Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-GarCo_Bio_Sensitive_Areas_012512Western Expansion Project II (WEP II) Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report Garfield County, Colorado Cover photo: Looking north along the proposed WEP II alignment from Baxter Pass Prepared for: Enterprise Mid-America Pipeline (Enterprise MAPL) Prepared by: WestWater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 January 2012 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description At the request of Enterprise Mid-America Pipeline (Enterprise MAPL), WestWater Engineering (WWE) has prepared this Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report for the portion of the Western Expansion Project II (WEP II) that lies within Garfield County, Colorado. The proposed pipeline alignment begins approximately 1.5 miles south of Thompson, Utah, and travels east paralleling Interstate -70 (I-70) to just east of exit 227, where the pipeline crosses the interstate and heads northeast. The proposed pipeline then parallels U.S. Highway 6, where it crosses into Colorado before turning north and paralleling Mesa County Road 4 and Garfield County Road 201 (Baxter Pass Road) along West Salt Creek to Atchee, Colorado. From Atchee, the pipeline traverses north over Baxter Pass and then follows West Evacuation Creek to Evacuation Creek then to Dragon Station near Dragon, Utah. The elevation ranges from 4,500 feet to 8,500 feet. The legal location of the pipeline from north to south within Garfield County is as follows: Sixth Central Meridian T5S, R103W, Sections 6, 5, 8, 17, 21, 28, 33, 34, and 35 T6S, R104W, Sections 6, 7, 18, 13, 24, 25, 26, and 35 T7S, R104W, Sections 2, 3, 10, 9, and 16 The project would be located on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Grand Junction Field Office (GJFO) and White River Field Office (WRFO) as well as privately owned lands. Approximately 25 miles of the proposed pipeline occur within Garfield County. The current primary uses of the area are rangeland, wildlife habitat, and natural gas development. Enterprise MAPL plans to construct the pipeline during the summer and fall of 2012. 1.2 General Survey Information Information used in the preparation of this report was gathered by WWE biologists during the summer of 2011 and previous assessments of wildlife, wildlife habitat, and habitat for sensitive plant species within the general area of the proposed project. WWE prepared the WEP II Biological Survey Report for the entire proposed pipeline, and a summary of findings specific to Garfield County are presented in this report (WWE 2011). The purpose of the survey was to determine the wildlife and sensitive plant species that occupy, or may potentially occupy, the project area at varying periods during the year and species that may potentially be impacted by project development. Factors considered include: 1) geology and soils; 2) existing land management; 3) absence or presence of wildlife species and plant species; 4) wildlife and plants with special designations by Federal and State wildlife agencies; and 5) the existing natural vegetation community. Also surveyed were potential Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) jurisdictional Waters of the United States (WOUS), including potential jurisdictional drainages and wetland areas. WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 34 January 2012 This report provides written documentation that describes survey findings as well as recommended mitigation measures. 2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING 2.1 Terrain The terrain varies from rolling hillsides that rise to flat-topped mesas to greasewood flats surrounded by steep -walled canyons where the pipeline parallels West Salt Creek. The steepest terrain along the pipeline alignment within Garfield County is found west of Atchee, where the alignment travels west and over Baxter Pass. Elevations range from about 5,000 feet at the southern end of the Garfield County line to about 8,500 feet at the top of Baxter Pass. The proposed pipeline crosses West Salt Creek several times as it travels north toward Baxter Pass. 2.2 Vegetation Vegetation along the proposed pipeline in Garfield County ranges from desert shrub, greasewood flats, and pinyon juniper woodlands at the lower elevations along West Salt Creek and West Evacuation Creek to montane shrublands, aspen, and Douglas -fir forests near the top of Baxter Pass. 3.0 WILDLIFE AND PLANT SURVEYS 3.1 Background Information Descriptions of critical habitats for federally -listed threatened, endangered, and candidate fish and wildlife species were reviewed in the Federal Register, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Wildlife habitat (activities) maps, provided via the interne by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) "Natural Diversity Information Source" (NDIS) (CPW 2011 a), were reviewed and incorporated into this report in reference to mule deer, elk, black bear, mountain lion, and state listed threatened, endangered, and special concern species (CPW 2011b). A list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and their habitats was reviewed. This list is published by the USFWS through a Memorandum of Understanding with the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), which places high conservation priorities for BCC species (USFWS 2008). Not all of these BCC species occur regularly in Colorado and Utah, and some are present only as seasonal migrants. Of those known to breed in Colorado and Utah, only a select few are known or suspected to breed within the vicinity of the WEPII project area. Avian literature sources such as the "Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country" (Righter et al. 2004), the "Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas" (Kingery 1998), and "The Sibley Guide to Birds" (Sibley 2000) were reviewed to determine the likelihood for species occurrence within the project area. Bird identification and taxonomic nomenclature are in accordance with that applied by the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Project (Kingery 1998) and the Sibley Guide to Birds. The determination of the presence/absence of suitable habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (TESS) plants was based on previous WWE observations of typical habitat occupied by BLM sensitive plants (BLM 2009a), the Colorado Natural Heritage Program WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 34 January 2012 (CNHP) Rare Plant Field Guide (Spackman et al. 1997), and consultation with BLM. Other sensitive wildlife species to be surveyed for were provided by BLM biologists. 3.2 Survey Methods A review of the project area using aerial photographs and topographical maps, and an initial site visit was conducted to familiarize personnel with the project area. Biologists identified vegetation types and terrain as an aid to help determine the likelihood for the presence of threatened, endangered, or sensitive wildlife and plant species. Field data, including general survey area locations and boundaries were verified and/or recorded with the aid of handheld global positioning system (GPS) receivers utilizing NAD83 map datum, with coordinate locations based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system. Data was recorded in the field and is presented in this report in Zone 12. Photographs were taken of the general survey area locations, vegetation, and terrain. WWE biologists conducted pedestrian surveys to identify and locate plant and wildlife species and habitats. Surveys for raptors, TESS plants, and BLM sensitive wildlife species were conducted in accordance with the survey protocols provided by each BLM field office (BLM 2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b, 2011). Cliff nesting raptor habitat within 0.5 miles of the proposed pipeline was surveyed, while woodland raptor habitat within 0.25 miles of the proposed pipeline was surveyed. Identification of plant species was aided by using pertinent published field guides (CWMA 2007, Kershaw et al. 1998, Weber and Wittman 2001, Whitson et al. 2006). 4.0 RESULTS OF SURVEY 4.1 Federal Listed Threatened, Endangered, Candidate Wildlife Species There are no perennial water sources within the project area large enough to sustain populations of threatened, endangered, or BLM sensitive species of fish (Elmblad 2011). Indirect impacts to Colorado River fishes associated with water depletions for dust control and hydrostatic testing could potentially occur if water is drawn from the Colorado River or its tributaries for use during construction of the proposed pipeline. The Mexican Spotted Owl was discussed in the WEP II Biological Survey Report (WWE 2011), but it was determined through informal consultation with the BLM and USFWS that no Mexican Spotted Owl surveys would be required in Colorado due to the lack of suitable habitat within the project area (USFWS 2011). No other threatened, endangered, or candidate wildlife species or their habitat occur within the project area. 4.2 State Listed Threatened, Endangered and Special Concern Wildlife Species WWE biologists determined that nine state listed threatened, endangered, or special concern species may occur within the project area in Garfield County; they are listed in Table 1. WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 34 January 2012 Table 1. Potentially Present State Listed Wildlife Species Common Name Scientific Name State Status American Peregrine Falcon _ Falco peregrines anatum SC Boreal Toad Bufo boreas boreas SE Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia ST Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis SC Kit fox Vulpes vulpes SE Long -nosed leopard lizard Gambelia wislizenii SC Midget faded rattlesnake Crotalus viridis concolor SC Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens SC Townsend's big -eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens SC * SE= State Endangered, ST= State Threatened, SC = Species of Special Concern None of the species listed in Table 1 were observed during the surveys. 4.3 Raptors and Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) 4.3.1 Raptors In addition to American Peregrine Falcon, Burrowing Owl, and Ferruginous Hawk, several other raptor species may nest, reside, forage or pass through the general area of the proposed pipeline and are included in Table 2. Six of these species, including the Burrowing Owl, Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, Flammulated Owl, Peregrine Falcon, and Prairie Falcon are included on the Federal BCC list. Table 2. Raptor species that may be present in the project area Common Name Scientific Name BCC American Kestrel Falco sparverius N Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia Y Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii N Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Y Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus N Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Y Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus Y Long-eared Owl Asio otus N Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis N Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus N Northern Pygmy Owl Glaucidium gnoma N Northern Saw -whet Owl Aegolius acadicus N WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 34 January 2012 Table 2. Raptor species that may be present in the project area Common Name Scientific Name BCC Osprey Pandion haliaetus N Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Y Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Y Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis N Sharp -shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus N Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni N Western Screech -owl Otus kennicottii N Eight occupied and eight unoccupied raptor nests were observed within 0.5 miles of the proposed pipeline during the surveys (Table 4 and Figures 1 a through 1 d). Of the occupied nests found, one was a Long-eared Owl, one was a Northern Harrier, two were Red-tailed Hawk, and four were Cooper's Hawk. The woodland raptor nesting habitat within the project boundaries was, for much of the northern portion of the alignment in the WRFO, marginal, consisting of scattered and immature pinyon - juniper stands. Most of the suitable habitat was found in steep draws and side canyons as well as Douglas -fir and aspen stands near the headwaters of West Evacuation Creek. Table 3. Raptor Nests observed within 0.5 miles of proposed pipeline in Garfield County LEOW-6 Long-eared Owl 12 674646 4365488 220 Occupied 698.09 RTHA-1 Unknown Hawk 12 674187 4366409 754 Unoccupied 698.29 RTHA-2 Red-tailed Hawk 12 675897 4371074 926 Unoccupied 702.79 RTHA-3 Red-tailed Hawk 12 675790 4373528 388 Unoccupied 704.73 NOHA-1 Northern Harrier 12 679353 4381620 96 Occupied 710.79 RTHA-4 Red-tailed Hawk 12 677632 4383602 241 Occupied 713.16 COHA-1 Cooper's Hawk 12 675797 4383821 205 Unoccupied 714.15 COHA-2 Cooper's Hawk 12 675872 4383903 314 Occupied 714.16 RTHA-5 Red-tailed Hawk 12 675849 4384408 553 Occupied 714.51 COHA-3 Cooper's Hawk 12 675213 4384845 103 Unoccupied 714.71 COHA-4 Cooper's Hawk 12 674801 4385882 213 Occupied 715.46 UNHA-1 Unknown Hawk 12 673679 4386829 412 Unoccupied 716.2 COHA-5 Cooper's Hawk 12 674043 4387625 158 Occupied 716.5 COHA-6 Cooper's Hawk 12 673904 4388500 476 Unoccupied 716.9 WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 34 January 2012 Distance Species UTM UTM from Pipeline Label Zone Occupancy Common Name Easting Northing Centerline Milepost (meters) LEOW-6 Long-eared Owl 12 674646 4365488 220 Occupied 698.09 RTHA-1 Unknown Hawk 12 674187 4366409 754 Unoccupied 698.29 RTHA-2 Red-tailed Hawk 12 675897 4371074 926 Unoccupied 702.79 RTHA-3 Red-tailed Hawk 12 675790 4373528 388 Unoccupied 704.73 NOHA-1 Northern Harrier 12 679353 4381620 96 Occupied 710.79 RTHA-4 Red-tailed Hawk 12 677632 4383602 241 Occupied 713.16 COHA-1 Cooper's Hawk 12 675797 4383821 205 Unoccupied 714.15 COHA-2 Cooper's Hawk 12 675872 4383903 314 Occupied 714.16 RTHA-5 Red-tailed Hawk 12 675849 4384408 553 Occupied 714.51 COHA-3 Cooper's Hawk 12 675213 4384845 103 Unoccupied 714.71 COHA-4 Cooper's Hawk 12 674801 4385882 213 Occupied 715.46 UNHA-1 Unknown Hawk 12 673679 4386829 412 Unoccupied 716.2 COHA-5 Cooper's Hawk 12 674043 4387625 158 Occupied 716.5 COHA-6 Cooper's Hawk 12 673904 4388500 476 Unoccupied 716.9 WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 34 January 2012 Table 3. Raptor Nests observed within 0.5 miles of proposed pipeline in Garfield County Label Species Common Name Zone UTM Easting UTM Northing Distance from Centerline (meters) Occupancy Pipeline Milepost COHA-7 Cooper's Hawk 12 672772 4389593 172 Occupied 717.88 UNHA-2 Unknown Hawk 12 672836 4390221 179 Unoccupied 718.21 4.3.2 Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) Other Than Raptors WWE biologists surveyed the project area for the presence of BCC songbirds and their habitat. Habitat and nesting records, as described by Kingery (1998), Righter et al. (2004), and in Colorado Birds (Andrews and Righter 1992), near the vicinity of the project area are summarized in Table 4. Table 4. BCC species that may be present in the project area Common Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri BCC; S Sagebrush shrublands. Cassin's Finch Carpodacus cassinii BCC Douglas -fir, lodgepole and ponderosa pines, and pinyon juniper woodlands. Gray Vireo Vireo vicinior BCC Canyons and mesas with scattered pinyon - juniper woodlands. Juniper Titmouse Baeolophus ridgwayi BCC Pinyon juniper woodlands. Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Open pine forests, riparian woodlands, or pinyon juniper woodlands with open foraging habitat nearby. Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus BCC Pinyon juniper woodlands. *BCC=Birds of Conservation Concern; S=BLM Sensitive Species The woodlands, shrublands, and mixed grasslands within the project area provide nesting and foraging habitats for migratory and resident bird species at various times of year. Brewer's Sparrow, Juniper Titmouse, and Pinyon Jay were observed in the pinyon juniper woodlands and scattered sagebrush shrublands throughout the project area. No BCC species' nests were found during the survey. WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 34 January 2012 4.4 Terrestrial Species 4.4.1 American Elk and Mule Deer The proposed pipeline lies within CPW Game Management Units (GMU) 30 and 21, and is within mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and American elk (Cereus canadensis) overall and ranges as mapped by the CPW "NDIS" (CPW 201 la). The proposed alignment travels through elk winter range, an elk winter concentration area, elk severe winter range, an elk production area (Figures 2a through 2d), mule deer winter range, mule deer severe winter range, mule deer critical winter range, and a mule deer winter concentration area (Figures 4a through 4d) within Garfield County. Elk winter concentration areas, elk production areas, and mule deer critical winter range are considered "sensitive wildlife areas" under Section 1200 of the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) Rules (COGCC 2009). Winter concentration areas are defined as follows: "that part of the winter range where densities are at least 200% of the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter range in 5 out of 10 winters." Elk production areas are defined as "being that part of the overall range occupied by the females for calving." Results: Numerous deer and elk fecal droppings were observed throughout the project area during the 2011 surveys. During winter periods when deep snow covers low-lying vegetation mule deer migrate to lower elevations near the base of the Bookcliffs. Elk are able to winter at higher elevations than deer, and unless winter conditions become severe, will utilize the majority of the ridge tops. Habitat in the Bookcliffs in the project area is also heavily utilized by mule deer in the summer, as suitable summer range in limited in the area. 4.4.2 Black Bear and Mountain Lion CPW "NDIS" mapping (CPW 201 la) shows the project area to be within overall range for black bear (Ursus americanus) and mountain lion (Felis concolor), and a portion of the alignment travels through a black bear fall concentration area (Figures 3c and 3d). Both black bear and mountain lion sign were observed, and they are known to inhabit the project area. 4.4.3 Small Mammals Coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), desert cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus audubonii), rock squirrel (Spermophilus variegatus), and white-tailed antelope ground squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus) were observed during the surveys. Mountain lion, American elk, red fox (Vulpes vulpes), black bear, long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) may inhabit the project area. A variety of other small mammal species may be present, including black -tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus), valley pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and several species of mice (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Species of bats of the genus Myotis that may be present in denser woodlands and rocky outcrops and cliff areas throughout the project area include Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), California WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 34 January 2012 myotis (Myotis californicus), western small -footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), and little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). No incidental observations of bats were made during the surveys, but no bat -specific surveys were conducted. 4.4.4 Reptiles Bullsnake (a.k.a. gopher snake) (Pituophis catenifer), short -horned lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi) sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciousus), side -blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans), striped whipsnake (Masticophis taeniatus), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), and western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris) were observed during the surveys. Based on Hammerson (1999), other reptiles that may inhabit the project area include milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum), racer (Coluber constrictor), and tree lizard (Urosaurus ornatus). 4.4.5 Other Bird Species The varied vegetation communities present within the project area in Garfield County provide nesting and foraging habitat for various migratory and non -migratory bird species, depending upon the season of the year. Common bird species observed during the surveys can be found in Table 5. Table 5. Common bird species observed during surveys Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name American Robin Turdus migratorius Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea Ash throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Black -billed Magpie Pica pica Meadowlark (Western) Sturnella neglecta Black -capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides Black -chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri Mountain Chickadee Poecile gambeli Black -headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Black -throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigrescens Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Black -throated Sparrow Amphispiza bilineata Rock Wren Salpinctes obsoluetus Blue -gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Ruby -crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Brewer's Blackbird Ehphagus cyanocephalus Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya Brown -headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus Canyon Wren Catherpes mexicanus Stellar's Jay Cyanocitta stelleri Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 34 January 2012 Table 5. Common bird species observed during surveys Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Raven Corvus corax Violet -green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina Dark -eyed Junco Junco hyemalis caniceps Virginia's Warbler Vermivora virginiae Dusky Grouse Dendragapus obscurus Western Scrub jay Aphelocoma californica Green -tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana Hammonds Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii White -throated Swift Aeronautes saxatalis Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea 4.5 Aquatic Species 4.5.1 Amphibians Tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) and Woodhouse's toad (Bufo woodhousii) may occur in the project area along some of the intermittent washes, wetlands, and ponds within and near the upper reaches of West Evacuation Creek and West Salt Creek (Hammerson 1999), but none were observed. 4.5.2 Fish Species The proposed pipeline parallels Lake McAndrews for a portion of the alignment, which is a permanent waterbody on the north side of Baxter Pass. West Salt Creek and West Evacuation Creek are also crossed several times by the proposed pipeline. No fish sampling has been conducted in Lake McAndrews, West Salt Creek, or West Evacuation Creek by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (Elmblad 2011) and no fish were observed incidentally during surveys. 4.6 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species of Plants (TESS) The occurrence and distribution of TESS plants are strongly influenced by geologic formations and the resulting soil types present in an area. Individual TESS plant populations are usually scattered and often are comprised of a small number of individual plants. This is primarily a result of specific soil and moisture requirements of each species and the high variability in the distribution and surface exposure of the layers within the suitable geologic formations. No TESS plants were observed within Garfield County. Little to no TESS habitat occurs in Garfield County in the project area. Populations of Ferron's milkvetch, a BLM sensitive species, were found approximately 1.1 miles south of the Garfield/Mesa County line. 4.7 Waters of the United States (WOUS) WOUS include water features likely to be within the jurisdiction of the ACOE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Jurisdictional waters may include drainage courses (e.g., streams or ephemeral drainages that connect to streams via surface flow or subsurface connection), ponds, lakes, wetlands, and springs. WestWater Engineering Page 9 of 34 January 2012 4.7.1 Procedures Drainages indicated by blue lines on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps were compared with Enterprise project maps to determine which drainages might be impacted by pipeline construction activity. Those drainages were located, photographed, and recorded. Evidence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) was noted. Additional potential jurisdictional drainages which were encountered during field surveys but not necessarily indicated on topographic maps or having an OHWM were also recorded. Three photos were taken of each potential ACOE drainage - up slope, down slope, and at a point where the alignment may intersect it. These photos have been submitted to the ACOE. WWE biologists surveyed the area for potential wetlands, springs, and seeps along drainages and upland areas. Hydrology, soil, and vegetation characteristics were used to determine potential wetlands. Wetlands were then delineated at a later date and were verified by ACOE. Seventy-nine drainage crossings were recorded (Table 6) and several wetland areas were delineated within the Garfield County portion of the proposed alignment (Figures 4a through 4d). A wetland delineation report has been submitted to ACOE by WWE. Table 6. WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOUS) AND WETLANDS ACOE Potential Jurisdictional Drainages Label Easting Northing Width (ft.) Depth (in.) Pipeline Milepost Comment 99 673524 4359763 1.5 6 Blue line on USGS Topo. 693.99 100 673536 4359804 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 694.02 101 673582 4360852 2 1 Blue line on USGS Topo. 694.84 102 673632 4360885 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 694.89 103 673731 4361302 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 695.21 104 673709 4363035 3.5 2 Blue line on USGS Topo. 696.43 105 673749 4363307 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 696.6 106 673758 4363364 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. Channel less than lft wide 696.64 107 673833 4363733 1 2 No blue line on USGS Topo. 696.87 108 674051 4364894 3.5 5 Blue line on USGS Topo. 697.53 109 674169 4365296 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 697.82 110 674781 4365857 6 12 Blue line on USGS Topo. 698.34 111 675189 4366537 6 9 Blue line on USGS Topo. 698.9 112 675218 4366564 6 9 Blue line on USGS Topo. 698.92 113 675423 4367154 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 699.37 114 675484 4367274 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 699.46 115 675532 4367361 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 699.53 116 676037 4367847 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 700.06 117 676066 4367868 8 8 Blue line on USGS Topo. 700.09 118 676120 4367995 2.5 3 Blue line on USGS Topo. 700.25 119 676113 4368147 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 700.41 120 676096 4368319 5 7 Blue line on USGS Topo. 700.61 121 676062 4368533 1.5 10 Blue line on USGS Topo. Possible wetland 4ft wide. 700.84 122 676063 4368561 1.5 10 Blue line on USGS Topo. Possible wetland 7ft wide. 700.87 WestWater Engineering Page 10 of 34 January 2012 Table 6. WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOUS) AND WETLANDS ACOE Potential Jurisdictional Drainages Label Easting Northing Width (ft.) Depth (in.) Comment Pipeline Milepost 123 676065 4368604 1.5 10 Blue line on USGS Topo. Possible wetland 8ft wide. 700.92 124 675988 4369107 3.5 8 Blue line on USGS Topo. Possible wetland lft wide. 701.47 125 675977 4369147 5 6 Blue line on USGS Topo. Possible wetland loft wide. 701.51 126 675961 4369188 3.5 6 Blue line on USGS Topo. Possible wetland 10ft wide. 701.56 127 675943 4369233 6 6 Blue line on USGS Topo. Possible wetland 2ft wide. 701.61 128 675939 4369247 6 6 Blue line on USGS Topo. Possible wetland 2ft wide. 701.63 129 675772 4369446 4 7 Blue line on USGS Topo. Possible wetland 10ft wide. 701.93 130 675549 4369769 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. Channel less than lft wide x lin deep 702.2 131 675346 4370170 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 702.47 132 675291 4370272 5 8 Blue line on USGS Topo. 702.54 133 675153 4370494 6 6 Blue line on USGS Topo. 702.7 134 674912 4370930 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 703 135 674814 4371297 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. Channel less than lft wide x lin deep 703.23 136 674828 4371515 4 7 Blue line on USGS Topo. 703.37 137 674858 4371755 4 6 Blue line on USGS Topo. 703.52 138 674963 4372237 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 703.83 139 675153 4372659 4.5 8 Blue line on USGS Topo. 704.11 140 675315 4373050 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 704.38 141 675317 4373086 6 10 Blue line on USGS Topo. 704.41 142 675742 4374191 2 1 Blue line on USGS Topo. 705.16 143 676179 4374593 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 705.53 144 676442 4374768 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 705.73 145 676463 4374780 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 705.75 146 676527 4374794 12 4 Blue line on USGS Topo. 705.79 147 676620 4374889 11 5 Blue line on USGS Topo. 705.88 148 676802 4375014 4 12 Blue line on USGS Topo. 706.03 149 677052 4375296 1 1 Blue line on USGS Topo. 706.25 150 677246 4375946 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 706.65 151 677207 4376122 6 8 Blue line on USGS Topa Possible wetland 2ft wide. 706.76 152 677359 4376841 1 6 Blue line on USGS Topo. 707.2 153 677512 4376970 8 7 Blue line on USGS Topo. 707.29 154 677628 4377125 6 7 Blue line on USGS Topa Possible wetland 2ft wide. 707.39 155 677899 4377715 2 4 Blue line on USGS Topo. 707.7 156 677926 4377763 2 4 Blue line on USGS Topo. 707.72 WestWater Engineering Page 11 of 34 January 2012 Table 6. WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOUS) AND WETLANDS ACOE Potential Jurisdictional Drainages Label Easting Northing Width (ft.) Depth (in.) Comment Pipeline Milepost 157 678246 4378179 5 8 Blue line on USGS Topo. Possible wetland 0.5ft wide. 707.97 158 678406 4378408 3 6 Blue line on USGS Topo. 708.18 159 678275 4379174 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 708.89 160 678253 4379237 No OHWM No OHWM No blue line on USGS Topo. 708.95 161 678288 4379980 1 2 Blue line on USGS Topo. 709.52 162 679242 4381509 3 4 Blue line on USGS Topo. Possible wetland 9ft wide. 710.73 163 678103 4382553 1.5 2 Blue line on USGS Topo. Possible fringe wetland. 712.43 164 677666 4383276 1 1 Blue line on USGS Topo. Possible wetland lft wide. 713.1 165 676989 4383411 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 713.4 166 675338 4384084 5 1 Blue line on USGS Topo. West Evacuation Creek. No fringe wetland 714.37 167 674712 4386214 3.5 10 Blue line on USGS Topo. West Evacuation Creek. Possible fringe wetland. 715.58 168 673880 4387558 5 2 Blue line on USGS Topo. Possible fringe wetland. 716.48 169 673884 4387596 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 716.51 170 673451 4388297 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 716.96 171 673184 4388704 3 3.5 Blue line on USGS Topo. West Evacuation Creek. Possible fringe wetland. 717.26 172 673088 4388896 No OHWM No OHWM No blue line on USGS Topo. Narrow gully. 717.39 173 672897 4389725 5 8 Blue line on USGS Topo. West Evacuation Creek. Possible fringe wetland. PL parallels creek from here with fringe. 717.91 174 672856 4389812 4 2 Blue line on USGS Topo. Possible fringe wetland. 717.97 175 672619 4390168 2.5 26 Blue line on USGS Topo. West Evacuation Creek. Possible fringe wetland. 718.25 176 672346 4390837 1 1 Blue line on USGS Topo. 718.73 177 672312 4390975 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 718.82 178 672259 4391207 No OHWM No OHWM Blue line on USGS Topo. 718.98 WestWater Engineering Page 12 of 34 January 2012 5.0 IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General Wildlife Impacts and Recommendations Project construction will affect on-site wildlife habitat and native vegetation. Locating the pipeline within an adjacent existing pipeline corridor will lessen the potential effects to wildlife. The primary effects would be habitat alteration and displacement of individuals through disturbances related to increased development. The human disturbance that will be associated with the pipeline construction activities will indirectly cause some wildlife species to avoid the area, at least during the periods of human activity. Some wildlife species will become accustomed to the human activity while maintaining a distance that is tolerable. The impact to wildlife as a result of the pipeline installation and operation is relatively minimal and would not affect the overall status of wildlife populations of the area. However, the project and its ongoing activities will contribute to the overall cumulative impacts on wildlife populations of the area that has thus far experienced minimal habitat loss, fragmentation, alteration, and displacement due to increased development. The following recommendations for mitigation are presented for maintenance and improvement of wildlife habitat and prevention of human -caused impacts to resources. 5.1.1 Effects on Elk and Mule Deer The project will not significantly affect big game populations since the total area of disturbance is small relative to the total amount of similar habitat that is available in the project area. However, the project's disturbance to big game habitat will be cumulative to the previous habitat alteration that has occurred in the region. Construction of the pipeline will affect on-site vegetation and wildlife habitat by temporarily reducing the forage and cover available. Potential effects include the short term loss of elk and mule deer winter ranges, elk winter concentration area, elk severe winter range, elk production area, and mule deer critical winter range. As a short term effect, human presence and activities during pipeline construction may create an avoidance area for elk and mule deer populations within and immediately adjacent to the project area. However, in some instances deer and elk may have habituated to human disturbance factors. There will also be a short term loss of big game forage until disturbed sites are adequately rehabilitated with appropriate vegetation. 5.1.1.1 Recommendations for Mule Deer and Elk Because the proposed project lies within three sensitive areas for wintering big game (as defined by the 2009 COGCC rules), consultation with CPW is recommended before project development. CPW may recommend construction restrictions during the winter period and during the elk calving period. Disturbances associated with construction activities will likely cause elk and mule deer to select habitats in more secluded areas away from construction. Establishment of suitable vegetation through reclamation may attract big game to forage within the disturbance area associated with the project. 5.1.2 Effects on Raptors Eight occupied raptor nests were found within 0.5 miles of the project area. Activities associated with the proposed project have the potential to affect raptor populations through nesting disturbance depending on the distance from a nest to the disturbance. During the 2012 nesting season, it is probable that raptors will nest within the project area survey boundaries. It is also WestWater Engineering Page 13 of 34 January 2012 possible that previously unoccupied nests could become occupied or new nest locations could be established by nesting raptors before pipeline construction begins. 5.1.2.1 Recommendations for Raptors If construction activities take place during a future nesting season, a subsequent raptor survey is recommended. Timing limitations for construction activities should be applied to active raptor nests as outlined in the BLM WRFO Resource Management Plan (BLM 1997) and the BLM GJFO Resource Management Plan (BLM 1987). 5.1.3 Effects on Other Bird Species The effects on foraging and nesting habitat to a small number of passerine bird species is expected to be minimal. Vegetation that will be removed from the site is not unique and loss of habitat will not affect overall bird populations. 5.1.3.1 Recommendations for Bird Species In order to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, efforts to reduce potential impacts on nesting birds should be implemented by clearing brush and trees on the project site outside of the nesting season. Nesting season for migratory birds is generally considered to occur between May 15 and July 31 in this area for most species. June 1 to July 15 is the peak period when most incubation and brood rearing takes place. If brush/tree clearing can occur prior to May 1 most affected birds will relocate to alternate nesting sites. After mid-to-late July most fledging has occurred and brush/tree clearing impacts would be minimized. Establishment of suitable vegetation through reclamation in cleared areas will help restore nesting and foraging habitats for birds. 5.1.4 Effects on Black Bear and Mountain Lion Due to low population densities and large home ranges of both black bear and mountain lion, and because of the extensive amount of available habitat for these species, no significant effects from this project for these species are expected. 5.1.4.1 Recommendation for Black Bear and Mountain Lion The oakbrush habitat found near Baxter Pass within the project area provides good fall range for black bears. Potential encounters of black bear with construction personnel could potentially occur if garbage or food is available on the site. Incidences with human -black bear interactions sometimes result in the euthanasia of offending bears by the CPW. 5.1.5 Small Mammals The most likely impact to mammal species would be displacement due to project development and human presence. Due to the amount of habitat available in the surrounding area, this affect would be minimal. 5.1.5.1 Recommendations for Small Mammals No specific mitigation is recommended. 5.1.6 Reptiles Midget faded rattlesnake may occur in the project area. If built as currently proposed, this project would not directly impact the rocky outcropping habitat that may provide hibernacula or WestWater Engineering Page 14 of 34 January 2012 other critical habitat components. This species is uncommon and likely would not be affected by project development. The most likely impact to reptiles would be displacement due to pipeline construction and mortality caused by increased vehicle and equipment traffic. Due to the amount of available habitat in the project area, the effects of displacement would be minimal. Increased vehicle traffic would not likely result in any major decline in reptile populations in the project area. 5.1.6.1 Recommendations for Reptiles No specific mitigation is recommended. 5.1.7 Effects on Amphibians Waterways (i.e., intermittent washes, West Salt Creek, West Evacuation Creek) and riparian areas will be directly affected by project development, but there would likely be no long-term appreciable decrease in available habitat for amphibians. 5.1.7.1 Recommendations for Amphibians Efforts should be made to minimize impacts to amphibian species by developing and implementing an appropriate Stormwater Management Plan. 5.1.8 Effects on Endangered Fish If Enterprise plans to use water from the Colorado River or its tributaries for this project, BLM may require consultation with the USFWS to analyze and/or mitigate any potential impacts to threatened, endangered, or BLM sensitive fish species as a result of the proposed project. 5.1.8.1 Recommendations for Endangered Fish BLM may require consultation with the USFWS to analyze and/or mitigate any potential impacts to threatened, endangered, or BLM sensitive fish species as a result of the proposed project. 5.1.10 Other Wildlife Mitigation Practices 5.1.10.1 Erosion Efforts to control and repair soil erosion within the project area should be implemented. Disturbed soils within the project area are susceptible to erosion and downstream water quality could be negatively affected by increased soil erosion. The loss of top soils can negatively affect plant life and subsequent wildlife habitat values of the area. In addition to stormwater management around the project site, other current factors (noxious weeds, livestock grazing, other natural gas development) affecting soil erosion should be managed and remedial measures implemented. 5.1.10.2 Fences Numerous livestock fences will likely be dismantled and rebuilt as part of the pipeline construction project. Rebuilt 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 a 40 -inch maximum height specification WestWater Engineering Page 15 of 34 January 2012 for livestock fencing on federal lands when deer and elk are present (BLM 1989). The publication presented by CPW, "Fencing with Wildlife in Mind" provides fence designs that are friendly to wildlife and is available at the CPW web site at: http://wildlife.state. co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/LandWater/PrivateLandPrograms/DO WFencingWithWildlifelnMind.pdf. 5.1.10.3 Traffic Construction and service vehicle drivers should be encouraged to maintain modest speeds to reduce the chances of striking wildlife on public and private roads. Advisory signs with this cautionary message could be placed on roadways of the area. Posting speed limit signs where collisions with wildlife will most likely occur (on county and energy -industry roads) will help reduce losses to wildlife as a result of vehicle encounters. 5.1.10.4 Restoration and Maintenance of Habitat Reclamation plans should include efforts to restore the native vegetation communities once construction is complete in the project area. A comprehensive Reclamation Plan was prepared by WWE which contains a recommended seed mixture for reclamation of the disturbed areas (WWE 2012a). If properly applied in the appropriate areas, this seed mixture will benefit all wildlife populations in the area. An Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan was also prepared for the Garfield County portion of the WEP II pipeline (WWE 2012b), which contains recommendations for ongoing control of noxious weeds which will aid the establishment of desired vegetation in the reclaimed area. 5.2 TESS Plants Impacts and Recommendations 5.2.1 Impacts No threatened, endangered or sensitive plants were found in Garfield County and no impacts are expected. 5.2.2 Recommendations No specific mitigation is recommended. 5.3 WOUS Impacts and Recommendations 5.3.1 Impacts In Garfield County, the proposed WEP II pipeline will cause short-term impacts to several drainages and wetlands. 5.3.2 Recommendations Consultation with ACOE will be necessary to obtain the appropriate permits for construction of the proposed project through potentially jurisdictional WOUS. 6.0 REFERENCES Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado. WestWater Engineering Page 16 of 34 January 2012 BLM. 1987. Grand Junction Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction District, Grand Junction, Colorado. BLM. 1989. Manual, Handbook H-1741-1, "Fencing". Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. BLM. 1997. Record of Decision and Approved White River Resource Area, Resource Management Plan. United States Bureau of Land Management, Meeker, Colorado. BLM. 2009a. Colorado BLM State Director's Sensitive Species List. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Lakewood, Colorado. BLM. 2009b. Grand Junction Field Office Diurnal Raptor Survey Protocol (4-7-09). U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction, CO. BLM. 2010a. Grand Junction Field Office Standards for Contractor Inventories for Special Status Species (plants). U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction Field Office, Grand Junction, CO. BLM. 2010b. White River Field Office Standards for Contractor Inventories for Special Status Plant Species & Noxious Weed Affiliates (4-25-10). U.S. Bureau of Land Management, White River Field Office, Meeker, CO. BLM. 2011. White River Field Office Diurnal Raptor Survey Protocol (3-19-11). U.S. Bureau of Land Management, White River Field Office, Meeker, CO. COGCC. 2009. Complete Rules (100-1200 Series). Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission; http://cogcc.state.co.us/ Accessed January 2012. CPW. 2011a. Natural Diversity Information Source. Colorado Parks and Wildlife; http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlife.asp. Accessed 2011. CPW. 2011b. Wildlife Species of Concern. Threatened and Endangered List. Colorado Parks and Wildlife Web Home Page: http://wildlife. state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/ThreatenedEndangeredList. CWMA. 2007. S. Anthony, T. D'Amato, A. Doran, S. Elzinga, J. Powell, I. Schonle, and K. Uhing. Noxious Weeds of Colorado, Ninth Edition. Colorado Weed Management Association, Centennial. Elmblad, William R 2011. Personal communication with W.R. Elmblad (retired Colorado Division of Wildlife Fish Biologist) concerning fish habitat within the WEP II project area. May 2011. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History. University Press of Colorado. Niwot. Hammerson, G.A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado, Second Edition. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. WestWater Engineering Page 17 of 34 January 2012 Kershaw, Linda, A. MacKinnon, and J. Pojar. 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountains Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. Kingery, H. E. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. 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. Sibley, D.A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. National Audubon Society. Alfred A. Knopf, 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. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. USFWS. 2011. Personal communication with Terry Ireland via email concerning potential Mexican Spotted Owl habitat within the WEP II project area. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Grand Junction, CO. May 2011. Weber, W. A., and R. C. Wittman. 2001. Colorado Flora Western Slope, Third Edition. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Whitson, T. D. (editor), L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee, and R. Parker. 2001. Weeds of the West — 9:h edition. Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with Cooperative Extension Services, University of Wyoming, Laramie. WWE. 2011. Biological Survey Report. Enterprise Mid-America Pipeline. Western Expansion Project II. Prepared by WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado. WWE. 2012a. Reclamation and Monitoring Plan for the Western Expansion Project II (WEP II) Pipeline ROW. Enterprise Mid-America Pipeline. Prepared by WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado. WWE. 2012b. WEP II Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan. Garfield County, Colorado. Enterprise Mid-America Pipeline. Prepared by WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado, January, 2012. WestWater Engineering Page 18 of 34 January 2012 Legend Occupied Raptor Nest Unoccupied Raptor Nest Whole Milepost Tenth Milepost WEP II Pipeline ROW 1l4 Mile Survey Area BLM '. ;?estVVater >ngi,� Page 19 034 0 Garfield County, Colorado Figure la Raptors Enterprise WEP 11 16 Inch Pipeline Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report n'WestWater Engineering t Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0.5 1 Miles January 2012• January 2012 _..: .. _ gical Resource Repos Maps i-i6-72SGarlield County CO Rg 1s mud January 2012 ibb Legend Occupied Raptor Nest Unoccupied Raptor Nest Whole Milepost Tenth Milepost WEP li Pipeline ROW 114 Mile Survey Area ELM MP 703 Garfield County, Colorado Figure 1b Raptors Enterprise WEP II 16 Inch Pipeline Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report WestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0.5 WestWater Ene neerin ': Miles January 2012 ., epatt eeslsie oglca Resource -epo ops 1. 5. - :Gaffe aunty • lg 1B.m M. emery 012 aummilimmom 4D v A L L F CORA-4 COHA-3 BLM White River Field Office Legend Occupied Raptor Nest Unoccupied Raptor Nest Whole Milepost Tenth Milepost WEP II Pipeline © ROW 114 Mile Survey Area BLM RTHA-5 COHA-2 BLM Grand Junction Field Office COHA-1 Baxter Pass RTHA-4 MPP7.14- Garfield County, Colorado Figure lc Raptors Enterprise WEP II 16 Inch Pipeline Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report gWestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers &Scientists WestWAP _innin ap curse: Z+. more sport raps,: otaa ` esouroe. apart aps'I-1 _ roxd ,;anuar: a �yl x44 Frio Blanco Count Legend Occupied Raptor Nest Unoccupied Raptor Nest Whole Milepost Tenth Milepost WEP 11 Pipeline ROW 1/4 Mile Survey Area BLM COHA-7 COHA-6 CQHA-5 McAndrews Lake UNHA-1 CORA-3 RTHA-5 Garfield County, Colorado Figure Id Raptors Enterprise WEP II 16 Inch Pipeline Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report llWestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers &Scientists 0 0.5 COHA-2 COF(A-1 Baxter Pass *MP17,14 Miles WestWak ' _innin • 1 nta t'epo Tapsl a.g,ca R454,.1rce Report Taps - 4, a 1- aunty + `g. ..ma• anuary trart...7 Ts T r-. Legend Elk Winter Concentration Area r7Elk Severe Winter Range Elk Winter Range Whole Milepost Tenth Milepost WEP 11 Pipeline BS 104W 8 9 MP 694 201 oao 15 VestWater Fngi Page 23 bf 3 0 11 12 E Garfield County, Colorado Figure 2a Elk Activities Enterprise WEP II 16 Inch Pipeline Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report _WestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0.5 Miles anuary 2012 January 2012 p Source: Z.'•.Encerprise(EPCOY E, II. 13'.Aeport M ps'sBioru lcal Resource Report Maps'-+G-121Garrleld County CO Elg 2a.rnrd January 2012 rib MP 708 Legend Elk Winter Concentration Area Elk Winter Range Whole Milepost Tenth Milepost WEP 19 Pipeline WestWater Engineering M MP 1 Page 24, of 370 s Garfield County, Colorado Figure 2b Elk Activities Enterprise WEP II 16 Inch Pipeline Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report =141estWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0.5 rvliles January 2012 j January 2012 ['.air._ -._Ent FII`.GIS1Report apsVfliologmal Resource Report Maps 1-16-12\Ga eld County CO Rig 26.road January 202 dab MP 715 Legend Elk Production Area Eik Winter Concentration Area JElk Winter Range VVhole Milepost Tenth Milepost WEP ! I Pipeline BLM White River Field Office BLM BLM Grand Junction Field Office Baxter Pass 36 12 6S103W f Garfield County, Colorado Figure 2c Elk Activities MP 709 Enterprise WEP II 16 Inch Pipeline Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report 1't' estWater Engineering Consulting Engineers &Scientists 0.5 Miles WestWa Pinning c.e: Z.'En J:• MP 708 January 241{2 DCIS'\.Repos Maps'Joleocai Rescu 5 8 18 17 4epon. \laps 1 1e-s2.Gai`eld Ccurlti 0C Fig 2c.riud.:anuan 20'2'5 EAST TA44PIJTS Pot TEAV .2554 m Legend Elk Production Area Elk Winter Range Whole Milepost Tenth Milepost WEP 11 Pipeline BLM McAndrews Lake MP 715 Garfield County, Colorado Figure 2d Elk Activities Enterprise WEP II 16 Inch Pipeline Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report 11WestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers &Scientists Baxter Pass MP,P7,14 WestWAP _in?in t ort Taife Raoa 'eSOU rce "epon raps t- .- • ounly C. . anuary 1 5,5 CI VALLEY r Legend Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area ® Mule Deer Severe Winter Range Mule Deer Critical Winter Range Mule Deer Winter Range Whole Milepost Tenth Milepost WPP Il Pipeline BLM f>: i r4P : BS 104W 111111114111161611k. Garfield County Mesa County. Lao Soi rce .... .-. - -„ _.. � nternnse •i. 0 Garfield County, Colorado Figure 3a Mule Deer Activities Enterprise WEP II 16 Inch Pipeline Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report nWestWater Engineering 1 Consulting Engineers & Scientists ae Miles January 2012 Veno Taosl:ma a •esource •eprnt aps e• aunty • ig3arnu. enuary 1 Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area Mule Deer Critical Winter Range Garfield County, Colorado Figure 3b Mule Deer Activities Enterprise WEP 11 16 Inch Pipeline Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report WestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0.5 inecnn 1 n MP 701 Page 2f 34 �^`J� January 2012 Nl iles January 2012 r; - �a`8iologfcal Resource Repod Maps t-16- arfieid Caunty CO Fog 3h.re d January r, V A L L E Legend Mule Deer Winter Range ElBlack Bear Fall Concentration Area *l Whole Milepost Tenth Milepost WEP 11 Pipeline BLM White River Field Office BLM Grand Junction Field Office Baxter Pass Garfield County, Colorado Figure 3c Mule Deer, Black Bear Activities Enterprise WEP II 16 Inch Pipeline Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report esiMestWaterEngineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0.5 1 Miles WestWa I' ao eurce. n erpnse epu1 *ap curly ig c,mu• anuary Garfield County Legend ® Black Bear Fall Concentration Area Whole Milepost Tenth Milepost WEP II Pipeline BLM McAndrews Lake 0 Garfield County, Colorado Figure 3d Black Bear Activities Enterprise WEP II 16 Inch Pipeline Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report I"tWestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0.5 Miles WestWa P - i igPin 0 Baxter Pass +� ,A O t*OM i`eao -raos'em.arca `esaurce R-pori-aps •-t 6-• .Garfei ounly • •.m�. anuar K,. fr 4 r t; '_Wit �i-•� Wet 701.51 1 V 11]okou lgoom "J MP 701 _ • is 123 MP700 r s 4 121-M P700.84 ,- - -i i 19-MP700:41.1 •f., _ . / r F. . " 118-MP700.2r \\:. of(1):j 117-M P733 09 N D v R L L E 'Y rscyrrer Canyon Legend COE Crossings nDelineated Wetland Whole Milepost Tenth Milepost WEP 11 Pipeline BLM 1 J9-MP697.82 _ (1+ '♦ it 1++�,- I 36-MP696.64 .. — /I 105-MP696 6 4(" f. ,..!..._ 11.---1 - - s"-,---. •Q 104-MP696.43 r 'v i +�•+1 ,1, r (_ 7 .1.. • + MP 696 ---\ ,,!../ 1, ' \ ' r sow r le \\ � ° � / ��_ •ff 8S .104W Qi' _9 W 103-MP695 21 • 9 131-MP694-84 moi+ \l 444, +: a r!' ` • J' s` —r o° r of 4 • 99-M P693.99 GA,RFIEL, MESAL'r7t' --1-' r ater lg eering _ARF44D CO ---- 98-MP693.65 Page 31 4 34 0 Garfield County, Colorado Figure 4a COE Crossings and Wetlands Enterprise WEP II 16 Inch Pipeline Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report WestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0.5 Miles January 2012 January 2012 Map Source Z.'.Enlerpriee(EPCO l,E, IV.GIS`, eport M ps'i}folourcal Resource ReporlMaps 1-$0-12\Garfield County CO -i 4a.m cl January 2012 rbb ND VALLEY S1a P,v4 Legend COE Crossings Delineated Wetland Whole Milepost Tenth Milepost WEP II Pipeline BLM Wet 706.75 1 ,A1P706.65 =149+ MP706 ll �._ MP 706 ` te`' S,Ln 147-MP705 881 -. . / 142-MP705.16 fI #'MP 5 4 c ---C' 137-MP703. 52 136 \.1P70337,. MP 702\ 129-M P70193 128-MP7o1.63, c � Cel 176 MP701 56 �= r 41F 124—MP701 47-. 27 MP701 61 125-M9701151 Wet 701.51 WestWater ?,R:' MP 701 1? ,ge 3, /of 34 January 2012 Garfield County, Colorado Figure 4b COE Crossings and Wetlands Enterprise WEP 11 16 Inch Pipeline Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report riaMestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0.5 Miles January 2012 a'-Bio[ogecal Resource Report Maps 1-1 6-12\ Garfield County CO Fig 4b.mxd January 2012 'b 167-MP715.58 4- , :71 aSpring f �, `� 87 , MP 715 b �, `t:•Q Wet 714.84. f r n CA' Legend coE Crossings Delineated Wetland Whole Milepost Tenth Milepost WEP II Pipeline BLM BLM White River Field Office 8 ! 1 Spt itig Wet 714.65 ole Wet 713.28 BLM Grand Junction Field Office Baxter Baxter Pass 165-M P713.4 gs 164-MP7131 Wet 713.31 Wet 713.11 r'Spr,.e Wet 713.03 A.. Wet 712.44 �> Wet 712.27 63-MP712.43` ®..�....- MP 713 7464 \y ' l vl I L�� i1 ' `- . e,+ ,s MP 711 �. vim' i � t- `'� �� �� 1 lam_ _" I Wet 710.76 - St+ � -.._-�� 1 G2 MP710 73 1 , --/ Wet 710.73 �� f h 0 • _ �� . sA-, ,-,-/ ,_../.---,` .,yam , '._ - \- _ f � :j / - C _yf ` r.1 Wet 710,25 V '� f -/ ..,k''Wet 709.69 _ ' J �� p � Wet 710.66 Wet 710.35 J I \. ,— ' ' -1'1•7 ----,, - 1c 1 h„ P%CSA 5 �) - i, � � ,�' -rte.. � �' �i � ' J ' �. - I .�( i n Garfield County, Colorado Figure 4c COE Crossings and Wetlands Enterprise WEP II 16 Inch Pipeline Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report /fWestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0.5 Miles W e s tWa*PLRIMi gg ng 1724 Wet 709.61 - ' (✓ ,, ' itr I .� ``,_, i MP 709 ,_16:0-1\1P706.95 •t"� 1 9-MF768 89 1. i --7 i .� ', • Page 33 of 34 Er ie, p-.saiEPOC .WEP IIgGIS',Repon tAap5'9lolccical Resource �epa/ }Raps 1-16-12,Garfreld County GC Fig -e. ma J ,: an uary 20'2 ,Lib -182 1`.1P719.95 Easy TAVAPUTS PLATEAU C 19 l 181-MP719.73 �I 1l180-MP719.61 1 it i - D*rLAf4C0_ CO '. [WIELD CO 7331 m o County, Wet 719.21 C) ° L ■ •.178-MP71 S.98 �f l- d y 11,',, r !_ p l ,i i79-h3P719 0 rr - 177-MP718.82 - ,b, -1764:W718 73 Legend --- COE Crossings Delineated Wetland Whole Milepost Tenth Milepost WEP II Pipeline Wet 718.25 BLM MP 718 1744.1P717.97 `. 173-MP717 91 trill `Hole k• Wet 717.9 Wet 717.65 172-MP717 39� Wet 716.47 :tri 4iui Wet 716.22 Wet 716.18 Wet 716.17 Wet 716.32 Wet 716.13 Wet 716.24 Wet 715.1 Wet 716.06 Wet 716.13 Wet 716 09 Wet 716.04 Wet 715.4 Wet 715.43 - --- 3. `r .. npang Wet 714.84 MP.715 Wet 714.65 Garfield County, Colorado Figure 4d COE Crossings And Wetlands Enterprise WEP II 16 Inch Pipeline Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report \NestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0 0.5 '��.. Spri?tfi Miles WestWa P iyining Q Baxter Pass /I MP 714 lee-rviP71437 gcli Toµer P' ge,34 of 34 , ljanuary „ cc -rt _e,. F:7,3 IrEP 165-MP7 3. 34 Wet 713.31 epvrt %fa os $'iolnyma esau rce Reaffralaps i-i6-12�arFeld _.uu, L 4c14c11,,d lira _.