No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.05 Sensitive surveys• Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report * IVNWMP (Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weal Management Plan) • Report on Class 1 Cultural and Paleontological Resource Inventory HUNTER MESA TO PUMBA PIPELINE Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report Garfield County, Colorado Cover Photo: Coyote at pipeline facility near Pumba Compressor Station. Prepared for: EnCana Gil & Gas (USA) Inc. Prepared by: WestWater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 August 2010 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description At the request of EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. (EnCana), WcstWater Engineering (WWE) has prepared this Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report for the proposed IIunter Mcsa to Pumba pipeline project. The proposed alignment is located in Sections 10, 11, and 12, T7S, R93W and Section 35 T6S R93W, 6th Principal Meridian. This alignment is located southeast of Rifle, Colorado cast of Grass Mesa (Figure 1). The proposed alignment follows an existing pipeline corridor between the IIunter Mesa compressor station and the Pumba compressor station. Access to the project area is available via West Mamm Creek Road (Garfield County Rd. 319). The current primary uses of the area surrounding the proposed alignment are rangeland, wildlife habitat, rural residential sites, and natural resource extraction, including natural gas development. 1.2 General Survey Information Information used in the preparation of this report was gathered by WWE biologists during 2010 field surveys and previous assessments of wildlife, wildlife habitats, and habitats for sensitive plant species within the general area of the proposed project. Biological survey boundaries evaluated for this report are shown in Figure 1. '1'he purpose of the surveys 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) soil type and texture; 2) existing land management; 3) absence or presence of wildlife and plant species including raptors and sensitive migratory birds species; 4) wildlife and plants with special designations by Federal and State wildlife agencies; and 5) the existing natural vegetation community. This report provides written documentation that describes survey findings as well as recommended mitigation measures. 2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING 2.1 Vegetation and Climate Natural vegetation communities around the project area have been affected by residential developments, agriculture, fire, livestock grazing, and natural gas developments. Vegetation consists of pinyon juniper woodlands (Pinus edulis and Juniperus osteosperma) accompanied by big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), Ciambcl oak (Quercus garbelii), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus muntunur), and serviceberry (Anralanchier alnifolia), with an understory of mixed native and non-native grasses and forbs. Much of Hunter Mesa is a mixed grassland, including big sagebrush, yellow rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), and thickspike wheatgrass (dymus lancenlatus). Noxious weeds such as tamarisk (Tamarix sp.), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) are common and widespread throughout the project area. WcstWater Engineering Page 1 of 19 August 2010 The climate for the Colorado River Valley in the project area is considered semi -arid with a wide range of annual temperatures and precipitation. The average annual precipitation in the region ranges between 12 and 15 inches, and temperatures range from about 95 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer months to -10 degrees Fahrenheit during the winter months. 2.2 Soils Four soil types are found in the project arca (MRCS 2010) and are outlined in Table 1. Table 1. Soil types in project area. .. i! (, H-�j '!:: .i ,J$'+._•._.fF :.fl.. k .�:?.c - •�. flys S,=�. # v- -3 '�: •�ry;.-.: "; �.�Y.d i. - _ :�:'iY.��':. a n'u.;`'`° -iii'F _. i:v- _ '.. Y�Sy.el1P.V.: l. .':�:" yr n a;�;..,.:i.`.':;:''iT " .. _ e.ar-.°;:i": 'iS:�.13c'�3�':5... .. - ['. i. 1F•� • . {::ryf .E. r kit era w: �h?,'e ; .•:.. u . Olney Loam 3 to 12 Big sagebrush, Rabbitbrush, Western wheatgrass, Needle -and -thread grass, Indian ricegrass, Blucbunch wheatgrass 35.8 Potts Loam 3 to 12 Big sagebrush, Rabhitbrush, Western wheatgrass, Needle -and -thread grass, Indian ricegrass, Bluebunch wheatgrass, Bottlebrush squirreltail 42.0 Potts- Ildelfonso Complex Loam, Clay Loam, Stony to Very Stony Loam 12 to 25 Big sagebrush, Rabbitbrush, Antelope bitterbrush, Prairie junegrass, Western wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, Serviceberry, Needle -and -thread grass, Bluebunch wheatgrass, Bottlebrush squirreltail 4.1 Torriorthents- Rock Outcrop Complex Bedrock, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam 15 to 65 Big sagebrush, Rabbitbrush, Antelope bitterbrush, Prairie junegrass, Western Indian ricegrass, Serviceberry, Needle -and -thread grass, Bluebunch wheatgrass, Bottlebrush squirreltail 1$. I 18.1 These soils formed in non -saline alluvium derived from basalt, sandstone, and shale. Areas with these soils are primarily used for grazing and wildlife habitat. WcstWatcr Engineering Page 2 of 19 August 2010 2.3 Terrain The project area lies south of the Colorado River near the town of Rifle, Colorado. Terrain at the site is gently rolling to moderately sloping with some small rock outcrops. The proposed alignment is crossed by several small drainages, including Dry Creek and smaller unnamed drainages that flow in a northerly direction toward the Colorado River. EIevation along the alignment varies only slightly from approximately 6,000 feet above sea level at Dry Creek, to approximately 6,200 feet above sea level on Hunter Mesa. 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 Internet web by the Colorado Division of Wildlife's (CDOW) "Natural Diversity Information Source" (NDIS), were reviewed and incorporated into this report in reference to mule deer, elk, black bear, mountain lion, and state -listed threatened, endangered, and species of "special concern"(CDOW 2009; CDOW 2010a). A list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and their habitats were reviewed. This list is published by the USFWS through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), which places high conservation priorities for BCC species (USFWS 2008). Western Colorado is included in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 16 as mapped by the USFWS. Not all of the BCC species included in the list for Region 16 occur regularly in Colorado and some are present only as seasonal migrants. Of those known to breed in Colorado, only a portion are known or suspected to breed within the vicinity of the project area. Avian literature sources such as the "Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country" (Righter et al. 2004) and the "Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas" (Kingery 1998) 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). 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 or USFS sensitive plants, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Rare Plant Field Guide (Spackman et al. 1997) and locations of species documented in the CNHP statewide database. 3.2 Survey Methods A preliminary review of the project area, using aerial photographs, was conducted to familiarize personnel with vegetation types and terrain and as an aid to help determine the likelihood of the presence of threatened, endangered, or sensitive wildlife and plant species. Field data, including general project location, boundaries, and reported features, were verified and/or recorded with the aid of a handheld global positioning system (GPS) receiver utilizing NAD83/WGS84 map datum, with all coordinate locations based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system within Zone 13. WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 19 August 2010 Pedestrian surveys were conducted August 23 and 24, 2010 to identify and locate wildlife species, wildlife sign (tracks, fecal droppings, and vegetation disturbance), vegetation communities, and wildlife habitats. Vegetation types were determined through field identification of plants, aerial photography, and on -the -ground assessments of plant abundance. Identification of plant species was aided by using pertinent published field guides (Whitson et al. 2001, Weber and Wittman 2001, CWMA 2007, Kershaw et al. 1998). Visual searches for raptor and other bird species nests were focused on the pinyon - juniper woodlands within the survey area. Nest searches and bird identification were aided with the use of binoculars and song recognition, where needed. 4.0 RESULTS OF SURVEY 4.1 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 soil formations. Special status species of plants that may be present in the project area and their habitat preferences are listed in Tables 2 and 3 in two categories: 1) Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered, and Candidate Species, and 2) BLM Sensitive Species. Nomenclature and habitat descriptions are based on the CNHP literature (Spackman et al. 1997). Table 2. Potentially present federally -listed plant species. Scientific Name Common Name Status* Habitat Preference PJrsrcelia submutica Debeque phacelia C Chocolate -brown or gray clay on Atwell Gulch and Shire members of the Wasatch Formation; sparsely vegetated steep slopes. Elev. 4,700-6,200 feet Sclerocactus glaucus Colorado hookless cactus Typically xeric and fine textured Quaternary and Tertiary alluvium soils overlain with cobbles and pebbles; cold desert shrub and pinyon juniper communities along river benches, valley slopes, and rolling hills. Elevation 4,500-6,000 feet. * E= Federal Endangered, T= Federal Threatened, C= Federal Candidate Table 3. Potentially present BLM sensitive plant species. Seicntific Name Common Name Habitat Preference Penstemon harrtngtonii Harrington's Beardtounge Open sagebrush (rarely in pinyon juniper) with soils consisting of rocky loams or rocky clay loams derived from coarse calcareous parent materials. Elevation 6,800-9,200 feet. Results: No TESS plants were observed during pedestrian surveys of the proposed alignment. The soil characteristics and elevations along the alignment indicate that the project area could potentially support DeBeque phacelia and Colorado hookless cactus. WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 19 August 2010 The nearest populations of DeBeque phacelia known to WWE is located approximately 20 miles southwest in Horsethief Canyon. The nearest known population of Colorado hookless cactus known to WWE is located approximately 18 miles west near Smith Gulch. It is unlikely that Harrington's Beardtongue would occupy the project area as the site is outside the elevation limits for this species. 4.2 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species Two federally endangered fish species are known to occur in the Colorado River, which lies north of the project site approximately 3.5 miles. The project area drains into Mammo Crock and Dry Creek. These crocks flow into the Colorado River within or above designated critical habitat for the federally endangered Colorado pikcminnow and razorback sucker, which terminates at Interstate 70 exit 90 (State Highway 13) in Rifle, Colorado (Maddux et al. 1993). 4.3 State Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Wildlife Species WWE biologists determined that five state listed threatened, endangered, or special concern species may occur within the project area, which are listed in Table 4 (CDOW 2010b). Table 4. Potentially present state -listed wildlife species. WestWaler Engineering Page 5 of 19 August 2010 Pon i�i��Iv� :.`e tib +qyp �bif$� re#`�i�ci '�� ��`; ': `IK lr American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrines anatum SC High cliffs near pinyon juniper, ponderosa, or spruce -fir forests. Confirmed breeder in Garfield and Mesa counties. Elevations from 4,500 to over 9,000 feet Bald Eagle Haliaee#us leucocephalus T Open Water – Lakes, Forested Wetlands, Shrub Dominated Wetlands, GrasslForb Dominated Wetlands; Confirmed breeder in Garfield and Mesa Counties; common winter migrant along stream corridors; Elevation: 3,000 - 8,000 ft — Great Basin Spadefoot Spea intermantrxna SC Breeds during summer periods in temporary pools in ravines and drainages that experience water flow after heavy rain events; inhabits pinyon juniper woodlands, sagebrush, and semi desert shrublands; occurs north of the Uncompahgre Plateau at elevations below 7,000 feet. Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipienr SC Standing or running water; occurs in Garfield County; Elevation: 3,000-11,000 feet WestWaler Engineering Page 5 of 19 August 2010 Table 4. Potentially present state -listed wildlife species. Common Nance Scientific Name State Status Habitat Preference Townsend's Big -eared Bat Carynorhinus townsendii pallescens SC Mesic upland shrub, xeric upland, deciduous oak, bitterbrush, big sagebrush, desert, saltbush, and greasewood shrublands, pinyon juniper, riparian. Elevation: 3,000 — 9,500 feet * E= State Endangered, T= State Threatened, SC = Species of Special Concern Results: During surveys, no state listed threatened, endangered, or special concern wildlife species were observed in the project area. Bald Eagles nest in cottonwoods along the Colorado River, but limited nesting habitat for these birds exists within the survey area. No cliffs of sufficient height are found within the project area that could provide nesting habitat for Peregrine Falcons. The project area is within the elevation range for Townsend's Big -eared bats. They are known to roost in crevices on rock cliffs such as those that occur in drainages and on mesa slopes within the project area. Natural wet areas, as well as man-made water catchments in the project area could provide habitat for northern leopard frogs. No leopard frogs were observed. Great Basin Spadefoot toads could possibly utilize the dry washes and pinyon -juniper woodlands within the survey area. No toads were observed. The survey area could be used as prey foraging habitat by Peregrine Falcons and Townsend's big -eared bats. 4.4 Raptors and Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) 4.4.1 Raptors In addition to American Peregrine Falcon and Bald Eagle (Table 4), several raptor species nest, reside, forage, or pass through the general area of the proposed pipeline and are included in Table 5. Two of these species, the Golden Eagle and Prairie Falcon, are included on the Federal BCC list. Table 5. Raptor species that may be present in the project area CName ommon Scientific Name BCC Habitat & Breeding Records Aanerican Kestrel Falco sparverrus N Coniferous and deciduous forests and open terrain with suitable perches. Nests in cavities in trees, cliffs and buildings. Cooper's Hawk Accrprter cQoperir N Cottonwood riparian to spruce/fir forests, including pinyon/juniper woodlands. Nests most frequently in pines and aspen. Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Y Grasslands, shrublands, agricultural areas, pinyon - juniper woodlands, and ponderosa forests. Prefers nest sites on cliffs and sometimes in trees in rugged areas. WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 19 August 2010 } Table 5. Raptor species that may be present in the project arca Common Name Scientific Name BCC Habitat & Breeding Records Great Horned Owl Bubo virgrnranus N Occupies diverse habitats including riparian, deciduous, and coniferous forests with adjacent open terrain for hunting. Owl Otus flammeolus YFlammulated Open pine forests (particularly Ponderosa) in mountainous terrain. Nests in tree cavities created by other birds. Feeds primarily on insects, necessitating seasonal migrations. Long-eared Owl A is acus N Occupies mixed shrublands. Nests and roost in sites in dense cottonwoods, willows, scrub oak, junipers and dense forest of mixed conifers and aspens. No Northern [farrier n Circus cyaneus N 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. Northern Owl -whet Aegolius acadicus N Woodland habitats including pinyon juniper. Nests in tree cavities created by other birds. Feeds on insects and small mammals and may be present year-round. Osprey Fandron halr'aetur N Tall dead trees or power poles used as nest building platforms. Require a nearby body of water with fish large enough to catch. Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Y Nest on cliffs near open habitats such as grasslands and shrublands. Year-round resident of Colorado. Elevation generally below 10,000 feet, but occasionally above timberline. I laail Butes jamaicensrs N Diverse habitats including grasslands, pinyon- juniperRed-tailed woodlands and deciduous, coniferous and riparian forests. Nests in mature trees (especially cottonwood, aspen, and pines) and on cliffs and utility poles. Sharp- shinned Hawk Accr iter i' strralus N High density young, or even -aged, stands of coniferous forest and deciduous forests of aspen or oak brush with small stands of conifers. Swainson'sButeo Hawk swarnsoni N Arid grassland, desert, and agricultural areas with scattered trees and shrubs. Results: No occupied raptor nests were documented during the surveys. Fourteen unoccupied nests were located within the 0.25 mile survey boundary, but the nest material is more consistent with the size and arrangement of nests built by Corvids (American Crow or Common Raven). American Kestrels were observed but no nests were discovered. WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 19 August 2010 4.4.3 Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) other than raptors In addition to the raptors discussed above, WWE biologists surveyed the project area for the presence of BCC (songbirds) and their habitat. BCC habitat and nesting records, as described in the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas (Kingery 1998), Colorado Birds (Andrews and Righter 1992), and Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country (Righter et al. 2004) in the vicinity of the project area are summarized in Table 6. Table 6. BCC species that may be present in the project area Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri Sagebrush shrublands Juniper Titmouse Baeolophus griseus Pinyon juniper woodlands Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Pinyon juniper woodlands Results: Juniper Titmouse and Pinyon Jays were observed in pinyon juniper woodlands on the eastern edge of Grass Mesa. There is adequate habitat for Brewer's Sparrows, but none was observed. 4.5 Terrestrial Species 4.5.1 American Elk and Mule Deer The proposed pipeline lies within CDOW Game Management Unit (GMU) 42 and is within mule deer and elk winter concentration areas and severe winter ranges (Figures 2 and 3) as mapped by the Colorado Division of Wildlife's Natural Diversity Information Souce. Mule deer winter concentration areas and severe winter ranges, and elk winter concentration areas are considered "sensitive wildlife areas" under Section 1200 of the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) Rules (COGCC 2009) and are defined as follows: • Big game "Winter Range" is defined as "that part of the overall range where 90 percent of the individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to spring green -up". • "Winter Concentration Area" is defined as "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." • "Severe Winter Range" is defined as "that part of the winter range where 90% of the individuals are located during the average 5 winters out of 10 from the first heavy snowfall to spring green -up." • "Critical Winter Range" for mule deer includes both "Winter Concentration Areas" and mule deer "Severe Winter Range." !JaResults: No mule deer or elk were observed during surveys. TracksTi and droppings, as well as shed antlers and numerous carcasses of big game species were observed during the survey. The area primarily provides big game habitat during the late fall to early WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 19 August 2010 spring, but it is likely that in addition to migrating big game the area is utilized to some extent by small resident populations of both deer and elk. The elements necessary to provide year-round habitat for these species (forage, water, and cover) are present in or near the project area. 4.5.2 Black Bear and Mountain Lion CDOW "NDIS" mapping shows the project area to be within overall range for black bear and mountain lion (CDOW 2010a). The project area lies within 4 miles of a mapped black bear -human conflict area. The NDIS website defines a black bear -human conflict area as "the portion of the bear's overall range where two or more confirmed complaints per season were received which results in a CDOW investigation, damage to persons or property (except livestock), and/or removal of the problem animal." Black bear are transient species in the project area due to the distribution of adequate food sources. Black bears are omnivorous and their diet depends largely on what foods are seasonally available, although their mainstay is vegetation. In spring, emerging grasses and succulent forbs are favored. In summer and early fall, bears take advantage of a variety of berries and other fruits. In late fall, preferences are for berries and mast (acorns), where available. When the opportunity is present, black bears eat a diversity of insects, including beetle larvae and colonial insects (ants, wasps, bees, termites, etc.), and they kill a variety of mammals, including rodents, rabbits, and young or unwary ungulates. Black bear are in hibernation from mid-November through April or May. Mountain lions typically follow migrating deer herds as deer are their primary food source. The project area is within 7 miles ofa mountain lion -human conflict area. Mountain lion have Targe territories and are highly mobile as they search for food or new territories. Mountain lion prefer to hunt in rocky terrain near woodland habitats. These habitat conditions occur near the project area. Results: No black bear or mountain lion sign was observed. Black bears and mountain lions likely inhabit the area around the Pumba Compressor Station, and mountain lions likely follow migrating deer and elk throughout the project area in the winter. It is probable that some of the big game carcasses observed were mountain lion kills. 4.5.3 Small Mammals Common small mammal species (small game, furbearers, non -game) that may be present on the project site include coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), golden -mantled ground squirrel (Spermophilus lateralis), northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides), desert cottontail (Syvilagus audubonii), yellow -bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris), and least chipmunk (Taenias minimus). Results: During the survey, biologists observed coyote, desert cottontail, and golden - mantled ground squirrel. 4.5.4 Reptiles Bull snake (Pituophis catenifer), collared lizard (Crotaphytus collaris), plateau striped whiptail (Cnerrmidophorus velox), racer (Coluber constrictor), sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciousus), short -horned lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans), WestWater Engineering Page 9 of 19 August 2010 and western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) are reptiles that could potentially occur in the project area. Results: During the survey, biologists observed collared lizard, plateau striped whiptail and sagebrush lizard. 4.6 Aquatic Species 4.6.1 Amphibians The northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens), Great Basin spadefoot (Spea intermonlana), tiger salamander (Anihystonra ligrinum), and chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata) are amphibian species which may occur in or near the project in suitable ponds or drainages. Results: No amphibian species were observed. 4.7 Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) WWE biologists also recorded Army Corps of Engineers (COE) potential jurisdictional Waters of the United States (WOUS) and potential jurisdictional wetland areas encountered during the survey. Results: The proposed alignment crosses 17 potentially jurisdictional WOUS drainages, and no potential wetland areas were encountered during the survey. Figure 1 and Table 7 provide COE crossings. All locations are in UTM Zone 13, Datum is NAD 83. Table 7. Potentially jurisdictional WOUS in the project area. ID Easting Northing Description COE-1 265499 4372203 ACOE-No OHWM* COE-2 265933 4372199 ACOE-No OHWM* COE-3 266205 4372206 ACOE-No OHWM* COE-4 264640 4372251 ACOE-3.31X5"-Dry Creek drainage - culvert south of crossing COE-5 264524 4372282 ACOE-1.3"X l " COE-6 264110 4373557 ACOE-1'X1" COE-7 263880 4373499 ACO1-1'X1" COE-8 263563 4373567 ACOE-11X1" COE-9 263439 4373568 ACOE-1.6'X3" COE-10 263277 4373488 ACOE-1.1'X1" COE-11 263116 4373316 ACOE-1'X1" COE-12 262991 4373151 ACOE-1.61X1" COE-13 262847 4373039 ACO1E-1.3'X1" COE-14 262807 4372780 ACOE-2.3'X4"-culvert and drill road over drainage WestWater Engineering Page 10 of 19 August 2010 Table 7. Potentially jurisdictional W'OUS. in the project area. ID Easting Northing Description COE-15 262822 4372696 ACOE-1.1'X2" COE-16 262782 4372323 ACOE-0.8'x2" COE-17 262733 4372148 ACOE-I'Xl" *OHWM=Ordinary High Water Mark 5.0 EFFECTS TO WILDLIFE 5.1 Wildlife Impact Assessment Construction of the pipeline will affect on-site native vegetation and wildlife habitat, although much of the proposed alignment lies within an existing pipeline corridor that has been previously disturbed and reclaimed. Locating the pipeline within and adjacent to an existing pipeline lessens the potential effects to wildlife. The primary effects would be habitat alteration and displacement of individuals through disturbances related to increased development. 5.1.1 Terrestrial Species 5.1.1.1 Elk and Mule Deer Construction of the pipeline will affect on-site vegetation and wildlife habitat by reducing the forage and cover available by a small amount relative to the total amount of similar habitat that is available in the project area. Potential effects include the temporary loss of tis mule deer and elk winter range. The project will not significantly affect big game f' populations, and upon successful reclamation may benefit big game with increased forage availability if proper seed mixes are used. 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. Deer and elk have become somewhat habituated to human disturbance in the area. Establishment of suitable vegetation through reclamation will likely attract big game to forage within the disturbance area associated with the project. 5.1.1.2 Birds Raptors: No raptor nests are in danger of direct removal. If construction is delayed until 2011, it is possible that raptors may nest within the project area survey boundaries. These newly established raptor nests may be affected by disturbance associated with the project and if project completion is delayed, the area should be resurveyed by qualified biologists. Passerine Species: The affects to foraging and nesting habitat to a small number of 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 passerine populations. WestWater Engineering Page 11 of 19 August 2010 5.1.1.3 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. 5.1.1.4 Small Mammals The amount of available habitat for small mammals, including bats, should not be affected significantly by the proposed project. The amount of disturbance is not expected to affect small mammal populations. 5.1.1.5 Reptiles The amount of available habitat for reptiles should not be impacted significantly by the proposed project. The amount of disturbance is not expected to affect reptile populations. 5.1.2 Aquatic Species 5.1.2.1 Amphibians Downstream individuals would be most susceptible in the event contaminants were introduced to surface water during pipeline construction. The amount of available habitat for amphibians would not be affected by the project. The amount of disturbance is not expected to affect amphibian populations. 5.1.2.2 Endangered Fish The Colorado pikeminnow and the razorback sucker are both federally -listed fish species that occur in the Colorado River. Potential impacts from the project include sedimentation of tributaries to the Colorado River, and spills of chemicals, fuels from equipment, or other hazardous materials. It is unlikely that endangered fish in the Colorado River would be affected by this project since sediments are mostly contained by topography and not likely to reach the river. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and. Spill Prevention Counter Control (SPCC) measures should be followed to reduce any potential impacts to aquatic environments. 6.0 EFFECTS TO TESS PLANT SPECIES No TESS plants or their habitats were found during surveys, and therefore no affects on TESS plants are expected. 7.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations for mitigation are presented for maintenance and improvement of wildlife habitat, quality, and prevention of human -caused impacts to resources. 7.1 Maintenance and Restoration of Habitat Reclamation plans should include efforts to restore the native vegetation communities once construction is complete in the project area. The companion report to this document, the "Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan (IVNWMP), Hunter Mesa to Pumba Pipeline" (W WE 2010) contains a recommended seed mixture for WestWater Engineering Page 12 of 19 August 2010 reclamation of the disturbed areas. If properly applied, this seed mixture will benefit all wildlife populations in the area. The IVNWMP also recommends ongoing control of noxious weeds which will aid the establishment of desired vegetation in the reclaimed area. 7.2 Planning for Sensitive Time Periods and Areas 7.2.1 Mule Deer and Elk Because the proposed project lies within a sensitive area for wintering big game (as defined by the 2009 COGCC rules), consultation with CDOW is recommended before project development. Disturbances associated with construction activities will likely cause elk and mule deer to select habitats in more secluded areas away from construction. This disturbance should not result in any long-term impacts to mule deer or elk. 7.2.2 Migratory Birds In order to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by showing a good faith effort to reduce potential impacts on nesting birds, any brush/tree clearing at the project site should take place 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. 7.2.3 Raptors Pipeline construction activities within the project area are unlikely to affect raptor populations. If construction is delayed until 2011 or later, the area should be resurveyed to ensure no new raptor nests have been built that may be affected by the project. If nests are then discovered, the potential for possible effects to raptors could be reduced by scheduling construction activities so there is no interference with breeding, nesting, and brood rearing activities of the species occupying the new nest sites. If new nests are discovered during subsequent surveys, WWE recommends temporal and spatial restriction guidelines for construction activities near active nests based on BLM stipulations (BLM 1987), Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) recommendations (Craig 2002 and Klute 2008) and literature review of nesting season timing for raptors in the Roan Plateau region (Andrews and Righter 1992, Kingery 1998). These recommendations are summarized in Table 8. Table 8. Timing and buffer recommendations for active raptor nests. Species 1 Buffer Zone Seasonal Restriction American Kestrel Bald Eagle 0.50 mile 15 October -31 July Cooper's Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April —15 August Golden Eagle 0.50 mile 15 December — 15 July WestWater Engineering Page 13 of 19 August 2010 Table 8. Timing and buffer recommendations for active raptor nests. @; S;,:_,,r yyltti#C� ri. '3^��.s.i ".�`..:. tii �".x:•,.i: ;hs .•: r:: .y". .•i. Q 001' •'F ... ..r.,":fir, .. .. .y`. Great I lomed Owl * * long -cared Owl 0.25 mile 1 March - 15 July Northern 1 Iarrier 0.25 mile 1 April -- 15 August Osprey 0.25 mile 1 April — 31 August Peregrine Falcon 0.50 mile 15 March — 31 July Prairie Falcon 0.50 mile 15 March— 15 July Red-tailed Hawk 0.33 mile 15 February - 15 July Sharp -shinned Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April — 15 August Swainson's Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 July Circat Homed ❑w and K.csirvls aro rclativdy lol rent of human activity. Keep activity to a minimum during breeding season. 7.3 Other Mitigation Practices 7.3.1 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. 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. WestWater Engineering Page 14 of 19 August 2010 Legend ACCE _-• • Pumba to Hunter Pipeline Raptor Buffer 1/4 mi Raptor Buffer 1/2 ml Compressor Stations Figure 1: EnCana 011 & Gas (USA) Inc. Hunter Mesa to Pumba Pipeline Project Location & ACOE Crossings August 2010 "NestWater Engineering Environmental Gnnswdng servion 0 015 03 OB Miro a Source' 2'.EnCana Oil S. Gas USA. Inc'Jiunter Mesa PL and Compressor\GIS ObltteIG 1 rnj Aug, 2010 Legend Pumba to Hunter Pipeline Compressor Stations Mule Deer Severe Winter Range - Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area Figure 2: EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. Hunter Mesa to Pumba Pipeline Mule Deer Activities ;,NestWater Engineering w1uomSnrn Con,ulttrop Sanlees August 2010 a o,12s 25 o wet Source: L:1Cncune G>II b us5 VSA, Inc.Munter Mese PL anC Lompre'J5ork,71ti51W{Ipl{1e rust rnj Aug. 2Q1Q Legend -�= Pumba to Hunter Pipeline Compressor Stations Elk Winter Concentration Area Figure 3: EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. Hunter Mesa to Pumba Pipeline Elk Activities WestWater Engineering Fnvironmarnlal Cositutthl,g iervitlei August 2010 0 0.`.25 0.25 0.5 MI es Source: 2:'EnC&na C244 & Gas USA, lncHun:ar Mesa PL eiKl CampreSsmMG 3$ilh71111fe 8.0 REFERENCES Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado. BIM. 1987. Grand Junction Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, Grand Junction. CDOW. 2009_ Colorado Division of Wildlife. Species Activities Maps. Natural Diversity Information Source. http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edulftp/ftp_response.asp. Accessed July 12, 2010. CDOW. 2010a. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Natural Diversity Information Source. http:llndis.nrel.colostatc.edu/wildlife.asp. Accessed July 12, 2010. C1)OW. 2010b. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Wildlife Species of Concern. "Threatened and Endangered List. CDOW Web Home Page: http : //w i I d l i fe. state . co . u sl W i l d l i feS pee i e s/S peci a sOfCo n ce rnf l'h reaten edEndan gered l , i st. COGCC. 2009_ Colorado Oil and Cas Conservation Commission Complete Rules (100-1200 Series). http:llcogcc.state.co.usl Accessed July 12, 2010. Craig, Gerald R. 2002. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. CWMA. 2007. S. Anthony, T. D'Amato, A. Doran, S. Elzinga, J. Powell, I. Sehonle, and K. Uhing. Noxious Weeds of Colorado, Ninth Edition. Colorado Weed Management Association, Centennial. 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. Klutc, D. 2008. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Maddux, H., L. Fitzpatrick, and W. Noonan. 1993. Colorado River Endangered Fishes Critical Habitat. Biological Support Document. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah/Colorado Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, 225 pp. NRCS. 2010. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soli Survey: http:Ilwebsoilsurvcy.nres.usda.govl. Accessed July 12, 2010. Righter, R., R. Levad, C. Dexter, and K. Potter. 2004. Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country. Grand Valley Audubon Society, Grand J unction, Colorado. Spackman, 5., 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 Ileritage Program. USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia, Weber, W. A., and R. C. Wittman. 2001. Colorado Flora Western Slope, Third Edition. University Press of Colorado, Houlder. WestWater Engineering Page 18 of 19 August 2010 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 — 9th edition. Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with Cooperative Extension Services, University of Wyoming, Laramie WWE. 2010. WestWater Engineering. Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan. Hunter Mesa to Pumba Pipeline, Garfield County, Colorado. August, 2010. WestWater Engineering Page 19 of 19 August 2010 HUNTER MESA TO PUMBA PIPELINE Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan Garfield County, Colorado Cover photo: View of vegetation conditions along the proposed alignment. Prepared for: EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. Prepared by: WestWater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 August 2010 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description At the request of EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., WcstWater Engineering (WWE) has prepared an Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan (IVNWMP) for the proposed Ilunter Mesa to Pumba pipeline project, The proposed alignment is located in Sections 10, 11, and 12, T7S, R93W and Section 35 T6S R93W, 6th Principal Meridian. This alignment is located southeast of Rifle, Colorado east of Grass Mesa (Figure 1). The proposed alignment follows an existing pipeline corridor between the Hunter Mesa compressor station and the Pumba compressor station. Access to the project area is available via West Mamm Creek Road (Garfield County Rd. 319). The current primary uses of the area surrounding the proposed alignment are rangeland, wildlife habitat, rural residential sites, and natural resource extraction, including natural gas development. 1.2 General Survey Information Field inspections of the project area were conducted by WWE biologists in August 2010. WWE biologists surveyed the area to identify vegetation communities and to search for, identify, and map noxious weed species_ Mapped soil types, as published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), were reviewed to determine the soil types and vegetation characteristics at the project site (N RCS 2010). Vegetation types in the project area were determined through field identification of plants, aerial photography, and on -the -ground assessment of plant abundance visible during the survey. Identification of plant species was aided by using pertinent published field guides (Whitson et al. 2001, C W MA 2007, Kershaw et al. 1998, Weber and Wittmann 2001). Photographs were taken of the general project location, vegetation, terrain, and specific weed findings. Locations of weeds and other features included in this report were recorded with the aid of a handheld global positioning system (GPS) receiver using NAD83 map datum, with all coordinate locations based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system in Zone 13. 2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING 2.1 Vegetation and Climate Natural vegetation communities around the project arca have been affected by residential developments, agriculture, fire, livestock grazing, and natural gas developments. Vegetation consists of pinyon juniper woodlands (Pinus edulis and Juniperus osteosperma) accompanied by big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), Gambel oak (Quercus garbelii), mountain mahogany (Cereocarpus montanus), and serviceberry (Amalanchier almfolia), with an understory of mixed native and non-native grasses and forbs. Much of Hunter Mesa is a mixed grassland, including big sagebrush, yellow rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidijlorus), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum srnithii), intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), and thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus). Noxious weeds such as tamarisk (Tamarix sp.), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) are common and widespread throughout the project area. The climate for the Colorado River Valley in the project area is considered semi -arid with a wide range of annual temperatures and precipitation. The average annual precipitation in the region ranges between 12 and 15 inches, and temperatures range from about 95 degrees Fahrenheit in WcstWater Engineering Page 1 of 11 August 2010 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description At the request of EnCana OH & Gas (USA) Inc., WestWater Engineering (WWE) has prepared an Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan (IVNWMP) for the proposed Hunter Mesa to Pumba pipeline project. The proposed alignment is located in Sections 10, 11, and 12, T7S, R93W and Section 35 T6S R93W, 66 Principal Meridian. This alignment is located southeast of Rifle, Colorado east of Grass Mesa (Figure 1). The proposed alignment follows an existing pipeline corridor between the 1 -Hunter Mesa compressor station and the Pumba compressor station. Access to the project area is available via West Marnm Creek Road (Garfield County Rd. 319). The current primary uses of the area surrounding the proposed alignment are rangeland, wildlife habitat, rural residential sites, and natural resource extraction, including natural gas development. 1.2 General Survey Information Field inspections of the project area were conducted by WWF biologists in August 2010. WWF: biologists surveyed the area to identify vegetation communities and to search for, identify, and map noxious weed species. Mapped soil types, as published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), were reviewed to determine the soil types and vegetation characteristics at the project site (NRCS 2010). Vegetation types in the project area were determined through field identification of plants, atrial photography, and on -the -ground assessment of plant abundance visible during the survey. Identification of plant species was aided by using pertinent published field guides (Whitson et al. 2001, CWMA 2007, Kershaw et al. 1998, Weber and Wilt€Hann 2001). Photographs were taken of the general project location, vegetation, terrain, and specific weed findings. Locations of weeds and other features included in this report were recorded with the aid of a handheld global positioning system (GPS) receiver using NAD83 map datum, with all coordinate locations based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system in Zone 13. 2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING 2.1 Vegetation and Climate Natural vegetation communities around the project area have been affected by residential developments, agriculture, fire, livestock grazing, and natural gas developments. Vegetation consists of pinyon juniper woodlands (Pinus edulis and Juniperus osteosperma) accompanied by big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), and serviceberry (Amalanchier aln folia), with an understory of mixed native and non-native grasses and forhs. Much of Hunter Mesa is a mixed grassland, including big sagebrush, yellow rabbitbrush (Chryrothamnus viscidiflor-us), western wheatgrass (Parcapyrum smithii), intermediate wheatgrass (7hinopyr•unr interrnediurn), and thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus). Noxious weeds such as tamarisk (7arnarix sp.), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) are common and widespread throughout the project area. The climate for the Colorado River Valley in the project area is considered semi -arid with a wide range of annual temperatures and precipitation. The average annual precipitation in the region ranges between 12 and 15 inches, and temperatures range from about 95 degrees Fahrenheit in WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 11 August 2010 the summer months to -10 degrees Fahrenheit during the winter months. 2.2 Soils Four soil types are found in the project area (NRCS 2010) and are outlined in Table l . Table 1. Soil types in project area. } L ' .� 1`• V. I.Y .S 6 Olney Loam 3 to 12 Big sagebrush, Rabbitbrush, Western wheatgrass, Needle -and- thread grass, Indian ricegrass, Bluebunch wheatgrass 35.8 Potts Loam 3 to 12 Big sagebrush, Rabbitbrush, Western wheatgrass, Needle -and - thread grass, Indian ricegrass, Bluebunch wheatgrass, Bottlebrush squirreltail 42.0 Potts- Ildelfonso Complex Loam, Clay Loam, Stony to Very Stony Loam 12 to 25 Big sagebrush, Rabbitbrush, Antelope bitterbrush, Prairie junegrass, Western wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, Serviceberry, Needle -and -thread grass, Rlucbunch wheatgrass, Bottlebrush squirrcltail 4.1 rforriorthents- Rock Outcrop Complex Bedrock Sandy' Loam, Clay Loam 15 to 65 I3ig sagebrush, Rabbitbrush, Antelope bitterbrush, Prairie junegrass, Western wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, Serviceberry, Needle -and -thread grass, Bluebunch wheatgrass, Bottlebrush squirreltail 18.1 These soils formed in non -saline alluvium derived from basalt, sandstone, and shale. Areas with these soils are primarily used for grazing and wildlife habitat. 2.3 Terrain The project area lies south of the Colorado River near the town of Rifle, Colorado. Terrain at the site is gently rolling to moderately sloping with some small rock outcrops. The proposed alignment is crossed by several small drainages, including Dry Creek and smaller unnamed drainages that flow in a northerly direction toward the Colorado River. Elevation along the alignment varies only slightly from approximately 6,000 feet above sea level at Dry Creek, to approximately 6,200 feet above sea level on Iluntcr Mesa. WcstWatcr Engineering Page 2 of 11 August 2010 3.0 NOXIOUS WEEDS 3.1 Introduction to Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds are plants that are aggressive competitors with native plants when non-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 ratan, animals, water, and wind. Prime locations for the establishment of noxious weeds include roadsides, construction sites, areas that are overused by animals or humans, wetlands, and riparian corridors. Subsequent to soil disturbances, vegetation communities can be susceptible to infestations of invasive or exotic weed species. Vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction can create optimal conditions for the establishment of invasive, non-native species. Construction equipment traveling from weed -infested areas into weed -free areas could disperse noxious or invasive weed seeds and propagates, resulting in the establishment of these weeds in previously weed -free areas. The Colorado Noxious Weed Act (State of Colorado 2005) requires local governing bodies to develop noxious weed management plans. Both 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. The Garfield County Weed Advisory Board has compiled a list of2I plants from the State list considered to be noxious weeds within the county (see Appendix A). The Garfield County Weed Advisory Board has duties to: 1. Develop a noxious weed list, 2. Develop a weed management plan for designated noxious weeds, and 3. Recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that identified landowners submit an integrated weed management plan for their properties. 3.2 Observations The undisturbed vegetation communities that surround the project site are generally not heavily infested with noxious weeds, other than widespread chcatgrass and field bindweed (also known as morning glory). In areas where soil disturbances (roads, residences, agriculture, fire, repeated heavy grazing, and other developments) have altered the natural vegetative composition, noxious weeds have taken advantage of these growing conditions which favor non-native vegetation. The weed survey conducted included the width of the existing alignment plus 100 feet on either side. In some cases, the infestations extend outside of the surveyed area and successful control efforts would need to include these extensive infestations. Weed locations are found in Figure 1 and Appendix B. Garfield County listed weeds observed in the project area included Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense—CIAR4), common burdock (Arafura minus---ARMI), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale---CYOF), musk thistle (Carduus nutans—CANU4), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens ACRES), and tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima– TARA). WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 11 August 2010 In addition, several weeds listed by the State of Colorado, but not by Garfield County were observed. These included bull thistle (Cirsiur vulgare—CIVU), cheatgrass (11rnnus tectorum— BRTE), common mullein (Verhaseum Thapsus—VETH), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis—COAR4), and halogeton (rl'alogetan glameratus—HAGI.). Several other weed species were found in the project area that are not listed by the State of Colorado or Garfield County, but may be considered nuisance weeds. These plants can negate revegetation efforts and cause losses due to decreased seeding success and associated costs. The presence of these plants creates increased competition for resources and can negatively affect desirable plant species. Plants in this category observed in the project area include curly dock (Runnex crispus), kochia (Bassin Americana), Russian thistle (aka tumbleweed) (Salsala tragus), tumble mustard (Sisymbriurn altissimur), and white horehound (Marrubium vulgare). 3.3 Integrated Weed Management Control of invasive species is a difficult task and requires intensive on-going control measures. Care must be taken to prevent damage to desirable plant species during treatments to prevent further infestations by other pioneer invaders. Weed management is best achieved through a variety of methods over a long period of time including inventory (surveys), direct treatments, prevention through best management practices, monitoring of treatment efficacy, and subsequent detection efforts. Weed management is often reserved to "control" of existing species and prevention of further infestations (existing and new species) rather than eradication. After successful and effective management, decreases in infestation size and density can be expected, and after several years of successful management practices, eradication is sometimes possible. 3.4 Prevention and Assessment of Noxious Weed Infestations Weed management is costly and heavy infestations may exceed the economic threshold for practical treatment. Prevention is especially valuable in the case of noxious weed management. 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 through prevention. 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 -seed 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. Assessment of the existence and extent of noxious weeds for an area is essential for the development of an integrated weed management plan. This report provides an initial assessment of the occurrence of noxious weeds for the project area. In order to continue effective management of noxious weeds, further inventory and analysis is necessary to 1) determine the effectiveness of the past treatment strategies; 2) modify if necessary the treatment plan; and 3) early detection of new infestations, which would result in more economical treatments. WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 11 August 2010 3.5 Treatment and Control of Noxious Weed Infestations Control methods for the Garfield County listed noxious weed species found in the project area are described in Table 2. Included in Table 2 are weed life cycle type and recommended control methods for each weed species. Table 2. Listing status and control methods for noxious weeds observed in project arca. CNamepn U nboi — • • Control`Method Bull thistle°CIVII B Mechanical removal by tillage or Eland grubbing in the rosette stage; mowing at bolting or early flowering. Biological control with seed head & rosette weevils or leaf feeding beetles is effective but not recommended in this area due to the possibility of negatively affecting native thistles. Herbicides are effective particularly in rosette stage. Canada Thistle CIAR4 B Reseed with competitive plants is necessary, mow every 2 weeks over 3 growing seasons. Follow mowing with fall herbicide application. Herbicides with two or more modes of action in late summer or fall are beneficial. Cheatgrassc BRTE A lourneyC provides pre- and post -emergence control of a variety of weeds including cheatgrass. Journey may be used prior to planting desirable species on project area land at rates up to 32 ounces per acre per year. For best results in cheatgrass control, Journey should be applied in late summer or fall before cheatgrass emerges and prior to planting desirable species, as it cannot be used after newly seeded desirable species have begun to emerge. Common BurdockC ARMI2 B Control options include: 1) no treatment; 2) cut and bag seed -bearing plants from previous year, cut rosettes below soil surface, cut or spot spray bolting plants; 3) spot spray rosettes and bolting plants annually. The action options all include a recommendation to defer grazing by domestic livestock until burdock is controlled or eradicated. Common Mullein VETII A Re -seed with aggressive grasses; mechanical removal of rosettes; herbicides, Field Bindweed COAR4 CP This weed reproduces by seed and horizontal roots. It is one of the most competitive perennial weeds and is very difficult to eradicate. Seeds can stay viable in the soil for up to 40 years. Some success in control is reported in Mesa County with the use of bindweed mites (Aceria malherbae). WcstWater Engineering Page 5of11 August 2010 Table 2. Listing status and control methods for noxious weeds observed in project area. Common Name* U011YA: Syz I ol_ . Type**, Control Methods Halogetons IIAGL A Control via mechanical and chemical methods required to prevent major infestations. For long term control this must be followed by reseeding with desirable plants to have a lasting effect. Houndstongue CYOF B Treat ist year plants with herbicides. Mow bolted plants (2"d year) to eliminate seed production. Repeat this process for several years to exhaust the seed bank, while establishing a healthy population of native perennials on treated areas to prevent the re-establishment of the weeds. Chemicals for treatment of first year growth include: Ally/Escort, Plateau, Tordon 22K and Vanquish. Musk this#le13 CANi74 B Mechanical removal by tillage or hand grubbing in the rosette stage; mowing at bolting or early flowering. Biological control with seed head & rosette weevils or leaf feeding beetles is effective but not recommended in this area due to the possibility of negatively affecting native thistles. Herbicides are effective particularly in rosette stage. RussianACRE3 Knapweede P Apply herbicide in fall (Curtail recommended). Reseed disturbed sites with fast growing grasses. Allelopathic — once Russian knapweed has become established tillage may be necessary (only after control is achieved as this plant is capable of vegetative propagation if live plants are tilled) to allow revegetation of desirable plants. Tamarisks TARA P Repeated flooding prevents seedling establishment. Herbicide treatment on basal portion of young plants; cut larger plants and treat with herbicide plus adjuvant within 30 minutes. Plant area with native species to shade out tamarisk. Biological with insects if available. * Government weed listing: Bold=Garfield County Noxious Weed. Superscript - Colorado State BorClist. ** Type: A = annual; B = biennial; CP :: creeping perennial; P = perennial 3.6 Recommended Treatment Strategies It is important to know whether the target is an annual, biennial, or perennial to select strategies that effectively control and eliminate the target. Treatment strategies vary depending on plant type, which are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Herbicides should not always be the first treatment of choice when other methods can be effectively employed. WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 11 August 2010 Table 3. Treatment Strategies for Annual and Biennial Noxious Weeds Target: Prevent Seed Production 1. Hand grub (pull), hue, till, cultivate in rosette stage and before flowering or seed maturity. If seeds develop, cut and bag seed heads. 2. Cut roots with a spade just below soil levet. 3. Treat with herbicide in rosette or bolting stage, before flowering. 4. Mow biennials after bolting stage, before seed set. Mowing annuals will not prevent flowering, but can reduce total seed production. (5irota 2004) Table 4. Treatment Strategies for Perennials Target: Deplete nutrient reserves in root system, prevent seed production 1, Allow plants to expend as much energy from root system as possible, do not treat when first emerging in spring, but allow growth to bud/bloom stage. If seeds develop, cut and bag if possible. 2. Herbicide treatment at bud to bloom stage or in the fall (recommended after August 15 when natural precipitation is present). In the fall, plants draw nutrients into the roots for winter storage. l lerbicides will be drawn down to the roots more efficiently at this time due to translocation of nutrients to roots rather than leaves. If the weed patch has been present for a long period of time, another season of seed production is not as important as getting the herbicide into the root system. Spraying in fall (after middle August) will kill the following year's shoots, which are being formed on the roots at this time. 3. Mowing usually is not recommended because the plants will flower anyway; seed production should be reduced. Many studies have shown that mowing perennials and spraying the re -growth is not as effective as spraying without mowing. Effect of mowing is species dependent; therefore, it is imperative to know the species and its basic biology. Timing of application must be done when biologically appropriate, which is not necessarily convenient. 4. Tillage may or may not be effective. Most perennial roots can sprout from pieces only V2 in. —1 in. long. Clean machinery thoroughly before leaving the weed patch. 5. Hand pulling is generally not recommended for perennial species unless you know the plants are seedlings and not established plants. Hand pulling can be effective nn small patches but is very labor intensive because it must be done repeatedly. (Sirota 2004) Some weeds, particularly annuals and biennials, can develop resistance to herbicides. The ability to quickly develop immunity to herbicides, especially when they are used incorrectly, makes it imperative to use the proper chemicals at the correct time in the specified concentration according to the product label. Most misuse is centered on excessive application, either in frequency or concentration. This results in mostly top kill and resistant phenotypes. 3.7 Best Management Practices — Noxious Weeds Construction: The following practices should be adopted for any construction project to reduce the costs of noxious weed control and aid in prevention efforts. 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; WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 11 August 2010 • Wetland vegetation, if encountered, should be live handled like sod, temporarily watered if necessary, and placed over excavated sub -soil relative to the position from which the wetland sod was removed; • Cut-off collars should be placed on all wetland and scream crossings to prevent back washing or draining of important aquatic resources; • In all cases, temporary disturbance should be kept to an absolute minimum; • Equipment and materials handling should be done on established sites to reduce area and extent of soil compaction; • Disturbances should he immediately reseeded with the recommended mix in the re - vegetation section; • Topsoil stockpiles should be seeded with non-invasive sterile hybrid grasses, if stored longer than one growing season; • Prior to delivery to the site, equipment should be cleaned of soils remaining from previous construction sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds; and • If working in sites with weed -seed contaminated soil, equipment should he cleaned of potentially seed -bearing soils and vegetative debris prior to moving to uncontaminated terrain. In areas with slope greater than three percent, 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 utilizing hydro -seeding followed by mulching, imprinting should be done prior to seeding unless the mulch is to be crimped into the soil surface. If broadcast seeding and harrowing, imprinting should be done as part of the harrowing. Furrowing can be done by several methods, the most simple of which is to drill seed perpendicular to the direction of slope in a prepared bed. Other simple imprinting methods include deep hand raking and harrowing, always perpendicular to the direction of slope. Herbicides: Annual and biennial weeds are best controlled at the pre -bud stage after germination or in the spring of the second year. The species identified in the survey are susceptible to commercially available herbicides. Selective herbicides are recommended to minimize damage to desirable grass species. Professionals or landowners using herbicides must use the concentration specified on the label of the container in hand. Herbicides generally do not work better at higher concentrations. Most herbicide failures observed by WWE are related to incomplete control caused by high concentrations killing top growth before the active ingredient can be transported to the roots through the nutrient translocation process. Most herbicide applications should use a surfactant, if directed on the herbicide label, or other adjuvant as called for on the herbicide label. Grazing: In the event grazing is allowed in the project arca, it should be deferred in reclaimed areas until the desired plant species that have been seeded are established. Alternative Methods: An alternative method, particularly where there is poor or destroyed topsoil, is the application of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, typically referred to as AMF. These fungi, mostly of the genus Glomus, are symbiotic with about 80 percent of all vegetation. Endo-mycorrhizal fungi are associated mostly with grasses and forbs and could be helpful when reclaiming this project. In symbiosis, the fungi increase water and nutrient transfer WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 11 August 2010 capacity of the host root system by as much as several orders of magnitude (Barrow and McCaslin 1995). Over-the-counter commercial products, which are better adapted to coating seeds when re- seeding and treating roots of live seedling trees and shrubs at time of planting, come in powder form and are available from many different sources. Some also come in granular form to be spread with seed from a broadcast spreader. The best AMF products should contain more than one fungi species. All Colorado State Forest Salida District tree and shrub plantings include the application of AMF. According to District Forester Crystal Tischlcr, "AMF is worth it" ("1'ischler 2006). Most, if not all, Colorado Department of Transportation re-vegetation/reseeding projects now require use of AMF and BioSol, a certified by-product of the penicillin manufacturing process composed primarily of mycelium. Compacted soils respond well to fossilized humic substances and by- products called humates. These humates, including humic and fulvic acids and humin were formed from pre -historic plant and animal deposits and work especially well on compacted soils when applied as directed. 3.8 Commercial Applicator Recommendations A certified commercial applicator is a good choice for herbicide control efforts. Restricted herbicides require a Colorado licensed applicator. An applicator has the full range of knowledge, skills, equipment, and experience desired when dealing with tough noxious weeds. Reclamation farming services using multiple seed bin range drills and specialized related equipment is available and should be used for reclamation seeding projects. Monitoring: Areas where noxious weed infestations are identified and treated should be inspected over time to ensure that control methods are working to reduce and suppress the identified infestation. The sites should be monitored until the infestations are eliminated or reduced to acceptable levels. These inspections can then be used to prioritize future weed control efforts. 4.0 R F;V ECETATION — RECLAMATION Site specific reclamation plans should be developed with a qualified reclamation contractor. Sucecssfiil reclamation of the project area is dependent upon soil type and texture, slope gradient and aspect, proper weed control, available water, and revegetation with suitable plant species. Appendix C is a table that provides the recommended seed mix for Pinyon -Juniper Woodland and/or Mountain/Wyoming Big Sagebrush Shrubland. WestWater Engineering Page 9 of 11 August 2010 ac 'Er 3a:a r . Legend O Bull Thistle O Canada Thistle O Common Burdock o Common Mullein • Field Bindweed o Halogeton ® Houndstongue O Musk Thistle O Russian Knapweed O Tamarisk Pumba to Hunter Pipeline Compressor Stations r Figure 1: EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. Hunter Mesa to Pumba Pipeline Project Area & Noxious Weed Locations August 2010 'WestWater Engineering Environmental Consu king services 0 0, ca Miles Source: 2:',EnCana Oif 8 Gas USA. Inv.kunter Mesa PL snd ComveressorlGlS\W©eds FIG1 ntj Aug. 2010 5.0 REFERENCES Barrow, J. R., and Bobby D. McCaslin. 1995. Role of microbes in resource management in arid ecosystems. In: Barrow, J. R., E. D. McArthur, R. E. Sosebee, and Tausch, R. J., comps. 1996. Proceedings: shruhland ecosystem dynamics in a changing environment. General Technical Report, IN"1'-G"I'R-338, Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S_ Forest Service, Intermountain Resource Station, 275 pp. CWMA. 2007. S. Anthony, T. D'Amato, A. Doran, S. Elzinga, J. Powell, I. Schonle, K. Uhing. Noxious Weeds of Colorado, Ninth Edition. Colorado Weed Management Association, Centennial. Kershaw, L., A. MacKinnon, and J. Pojar. 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountains. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington, NRCS. 2010. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Sirota, J. 2004. Best management practices for noxious weeds of Mesa County. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Tri River Area, Grand Junction, Colorado. URL: http://www.coopext.colostate.eduiTRA/Weeds/weedmgmt.htini 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. Tischler, Crystal. 2006. District Forester, Colorado State Forest Service, Salida. Personal communication with Bill Clark, WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado. Weber, William A., and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2001. Colorado Flora, Western Slope. Third Edition, University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Whitson, T. D. (editor), L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudncy, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee, and R. Parker. 2001. Weeds of the West — 9'f' edition. Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with Cooperative Extension Services, University of Wyoming, Laramie. WestWater Engineering Page 11 of 11 August 2010 APPENDIX A Garfield County Noxious Weed List mli-om- - _ =°�: = ::�•�. �3 - :." : w .. ... _... w T .. ..."• �-._a. 4•z �. ..�.y,.724..�":- ri,_ �:, , i i . ]lade �ii. "........ ... r; . .. . 'r) -s. Co�e- �-: ...,fir..„ »,;�- . T�orm .- ; �� ., cR Histo : t ... List � ;�._ ... .. `i.,ist; =:', _ . G":l;ist, Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed ACRE3 F P X Aegilops cylindrica Jointed goatgrass AECY G A - X Arctium minus Common (Lesser) burdock ARMI2 F B X Cardaria draba Hoary cress, Whitetop CADR F P X Carduus acanthoides Spinyylumeless thistle CAAC F B, WA X Carduus nutans Musk (Nodding plumeless) thistle CANll4 F B X Centaurea difusa Diffuse knapweed CEDI3 F P X Centaurea maculasa Spotted knapweed CEMA4 F P X Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle CESO3 F A X Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Oxeye daisy CHLE80 F P X Cichorium intyhus Chicory CI1N F P X Cirsium arvense Canada thistle CIAR4 F P X Cynoglossum officinale Houndstongue, Gypsyflower CYOF F B X Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive ELAN T P X Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge EVES F P X Linaria daimatica Dalmatian toadflax, broad-leaved LIDA F P X Linaria vulgaris Yellow toadflax LIV[]2 F P X Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife LYSA2 F P X Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle ONAC F B X Tamarix parviflora Smallflower tamarisk TAPA4 T P X Tamarix ramosissima Salt cedar, Tamarisk TARA T P X 1 — Growth form: T = tree/shrub; F = forb/vine; G = graminoid 2 — Life history: A = annual; B = biennial; P = perennial; WA = winter annual WestWater Engineering Appendix A August 2010 APPENDIX B Aunendix B. Weed Locations in I'roiect Area. UTM Zone Easting Northing Species Description 13 262814 4372483 Musk Thistle 1 plant growing among native wavyleaf thistle 13 262735 4372200 Musk Thistle 1 plant 13 262730 4372140 Common Mullein 1 plant. 13 13 266443 4372598 Musk Thistle 1-10 plants 266365 4372598 Tamarisk 1 -lo plants 13 266361 4372601 Common Mullein 10-20 plants 13 262757 4372111 Russian Knapweed 1-10 plants 13 262761 4372129 Common Mullein 1-10 plants 13 262769 4372079 Houndstonguc 1-10 plants 13 262770 4372079 Bull Thistle 1-10 plants 13 262779 4372083 1 ioundstongue 1-10 plants 13 262784 4372082 Bull Thistle 1-10 plants 13 264496 4372538 Russian Knapweed 10-100 plants 13 264493 4372559 Musk Thistle 1-10 plants 13 266454 4372210 Field Bindweed 1-10 plants; photo point 13 266330 4372347 Field Bindweed dense infestation west of compressor station 13 266268 4372303 Common Burdock 1 plant west of compressor station 13 265373 4372206 Russian Knapweed 200 plants in 151x 20x area on existing PL 13 265210 4372207 Russian Knapweed 50 plants in 25' x 201 area on existing PL 13 265088 4372213 Musk Thistle 2 plants on existing PL near manhole cover 13 264940 4372213 Russian Knapweed 50-100 plants on 25' x 25' area on existing PL 13 264943 4372221 Musk Thistle 1 plant on existing PL 13 264627 4373560 Common Mullein 12 plants in 20' x 20' arca 13 263940 4373529 Halogeton 500+ plants in 401x 25' area on existing PL 13 263908 4373518 1 Ialogeton large continuous stand (500-) to next point 13 263685 4373444 Halogcton END halogeton from previous point 13 263496 4373570 Musk Thistle 2 plants on existing PL 13 263485 4373578 Musk Thistle 1 plant on existing PL 13 262842 4373039 Common Mullein 1 live, several dead in 10' x 10' area on existing PL 13 262845 4372592 Musk Thistle 2 plants in sagebrush next to PL 13 262815 4372489 Musk Thistle 1 plant on existing PL 13 262815 4372489 Canada Thistle 1 plant on existing PL 13 262769 4372241 Musk Thistle I y1ants on existing PL --appear to have been sprayed WestWater Engineering Appendix B August 2010 Appendix C Seed Menn for Pinon-Juniper Woodland and{or Mountain/W ominBig Sagebrush Shrubland y -.. __ ...:-+creff .... ��iw� :V - .. .... �asvi>:�::... .. .: ... ..... r: ..- .. i. .. ..-... ... . f...-.... ._-,.. ... . _. � .... ��: -�-- .:..: t am - � , - _tin..- �... F 1"�..........+� �C--....::.f....:..-_.-.:..�...i, r:: _- .... .. .... ' . - -fie ... ..... ..• .. ....... r Plant the Following (10% Total) Indian Ricegrass Achnatherum jOryzopsis] hymenoides Nezpar, Paloma, Rimrock Cool Bunch 1.9 and Both of the Following (15% Each, 30% Total) Galleta Pleuraphis [Hilaria] jamesii Viva florets Warm Bunch 2.5 Bluebuneh Wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata, Agropyron spicatum Secar, P-7, Anatone Cool Bunch 2.$ and One of the Following (20% Total) Thickspike Wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus, Agropyron dasystachyum Critarca Schwendimar Cool Sod forming 3.4 Slender Wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus, Agropyron trachycaulum San Luis Cool Bunch 3.3 Western Wheatgrass Agropyron smithii Arriba Cool Sod- forming 3.0 and Two of the Following (4[1% Total) Muttongrass Poa fendleriaza Cool Bunch 0.6 Sandberg Bluegrass Poa, sandbergii, Poa secunda Cool Bunch 0.6 Bottlebrush Squirreltail Elymus elymoides, Sitanion hystrix Cool Bunch 2.7 *Based on 60 pure live seeds (PLS) per square; foot, drill -seeded. Double this rate (120 PLS per square foot) if broadcast or hydroseeded. WestWater Engineering Appendix C August 2010 FOR OFFICIAL. USE ONLY: DISCLOSURE OF SITE LOCATIONS Is PROHIBITED (43 CFR 7.18) CLASS I AND CLASS III CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY FOR A SENSITIVE AREA STUDY FOR THF PROPOSED HUNTER MESA TO PUMBA PIPELINE ROUTE (^4.O MILES) AND THE HUNTER MESA COMPRESSOR EXPANSION PROJECT IN GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO FOR ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA) INC. GRI Project No. 2010-52b 9 September 2010 Prepared by Carl E. Conner, Principal Investigator and Barbara Davenport Grand River Institute P.O. Box 3543 Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 RLM Antiquities Permit No. C-52775 Submitted to The Board of County Commissioners Garfield County, Colorado Abstract Grand River Institute conducted a Class 1 and Class 111 cultural and paleontological resources inventory for a Sensitive Area Study for the proposed Hunter Mesa to Pumba Pipeline Route (--4.0 miles) and the Hunter Mesa Compressor Expansion Project located on BLM and private lands in Garfield County, Colorado for EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. The project was conducted by Carl Conner (Principal Investigator), Barbara Davenport, Jim Conner, and Dana Archuleta of Grand River Institute under BLM Antiquities Permit No. C- 52775. Of the proposed 4.0 mile pipeline, 3.1 miles had been previously surveyed. The resulting project then included the intensive inspection of private lands including 4700 linear feet (21.5 acres) for the pipeline and a 40 -acre block for the compressor site. Field work was performed on the 26th of August. Files searches for this project made through the offices of the Colorado Historical Society and the Bureau of Land Management indicated that one prehistoric site, 5GF231 was previously recorded within the proposed project's linear corridor for the pipeline. The site was revisited and field reevaluated as not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. No other cultural resources were observed through the inventory process. No paleontological resources are recorded in the near vicinity of the project area. Accordingly, a determination of "no effect" is deemed appropriate for the project and no further work is recommended ii Table of Contents Introduction 1 Location of the Project Area 1 Environment Summary of Files Search and Literature Overview 2 Study Objectives 6 Field Methods 6 Study Findings 7 Site Significance 7 Site Description 8 Discussion 9 Management Summary 9 References 10 Appendix A: Cultural Resources Location Data/OAHP Site Form A.1 List of Figures, Tables and Plate Figure 1. Project location map v Figure A-1. Cultural resource location map A.2 Table 1. List of previously recorded cultural resources in the vicinity of the present study . 3 Table 2. List of previously conducted surveys in the vicinity of the present study area 4 Plate 1. View of collected artifact, 5GF231.sl. _ . 8 iii Introduction Grand River Institute conducted a Class I and Class III cultural and paleontological resources inventory for a Sensitive Area Study for the proposed Ilunter Mesa to Pumba Pipeline Route (-4.0 miles) and the Hunter Mesa Compressor Expansion Project located on BLM and private lands in Garfield County, Colorado for EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. The project was completed by Carl Conner (Principal Investigator), Barbara Davenport, Jim Conner, and Dana Archuleta of Grand River Institute under BLM Antiquities Permit No. C- 52775. Of the proposed 4.0 mile pipeline, 3.1 miles had been previously surveyed. The resulting project then included the intensive inspection of private lands including 4700 linear feet (21.5 acres) for the pipeline and 40 block acres for the compressor site. Field work was performed on the 26`h of August. The inventory was conducted to meet requirements ofthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (U.S.C. 470aa et seq., as amended). These laws arc concerned with the identification, evaluation, and protection of fragile, non-renewable evidences of human activity, occupation and endeavor reflected in districts, sites, structures, artifacts, objects, ruins, works of art, architecture, and natural features that were of importance in human events. Such resources tend to be Localized and highly sensitive to disturbance. Location of the Project Area The project arca is located approximately 4.0 miles southeast of the town of Rifle, Colorado. The proposed pipeline and compressor site lie in T.6 S., R.93 W., Section 35; T. 7 S., R. 92 W., Section 6; and T. 7 S., R. 93 W., Sections 1 and 2; 61h P.M. (Figure 1). Environment The project area is within one of the major geologic subdivisions of Colorado, the Piceance Creek Basin. The Basin is an elongate structural downwarp of the Colorado Plateau province that apparently began its subsidence approximately 70 million years ago during the Laramidc Orogeny. Sediments from surrounding highlands were deposited in the basin, accumulating to a thickness of as much as 9000 feet by the lower Eocene epoch, when subsidence ceased. Regional uplift occurred in the Late Tertiary, and erosion of the area has continued since (Young and Young 1977:43). The Eocene -age Wasatch (Dcbeque) Formation forms the bedrock of the study arca. Basalt boulders and cobbles are found throughout the area and were deposited as drift during 1 r:r Composite Quadrangle Maps Hunter Mesa (1963/1987) and N. Maim Peak (1960/1982) Garfield County - Colorado U.S.G S. 7.5' Series (topographic) Scale 14000 Contour Interval 40 Feet ii T. 6 S. and T. 7 S., R. 92 W. and R. 93W., 6th F.M. Zone 13 NAD 1983 r `k Proposed, \ Hu f�Mesatitea,Pumba )iipeline�Foyle l(proviouslysiurveyreid). q' Figure 1. Project location map for the Class I and Class Ili cultural and paleontological resources inventory for a sensitive area study for the proposed limiter Mesa to Punka pipeline route (-4.0 miles) and Hunter Mesa Compressor expansion project in Garfield County, Colorado for EnCana Oil & Cas (USA) Inc'. Areas studied are indicated. [Oki #2010-52, 9/8/10] 2 the Pinedale and Bull Lake Glaciations when ice tongues extended down the north side of Battlement Mesa. Widespread slumping occurred primarily in the Wasatch Formation during the interval between these two glacial periods (Young and Young 1968:31-32). The terrain of the project arca is comprised of a dendritic pattern of washes separated by narrow ridges and wide benches that slope generally north and west of Battlement Mesa. Elevation in the project area ranges from about 6040 to 6200 feet, which falls within the Upper Sonoran zone. These contain several vegetation communities including pinyon) juniper forest, and sagebrush/grasslands. Present day land use within the project boundaries includes agricultural fields and energy development. Over much of the surveyed land, vegetation limited the effectiveness of the surface inspection. This was due in part to the occurrence of tilled agricultural fields now covered with grasses. Present land uses are open range and energy development. Wildlife inhabitants including mule deer, elk, coyote, and black bear are common in the surrounding area, as are cottontail rabbits and various rodents. Mountain lion, bobcat, fox, skunk, badger, and weasel are also likely inhabitants. Bird species observed in the area include the jay, raven, red -shafted flicker, long -cared owl, golden and bald eagles and various other raptors. There is little climate variation within the study area. The lower elevations are host to a cool semiarid climate where temperatures can drop to -15 degrees F during the winters and summer temperatures may reach 100 degrees F; there is a maximum of 120 frost -free days and the annual precipitation is about 14 inches. The surrounding higher elevations are characterized as cooler and moister. Annually, the high mountain temperatures could average 5 degrees cooler and the precipitation as much as 10 inches greater than the surrounding low elevations (USDA SCS 1975:244). Summary of Files Search and Literature Overview Files searches for this project made through the offices of the Colorado Historical Society and the Bureau of Land Management indicated that one prehistoric site, 5GF231, a prehistoric open camp, was previously recorded within the proposed project's linear corridor for the pipeline. Additionally, numerous sites have been recorded in the vicinity and these are listed below in Table 1. Table 2 provides a list of previous projects completed in the general area. Local and regional archaeological studies suggest nearly continuous human occupation of west -central Colorado for the past 12,000 years. A general temporal outline for the prehistory of the Northern Colorado River Basin includes manifestations of the Paleoindian Era, big -game hunting peoples (ca. 11,500 - 6400 BO; the Archaic Era hunter/gatherer groups (ca. 6500 - 400 BO; the Formative Era horticulturalisttforager cultures (ca. 400 BC- AD 1300); the Protohistoric Era's pre -horse hunter/gatherers (ca. AD 3 1300 - AD 1650) and historic horse -riding nomads (ca. AD 1650 - AD 1881). An overview of the prehistory of the region is provided in a document published by the Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists entitled Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado Plateau (Reed and Metcalf 1999). Historic records suggest occupation or use by EuroAmeriean trappers, settlers, miners, and ranchers as well. Overviews of the historical record are found in the Colorado Historical Society's Colorado Plateau Country Historic Context (Husband 1984), and in the Bureau of Land Management's publication Frontier in Transition (O'Rourke 1980). Significantly, a relatively new historical context has been published by the Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists entitled Colorado History: A Context for Historical Archaeology (Church et al. 2007). Table 1. List of previously recorded cultural resources in the vicinity of the present study. Site 11) Site Type Assessment 50E229 Historic Corral/Cistern/Depression Needs Data - Field 50F.230 Open Camp Not Eligible - Field 5GF.231 Open Camp Needs Data - Field 50F.233 Historic Structures Needs Data - Field 5GF.234 Open Camp Not Eligible - Field SGF.227 Open Camp Not Eligible - Officially 5GF.228 Open Camp Not Eligible - Field 5GF.232 Open Lithic Not Eligible - Field SGF.248 Open Camp Needs Data - Field 5GF.1330 Isolated Find Not Eligible - Field 5tiF.1331 Isolated Find Not Eligible - Field 5GF.1332 Isolated Find Not Eligible - Field 5GF.1333 Isolated Find Not Eligible - Field 56E2803 Isolated Find Not Eligible - Field 5GF.3166 Isolated Find Not Eligible - Field 5GF.3167 Isolated Find Not Eligible - Field 4 Site ID Site Type Assessment 5GF.3408 Open Lithic Not Eligible - Official[y 5GF.3409 Open Lithic Not Eligible - Officially 5GF.3410 Open Lithic Needs Data - Official[y 5GF.3411 Open Lithic Not Eligible - Officially 5GF.3420 Open Camp Eligible - Officially 5GF.3421 Open Lithic Not Eligible - Officially 5GF.3422 Open Lithic Needs Data - Officially 5GF.3423 Open Lithic Not Eligible - Officially 5GF.3424 Open Camp, Paleontological Needs Data - Officially 5GF.3503 Isolated Find Not Eligible - Field 5GF.3504 Isolated Find Not Eligible - Field 5GF.3505 Isolated Find Not Eligible - Field 5GF.3506 Isolated Find Not Eligible - Field 5GF.3513 Isolated Find Not Eligible - Field 5GF.3514 Isolated Find Not Eligible - Field 50E3515 Isolated Find Not Eligible - Field 5GF.3554 Isolated Find Not Eligible - Field 'fable 2. List of previously conducted surveys in the vicinity of the present study area. [urvey ID Project/author/date GF.LM.BB Title: Brush Beating Allotment 8112 Author Kight William H Date: 03101/1985 Contractor: BLM Glenwood Springs Resource Area GF.LM.R224 Title: Cultural Resource inventory of a Proposed Brush Beating on Allotment 48112 in Garfield County, Colorado (5#871) Author: Kight, William H. Date: 03/21/1985 Contractor: Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs Resource Area 5 Survey ID Project/author/date MC.LM.R16 Title: Cultural Resource Inventory of Northern Geophysical Seismic Explorations near Battlement Mesa, Mesa and Garfield Counties, Colorado (S#1092) Author: Metcalf, Michael D. Date: 10/01/1989 Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. GF.LM.RI54 Title: Negative Cultural Resources Report of the Grass Mesa Controlled Burn Area, Garfield County, Colorado Author: Piontkowski, Michael Date: 05/26/2000 Contractor: Uncompahgre Archaeological Consultants GF.LM,NR589 Title: Ballard Petroleum C-35 Wcl[ Pad & Access, Garfield County (S#5400-7) Author: Mctcal f, Michael D. Date: 06/12/2000 Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc GF.LM.R 173 Title: Ballard Petroleum's 1-3, L2, E 11, Compressor Location & Associated Access Roads, Class III Cultural Resource Inventory, Garfield County, Colorado (5402-3) Author: Metcalf, Sally J. Date: 10/01/2001 Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants GF.LM,R211 Title: Encana Oil and Gas Proposed F10 and A10 Well Projects and Proposed Grass Mesa 16 Inch Gathering Pipeline: Class III Cultural Resources Inventory and Site Testing, Garfield County, Colorado Author: O'Brien, Patrick K. Date: 05/01/2002 Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. GF.LM.R254 Title: Negative Cultural Resources Report of the EnCana Mamm CreeklPumba 20 Inch Pipeline, Garfield County, Colorado Author: Piontkowski, Michael Date: 08/30/2003 Contractor: Uncompahgre Archaeological Consultants GF.LM.R283 Title: EnCana Oil & Gas Inc.: An Intensive Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of a Proposed Drill Pad J34nw and Well Pad K28 in Garfield County, Colorado Author: Brogan, John M. Date: 06/01/2004 Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants 6 Survey ID Project/author/date GF.LM.R330 Title: Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc.: A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the C35 Well Pad in Garfield County, Colorado Author: Brogan, John M. Date: 10/01/2004 Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants GF.LM.R394 Title: Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc.: An Intensive Class HI Cultural Resources Survey of the Grass Mesa Geographic Area Plan (Gap) in Garfield County, Colorado Author: Slaughter, Stephanie and Patrick K. O'Brien Date: 06/01/2005 Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Study Objectives A Class III study provides an inventory to identify cultural resources within the previously unsurveyed areas likely to be adversely affected by the proposed pipeline construction and compressor site expansion, to evaluate these sites' eligibility for listing in the NRIIP, and to make management recommendations for those sites found to be eligible. The presence of prehistoric resources was considered likely based on previously recorded sites within the vicinity. Field Methods Of the proposed 4.0 mile pipeline, approximately 3.1 miles had been previously surveyed and was not inspected with this project. Additionally, a portion of the survey area for the compressor expansion has been previously disturbed by the existing compressor. A 100 percent, intensive (Class 111) cultural resource survey of the unsurveyed portion of the linear route was made by crews of two members walking transects parallel to the flagged line and spaced at 15 meter intervals. The route was inspected for a length of 4700 feet and a width of 200 feet (-60 meters). The pedestrian cultural resources survey of the 40- acre block area was made by a crew of two that walked transects spaced at an average of 15 meters apart. Crew members worked from IlSGrS 7.5' series maps. A total of about 61.5 acres of private land (21.5 linear and 40 block) was inventoried. The survey area has been previously impacted by agricultural fields leaving ground visibility at roughly 20 percent. Cultural resources were sought as surface exposures and were characterized as sites or isolated finds. Sites were defined as discrete loci of patterned activity greater than 50 years of age and consisting of 5 or more prehistoric artifacts with or without features or over 50 historic artifacts with associated features. Also, a single isolated hearth with no other associated artifacts or features was to be recorded as a site. Isolated finds were defined as 7 less than 5 artifacts without associated features; historic trash dumps without associated features; single core reduction events with a single core and associated reduction debitage; single pot drops where the sherds are from a single vessel; or prospector pits with/or without artifacts and no associated historic structures or features. Environmental constraints which might be expected included previous natural ground disturbance that has modified the surface so extensively that the likelihood of finding cultural resources is negligible; human activity within the past 50 years that has created a new land surface such that all traces of cultural resources have been eradicated; natural environmental characteristics that are unfavorable to the presence of historic properties; slopes greater than 30% where no potential for rock shelter, rock art, or other cultural properties associated with rock faces or ledges exist; and areas with 100% vegetation coverage. All cultural resources that qualified as sites, such as prehistoric open camps, lithic scatters, occupied overhangs, rockshelters, and evidence of historic occupation, were recorded as they were encountered to standards set by the BLM and the OAHP. Sites were to be recorded using the following methods of mapping and note taking. The basic approach to the data collection was to be the continuous mapping ofobserved artifacts and features by recording UTM coordinates (NAD 83 Datum) using Trimble Geo XT units. Site maps were to be created using corrected GPS data and ARCMAP. Photographs were to be taken at each site and include general views and specific artifacts or features. Field notes and photo negatives for this project are on file at Grand River Institute, while the photographs are submitted to the BLM. The collected artifact will be curated at the Museum of Western Colorado. Study Findings As expected, cultural resources were identified. The files searches for this project indicated that one prehistoric site, 5GF231, was previously recorded within the proposed pipeline corridor. This site was revisited and reevaluated with the present study. No other cultural manifestations could be found. Site 5GF231 is described below. Location data for this recorded resource is provided in Appendix A, Figure A-1, which is a map that shows the cultural resource location in relation to the project area. Detailed information for the resource is provided in the attached OAHP Form (only in BLM and OAHP copies). Site Significance The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) directs federal agencies to ensure that authorized actions do not inadvertently disturb or destroy significant cultural resource values. Significance is a quality of cultural resource properties that qualifies them for inclusion in the NRHP. The statements of significance included in this report are field assessments to support recommendations to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The final determination of site significance is made by the controlling federal agency in consultation with the SHPO and the Keeper of the Register. The Code of Federal Regulations was used as a guide for the in -field site evaluations. Titles 36 CFR 60, 36 CFR 800, and 36 CFR 64 are concerned with the concepts of significance and (possible) historic value of cultural resources. Titles 36 CFR 65 and 36 CFR 66 provide standards for the conduct of scientific data recovery activities. Finally, Title 36 CFR 60.4 establishes the measure of significance that is critical to the determination of a site's NRHP eligibility, which is used to assess a site's research potential: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of State and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; or b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in the prehistory or history. Site Description Site 5GF231 is an open camp that was originally recorded by LaPoint and Kainer from the Laboratory of Public Archaeology (LOPA) at Colorado State University in 1977. It is assumed the site was surface collected during that recording as that was standard procedure for LOPA at that time. Additionally, the site was field evaluated as need data due to the presence of a suspected hearth feature. The site area was throughly inspected with the present visit and only two artifacts could be found; a single flake (small, tertiary, white opalitic chert) and a projectile point base fragment. The point fragment is of a banded, light gray chert and compares well with the Dry Creek Phase that dates approximately 0 - 700AD (Buckles 1971:1220). The hearth feature described in the original recording could not be located; however, this is likely due to complete disturbance of the area by agricultural tilling. The present site boundary is estimated to be roughly 55 meters north - south by 10 meters east -west. Plate 1. 5GF231.sl, Collected Artifact (actual size) Evaluation and Management Recommendation The site was originally field evaluated as need data due to the presence of a suspected thermal feature. The site has been significantly disturbed by agricultural tilling and the feature could not be relocated; accordingly the site is field reevaluated as not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The south end of the site boundary 9 lies approximately 10 meters west of the proposed pipeline centerline. No further work is recommended. Discussion This project provided an opportunity to investigate the prehistoric and historic use of the benches and ridges near the base of the north slopes of Battlement Mesa. Previous cultural resource studies in the area have suggested regional occupation for as long as 8000 years. Even though only one prehistoric site was recorded with this inventory, studies in the surrounding areas indicate the presence of Archaic, Formative (Fremont), and Numic (lite) periods. Historic records also indicate a permanent Euro -American presence in the region began as early as the late 1880's. Notably, the PrehistoriciProtohistoric sites were impacted by the 130 year occupation and use of the arca by luroAmcricans, and by the wildfires and their subsequent rehabilitation. Impact by the recent agricultural development throughout the study area likely limited the number of observable resources and played a role in the determination of eligibility for site 5GF231. In general, although the study area was probably not continuously occupied prehistorically, it seems to have offered an attractive environment for gathering, floral processing, hunting, as well as lithic procurement and processing. Site density in the surrounding mesa areas is high, probably due to two factors: good access to permanent water, and strategic topographical positioning on the ridge tops and open benches. Such camp placement provided a good view of the surrounding lower elevations for purposes of hunting and protection. The heavily vegetated valley bottoms were accessed for reasons of acquiring water and for the procurement of floral and faunal resources. Management Summary The eligibility determination and consultation process is guided by Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR 60, 63, and 800). Inventory to identify, evaluate, and mitigate potential effects to cultural resources affected by an undertaking is the first step in the Section 106 process. Federal actions cannot be authorized until the Section 106 process is completed (36 CFR 800.3). Final determinations of National Register eligibility and effect should be sought from the controlling federal agencies in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Files searches for this project made through the offices of the Colorado Historical Society and the Bureau of Land Management indicated that one prehistoric site, 5GF231 was previously recorded within the proposed project's linear corridor for the pipeline.The site was revisited and field reevaluated as not eligible for listing on the National Register of 10 Historic Places. No other cultural resources were observed through the inventory process. No paleontological resources are recorded in the near vicinity of the project area. Accordingly, a determination of "no effect" is deemed appropriate for the project and no further work is recommended References Buckles, William G. 1971 The Uncompahgre Complex: I Iistoric Ute Archaeology and Prehistoric Archaeology on the Uncompahgre Plateau in West Central Colorado. Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Church, Minette C. and Steven G. Baker, Bonnie J. Clark, Richard F. Carrillo, Jonathon C. Horn, Carl D. Spath, David R. Guilfoyle, and E. Steve Cassells 2007 Colorado History: A Context for Historical Archaeology. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver. Ilusband, Michael 13. 1984 Colorado Plateau Country Iistoric Context. Colorado historical Society, Denver. O'Rourke, Paul M. 1980 Frontier in Transition. Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resources Series Number Ten. Colorado State Office, Denver. Reed, Alan D. and Michael D. Metcalf 1999 Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Colorado 1975 Technical Guide HE: Range Site Descriptions. Young, Robert G. and Joann W. Young 1968 Geology and Wildflowers of Grand Mesa. Wheelwright Press, Ltd. 11 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: DISCLOSURE OF SITE LOCATIONS IS PROHIBITED (43 CFR 7.18) Appendix A: Cultural Resources Location Data and OAIIP Form (BLM and SHPO copies only) A.1