HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.14 Encana SMF WTF GarCoBiological Sensitive Areas Report
Encana Oil and Gas (USA) Inc
South Middle Fork Water Facility
OLSSON
ASSOCIATES
OA Project No. 012-0400
826 21 '/2 Road 1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 1 TEL 970.263.7800 1 FAX 970.263.7456
ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA) INC.
SOUTH MIDDLE FORK WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Impact Analysis: Section 4-502 E (8) Environmental Effects
Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution 2008
Cover Photo: Site of proposed South Middle Fork Water Treatment Facility.
Prepared for:
Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.
Prepared by:
WestWater Engineering
Grand Junction, CO
April 2012
INTRODUCTION
At the request of Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. (Encana), WestWater Engineering (WWE)
biologists conducted field surveys and assessments of wildlife, wildlife habitats, and sensitive
plant species at the proposed South Middle Fork Water Treatment Facility site (Figure 1). This
document reports the results and analysis of the findings that are pertinent to Garfield County
Land Use regulations (2008) that apply to this project.
The site is located on private lands north of Parachute, CO in Sections 33 and 34, Township 6
South, Range 96 West, 6th Principal Meridian. Access to the project area is available via Garfield
County Road 215 (Parachute Creek Road). The current primary land uses of the area include
rangeland, wildlife habitat, and natural resource extraction including natural gas development.
Survey Methods
Surveys were conducted on April 3, 2012. A preliminary review of the project area using aerial
photographs was conducted to familiarize biologists with the project area and as an aid to help
determine the potential presence of wildlife and any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species
including plants. Field data collected during the survey were documented and/or recorded with
the aid of a handheld global positioning system (GPS) receiver utilizing NAD83 map datum,
with all coordinate locations based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate
system in Zone 12. Photographs were taken of the general project location, vegetation, and
terrain.
WWE biologists conducted pedestrian surveys of the area to locate and identify wildlife species,
wildlife sign, wildlife habitats, and vegetative communities. Vegetation types were determined
through field identification of plants, aerial photography, and on -the -ground assessments of the
plant community. Visual searches for raptors and other bird species nests focused on the riparian
corridor within 0.25 -miles of the project site. A prairie dog colony is located within the raptor
survey buffer and the burrows were visually inspected for any sign of Burrowing Owl
occupancy. Nest searches and bird identification were aided with the use of binoculars. Data
from the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife's (CPW) Natural Diversity Information Source
(NDIS) was used to determine important wildlife areas including big game winter range.
Noxious weed surveys were conducted within 100 feet of the project site.
SECTION 4-502 E. - ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.
Waters of the U.S. (WoUS) include wetlands and drainages under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams and drainages
are considered WoUS if they exhibit evidence of flow (i.e. ordinary high water mark) and are
hydrologically connected to a perennial stream. In addition to hydrology, a jurisdictional
wetland will also demonstrate the unique soil and vegetation characteristics that result from
inundation or saturation.
The proposed project site is located on the relatively level valley floor (Figure 1). U.S.
Geological Survey mapping indicates that no potential WoUS cross the project area and no
drainages exhibiting an ordinary high water mark were observed. WWE biologists determined
that no jurisdictional wetlands or drainages would be affected by the project.
WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 11 April 2012
VEGETATION
The project would be located within a historically irrigated agricultural area that has begun to
revert to a xeric plant community. The affected vegetation on the project site consists of
rabbitbrush and greasewood with an understory of mixed of native and non-native grasses and
forbs (Table 1). Native vegetation in undisturbed areas surrounding the site is composed of
greasewood and sagebrush shrublands, pinyon juniper woodlands, and a riparian area along
Parachute Creek. Common plant species observed during the survey are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Common plant species observed within the nroiect area.
Plants Species Occurring Within 100 feet of the Project
Annual wheatgrass (Eremopyrum triticeum)
Intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum
intermedium)
Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata)
Kochia (Kochia scoparia)
Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)
Poverty sumpweed (Iva axillaris)
Crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum)
Rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus)
Curlycup gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa)
Russian thistle (Salsola spp)
Curveseed butterwort (Ceratocephala
testiculata)
Smooth brome (Bromus inermis)
Dryland alfalfa (Medicago sativa)
Tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum)
Galleta grass (Pleuraphis jamesii)
Western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii)
Greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus)
Yellow sweet -clover (Melilotus officinalis)
Additional Common Plant Species Occurring Within 0.25 Miles of the Pro'ect
Alder (Alnus incana)
Fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens)
Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata)
Narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia)
Box elder (Negundo aceroides)
Pinyon pine (Pinus edulis)
Chokecherry (Prunus virginianus)
Sandbar willow (Salix exigua)
Common reed (Phragmites australis)
Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma)
Cottonwood (Populas sp.)
Wavyleaf thistle (Cirsium undulatum)
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species
A review of soils and terrain at the project site, previous WWE surveys, and of the Colorado
Rare Plant Field Guide (Spackman et. al. 1997) indicated that no sensitive plant species would be
expected near the site.
Noxious Weeds
The weed survey included the project footprint plus 100 feet on all sides. Noxious weeds and
nuisance plants such as kochia, Russian thistle, and poverty sumpweed were present as scattered
to dense infestations throughout the previously disturbed laydown area. Noxious weed species
within the project boundaries included cheatgrass, field bindweed, jointed goatgrass, redstem
filaree, Russian knapweed, and tamarisk. Jointed goatgrass, Russian knapweed, and tamarisk are
listed by Garfield County. Cheatgrass is common in and around the project area and UTM
locations were not recorded for this species. Redstem filaree and field bindweed are common and
widespread and only dense concentrations were recorded. Otherwise, the locations of weeds
observed during the survey are described in Table 2 and Figure 1.
WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 11 April 2012
Table 2. Noxious Weed Locations found throughout project area.
UTM
Easting
UTM
Northing
Common Name
Scientific Name
State List
Status
749199
4374397
Field bindweed
Convolvulus arvensis
C
749193
4374397
Field bindweed
Convolvulus arvensis
C
749231
4374276
Field bindweed
Convolvulus arvensis
C
749318
4374268
Jointed goatgrass*
Aegilops cylindrical
C
749237
4374427
Jointed goatgrass*
Aegilops cylindrical
C
749159
4374513
Redstem filaree
Erodium cicutarium
C
749225
4374280
Redstem filaree
Erodium cicutarium
C
749327
4374245
Russian Knapweed*
Acroptilon repens
B
749264
4374354
Russian Knapweed*
Acroptilon repens
B
749341
4374176
Russian Knapweed*
Acroptilon repens
B
749349
4374180
Russian Knapweed*
Acroptilon repens
B
749088
4374288
Russian Knapweed*
Acroptilon repens
B
749101
4374188
Russian Knapweed*
Acroptilon repens
B
749110
4374050
Tamarisk*
Tamarix ramosissima
B
749212
4374186
Tamarisk*
Tamarix ramosissima
B
* Noxious weed species listed by Garfield County.
WILDLIFE
Raptors
A minimum of nine raptor species could be observed in the project area (Table 3). The most
common raptor species in the area are American Kestrel, Cooper's Hawk, Northern Harrier, and
Red-tailed Hawk.
Table 3. Raptor species that may be present near the project area.
Common Name
j Scientific Name
BCC*
American Kestrel
Falco sparverius
No
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Yes
Burrowing Owl
Athene cunicularia
Yes
Cooper's Hawk
Accipiter cooperii
No
Great Horned Owl
Bubo virginianus
No
Long-eared Owl
Asio otus
No
Northern Harrier
Circus cyaneus
No
Red-tailed Hawk
Buteo jamaicensis
No
Sharp -shinned Hawk
Accipiter striatus
No
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern.
Potential tree nesting raptor habitat occurs in the riparian corridor along Parachute Creek. The
pinyon juniper woodlands east of County Road 215 are not of sufficient height or density to
provide valuable nesting habitat. Potential habitat for Burrowing Owl exists in a prairie dog
WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 11 April 2012
colony southeast of the proposed water treatment facility and would be affected by the proposed
access road, although no owl sign was observed on the burrows during the surveys. There is no
cliff nesting habitat within the survey area. Raptors almost certainly forage for prairie dogs and
other small mammals on the site.
Survey timing was early in the typical nesting and brood rearing season for the majority of raptor
species expected near the project, which for most species normally occurs between April 1st and
August 15th. Eagles and some owls begin nesting as early as February. Three potential raptor
nests were discovered within 0.25 miles of the proposed project, and the presence of an
aggressive male Cooper's Hawk may indicate nesting will occur on one of these nests. The
survey area, known nests sites, and potential raptor nesting habitat are illustrated in Figure 2.
Migratory, Non -migratory, and Birds of Conservation Concern (other than raptors)
WWE biologists surveyed the project area for the presence of any bird species or habitat that
could potentially be affected by the project based on literature review of species distribution and
presence (Andrews and Righter 1992, Kingery 1998, Poole 2005, Righter et. al. 2004) (Table 4).
Particular attention was given to searching for birds that are listed as sensitive by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the CPW. Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) are species listed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that are priorities for conservation action (USFWS 2008). The
goal is to prevent or remove the need for additional Endangered Species Act (ESA) bird listings
by implementing proactive management and conservation actions.
Table 4. BLM sensitive species and BCC species that may occur near the nroiect area.
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Status*
Habitat Description
Potential
Occurrence
Lewis's
Woodpecker
Melanerpes
lewis
BCC
Open conifer forests, riparian areas,
or burns where they can forage for
flying insects. Primarily nests in
cottonwoods.
Could be found in
riparian area along
Parachute Creek.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines recommend a 100 foot buffer around proposed
developments for the protection of nesting migratory birds, excluding raptors. The project site
was formerly an irrigated pasture that has since been abandoned for that purpose, and vegetative
cover is sparse. This lack of cover precludes nesting by most bird species other than ground
nesters. The survey took place early in the typical nesting season for birds in western Colorado
and no bird nests were observed within 100 feet of the project.
The riparian corridor and pinyon juniper woodlands in the surrounding area provide nesting and
foraging habitat for various migratory and non -migratory bird species, depending on the season
of the year. American Crow, American Robin, Black -billed Magpie, Brewer's Sparrow,
Common Raven, European Starling, Great Blue Heron, Mallard Duck, Mountain Bluebird,
Northern Flicker, Song Sparrow, Spotted Towhee, Western Bluebird, and Western Meadowlark,
were observed within 0.25 miles of the site.
American Elk and Mule Deer
The project area is located within mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) critical winter range and an
American Elk (Cervus canadensis) winter concentration area (NDIS 2012) (Figure 3). Mule
deer and elk droppings and tracks were observed in the project area. The project disturbance is
WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 11 April 2012
located adjacent to a wildlife corridor recognized and intentionally avoided for development by
Encana (N. Byrnes, pers. comm.).
Elk and mule deer utilize the Parachute Creek valley extensively during the winter months for
forage and cover. During the winter, both species rely heavily on shrubs and forbs as a primary
food source, in addition to any grasses remaining from the previous growing season. Although
the plant species available on the project location are not ideal for big game, it appears that the
area is subject to big game foraging use during the winter and early spring months.
Black Bear and Mountain Lion
NDIS mapping shows the site to be within overall ranges for black bear and mountain lion
(NDIS 2012). No black bear or mountain lion sign was observed although both species have
been observed in the general area. The project area is not mapped by NDIS as a potential
mountain lion or bear conflict area.
Small Mammals
No threatened or endangered mammals would be affected by the project. A white-tailed prairie
dog (BLM sensitive—Cynomys leucurus) colony of approximately 8.52 acres with an estimated
25-30 burrrows per acre exists southeast of the proposed water treatment facility. Approximately
0.49 acres would be affected by the proposed access road to the water treatment facility (Figure
2). Several bat species could forage in the area, including fringed myotis (BLM sensitive—
Myotis thysanoides), spotted bat (BLM sensitive—Euderma maculatum), and Townsend's big -
eared bat (BLM sensitive—Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens), among others (Armstrong et.
al. 2011). No potential bat roost sites would be affected by the project. Common small mammal
species in the project area include coyote (Canis latrans), cottontail (Sylvilagus sp.), least
chipmunk (Tamias minimus), and several other rodent species.
Reptiles
At least in part due to the timing of the survey in early spring, no reptiles were observed. Several
species of reptiles likely occur in project area include gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), midget
faded rattlesnake (BLM sensitive—Crotalus viridis concolor), western terrestrial garter snake
(Thamnophis elegans), side -blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), plateau striped whiptail
(Cnemidophorus velox), sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus), tree lizard (Urosaurus
ornatus), and western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), among others (Hammerson 1999).
Amphibians
No amphibians were observed during the survey, but it is possible that amphibians occupy
Parachute Creek and nearby irrigation corridors, including Northern leopard frog (BLM-sensitive
and CPW species of Concern—Rana pipiens), Great Basin spadefoot (BLM sensitive—Spea
intermontana), and tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) (Hammerson 1999).
SECTION 4-502 (8) (a) Determination of Long and Short-term Effects on Flora and Fauna
FAUNA
Raptors
WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 11 April 2012
One potential Cooper's Hawk nest site occurs within 0.25 miles of the site, although nest
occupancy could not be ascertained at the time of the survey. Potential Burrowing Owl habitat
exists in the prairie dog colony, although inspection of the burrows revealed no sign of owls.
No potential nest trees would be removed. Foraging habitat for raptors would be lost within the
project footprint. The potential Cooper's Hawk nest is within 260 feet of a busy access road that
provides access to Starkey Gulch and is approximately 815 feet from the proposed water
treatment facility. Due to the scale and continuity of human activity in the area, indirect impacts
related to human presence, vehicle traffic, and equipment operation are not expected.
American Elk and Mule Deer
The additional human activity associated with construction of the project may affect mule deer
and elk in the surrounding area by creating avoidance areas if construction takes place during the
winter and early spring months. The site was previously cleared of native vegetation, but some
plants that have re-established on the site are being utilized by big game. Approximately 26.3
acres of foraging habitat would be removed within the project footprint. Due to sparse
vegetation that is dominated by plants with low forage value for big game, the project would
result in a small additional loss of habitat value. Due to the scale and continuity of other human
activities nearby, the indirect disturbance from operation of the water treatment facility is
probably low, as big game animals have become at least partially accustomed to human
presence.
Black Bear and Mountain Lion
No vegetation will be lost in habitats that are important for black bear or mountain lion. Indirect
effects from construction disturbance should not affect either species. Black bear encounters with
construction personnel could occur if garbage or food is available on the site. If bears learn to
associate human activity with creation of a food source, the resulting encounters sometimes
result in the euthanasia of offending bears by the CPW.
Small Mammals, Birds (including BCC), Reptiles, and Amphibians
Approximately 0.49 acres of an occupied prairie dog colony would be removed by the proposed
access road to the facility, and mortality from vehicles can be expected. Affects of habitat loss to
other species are expected to be low due to poor habitat conditions resulting from previous
development of the project area and the large amount of habitat available in the surrounding area.
No aquatic habitats would be directly impacted by the project.
FLORA
The vegetation removed as a result of this project is primarily aggressive native species and
weedy annual species that have become established on previously disturbed soils. Vegetation
surrounding the project area will not be affected and will likely remain in its current condition.
SECTION 4-502 (8) (c) (1) Determination of the effect on significant environmental
resources --critical wildlife habitat
The development of the project is not expected to significantly affect any critical wildlife habitat
for any wildlife species. Potential issues are outlined below.
• Creation of hazardous attractions: Wildlife may perceive the water treatment facility
as watering source and should be prevented from accessing the pits. These pits could create
WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 11 April 2012
a drowning or entrapment hazard for birds and wildlife if sufficient barriers (fencing, netting)
or deterrents are not included as part of the project, along with escape mechanisms including
ramps and proper sloping.
Some passerine bird species may choose to nest in or on equipment or objects at the water
treatment facility. By closing or covering all ports, hatches, cavities, and openings (such as
the ends of pipes) this potential is decreased. Most non -game bird species are protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712; Ch. 128; July 13, 1918; 40 Stat.
755) and tampering with occupied nests could be considered a "take" resulting in a violation.
• Alteration of Existing Vegetation: Vegetation within the project footprint is dominated
by aggressive native and weedy non-native species due to prior soil disturbances. The 26.3
acre area affected by the project would be cleared of vegetation. No rare or special status
species of plants would be affected.
• Big Game: The project would be located adjacent to a designated wildlife corridor
recognized by Encana to allow minimally restricted movement from the Wheeler Gulch area
to Parachute Creek. Fencing could pose a hazard to animals if not built to wildlife friendly
standards as outlined by CPW guidelines (Hanophy 2009).
• Roadkill: Although vehicle speeds on the proposed access road are likely to be low, the
road would pass through a white-tailed prairie dog colony and some degree of roadkill would
be expected.
• Bird Nesting Habitat: The vegetation that would be removed is of poor quality for
nesting by most bird species; nesting habitat for ground nesting species would be lost.
• Indirect Construction Effects: Operation of the facility introduces increased human
presence and noise, which have the potential to affect wildlife distribution and habitat use in
a negative manner. Since the site exists amid significant human presence related to other
activities in the area, the additional disturbance from this project is low but does contribute to
cumulative effects.
REFERENCES
Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and
Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado.
Armstrong. D.M., J.P. Fitzgerald, and C.A. Meaney. 2011. Mammals of Colorado, Second
Edition. Denver Museum of Nature & Science and University Press of Colorado.
Boulder.
Hammerson, G. A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado, Second Edition. Colorado
Division of Wildlife, Denver.
Hanophy, W. 2009. Fencing with Wildlife in Mind. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver.
Available online:
http://wildlife. state. co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/LandWater/PrivateLandProgra
ms/DOWFencingWithWildlifelnMind.pdf
Kingery, H. E. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership, Colorado
Division of Wildlife, Denver.
WestWater Engineering
Page 7 of 11 April 2012
NDIS. 2012. Natural Diversity Information Source—Colorado Division of Wildlife. Available
online: http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlife.asp.
Poole, A. (Editor). 2005. The Birds of North America Online:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY.
Righter, R., R. Levad, C. Dexter, and K. Potter. 2004. Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and
Mesa Country. Grand Valley Audubon Society, Grand Junction, Colorado.
Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997.
Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide, Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the
U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural
Heritage Program.
USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division
of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia.
WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 11 April 2012
•
• #
'k,
i
PARA"HUTF
4
•
Project Location
4
r
.
0. '1;114'
"NIC ,t"• �- • ..• •
• ,
td, %.1".
•
1,. + eL
FF'r re;
•
• •
4 r' 4''i
1
COUNTY
215
ROAD
Legend
Field Bindweed
Jointed Goatgrass
Redstem Filaree
* Russian Knapweed
• Tamarisk
Facility
County Road
BWestWater E
Figure 1
Encana Oil Sr Gas USA, Inc.
South Middle Fork
Water Treatment Facility
Biological Survey
Location and Noxious Weeds
WestWater Engineering
Consulting Engineers & Scientists
April212ii 2012
'.dap Source 2 £neana 01 & Ga VSA, nc pugr Fork W'aler Treafine.n1 Faci1tylG S" figure 1 mxq pnl p1? rbn
•
r
c •
it;17
it. •
-
t7p
4
* **.4 • ••*.
•,• • l•
14 * • ' ^V ^
.1,
Ell
1=1
Legend
Occupied Raptor Nest
Unoccupied Raptor Nes
Suitable Raptor Habitat
Prairie Dog Habitat
Raptor Survey Area
Facility
County Road
BWestWater En
Pale 10 of 11
Figure 2
Encana Oil & Gas USA, Inc.
South Middle Fork
Water Treatment Facility
Biological Survey
Raptors
nVslestWater Engineering
Consulting Engineers & Scientists
o -
moos
2101April 213i1Rr i 1 2012
F.Sap Source En an a 2I S. Gas VSA. Inc Zou Miticile Fork Waller Treadrmeni FacIfityAGIS Furke 2 cnxcl qpnl 201: rbn
2
Legend
Mule Deer Critical Winter Range
I] Elk Winter Concentration Area
Facility
County Road
BIL
Figure 3
Encana Oil & Gas USA, Inc.
South Middle Fork
Water Treatment Facility
Biological Survey
Elk and Mule peer Activities
WestWater Engineering
Consulting Engineers Se Scientists
Map au ree 'En Cana 0,1 & Ga VSA, nc auvr addle Fork VuherTreafinenr FaciFtytG Su iqure .mnd pnl p7; rbn
ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA) INC.
SOUTH MIDDLE FORK WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Mitigation Recommendations: Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat
Areas
Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution 2008
Cover photo: View of existing conditions at the proposed water treatment facility site.
Prepared for:
Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.
Prepared by:
WestWater Engineering
Grand Junction, CO
April 2012
SECTION 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas
Mitigation Recommendations
WILDLIFE
Raptors
Activities associated with the project have minimal potential to directly impact raptor
populations as no nesting was observed within the project footprint and no trees that would
support a raptor nest would be removed.
One potentially occupied Cooper's Hawk nest exists within the survey area as evidenced by a
defensive male hawk near a known nest site. The survey was conducted early in the nesting
season (April 4, 2012) and occupancy status could not be ascertained. This nest is located
approximately 815 feet from the edge of the proposed water treatment facility and approximately
260 feet from a very busy existing road that accesses natural gas facilities west of Parachute
Creek. Before comencement of construction, a qualified biologist should evaluate the known
nest sites to determine the current occupancy status of these nests.
In the case a nest is determined to be occupied, WWE recommends the following temporal and
spatial guidelines for activities near the nest. These recommendations are based on BLM
literature (BLM 1997), Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW) recommendations (Craig
2002 and Klute 2008) and literature review of nesting season timing for raptors in the region
(Andrews and Righter 1992, Kingery 1998, Poole 2005, Righter et. al. 2004).
Table 1. Buffer recommendations and nesting seasons for raptors in the nroiect area.
Species
Buffer Zone
Nesting Season
American Kestrel
*
*
Bald Eagle
0.50 mile
15 October — 31 July
Burrowing Owl
150 feet
15 March — 31 October
Cooper's Hawk
0.25 mile
1 April — 15 August
Great Horned Owl
*
*
Long-eared Owl
0.25 mile
1 March - 15 July
Northern Harrier
0.25 mile
1 April — 15 August
Red-tailed Hawk
0.33 mile
15 February - 15 July
Sharp -shinned Hawk
0.25 mile
1 April — 15 August
* Great Horned Owls and Kestrels are relatively tolerant of human activity. Keep activity to a minimum during breeding season.
American Elk and Mule Deer
The plan for construction of the water treatment facility outside an established wildlife
movement corridor from Wheeler Gulch to Parachute Creek (N. Byrnes, pers. comm.) helps
prevent impacts to wintering big game in the Parachute Creek valley. Construction of the facility
in an area where current forage conditions are already marginal as a result of prior disturbances
will reduce cumulative habitat loss and fragmentation and is a good mitigation technique.
Implementation of an aggressive revegetation and noxious weed management plan would
improve the existing condition of the area surrounding the proposed development. Elimination of
annual weedy species and noxious weeds would allow for increased production of desirable
WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 4 April 2012
plants for use by wildlife. Implementation of a reclamation and revegetation plan would benefit
wildlife by establishing desirable plants in the disturbed area outside the footprint of the project.
Wildlife should be considered before any fencing is designed or built. Following wildlife
friendly fencing standards reduces the costs of repairing fences damaged by wildlife, reduces the
chance of mortality from animals becoming entangled in the fence, and allows for less restricted
movements throughout an area. The CPW has published guidelines for fence construction that
reduces impacts to wildlife (Hanophy 2009).
The fence surrounding the water treatment facility should be such that wildlife cannot access the
pits. Regularly spaced escape ramps and proper sloping would prevent mortality if any animal
should accidentally become entrapped in the pits.
Black Bear
Black bear are relatively common along Parachute Creek especially when food sources in more
remote areas and at higher elevations are poor. Construction personnel at the site may be
unfamiliar with wildlife in the area and should be informed of the potential for bear interactions.
Personnel should not feed bears at any time. Bears should not be approached if encountered in
the project area. All garbage and any food items should be disposed of in bear proof containers
and removed from the site on a daily basis. Bears that become habituated to human related food
sources often become dangerous and must be euthanized.
Mitigation of Habitat Loss to Birds
If any vegetation clearing is necessary in areas with good vegetative cover, it should be done
outside of the nesting season which is generally considered to occur between May 1 and July 31
for most species in this area. June 1 to July 15 is the peak period when most incubation and
brood rearing takes place. If vegetation clearing occurs prior to nesting season, most affected
birds will relocate to alternate nest sites. After mid-to-late July, most fledging has occurred and
vegetation clearing impacts would be minimized.
Small Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles
There are no seasonal restrictions or special requirements for development related to these
species.
PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION
The plan for construction of the laydown yard in an abandoned pasture where native vegetation
communities no longer exist will reduce cumulative loss and fragmentation of native vegetation
and is a good mitigation technique. The best method to mitigate the loss of native vegetation is
to increase the number of native plants in the form of grasses, forbs, and shrubs by reseeding
unneeded areas within the disturbance and reclaiming the area after it is no longer in service.
Revegetation with native species would also provide the greatest benefit for wildlife. The
development and application of an integrated vegetation and noxious weed management plan and
implementation of a reclamation plan would provide the basis for appropriate mitigation.
Treatment and Control of Noxious Weed Infestations
Noxious weeds aggressively compete with native vegetation. Most have come from Europe or
Asia, either accidentally or as ornamentals that have escaped. Once established these species
WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 4 April 2012
tend to spread quickly because the insects, diseases, and animals that normally control them are
absent. Prevention is especially valuable in the case of noxious weed management.
Noxious weeds are spread by man, animals, water, and wind. Prime locations for the
establishment of noxious weeds include roadsides, construction sites, wetlands, riparian
corridors, and areas that are overused by animals or humans. Subsequent to soil disturbances,
vegetation communities can be susceptible to infestations of invasive or exotic weed species.
Vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction can create optimal conditions for
the establishment of invasive and non-native species. Construction equipment traveling from
weed -infested areas into weed -free areas could disperse noxious or invasive weed seeds and
propagates, resulting in the establishment of these weeds in previously weed -free areas.
Several simple practices should be employed to prevent most weed infestations. The following
practices should be adopted for any activity to reduce the costs of noxious weed control by
preventing noxious weed infestation. The practices include:
• Prior to delivery to the site, equipment should be thoroughly cleaned of soils remaining
from previous construction sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds;
• If working in sites with weed contaminated soil, equipment should be cleaned of
potentially seed -bearing soils and vegetative debris at the infested area prior to moving to
uncontaminated terrain;
• All maintenance vehicles should be regularly cleaned of soil.
• Avoid driving vehicles through areas where weed infestations exist.
The highest priority for noxious weed management (eradication) is for Russian knapweed,
jointed goatgrass, and tamarisk infestations that are prevalent on the project site. Reclamation
and revegetation with desirable native plants should be implemented within the disturbed area of
the project site once it is no longer needed.
REFERENCES
Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and
Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado.
BLM. 1997. Record of Decision and Approved White River Resource Area, Resource
Management Plan. United States Bureau of Land Management, Meeker, CO.
Craig, Gerald R. 2002. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado
Raptors. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver.
Hanophy, W. 2009. Fencing with Wildlife in Mind. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver.
Available online:
http://wildlife. state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/LandWater/PrivateLandProgra
ms/DOWFencingWithWildlifelnMind.pdf
Kingery, H. E. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership, Colorado
Division of Wildlife, Denver.
Klute, D. 2008. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors.
Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver.
WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 4 April 2012
Poole, A. (Editor). 2005. The Birds of North America Online:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY.
Righter, R., R. Levad, C. Dexter, and K. Potter. 2004. Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and
Mesa Country. Grand Valley Audubon Society, Grand Junction, Colorado.
WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 4 April 2012