August 2008
Weed Points Weed Lines --Roo," o Canada thistle ---Russian knapweed r=:J BLM • Common burdock ---Mullein c=J Township • Common muUeln Houncistongue,Mullein c=J Section • Houndstoogue
---Burdock,Mu/Jein,Houndstongue I:J 'Need Surveys • MuskltlisUe Weed Area o Russian knapwee<l ~ RussIan knapweed o Saltcedar ' Ig\,ll'. t : Chevron Buck,Doe,DeerPa~, and Scott Gulches
Weed Survey 2008 " v.lestWclter Enalneerlng ~ -..(-. .... "
flowing streams in their upper sections, but the streams in Scott and Buck Gulches were dry before reaching Clear Creek. The streams in Doe and Deer Park Gulches were diverted into irrigation
ditches near their lower ends. Soil types and the vegetation that they support vary with parent material, elevation, slope, and aspect. Buck and Doe Gulches contain two types of soil,
Happle and Grobutte -Happle very channery sandy loam -Rock outcrop association, 25-65% slopes, formed on south facing mountain sideslopes, toes lopes, and alluvial fans from Green River
Formation alluvium or colluvium and Grobutte very channery loam -30-60% slopes, formed on northerly facing mountainsides from mixed colluvium. Potential native vegetation on the Happle
soil is Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nut!. ssp. wyomingensis), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), needle and thread grass (Hesperostipa comata), and Indian
ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides). Potential native vegetation on the Grobutte soil is big sagebrush and wheatgrasses. The soil at the mouth of Buck Gulch is Happle very channery sandy
loam, 12-25% slopes. The mouth of Doe Gulch contains the same Happle soil, but on 3-12% slopes. Steep south trending slopes in Deer Park and Scott Gulches contain Happle very channery
sandy loam -Rock outcrop Association, 25-65% slopes. The Happle soil can also be found on less steep slopes of 12-25%, especially near the mouth of Scott Gulch. Steep north trending
slopes in both gulches contain Tosca channery loam, 25-80% slopes, and Utso -Rock outcrop complex, 40-90% slopes. The mouth of Deer Park Gulch is gently sloping and lies on Happle soil,
3-12% slopes. Potential native vegetation on the Tosca soil is mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana), Utah serviceberry (Amelanchier utahensis), alderleaf mountain
mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), and Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii). Potential native vegetation on the Utso soil is similar to that of the Tosca soil
with the addition of needle and thread grass, mutton grass (Poafendleriana), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), and brome (Bromus spp). 2.2 Vegetation Communities The three vegetation
communities predominate in the survey area are riparian, mountain shrub, and sagebrush. Riparian overstory vegetation in the four gulches is scattered mountain boxelder (Acer negundo)
and narrowleaf cottonwood trees (Populus angustifolia). The riparian understory is Gambel oak, Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), skunkbush sumac (Rhus tri/obata), chokecherry
(Prunus virginiana), western white clematis (Clematis ligusticifolia), and stinging nettles (Urtica dioica). Mountain shrub vegetation on north facing slopes include Gambel oak, skunkbush
sumac, Saskatoon serviceberry, rock spirea (Holodiscus dumosus), bromes, and wheatgrasses. Shrub communities on more south facing slopes include scattered Gambel oak, Utah serviceberry,
Saskatoon serviceberry, snowberry (Symphoricarpos rotundifolius), basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp. tridentata), shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), alderleaf mountain
mahogany, rock spirea, Indian ricegrass, and wheatgrass. Thick stands of basin big sagebrush are found adjacent to the riparian corridor on terraces and alluvial fans. The sagebrush
understory often contains very dense cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 17 August 2008
as well as small amounts of Indian ricegrass, wheatgrass, needle and thread grass, and squirreltail (Elymus elymoides). Small areas of poorly maintained fields near the mouths of Doe
Gulch and Deer Park Gulch contain crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cris/a/um), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrwn smilhii), and numerous noxious weeds. A few stands of Douglas-fir (Pseudo/sllga
menziesii) grow on steep north facing mountain sides. Steep, south-facing shale talus slopes may host one, two, or three rare plant species: Roan cliffs blazingstar (Men/zelia rhizoma/a),
sun-loving meadowrue (Thalic/rum heliophilwn), and/or Piceance bladderpod (Lesquerella parvijlora). 3.0 NOXIOUS WEEDS 3.1 Introduction to Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds are plants that
are not native to an area. Most noxious weed species were introduced from Europe or Asia, either accidentally or as ornamentals that have escaped. Once these non-natives are established
in a new environment they tend to spread quickly since insects, diseases, and animals that normally control them are absent. Noxious weeds are spread by man, animals, water, and wind.
Prime locations for the establishment of noxious weeds include roadsides, sites cleared for construction, areas that are overused by animals or humans, wetlands, and riparian corridors.
Subsequent to soil disturbances, vegetation communities can be susceptible to infestations of invasive or exotic weed species. Vegetation removal and so il 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 (Photo I). Photo 1. Potential weed vector -accumulated soil on cquipmcnt
WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 17 August 2008
The Colorado Noxious Weed Act (State of Colorado 2005) requires local governing bodies to develop noxious weed management plans. Both the State of Colorado and Garfield County maintain
a list of plants that are considered to be noxious weeds. The State of Colorado noxious weed list includes three categories: List A, List B and List C. List A species must be eradicated
whenever detected (none were found). List B species include weeds whose spread should be halted (5 species found). List C species are widespread, but the State will assist local jurisdictions
that choose to manage those weeds (4 species found). The Garfield County Weed Advisory Board has compiled a list of21 plants from the State list considered to be noxious weeds within
the county (see Appendix A). Six of those weed species are found in, or near, the project area. The Garfield County Weed Advisory Board has duties to: 1) develop a noxious weed list;
2) develop a weed management plan for designated noxious weeds; and 3) recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that identified landowners submit an integrated weed management
plan for their properties (Garfield County 2002). 3.2 Observations Nine listed weed species are found in the project area. The most prevalent listed weeds are houndstongue, common mullein,
and cheatgrass. Russian knapweed, though not widespread, occurs as a dense infestation in an abandoned field at the mouth of Deer Park Gulch. A problematic, but not listed, weed species
commonly found in the project area is curly dock (Rumex crispus). This weed is found in heavy concentrations in the Buck Gulch and Deer Park Gulch riparian areas. Other non-listed weeds
occasionally seen are kochia (Kochia scoparia), lambsquarters (Chenopodium berlandieri), and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Brushy areas may contain very thinly scattered houndstongue,
common mullein, or rarely musk thistle. Steeper mountain toe slopes are essentially free of weeds except for cheatgrass and very thinly-scattered common mullein. Invasive and noxious
weeds commonly occur along ditches, creek corridors and adjacent drainages (especially in riparian areas), abandoned fields, and disturbed areas such as well pads, pipeline routes, and
roadsides. The general location of the Garfield County and State listed weeds are plotted on the project map (Figure I) and are listed in Table I. Widespread infestations that are found
throughout the project area (i.e., cheatgrass) or weeds occurring only in thin densities (i.e., common mullein in sagebrush habitat) are not included on the map. Specific UTM coordinates
of weed infestations can be found in Appendix B. 3.3 Treatment and Control of Noxious Weed Infestations Six weed species from the Garfield County list were found in the project area
and are indicated in bold type in Table 1. Those in regular type were also observed during the survey and are listed by the State of Colorado as noted (CWMA 2007). Included in Table
2 are weed life cycle type and recommended control methods for each weed species. WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 17 August 2008
Table 1. Observed Noxious Weed Locations in the Project Area Common Name' Scientific Name General Location and Comments USDA Symbol Canada Thistles Cirsium arvense An isolated infestation
in upper Scott Gulch along the creek. About 50 CIAR4 plants in a 40 ft. circle. Common Burdock' Arctium minus Very thinly scattered along most drainages. Occasionally found in small
ARMI2 patches in greater density. Common Mullein' Thinly scattered along most drainages. Also scattered at very thin Verbascum thapsus densities among sage or on talus slopes. A few
plants that were VETH previously sprayed near well pads (Photo 2) have since resprouted. CheatgrassC Thinly scattered throughout much of the survey area. Sagebrush habitat Bromus tee/arum
may contain very dense stands of cheatgrass, especially in Deer Park BRTE Gulch (Photo 3). Field Bindweedc Generally found along road sides (Photo 4) and around well pads but Convolvulus
arvensis may be found most anywhere the soil has been disturbed. Very thick COAR4 infestation with Russian knapweed in a poorly maintained field near the mouth of Deer Park Gulch. Honndstongue"
Thin to moderately scattered along most drainages except thicker in Cynoglossum officinale upper Scott and Deer Park gulches. Found in very light densities in drier CYOF areas. Tends
to be denser under the shade of oakbrush (Photo 5). Musk Thistle" Carduus nutans Very thinly scattered in the project area. Denser patches exist in Doe CANU4 Gulch in the riparian thicket
north of the abandoned homestead. Russian Knapweed" Dense 38 acre infestation near the mouth of Deer Park Gulch (Photo 6). Acroptilon repens Also scattered along a small section of road
in Deer Park Gulch. A few ACRE3 patches near the mouth of Doe Gulch. Tamarisks Tamarix spp. One plant in upper Scott Gulch. TARA * Government weed listing: Bold· Garfield County, Colorado.
Superscript· Colorado State B or C list. Table 2. Weed Control Methods Common Name' Scientific Name Type'-Control Methods USDA Symbol Canada ThistleS Mowing or hand cutting, every 2
or 3 weeks followed by Cirsium arvense CP herbicide application in late summer or fall, with CIAR4 combination treatments working best. When applying herbicides use a mix with two different
modes of action. Common Burdockc Cutting and digging at rosette through early seed stages. Arctium minus B Reseed with aggressive grasses. Approved herbicides if ARMI2 needed. WestWater
Engineering Page 6 of 17 August 2008
Table 2. Weed Control Methods Common Name" Scientific Name Type** Control Methods USDA Symbol Common Mullein' Cut and dig rosettes and bolting plants prior to seed set. Verbascum thapsus
B Reseed with aggressive grasses. Herbicides may be VETH necessary on dense infestations. CheatgrassC Eliminate seed source. Re-vegetate with native grasses. Bromus tee/arum A Herbicide
treatment in early spring and fall. Avoid BRTE overgrazing. Field Bindweedc Herbicides in fall, plant competitive grasses. Field Convolvulus arvensis CP COAR4 bindweed mite. HoundstongueB
Reseed with aggressive grasses. Grub at rosette through Cynoglossum ofJicinale B early seed stages. Herbicides at rosette or pre-bud stages. CYOF Musk ThistleB Tillage or hand grubbing
in the rosette to pre-flowering Carduus nutans B stages. Repeated mowing at bolting or early flowering. Seed CANU4 head and rosette weevils, leaf feeding beetles. Herbicides in rosette
stage. Russian KnapweedB Herbicides in bloom or seed stage, or near the first killing Acroptilon repens CP frost. Repeated efforts may be necessary. Plant aggressive ACRE3 grasses. TamariskB
The single plant in Scott Gulch should respond to cutting Tamarix spp. P and treating the stump(s) with herbicide plus adjuvant TARA within 30 minutes. * Government weed listing: Bold
-Garfield County, Colorado. Superscript -Colorado State B or C list. ** Type: A = annual; B = biennial; CP = creeping perennial; P = perennial 3.4 Recommended Treatment Strategies It
is important to know whether the target is an annual, biennial, or perennial to select strategies that effectively control and eliminate the target. Treatment strategies are different
depending on plant type, which are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Herbicides should not always be the first treatment of choice when other methods can be effectively employed. Table 3.
Treatment Strategies for Annual and Biennial Noxious Weeds 1'<a rJ!et: P revent S ee.I Pr o du ctlOn I. Hand grub (pull), hoe, till, cultivate in rosette stage and before flowering or
seed maturity. If seeds develop, cut and bag seed heads. 2. Cut roots with a spade just below soilleve!. 3. Treat with herbicide in rosette or bolting stage, before flowering. 4. Mow
biennials after bolting stage, before seed set. Mowing annuals will not prevent flowering but can reduce total seed production. (Sirota 2004) WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 17 August
2008
Table 4. Treatment Strategies for Perennials 1:a rget: Dep etel nu"trte nt reserves In root system, prevent see~I production I. Allow plants to expend as much energy from root system
as possible, do not treat when first emerging in spring, but allow growth to bud/bloom stage. If seeds develop, cut and bag if possible. 2. Herbicide treatment at bud to bloom stage
or in the fall (recommended, after August IS when natural precipitation is present). In the fall, plants draw nutrients into the roots for winter storage. Herbicides will be drawn down
to the roots more efficiently at this time due to translocation of nutrients to roots rather than leaves. If the weed patch has been present for a long period of time, another season
of seed production is not as important as getting the herbicide into the root system. Spraying in fall (after middle August) will kill the following year's shoots, which are being formed
on the roots at this time. 3. Mowing usually is not recommended because the plants will flower anyway; seed production should be reduced. Many studies have shown that mowing perennials
and spraying the re-growth is not as effective as spraying without mowing. Effect of mowing is species dependent; therefore, it is imperative to know the species and its basic biology.
Timing of application must be done when biologically appropriate, which is not necessarily convenient. 4. Tillage mayor may not be effective. Most perennial roots can sprout from pieces
only \1," -I" long. Clean machinery thoroughly before leaving the weed patch. 5. Hand pulling is generally not recommended for perennial species unless you know the plants are seedlings
and not established plants. Hand pulling can be effective on small patches but is very labor intensive because it must be done repeatedly. (Sirota 2004) Herbicide treatment with two
or more herbicide modes of action in the fall (after approximately August 15 when natural precipitation is present) is the best method to control difficult species. Some weeds, particularly
annuals and biennials, can develop resistance to herbicides. The ability to quickly develop immunity to herbicides, especially when they are used incorrectly, makes it imperative to
use the proper chemicals at the correct time in the specified concentration. Most misuse is centered on excessive application either in concentration or frequency. This results in mostly
top kill and an immune phenotype. 3.5 Life Cycle and Management Calendars Best results in the control of certain specific noxious weeds can be achieved by following the recommended timetable
presented in Table 5. Figure 2 is an alternative schedule for life cycle and control of biennial thistles such as musk thistle. It is also appropriate to control common mullein. One
column that should be added is cutting of rosettes, which can be done any time during growing. WestWater Engineering Page80fl7 August 2008
Table 5. Noxious Weed Biology ISpeeies IType'-jJan "!Fe"b IMar.:h!April IMay IJune rJuly--IAug !sept IOct rNov rDee [Houndstonguc [il [rosettes F lprebud Iflowering, seed set T-[germination
r-r ~ ~~ -r~ ~~~~~ed, -r lllFnerges rFe:;rF~F-1 --I ~ . k* r;--semi-4 leaves !flowering, seed ~ nowcring, r:mi-donnanCy'--II amans II' donnancy I' emerge Iset Igrowm seed sct 1:)\ ~~::~~~~
~IIIFrr flowering I~~~d rre-g-rO-w-tl-' F -II [l"histle Musk r r--ir--"" C "F c-c-r-T I 1_ I 51 y~ar IB I I I germmaliOll jrosettes 7 17 17 r~ -7 17 I 1[.l"2h iystclae; Musk rI.B Clrose=ttes
F7 1r7= -1~7 "Fbolt rIf:lo werm" g rIse:ed~s c:t ~:1-7~ r r "r rI fi: 8 = biennial; CP = ~rccping -~'li; P-= perennial -Shaded areas indicate best conlrolliming. j • Tamarisk control
can be done any time of the year, but is cas ier when leaves are absent and weather is cooler. __ (Sirota 2004) Figure 2. Life Cycle and Management strategies for biennial thistles (Hartzler2006)
Herbicide Application Vear 1 3.6 Commercial Applicator Recommendations Herb. Appl, Vear2 A certified commercial applicator is a good choice for herbicide control efforts. Regulations
may require a Colorado licensed applicator. An applicator has the full range of knowledge, skills, equipment, and experience desired when dealing with tough noxious weeds. Reclamation
fanning services using multiple seed bin range drills and specialized related equipment is available and should be used for reclamation seeding projects. WestWater Engineering Page 9
of 17 August 2008 ) )
Common chemical and trade names may be used in this report. The use of trade names is for clarity by the reader. Inclusion of a trade name does not imply endorsement of that particular
brand of herbicide and exclusion does not imply non-approval. Certified commercial applicators will decide which herbicide to use and at what concentration according to label directions.
Landowners using unrestricted products must obey all label warnings, cautions, and application concentrations. The author of this report is not responsible for inappropriate herbicide
use by readers. 3.7 Best Management Practices -Noxious Weeds The following practices should be adopted for any construction project to reduce the costs of noxious weed control. The practices
include: • top soil, where present, should be segregated from deeper soils and replaced as top soil on the final grade, a process known as live topsoil handling; • wetland vegetation,
if encountered, should be live handled like sod, temporarily watered if necessary, and placed over excavated sub-soil relative to the position from which the wetland sod was removed;
• cut-off collars should be placed on all wetland and stream crossings to prevent back washing or draining of important aquatic resources; • in all cases, temporary disturbance should
be kept to an absolute minimum; • equipment and materials handling should be done on established sites to reduce area and extent of soil compaction; • disturbances should be immediately
reseeded with the recommended mix in the revegetation section; • topsoil stockpiles should be seeded with non-invasive sterile hybrid grasses, if stored longer than one growing season
(see Table 6A, 6B). • prior to delivery to the site, equipment should be cleaned of soils remaining from previous construction sites, which may be contaminated with noxious weeds; and
• if working in sites with weed-seed contaminated soil, equipment should be cleaned of potentially seed-bearing soils and vegetative debris prior to moving to uncontaminated terrain.
Table 6A. Seed Mix for Temporary Seeding of Low-Elevation Sa It-Desert ScrubIBasin Big Sagebrush, Pinon-Juniper, and Mountain/Wyoming Sagebrush Common Name Scientific Names Variety Season
Form PLS Ibs/acre* Plant One of the Following Wheat x Tall Triticum aestivum x Elytrigia Wheatgrass elongate Regreen*" Cool Annual 11.9 Wheat x Cereal Triticum aestivum x Secale Rye
cereale QuickGuard** Cool Annual 30.2 and the Following Streambank Elymus lanceolatus ssp. Sod-Wheatgrass psammophilus, Agropyron Sodar Cool forming 8.9 riTJarium WestWater Engineering
Page 10 of 17 August 2008
Table 68. Seed Mix for Temporary Seeding of Mixed Mountain Shrubland/Oakbrush and Spruce-Fir ForestlMountain Meadow Common Name Scientific Names Variety Season Form Plant One of the
Following Wheat x Tall Triticum aestivum x Elytrigia Regreen** Cool Annual Wheatgrass elonRate Wheat x Cereal Triticum aestivum x Secale Rye cereale QuickGuard** Cool Annual and Two
of the Following Mountain Brame Bromopsis [BromusJ Garnet, Cool Bunch marRinatus Bromar Thickspike Elymus lanceolatus ssp. Critana, Sod-Wheatgrass lanceolatus, Agropyron Bannock, Cool
forming dasystachvum Schwendimar Slender Elymus trachycaulus, San Luis Cool Bunch Wheatgrass Agropyron trachycaulum PLS Ibs/acre* 11.9 30.2 7.7 4.5 4.4 *Based on 3 PLS per square foot
for Regreen, 9 PLS per square foot for QuickGuard, and 16 PLS per square foot for native perennial grasses (streambank wheatgrass is 32 PLS per square foot). Double the indicated amounts
ifhroadcast or hydroseeded. ** Included as examples only. Product information on alternative sterile hybrids must be submitted to BLM prior to use. (USDOI 2008) In areas with slopes
greater than 3% imprinting of the seed bed is recommended. Imprinting can be in the form of dozer tracks or furrows perpendicular to the slope direction. When utilizing hydro-seeding
followed by mulching, imprinting should be done prior to seeding unless the mulch is to be crimped into the soil surface. If broadcast seeding and harrowing, imprinting should be done
as part of the harrowing. Furrowing can be done by several methods, the most simple of which is to drill seed perpendicular to the direction of slope in a prepared bed. Other simple
imprinting methods include deep hand raking and harrowing, always perpendicular to the direction of slope. Herbicides: Difficult species, such as Russian knapweed, respond better to
an application of a combination of two or more chemical modes of action (biological reason for plant death) rather than one (Boerboom 1999). It has also been found that use of two different
groups of chemicals with the Same mode of action can increase effectiveness on difficult species, e.g., phenoxys and benzoic acids or carboxylic acids and benzoic acids in a mix. Some
are commercially premixed, e.g., Crossbow and Super Weed-be-Gone Max, and are available over the counter. However, some ofthe most effective herbicides are restricted and available for
use only by licensed applicators. Professionals or landowners using herbicides must use the concentration specified on the label of the container in hand. Herbicides generally do not
work better at higher concentrations. Most herbicide failures observed by WWE are related to incomplete control caused by high concentrations killing top growth before the active ingredient
can be transported to the roots WestWater Engineering Page 11 ofl7 August 2008
through the nutrient translocation process. Most herbicide applications should use a surfactant, if directed on the herbicide label, or other adjuvants as called for on the herbicide
label. Grazing: Grazing should be deferred in reclaimed areas until the desired grass species are established. Mechanical: Small isolated infestations of weed species can often be controlled
with cutting and digging by hand. For dense or more extensive infestations, mechanical treatments can be useful in combination with chemical control. Effectiveness of mechanical control
can often be increased by severing the root just below the crown of noxious weeds. Weeds that easily resprout from rootstocks, such as Canada thistle and Russian knapweed, may increase
rather than decrease if mechanical control is the only method used. Alternative Methods: An alternative method, particularly for cheatgrass infestations and where there is poor or destroyed
topsoil, is the application ofvesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, typically referred to as AMF. These fungi, mostly of the genus Glomus, are symbiotic with about 80% of all vegetation.
Endo-mycorrhizal fungi are associated mostly with grasses and forbs and could be helpful when reclaiming this project. In symbiosis, the fungi increase water and nutrient transfer capacity
of the host root system by as much as several orders of magnitude (Barrow and McCaslin 1995). Over-the-counter commercial products, which are better adapted to coating seeds when reseeding
and treating roots of live seedling trees and shrubs at time of planting, come in powder form and are available from many different sources. Some also come in granular form to be spread
with seed from a broadcast spreader. The best AMF products should contain more than one species. The Colorado State Forest Salida District uses an application of AMF in all of their
tree and shrub plantings. According to District Forester Crystal Tischler, "AMF is worth it" (Tischler 2006). Most, if not all, Colorado Department of Transportation re-vegetation/reseeding
projects now require the use of AMF and BioSol, a certified by-product of the penicillin manufacturing process composed primarily of mycelium. Compacted soils respond well to fossilized
humic substances and by-products called humates. These humates, including humic and fulvic acids and humin were formed from pre-historic plant and animal deposits and work especially
well on compacted soils when applied as directed. Biological control of musk thistle incorporates the musk seed head weevil (Rhinocyllus conicus); the thistle defoliating beetle (Cassida
rubiginosa) which feeds on the foliage of Canada, musk, and plume less thistles; and the musk and plume less thistle rosette weevil (Trichosirocalus horridus) (Sullivan 2004). Currently,
the thistles in the four gulch survey area are not present in sufficient density in the opinion of WWE to support popUlations of insect parasites. Therefore, it is unlikely these insects
would be helpful unless explosive spread occurs after construction activities. The bindweed mite, Aceria malherbae, is a microscopic mite imported from southern Europe as a biological
control agent for field bindweed (Hammon 2006). This mite may be useful for reducing field bindweed along roads, but significant results may take several years. The bindweed infestation
in the abandoned field near the mouth of Deer Park is intermingled with WestWater Engineering Page 120f17 August 2008
Russian knapweed. The knapweed will need to be sprayed with herbicides as no biological control agent is currently available for it. With the proper selection of herbicides, both weed
species can be controlled together. If thick infestations offield bindweed remain after the Russian knapweed is controlled then the bindweed mite may be a viable alternative to continued
use of herbicides. 4.0 REVEGETA nON -RECLAMA nON 4.1 Project Area The project area includes gently sloping bottomland or terraces and moderate to steep mountain sides lopes. Successful
reclamation of the project area is dependent upon soil type and texture, slope gradient and aspect, proper weed control, and re-vegetation with suitable plant species. Construction activities
should be limited on steep slopes as erosion control and revegetation is more difficult. In addition, revegetation on shale talus slopes is difficult because of poor water holding capacity,
high runoff, and low soil nutrients. The drainage bottoms in Buck, Doe, Deer Park, and Scott Gulches are often narrow, especially in the upper reaches (Photo 7). The narrow gulches may
necessitate that construction activities take place only a short distance from stream channels. To protect the natural stream flow, careful measures to limit surface disturbance and
to control storm water will need to be taken. Based on the soil types, terrain, and the presence of noxious weeds in the project area, successful reclamation is most likely if a seed
mix of grasses is used (Tables 7 and 8). This will allow control of noxious weeds while establishing vegetation in the disturbed areas. Two seed mixes are presented based on soil type
and available moisture; one for basin big sagebrush and saltdesert areas and one for mountain shrub areas. Abandoned fields need to be properly managed if continued agricultural use
is planned. Table 7. Seed Mix for Low-Elevation Salt-Desert ScrublBasin Big Sagebrush Common Scientific Names Variety Season Form PLS Name Ibs/acre* Plant Both of the Following (5% Each,
10% Total) Fourwing Saltbush Alriplex canescens VNS Shrub 2.5 Shadscale Alriplex confertifolia VNS Shrub 2.0 and Two ofthe Following (25% Each, 50% Total) Bottlebrush Elymus elymoides,
Sitanion Squirreltail hyslrix VNS Cool Bunch 3.4 Streambank Elymus lanceolalus ssp. Sod-Wheatgrass psammophilus, Agropyron Sodar Cool forming 4.2 riparium Bluebuneh Wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria
spicata Seear Cool Bunch 4.7 and One of the Following (20% Total) Indian Achnatherum [Oryzopsis J Paloma, Cool Bunch 3.7 Ricegrass hymenoides Rimrock WestWater Engineering Page 13 of
17 August 2008
Table 7. Seed Mix for Low-Elevation Salt-Desert ScrublBasin Big Sagebrush Common Scientific Names Variety Season Form PLS Name lbs/acre* Sandberg Poa sandbergii, Poa Bluegrass secunda
VNS Cool Bunch 0.6 and One of the Following (10% Total) Alkali Sacaton Sporobolus airoides VNS Warm Bunch 0.15 Salina Wildrye Leymus salinus VNS Cool Bunch 1.0 and One of the Following
(10% Total) Galleta Pleuraphis [Hilaria} Viva florets Warm Bunch/Sod-1.6 ;amesii forming Sand Dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus VNS Warm Bunch 0.05 * Based on 60 pure hve seeds (PLS) per
square foot, drill-seeded. Double thIs rate (120 PLS per square foot) If broadcast or hydroseeded (USDOI 2008). Table 8. Seed Mix for Mountain Shrubland, Including Oakbrush Common Name
Scientific Names Variety Season Form PLS lbs/acre* Plant Both of the Following (20% Each, 40% Total) Bottlebrush Elymus elymoides, Sitanion VNS Cool Bunch 2.7 Squirreltail hystrix Bluebunch
Pseudoroegneria spicata, Secar, P-7, Wheatgrass Agropyron spicatum Anatone, Cool Bunch 3.7 Goldar and Two of the Following (15% Each, 30% Total) Thickspike Elymus lanceolatus ssp. Critana,
Sod-Wheatgrass lanceolatus, Agropyron Bannock, Cool forming 2.5 dasystachyum Schwendimar Slender Elymus trachycaulus, San Luis Cool Bunch 2.5 Wheatgrass Awopyron trachycaulum Western
Pascopyrum [Agropyron} Arriba, Cool Sod-Wheatgrass smithii Rosana forming 3.6 and One of the Following (10% Total) Big Bluegrass Poaampla Sherman Cool Bunch 0.3 Canby Bluegrass Poa canbyi,
P. secunda Canbar Cool Bunch 0.3 Muttongrass Poa fendleriana VNS Cool Bunch 0.3 and One of the Following (10% Total) Letterman Achnatherum [Stipa} Needlegrass lettermanii VNS Cool Bunch
1.7 WestWater Engineering Page 14 of 17 August 2008
Table 8. Seed Mix for Mountain Shrubland, Including Oakbrush Common Name Scientific Names Variety Season Form PLS Ibs/acre* Columbia Achnatherum [StipaJ Needlegrass nelsonii. Stipa columbiana
VNS Cool Bunch 1.7 Green Nassella [StipaJ viridula Lodorm, Cool Bunch 1.4 Needlegrass Cucharas and One of the Following (10% Total) Achnatherum [OryzopsisJ Nezpar, Indian Ricegrass Paloma,
Cool Bunch 1.9 hymenoides Rimrock Koeleria macrantha, K. VNS (North Junegrass American Cool Bunch 0.1 cristata origin) * Based on 60 pure live seeds (PLS) per square foot, dnll-seeded,
Double this rate (120 PLS per square foot) tfbroadcast or hydroseeded (USDOI 2008). For best results and success, the recommended grass mixture reseeding should be done in late autumn.
The reseeding rate should be doubled for broadcast application (CNHP 1998). Preferred seeding method is multiple seed bin rangeland drill with no soil preparation other than simple grading
to slope and imprinting and waterbars where applicable. Alternative seeding methods include, but are not limited to: • harrow with just enough soil moisture to create a rough surface,
broadcast seed and reharrow, preferably at a 90 degree angle to the first harrow; • hydro-seeding (most economical in terms of seed cost); and • hand raking and broadcast followed by
re-raking at a 90 degree angle to the first raking. • These are not the only means of replanting the site. However, these methods have been observed to be effective in similar landscapes.
After desired grasses are established and control of target weed species is successful, then shrubs, forbs and trees can be planted without concern for herbicide damage. Few native forb
seeds are available commercially as cultivars. Most are collected from natural populations. Native shrubs and forbs often do not establish well from seed, particularly when mixed with
grasses. Past experience has shown that stabilizing the soil with grasses, accomplishing weed control, and then coming back to plant live, containerized woody species in copses has been
the most cost effective method for establishing the woody species component of the plant community. For sites where soil disturbance will be short-term, grasses should be drilled after
construction activities cease and the equipment removed from the site. After two years of controlling weeds (with herbicides) and allowing the grasses to become established, forbs and
woody species should be inter-seeded or hand-planted to increase the diversity and value of the reclamation plantings. WestWater Engineering Page 15 of 17 August 2008
5.0 REFERENCES Barrow, J. R., and Bobby D. McCaslin. 1995. Role of microbes in resource management in arid ecosystems. In: Barrow, J. R., E. D. McArthur, R. E. Sosebee, and Tausch, R.
J., comps. 1996. Proceedings: shrubland ecosystem dynamics in a changing environment. General Technical Report, INT-GTR-338, Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest
Service, Intermountain Resource Station, 275 pp. Boerboom, C. 1999. Herbicide mode of action reference. Weed Science, University of Wisconsin, 5 pp. Chevron. 2008. Site Development Map
-"Piceance Basin Natural Gas Development Program", Chevron North America, June 26. CNHP. 1998. Native Plant Re-vegetation Guide for Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Caring
for the Land Series, Vol. III, State of Colorado, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, Denver, 258 pp. CWMA. 2007. S. Anthony, T. D'Amato, A. Doran,
S. Elzinga, J. Powell, l. Schon ie, K. Uhing. Noxious Weeds of Colorado, Ninth Edition. Colorado Weed Management Association, Centennial. Garfield County. 2002. Garfield County Vegetation
Management and Garfield County Weed Advisory Board. Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan. Resolution #2002-94, October 21,2002. Hammond, Bob, 2006. Managing Field Bindweed with
the Bindweed Mite Aceria malherbae. Cooperative Extension Service, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. URL: http://www.coopext.colostate.edu/TRAIPLANTS/index.html#http:llwww.coopext.colosta
te.edu/TRA/PLANTS/bindweedmite.html Hartzler, Bob. 2006. Biennial Thistles of Iowa. ISU Extension Agronomy. URL: http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/mgmtl2006/iowathistles.shtml Kershaw, L.,
A. MacKinnon, and 1. Pojar. 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountains. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. NRCS.2008. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource
Conservation Service, URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Sirota, J. 2004. Best management practices for noxious weeds of Mesa County. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension
Tri River Area, Grand Junction, Colorado. URL: http://www.coopext.colostate.eduITRAIWeeds/weedmgmt.html State of Colorado. 2005. Rules pertaining to the administration and enforcement
of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, 35-5-1-119, C.R.S. 2003. Department of Agriculture, Plant Industry Division, Denver, 78 pp. WestWater Engineering Page 16 of 17 August 2008
Sullivan, Preston, G. 2004. Thistle control alternatives. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, Fayetteville, AR, 9 pp.
Tamarisk Coalition. 2007. Grand Junction, CO. URL: http://www.tamariskcoalition.org/tamariskcoalitionlindex.php Tischler, Crystal. 2006. District Forester, Colorado State Forest Service,
Salida, Colorado. Personal communication with Bill Clark, WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado. USDO!. 2008. United States Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management.
Glenwood Springs Energy Office, May. Written communication, "Revisions to BLM Energy Office Revegetation Requirements." Weber, William A., and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2001. Colorado Flora,
Western Slope. Third Edition, University Press of Colorado, Boulder Colorado. 200 I WWE. 2008a. "Chevron Clear Creek -Deer Park to Tom Creek Segment, Integrated Weed Management Plan,
Garfield County, Colorado." WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado, May. WWE. 2008b. "Chevron Clear Creek -Scott Gulch to Deer Park Gulch Segment, Integrated Weed Management
Plan, Garfield County, Colorado." WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado, July. Whitson, T. D. (editor), L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee, and
R. Parker. 2001. Weeds a/the West -9th edition. Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with Cooperative Extension Services, University of Wyoming, Laramie. WestWater Engineering
Page 17 of 17 August 2008
APPENDIX A Garfield County Noxious Weed List Species Common name Species Code Growth Life State "A" State "B" State "'c" Gadield Form1 History:!: List List List List -Acroptilon repens
Russian knapweed ACRE3 F P X X Aegi/ops cy/indrica Jointed goatgrass AECY G A X X Arc/tum minus Common (Lesser) burdock ARMI2 F B X X Cardaria draba Hoary cress, Whitetop CADR F P X
X Carduus acanthoides Spiny plumeless thistle CAAC F B, WA X X Carduus nutans Musk (Nodding plume less) thistle CANU4 F B X X Cenlaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed CEDI3 F P X X Centourea
maculosa Spotted knapweed CEMA4 F P X X Centaurea soIsli/iaUs Yellow starthistle CES03 F A X X Chrysanthemum Oxeye daisy CHLE80 F P X X leucanthemum Cichorium intybus Chicory CITN F
P X X Cirsium arvense Canada th istle CIAR4 F P X X Cynoglossum officinale Houndstongue, Gypsyflower CYOF F B X X Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive ELAN T P X X Euphorbia esula Leafy
spurge EUES F P X X Linaria do/matica Dalmatian toad flax. broad-leaved LillA F P X X Linaria vulgaris Yellow toadflax LIVU2 F P X X Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife LYSA2 F P X
X Onopordum acanthium Scotch thi stle ONAC F B X X Tamarix parviflora Smallflower tamarisk TAPA4 T P X X Tamarix ramosissima Salt cedar, Tamarisk TARA T P X X I -Growth form: T = tree/shrub;
F = forb/vine: G = graminoid 2 -Life history: A = annual: B = biennial; P = perennial; WA = winter annual WestWater Engineering Appendix A August 2008
Weed Canada Thistle Cheatgrass Common Burdock Common Mullein Field Bindweed HoundstoDl!Ue WestWater Engineering APPENDIXB Noxious Weed Location UTM's (Garfield County listed weeds in
bold) UTMEasting UTM Comments Northinl! 128732700 4377731 50 plants in upper Scott Gulch Found throughout the survey area except along drainage bottoms. Common in sagebrush. 128729542
4381424 Moderate density in 20 ft. circle 128729529 4381402 Moderate density in 60 ft. circle 128729542 4381424 Moderate in 20 ft. circle 128729529 4381402 Moderate in 60 ft. circle
12S 730076 4381691 4 plants in lOft. circle 128731610 4378030 30 plants in 30 ft. circle 12S 729895 4381592 Common along Buck Gulch road 12S 730147 4380436 A few plants that had survived
spraying 12S 730084 4380420 10 plants in a 30 ft. circle 128731546 4378031 20 plants in a lOft. circle 128731532 4378017 15 plants in a 30 ft. circle 128730355 4380543 100 plants in
a 20 ft. circle 128730219 4380509 30 plants in a 10 ft. circle 12S 730060 4380467 50 plants in a 20 ft. circle 128730048 4380472 Thick in creek channel 128733986 4381288 Few near pad
128733421 4380715 Few that survived spraying, Pad 12-1 128732924 4380131 Few in a draw south of Deer Park Gulch 128731434 4380597 14 plants 128730252 4379996 3 plants 128732751 4380399
START ROW in old road, thick 128732699 4380463 END ROW in old road Along disturbed areas such as the sides of roads. Also in abandoned fields. Very thick in abandoned field in lower
Deer Park (with Russian knapweed). 128731466 4380641 Thick, 50 ft. circle on mountain side slope 128729542 4381424 Thick, 40 ft. circle 128729529 4381402 Moderate density, 60 ft. circle
128732924 4380131 Few in a draw south of Deer Park Gulch Appendix B -Page I August 2008
Weed Musk Thistle Russian Knapweed WestWater Engineering APPENDIXB Noxious Weed Location UTM's (Garfield County listed weeds in bold) UTMEasting UTM Comments Northin2 12S 729962 4381582
9 plants 12S 729916 4381530 8 plants 12S 729724 4381435 Light density in 30 ft. circle, with mullein 12S 729542 4381424 Thick, 20 ft. circle 12S 729529 4381402 Thick, 60 ft. circle 12S
730415 4380549 10 plants in oak thicket 12S 730387 4380517 8~lants in oak thicket 12S 730363 4380495 40 plants in 15 ft. circle 12S 730352 4380497 10 plants in 10 fl. circle 12S 729862
4380288 20 plants near Hiner Gate 12S 730471 4380674 5 plants 12S 730048 4380472 40 plants in 20 ft. circle 12S 730180 4380039 2 plants 12S731175 4380319 7 plants and one mullein 12S
730238 4380419 Thick 50 ft. circle 12S 730179 4380399 Thick, 20 ft. circle 12S 730471 4380674 Thick, 40 ft. circle 12S 730245 4380451 Thick, 20 ft. circle 12S 731765 4380295 Along Deer
Park road 12S 730450 4380669 START ROW in Doe Gulch 2-track, thick. 12S 730503 4380714 END ROW in Doe Gulch 2-track, thick 12S 732317 4380444 START ROW along Deer Park road, moderate
density 12S 732218 4380313 END ROW along Deer Park road 12S 731088 4380370 START POLYGON in lower Deer Park 12S 731026 4380380 Thick field bindweed and some cheatgrass 12S 730968 4380391
are common in this polygon as well. 12S 730913 4380393 cant. 12S 730822 4380383 conI. 12S 730773 4380357 conI. 12S 730662 4380329 cant. 12S 730584 4380287 conI. 12S 730483 4380234 conI.
12S 730403 4380203 cant. 12S 730372 4380202 conI. 12S 730300 4380163 cant. 12S 730287 4380142 conI. 12S 731270 4380395 conI. 12S 731188 4380450 continue POLYGON next page Appendix B
-Page 2 August 2008
Weed Russian Knapweed Tamarisk WestWater Engineering APPENDIXB Noxious Weed Location UTM's (Garfield County listed weeds in bold) UTM UTM Comments Eastin2 Northin2 12S 731144 4380472
POLYGON continued from orevious oal!e 12S 73 \039 4380499 cont. 12S 730948 4380507 cont. 12S 730903 4380513 cont. 12S 730864 4380481 cont. 12S 730809 4380462 cont. 12S 730728 4380461
cont. 12S 730639 4380478 cont. 12S 730552 4380472 cont. 12S 730497 4380465 cont. 12S 730430 4380435 cont. 12S 730358 4380422 cont. 12S 730342 4380395 cont. 12S 730298 4380400 cont. 12S
730244 4380371 cont. 12S 730230 4380256 End POLYGON of Russian knapweed 12S 732635 4377800 Single plant in uoper Scott Gulch Appendix B -Page 3 August 2008
APPENDIXC Additional Photos Photo 2. Deer Park Gulch -good control of common mullein at Pad 698-11-1 Photo 3. Deer Park Gulch -dense cheatgrass infestation near Clear Creek road WestWater
Engineering Appendix C -Page I Augus t 2008
APPENDIXC Additional Photos Photo 4. Deer Park Gulch -field bindweed along Clear Creek road Photo 5. Buck Gulch -houndslongue (center) with oakbrush (right) WestWater Engineering Appendix
C -Page 2 ) ) August 2008
APPENDIXC Additional Photos Photo 6. Deer Park Gulch -plant cover from foreground to midground is almost entirely Russian knapweed. Photo 7. Doc Gulch -narrow bottom laud between steep
walls WestWater Engineering Appendix C -Page 3 August 2008
) Chevron Clear Creek 2008 Biological Survey Clear Creek and Tom Creek Confluence, looking east Prepared for: Chevron North America Prepared by: WestWater Engineering 2516 Foresight
Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 October 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Scope and Location
............................................................................................... 1 1.2 Landscape Setting ...............................................................................
............................... 1 1.3 Vegetation Communities ................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Spring Runoff ..................
.................................................................................................. 5 2.0 BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN (BOCC) .........................................................
..... 6 2.1 Background Information ................................................................................................... 6 2.2 BOCC -Raptors ............................................
.................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Procedures ...............................................................................................................
. 8 2.2.2 Raptor Observations ................................................................................................. 9 2.2.3 Raptor Sightings ..............................................
......................................................... 9 2.2.4 Active Nests ...........................................................................................................
10 2.2.5 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 12 2.3 BOCC -Other Than Raptors ...........................................
................................................ 13 2.3.1 Procedures.............................................................................................................. 14
2.3.2 Observations ........................................................................................................... 14 2.3.4 Recommendations ...............................................
................................................... 14 3.0 THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES (TESS) .............. 15 3.2 Procedures .................................................
...................................................................... 19 3.3 Observations ............................................................................................................
........ 19 3.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 23 4.0 NOXIOUS WEEDS ......................................
.......................................................................... 24 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................
............. 24 4.2 Procedures ....................................................................................................................... 24 4.3 Observations ...........................
......................................................................................... 25 4.3 Recommendations ......................................................................................
..................... 27 5.0 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES .................................................................................. 27 5.1 Background Information .............................
.................................................................... 27 5.2 Procedures ................................................................................................................
....... 27 5.3 Observations .................................................................................................................... 27 5.3.1 Streams and Drainages .......................
.................................................................... 27 5.3 Wetlands, Springs and Seeps ...........................................................................................
28 5.3.1 Procedures .............................................................................................................. 29 5.3.2 Observations ..............................................
............................................................. 29 5.5 Recommendations ...........................................................................................................
33 6.0 AQUATIC HABITAT ............................................................................................................ 34 6.1 Observations ...............................................
..................................................................... 34 6.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................
35 WestWater Engineering Page i October 2008
7.0 OTHER WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................ 35 7.1 Mule Deer and Elk .............................................................
............................................. 35 7.2 Bear and Mountain Lion .................................................................................................. 36 7.3
Small Mammals ............................................................................................................... 36 7.4 Wild Turkey ......................................................
.............................................................. 36 7.5 Other Bird Species ...........................................................................................................
36 7.6 Reptiles ............................................................................................................................ 37 7.7 Habitat Fragmentation and Removal...
............................................................................ 37 8.0 SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................
................. 37 8.1 Raptors ............................................................................................................................. 38 8.2 BOCC (other than
raptors) .............................................................................................. 38 8.3 TESS ...................................................................................
............................................ 38 8.4 Noxious Weeds ................................................................................................................ 38
8.5 Waters of the United States ............................................................................................. 38 8.6 Aquatic Habitat. .................................................
.............................................................. 38 8.7 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................
.... 39 9.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 39 APPENDIX A Raptor Nest Locations and
Status APPENDIX B Non-raptor Birds seen During the Chevron Clear Creek BioSurvey 2008 APPENDIX C Sensitive Plant Locations APPENDIX D ACOE Table and Photos WestWater Engineering Page
ii October 2008
1.0 INTRODUCTION Chevron North America (Chevron) is currently developing energy resources in the Clear Creek drainage and its tributaries. Present and future construction projects include
well pads, access roads, pipelines, compressor stations, utility corridors, buildings, bridges, water facilities, and an electrical substation (Chevron 200Sa, 200Sb). In preparation
for those construction activities Chevron requested that WestWater Engineering (WWE) conduct a series of biological surveys to document the presence of raptors and their nests; birds
of conservation concern (80CC) other than raptors; threatened, endangered and sensitive species (TESS) of plants; fisheries and aquatic invertebrates; noxious weeds; and waterways possibly
under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). 1.1 Project Scope and Location Clear Creek is located in Garfield County, Colorado, and is one of the major tributaries
of Roan Creek. The mouth of the canyon is located approximately 12 miles north of DeBeque, Colorado. Clear Creek and its tributaries drain approximately 113 square miles of the Roan
Plateau. Elevations range from 5,4S5 ft at the mouth of the canyon to S,011 ft at the top of Mount Blaine. The Chevron Clear Creek 200S Biological Survey was restricted to that portion
of Chevron, or Chevron leased, properties located under the rim of the Clear Creek drainage system. This area is referred to as the Clear Creek drainage in the following sections of
the report. WWE biologists surveyed the project area over the course of several months, from early April through early September 200S. Eleven reports (WWE 200Sa-k), and additional memoranda,
were submitted to Chevron during the survey. The timing of various portions of the survey was based on the "as needed" schedule of Chevron. Three major areas in the Clear Creek drainage
were not surveyed by WWE in 200S (except for aquatic surveys): Clear Creek above the confluence with Willow Creek, Clear Creek south of Section 22, T5S, R9SW (about 0.7 miles south of
Scott Gulch), and Cottonwood Creek. All locations included in this report were recorded using handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers and are reported as Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) coordinates, Zone 12S, Datum WGSS4. 1.2 Landscape Setting The project area is characterized by steep-walled canyons and gently-sloping valley bottoms (Photos 1-5). The
canyon floors can be relatively wide, as along lower Clear Creek, or narrow as in upper Tom Creek. The geology consists of sediments from two Tertiary age formations: the Wasatch Formation
in the south and the Green River Formation in the north. The soils derived from those formations are deep along the drainage bottoms and shallow to bedrock on mountain side slopes. WestWater
Engineering Page 1 of 41 pages October 200S
Photo 1. Clear Creek in the distance, above its confluence with Tom Creek (looking north) WestWater Engineering Photo 2. Lower Clear Creek below the connuence with Scott Gulch (looking
south) Page 2 of 41 pages October 2008
Photo 3. Tom Creek (looking northeast) Photo 4. Near the middle of Buck Gulch (looking east) WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 41 pages October 2008 ) \ J
Photo 5. The mouth of Deer Park Gulch. Hiner Gate is behind the little hill (looking west) 1.3 Vegetation Communities Four vegetation communities dominate the survey area: mountain shrub,
sagebrush, riparian, and pasture/hay land. Mountain shrub is found on north and east facing slopes and on some west facing slopes in narrow drainages (i.e., Tom Creek). Predominate mountain
shrub plants are oakbrush (Quercus gambelii), Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), Utah serviceberry (Amelanchier utahensis), skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata), rock spirea
(Holodiscus dumosus), and alderleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus). Forbs and grasses include lance-leaved buckwheat (Eriogonum lonchophyllum), creeping barberry (Mahonia repens),
Indian ricegrass (Achnatherllm hymenoides), and various fescues, bromes, and wheatgrasses. Basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata) is common on alluvial fans and terraces
along Clear Creek. Associated vegetation includes rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nallseosa), yellow rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidijlorus), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorwn) and Indian
ricegrass. South of Scott Gulch, greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), and fourwing saltbush (A triplex canescens) become more common, but basin big sagebrush is the predominate shrub.
Riparian vegetation, often quite thick, is found along Clear Creek and its tributaries. The overstory consists of mountain boxelder (Acer negllndo), introduced and naturalized New Mexico
locust (Robinia neomexicana), narrow leaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), and a few remnant Fremont cottonwoods (Populus fremontii) in lower Clear Creek. Shrubs include various WestWater
Engineering Page 4 of 41 pages October 2008
willows (Salix spp.), oakbrush, skunkbush sumac, and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). Forbs and grasses include western white clematis (Clematis ligusticifolia), stinging nettles (Urtica
dioica), bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), and bromes. Weeds such as Canada thistle (Cirsililn arvense), common burdock (Arctium minus), and common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), are
common along riparian corridors. Irrigated and non-irrigated pasture and hay land is found in the valley bottom along Clear Creek, especially near Deer Park Gulch. Vegetation consists
of various cultivated grasses. Weeds are very common in fields that are not maintained. Douglas-fir (Pseudotusga menziesii), with an understory of oakbrush and Saskatoon serviceberry,
is also found in the project area. This small, but important, vegetation community often grows in isolated stands in canyons on north and east facing slopes and provides important wildlife
habitat. 1.4 Spring Runoff The Colorado River Basin experienced heavy snowfall in the winter of 200712008. The snowpack in April 2008 was about 50% greater than in April 2007 (NRCS 2008).
On April I, WWE biologists found up to two feet of snow in the Tom Creek drainage, either in the shaded canyon bottom or on north and east facing slopes. Shaded cliff faces often had
thick ice clinging to the rock surfaces. The spring runoff contributed to high surface flow in all drainages (Photos 6 and 7), as well as waterfalls at the head wall of almost all canyons.
Stream flow noticeably decreased in July and small tributaries frequently dried up before reaching Clear Creek, while others were divelted into irrigation ditches. Photo 6. Clear Creek
in early May 2008 WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 41 pages October 2008 ) )
l Photo 7. Clear Creek in mid-June 2008 2.0 BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN (BOCC) ) 2.1 Background Information As part of the protection and management of avian species, the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) published a list of BOCC (FWS 2002). In a Memorandum of Understanding, the FWS, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and U.S. Forest Service (FS) placed the highest
priority for conservation on birds included on the BOCC list. A subset of this list includes a register of BOCC for the Southern Rockies and the Colorado Plateau, including Western Colorado.
Not all of these BOCC species occur regularly in Colorado, some are present only as seasonal migrants. After a thorough review of the literature (Andrews and Righter 1992, Kingery 1998),
WWE biologists compiled a list of the BOCC species likely to nest in or near the survey area. Habitat and nesting records for BOCC, as described in the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas (Kingery
1998, and references therein) and Colorado Birds (Andrews and Righter 1992), in the project area are summarized below. Bird identification and taxonomic nomenclature are in accordance
with that applied by the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Project. 2.2 BOCC -Raptors The BLM, in its approved White River Resource Area Resource Management Plan (1997), places special emphasis
on conservation of all raptors, including species indigenous to the Roan Plateau but not on the BOCC list. The BLM objectives for raptors state: "Maintain the shortterm utility and promote
the continued long-tenn development and availability of suitable raptor habitats. This includes prey base, nest sites and other special habitat features necessary to help stabilize or
allow increases in regional raptor populations." Table I includes the common name, scientific name, BOCC status, habitat requirements and breeding status for raptors that could be observed
in the Clear Creek drainage. WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 41 pages October 2008
Table 1. Raptor species potentially present in or near the project area. Common I Scientific Name BOLiCstC Habitat & Breeding Status • Riparian corridors along major river drainages
in Western Colorado. Nests in mature cottonwood trees, most commonly within 100 yards Bald Eagle of open water. Haliaeetus Y • Uncommon nester: Approximately five known nests found along
the /eucocepha/us Colorado River from Rifle, Colorado, downstream to the Utah state line. • Common winter migrant along the Colorado River corridor, Roan Creek and Parachute Creek. •
Grassland, shrubland, agricultural areas, and marshes. Nests in areas with abundant cover (e.g., tall reeds, cattails, grasses) in grasslands Northern Harrier y and marshes. Also known
to nest in high-elevation sagebrush. Circus cyaneus • Uncommon: Found by WWE to be a nester near the Divide Road in the Stewart and Story Gulch area in Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties
2006. Cooper's Hawk • Cottonwood riparian areas, sprucelfir forests, and pinon-juniper N woodlands. Nests frequently in pine, aspen, and cottonwood. Accipiter cooperii • Common: Confirmed
breeder in Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties. • High density young, or even-aged, stands of coniferous forests and Sharp-shinned aspen deciduous forests; also oak brush with small stands
of Hawk N conifers. Accipiter striatus • Uncommon: Confirmed breeder in Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties. Northern Goshawk • Typically in high elevation coniferous or aspen forests.
May occur in Accipiter gentiles N pinon-juniper habitat. • Rare: Confirmed breeder in Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties. • Diverse habitats including grasslands, pinon-juniper woodlands
and Red-tailed Hawk deciduous, coniferous, and riparian forests. Nests in mature trees N (especially cottonwood, aspen, and pines) and on cliffs and utility Buteo jamaicensis poles.
• Common: Confirmed breeder throughout the Roan Plateau area. • Typically arid grassland, desert, agricultural areas, shrublands and Swainson's Hawk y riparian forests. Nests in trees
in or near open areas. Buteo swainsoni • Uncommon: Confirmed breeding in oak brush by WWE biologists on Roan Plateau 2005. • Ungrazed to lightly grazed grassland and shrubland with varied
topography. Nests in isolated trees, rock outcrops, structures such as Ferruginous Hawk y windmills and power poles, or on the ground (especially on hill Buteo regalis tops). • Uncommon:
Nesting has been recorded in western Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties. • Grasslands, shrublands, agricultural areas, pinon-juniper woodlands, Golden Eagle y and ponderosa forests. Prefers
nest sites on cliffs and sometimes in Aquila chrysaetos trees in rugged areas. • Common: Confirmed breeder in Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties American Kestrel • Coniferous, deciduous,
and riparian forests; and open terrain with N suitable perches. Nests in cavities in trees, cliffs and buildings. Fa/co sparverius • Common: Confirmed breeder in Rio Blanco and Garfield
Counties. WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 41 pages October 2008
Table 1. Raptor species potentially present in or near the project area. Common I Scientific Name BLOiCstC Habitat & Breeding Status • Piilon-juniper woodlands and coniferous and riparian
forests near Peregrine Falcon y cliffs. Nests on ledges of high cliffs away from human disturbance. Falco peregrinus • Rare: Nesting confirmed in upper Clear Creek and Potts Creek in
2007 and in Scott Gulch in 2008. Prairie Falcon • Grasslands, shrublands, and alpine tundra. Nests on cliffs or bluffs in Falco mexican us y open areas. • Rare: Confirmed breeder in
Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties. • Dry, montane ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and aspen dominated Flammulated Owl forests. Also known to nest in old-growth pifton-juniper. Nests in Glus
flammeolus y cavities in trees. • Rare: Confirmed presence and likely breeder in Garfield County. Documented along Clear Creek by WWE biologists in 2007. Great Horned Owl • Occupies
diverse habitats including riparian, deciduous and Bubo virginianus N coniferous forests with adjacent open terrain for hunting. • Common: Confirmed breeder in Rio Blanco and Garfield
counties. • Mountain and foothills forest and canyon country. Significant use of Northern Saw-whet pifton-juniper woodland and Douglas-fir. Owl N • Uncommon: Confirmed breeder in Garfield
and Rio Blanco Aegolius acadicus Counties. Documented along Clear Creek and Tom Creek by WWE biologists in 2007. • Occupies mixed shrub lands. Nests and roost in sites in dense Long-eared
Owl cottonwoods, willows, scrub oak,junipers and dense forest of mixed N conifers and aspens. Asio olus • Uncommon: Confirmed breeder in Rio Blanco County and in Garfield County along
Parachute Creek. 2.2.1 Procedures WWE biologists conducted numerous surveys in the Clear Creek area from April I through September 6, 2008. Biologists recorded raptor activity during
dedicated raptor surveys as well as during associated biological surveys. All raptor sightings and nest locations (including inactiYe nests) were recorded. Nest locations from a 2007
raptor survey (WWE 2007b) were rechecked for signs of activity. Eleven 2007 nests (#1-9, #32, and #35) were beyond the boundary ofthe 2008 survey and were not rechecked. Biologists used
binoculars and spotting scopes to inspect potential nest sites and to determine if any ledges were being actively used by birds. WWE biologists searched cliffs, pifton-juniper hillsides,
riparian corridors, and hiked up into pockets of Douglas-fir, searching for nests of raptor species. In addition to these visual searching techniques, the biologists used the recorded
call play-back methodology described by P. Kennedy (Kennedy and Stahlecker 1993; the "KennedyStahlecker-Rinker" method) as modified by R. Reynolds and others (1992) for the southwestern
United States. WWE biologists used "FoxPro FX3 Digital Game Caller" units and played the call of a great horned owl or a Cooper's hawk alarm call in an attempt to locate raptors who
often respond to the presence and calls of other raptors. WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 41 pages October 2008
2.2.2 Raptor Observations The locations of raptor nests found in 2008 are shown in Map 1 and are listed in Appendix A. The 2007 raptor survey stated that "WWE biologists observed an
abundance of raptors in Clear Creek in April, 2007." This was not the case in 2008. Relatively few raptors were seen and only five active nests were found in 2008, four less than in
2007. Many of the nests recorded in 2007 were not found in 2008, including the large nests of such birds as golden eagles and red-tailed hawks. In some cases, if remnants of those nests
were found they were often no more than a few sticks. The hard winter of 200712008 may have played a role in the lack of cliff nests found in 2008. When the survey first started in early
April, there was still a thick covering of ice and snow clinging to the cliff faces in some canyons. Raptors may have relocated their nests in more suitable habitat. 2.2.3 Raptor Sightings
Individuals of eight raptor species were recorded and three species were confirmed breeders in the project area. A sample of sightings is given below: I) Golden eagle (GOEA) sightings
were uncommon. They were usually seen soaring over Skinner Ridge or the cliffs east of Clear Creek. One pair of GOEA was seen in June flying near Skinner Ridge across from Tom Creek.
One of the adults was observed flying through a stand of trees and picking up a dead branch on the wing. Both birds then flew south and west out of sight beyond the ridge line and they
were not seen again. One active GOEA nest was found near Mt. Blaine. 2) Red-tailed hawk (RTHA) sightings were uncommon. In mid-June, one adult was seen flying along Tom Creek near a
historic nest site, but it flew off and was not seen again. A land surveyor stated that a RTHA had an active nest in the cliffs near the mouth of Scott Gulch, but WWE biologists recorded
only a single RTHA sighting near there and no RTHA nest was confirmed. 3) Cooper's hawks (COHA) were fairly common in riparian corridors and three active nests were found. 4) One sharp-shinned
hawk was seen in the Clear Creek riparian corridor and another on a mountainside slope in stand of Douglas-fir. The latter bird gave a series of alarm calls, but nesting could not be
confirmed. 5) A peregrine falcon (PEFA) was briefly seen on two separate days near a historic nest site in Potts Creek, but no nesting activity was observed and the bird was not seen
again in that area. A new active peregrine falcon nest site was confirmed in Scott Gulch. 6) American kestrels, though numerous in 2007, were rarely seen in 2008 and no nesting activity
was observed. 7) One northern harrier was seen. 8) One great horned owl (GHOW) was seen along Clear Creek south of Scott Gulch. There were a few holes in nearby cottonwoods that could
have served as GHOW nest sites, but no evidence of activity was found. Specific owl surveys were not conducted by WWE in the Clear Creek drainage in 2008. However, during an April 2007
owl survey three species responded to recorded calls: GHOW, flammulated owl, and northern saw-whet owl (WWE 2007b). WestWater Engineering Page 9 of 41 pages October 2008
\ ) 2.2.4 Active Nests For this report an "active" nest is defined as a nest that had evidence of brood activity (i.e., an attempt to rear young) in the 2008 year. Five active nests
were found and these are described below: • COHA-25 (725195mE 4386410mN): Stick nest with fresh nesting material, downy feathers, and whitewash; 23-ft high in a 30-ft boxelder tree near
the mouth of Sheep Gulch (Photo 8). No birds were seen as the chicks had already fledged. This nest was also active in 2007. Photo 8. eOHA-25 nest • COHA-52 (730805mE 4377426mN): Stick
nest with two chicks, 40-ft high in a 55-ft boxelder tree along Clear Creek south of Scott Gulch (Photo 9). The chicks had not fledged as of July 28. Photo 9. eOHA-52 nest WestWater
Engineering Page 10 of 41 pages October 2008
• COHA-66 (729155mE 4381350mN): Stick nest with two chicks; 40-ft high in a 55-ft boxelder tree near Clear Creek across from Buck Gulch (Photos 10 and II). This nest was located within
300 ft of planned road construction. Chevron is commended for taking such great care to protect this nest by temporarily foregoing nearby construction and by having WWE biologists monitor
the adults and chicks for any signs of agitation. The two chicks successfully fledged on July 28. Photo 10. COHA-66 adult Photo 11. COHA-66 nest • GOEA-67 (729500mE 4377150mN): Stick
nest occupied by an adult, about halfway up a cliff just east ofM!. Blaine (Photo 12). This nest was included in a previously submitted report to Chevron (WWE 2008c). Photo 12. GOEA-67
nest site WestWater Engineering Page II of 41 pages October 2008 )
• PEFA-68 (731847mE 4378621 mN): Nest occupied by adult birds. At least one chick was heard; 200-ft high on a 300-ft cliff in Scott Gulch (Photo 13). Date of fledging is unknown. Photo
13. PEFA-68 nest is in these cliffs 2.2.5 Recommendations WWE biologists recommend further raptor nest surveys in 2009 to assess the activity status of known nests and to locate new
nests. Activities associated with energy development in Clear Creek have the potential to impact raptor populations. In order to reduce the potential for impacts, it is important that
construction and drilling activities be scheduled so that they do not interfere with breeding, nesting, and broodrearing activities. Every effort should be made to maintain the integrity
of forested areas, both in the riparian zone and on north-facing hillsides, with an emphasis on protecting those areas where nesting is known to occur. Removal of trees containing raptor
nests should be prohibited. In areas of known raptor nesting, construction and drilling activities should not be scheduled between territory establishment and dispersal of young from
the nest. If work is planned during the nesting season, areas of known and potential nest sites should be inventoried by qualified biologists. Timing limitation restrictions should then
be considered and applied to all active nests. WWE recommends temporal and spatial restrictions for activities near active nests based on BLM stipulations (BLM 1997), Colorado Division
of Wildlife (CDOW) recommendations (CDOW 2008), and literature review of nesting season timing for raptors in the Roan Plateau region (Andrews and Righter 1992, Kingery 1998, Poole 2005).
These recommendations are summarized in Table 2. The buffer zone for No Human Encroachment (NHE) pertains to "Any activity that brings humans in the area. Examples include driving, facilities
maintenance, boating, trail access (e.g., hiking, biking), etc." (CDOW 2008). WestWater Engineering Page 12 of 41 pages October 2008
Table 2. Timing limitations and NHE recommendations for active raptor nests Species Buffer Zone -NHE I Seasonal Restriction Red-tailed Hawk 0.33 mile 15 February -15 July Swainson's
Hawk 0.25 mile I April -15 July Sharp-shinned Hawk 0.25 mile I April -15 August Cooper's Hawk 0.25 mile I April -15 August Northern Goshawk 0.5 mile I March -15 September Peregrine Falcon
0.5 mile 15 March -31 July Prairie Falcon 0.5 mile 15 March -15 July Golden Eagle 0.25 mile + alt. nests 15 December -15 July Northern Harrier 0.25 mile I April -15 August American Kestrel
• • Flammulated Owl 0.25 mile I April-I August Northern Saw-whet Owl 0.25 mile I March -I August Northern Pygmy-Owl 0.25 mile 15 March -15 July Long-eared Owl 0.25 mile I March -15 July
Great Horned Owl • • I -No Human Encroachment. * American Kestrels and Great Horned Owls are relatively tolerant of human activity. Keep activity to a minimum during breeding season.
2.3 BOCC -Other Than Raptors Table 3 provides the common name, scientific name, habitat requirements, and breeding status of birds on the BOCC list that could be found under the rims
of the Clear Creek drainage. Table 3. BOCC species (other than raptors) that may nest in the Clear Creek area Common I Scientific Name Habitat & Breeding Records • Nest cup of moss and
mud on a cliff behind or near a waterfall. Arrive Black Swift late; chicks fledge 45-49 days after hatching. Cypseloides niger • Uncommon; breeding colony in eastern Garfield County.
Waterfalls in Clear, Willow and Cottonwood Creeks are potential habitat. Lewis's Woodpecker • Riparian habitats; nests in old decadent cottonwoods. Melanerpes lewis • Uncommon • Mixed
coniferous/deciduous forest at higher elevations 7,000-10,700 ft. Williamson's Sapsucker Nests in cavities in trees, commonly in aspens or pines. Sphyrapicus thyroids • Uncommon: Confirmed
breeder in Rio Blanco County on the Roan Plateau. • Open and drier pinon-juniper woodlands on rocky slopes at the lower Gray Vireo elevation range of pifton-juniper habitat. Nests in
junipers, especially Vireo vicinior those with protruding snags. • Uncommon: Confirmed breeder in extreme western Rio Blanco County. Pinyon Jay • Pinon-juniper woodlands. Nests in pinons
or junipers. Gymnorhinus • Common: Confirmed breeder in Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties, cvanocephalus including on the Roan Plateau. WestWater Engineering Page 13 of 41 pages October
2008
Table 3. BOCC species (other than raptors) that may nest in the Clear Creek area Common I Scientific Habitat & Breeding Records Name • Dense shrublands and scrub forests of oakbrush,
pinon·juniper, Virginia's Warbler mountain mahogany or ponderosa pine. Nests on the ground among Vermivora virginiae dead leaves or with rock or log overhangs. • Common: Nesting has
been confirmed in Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties includingon the Roan Plateau. Black·throated Gray • Mature pinon·juniper woodlands. Nests on horizontal branches in pinon Warbler or
juniper. Dendroica nigrescens • Common: Nesting has been confirmed in Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties including on the Roan Plateau. • Large contiguous areas of low·elevation big sagebrush
or Sage Sparrow sagebrushlgreasewood shrublands. Nests in sagebrush. Amphispiza belli • Uncommon: Breeding has been not been confirmed in Rio Blanco or Garfield Counties. 2.3.1 Procedures
While no specific routes or techniques were used to survey for BOCC species, WWE biologists were careful to be on the lookout for them while watching cliffs, walking riparian areas,
and conducting associated surveys. All songbirds observed were identified, either by visual reference, song, or both methods. 2.3.2 Observations The survey was started April I, and by
late April some neo-tropical migrants (songbirds) had begun to arrive. Their numbers increased throughout the spring as the weather warmed and nesting season approached. By early September
many songbirds had vacated the area. Two of the BOCC species listed above were observed by WWE biologists. One gray vireo was seen passing through the area on May 2 along the east side
of Clear Creek. No suitable nesting habitat was nearby and the bird was likely passing through. There were no further observations of gray vireos. Virginia's warblers were occasionally
observed, especially in oakbrush from early May through July. They undoubtedly nest in the survey area, but no nests were discovered. Although only two BOCC were observed in 2008, there
is suitable habitat in the survey area for other species that could potentially be present. WWE biologists noted a decided lack of corvids in 2008. It was rare to see a magpie, even
though old inactive nests were commonly found. Sightings of ravens or any type of jays were very infrequent. Pinyon jays, though recorded in April 2007 (WWE 2007b), were not observed
in 2008. 2.3.4 Recommendations Keep surface activity and vegetative disturbance to a minimum, especially from mid-April through mid-August when BOCC are nesting. A void creating fragmented
habitat. WestWater Engineering Page 14 of 41 pages October 2008
3.0 THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES (TESS) 3.1 Background Information "Threatened" and "Endangered" are status categories related to the Federal Endangered Species
Act. These designations are the responsibility of the FWS and are granted to species through a formal listing process. An endangered species is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. "Candidate"
species are those for which the FWS has sufficient information on their biological vulnerability to support proposals to have them listed as threatened or endangered (FWS 2008). "Sensitive"
is a designation used by the BLM and FS. Sensitive plant species are designated by the BLM State Director using criteria found in BLM Manual 6840 and from consultation with BLM field
offices, the FS and the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). A species is given a sensitive designation if its numbers are declining so rapidly that Federal listing may become necessary,
or it has typically small or widely dispersed populations, or it inhabits ecological refugia or other specialized or unique habitats. The BLM sensitive plant list does not duplicate
those species that are on the federal threatened and endangered list, but does include some species considered as candidates for listing. Colorado State rankings in the tables below
are from the CNHP Vascular Plant List (CNHP. 2007). An S I designation means that a species has 5 or fewer occurrences and that the possibility of extirpation within Colorado is great.
S2 signifies a species having 6-20 occurrences with a high possibility of extirpation. An S3 designation means that a species is vulnerable within Colorado. WWE biologists consulted
the Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide (Spackman et a1.1997) and relied on several years of experience in field surveys for rare plant species to develop the list of TESS which could possibly
be present in the survey area (Tables 4, 5, and 6). Table 4. Federally Listed Species and State Rank Scientific /Status /Habitat Preference /Occurrence Common Name • Federal Status:
Candidate. State Ranking: Sl -Critically Imperiled. Penstemon • Endemic to Garfield County with only five known occurrences; sparsely debilis vegetated, south facing, steep, white/pale
orange shale talus in the Mahogany Zone of the Parachute Creek Member of the Green River Formation. Parachute Elev. 7,800-9,000 ft. penstemon • Found in the Anvil Points and Mt. Callahan
area in the Bookcliffs overlooking 1-70, east and west of the town of Parachute Colorado. Phacelia • Federal Status: Candidate. State Ranking: S2 -Imperiled. submutica • Chocolate-brown
or gray clay on Atwell Gulch and Shire members of the OeBeque Wasatch Formation; sparsely vegetated steep slopes. Elev. 4,700-6,200 ft. phacelia • Closest known popUlation is northeast
of OeBeque, Colorado. WestWater Engineering Page 15 of 41 pages October 2008
Table 4. Federally Listed Species and State Rank Scientific I Status I Habitat Preference I Occurrence Common Name Scierocactus • Federal Status: Threatened. State Ranking: S3 -Rare
or uncommon. glaucus • Typically xeric and fine textured Quaternary and Tertiary alluvium soils overlain with cobbles and pebbles; cold desert shrub and pinon-juniper communities Colorado
along river benches, valley slopes and rolling hills. hookless cactus • Known populations occur within approximately 3 miles of DeBeque, Colorado. No known PQptIlations in the Clear
Creek drainage. Table 5. BLM or FS Sensitive Plant Species and State Rank Scientific I Status I Habitat Preference I Occurrence Common Name Astragalus • BLM sensitive. State Ranking:
2 -Imperiled debequaeus • Varicolored, fine textured, seleniferous, saline soils of the Wasatch Formation-Debeque Atwell Gulch member. Elev. 5, I 00-6,400 ft. milkvetch • Pknoopwulna
tpioonpsu loactciounr si nin H thoers Cetlheiaerf C Craeneyko anr,e sao. uthwest of DeBeque, Colorado. No Astragalus • BLM sensitive. State Ranking: S2,S3 -Imperiled, Rare or Uncommon
naluritensis • Sandstone mesas, ledges, crevices and slopes in pinon-juniper woodlands. Naturita milkvetch Elev. 5,000-7,000 ft. • Closest known population about 4 miles northeast of
DeBe que Colorado. • BLM, FS sensitive. State Ranking: S2,S3 -Imperiled, Rare or Uncommon Cirsium • Barren clay outcrops derived from shales of the Mancos or Wasatch formations; perplexans
open and disturbed sites in mixed shrubland and pinon-juniper woodland. Elev. Adobe thistle 5,000-8,000 ft. • Extensive population within a 5-mile radius of DeBeque. One population is
south of the mouth of Riley Gulch. Lesquerella • BLM sensitive. State Ranking: S2 -Imperiled parviflora • Shale outcrops of the Green River formation; on ledges and slopes of canyons
in Piceance open areas. Elev. 6,200-8,600 ft. bladderpod • Occurs in the Clear Creek drainage and tributaries. Thalictrum • FS sensitive. State Ranking: S2 -Imperiled heliophilum • Sparsely
vegetated open sunny steep shale talus slopes of the Green River Sun-loving formation meadowrue • Occurs in Clear Creek drainage and tributaries. Table 6. Plants with State Ranking Only
Scientific I Status I Habitat Preference I Occurrence Common Name Mentzelia • State Ranking: S2 -Imperiled rhizomata • Steep eroding shale talus slopes, Green River formation. Elev.
5,800-9,000 ft Roan Cliffs blazingstar • Occurs in Clear Creek drainage and tributaries. W estW ater Engineering Page 16 of 41 pages October 2008
Table 6. Plants with State Ranking Only Scientific I Common Name Status I Habitat Preference I Occurrence Sullivantia • State Ranking: S3 -Rare or uncommon hapemanii • Under waterfalls,
hanging gardens on wet cliffs at elevations from 7,000 -Han~ing garden 10,000 ft. Various geologic formations su livantia • Several occurrences in Garfield County including Clear Creek
drainage and tributaries. The occurrence and distribution of TESS are strongly influenced by geologic formations and the resulting soil types present in an area. Two sedimentary Tertiary
Age formations are in the survey area. The Wasatch Formation, consisting of claystones, shales, and sandstones, is exposed from the southern border of the survey area north to about
Deer Park Gulch. The Green River Formation, consisting of shales, siltstones, maristones, sandstones, and limestones, overlies the Wasatch Formation. It is exposed on slopes and ridges
above the Wasatch Formation in the south and is the only exposed formation north of Deer Park Gulch. The Wasatch Formation (particularly the Atwell and Shire members) in the valley bottom
and adjacent foothills of lower Clear Creek provides habitat for three TESS plants. DeBeque phacelia and adobe thistle require heavy clay soils subject to high levels of swelling and
shrinking. DeBeque milkvetch is often found on silt-clay soils which become hard-baked during the summer months. These three plants appear to be salt tolerant and may be associated with
high selenium levels. The Atwell Gulch member of the Wasatch formation, which is comprised of reddish, heavy clay soils, is found in the mouth of Clear Creek, below Mt. Blaine on the
west, and below Chimney Rock on the east. TESS associated with shale of the Green River Formation are Piceance bladderpod, Roan Cliffs blazingstar, and sun-loving meadowrue, which occur
on ridges and shale talus slopes (Photos 14 and 15). Parachute penstemon, also associated with the Green River Formation, is found on shale talus slopes along cliff breaks near the top
of mountain side slopes. Three species, Naturita milkvetch, Colorado hookless cactus, and hanging garden sullivantia, are less influenced by specific geological formations. Naturita
milkvetch appears to be more associated with sandstone outcrops and sandy/gravelly flow patterns below the sandstone layers. Suitable habitat is often found on soils derived from the
Wasatch Formation, but may also be found on the soils of the Green River Formation. Naturita milkvetch has a large range, occurring in southwestern Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. Distribution
is limited to sandstone ledges and canyons. Colorado hookless cactus is found in areas with deep soils, and within diverse vegetation associations. It is not specific to soils derived
from the Wasatch or Green River Formations. The potential habitat in Clear Creek is restricted to areas under 6,000 ft in elevation, which is the upper limit of its distribution (Spackman
et al. 1997). Hanging garden sullivantia is restricted to moist areas beneath waterfalls and on cliffs below seeps. Potential habitat in the Clear Creek drainage is at the heads of the
steeper drainages and on cliffs with a permanent water source (Photo 16). WestWater Engineering Page 17 of 41 pages October 2008
Photo 14. TESS shale talus habitat in Scott Gulch Photo 15. TESS shale talus slope habitat along Clear Creek road WestWater Engineering Page 18 of 41 pages October 2008
Photo 16. Hanging garden sullivantia habitat at the Cottonwood Creek waterfalls 3.2 Procedures Based on soil types, slope, and potential habitat, WWE biologists searched likely areas
for TESS and identified them after consulting Colorado Flora: Western Slope (Weber and Wittmann 2001) and the Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide (Spackman et al. 1997). The 2007 "Clear
Creek Biological Survey" was consulted for historical records of TESS locations (WWE 2007b). Biologists surveyed TESS habitat and adjacent areas on foot from April I to September 6,
2008. TESS population size and extent were measured or estimated. Much of the habitat in the survey area was investigated first hand, especially on lower slopes, but the rugged terrain
prevented all areas from being covered. At times, binoculars were necessary to estimate populations because the TESS extended up onto extremely steep, loose shale talus slopes. When
biologists began surveying in Tom Creek snow was common in the drainage bottom and on some slopes with north and east facing aspects. However, most talus slopes were clear and biologists
were able to identify TESS locations by remnants of the previous year's growth. Later in the year new foliage and flowers aided identification. The Clear Creek and Cottonwood Creek waterfalls
were outside the boundary of the TESS survey however, plant data from those areas was obtained during associated 2008 WWE aquatic surveys. 3.3 Observations No threatened or endangered
plant species were found. Two federal (BLM or FS) sensitive species: Piceance bladderpod and sun-loving meadowrue, and two state (non-federal) sensitive species: hanging garden sullivantia
and Roan Cliffs blazingstar, are found in the survey area. Almost all of the populations grow on south or west trending slopes (Map 2). Appendix C has a table listing the known populations
in the survey area. The population numbers in the table correspond to the label numbers on Map 2. Eight sensitive species locations that were recorded in 2007 (populations # 190-197),
but not checked in 2008, are also included on the map and table. WestWater Engineering Page 19 of 41 pages October 2008
Piceance bladderpod, Roan Cliffs blazingstar, and sun-loving meadowrue, are often found growing on otherwise barren talus slopes, but they can also be found on slopes that SUppOlt a
thin cover of shrubs, forbs, and grasses (Photos 17-2 1). They are not found growing among thick vegetation or on sagebrush flats. Some populations of Piceance bladderpod and Roan Cliffs
blazingstar are found on road cuts, especially along Clear Creek road north of Tom Creek (Photo 15), and along the upper Willow Creek road, which accesses the Roan Plateau (WWE 2008j).
Photo 17. Piceance bladderpod Photo 18. Roan Cliffs blazingstar WestWater Engineering Page 20 of 41 pages October 2008
) Photo 19. Talus slope with hundreds of Roan Cliffs blazingstar ) Photo 20. Sun-loving meadow rue is common on this talus slope WestWater Engineering Page 21 of 41 pages October 2008
Photo 21. Piceance bladderpod and Roan Cliffs blazingstar can be found among the shrubs on this talus slope along Clear Creek south of Sheep Gulch. Hanging garden sullivantia is found
on cliffs near the waterfalls of three perennial streams: Clear Creek, Willow Creek, and Cottonwood Creek (Photo 22). One spindly non-flowering hanging garden sullivantia (Population
#112) was growing in the dense shade of box elders along a side drainage, directly on the route of a proposed 69kV power line (Photo 23). Photo 22. Hanging garden sullivantia at Clear
Creek waterfall WestWater Engineering Page 22 of 41 pages October 2008
Photo 23. A single hanging garden sullivantia in a side drainage Sensitive plant populations were not found in the Clear Creek drainage on lower west facing slopes near. and south of.
Tom Creek. It seems unlikely that they simply stop south of the Tom Creek confluence. They may continue along the shale talus habitat, but only at higher elevations and steepness than
biologists dared to go. Dense to moderately dense shrubs, forbs, and grasses grow on the east facing mountain side slopes along Clear Creek. TESS habitat is poor on those slopes, but
a few populations (notably populations #7-14) were found on barren, shale talus. It is possible that more TESS exist on the steep shale talus slopes below the cliff line. 3.3 Recommendations
1) Resurvey Tom Creek in the summer of2009 to find TESS that were missed in April 2008, due to the heavy snow year. 2) One hanging garden sullivantia (Population # 112) was found in
a drainage directly in the path of a proposed 69kV power-line route. Equipment operators should avoid the drainage bottom. Runofffrom power-pole construction and other activities needs
to be carefully controlled to avoid sedimentation of the drainage. Avoid disrupting the water flow upstream. 3) Avoid construction activities or keep surface disturbance to a minimum
on potential TESS habitat. Avoid undercutting unstable shale talus slopes as subsequent slides may adversely affect TESS. 4) Protect TESS habitat near waterfalls and avoid disrupting
stream flow above those waterfalls. WestWater Engineering Page 23 of 41 pages October 2008
4.0 NOXIOUS WEEDS 4.1 Introdnction Noxious weeds are non-native plants that disrupt native habitat. Most noxious weed species were introduced from Europe or Asia, either accidentally
or as ornamentals that have escaped. Once these non-natives are established in a new environment they tend to spread quickly because insects, diseases and animals that normally control
them are absent. Noxious weeds are spread by man, animals, water, and wind. Prime locations for the establishment of noxious weeds include roadsides, sites cleared for construction,
areas that are overused by animals or humans, wetlands, and riparian corridors. 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. The Colorado Noxious Weed Act (State of Colorado 2005) requires local governing bodies to develop noxious weed management plans. Both Colorado and Garfield County maintain a list
of plants that are considered to be noxious weeds. The State of Colorado noxious weed list includes three categories: List A, List B, and List C. List A species must be eradicated whenever
detected (none were found). List B species include weeds whose spread should be halted (8 species found). List C species are widespread, but the State will assist local jurisdictions
which choose to manage those weeds (5 species found). The Garfield County Weed Advisory Board has compiled a list of21 plants from the State list considered to be noxious weeds within
the county. Nine of those weed species are found in, or near, the project area. 4.2 Proced u res Field inspections of weeds were done by WWE biologists in April, May, June, July, and
August, 2008, and five integrated vegetation and noxious weed management plans were submitted to Chevron (WWE 2008 a,b,e,f,i). The reports covered more than 10 miles along the Clear
Creek and Willow Creek drainages, from Scott Gulch in the south to Red Point in the north. Major side drainages that were surveyed include Scott Gulch, Deer Park Gulch, Doe Gulch, Buck
Gulch, and Tom Creek. WWE biologists surveyed the area ISO ft on either side of proposed facilities to identify vegetation communities and to search for, identify, and map noxious weed
species. Vegetation types were determined through field identification of plants, aerial photography, and on-theground assessments of plant abundance visible during the survey. Identification
of plant species was aided by using pertinent published field guides (Whitson et al. 200 I, CWMA 2007, Weber and Wittmann 2001). Photographs were taken of the general project area, vegetation,
and terrain, and locations of weeds were recorded. Any weed infestations encountered during associated biological surveys were also recorded. The 2008 weed surveys began early April
in Tom Creek while there was still snow in the upper drainage and on north and east facing slopes. The heavy snows of the 200712008 winter delayed WestWater Engineering Page 24 of 41
pages October 2008
the emergence of many plants including weeds. Biologists sometimes had to rely on vegetative remnants from 2007 to determine weed species and locations. By late Mayall weed species were
actively growing. 4.3 Observations Previous reports by WWE biologists in 2006 and 2007 (WWE 2006, WWE 2007a, b) had documented severe infestations of noxious weeds in the Clear Creek
drainage. Dense weed infestations were again found during the 2008 survey. Most weeds are found in riparian corridors, especially along Clear Creek south of Sheep Gulch. Mountain side-slopes
generally have very few to no weeds. The most common listed weeds in the survey area are Canada thistle, cheatgrass, common burdock, common mullein, houndstongue, musk thistle, and tamarisk
(Photo 24). Photo 24. Three of the most common listed weeds are common mullein (left), musk thistle (top), aud houndstongue (right). In April and May 2008, common burdock and Canada
thistle, both of which often grow in cool shady areas along streams, had not yet emerged and were not recorded in early surveys (WWE 2008 a, b). Later in the field season both weeds
were found along Clear Creek between Deer Park Gulch and Tom Creek. They are also likely to be present along portions of the Tom Creek drainage, especially near its confluence with Clear
Creek. Table 7 provides a list of the weeds recorded by WWE biologists in the Clear Creek drainage and its tributaries in 2008. Only those listed by the state of Colorado or Garfield
County are included in the table. Weed maps and specific weed locations can be found in the various 2008 weed reports (WWE 2008 a,b,e,f,i). WestWater Engineering Page 25 of 41 pages
October 2008
Table 7. Observed Noxious Weed Locations in the Project Area Common Name* Scientific Name General Location and Comments USDA Symbol Bull ThistleB Cirsium vulgare Scattered very thinly
all along Clear Creek. CIVU Canada Thistle" An almost continuous light infestation along Clear Creek from Scott Cirsium arvense Gulch, north to the Willow Creek confluence. Occasional
moderate to CIAR4 dense infestations. CheatgrassC Thinly scattered throughout much of the survey area. Sagebrush habitat Bromus tee/arum may contain very dense stands of cheatgrass,
especially in Deer Park BRTE Gulch. Chicory' Only a few small infestations along Clear Creek south of Deer Park Cichorium intybus Gulch. CIIN Common Burdock' Thin to moderately scattered
along most drainages. Occasionally found Arctium minus ARMI2 in small patches in much greater density. Common Mullein' Thin to moderate density along most drainages. Also scattered at
very Verbascum thapsus thin densities among sage or on side slopes. Some dense infestations VETH occur adjacent to riparian areas. Field Bindweed' Generally found thinly scattered along
road sides and around well pads Convolvulus arvensis but may be found most anywhere the soil has been disturbed. Very thick COAR4 infestation with Russian knapweed in a poorly maintained
field near the mouth of Deer Park Gulch. Houndstongue" Thin to moderately scattered along most drainages. Occasional dense Cynoglossum officinale infestations. Found in very light densities
in drier areas but thicker under CYOF the shade of oakbrush. Musk Thistle" Very thinly scattered in the north project area. Increases in density south Carduus nutans CANU4 of Sheep Gulch.
A few dense patches of many hundreds of plants. Russian KnapweedB Dense 38 acre infestation near the mouth of Deer Park Gulch. Also Acroptilon repens scattered along a small section
of road in Deer Park Gulch. A few ACRE3 patches near the mouth of Doe Gulch. Russian-Olive" Elaeagnus angustifolia Three trees in the Clear Creek drainage just above Willow Creek. ELAN
Tamarisk" Tamarix spp. Continuous infestation along Clear Creek. TARA WhitetopB Cardaria draba Thick infestations south of Deer Park Gulch in fields and pastures. CADR '" Government
weed listing: Bold· Garfield County, Colorado. Superscript -Colorado State B or C list WestWater Engineering Page 26 of 41 pages October 2008
4.3 Recommendations. Noxious weeds should be controlled to prevent their spread, especially into areas of recent disturbance. Some weeds, most notably around well pads, have been sprayed
in 2008 with good results although repeated herbicide applications may be needed. Herbicides should not always be the first treatment of choice when other methods such as biological
or mechanical control can be effectively employed. For further information please see the individual weed reports (WWE 2008 a,b,e,f,i). 5.0 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES 5.1 Background
Information Waters of the United States include water features likely to be within the jurisdiction of the ACOE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Jurisdictional waters may include
drainage courses (e.g., streams or ephemeral drainages that connect to streams via surface flow or subsurface connection), ponds, lakes, wetlands, and springs. Clear Creek has many tributaries
-some have active flows year-round, some carry water during the snowmelt/spring runoff, others carry water only during major storm events. In some years, during late spring and summer,
a section of Clear Creek at the confluence of Tom Creek ceases surface flow, but in 2008 the flow was continuous well into September. 5.2 Procedures Drainages indicated by blue lines
on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps were compared with Chevron project maps (Chevron 2008a, b) to determine which drainages might be impacted by construction activities
such as well pads, pipelines, and roads. Sites of potential impacts included actual drainage crossings by pipelines and roads and drainages that are immediately adjacent to planned construction
activities for well pads and buildings. Those drainage sites were located, photographed, and recorded. Evidence of ordinary high water (OHW), such as debris/sediment movement or water
marks on drainage side walls, was noted. Additional potential jurisdictional drainages encountered during field surveys, but not necessarily indicated on topographic maps or having an
OHW mark, were also recorded. 5.3 Observations 5.3.1 Streams and Drainages Map 2 illustrates streams and intermittent drainages that could possibly be designated as jurisdictional by
the ACOE. The marked locations indicate points along the streams or drainages that may be impacted by construction activities. Appendix D contains tables with UTM coordinates and OHW
measurements of potential ACOE jurisdictional drainages. Photos were taken of each potential ACOE drainage -up slope, down slope, and at a point where construction may intersect it (called
a "crossing" in the photo caption). Appendix D contains a single representative photo of each potential ACOE drainage. Many intermittent drainages do not have evidence of OHW but, presumably,
could carry water during periods of heavy storm activity or rapid spring snowmelt. USGS topographic maps often indicate intennittent drainages on alluvial fans but it is seldom possible
to find distinct drainage WestWater Engineering Page 27 of 41 pages October 2008
) channels (Photo 25). Any surface flow apparently spreads out on the fan and is absorbed into the soil below. Photo 25. Alluvial ran below a gully in Clear Creek; drainage #64 is near
the top or the ran where a planned trunk line will cross. A 230kV power line and two 69kV power line routes were added to the Chevron project map (Chevron 2008b) after much of the WWE
2008 biological survey had already been completed. Some of the power line routes are beyond the current WWE survey boundary. Portions of a 69kV power-line route on the west side of the
Clear Creek, north of Tom Creek, were surveyed and are included in Map 2 and Appendix D. 5.3 Wetlands, Springs and Seeps Wetlands are characterized by lands where saturation with water
is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the type of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin et al. 1979). Wetlands
vary widely due to regional and local differences in soils, topography, climate, hydrology, water chemistry, vegetation, and other factors, including human disturbance. Under the Clean
Water Act, the term wetlands means "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas" (EPA Regulations,
40 CFR 230.3 (t)). WestWater Engineering Page 28 of 41 pages October 2008
Fringe wetlands border moving or still bodies of water (e.g., streams or ponds) and rely on them for their water source. In contrast, the source of water for isolated wetlands is the
accumulation of surface runoff or subsurface water, or both. Springs are discharges of water from the ground and have a defined channel. Seeps are similar to springs but do not have
a defined flow channel. Wetlands provide many benefits including food and habitat for wildlife, water quality improvement, flood protection, shoreline erosion control, natural products
for human use and opportunities for recreation and aesthetic appreciation. S.3.t Procedures WWE biologists surveyed the area for wetlands, springs, and seeps in both drainages and uplands.
Hydrology, soil, and vegetation characteristics were used to determine potential wetlands. The location of potential wetlands was recorded for future delineation and verification by
ACOE. Locations of wetlands, springs, and seeps, can be found in Map 2. 5.3.2 Observations Wetlands Fringe wetland is common along perennial drainages such as Willow Creek, Tom Creek,
and Clear Creek. A specific wetland survey by WWE biologists in August 2008, along portions of Clear Creek and Willow Creek (WWE 200Sh), indicated almost continuous fringe wetland, 18-36
inches wide, along those creeks. In addition to the fringe wetlands, biologists also recorded three potential isolated wetland sites. I) Wetland I (Photo 26) is nearly 2.2 acres in size
and lies about 400 ft east of Clear Creek and 850 ft north of Scott Gulch. In early June 200S, some areas in this wetland had standing water 8 inches deep. Vegetation is bulrush (Scirpus
spp.), sedge (Carex spp), New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana), and willow (Salix spp.). Wetland I UTM (polygon): 12S 730S07mE, 4378348mN 12S 730790mE, 4378306mN 12S 730705mE, 4378260mN
12S 730703mE, 4378400mN 2) Wetland 2 (Photo 27) is along Clear Creek, about 1,100 ft upstream of the Clear Creek bridge. It is an 8 ft x 40 ft island with water supplied by both Clear
Creek and an adjacent seep (Seep I). Later in the season (or in drier years), if the seep stops flowing, this could be considered to be part of the fringe wetland. Vegetation is bluejoint
(Calamagrostis canadensis), willow (Salix spp.), and field mint (Mentha arvensis). Wetland 2 UTM: I2S 727520mE, 4384042mN. WestWater Engineering Page 29 of 41 pages October 2008
) Photo 26. Wetland 1 -the row of trees border Clear Creek (looking west) Photo 27. Wetland 2 is indicated by the blue arrow; Seep 1 is indicated by the red arrow WestWater Engineering
Page 30 of 41 pages October 2008
3) Wetland 3 (Photo 28) is about 1,160 ft upstream of the Clear Creek bridge and about 60 ft north of Wetland 2. It is about 40 ft in diameter and is fed by at least two springs from
the cliff bank immediately east of the wetland. Vegetation is bluejoint, willow, field mint, boxelder (Acer negllndo), and A/mil/aster pallcijlorlls. Wetland 3 UTM: 12S 727499mE, 4384045mN.
Photo 28. Wetland 3 is fed by Spring 4 from the cliff bank at the top of the photo Springs The heavy winter precipitation in 2007/2008, and subsequent high stream flows, undoubtedly
influenced the discharge of springs. One spring located in 2007 along Clear Creek, north of Buck Gulch (WWE 2007b), was not found in 2008 because it was probably discharging below the
surface of Clear Creek. Four springs were found during 2008 field surveys: I) Spring I (Photo 29) is on the east side of Clear Creek, about 650 ft upstream of the Deer Park Gulch confluence.
It was about 16-inches wide and 0.75-inch deep where it met Clear Creek in early May 2008. Spring I UTM: 12S 729485mE, 4380740mN. 2) Spring 2 (Photos 30, 3 I) a developed spring at an
old cabin site near the mouth of Tom Creek. Water is piped to an open tank west of Clear Creek road. Spring 2 UTM: 12S 727945mE, 4383680mN (concrete spring box) UTM: 12S 727900mE, 4383535mN
(open water tank) West Water Engineering Page 3 I of 41 pages October 2008 )
Photo 29. Spring 1 Photos 30 and 31. Spring 2 originates at the concrete spring box and is piped to a water tank near Clear Creek road. WestWater Engineering Page 32 of 41 pages October
2008
3) Spring 3 (Photo 32) is a developed spring near the old cabin site at the mouth of Tom Creek. Spring 3 UTM: 12S 727980mE, 4383688mN Photo 32. Spring 3 4) Spring 4 (Photo 28) is actually
two or more springs arising from the cliff bank adjacent to Wetland 3. The thick vegetation made assessing the springs difficult, but there are at least two that are separated by about
20 ft. They were flowing steadily and their flow reached Clear Creek. Seeps I) Seep I (Photo 27) feeds Wetland 2 along Clear Creek. The seep originates on the east bank of Clear Creek
close to the water level of the creek. Seep I UTM: 727524mE, 4384042mN. 5.5 Recommendations To protect the integrity of perennial stream and associated riparian ecosystems within the
project area, precautions should be taken when crossing or intersecting the waterways identified. Standard Best Management Practices (BMPs), including adequate barriers and filtration
methods, should be used to prevent soil erosion and sedimentation of perennial streams and riparian areas. WWE biologists recommend submitting a jurisdictional determination request
with photos to the ACOE to receive their interpretation regarding the status of drainages identified in the project area and the applicability of Nation-wide permit #12 prior to construction
activities. Due to the sensitive nature of wetlands, springs, and seeps, and their importance to wildlife and water quality, it is recommended that disturbance in wetland areas be avoided.
Temporary use areas should be kept at least 100 feet from the edge of wetlands. Section 404 (b)(I) of the Clean Water Act contains guidelines established by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) that constitute the substantive environmental criteria used in evaluating activities regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. WWE biologists recommend that potential
wetlands in the WestWater Engineering Page 33 of 41 pages October 2008
) project area not having valid delineations on file with the ACOE be delineated. The ACOE should be consulted to make wetland determinations of the potential wetlands identified in
the survey and to decide if any permits are required for construction activities. 6.0 AQUATIC HABITAT 6.1 Observations Fish surveys were conducted in Clear Creek in late July and early
August 2008 (Photo 33). Detailed fi shery information can be found in "Distribution of Fish in the Lower Clear Creek Basin and in Roan Creek in July and August 2008" (WWE 2008k). Fish
inhabit the lower 5.5 miles of Clear Creek and trout are found in the lower 2.8 miles (Photo 34). Much of the Clear Creek basi n, from the lower 5.5 miles upstream to the waterfalls
on each stream, appears to provide habitat suitable for holding fish, but none were found. WWE biologists also conducted water quality and macro-invertebrate studies; however, those
reports are pending taxonomic and data analysis. Photo 33. Electro-fish sampling in Clear Creek Photo 34. Cutthroat trout from Clear Creek WestWater Engineering Page 34 of 41 pages October
2008
6.2 Recommendations WWE recommends that additional fish and water sampling be done to determine the genetic purity of the cutthroat trout population inhabiting Clear Creek, to determine
if a management plan should be developed to conserve these fish, and to identify stream segments for possible future fish introductions. 7.0 OTHER WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS Many different
wildlife species use the project area. In addition to the wildlife previously mentioned in this report WWE biologists observed, or saw signs of, American elk, mule deer, black bear,
beaver (along Clear Creek north of Hiner Gate), coyotes, least chipmunk, goldenmantled ground squirrel, wild turkey, bull snakes, garter snakes and blue racer snakes. Biologists recorded
a total of 53 species of birds during the survey. 7.1 Mule Deer and Elk Mule deer and elk (Photo 35) were frequently sighted during the 2008 project survey. In addition, numerous sign
was observed. Clear Creek and its associated tributaries fall within the CDOW designated Game Management Unit (GMU) 31. Mule deer and elk utilize the mountain shrub community and aspen
groves found on top of the ridges adjacent to Clear Creek to fawn and calve. They spend the summer months at these higher elevation ridge-tops before migrating down into the hillsides
and floor of Clear Creek and its tributaries for the winter. Both mule deer and elk spend the winter foraging on the south facing slopes and valley bottoms where the exposure to the
sun keeps snow accumulations at a minimum, allowing access to forbs, shrubs and grasses. The lower Clear Creek project area lies within a CDOW mapped mule deer winter concentration area
and is also mapped as a mule deer severe winter range area (Map I, CDOW 2008). The majority of the project area and side drainages are within CDOW mapped elk severe winter range and
elk winter concentration area (Map I, CD OW 2008). Photo 35. American elk on a hillside in the lower Tom Creek drainage WestWater Engineering Page 35 of 41 pages October 2008 )
7.2 Bear and Mountain Lion CDOW "NDIS" mapping shows the Clear Creek project area to be within overall mapped range for black bear and mountain lion. Black bears are omnivorous and the
diet depends largely on whatever food is seasonally available, although their mainstay is vegetation. In spring, emerging grasses and succulent forbs are favored. In summer and early
fall, bears take advantage of a variety of berries and other fruits. In late fall, preferences are for berries and mast (acorns), where available. When the opportunity is present, black
bears eat a diversity of insects, including beetle larvae and social insects (ants, wasps, bees, termites, etc.), and they kill a variety of mammals, including rodents, rabbits, and
young or unwary ungulates. The Clear Creek project area and Roan Plateau in general provide important habitat to black bear during the late spring, summer, and fall months with its abundance
of berry and mast producing plants including serviceberry, chokecherry, and oakbrush. WWE biologists observed black bear sign on several occasions during the 2008 survey period. Mountain
lion generally inhabit steep rocky terrain near woodland habitats and have large territories encompassing as much as 320 square miles (Fitzgerald 1994). Mountain lion habitat conditions
occur within the Clear Creek project area. Sightings of mountain lion are infrequent due to their predominately twilight and nocturnal habits. However, it is likely that mountain lion
occupy areas of Clear Creek, especially during the winter months when mule deer, one of their main prey items, are found within the project area in greater numbers. 7.3 Small Mammals
Common small mammal species (small game, furbearers, non-game) in the project area include coyote (Canis latrans), golden-mantled ground squirrel (Spermophilus lateralis), northern pocket
gopher (Thomomys talpoides), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus spp.), and least chipmunk (Tamias minimus) (Reid 2006). 7.4 Wild Turkey Wild turkeys are found throughout the entire Clear
Creek project area and surrounding drainages. Turkeys have pioneered into Clear Creek from the nearby Roan Creek and Brush Creek drainages. WWE biologists observed turkeys (Photo 36)
frequently in all seasons during the 2008 surveys, primarily in meadows and wooded habitat areas adjacent to Clear Creek. In the spring of 2008, male turkeys (gobblers) were observed
displaying during the mating season and one active turkey nest was found. There is an abundance of wild turkey habitat within Clear Creek and associated drainages. 7.5 Other Bird Species
The project areas' shrub lands, cottonwood groves, understory grasses and Douglas-fir stands provide nesting and foraging habitats for various other migratory and non-migratory bird
species, depending on the season of the year. In addition to raptors and BOCC species previously discussed, numerous other bird species were observed by WWE biologists during the 2008
survey. A complete list of the 45 non-raptor birds observed is found in Appendix B. WestWater Engineering Page 36 of 41 pages October 2008
Photo 36. Wild turkey along Clear Creek in the spring, 2008 7.6 Reptiles Western terrestrial garter snakes (Thamnophis elegans). racers (Coil/her constrictor), and bullsnake (Pitl/ophis
catenifer) were observed in the project area during the 2008 survey. These species are common on the Roan Plateau and are typically observed around perennial creeks and ponds. Smooth
green snakes (Liochlorophis vernalis) were not observed during surveys, but are known to occur on the Roan Plateau (Hammers on 1999). 7.7 Habitat Fragmentation and Removal Fragmentation
of wildlife habitat is a concern due to the rapid development of natural gas resources by a number of private companies. Habitat fragmentation is defined as an increased partitioning
of intact vegetative communities that tends to reduce the suitability for wildlife occupancy. Fragmentation increases the potential for the establishment of non-native or invasive species
which may out-compete preferred native species. When possible, new infrastructure should be constructed along existing pipeline and access road corridors to reduce habitat fragmentation
in this area. 8.0 SUMMARY Upper Clear Creek, Cottonwood Creek, and Clear Creek south of Scott Gulch, were not within the 2008 survey boundary. These areas should be surveyed in 2009.
Additional biological surveys may be needed if Chevron's plans for the Clear Creek drainage change, either in scope, timing, or location. WestWater Engineering Page 37 of 41 pages October
2008
8.1 Raptors Five active raptor nests were found in 2008, but only one was threatened by construction activities. Chevron adjusted their construction schedule near that nest and the chicks
successfully fledged. WWE recommends additional raptor surveys in 2009 to assess potential impacts of further construction on nesting raptors. 8.2 DOCC (other than raptors) Two BOCC
were seen in 2008. A single gray vireo was seen one time, but there is no suitable nesting habitat in the survey area and the bird was not seen again. Virginia's warblers were occasionally
seen or heard from May through July. There is a fair amount of suitable nesting habitat (thick brush, especially oakbrush) and it is assumed that Virginia's warblers breed in the survey
area. WWE recommends that surface activity and vegetative disturbance be kept to a minimum, especially during late spring and summer. 8.3 TESS No threatened or endangered plant species
were found. Four species of sensitive plants are in the survey area: hanging garden sullivantia, Piceance bladderpod, Roan Cliffs blazingstar, and sunloving meadowrue. Some sensitive
plant populations are found growing alongside the Clear Creek or the upper Willow Creek roads. One specimen of hanging garden sullivantia was found in a drainage directly along the path
of a proposed 69kV power line. WWE recommends avoiding construction activities that will directly impact TESS habitat and, in the case of hanging garden sullivantia, adversely affect
water flow upstream. 8.4 Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds are widespread in the Clear Creek drainage, especially in the riparian corridor. WWE recommends that noxious weeds be controlled
to prevent their spread, especially into areas of recent disturbance. For further information see the previously submitted weed reports (WWE 2008 a,b,e,f,i). 8.5 Waters of the United
States One hundred thirty-nine (139) drainages, 3 wetlands, 4 springs, and I seep were identified that could potentially fall under the jurisdiction of the ACOE. The ACOE should be consulted
to identify which drainages fall under their jurisdiction. To protect the integrity of the Clear Creek drainage basin, including intermittent drainages, wetlands, springs, seeps, and
riparian habitat, WWE recommends that adequate barriers and filtration methods be used to prevent soil erosion during construction activities. Additional surveys are recommended when
project locations are finalized. 8.6 Aquatic Habitat Fish inhabit the lower 5.5 miles of Clear Creek. Cutthroat trout are found in the lower 2.8 miles of this area. WWE recommends that
additional fish and water sampling be done to determine the genetic purity of the cutthroat trout population inhabiting Clear Creek, to determine if a management plan should be developed
to conserve these fish, and to identify stream segments for possible future fish introductions. WestWater Engineering Page 38 of 41 pages October 2008
8.7 Wildlife Elk, deer, black bear, and many small mammals are present in the Clear Creek drainage. Potential conflicts are possible between humans and wildlife. Do not feed wildlife
and keep trash in secure containers. In recent years, the CDO W has experienced an increasing number of situations where conflicts have occurred between black bears and natural gas development.
Most often incidents involve workers that have created problems at campsites (remote man camps) or around drilling sites where trash has not been protected and bears have been attracted
in search of food. By their nature, black bears are not aggressive and prefer to avoid contact with humans. However, they are constantly searching for food and if they smell food trash,
they can come in contact with humans. During times of drought or lack of seed/berry production due to frost, bears will be in a constant search for food. Intentional feeding of bears
has occurred in the past and should never be allowed by employees. Intentional feeding almost always leads to unanticipated problems including direct contact with humans (human bites,
breaking into cabins, trailers, trucks). In order to avoid bear problems, all potential sources of food attributable to workers should be eliminated from access by bears. Any trash containing
food items produced on drilling sites and in man camps needs to be protected from bears. Removal of trash containing food items and bear-proof trash containers are two possible solutions.
This requires aggressive and persistent action to eliminate the opportunity for bears to obtain food items in and around production sites. Black bear problems are best prevented by proactive
measures rather than attempting to solve an ongoing problem. The CDOW prefers avoidance over problem management. 9.0 REFERENCES Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference
to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado. BLM. 1997. Record of Decision and Approved White River Resource Area, Resource Management Plan. U.S. Bureau
of Land Management, Meeker, Colorado. Chevron. 2008a. Site Development Map -"Piceance Basin Natural Gas Development Program", Chevron North America, March 31. Chevron. 2008b. Site Development
Map -"Piceance Basin Natural Gas Development Program", Chevron North America, June 26. CNHP. 2007. Tracked Vascular Plant Species. URL: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/trackingJvascular.html
CWMA. 2007. S. Anthony, T. D'Amato, A. Doran, S. Elzinga, J. Powell, I. Schonle, K. Uhing. Noxious Weeds of Colorado, Ninth Edition. Colorado Weed Management Association, Centennial.
CD OW. 2008. "Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors." Unpublished Report. Contact -David Klute. Colorado Department of Wildlife, Denver. WestWater Engineering
Page 39 of 41 pages October 2008
Coward in, L.M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney and D.M. Armstrong 1994. Mammals of Colorado, Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado, Denver. FWS. 2002. Birds of Conservation
Concern 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. FWS. 2008. Endangered Species Program. URL: www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html
Hammerson, G. A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado, Second Edition. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Kennedy, P. L., and D. W. Stahlecker. 1993. Responsiveness of nesting
northern goshawks to taped broadcasts of3 con specific calls. Journal of Wildlife Management, 57:249-257. Kingery, H. E. (editor). 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas
Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. NRCS. 2008. Colorado River Basin Snowpack Map. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. URL: http://www.co.nrcs.us
da.gov/snow/snow/watershed/currentlmonthly/datalsnosumrytxt.ht ml Poole, A. (editor). 2005. The Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.comell.eduIBNAI. Cornell Laboratory of
Ornithology, Ithaca, NY Reid, F. A. 2006. A Field Guide to Mammals of North America, Fourth Edition. Peterson Field Guides. National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, Roger
Tory Peterson Institute, New York. Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith and E. L Fisher.1992. Management recommendations
for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. General Technical Report RMGTR-217, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 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. State of Colorado. 2005. Rules pertaining to the administration
and enforcement of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, 35-5-1-119, C.R.S. 2003. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Plant Industry Division, Denver, 78 pp. Weber, W. A., and R. C, Wittmann. 2001.
Colorado Flora: Western Slope, Third Edition. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. WestWater Engineering Page 40 of 41 pages October 2008
Whitson, T. (editor) 1996. Weeds of the West. The Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with the Western U.S. Land Grant Universities Cooperative Extension Services. University
of Wyoming. WWE. 2006. Chevron Clear Creek 8 inch Pipeline Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan. Garfield County, Colorado, December. WWE. 2007a. Chevron Clear Creek
Proposed 8 Inch Pipeline Realignment Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan. Garfield County, Colorado, May. WWE. 2007b. Clear Creek Biological Survey. May. WWE. 2008a.
Chevron -Tom Creek Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan. Garfield County, Colorado, April. WWE. 2008b. Chevron -Deer Park to Tom Creek Integrated Vegetation and Noxious
Weed Management Plan. Garfield County, Colorado, May. WWE. 2008c. Raptor Nest and TESS Plant Survey Report. Well Pads 698-09-AV, 698-27-1 and Cuttings Pit. Garfield County, Colorado,
May WWE. 2008d. Raptor Nest and TESS Plant Survey Report. Well Pad 598-36-AV, Garfield County, Colorado. WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado, May. WWE. 2008e. Chevron -Scott
Gulch to Deer Park Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan, Garfield County, Colorado. WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado, July. WWE. 2008f. Chevron -Buck,
Doe, Deer Park, and Scott Gulches Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan, Garfield County, Colorado. WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado, August. WWE. 2008g.
BLM 40 Acre Parcel Biological Survey, T.5 S., R.98 W., Sections 21 and 22, Garfield County, Colorado. WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado, August. WWE 2008h. Clear Creek
Wetland Evaluation. Memorandum to Ms Julie Justus, Regulatory Specialist, Chevron North America Exploration and Production. WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado, August 25.
WWE. 2008i. Chevron -Tom Creek to Red Point Segment Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan, Garfield County, Colorado. WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado,
September. WWE. 2008j. Chevron 4 Inch Flex Pipeline TESS Plant Survey. Clear Creek and Willow Creek Drainages, Garfield County, Colorado. WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado,
September. WWE. 2008k. Distribution ofFish in the Lower Clear Creek Basin and in Roan Creek in July and August 2008. WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado, September 2008.
WestWater Engineering Page 41 of41 pages October 2008