Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.06 EnvironmentalINTEGRATED VEGETATION AND NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN LAYDOWN YARD #1 GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Cover Photo: View of Laydown Yard #1 location. Prepared for: EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. 2717 County Road 215 Parachute, CO 81635 Prepared by: WestWater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 December 2008 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description On September 30, 2008, site inspection of the Laydown Yard #1 was conducted by WestWater Engineering (W WE) at the request of EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. ( EnCana). The purpose of the inspection was to identify appropriate topics for inclusion in an integrated vegetation and noxious weed management plan. Factors considered include soil type and texture, existing land management practices, absence or presence of listed noxious weeds, and likely potential natural vegetation community. 1.2 Project Location EnCana's Laydown Yard #1 is on the first terrace above the floodplain of Parachute Creek on the North Parachute Ranch (Figure 1). The Laydown Yard #1 is located on an alluvial fan at the mouth of Grantee Gulch, between Parachute Creek and County Road 215 (Cover Photo). RIO BLANCO COUNTY NPR Boundary rl l GARFIELD COUNTY Proposed Site Figure 1; EnCana Laydown Yard #1 Location October 2008 n'estWater Engineering Cnrhonmenal ComulVngSerocei Ll es 0 2.5 5 10 ;RIFLE SILT i MESA COUNTY WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 10 October 2008 2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING 2.1 Soil Type & Terrain Terrain is gently sloping to nearly flat at the site. The Laydown Yard #1 has a west and southwest aspect, and soils are classified as Nihill channery loam (NRCS 2008a). According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2008a), characteristic vegetation for Nihill channery loam includes western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudorogneria spicata), big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentate), needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata), Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), and yellow rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus).. 3.0 NOXIOUS WEEDS 3.1 Introduction to Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds are plants that are not native to an area. Most have come from Europe or Asia, either accidentally or as ornamentals that have escaped. Once established in a new environment they tend to spread quickly because the 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, native 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. 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 species must be eradicated whenever detected. List B species include weeds whose spread should be halted. List C species are widespread, but the State will assist local jurisdictions which choose to manage those weeds. 3.2 Observations The Garfield County Weed Advisory Board has compiled a list of 21 plants from the State list considered to be noxious weeds within the county. Two of those weed species were found in, or near, the project area, and include houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) and musk thistle (Carduus nutans). Noxious weeds found on the Laydown Yard #1 that are state - listed, but not on the Garfield County list, include perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), field bindweed (Convolvulus arevensis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), common mullein (Verbascu►n Thapsus), and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare). Other troublesome weeds found at the site include Russian thistle (Salsola spp.), tumblemustard (Thelypodiopsis spp.), WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 9 December 2008 clasping pepperweed (Lepidiurrt perfoliatum), field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense), curly dock (Rumex crisp's), prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), and kochia (Bassia prostrata). Control methods and a list of observed noxious weeds can be seen in Table I. Table 1. Listed Noxious Weeds Observed at Laydown Yard #1 Common Name *l 'USDA Symbol Scientific Name Type** Control Methods cheatgrassc /BRTl; &mules tectorum A Plant competitive grasses, cultural techniques, manage grazing redstem filaree8/ERCI6 Erodiwn icularium A /13 Mechanical by tillage where possible, selective herbicides, competitive grasses. houndstongue" CYOF Cy►iogtossunr officinale B Re -seed with aggressive grasses, remove at flowering or early seed, dig or grub at pre -bud or rosette stage or apply herbicides. common mullein` VETt -1 Verbascwn thapsus B Cut and dig rosettes and bolting plants, re -seed with aggressive grasses. Herbicides if necessary. musk thistle' CANU4 Carduus nutans B Tillage or hand grubbing in the rosette stage, mowing at bolting or early flowering, seed head & rosette weevils, leaf feeding beetles, herbicides in rosette stage. perennial pepperweed LELA2 epidium latifolium P Re -seed with aggressive grasses, apply herbicide in fall. field bindweed ° COA R4 Convolvaus arvensis arven sis P Re -seed with aggressive grasses, apply herbicide in fall. bull thistle B CIVU Cirsium vudgare B Till or hand grub in the rosette stage, mow at bolting or early flowering; apply seed head & rosette weevils, leaf feeding beetles, cut and bag mature seed heads. Herbicides in rosette stage. * State of Colorado 2005, Colorado Revised Statute 35 -5 -5, Bold type Garfield County, BState "B" list, `State "C" list, NRCS 2008b, sirota 2004 Noxious weeds observed on the Laydown Yard #1 were primarily found as scattered, single plants, or in small patches (Figure 2). WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 9 December 2008 . T rTTTT Laydown Yard #1 44. t 's lt • T / Y 1 NA it * 44s. 4 :It 4i Legend Weed Points Common nmlfer • 14:ur•J.1w4,1u4 EnCana Proposed Yard Location D Figure 2: EnCana Laydown Yard #1 IVNWMP October 2008 Nest Water Engineering Environmental Consulting Servkvs Feet 100 200 400 WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 9 December 2008 4.0 RECOMMENDED TREATMENT 4.1 Best Management Practices 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 places newly excavated topsoil on areas ready for re -top soiling, greatly enhancing success of reclamation. • In all cases temporary disturbance should be kept to an absolute minimum. The native shrub copse of greasewood on the westerly portion of the site should not be disturbed. • Equipment and materials handling should be done on established sites to reduce area and extent of soil compaction. • Temporary disturbances should be immediately replanted with the recommended mix in the re- vegetation section. • Prior to delivery to the site, equipment should be cleaned of soils remaining from previous construction sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds. • If working in sites with weed -seed contaminated soil, equipment should be cleaned of potentially seed - bearing soils and vegetative debris prior to moving to uncontaminated terrain (Photo 1). Photo 1. Remove accumulated soil prior to arrival and after working in weedy areas. 4.2 Herbicides WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 9 December 2008 Herbicides should not necessarily always be the first treatment of choice when other methods can be effectively employed. In this, an industrial complex, it is not acceptable to have vegetation component subject to wildfire. Therefore, the recommended treatment for the Laydown Yard #1 is a soil sterilant treatment with two or more modes of action (Boerboom 1999). It should be a mix of products that will not drift outside the boundaries if used according to label instructions, e.g., Journey® or Sahara DG ®. Some products are reputed to be selective to undesirable plants while allowing desirable plants to flourish, even if their roots come into contact with the active ingredient of the herbicide (Shumway 2007). It is recommended that a commercial herbicide applicator be retained to treat the Laydown Yard #1 site during soil and earth work activities. Incorporating appropriate herbicides in the upper 2- inch soil horizon rather than solely the surface may increase the effectiveness of the product in situations where it is applied to bare ground. Appropriate selection and timing of application by a certified applicator can make a difference in total cost and long -term success of control. 4.3 Grazing Grazing does not appear to be a large problem on the Laydown Yard #1 site because it Iies in an industrial setting. However, grazing should be managed in a way that will enhance rather than degrade the plant community. Noxious weeds compete with desirable vegetation, and can also have a direct effect on animal health and vigor. Certain noxious weeds are highly palatable during short stages of the life cycle to certain grazing animals including goats, sheep, mule deer, elk, cattle, and horses, but usually remain so for only a short period of time. Other deleterious effects of grazing on the re- establishment of native plant communities include damages to aquatic resources, and the potential for noxious weed seed transportation via livestock to otherwise un- infested areas. 4.4 Mechanical Houndstongue is often found beneath the canopy of shrubs, and is therefore difficult to treat with herbicide without harming desirable overstory vegetation. In such cases, mechanical treatment is recommended. 4.5 Alternative Methods The application of vesicular - arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, typically referred to as AMF, to increase success of native species in re- vegetation is considered particularly useful when soil microorganisms are absent. It is likely most of the previously disturbed portions of the site are absent AMF. These soil micro- organisms are useful where cheatgrass infestations and poor to non - existent top soils may be found. For this project, AMF should be used on the lower, west to south facing slopes where compaction may also be a problem. These fungi, mostly of the genus Glomus, are symbiotic with about 80% of all vegetation. 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). West Water Engineering Page 6 of 9 December 2008 Some AMF products 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. Other AMF products come in granular form to be spread with or like seed from a broadcast spreader. The best AMF products should contain more than one species. Most Colorado Department of Transportation re- vegetation /re- seeding projects now require use of AMF and BioSol®, a certified by- product of the penicillin manufacturing process composed primarily of mycelium. In addition to AMF and BioSol, compacted soils respond well to fossilized humic substances and by- products called humates. These humates, including humic and fulvic acids and humin are not soluble in acidic conditions, but are soluble in alkaline soil conditions and work particularly well breaking up tight or compacted soils. Commercial humate products are available. 5.0 REVEGETATION A seed mix was developed for EnCana previously and is repeated herein for convenience and consistency for EnCana projects on or near North Parachute Ranch (Table 2). Shrubs found onsite include some that have likely resulted from reclamation or invasion from nearby copses. Four -wing has been added because noxious weed control can be limited to spot treatment. With proper rest from grazing, greasewood is anticipated to be wind -sown from nearby undisturbed plants. Seeding rate should be doubled for broadcast application. Preferred seeding method is multiple seed bin rangeland drill. In areas with slope greater than 3 %, imprinting of the seed bed is recommended. Imprinting can be in the form of dozer tracks or furrows perpendicular to the direction of slope. When hydro - seeding or 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. Table 2. Recommended Seed Mix for Drilled Rate for EnCana's Laydown Yard #1 Scientific Name /Seeds per Pound Common Name/Preferred Cultivar z No. PLS/ft2 o A PLS /ft2 Application Rate Lbs PLS /acre Airiplex canescens /52,000 fourwing saltbush 2 5 1.9 Pleuraphis jamesii /159, 000 galleta/Viva 9 21 2.5 Pascopyrum smithii/110,000 western wheatgrass /Arriba 9 21 3.6 Elymus trachycaulus slender wheatgrass /San 9 21 2.5 WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 9 December 2008 trachycauhrs/ 159,000 Luis or Pryor Pon secunda/925,000 Sandberg bluegrass 6 14 0.3 Sporobulus niroidesll,758.000 Alkalai sacaton/Salado 8 18 0.20 TOTAL 43 PLS Ft2 100 11 lbs MRCS 2002, 2008b, CNHP 1998 Alternative seeding methods include, but are not limited to: • harrow with just enough soil moisture to create a rough surface, broadcast seed and re- harrow, 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. 6.0 LIFE CYCLE AND MANAGEMENT CALENDAR This calendar is meant to show the best timing and control methods for Garfield County listed weeds on the site Noxious Weed Biology Species Type* Jan [ b (March !April IMay June ioundstongue B ,rosettes I —> rprebud !flowering - seed set I !germination Thistle, Musk B - 1st yr Thistle, Musk jB - 2nd yr FT Ilrosettes - -> ! - -> germination rosettes (bolt July ;Aug ',Sept (Oct (Nov Dec I-- FT - -> - -> r- �..> �aF flowering seed set I - -> Fr- A = annual; WA = winter annual; B = biennial; P = perennial; CP = creeping perennial Shaded areas indicate best control timing. Sirota 2004 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. WestWater Engineering 7.0 REFERENCES Page 8 of 9 December 2008 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 Robin J. Tausch, 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, Chris. 1999. Herbicide mode of action reference. Weed Science, University of Wisconsin, 5 pp. CNHP. 1998. Native Plant Re- vegetation Guide for Colorado. Caring for the Land Series, Vol, III, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, State of Colorado, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, Denver, 258 pp. 130CC. 2005. Garfield County zoning resolution of 1978, amended October, 2006. Board of County Commissioners, Building and Planning Department, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 78 pp. NRCS. 2002. Plant materials technical note 59. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Colorado State Office, Lakewood, 54 pp. NRCS. 2008a. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. URL: http : / /websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov. NRCS. 2008b. The PLANTS Database (http: / /plants.usda.gov, 7 September 2006). National Plant Data Center, US Department of Agriculture, Baton Rouge, LA 70874 -4490 USA. Sirota, Judith. 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. edu /TRA/ PLANTS /index.html #http: / /www.coopext.colosta te. edu /TRA/PLANTS /bindweedmite.html Shumway, Mel. 2007. Industrial and right -of -way weed control. Colorado Pesticide Applicator Training Presentation. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension, Tri -River Area, Grand Junction, February 14. 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. Whitson, T. D. (editor), L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee, and Robert Parker. 1996. Weeds of the West. Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with Cooperative Extension Services, University of Wyoming, Laramie, 630pp. WestWater Engineering Page 9 of 9 December 2008 Wildlife Impact Assessment and Sensitive Areas Report Laydown Yard #1 Garfield County Special Use Permit Application Cover Photo: View of Laydown Yard #1 location. Prepared for: EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. 2717 County Road 215 Parachute, CO 81635 970 - 285 -2600 Prepared by: WestWater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 December 2008 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description and Location At the request of EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. (EnCana), WestWater Engineering (WWE) biologists conducted a biological resources and sensitive area survey of Laydown Yard #1 Site. The yard site is located on an alluvial fan at the mouth of Granlee Gulch, between Parachute Creek and County Road 215. 1.2 Scope of Work On September 30, 2008, field surveys were conducted by WWE for the purpose of identifying appropriate topics for inclusion in a wildlife impact assessment and sensitive areas report. Factors considered include existing land management practices, absence or presence of suitable wildlife habitat, direct or indirect evidence of wildlife use, existing data sources, and existing and potential natural vegetation community. The objectives of the survey were to document the presence or absence of natural resources and features including: • Identify and map areas where threatened, endangered, sensitive, and rare plant species (TESS) occur; • Locate raptor (bird of prey) nest sites, and identify potential raptor habitat and use areas; • Identify species of vegetation, including noxious weeds, and generally characterize habitats at the Laydown Yard #1 site; • Locate Birds of Conservation Concern (BOCC) nest sites and habitat; • Identify and map areas of potential habitat for federally- listed threatened and endangered wildlife species; • Identify rivers, streams, creeks, and other areas of potential U.S. Army Corp of Engineering (COE) jurisdiction for fisheries, wetlands, and associated values; and • Review and assess Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) seasonal activity or use maps for species mapped in Garfield County and species occurrence data. Archaeological, paleontology, or historic structures are noted if obvious to biologists conducting the survey. 2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING Laydown Yard #1 sits on the first terrace above the floodplain of Parachute Creek on EnCana's North Parachute Ranch (Figure 1). Terrain is gently sloping to nearly flat and aspects are west and southwest. The yard site is downstream in the Parachute Creek valley. The Laydown Yard #1 site lies in what are thought to be important wildlife corridors that funnel and concentrate wildlife into Parachute Creek valley in winter when weather, snow - depth, or forage availability issues result in wildlife seeking areas with less snow -pack. WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 11 December 2008 The riparian shrubland (Rhus trilobata -Salix spp.), with cottonwood (Populus spp.) gallery over - story, has a density and diversity of woody shrubs highly valued by wildlife (Cover Photo). RIO BLANCO COUNTY [Proposed Site 'GARFIELD COUNTY Figure 1; EnCana Laydown Yard #1 Location October 2008 .2.')NNestWater Engineering Environmental Contulting Services Miles 0 2.5 5 10 MESA C NTY The Laydown Yard #1 site is located in trailer parked on the site (Cover Photo). an industrial setting. The yard is an open dirt lot with a 3.0 THREATENED, ENDANGERED 3.1 Methods OR SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES SURVEYS CDOW Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS) was consulted for mapped seasonal activity areas, species occurrence and abundance (CDOW 2006). Approximately 59 seasonal activity areas for 17 species, mostly charismatic mega - fauna, are mapped and checked by Garfield County and are listed in Table 1. Personal communication with CDOW staff and published and unpublished reports are additional sources of information. Lists of important plants, animals, and sometimes habitat attributes follow. These are flora and fauna for which biologists should survey while in the field. Certain information, such as CDOW's Garfield County terrestrial wildlife species occurrence, is presented based on inference from existing habitat, land use patterns, and professional experience. All locations of survey observations were recorded using handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) units and are recorded as Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates (Datum: WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 11 December 2008 NAD 83, Zone: 12S). Photographs were taken of the habitat, terrain, and biological features found during surveys. Table 1. Wildlife Species Mapped by CDOW for Garfield County and Checked by County Staff in Permit Application Review Common Name Scientific Name Abundance' American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Rare Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Rare Canada Goose Branta canadensis Common Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Uncommon Great Blue Heron Areda heroides Common Greater Sage- grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Fairly Common Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo Common2 Osprey Pandion haliaetus Rare American Elk Cervus elaphus Abundant Brazilian Free- tailed Bat Tadarida brasiliensis Unknown Black Bear Ursus americanus Common Lynx Lynx canadensis Very Rare Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus Abundant Pronghorn Anitlocapra americana Uncommon Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus Very Rare River otter Lutra canadensis Very Rare Rocky Mountain Bighorn Ovis canadensis Uncommon LCDOW 2006, 2modified by WWE Table 2 contains habitat and nesting information for important birds of prey which may be found on or near Laydown Yard #1. Table 2. Raptor species that may be present in the project area Common Name Scientific Name BOCC Habitat & Breeding Records Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Y • Grassland, shrubland, agricultural areas, and marshes. Nests in areas with abundant cover (e.g., tall reeds, cattails, grasses) in grasslands and marshes. Also known to nest in high - elevation sagebrush. Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii N • Cottonwood riparian to spruce /fir forests, including pifion/juniper woodlands. Nests most frequently in pines and aspen. • Diverse habitats including grasslands, pilion juniper woodlands and deciduous, coniferous and riparian forests. Nests in mature trees (especially cottonwood, aspen, and pines) and on cliffs and utility poles. Red - tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis N Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Y • Typically, arid grassland, desert, agricultural areas, shrublands and riparian forests. Nests in trees in or near open areas. Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Y • Grasslands, shrublands, agricultural areas, piton juniper woodlands, and ponderosa forests. Prefers nest sites on cliffs and sometimes in trees in rugged areas. American Kestrel Falco sparverius N • Coniferous and deciduous forests and open terrain with suitable perches. Nests in cavities in trees, cliffs and buildings. WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 11 December 2008 Table 2. Raptor species that may be present in the project area Common Name Scientific Name BOCC Habitat & Breedin , Records American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Y • Pinon juniper woodlands and coniferous and riparian forest near cliffs. Nests on ledges of high cliffs away from human disturbance. Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Y • Grasslands, shrublands, and alpine tundra. Nests on cliffs or bluffs in open areas. Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus N • Occupies diverse habitats including riparian, deciduous and coniferous forests with adjacent open terrain for hunting. Northern Saw whet Owl Aegolius acadicus N • Mountain and foothills forest and canyon country. Significant use of pifion-juniper woodland and Douglas - fir. Long -eared Owl Asio otus N • Occupies mixed shrublands. Nests and roost in sites in dense cottonwoods, willows, scrub oak, junipers and dense forest of mixed conifers and aspens. These lists are not intended to be complete representations of all wildlife that could possibly be found in the yard site vicinity. They are intended to show the diversity of wildlife present by listing only the most common of species (CDOW 2006, Fitzgerald et al. 1994, Andrews and Righter 1992, Hammerson 1999). The following wildlife and certain seasonal activity areas are discussed individually and are presented in Figures 2 and 3, which show Garfield County mapping prepared by CDOW. 3.2.1 Raptors Five raptor nests were found within the vicinity of the Laydown Yard #1 Site during previous surveys by WWE biologists during the summer of 2008 (Table 3, Figure 2). Of these, only 1 Cooper's Hawk nest was confirmed active, but it is not within the'' /a mile recommended buffer zone of the Laydown Yard #1 Site (see Recommendations in Table 10, page 12). Table 3. Raptor nests within the vicinity of the Laydown Yard #1 Species Easting Northing Species Code Status Cooper's Hawk 747797 4382700 COHA U Cooper's Hawk 748170 4384100 COHA U Cooper's Hawk 748065 4384230 COHA A Long -eared owl 748042 4384230 LEOW I Cooper's Hawk 748142 4384130 COHA I Status: `U' indicates Unknown, `A' indicates Active, `I' indicates Inactive 3.2.2 Bald Eagle It is likely that Bald Eagles use the riparian and woodland corridor of Parachute Creek for foraging and day roosting. The Laydown Yard #1 Site lies within bald eagle winter range, although no active nests for bald eagle were confirmed within 1/2 mile of the site (Figure 2). WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 11 December 2008 3.2.3 Wild Turkey Wild turkeys are confirmed present in the yard site area. As can be seen in Figure 2, the site is within or near several important seasonal activity areas for wild turkey. The site lies within turkey production area (Figure 2). 3.2.4 Black Bear Black bear are rarely found near the yard site. With little to no oakbrush (Quercus gambelii), or local concentration of other natural foods, normal black bear use of the area is considered low. Black bears could be attracted to anthropogenic food sources during difficult times of low forage. Black bear encounters are not expected and would be an anomaly or accidental. Normal precautions are recommended. 3.2.5 Brazilian Free - tailed Bats Although in the overall known range, the project is not expected to impact this species. No specific roost or foraging areas are confirmed in the county. 3.2.6 Canada Goose This species is ubiquitous throughout its range and is likely seen around, on, or near the Laydown Yard #1 Site. 3.2.7 American Elk Elk sign was present in the form of droppings and tracks. The project is located within an elk winter range, winter concentration area, and severe winter range. These areas are defined by CDOW as part of the winter range where elk densities are at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density in 5 winters in 10 or 50% of the time (Figure 3). 3.2.8 Mule Deer Several seasonal activity areas mapped by CDOW are found within the project vicinity. Year round mule deer population is found in the Parachute Creek riparian corridor. The Laydown Yard #1 also lies in severe winter range, which is where 90% of the deer in a herd are located when the annual snow pack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two worst winters in ten (Figure 3). The yard site is also located in deer winter range and winter concentration. 3.2.9 Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) This species has historically been found as far up- stream in the Colorado River as Rifle Creek, which includes the reach of Colorado River at the confluence. WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 11 December 2008 4.0 BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN (BOCC) Another listing of sensitive avifauna comes from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "BOCC" (USFWS 2002). These birds are of special interest due to declining numbers, habitat, or other indicators of potential peril. These species are presented in Table 4, which has been modified to include only those listed in Garfield County that are likely or known to occur on, near, or over the project vicinity at some time during the year depending on type of utilization, whether nesting, migratory, winter, or summer range. Table 4. Birds of Conservation Concern for Southern Rockies and Colorado Plateau (FWS 2002) Common Name Scientific Name Protection Status* Laydown Yard #1 Status ** N. Harrier Circus cyaneus MBTA Known to occur Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni MBTA Known to occur Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos MBTA Known to occur Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum MBTA Known to occur Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus MBTA Known to occur Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes Lewis MBTA Likely to occur Williamson's Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus MBTA Likely to occur Gray Vireo Vireo vicinior MBTA Likely to occur Virginia's Warbler Vermivora virginiae MBTA Likely to occur Black- throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigrescens MBTA Likely to occur * MBTA is Migratory Bird Treaty Act, ESA is federal Endangered Species Act, GarCo is CDOW species occurrence list, ** WWE determination for this project Attention was given to monitoring for presence of other sensitive avifauna listed by other agencies (Table 5). In this instance, considerable public domain lands are administered by the Bureau of Land Management; therefore, heightened awareness is given to monitoring for these species or their habitat. Table 5. BLM Sensitive & Migratory Bird Species that may be present in the project area Common Name Scientific Name Habitat & Breeding Records Pinyon Jay 1 Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus • Pinon juniper woodlands. Nests in pinon or junipers. • Confirmed breeder in Garfield County, unlikely nester in project area. Virginia's Warbler Vermivora virginiae • Dense shrublands and scrub forests of Gambel oak, pinon juniper, mountain mahogany or ponderosa pine. Nests on the ground among dead leaves or on rock or log overhangs. • Nesting has been confirmed in Garfield County. Unlikely nester in the project area. Black - throated Dendroica • Mature pinon juniper woodlands. Nests on horizontal branches in pinon or juniper. WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 11 December 2008 Table 5. BLM Sensitive & Migratory Bird Species that may be present in the project area Common Name Scientific Nanie Habitat & Breeding Records Gray Warbler nigrescens • Nesting has been confirmed in Garfield County in habitat like that the vicinity of the project. Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli • Large contiguous areas of low - elevation big sagebrush or sagebrush/greasewood shrublands. Nests in sagebrush. • Breeding has been confirmed in Garfield County west of Parachute. Black chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri • Dry lowlands and foothills of pinyon - juniper woodland. Feeds on nectar from flowers and small insects and spiders. • Confirmed nester in Garfield Counties. 5.0 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES SURVEYS 5.1 Methods TESS plant surveys are usually extended out several hundred feet or more when high potential soils /habitat was encountered. Particular attention is given to searching areas with exposed reddish or chocolate -brown soils typically associated with the Wasatch formation. Sandstone mesas, ledges, and crevices in the pinon juniper habitat are surveyed for sensitive plant species that may occur in this habitat type. Emphasis is placed where potential habitat is observed. Special status species of plants that may be present in the project area, and their habitats, are listed in Tables 6 and 7 below in three categories: 1) Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered, 2) Federal Candidate Species, and 3) BLM Sensitive Species. Nomenclature and habitat descriptions are based on the Colorado Natural Heritage Program literature (Spackman et al. 1997). Considering previous earth work and intensive industrial development, no special concern plants was expected at the Laydown Yard #1 Site. Table 6. Potential Federally- listed Threatened, Endangered and Candidate plant species Scientific Name Common Name Status* Habitat Preference Phacelia lace is ica DeBeque phacelia C Chocolate -brown or gray clay on members of the Wasatch formation; sparsely vegetated steep slopes. Elevation: 4,700 -6,200 ft Sclerocactus glaucus Colorado hookless cactus T Typically xeric and fine textured Quaternary and Tertiary alluvium soils overlain with cobbles and pebbles; cold desert shrub and pinon juniper communities along river benches, valley slopes, and rolling hills. • E= Federal Endangered, T= Federal Threatened, C= Federal Candidate WestWater Engineering Page 7 of I 1 December 2008 Table 7. Potential BLM and other sensitive plant species Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Preference Astragalus debequaeus Debeque milkvetch Varicolored, fine textured, seleniferous, saline soils of the Wasatch formation. Elevation: 5,100 -6,400 ft Astragalus naturitensis Naturita milkvetch Sandstone mesas, ledges, crevices and slopes in pifion juniper woodlands. Elevation: 5,000 -7,000 ft Cirsium perplexans Adobe thistle Barren clay outcrops derived from shales of the Mancos or Wasatch formations; open and disturbed sites in mixed shrubland and pinon- juniper woodland. Elevation: 5,000 -8,000 ft Invasive and noxious weeds are recorded as they are encountered and are the subject of a separate report for this project. 5.2 Results No TESS plants were encountered on the Laydown Yard #1 Site and potential habitat for TESS plants is uncommon. 6.0 AQUATIC RESOURCES: FISH, WETLANDS, AND WATERWAYS 6.1 Methods Aquatic resources are noted where found. For this project, special interest should be given to Parachute Creek. Ephemeral drainage -ways appearing to have conveyed water in the past 12 months and regulated wetlands are noted when encountered. Table 8 lists important aquatic species potentially affected by changes in water quality, including acute or chronic conditions adversely impacting surface water quality. Table 8. Fish species of interest in Parachute Creek Common Name Scientific Name Status* _ Bluehead sucker Catostomus discobolus SC Flannelmouth sucker Catostomus latipinnis SC , Roundtail chub Gila robusta SC Colorado River cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus SC, P *SC is CDOW Species of Special Concern, P is protected for anglers under CDOW harvest regulations 6.2 Results With relatively dry and harsh climate in the project area, value and function of springs, seeps, small to medium perennial streams and associated wetlands, and their importance, cannot be overemphasized. Springs, seeps, wetlands, and associated vegetation communities are often a high valued resource noted for diversity of flora and fauna. WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 11 December 2008 No springs or seeps are located in the project boundaries. Parachute Creek fisheries data from the early 1970s is available for comparative review (Behnke 1976). More recent data from 2002 show a decline in diversity which could be due to many factors including study design (Table 9). In 2002, CDOW found the following (Elmblad 2002): Table 9. Fish captured by CDOW in Parachute Creek, 2002 Station Fish species Pop. estimate 95% Confidence limits Fish per km Fish per hectare kg fish per km p Capture probability p I Bluehead sucker 1 5 11 1 2 Speckled dace (Rhiniethys osculus) 177 +1- 287.9 1933 4228 5 0.23 2 Bluehead sucker 3 +1- 6.79 33 72 2 0.67 2 Flannelmouth sucker 3 0 33 72 <1 1.0 3 Brown trout2 13 +1- 62.23 114 268 17 0.40 4 Brown trout 76 +1- 6.98 762 1388 75 0.76 Age 0 trout were not included in the population and biomass estimates Historic fisheries data confirms the presence of other fish species as well, some of which are of interest to anglers. These include rainbow trout (Oncorynchus mykiss), cutthroat trout (0. clarki spp. x O. mykiss), and speckled dace. In one study cited by Elmblad, brown trout were found downstream from the confluence with the Colorado River in the early 1970s. 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Aquatic resources The project will not affect the banks of Parachute Creek. Control of drainage and using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate possibility of release of toxic substances will greatly minimize potentially detrimental impacts to aquatic resources. Avoid highly alkaline areas along Parachute Creek to preserve vegetation structure and diversity. 7.2 Avifauna Reduce or eliminate impacts to structurally diverse shrublands and riparian shrubs and trees. No active raptor nests were found within 1/4 mile of the Laydown Yard #1 Site. If nesting raptors are found, construction should be scheduled between territory establishment and dispersal of young from the nest. WWE recommends temporal and spatial restrictions for activities near active nests based on BLM stipulations, CDOW recommendations (CDOW 2008b; Craig 2002; Craig and Enderson 2004), and literature review of nesting season timing for raptors in the Roan Plateau region (Andrews and Righter 1992; Kennedy and Stahlecker1993; Kingery 1998; Poole 2005). These recommendations are summarized in Table 10. WestWater Engineering Page 9 of 11 December 2008 Table 10. Timing limitations recommendations for active raptor nests Species Buffer Zone Seasonal Restriction Red - tailed Hawk 0.33 mile 15 February - 15 July Swainson's Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 August Sharp - shinned Hawk 0,25 mile 1 April - 15 August Cooper's Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 August Peregrine Falcon 0.5 mile 15 March - 31 July N. Pygmy -Owl 0.25 mile 15 March - 15 July Long -eared Owl 0.25 mile 1 March - 15 July Great Horned Owl * * * Great Horned Owls are relatively tolerant of human activity. Keep activity to a minimum during breeding season. Timing restrictions and dates may be modified if an active nest is monitored by a qualified biologist. The buffer zone should not be entered until one week after the young have fledged, which can be much earlier than standard temporal restrictions. 7.3 American elk and mule deer The most critical time period is winter. The Laydown Yard #1 Site is found within important seasonal activity areas for both species. Timing of major work activities is recommended in Table 11. These time periods are most sensitive for the species or groups mentioned. Table 11. Seasonal critical periods in the area of Laydown Yard #1 Concern Period Deer and Elk severe (critical) winter range December 1 --- April 30 Migratory Birds primary nesting season May 15 — August 1 Raptor nesting season February 1 -- August 15 7.4 Black Bear Measures Black bears are known to occur in the vicinity of the yard site and all personnel should be aware of their presence and take important safety measures when working in the area. Prevent any undesirable encounters by refraining from feeding bears, and by keeping all trash and food waste in bear -proof containers. Put dog food and bowls, cooking appliances and utensils in bear -proof storage at night. 7.5 Minimize footprint of disturbance WestWater Engineering Page 10 of 11 December 2008 Reduce to the minimum level possible all soil disturbing activities. Park construction vehicles on previously disturbed lands during construction to further reduce temporary disturbance. Preserve as much saline saltbush shrubland as possible. 7.6 Re- seeding It is recommended that temporary and permanent disturbances be re- seeded with native grasses. These measures are described in an Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan for this site. BMPs should be followed as described in the integrated vegetation management plan. 7.7 Fence Removal Re -built fences that are designed for easy passage of deer and elk can allow these animals to utilize the native and planted vegetation for forage and move about the adjacent areas freely as they search for food and cover. In addition, properly designed fences will prevent deer and elk from being injured or suffering death as a result of becoming entangled as they attempt to jump over or pass through a fence. Generally, wire fences that do not exceed 42 inches in height and have 12- inch spacing between the top two wires will allow deer and elk to pass over a fence without conflict. The BLM utilizes these fence specifications for livestock fencing on federal lands (BLM 1989). The publication presented by CDOW, "Fencing With Wildlife In Mind" provides fence designs that are friendly to wildlife and is available at the CDOW web site at wildlife. state. co. us /NR/rdonlyres /B0D65D61 -6C130- 4746 -94F 1 -6EE 194E 1 C230 /0 /fencing.pdf. REFERENCES Andrews, Robert, and Robert Righter. 1992. Colorado birds: A reference to their distribution and habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado, 442 pp. Behnke, Robert. 1976. Report on collections of cutthroat trout from Parachute Creek drainage, Garfield County, Colorado. Unpublished report for U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction District, 7pp. CDOW. 2006. Wildlife species occurrence. http: / /ndis.nrel.colostate.edu. State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Ft. Collins. CDOW. 2008a. Maps and spatial data. http: / /ndis.nrel .colostate.edu /mapindex.asp. State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Ft. Collins. CDOW. 2008b. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptors. State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife , Denver. Unpublished Report, 7 pp. Craig, G. R. 2002. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptors. State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Ft. Collins. Unpublished Report, 7 pp. West Water Engineering Page 11 of 11 December 2008 Craig, G. R., and J. H. Enderson. 2004. Peregrine falcon biology and management in Colorado 1973 -2004. Technical Publication No. 43, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins. Elmblad, Bill. 2002. Fish Sampling Report from Parachute Creek. Unpublished report, State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Grand Junction, 6 pp. Fitzgerald, James P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, 467 pp. Hammerson, Geoffrey A. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles in Colorado, 2nd Edition. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, 484 pp. Kennedy, P. L., and D. W. Stahlecker. 1993. Responsiveness of nesting Northern Goshawks to taped broadcasts of 3 conspecific 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. Poole, A. (editor). 2005. The Birds of North America Online: bna.birds.cornell.edu /BNA /. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. USFWS. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. WestWater Engineering Page 12 of 11 December 2008 Laydown Yard 7 Spring y Turkey & Raptor Activity Raptor Nests 2008 Status * Active * Inactive Unknown B. hl Eagle Winter Range 1N016) ® Golden Eagle Historic Locations (CDOW) Turkey Production Area (NDIS) In Turkey Winter Range (N01S) Turkey Wnter Concentration (NDIS) - Roads =NPR 6uundrey Figure 2: EnCana Laydown Yard #1 Wildlife & Sensitive Areas October 2008 n1NestWater Engineering Eno konru n1.I Canv.niny 3 oork .. MOOS 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 West Water Engineering Page 13 of 11 December 2008 IC Deer & Elk Activity Mule Deer Severe Winter Range (NDIS) Mule Deer Winter Concentration (NDIS) O Mule Doer Wlntcr Range (NDIS) Elk Severe Winter Range (NDIS) 11 Elk Winter Concentration (NDIS) Elk Winter Range {NDIS) - Roads NPR Boundary WestWatcr Engineering Figure 3: EnCana Laydown Yard #1 Wildlife & Sensitive Areas October 2008 n'NestWater Engineering Environmental Consulting Sarvkyf Miles 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 5 \L'+�ualu_f t5 r*ara.JIPR .ItYa ttink>f •Yvr15:54.1n,rin.kniaarl[4w kr ,hw Id. AO' Page 14 of I 1 December 2008 Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan Laydown Yard #3 Garfield County, Colorado Cover Photo: View of Laydown Yard #3 Site. Prepared for: EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. 2717 County Road 215 Parachute, CO 81635 970 -285 -2600 Prepared by: WestW ater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 December 2008 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description On September 30, 2008, site inspection of the Laydown Yard #3 Site was conducted by WestWater Engineering (WWE) at the request of EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. (EnCana). The purpose of the inspection was to identify appropriate topics for inclusion in an integrated vegetation and noxious weed management plan. Factors considered include soil type and texture, existing land management practices, absence or presence of listed noxious weeds, and likely potential natural vegetation community. 1.2 Project Location EnCana's Laydown Yard #3 is on the first terrace above the floodplain of Parachute Creek and East Fork Parachute Creek on the North Parachute Ranch (Figure 1). The yard site is located between the Middle Fork Parachute Creek and an existing road that borders the eastern edge of Lindauer Meadow (Cover Photo). RIO BLANCO COUNTY w NPR Boundary Figure 1: EnCana Laydown Yard #3 Location October 2008 - T 'Nest Water Engineering Environmental Consulting Services h/1�65 0 25 5 10 MESA COUNTY 4N L WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 10 December 2008 2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING 2.1 Soil Type & Terrain Terrain is gently sloping to nearly flat at the site. The property has a west and southwest aspect, and soils are classified as Nihill channery loam (NRCS 2008a). According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2008a), characteristic vegetation for Nihill channery loam includes western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudorogneria spicata), big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentate), needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata), Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), and yellow rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidorus). 3.0 NOXIOUS WEEDS 3.1 Introduction to Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds are plants that are not native to an area. Most have come from Europe or Asia, either accidentally or as ornamentals that have escaped. Once established in a new environment they tend to spread quickly because the 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, native 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. 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 species must be eradicated whenever detected (none were found). List B species include weeds whose spread should be halted (4 species found). List C species are widespread, but the State will assist local jurisdictions which choose to manage those weeds (3 species found). 3.2 Observations The Garfield County Weed Advisory Board has compiled a list of 21 plants from the State list considered to be noxious weeds within the county. Two of those weed species were found in, or near, the project area, and include houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) and musk thistle (Carduus nutans). Noxious weeds found on the Laydown Yard #3 Site that are state - listed, but not on the Garfield County list, include perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), field bindweed (Convolvulus arevensis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), common mullein (Verbascum Thapsus). Other troublesome weeds found at the site include Russian thistle (Salsola spp.), tumblemustard (Thelypodiopsis spp.), clasping pepperweed (Lepidium West Water Engineering Page 2 of 9 December 2008 perfoliatum), field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense), curly dock (Rumex crispus), prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), and kochia (Bassia prostrata). Table 1 lists regulated species found and a brief description of control methods. Table 1. Listed Noxious Weeds: EnCana's Laydown Yard #3 Site Common Name * / USDA Symbol Scientific Name Type ** Control Methods cheatgrassc /BRTE Bromus teetorum A Plant competitive grasses, cultural techniques, manage grazing redstem filareeB /ERCI6 Erodium cicutarium A/B Mechanical by tillage where possible, selective herbicides, competitive grasses. houndstongueli CYOF Cynoglossum officinale B Re -seed with aggressive grasses, remove at flowering or early seed, dig or grub at pre -bud or rosette stage or apply herbicides. common mullein`' VETH Verbascum thapsus 13 Cut and dig rosettes and bolting plants, re -seed with aggressive grasses. Herbicides if necessary. musk thistle��Carduus CANU4 nutons B Tillage or hand grubbing in the rosette stage, mowing at bolting or early flowering, seed head & rosette weevils, leaf feeding beetles, herbicides in rosette stage. Re -seed with aggressive grasses, apply herbicide in fall. perennial pepperweedB LELA2 Lepidium latifolium P field bindweed ` COAR4 Convolvulus arvensis T P Re -seed with aggressive grasses, apply herbicide in fall. * State of Colorado 2005. Colorado Revised Statute 35 -5 -5, Bold type Garfield County, *State `B" list, estate "C" List, NRCS 2008b, Sirota 2004 Noxious weeds observed on the Laydown Yard #3 Site were primarily found as scattered, single plants, or in small patches (Figure 2). WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 9 December 2008 Legend Weed Points f1 Musk thistle Common mullahs • lloun1stonpue EnCana Proposed Yard Location Q erg a Figure 2: EnCana Laydown Yard #3 IVNWMP October 2008 West Water Engineering Envlronmanlal ConsuWnq Strokes Feet 0 100 200 400 nc WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 9 December 2008 4.0 RECOMMENDED TREATMENT 4.1 Best Management Practices 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 places newly excavated topsoil on areas ready for re -top soiling, greatly enhancing success of reclamation. • In all cases temporary disturbance should be kept to an absolute minimum. The native shrub copse of greasewood on the westerly portion of the site should not be disturbed. • Equipment and materials handling should be done on established sites to reduce area and extent of soil compaction. • Temporary disturbances should be immediately replanted with the recommended mix in the re- vegetation section. • Prior to delivery to the site, equipment should be cleaned of soils remaining from previous construction sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds. • If working in sites with weed -seed contaminated soil, equipment should be cleaned of potentially seed- bearing soils and vegetative debris prior to moving to uncontaminated terrain (Photo I). Photo 1. Remove accumulated soil prior to arrival and after working in weedy areas. WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 9 December 2008 4.2 Herbicides Herbicides should not necessarily always be the first treatment of choice when other methods can be effectively employed. In this, an industrial complex, it is not acceptable to have vegetation component subject to wildfire. Therefore, the recommended treatment for the Laydown Yard #3 is a soil sterilant treatment with two or more modes of action (Boerboom 1999). It should be a mix of products that will not drift outside the boundaries if used according to label instructions, e.g., Journey® or Sahara DG ®. Some products are reputed to be selective to undesirable plants while allowing desirable plants to flourish, even if their roots come into contact with the active ingredient of the herbicide (Shumway 2007). It is recommended that a commercial herbicide applicator be retained to treat the Laydown Yard #3 Site during soil and earth work activities. Incorporating appropriate herbicides in the upper 2- inch soil horizon rather than solely the surface may increase the effectiveness of the product in situations where it is applied to bare ground. Appropriate selection and timing of application by a certified applicator can make a difference in total cost and long -term success of control. 4.3 Grazing Grazing does not appear to be a large problem on the yard site because it is located in an industrial setting. However, grazing should be managed in a way that will enhance rather than degrade the plant community. Noxious weeds compete with desirable vegetation, and can also have a direct effect on animal health and vigor. Certain noxious weeds are highly palatable during short stages of the life cycle to certain grazing animals including goats, sheep, mule deer, elk, cattle, and horses, but usually remain so for only a short period of time. Other deleterious effects of grazing on the re- establishment of native plant communities include damages to aquatic resources, and the potential for seed transportation via livestock to otherwise un- infested areas. 4.4 Mechanical Houndstongue is often found beneath the canopy of shrubs, and is therefore difficult to treat with herbicide without harming desirable overstory vegetation. In such cases, mechanical treatment is recommended. 4.5 Alternative Methods The application of vesicular - arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, typically referred to as AMF, to increase success of native species in re- vegetation is considered particularly useful when soil microorganisms are absent. It is likely most of the previously disturbed portions of the site are absent of AMF. These soil micro - organisms are useful where cheatgrass infestations and poor to non - existent top soils may be found. For this project, AMF should be used on the lower, west to south facing slopes where compaction may also be a problem. These fungi, mostly of the genus Glomus, are symbiotic with about 80% of all vegetation. 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). WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 9 December 2008 Some AMF products 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. Other AMF products come in granular form to be spread with or like seed from a broadcast spreader. The best AMF products should contain more than one species. Most Colorado Department of Transportation re- vegetation /re- seeding projects now require use of AMF and BioSol®, a certified by- product of the penicillin manufacturing process composed primarily of mycelium. In addition to AMF and BioSol, compacted soils respond well to fossilized humic substances and by- products called humates. These humates, including humic and fulvic acids and humin are not soluble in acidic conditions, but are soluble in alkaline soil conditions and work particularly well breaking up tight or compacted soils. Commercial humate products are available. 5.0 REVEGETATION A seed mix was developed for EnCana previously and is repeated herein for convenience and consistency for EnCana projects on or near North Parachute Ranch (Table 2). Shrubs found onsite include some that have likely resulted from reclamation or invasion from nearby copses. Four -wing has been added because noxious weed control can be limited to spot treatment. With proper rest from grazing, greasewood is anticipated to be wind -sown from nearby undisturbed plants. Seeding rate should be doubled for broadcast application. Preferred seeding method is multiple seed bin rangeland drill. In areas with slope greater than 3 %, imprinting of the seed bed is recommended. Imprinting can be in the form of dozer tracks or furrows perpendicular to the direction of slope. When hydro - seeding or 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. Table 2. Recommended Seed Mix for Drilled Rate for EnCana's Laydown Yard #3 Site Scientific Name /Seeds per Pound Common Name/Preferred Cultivar No. PLS /ft2 % /o PLSIft2 Application Rate Lbs PLS /acre Atriplex canescens /52, 000 fourwing saltbush 2 5 1.9 Pleuraphisjamesii /I59,000 galleta/Viva 9 21 2.5 Pascopyrum smithii/110, 000 /110,000 western wheatgrass /Arriba 21 3.6 WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 9 December 2008 Elymus trachycaulus trachycaulus/ wheatgrasslSan 21 2.5 159,000 Luis or Pryor Poa secunda/925, 000 Sandberg bluegrass 6 14 0.3 Sporobulusairoides✓l, ?58.000 Alkalaisacaton/Salado 8 18 0.20 TOTAL 43 PLS Ft' 100 I I lbs NRCS 2002, 2008b, CNHP 1998 Alternative seeding methods include, but are not limited to: • harrow with just enough soil moisture to create a rough surface, broadcast seed and re- harrow, 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. 6.0 LIFE CYCLE AND MANAGEMENT CALENDAR This calendar is meant to show the best timing and control methods for Garfield County listed weeds on the site Noxious Weed Biology Species Type* Jan [Feb IMarch April May June July Aug 'Sept [Oct Nov'Dee IHoundstongue [rosettes !pre bud IfTowering - seed set germination 1 ' I - -> I - -> f--> Thistle, Musk - 1st yr Thistle, Musk -2ndyr IA = annual; WA = winter annual; B =biennial; P = perennial; CP = creeping perennial B B [rosettes I--> germination rosettes bolt flowering !Shaded areas indicate best control timing. Sirota 2004 - -> --> --> - -> I --> seed set {1[[r[ 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. WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 9 December 2008 7.0 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 Robin J. Tausch, comps. 1996. Proceedings: shrubland ecosystem dynamics in a changing environment. General Technical Report, ENT- GTR -338, Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Resource Station, 275 pp. Boerboom, Chris. 1999. Herbicide mode of action reference. Weed Science, University of Wisconsin, 5 pp. CNHP. 1998. Native Plant Re- vegetation Guide for Colorado. Caring for the Land Series, Vol. 111, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, State of Colorado, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, Denver, 258 pp. NRCS. 2002. Plant materials technical note 59. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Colorado State Office, Lakewood, 54 pp. NRCS. 2008a. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. NRCS. 2008b. The PLANTS Database (http: / /plants.usda.gov, 7 September 2006). National Plant Data Center, US Department of Agriculture, Baton Rouge, LA 70874 -4490 USA. Sirota, Judith. 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.edu /TRA/ PLANTS /index . htm I #http : / /www. coopext.co losta te.edu/TRA /PLANTS /bindweedmite.html Shumway, Mel. 2007. Industrial and right -of -way weed control. Colorado Pesticide Applicator Training Presentation. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension, Tri -River Area, Grand Junction, February 14. State of Colorado. 2005. Rules pertaining to the administration and enforcement of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, 35 -5 -1 -1 19, C.R.S. 2003. Department of Agriculture, Plant Industry Division, Denver, 78 pp. Whitson, T. D. (editor), L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee, and Robert Parker. 1996. Weeds of the West. Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with Cooperative Extension Services, University of Wyoming, Laramie, 630pp. WestWater Engineering Page 9 of 9 December 2008 Wildlife Impact Assessment and Sensitive Areas Report Laydown Yard #3 Garfield County Special Use Permit Application Cover Photo: View of Laydown Yard #3 Site. Prepared for: EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. 2717 County Road 215 Parachute, CO 81635 Prepared by: WestWater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 December 2008 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description and Location At the request of EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. (EnCana), West Water Engineering (W WE) biologists conducted a biological resources and sensitive area survey of the Laydown Yard #3 Site. The yard site is located between the Middle Fork Parachute Creek and an existing road that borders the eastern edge of Lindauer Meadow (Cover Photo). 1.2 Scope of Work On September 30, 2008, field surveys were conducted by W WE for the purpose of identifying appropriate topics for inclusion in a wildlife impact assessment and sensitive areas report. Factors considered include existing land management practices, absence or presence of suitable wildlife habitat, direct or indirect evidence of wildlife use, existing data sources, and existing and potential natural vegetation community. The objectives of the survey were to document the presence or absence of natural resources and features including: • Identify and map areas where threatened, endangered, sensitive, and rare plant species (TESS) occur; • Locate raptor (bird of prey) nest sites, and identify potential raptor habitat and use areas; • Identify species of vegetation, including noxious weeds, and generally characterize habitats at the Laydown Yard #3 Site; • Locate Birds of Conservation Concern (BOCC) nest sites and habitat; • Identify and map areas of potential habitat for federally- listed threatened and endangered wildlife species; • Identify rivers, streams, creeks, and other areas of potential U.S. Army Corp of Engineering (COE) jurisdiction for fisheries, wetlands, and associated values; and • Review and assess Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) seasonal activity or use maps for species mapped in Garfield County and species occurrence data. Archaeological, paleontology, or historic structures are noted if obvious to biologists conducting the survey. 2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING The Laydown Yard #3 Site is on the first terrace above the floodplain of Parachute Creek and East Fork Parachute Creek on EnCana's North Parachute Ranch (Figure 1). Terrain is gently sloping to nearly flat and aspects are west and southwest. The Laydown Yard #3 is in Lindauer Meadow, near the confluence of the East, Middle, and West Forks of Parachute Creek. The Laydown Yard #3 Site lies in what is thought to be an important wildlife corridor that funnels and concentrates wildlife into Parachute Creek valley in winter when weather, snow- depth, or forage availability issues result in wildlife seeking areas with less snow -pack. West Water Engineering Page 1 of 11 December 2008 RIO BLANCO COUNTY Proposed She GARFIELD COUNTY Figure 1: EnCana Laydown Yard #1 Location October 2008 n■estWater Engineering fnNiornvrlal (w�luM Under, S 0 25 5 10 PARAHUTE l '( $L :7) p•t ipjfi MESA COUNT The riparian shrubland (Rhus trilobata -Salix spp.), with cottonwood (Popular spp.) gallery over - story, has a density and diversity of woody shrubs highly valued by wildlife (Cover Photo). The Laydown Yard #3 Site is located in an industrial setting. The yard showed evidence of historic development followed by reclamation (Cover Photo). 3.0 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES SURVEYS 3.1 Methods CDOW Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS), was consulted for mapped seasonal activity areas and species occurrence and abundance (CDOW 2006). Approximately 59 seasonal activity areas for 17 species, mostly charismatic mega - fauna, are mapped and checked by Garfield County and are listed in Table 1. Personal communication with CDOW staff and published and unpublished reports are additional sources of information. Lists of important plants, animals, and sometimes habitat attributes follow. These are flora and fauna for which biologists should survey while in the field. Certain information, such as CDOW's Garfield County terrestrial wildlife species occurrence, is presented based on inference from existing habitat, land use patterns, and professional experience. All locations of survey observations are recorded using handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) units and are recorded as Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates (Datum: NAD 83, Zone: 125). Photographs are taken of the habitat, terrain, and biological features found during surveys. Table 1. Wildlife Species Mapped by CDOW for Garfield County and Checked by County Staff in Permit Application Review Common Name Scientific Name Abundance' American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Rare Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Rare Canada Goose Branta canadensis Common Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaelos Uncommon Great Blue Heron Areda heroides Common Greater Sage- grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Fairly Common Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo Common Osprey Pandion hallaetus Rare American Elk Cervus elaphus Abundant Brazilian Free - tailed Bat Tadarida brasiliensis Unknown Black Bear Ursus americanus Common WestWater Engineering Page 2 of I I December 2008 Table 1. Wildlife Species Mapped by CDOW for Garfield County and Checked by County Staff in Permit Application Review Common Name Scientific Name Abundances Lynx Lynx canadensis Very Rare Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus Abundant Pronghorn Anillocapra americana Uncommon Razorback sucker Xyrauchen lexanus Very Rare River otter Lulra canadensis Very Rare Rocky Mountain Bighorn Ovis canadensis Uncommon CDOW 2006, 'modified by WWE Table 2 contains habitat and nesting information for important birds of prey which may be found on or near the yard site. Table 2. Raptor species that may be present in the project area Common Name Scientific Name BOCC Habitat & Breeding Records Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus y • Grassland, shrubland, agricultural areas, and marshes. Nests in areas with abundant cover (e.g., tall reeds, cattails, grasses) in grasslands and marshes. Also known to nest in high - elevation sagebrush. Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii N • Cottonwood riparian to spruce /fir forests, including piflonijuniper woodlands. Nests most frequently in pines and aspen. Red - tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis N • Diverse habitats including grasslands, piflon juniper woodlands and deciduous, coniferous and riparian forests. Nests in mature trees (especially cottonwood, aspen, and pines) and on cliffs and utility poles. Swainson's Hawk Buteo srvainsoni Y • Typically, arid grassland, desert, agricultural areas, shrublands and riparian forests. Nests in trees in or near open areas. Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Y • Grasslands, shrublands, agricultural areas, piilon juniper woodlands, and ponderosa forests. Prefers nest sites on cliffs and sometimes in trees in rugged areas. American Kestrel Falco sparverius N • Coniferous and deciduous forests and open terrain with suitable perches. Nests in cavities in trees, cliffs and buildings. American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrines Y • Piflon juniper woodlands and coniferous and riparian forest near cliffs. Nests on ledges of high cliffs away from human disturbance. Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Y • Grasslands, shrublands, and alpine tundra, Nests on cliffs or bluffs in open areas. Great Homed Owl Bubo virginianus N • Occupies diverse habitats including riparian, deciduous and coniferous forests with adjacent open terrain for hunting. Northern Saw- whet Owl Aegolius acadicus N • Mountain and foothills forest and canyon country. Significant use of piflon juniper woodland and Douglas - fir. Long -eared Owl Asia otus N • Occupies mixed shrublands. Nests and roost in sites in dense cottonwoods, willows, scrub oak, junipers and dense forest of mixed conifers and aspens. These lists are not intended to be complete representations of all wildlife that could possibly be found in the vicinity of the Laydown Yard #3 Site. They are intended to show the diversity of wildlife present by listing only the most common of species (CDOW 2006, Fitzgerald et al. 1994, Andrews and Righter 1992, Hammerson 1999). The reader should use caution when interpreting this list or the relative abundance. 3.2 Results The following wildlife and certain seasonal activity areas are discussed individually and are presented in Figures 2 and 3, which show Garfield County mapping prepared by CDOW. 3.2.1 Raptors Five raptor nests were found within the vicinity of the yard site during previous surveys by WWE biologists during the summer of 2008 (Table 3, Figure 2). Of these, only I Cooper's Hawk nest was confirmed active, but it is not within the 1/4 mile recommended buffer zone of the yard site (see Recommendations in Table 10, page 12). West Water Engineering Page 3 of 11 December 2008 Table 3. Raptor nests within the vicinity of Laydown Yard #3 Species Easting Northing Species Code Status Cooper's Hawk 747797 4382700 COHA U Cooper's Hawk 748170 4384100 COHA U Cooper's Hawk 748065 4384230 COHA A Long -eared owl 748042 4384230 LEOW I Cooper's Hawk 748142 4384130 COHA I Status, 'U' indicates Unknown, `A' indicates Active, 'r indicates Inactive 3.2.2 Bald Eagle Use of the riparian and woodland corridor of Parachute Creek for foraging and day roosting is likely. The Laydown Yard #3 Site lies within bald eagle winter range, although no active nests for bald eagle were confirmed within 1/2 mile of the site (Figure 2). 3.2.3 Wild Turkey Wild turkeys are confirmed present in the area. As can be seen in Figure 2, the Laydown Yard #3 Site is within or near several important seasonal activity areas for wild turkey. The site lies within the turkey production area, and borders the turkey winter concentration range (Figure 2). 3.2.4 Black Bear Black bear are rarely found near the site location. With little to no oakbrush (Quercus gambelii), or local concentration of other natural foods, normal black bear use of the area is considered low. Black bears could be attracted to anthropogenic food sources during difficult times of low forage. Black bear encounters are not expected and would be an anomaly or accidental. Normal precautions are recommended. 3.2.5 Brazilian Free - tailed Bats Although in the overall known range, the project is not expected to impact this species. No specific roost or foraging areas are confirmed in the county. 3.2.6 Canada Goose This species is ubiquitous throughout its range and is likely seen around, on, or near the Laydown Yard #3 Site. 3.2.7 American Elk Elk sign was present in the form of droppings and tracks. The project is located within an elk winter concentration area. These areas are defined by CDOW as part of the winter range where elk densities area at least 200% greater than the surrounding winter range density in 5 winters in 10 or 50% of the time (Figure 3). 3.2.8 Mule Deer Several seasonal activity areas mapped by CDOW are found within the project vicinity. Year round mule deer population is found in the Parachute Creek riparian corridor. 3.2.9 Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) This species has historically been found as far up- stream in the Colorado River as Rifle Creek, which includes the reach of Colorado River at the confluence. 4.0 BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN (BOCC) Another listing of sensitive avifauna comes from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "BOCC" (USFWS 2002). These birds are of special interest due to declining numbers, habitat, or other indicators of potential peril. These species are presented in Table 4, which has been modified to include only those listed in Garfield County that are likely or known to occur on, near, or over the project vicinity at some time during the year depending on type of utilization, whether nesting, migratory, winter, or summer range. WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 11 December 2008 Table 4. Birds of Conservation Concern for Southern Rockies and Colorado Plateau (FWS 2002) Common Name Scientific Name Protection Status* Laydown Yard 113 Status ** N. Harrier Circus cyaneus MBTA Known to occur Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni MBTA Known to occur Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos MBTA Known to occur Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anal um MBTA Known to occur Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus MBTA Known to occur Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis MBTA Likely to occur Williamson's Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus MBTA Likely to occur Gray Vireo Vireo vicinior MBTA Likely to occur Virginia's Warbler Vermivora virginiae MBTA Likely to occur Black- throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigrescens MBTA Likely to occur * MBTA is Migratory Bird Treaty Act, ESA is federal Endangered Species Act, GarCo is CDOW species occurrence list, " WWE determination for this project Attention was given to monitoring for presence of other sensitive avifauna listed by other agencies (Table 5). In this instance, considerable public domain lands are administered by the Bureau of Land Management; therefore, heightened awareness is given to monitoring for these species or their habitat. Table 5. BLM Sensitive & Migratory Bird Species that may be present in the project area Common Name Scientific Name Habitat & Breeding Records Pinyon Jay Gyntnorhinus cyanocephalus • Piflon juniper woodlands. Nests in piflons or junipers. • Confirmed breeder in Garfield County, unlikely nester in project area. Virginia's Warbler Verrnivora virginiae • Dense shrublands and scrub forests of Gambel oak, piflon juniper, mountain mahogany or ponderosa pine. Nests on the ground among dead leaves or on rock or log overhangs. • Nesting has been confirmed in Garfield County. Unlikely nester in the project area. Black-throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigrescens • Mature piflon-juniper woodlands. Nests on horizontal branches in piston or juniper. • Nesting has been confirmed in Garfield County in habitat like that the vicinity of the project. Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli • Large contiguous areas of low- elevation big sagebrush or sagebrush/greasewood shrublands. Nests in sagebrush. • Breeding has been confirmed in Garfield County west of Parachute. Black-chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri • Dry lowlands and foothills of pinyon juniper woodland. Feeds on nectar from flowers and small insects and spiders. • Confirmed nester in Garfield Counties. As can be seen, there is considerable over -lap in lists, particularly for birds. It is considered prudent to be aware of any information which could alert biologists to presence, significance, or function and value of habitat. 5.0 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES SURVEYS 5.1 Methods TESS plant surveys are usually extended out several hundred feet or more when high potential soils/habitat was encountered. Particular attention is given to searching areas with exposed reddish or chocolate -brown soils typically associated with the Wasatch formation. Sandstone mesas, ledges, and crevices in the pifion juniper habitat are surveyed for sensitive plant species that may occur in this habitat type. Emphasis is placed where potential habitat is observed. Special status species of plants that may be present in the project area, and their habitats, are listed in Tables 6 and 7 below in three categories: 1) Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered, 2) Federal Candidate Species, and 3) BLM Sensitive Species. Nomenclature and habitat descriptions are based on the Colorado Natural Heritage Program literature (Spackman et WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 11 December 2008 al. 1997). Considering previous earth work and intensive industrial development, no special concern plants are expected at the Laydown Yard #3 Site. Table 6. Potential Federally- listed Threatened, Endangered and Candidate plant species Scientific Name Common Name Status* Habitat Preference Phacelia subrrttrtica DeBeque phacelia C Chocolate -brown or gray clay on members of the Wasatch formation; sparsely vegetated steep slopes. Elevation: 4,700 -6,200 ft Sclerocac us glaucus Colorado hookless cactus T Typically xeric and fine textured Quaternary and Tertiary alluvium soils overlain with cobbles and pebbles; cold desert shrub and pinon- juniper communities along river benches, valley slopes, and rolling hills. • E= Federal Endangered, T= Federal Threatened, C= Federal Candidate Table 7. Potential BLM and other sensitive plant species Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Preference Astragahrs debegrraeus Debeque milkvetch Varicolored, fine textured, seleniferous, saline soils of the Wasatch formation. Elevation; 5,100 -6,400 ft As!ragalus naluritensis Naturita milkvetch Sandstone mesas, ledges, crevices and slopes in piflon juniper woodlands. Elevation: 5,000 -7,000 ft Cirsinnr perplexans Adobe thistle Barren day outcrops derived from shales of the Mancos or Wasatch formations; open and disturbed sites in mixed shrubland and pinon- juniper woodland. Elevation; 5,000 -8,000 ft Invasive and noxious weeds are recorded as they are encountered and are the subject of a separate report for this project. 5.2 Results No TESS plants were encountered on the Laydown Yard #3 Site and potential habitat for TESS plants is uncommon. 6.0 AQUATIC RESOURCES: FISH, WETLANDS, AND WATERWAYS 6.1 Methods Aquatic resources are noted where found. For this project, special interest should be given to Parachute Creek. Ephemeral drainage -ways appearing to have conveyed water in the past 12 months and regulated wetlands are noted when encountered. Table 8 lists important aquatic species potentially affected by changes in water quality, including acute or chronic conditions adversely impacting surface water quality. Table 8. Fish species of interest in Parachute Creek Common Name Scientific Name Status* Bluehead sucker Catostomusdiscobolus SC Flannelmouth sucker Catostomus latipinnis SC Roundtail chub Gila robust(' SC Colorado River cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki pleurilicus SC, P *SC is CDOW Species of Special Concern, P is protected for anglers under CDOW harvest regulations 6.2 Results With relatively dry and harsh climate in the project area, value and function of springs, seeps, small to medium perennial streams and associated wetlands, and their importance, cannot be WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 11 December 2008 overemphasized. Springs, seeps, wetlands, and associated vegetation communities are often a high valued resource noted for diversity of flora and fauna. No springs or seeps are located in the project boundaries. Parachute Creek fisheries data from the early 1970s is available for comparative review (Behnke 1976). More recent data from 2002 show a decline in diversity which could be due to many factors including study design (Table 9). In 2002, CDOW found the following (Elmblad 2002): Table 9. Fish captured by CDOW in Parachute Creek, 2002 Station Fish species Pop. estimate 95% Confidence a limits Fish per km p Fish per hectare kg fish per km p Capture probability p 1 Bluehead sucker 1 I April - 15 August 5 11 1 Peregrine Falcon 2 Speckled dace (I hiniethys osculus) 177 +1- 287.9 1933 4228 5 0.23 2 Bluehead sucker 3 +1- 6.79 33 72 2 0.67 2 Flanneimouth sucker 3 0 33 72 <1 1.0 3 Brown trout2 13 +/- 62.23 114 268 17 0.40 4 Brown trout 76 +/- 6.98 762 1388 75 0.76 2 Age 0 trout were not included in the pop elation and biomass estimates Historic fisheries data confirms the presence of other fish species as well, some of which are of interest to anglers. These include rainbow trout (Oncorynchus mykiss), cutthroat trout (0. clarki spp. x O. mykiss), and speckled dace. In one study cited by Elmblad, brown trout were found downstream from the confluence with the Colorado River in the early 1970s. 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Aquatic resources The project will not affect the banks of Parachute Creek. Control of drainage and using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate possibility of release of toxic substances will greatly minimize potentially detrimental impacts to aquatic resources. Avoid highly alkaline areas along Parachute Creek to preserve vegetation structure and diversity. 7.2 Avifauna Reduce or eliminate impacts to structurally diverse shrublands and riparian shrubs and trees. No active raptor nests were found within %a mile of the Laydown Yard #3 Site. If nesting raptors Table 10. Timing limitations recommendations for active raptor nests Species Buffer Zone Seasonal Restriction _ Red - tailed Hawk 0.33 mile 15 February - 15 July Swainson's Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 August Sharp - shinned Hawk 0.25 mile I April - 15 August Cooper's Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 August Peregrine Falcon 0.5 mile 15 March - 31 July N. Pygmy -Owl 0.25 mile 15 March - 15 July Long -eared Owl 0.25 mile 1 March - 15 July Great Horned Owl * * Great Horned Owls are relatively tolerant of human activity. Keep activity to a minimum during breeding season. are found, construction should be scheduled between territory establishment and dispersal of young from the nest. WWE recommends temporal and spatial restrictions for activities near active nests based on BLM stipulations, CDOW recommendations (CDOW 2008b; Craig 2002; Craig and Enderson 2004), and literature review of nesting season timing for raptors in the Roan Plateau region (Andrews and Righter 1992; Kennedy and Stahlecker1993; Kingery 1998; Poole 2005). These recommendations are summarized in Table 10. West Water Engineering Page 7 of 11 December 2008 Timing restrictions and dates may be modified if an active nest is monitored by a qualified biologist. The buffer zone should not be entered until one week after the young have fledged, which can be much earlier than standard temporal restrictions. 7.3 American elk and mule deer The most critical time period is winter. The Laydown Yard #3 Site is found within important seasonal activity areas for both species. Timing of major work activities is recommended in Table 11. These time periods are most sensitive for the species or groups mentioned. Table 11. Seasonal critical periods in the area of the Laydown Yard #3 Concern Period Deer and Elk severe (critical) winter range December 1 — April 30 Migratory Birds primary nesting season May 15 — August 1 Raptor nesting season February I — August 15 7.4 Black Bear Measures Black bears are known to occur in the vicinity of the Laydown Yard #3, and all personnel should be aware of their presence and take important safety measures when working in the area. Prevent any undesirable encounters by refraining from feeding bears, and by keeping all trash and food waste in bear -proof containers. Put dog food and bowls, cooking appliances and utensils in bear -proof storage at night. 7.5 Minimize footprint of disturbance Reduce to the minimum level possible all soil disturbing activities. Park construction vehicles on previously disturbed lands during construction to further reduce temporary disturbance. Preserve as much saline saltbush shrubland as possible. 7.6 Re- seeding It is recommended that temporary and permanent disturbances be re- seeded with native grasses. These measures are described in an Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan for this site. BMPs should be followed as described in the integrated vegetation management plan. 7.7 Fence Removal Re -built fences that are designed for easy passage of deer and elk can allow these animals to utilize the native and planted vegetation for forage and move about the adjacent areas freely as they search for food and cover. In addition, properly designed fences will prevent deer and elk from being injured or suffering death as a result of becoming entangled as they attempt to jump over or pass through a fence. Generally, wire fences that do not exceed 42 inches in height and have 12- inch spacing between the top two wires will allow deer and elk to pass over a fence without conflict. The BLM utilizes these fence specifications for livestock fencing on federal lands (BLM 1989). The publication presented by CDOW, "Fencing With Wildlife In Mind" provides fence designs that are friendly to wildlife and is available at the CDOW web site at wildlife. state. co .us /NR/rdonlyres /B0D65D61 -6CB0- 4746 -94F I -6EE 194E 1 C230/0 /fencing.pdf. REFERENCES Andrews, Robert, and Robert Righter. 1992. Colorado birds: A reference to their distribution and habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado, 442 pp. Behnke, Robert. 1976. Report on collections of cutthroat trout from Parachute Creek drainage, Garfield County, Colorado. Unpublished report for U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction District, 7pp. West Water Engineering Page 8 of 11 December 2008 CDOW. 2006. Wildlife species occurrence. http: / /ndis.nrel.colostate.edu. State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Ft. Collins. CDOW. 2008a. Maps and spatial data. http: llndis. nrel .colostate.edulmapindex.asp. State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Ft. Collins. CDOW. 20086. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptors. State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife , Denver. Unpublished Report, 7 pp. Craig, G. R. 2002. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptors. State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Ft. Collins. Unpublished Report, 7 pp. Craig, G. R., and J. H. Enderson. 2004. Peregrine falcon biology and management in Colorado 1973 -2004. Technical Publication No. 43, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins. Elmblad, Bill. 2002. Fish Sampling Report from Parachute Creek. Unpublished report, State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Grand Junction, 6 pp. Fitzgerald, James P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, 467 pp. Hammerson, Geoffrey A. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles in Colorado, 2°d Edition. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, 484 pp. Kennedy, P. L., and D. W. Stahlecker. 1993. Responsiveness of nesting Northern Goshawks to taped broadcasts of 3 conspecific 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. Poole, A. (editor). 2005. The Birds of North America Online: bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNAI. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Sparkman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, USFWS. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. WestWater Engineering Page 9 of 11 December 2008 Umiak, PO u Turkey & Raptor Activity Raptor Nests NOB Slarus * Acme • Inadke * Unknown Bald Eagle Weller Range (NDIS) © Golden Eagle Mork Locafions ICDOW) Turkey Production Area (NDIS) a Tula/ Waler Range MNOIS) . Turku Writer Concenirat'ron {NDIS) — Roads O NPR Boundary Figure 2: EnCana Laydown Yard #3 Wildlife & Sensitive Areas October 2008 VNestWater Engineering In..nontalCorgarg Swot' Was 0 0.15 0.3 3.6 • r West Water Engineering Page 10 of 11 December 2008 Vaillbard v;.isiwrvZIT i6.PIRWIe. WV COMA TWA aalMwe�wwrl� lc ANN taar.a MAIM MA K 1� ter. rsrarrW - +rmrrr era, raer,e�r,!MINAI� arcs. - .01111•11=M1070•/ ±.: AMA ;armor Ifrrrr.riil1!laNAerrr - -_ - �rl4,5'2R:I�QIf:� r? - .Y1i[A63lryy� "..49'.4PIItII�+ lrr iei INIMIMMIIM r.'..E11N3Rst a6 tni.rr'imPi so:ham:otl INI c1/414 "+10H74111MON•16.. `41111∎, a.avrmna. s •titnrlssa OS i peolt trtsy, r1. M;d+Mllki ...ea,.:."YrK _ \.L5MNINAil nh.iuttA5M10414 7�"` 'IA N:3MMr0.140 -1 aaw .aerresrra,.:Ya .mr�av WmcaruesINIxsr vw nm v.. «m.,corr2ssaleraaaeoo oneIM ism MS.4caa,x, wisk rv+ma der± 000YR+erm',sarar rw. rcaac araas rM WWI ns,r. 'el wcam+::.we rArmw® yr AMANAC Wity AI WV AINWOWANAY MIOILVAIWAW amt® ! WNW s- rla ndauer Point Spr`;','4. -= s�'•�!:�hris.- �ehe�'r!k: is . tip Deer & Elk Activity QMule Deer Severe Winter Range (NDIS) Mule Deer Winter Concentration (NDIS) El Mule Deer Willer Range (NDIS) ED Elk Severe Winter Range (NDIS) Elk Wnter Concentration INDIS) Elk Water Range (NDIS) Roads QNPR Boundary fGl Figure 3: EnCana Laydown Yard #3 Wildlife & Sensitive Areas October 2008 :°s)WestWater Engineering • rnvlronm.nIal Comul1ing Sana a] Mlles 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Th axce Z.,Vk¢ haler is nzlau141.. 1E Y;a1TouYads"-e.. WestWater Engineering Page I I of I December 2008