HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.09 Wildlife report1>, VALERUS Wildlife Report
Wildlife Impact Study Valerus Hunter Mesa Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Prepared for Valerus Compression Services, LP 919 Milam, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77002-5386 and
Garfield County 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Prepared by ERO Resources Corporation 29844 Stingley Gulch Road Hotchkiss, CO 81419 October 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS Wildlife Impact Study Valerus Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................
........................... 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 1 3.0 GARFIELD COUNTY WILDLIFE
.................................................................................... 5 Wildlife Habitat ...............................................................................................
..................... 5 BIG GAME .......................................................................................................................... 6 American Elk ............................
......................................................................................... 6 Bighorn Sheep ............... .............................................................................
....................... 8 Black Bear ..... .................................................................................................................... 8 Mountain Lion ...............
.................................................................................................... 8 Moose 8 Mule Deer .................................................. ...........................
............................................. 8 Pronghorn ............... ........................................................................................................ 10
Raptors ............................................................................................................................... 10 Fish .......................................................
........................................................................... 10 Special Status Species .................................................................................................
....... 10 Federally Listed and Candidate Species ......................................................................... 12 State Listed Species ...................................................
...................................................... 12 4.0 POTENTIAL WILDLIFE IMPACTS ............................................................................... \3 Wildlife Habitat
.................................................................................................................. 13 Big Game ............................................... ........................
..................................................... 14 Raptors ............................................... ................................................................................
14 Fish .................................................................................................................................. 15 Special Status Species ..................................
...................................................................... 15 5.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION ...................................................................................
15 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 16 Figure Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4.
Figure 5. LIST OF FIGURES Page Project Location ......................................................................................................... 2 ProJ· ect Vl'C"l mty ......................
................................................................................... . 3 Project Aerial Photo ..........................................................................................
......... 4 Elk Habitat in Project Vicinity .................................................................................. 7 Mule Deer Concentration Areas ........................................
........................................ 9 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Special Status Species in Garfield County .........................................................................
11 11 fRO Resources (Dlporotion
) ) 1.0 INTRODUCTION Wildlife Impact Study Valerus Compressor Station Gmfield COllnty, Colorado Valerus Compression Services, LP (Valerus) is proposing to construct and operate a 5-unit
natural gas compression station for the gathering of natural gas located on private lands in southern Garfield County, Colorado. Garfield County requires that, prior to construction,
Valerus shall prepare an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and a Wildlife Impact Study (WIS). This WIS describes wildlife resources in the vicinity of the proposed compressor station
and expected impacts to those resources. The EIS is provided as a separate report. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Hunter Mesa Compressor Station project consists of the construction and
operation of 5 compressor units powered by natural gas. The compressor station would be the collection point for natural gas produced in the project vicinity. Natural gas entering the
compressor station will power the engines associated with the compression to reduce emissions. The compressor station will be located on portions of three small parcels at the end of
an existing access road that currently allows access to an adjacent facility. The project is situated in the Piceance Basin south of the Colorado River and Rifle, west of Glenwood Springs,
and north of the Garfield/Mesa County Line. Specifically, the proposed compressor station is located along County Road (CR) 333 in Township 6 South, Range 92 West in Section 30. The
project area location is illustrated in Figure I (map) and Figure 2 (aerial photo) in Section 4.0 of this submittal. A more detailed description of the project including staffing, transportation,
and operations is provided in the Project Narrative (see tab E) of this submittal. fRO Resources (ofporolion
Figure I. Proj ect Location 2 Wildlife Impac/S/lidy Valerus Compressor Station GO/field COlln/y, Colorado fRO Resou({es (orporation ) )
) ) Figure 2. Project Vicinity. " /),.-, , I ..... ,-.-.. ,~?'-' -', J I 175 R93W /'-175 R92W /\ -: """ " ,:.. ---, 3 Wildlife Impact Stlldy Valel'llS Compressor Station Gmfield COllnty,
Colorado fRO Resources (orporation
) Figure 3. Project Aerial Photo. 4 Wildlife Impact Study Valerus Compressor Station Gmfield County, Colorado ) J ERa Resources Corporation
) Wildlife Impact Study Valerus Compressor Station GGlfield COllnty, Colorado Approximately 1.62 acres of surface disturbance would result from the construction of the project. About
1.37 acres would be long-term disturbance, and about 0.25 acres would be short-term disturbance and would be revegetated (includes slopes and storm water management features on the site),
The majority of the surface disturbance would take place on presently disturbed land that consists mainly of bare soil and cheatgrass and introduced forbs. A fence would enclose the
compressor station, appurtenant facilities, and the adjoining existing slug catcher/pig launcher and associated storage tanks. Because the two facilities will share an access road, enclosing
both facilities in a single perimeter fence is most logical. The perimeter security fence for the project will be a 7 foot tall chain link fence with 1 foot of 3 strand barb wire at
the top. This fence will have a 24 foot wide double drive gate at the entrance and will have 48" wide personnel emergency egress gates at certain locations. After operations are complete
(anticipated lifespan of the facility is about 25 to 30 years), the site would be reclaimed according to the Reclamation Plan, which includes treatment measures to return the site to
pre-construction conditions. This site was selected due to its proximity to existing infrastructure and county roads, private landownership, and the opportunity to minimize new surface
disturbances. An electrical power line would be installed to provide power to the station and would be connected to an existing electrical line near the site. The connection of the compression
unit to existing infrastructure would allow for the more efficient use of gathering pipelines and wells in the area, and would subsequently increase the volume of gas sent to the national
market via transmission pipelines. 3.0 GARFIELD COUNTY WILDLIFE WILDLIFE HABITAT Garfield County contains a variety of wildlife habitat. In general, the county encompasses a large expanse
in Colorado including a wide variety of habitat types, from semi-arid shrub lands to alpine tundra. With an area of approximately 3,000 square miles, the county is approximately 110
miles long, 50 miles wide at the eastern end, and 20 miles wide at the western end. Elevations within the county range from 4,700 feet to over 13,000 feet at the tallest mountain peaks.
The Colorado River and its tributaries cross the county on the southeastern end. An ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) biologist surveyed the project area in April, May, and July 20 I O.
The project area supports 3 main vegetationlland cover types, including sagebrush scrub, introduced grassland and bare soil in or surrounding the project area. Within the project area,
big sagebrush (Arlelllisia Iridenlala) and rabbitbrush (CJuysolhalllnus spp.) are the predominant shrub species. Grass species observed mixed in the shrub community include cheat grass
(Anisanlha leclorulII), thickspike wheatgrass (EIYlllus lanceolalus), western wheatgrass (PascopyrulII slllilhil), slender wheatgrass (ElYlllus Irachycaulus), and crested wheatgrass
(Agropyron crislalulII). Other species observed include larkspur (DelphiniulII spp.), fringed sage (Arlemisiajrigida), pussy toes (Anlennaria lIIedia), and wild onion (AlliulII spp.).
The introduced grassland community consists of a mix of various wheatgrasses previously listed, as well as introduced forbs including purple mustard (Chorispora lenella), kochia (Bassia
sieversiana), chicory (CichoriulII inlyhus), bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), and Russian thistle (Salsola auslralis). 5 fRO Resources (orporo/ion
) BIG GAME Wildlife III/pact Study Valerus Compressor Station Gmfield County. Colorado Garfield County has abundant game resources, including big game species. Big game species known
to occur in Garfield County include American elk (eerllus elaphus), bighorn sheep (Ollis canadensis), black bear (Ursus americanus), mountain lion (Felis concolor), mule deer (Odocoileus
hemionus), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Moose (Alces alees) may also occur as a rare big game species. The project is located within
the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) Game Management Unit (GMU) 42. This GMU is bordered to the west and north by the Colorado River. The east side is bounded by South Canyon Creek
and the divide between both the Roaring Fork-Crystal River drainages and the Baldy Creek-Divide Creek drainages. GMU 42 extends along this divide to the common point of the Mesa-Pitkin-Gunnison
County lines where it turns to the west and is bordered on the south by the Divide Creek-Muddy Creek divide, Divide Creek-Plateau Creek divide, and the Plateau Creek-Colorado River divide,
where it finally meets the Colorado River. The total size ofGMU 42 is 387,804 acres. American Elk American elk range throughout the western two-thirds of Colorado generally at elevations
above 6,000 feet. Elk occur in semi-open forests or forest edges adjacent to parks, meadows, and alpine tundra. Elk sometimes move in herds of several hundred individuals (CDOW 20 lOa,
20 lOb). The project area is located within the winter range of elk, including severe winter range and winter concentration areas (Figure 5). No elk migration corridors are known to
exist within or near the area of the project site. In 2009, there were 296 bull s, 235 cows, and 31 calves harvested by 2,407 hunters during 12,094 recreational days in GMU 42 (CDOW
2010). 6 fRO Resources Corporation )
) I:ZZI .... ' oler Concentrdtion I!.1J Severe Vir-,!er Figure 4. Elk Habitat in Project Vicinity. o .. '" Sui. ; l:ro.OOO e,w "!.lp: NoIJP 200& 2m~;II kn aglry G.lrlMoId County. Color.
do lITM Zoo. 13N. NAoal . M lt.r~ S.ptember II~. 2007 7 Wildlife Impact Study Valerus Compressor Station Gmfield County, Colorado N SWCA I "":~~~~~ 8-.0 .. S ... · .. ~OO CO 80011 ?hen.
: J.OJ.481.t 183 Fu: lOl.4S1.1245 ERO Resources Corporation
Big/IOJ'II SiJeep Wildlife Impact Study Valel'lis Compressor Station GO/field County, Colorado Bighorn sheep typically occur in steep, high mountain terrain, In Colorado, they prefer
habitat dominated by grass, low shrubs, and rock cover, and often rest on inaccessible cliffs (CDOW 20 lOb), Bighorn sheep range is available in the extreme northeastern section of Garfield
County within the higher elevations, As a result of their habitat requirements, bighorn sheep are not expected to occur in the project area and will not be analyzed further, B/ackBear
Black bear habitat includes montane shrublands and forests, and subalpine forests at moderate elevations, In Colorado, the largest populations of black bears live in the western two-thirds
of the state in areas with Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), aspen (Populus tremuloides), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), and serviceberry (Amelanchier sp,) (CDOW 20 lOa, 20 lOb), The
project area falls into the overall range for this species, but does not exist within its summer, fall, or winter ranges, Harvest surveys for 2009 reported 12 boars and 12 sows were
harvested in GMU 42 during 106 recreational days (CDOW 20 I 0), Although black bear ranges throughout Garfield County, they are not expected to occur on s ite regularly due to the lack
of suitable habitat. MOllntain Lion The mountain lion is common in the western two-thirds of the state. Mountain lions are most abundant in foothills, canyons, or mesa country where
they primarily use montane forests, shrublands, and pinyon-juniper woodlands, The project area is located within the overall range of the mountain lion and they have some potential to
occur within the project area (CDOW 20 lOa, 20 lOb), Moose Moose inhabit forested areas and forest edges that are usually in close proximity to lakes, streams, or marshes. They rely
heavily on early successional stages within recently burned areas or areas manipulated by beavers (CDOW 20 lOa, 20 lOb), The proposed project area does not contain any habitat suitable
for moose. MII/ePeer There are two species of deer in Colorado, White-tailed deer are common in streamside woodlands and nearby croplands along the rivers of the eastern plains, and
do not occur in western Colorado. Mule deer are abundant statewide in all ecosystems, from grasslands to alpine tundra, Mule deer occupy any "edge" habitat, including suburban residential
(CDOW 20 lOa, 20 lOb), The project area only encompasses mule deer habitat and is located within mule deer winter range including severe winter range (FIGURE 5). The project area is
also situated in close proximity to a mule deer winter concentration area, which occurs to the west, north, and east. No mule deer migration corridors are known to exist within and near
the area of the project site, In 2009, there were 554 bucks, 120 does, and 6 fawns harvested by 1,525 hunters during 6,843 recreational days in GMU 42 (CDOW 2010). 8 fRO Resources (orporation
) )
) ) -.T_ o ....' l\&h.i.p 80u ndaIY J:ZZJ ..... ~nle( Concentration COfl1ll"eSSoOf Station I!3:J Severe Win:er Figure 5. Mule Deer Concentration Areas. o '.'" Suk: 1:2.,000 B,aw M;lp:
USGS HI Topographi<: MJlp Ou.tdr~'n: HunlerMu., CO (l~eJ): Si!t CO (1~2); R,n. CO{ l i!l2 J: Nor1h , .. b nvn Puk. CO (1Q&l) Olr1l. 1<1 County. Color.ldo un.t Zoo. 13N. NA08J. " t .tIllS
Septembltf Ig, 2001 9 , Wildlife Impact Study Valel'us Compressor Station Gmjield County. Colorado N I ~" (.oe\.n B'vd .. SW Bloom',.:d. CO 80021 Phon. : 31)3.481. 118) F.n: lQl.4S7.124!1
ERO Resources Corporafion
Prong/lOn1 Wildlife Impaci SllIdy Valerus Compressor Sia/ion Gwfield COllnly, Colorado In Colorado, pronghorn are found in the eastern plains, large mountain parks and valleys, and in
shrublands west of the mountains. Pronghorn generally live in grasslands and semi-desert shrublands on rolling topography WiOl good visibility. Pronghorn mainly exist in the eastern
portion of the state and patches throughout the western portion of the state; however, their range does not overlap into the project area (CDOW 20 lOa, CDOW 2010b). RAPTORS All raptor
species and their active nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The proposed project site has no trees or cliffs; therefore, raptor nesting opportunities within
or around the project site are minimal, but a few species may forage or migrate through the project area. Some of these species may include bald eagle (Haliaeellis leucocephalus), northern
harrier (Circus cyaneus), ferruginous hawk (Buleo regalis), prairie falcon (Falco mexican us), golden eagle (Aquila ch,ysaelos), red-tailed hawk (Buleo jalllaicensis), American kestrel
(Falco sparverius), and great horned owl (Bubo virginian us). FISH There are no open bodies of water in or adjacent to the project area; therefore, no fish species are present. The closest
bodies of water to the project area are the Colorado River, Mamm Creek, and Dry Creek drainages. The Colorado River is approximate ly 3 miles to the north, the Mamm Creek Drainage runs
along CR 315 about 1.5 miles to the east, and Dry Creek is located approximately I mile to the west. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Threatened, endangered, candidate, and special concern species
identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDOW that are known to, or have the potential to, occur in Garfield County are listed in Table I (USFWS 20 10; CDOW 2010a).
Only those with potential to occur in the project area are discussed further. 10 fRO Resou((es (orporation ) )
Wildlife Impact Study Valel'us Compressor Station Gmjield County, Colorado Table 1. Special Status Species in Garfield County Common Name Scientific Name USFWS CDOW Potential Status
Status to Occur? Mammals Canada lynx Lynx canadensis T SE No Northern pocket gopher ThomolllYs talpoides SC Yes Northern river otter Lutra canadensis ST No Kit fox Vulpes lIIacrotus
SE No Townsend's big-eared bat Piecotus townsendii SC Yes Wolverine Gulo $!ulo SE No Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus ST Yes Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis SC Yes Greater sandhill
crane Grus callidensis tabida SC No Long-billed curlew Numellius american liS SC No Plains sharp-tailed grouse Tvmpanllchus phasiallelllls jamesii SE No Peregrine Falcon Falco Perewinus
SC No Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasiallus SC No Mexican spotted owl Strix occidenatlis lucida T No Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidollax traillii extimus SE No Yellow-billed
cuckoo Coccyzus american us C No Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia ST No Whooping crane Grus americana SE No Amphibians/Rcptilcs Boreal toad Buro boreas SE No Longnose leopard
lizard Gambelia wislizenii SC No Midget faded rattlesnake Crotalus viridis concolor SC No Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens SC No Fish Bony tail Gila elegans E SE No Colorado pikeminnow
Ptvchocheilus lucius E ST No Greenback cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus c1aki stolllias T No Humpback chub Gila cypha E ST No Razorback sucker Xvrauchen texallus E SE No Plants DeBeque phacelia
Phacelia submutica C S2 No Parachute beardtongue Pellstelllon debilis C SI No Uinta Basin hook less cactus Sclerocactus $!Iallcus T S3 No Ute ladies' -tresses orchid Spiranthes dill/vialis
T No E = Federal Endangered, T = Federal Threatened, C = Federal Candidate, SE = State Endangered, ST = State Threatened, SC = State Special Concern, S I = Critically endangered in state,
S2 = Endangered or threatened in state, S3 = Vulnerable in state. Sources: NDIS 2010; FWS 2010 1\ ERO Resour(es Corporation
Federally Listed and Candidate Species Wildlife Impact Study Valerus Compressor Station Gmfield County, Colorado None of the 12 federally listed and candidate spec ies has potentially
habitat within the project area. Based on the soil types and surrounding topography, conditions are not favorable for any of the federally listed plant species. Also, the site conditions
were reviewed during the field survey and lack of favorable habitat was confirmed. State Listed Species CDOW manages wildlife in Colorado in an effort to preserve, protect, and enhance
wildlife species that may be at risk of becoming federally threatened or endangered. CDOW lists wildlife as threatened, endangered, or species of special concern. In addition to the
federally listed and candidate species discussed above, 27 state-listed species are known to occur in Garfield County. Many of these species are not associated with the habitat types
present at the project site. Several state listed species are not expected to occur on site because they are wetland, riparian, grassland, or coniferous forest species. State listed
species that are associated with those habitats include the northern river otter, wolverine, greater sandhill crane, long-billed curlew, yellow-billed cuckoo, burrowing owl, boreal toad,
and northern leopard frog. Other species such as the plains sharp-tailed grouse, kit fox, and longnose leopard li zard do not have ranges that reach into the vicinity of the project
area. Species listed by the state that have potential to occur at the project site include northern pocket gopher, Townsend's big-eared bat, bald eagle, and ferruginous hawk. Each is
discussed separately below. Northern Pocket Gopher Northern pocket gopher is common in a variety of habitats above 5,000 feet in elevation. They use agricultural fields, pasture lands.
semidesert shrub lands, and grasslands at lower elevations upwards into alpine tundra. Potential habitat occurs throughout Garfield County, including the project area. No pocket gopher
mounds were observed within the project area during a series of ERO surveys in April, May, and July 20 I O. Townsend's Big-eared Bat Townsend's big-eared bat occupies semi-desert shrublands,
pinyon-juniper woodlands, and open montane forests. Distribution in these areas depends on availability of roosts, such as caves, mines, tunnels, crevices, and masonry structures with
suitable temperatures (CDOW 2010a, 2010b). Habitat is available for this species in western Garfield County; however, there are no known caves or mines nor suitable cliff habitat in
the project area. Foraging bats, however, may fly through the project area on occasIOn. Bald Eagle Until recently, the bald eagle was a federal and state threatened species, but has
now been removed from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species (USFWS 2007). The bald eagle will continue to be monitored closely over the next several years and will continue
to be protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the MBTA. The bald eagle feeds on fish and carrion and typically roosts in large trees near a water source. In Colorado
they are often found near reservoirs, especially where there are abundant fish. The nearest body of water containing suitable habitat for this species is the Colorado River which is
approximately 3 miles to the north of the project site. As such, bald eagles may occasionally fly through the project area, but are not expected to regularly inhabit the area. 12 ERO
Resources (orporation )
Ferruginous Hawk Wildlife IlIIpaci Silidy Valerus Compressor Station Gmfield COllnly, Colorado The ferruginous hawk inhabits grasslands, semi-desert shrublands, and occasionally pinyon-juniper
woodlands. Migrants and winter residents may also occur in shrublands and agricultural areas. The hawks nest in isolated trees, on rock outcrops, on structures such as power poles, or
on the ground. In Colorado, the ferruginous hawk is a winter resident, and a rare summer resident, on the eastern plains where they concentrate around prairie dog towns. Their distribution
depends greatly on the availability of prairie dogs. In Garfield County, this hawk may possibly utilize open areas throughout the semi-desert shrublands; however, there is a low potential
for this species to occur in the project area due to the lack of suitable habitat. 4.0 POTENTIAL WILDLIFE IMPACTS Potential wildlife impacts may result from the implementation of the
proposed project due to initial construction, an increase in noise, human presence, and traffic. [n addition, wildlife may be affected by a decrease in available nesting and foraging
habitat. Construction activities are expected to be minor and temporary, lasting only 60 to 90 days. Operation of the compressor station would be of longer term. Due to the presence
of a compressor station to the east and west of the proposed compressor station, there is currently a significant level of background noise. Adding a third compressor station in the
area would add additional noise to the immediate surrounding area. Hankard Environmental conducted a noise impact study for the proposed compressor station location to determine the
sound levels that would result from the operation of the compressor site (see tab J: Supplemental Materials). This study was used to establish the background noise levels at the site,
as well as future conditions after installation of the compressor facility. Existing noise levels range from about 46 to 53 dBA, and are anticipated to remain relatively consistent post-construction.
Compressors would be housed in individual acoustical enclosures, which would limit the noise impacts. A fence would enclose the compressor station, appurtenant facilities, and the adjoining
existing slug catcher/pig launcher and associated storage tanks. Because the two facilities will share an access road, enclosing both facilities in a single perimeter fence is most logical.
The perimeter security fence for the project will be a 7 foot tall chain link fence with I foot of3 strand barb wire at the top. The fence would prevent wildlife from entering the facility.
WILDLIFE HABITAT Construction of the proposed compressor station would result in a potential impact to 1.62 acres of wildlife habitat, which is less than 0.0000 I % of GMU 42. Currently
most of this development site is low functioning and already impacted by oil and gas facilities and easements, as well as open range grazing. The dominant vegetation community impacted
by construction would be disturbed grassland, which has limited value for wildlife forage. After the lifespan of the compressor site is expired, the area would be reclaimed (see attached
Reclamation Plan in Section 5.5). The habitat found within the proposed project area and adjacent to the project site could be used by big game, raptors, and special status species found
in Garfield County. These habitat types are widespread in the surrounding area and the proposed project is not anticipated to contribute to the loss of this habitat to a level which
significantly impacts wildlife species of the region. Wildlife species utilizing the project site are expected to move into adjacent available habitat during construction. 13 fRO Resources
Corporation
Big Came Wildlife Impact Study Valerlls Compressor Station Gat}ield County, Colorado Habitat disturbances from the proposed project would be minimal. Approximately 1.62 acres of disturbed
grassland would be converted to a compressor station and associated gravel driving surfaces for a period of about 25 to 30 years. A portion of this would be revegetated slopes (about
0.25 acres) that are reseeded during the appropriate season following construction. Grassland vegetation types would be restored on those slopes, so that the long-term impact on vegetation
would be about 1.37 acres. The footprint ofthe facility has been minimized as much as poss ible through careful des ign. Impacts to the vegetation in the project area would slightly
reduce forage available for wildlife. Shortterm impacts would be about 1.62 acres, and long-term impacts would be about 1.37 acres. However, the existing disturbed state of the project
area vegetation limits its value to wildlife. Other impacts from noise could occur. Increased noise and human presence during the construction phase of the project could result in temporary
avo idance by wildlife. These impacts would be temporary and minimal. There would be very limited increased noise during operation of the compressor. Existing noise at the site is about
53 DbA from existing noise sources east and west of the project area. Future compressor station noise from the proposed site would be about the same magnitude. Due to low speeds on area
roads (25 mph) and the limited time period for construction, the increase in traffic during construction is not expected to result in an increased risk in animal-vehicle collisions.
Finally, the project area would be fenced to prevent medium to large animals from entering the site. The proposed fence would further minimize wildlife impacts. For additional detail,
please see Section J: Supplemental Materials. Big game displacement could impact available hunting in GMU 42, however the impacts should be minimal within the overall GMU and all impacts
would be located on private land. The amount of habitat removed for the proposed project would be relatively small compared to the amount of habitat available in the area. The area around
the compressor station would be fenced to exclude wildlife such as elk and deer during the lifespan of operations at the site. The project area is within elk and mule deer winter ranges.
No big game migration corridors are identified within or near the project location. Anticipated construction is expected to take place during the latter part of the winter and into the
spring of next year and could influence elk and mule deer activity patterns. However, it is likely that elk and deer are somewhat acclimated to the level of existing disturbance from
oil and gas operations. It is unlikely that the small increase in noise and human presence during construction would have an effect on game use of the area. After construction, noise
and human presence would return to existing levels. It is likely that elk and deer would continue to use wintering habitat in the surrounding area during construction and during operation.
Daily operations and maintenance activities at the site would be nominal with only a one to four (I to 4) vehicles (I -ton truck) entering and leaving the site. Rap/ors The project site
does not contain any suitable nesting habitat for raptors. Although raptors may utilize the area for hunting or travel, impacts are expected to be minimal. Minimal acreage of undisturbed
habitat would be removed during construction. Increase noise and human disturbance during construction activities may temporarily deter birds from utilizing the area. Because construction
is assumed to last approximately 90 days, there would be only potential short-term impacts to avian species from construction. After construction is complete, noise levels would return
to approximately 14 fRO Resources (orporolion )
Wildlife Impact Study Valerlls Compressor Station Gatfield County, Colorado existing levels. Existing noise levels at the project area are about 46 to 53 dBA; during operation noise
levels would be in approximately the same range. Noise mitigation, including individual acoustical enclosures and compressor engine and cooler treatment, would minimize noise impacts
to raptors and other avian species. Fish The project area does not contain any suitable habitat for fi sh species; therefore, no impacts to fish species are expected. Special Statlls
Species It is expected that birds species such as the bald eagle and ferruginous hawk have a low potential to utilize habitat in the project area. The compressor station would impact
a small percentage of the available foraging habitat for ferruginous hawk, but this would not result in significant impacts to this species. Increased noise and human presence may deter
this species from using the project site and surrounding area during construction; however, these noise impacts would be temporary and minimal to this species. Besides the bald eagle
and ferruginous hawk, three other state-listed spec ies may potentially occur in the project area and nearby vicinity. However, a series of ERO surveys during April, May and July 2010
did not identify any suitable habitat nor presence of these species in the project area. The proposed construction along with increased noise and human presence may impact wildlife or
their habitat, but are not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing, or a loss of viability of any species. No long-term effects to special status species are expected since populations
were not observed on the subject site, and noise and human presence would decrease after the construction phase. 5.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION The construction and operation of the proposed
compressor station is not expected to have any significant adverse effects on big game, raptors, or special status wildlife. Implementation of mitigation measures would avoid or minimize
wildlife impacts from this project. Valerus has committed to the following mitigation meaSlU'es to minimize and avoid wildlife impacts: • Potential impacts to wildlife have been minimized
through careful design and minimization of facility disturbance to vegetation communities and use of existing access rOlltes; • Development of a reclamation plan for project reclamation;
• Implementation of best management practices to minimize erosion and siltation into aquatic wildlife habitat downstream of the project area (see SWMP in tab J: Supplemental Materials);
• Follow a weed control and reclamation plan to minimize potential for establishment of noxious weeds after surface disturbance; • Installation of noise attenuation technology to prevent
a noticeable increase in noise emissions from the new compressor station; and • Adhere to a no dog and firearm policy at the location. 15 fRO Resources (orporation
6.0 REFERENCES Wildlife Impacl Silldy Valerlls Compressor Station GO/field COllnly, Colorado Hankard Environmental. 2010. Noise Compliance Analysis for Proposed Valerus Hunter Mesa Gas
Compressor Station. Prepared for Phil Vaughan, PVCMI. October 7, 2010. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2010. Big Game 2009 Harvest Survey Statistics. Available at http://wildlife,state,co.us/Hu
nting/BigGame/Statistics/. Accessed April 2010. ---. 20 lOa. Natural Diversity Information Source. Available at http://ndis.nrel.colostate,edulwildlife.asp. Accessed April 20 I O. ---.
20 lOb. Wildlife Profiles and Information. Available at http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/Profiles/. Accessed April 20 I O. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. Web
Soil Survey of Garfield County Area, Colorado, Parts of Huerfano and Garfield Counties. Available at http://websoilsUfvey,nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Accessed August 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). 2010. Colorado Endangered Species by County. Available at http://www. fws.gov/mountain-prairie/endspp/countylists/colorado. pdf. Accessed April 2010. ---. 2007. Ecological
Services. Available at http://www.fws.gov/midwcst/caglc/. Accessed August 2007. Western Regional Climate Center. 2007. Rifle, Colorado, Period of Monthly Climate Summary. Available at
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmco.html. Accessed 23 August 2007. 16 fRO Resources (orporalion