The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11 Sensitive Area Studyr APPENDIX 9-102.K SENSITIVE AREA SURVEY O\OLSSON ASSOCIATES THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK FOR TWO-SIDED DUPLICATION. OLSSON ASSOCIATES URSA OPERATING COMPANY, LLC. BATTLEMENT MESA PUD PHASE II Impact Analysis: Section 4-203-G (6) — Environmental Impacts Garfield County Land Use and Development Code Cover photo: Habitat conditions near proposed BMC L location. Prepared for: Ursa Operating Company, LLC. 792 Buckhorn Drive Rifle, Colorado 81650 Prepared by: WestWater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 an,NiAP.Qo Nicholas Jaramillo, Biologist/Environmental Scientist April 2017 INTRODUCTION Project Description At the request of Ursa Operating Company, LLC. (Ursa), WestWater Engineering (WestWater) has prepared this Garfield County Impact Analysis for the proposed Battlement Mesa PUD Phase II project consisting of three well pads (BMC A, BMC F, BMC L) and associated access roads and pipelines (Figure 1). The project would be located on private lands in Garfield County, Colorado consisting of legal descriptions as follows: BMC A: Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 96 West; Section 18, Township 7 South, Range 95 West. BMC F: Sections 16 and 17, Township 7 South, Range 95 West. BMC L: Section 8, Township 7 South, Range 95 West. The current primary uses of the surrounding area include residential, agricultural, rangeland, natural gas development, and wildlife habitat. This document reports the results and analysis of findings pertinent to the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code (amended November 12, 2013) as they apply to this project. Survey Methods The project area was evaluated for the potential occurrence of special status plants and wildlife, raptors, noxious weeds, and potential Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. by WestWater biologists on September 12, 13, and 14, 2016. The survey took place within the growing season for most plants in the project area. The survey took place outside the active nesting season for migratory birds and raptors. Based on current survey data, literature review, firsthand knowledge, and experience with biological resources in the geographical area, WestWater biologists have made assertions regarding the plant and animal species which may or may not be present in the project area. Some areas within the project area survey boundaries were located on private property where access to conduct surveys was not permitted. Areas that were not surveyed are identified in the figures accompanying this report. Vegetation communities were determined through aerial photography, on -the -ground assessments, and WestWater's previous experience in the project area. Plant species occurrence and identification was aided by using pertinent published field guides (Spackman et al. 1997, Kershaw et al. 1998, Whitson et al. 2001, CWMA 2007, Weber and Wittmann 2012). 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 expected natural vegetation characteristics at the project site (NRCS 2016). Raptor and special status wildlife species surveys were conducted on foot within 0.25 mile of proposed pad locations and within 0.125 mile of proposed linear features (roads, pipelines) within suitable habitats for these species. Noxious weed conditions are reported in a separate Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan (IVNWMP) that was prepared separately for this project (WestWater 2016). Data locations were recorded using handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) units (Datum: NAD83, Zone 12) and photographs were taken of the habitat, terrain, and biological features found during the survey. WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 15 April 2017 SECTION 4-203-G (6) - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WATERS OF THE U.S. — Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) WestWater biologists determined that 18 potentially jurisdictional wetlands or Waters of the U.S. would be affected by the project. These locations are described in Table 1 and illustrated on Figures 2a -2d. Table 1. Potential Arm v Corps of Engineers jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Figure Label Pad Comments Figure 2a WOUS-1 BMC A USGS mapped drainage. No ordinary high water mark. Figure 2a WOUS-2 BMC A USGS mapped drainage. No ordinary high water mark. Figure 2a Wet -1 BMC A Lots of water running very quickly. 3' wide by 5" deep. Dense vegetation. Figure 2c WOUS-1 BMC L 2 large culverts. Wet from a recent storm but not running. OHWM 2 feet wide by 3 inches deep. VEGETATION The affected area covers a variety of habitat types consisting of native and disturbed rangelands as well as agricultural areas and a small amount of riparian or wetland communities. Common grasses include annual wheatgrass (Eremopyrum triticeum), bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), downy brome (cheatgrass) (Bromus tectorum), indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), timothy (Phleum subulatum), and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). Shrub and woodland communities in the area are dominated by a mixture of basin and Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata tridentata and A. t. wyomingensis ) and pinyon juniper (Pinus edulis — Juniperus osteosperma) woodlands with areas of greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus). Areas of riparian and wetland vegetation are dominated by broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), and three -leaf sumac (Rhus trilobata). Threatened and Endangered Plant Species The occurrence and distribution of special status plants in this region are strongly influenced by elevation, hydrology, geologic formations, and soil characteristics present in an area. Threatened and endangered plants known to occur in Garfield County are listed in Table 2 (USFWS 2014). Table 2. Special status plants occurring in Garfield County. Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status Colorado hookless cactus Sclerocactus glaucus Threatened DeBeque phacelia Phacelia submutica Threatened Parachute beardtongue Penstemon debilis Threatened Ute ladies' -tresses orchid Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Due to previous disturbances, soil composition, elevation, hydrology patterns, and distance to known populations, the project area is unlikely to provide suitable habitat for any special status plant species in this region. Survey results and review of the Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide (Spackman et al 1997) and WestWater's database confirms that no known populations of special status plants occur nearby. Noxious Weeds Noxious weed infestations, control techniques, and revegetation recommendations are reported in an IVNWMP that was prepared for this project (WestWater 2016). Noxious weed species listed by the State WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 15 April 2017 of Colorado (2005) detected in or near the project area included bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), chicory (Cichorium intybus), common burdock (Arctium minus), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), common teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia). Several unlisted nuisance weed species that are present in disturbed areas include flixweed (Descurania sophia), kochia (Bassia scoparia), Russian thistle (Salsola spp.), tall tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), and yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis). WILDLIFE Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species The project area was evaluated for threatened, endangered, or sensitive wildlife species listed in Garfield County (Table 3) (USFWS 2016). Table 3. Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species for Garfield County. Common Name Scientific Name Status Bonytail Gila elegans Endangered Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius Endangered Greenback cutthroat trout* Oncorhynchus clarki stomias Threatened Humpback chub Gila cypha Endangered Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus Endangered Yellow -billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened Bold = Species which may be affected by project. * Until review and rulemaking process is complete regarding recent genetic research, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is recommending that "Lineage GB" cutthroat trout be managed as greenback cutthroat (USFWS 2012) Designated critical habitat for two endangered fish species (Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker) occurs in the Colorado River downstream of the project and these species have been documented near Parachute (Maddux et al. 1993). Designated critical habitat for two additional species (bonytail and humpback chub) occurs downstream of the project near Grand Junction (Maddux et al. 1993). No designated critical habitat exists for yellow -billed cuckoo, however cottonwood stands near the river may provide marginal habitat. This species has not recently been documented near Parachute. No other species listed in Table 3 would be affected, as habitat conditions are not appropriate. Raptors At least fifteen raptor species may be found in suitable habitats in the region (Table 4). Nesting season for raptor species in this area takes place from January through mid-August. The most common raptor species observed in the area include American Kestrel, Cooper's Hawk, Golden Eagle, Great Horned Owl, and Red-tailed Hawk. Bald Eagles are common near the Colorado River and forage near Battlement Mesa. Table 4. Raptor species that may occur near the proiect area. Common Name Scientific Name BCC* American Kestrel Falco sparverius No Bald Eagl& Haliaeetus leucocephalus Yes Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii No WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 15 April 2017 Table 4. Raptor species that may occur near the nroiect area. Common Name Scientific Name BCC* Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus Yes Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Yes Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus No Long-eared Owl Asio otus No Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus No Northern Goshawk§ Accipiter gentilis No Northern Pygmy Owl Glaucidium gnoma No Northern Saw -whet Owl Aegolius acadicus No Peregrine Falcon+§ Falco peregrines Yes Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Yes Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis No Sharp -shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus No Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni No *BCC=U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bird of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008) + State species of concern (CPW 2016a) §BLM sensitive species (BLM 2009) Two unoccupied raptor nests are known to exist near or within the survey area for the proposed BMC L pad (Figure 3). These nests would not be removed by construction of this project. Indirect impacts to occupied nests, such as nest abandonment due to disturbance, could occur if construction occurs during the nesting season. Birds of Conservation Concern, Migratory, and Non -migratory Birds (other than raptors) WestWater biologists evaluated the project area for migratory bird species that could be affected by the project. Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) have been identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for priority conservation management in an attempt to prevent the listing of additional species under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2008a). A thorough literature review was conducted to identify BCC species with potential to occur during other times of the year (Table 5) (Andrews & Righter 1992, Kingery 1998, Righter et al. 2004). Table 5. BCC species that may occur in the nroiect area. Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Description Brewer's Sparrow* Spizella breweri Expansive sagebrush shrublands; occasionally found in greasewood or other shrublands. Cassin's Finch Haemorhous cassinii Coniferous forest (including pinyon juniper), aspen, and cottonwood. Gray Vireo Vireo vicinior Open pinyon juniper habitats between 4,500 and 6,500 feet. Juniper Titmouse Baeolophus ridgwayi Pinyon juniper woodlands. Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Open conifers, riparian cottonwoods, and burns. Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Pinyon juniper woodlands above 5,000 feet.. * Also a BLM sensitive species (BLM 2009) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidance indicates that developments may potentially affect nesting migratory birds within 100 feet of a project. The survey was conducted in late summer, outside the nesting season and at a time when many neo -tropical migrant bird species were beginning to migrate out of the area, therefore no nest surveys were conducted. The species in Table 5 and a multitude of other WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 15 April 2017 migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) are expected to occur in the project area and could be affected by vegetation removal during nesting season. Merriam's wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo merriami) may occur in the project area; vegetation removal would affect nesting and foraging habitat for this species. American Elk and Mule Deer The site is located in CPW Game Management Unit 42. The project is within CPW mapped mule deer severe winter range and a winter concentration area (CPW 2016b) (Figure 4). The site is also located within a mapped elk winter concentration area (Figure 5). Both species utilize the area, mostly during winter, but a few resident animals may be present year-round. Black Bear and Mountain Lion CPW mapping shows the project area to be within overall range for black bear and mountain lion and both species are known to occur nearby. All four proposed pads are within a CPW mapped mountain lion -human conflict area; BMC A, L, and M are within a CPW mapped black bear -human conflict area (CPW 2016b). Bears could occur in the area almost year round with the exception of the hibernation period occurring from late fall through late spring. At times when foraging is difficult, bears become more visible as they are more likely to utilize unnatural food sources created by humans. Mountain lions likely inhabit the general project area primarily during the winter months as they follow migrating big game herds, but could be found year-round. Lions tend to have large territories and are highly mobile as they search for food or new territories so sightings tend to be uncommon. Small Mammals Common small mammal species in the project area include coyote (Canis latrans), cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii), and numerous rodent species. Reptiles Bull snake (Pituophis catenifer), plateau striped whiptail (Cnemidophorus velox), racer (Coluber constrictor), sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciousus), short -horned lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi), western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans), and midget faded rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis concolor) are reptiles potentially occurring in the project area (Hammerson 1999). No reptiles were documented during surveys. Other than the midget faded rattlesnake, which is a BLM sensitive and State species of concern (BLM 2009, CPW 2016a), these species do not have any special protection. Aquatic Species Aquatic species that may occupy permanent water sources in the project area would be limited to amphibian species including but not limited to northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens — State Species of Concern and BLM Sensitive), Great Basin spadefoot (Spea intermontana — BLM Sensitive). The aquatic habitats in the project area are not sufficient to support fish populations, however the Colorado River is downstream of the project. SECTION 4-203-G (6) (a) - DETERMINATION OF LONG AND SHORT-TERM EFFECTS ON FLORA AND FAUNA FLORA The vegetation communities affected by the project are largely disturbed by previous developments and management practices. The project's impact to important native vegetation would be small within the scope of existing developments and other disturbances. No special status plant occurrences are known to WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 15 April 2017 exist nearby. Noxious weeds occurring in the area are discussed in an accompanying IVNWMP prepared by WestWater for this project (WestWater 2016). FAUNA Colorado River Endangered Fishes Designated critical habitat for two endangered fish species (Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker) occurs in the Colorado River downstream of the project and critical habitat for two additional species (bonytail and humpback chub) occurs downstream of the project near Grand Junction (Maddux et al. 1993). Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker have been documented in the river upstream as far as Rifle (W. R. Elmblad, retired CPW fisheries biologist, pers. comm ) Potential impacts to aquatic species would be limited to water depletions and runoff from storms or snowmelt that carry increased sediment loads or pollutants from the project to the river. Implementation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC), a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), and Best Management Practices (BMPs) associated with this type of project will provide a good degree of mitigation for any potential impacts. Water depletions are addressed by a Programmatic Biological Opinion issued by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2008b). Raptors No high quality raptor nesting habitat would be affected by the project. Short-term effects could include temporary displacement of raptors in an avoidance area surrounding the pad due to increased human presence and equipment associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of the facility. American Elk and Mule Deer Foraging habitat will be lost within the footprint of the well pads and access roads. No CPW mapped migration corridors would be affected. Human presence and activity may affect animal distribution by creating avoidance areas and increasing stress on wintering big game. Additional traffic resulting from this project may contribute to vehicle related wildlife mortality along public roads. Low speed limits on private roads should prevent collisions with wildlife. Fences can pose an increased risk to big game and fencing around the facility should be constructed according to published standards that reduce impacts to big game (Hanophy 2009). Black Bear and Mountain Lion Potential encounters between bears and personnel could occur if garbage or food is available on the site. Mountain lions are occasionally observed in the area, but generally avoid human contact. Incidences of human and bear/lion interactions sometimes result in the euthanasia of offending animals by the CPW. Small Mammals, Birds (BCC), and Reptiles Nesting habitat for migratory birds will be lost in the footprint of the pads and road and construction during nesting season could result in destruction of active bird nests. The vegetation removal required for development of this project will reduce foraging habitat available for small mammals and birds. Human presence and activity may affect animal distribution. An increase in traffic could result in vehicle related mortalities. SECTION 4-203-G (6) (b) — DETERMINATION OF THE EFFECT ON DESIGNATED ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Development of the project would not directly affect any designated critical wildlife or occupied plant habitat for threatened or endangered species. Downstream habitats for aquatic species could be affected by water depletions, pollutants, and sedimentation. This project would contribute to cumulative effects of habitat alteration in the area. WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 15 April 2017 SECTION 4-203-G (6) (c) — IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS • Creation of hazardous conditions: Some passerine bird species and small mammals may choose to inhabit or nest on equipment or objects at the site. The inherent risks associated with these structures are low. By closing or covering all ports, hatches, cavities, and openings (such as the ends of pipes) this potential is decreased. Most non -game bird species and their nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712; Ch. 128; July 13, 1918; 40 Stat. 755) and damaging occupied nests could be considered a "take" resulting in a violation. Livestock and big game will likely avoid the project sites. • Direct Construction Effects: Construction will remove or significantly alter nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of migratory and non -migratory birds, mammals, and reptiles. • Indirect Construction Effects: Additional human presence and activity related to construction, operation, and maintenance of project features may influence spatial and temporal use of habitat surrounding the project by wildlife. For sites that would be developed adjacent to significant and long-term human presence, the additional indirect effects in those areas would be smaller. • Road -kill: Speed limits are relatively low and most wildlife in the area has become habituated to vehicle traffic on public transportation rights-of-way. The potential for vehicle related mortalities related to this project would be moderate. REFERENCES Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History. Denver. BLM. 2009. BLM Colorado State Director's Sensitive Species List. November 20, 2009 Update. CPW. 2016a. State of Colorado species of concern list. Available online: http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx. Accessed October 10, 2016. CPW. 2016b. All species activity mapping data. Available online: http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=190573 c5aba643a0bc05 8e6f7 f0510b7 Accessed October 10, 2016. 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. Hammerson, G. A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado, Second Edition. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Hanophy, W. 2009. Fencing with Wildlife in Mind. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver. Available online: http://wildlife. state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/LandWater/PrivateLandPrograms/DO WFencingWithWildlifelnMind.pdf Kershaw, L., 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. 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. WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 15 April 2017 NRCS. 2016. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Available online: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed October 10, 2016. Righter, R., R. Levad, C. Dexter, and K. Potter. 2004. Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country. Grand Valley Audubon Society, Grand Junction. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 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 p. USFWS. 2008a. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia. USFWS. 2008b. Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) (ES/GJ-6-CO-08-F0006) Re: BLM Colorado River Fluid Minerals Program Water Depletions. USFWS, Ecological Services. Grand Junction, Colorado USFWS. 2012. Updated position paper on ESA consultations on greenback cutthroat trout, including the cutthroat trout referred to as Lineage GB. Updated Oct 4, 2012. USFWS. 2016. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species List for the State of Colorado. Available online: http://ecos.fws.gov/tesspublic/pub/stateListingAndOccurrencelndividual.jsp?state=CO. Accessed October 10, 2016. Weber, W. A., and R. C. Wittmann 2012. Colorado Flora, Western Slope. Fourth Edition, University Press of Colorado, Boulder. WestWater. 2016. Integrated vegetation and noxious weed management plan for Ursa Operating Company, LLC's proposed Battlement Mesa PUD Phase II project. Grand Junction. 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. WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 15 April 2017 — T-75 R9 -5W Project Location '17S R95W Legend Access Road = Pipeline ter- Phase 2 Pipeline Pad County Road �--� Streams Figure 1 Ursa Operating Company Battlement Mesa PUD Phase II Biological Survey Location nWestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0.5 ranFs April 2017 ap Source- Z -'Miscellaneous EmcironmeniaNrsa Operaing Campsny\Banlemeni Mesa PUD Phase 11,20171GISrFgure 4.4. 17 m 414/2017 rbb • 1 F.. T 1r x : Y A Rs6W' , wr �rw r• •sr , . •. BMC A Pad al Legend Potential Waters of the US Potential VVetland Phase 2 Pipeline Pipeline Access Road FT Pad County Road Streams Figure 2a Ursa Operating Company Battlement Mesa PUD Phase 11 BMC A Pad Biological Survey Potential Waters of the US lnWestWater Engineering s Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0 200 400 Feet April 2017 Map Source Z'.Miscellaneous Environmental.Ursa Cperatieg Companp+Battle ment Mesa PU ❑ Phase 11120171GIS1Fgure 2a 4.4.17 mxd 4/4/2017 rbb -r0: 1 t1-.1•fi 3 g • ' '‘Jr( I • - ; I 4 Legend Potential Waters of the US Potential Wetland Access Road Pad County Road -ix,— Streams Figure 2b Ursa Operating Company Battlement Mesa PUD Phase 11 BMC F Pad Biological Survey Potential Waters of the US eritWestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0 200 400 Feet April 2017 Map Source' ZiMpce II an EC F , rc =.ntal'.Ursa :'.=.rat • -1 en mpanp+.F3attle ment Mesa PUD Phase II+2p171.G1S'Fig yre 2b 4.4.17 mxd 4142917 rbb s r s J t r,11 ■r • ■ ■ r • .t • • S • - r ,�14 lir N 8a.i.tl.etne-,,i Py • .1 A Legend Potential Waters of the US Access Road - Pipeline ==mmPhase 2 Pipeline Pad County Road - Streams Figure 2c Ursa Operating Company Battlement Mesa PUD Phase 11 BMC L Pad Biological Survey Potential Waters of the US eriWestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0 260 620 Feet April 2017 Map Source. Z.Viscelaneeus EnvironmentallUrsa Operalinp C om pan yBattlement Mesa PUD Phase I112017KiIS1Figure 2c 4.417.mxd 47442017 reb Project Location BMC 1. Pod DXI2A ti ritg— )nl Legend Q Bald Eagle Roost Site Bald Eagle Nest Site Unoccupied Raptor Nest Phase 2 Pipeline County Road Streams 1 Figure 3 Ursa Operating Company Battlement Mesa PUD Phase II Biological Survey Raptors �'•,. WestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0 0.5 Miles April 2017 Map Source- ZWiscellan eves EnsimnmenlanUrsa Operatng CampanylBanlemenl Mesa PVD Phase 11120171GIS1Figure 3 4.4.17 mxd 4/4/2017 rbb Project Location rr-r-\\4 T7S R96W S.R95W ti ti Hi BMCFPa I fo 111111e ti Cuu/t •h \BMC A'Pad t'\\,\,& Legend Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area Mule Deer Severe Winter Range Phase 2 Pipeline County Road �— Streams Map SOL rce Z-1M6cellaneo Figure 4 Ursa Operating Company Battlement Mesa PUD Phase II Biological Survey Mule Deer Activities WestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & 5cienti5t5 0.5 Mines April 2017 Ea vironmentahUrsa Operating Ca mpanyA.Battleme RI Mesa PUD Phase II'Q0171GiSiFiiyre 4 4.4.17 mxd 4.42917 rbb 620.) hZo` a�� • ---- 0 Project Location T7S R9ti5W BMC L Pads 08 c Yi .ElattlemeM BMC A Pad Legend Eik Production Area 0 Eik Winter Concentration Area = Phase 2 Pipeline County Road -=Y Streams 30 Figure 5 Ursa Operating Company Battlement Mesa PUD Phase II Biological Survey Elk Activities OVNestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0.5 Miles April 2017 Map So.rce'Z".M is cellaneous E ay iron men to I.Ur5a Operating Company'•.eattlement Mesa PUD Phase II+2017+.CES 4Figyre 5 4.4.17 mxd 4f4�917 rbb URSA OPERATING COMPANY, LLC. BATTLEMENT MESA PUD PHASE II Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas Garfield County Land Use and Development Code WILDLIFE Colorado River Endangered Fishes Designated critical habitat for four endangered fish occurs in the Colorado River downstream of the project area. Runoff from storms or snowmelt may carry increased sediment loads or pollutants from the well pad to the river, although current drainage patterns from the site are likely to capture and disperse most runoff short of the river. Implementation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC), a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), and Best Management Practices (BMPs) associated with this type of project will provide a good degree of mitigation for any potential impacts. Water depletions that could affect aquatic species associated with the project are addressed under a Programmatic Biological Opinion issued by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2008). Raptors Activities associated with the project have minimal potential to impact raptor populations as no high quality raptor nesting habitat would be affected, and only two unoccupied raptor nests are known to occur within the survey area surrounding the project area. Indirect impacts would be related to displacement of foraging activities and the effect would be small given the abundance of foraging habitat available. Due to these factors, in addition to a high ongoing level of human activity in the general project area, it is unlikely that the project would contribute to any adverse effects for raptor species. American Elk, Mule Deer, Black Bear, and Mountain Lion Implementation of the Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan (IVNWMP) (WestWater 2016) would help reduce impacts from habitat loss and alteration of native plant communities to the extent possible. A reclamation plan should be implemented to reduce the establishment of noxious weeds in disturbed areas. Reclamation of disturbed areas not critical for operations would replace a portion of the forage lost for mule deer and elk and reduces the presence of noxious weeds. Low speed limits already in place and the high volume of other traffic on area roads mitigate potential road kill. Facility fencing should be consistent with published standards that reduce potential harm to wildlife (Hanophy 2009). Black bear and mountain lion may occasionally be observed near the site and should not be approached if encountered. Personnel may be unfamiliar with wildlife in the area and should be informed of the potential for bear and lion interactions. Personnel should not feed or harass wildlife at any time. Trash should be stored in bear -proof receptacles and/or removed from the site on a daily basis to prevent attracting bears to the site. Negative interactions may result in euthanasia of problem animals. Birds, Small Mammals, and Reptiles Removal of native vegetation contributes to cumulative effects of habitat conversion and fragmentation in Garfield County. Nesting cover for ground nesting birds and foraging habitat for numerous species will be affected. PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION Native vegetation will be removed for development of the project. Application of the IVNWMP (WestWater 2016) would provide a degree of mitigation for the native vegetation that will be removed. Reducing the amount of bare ground to only the area needed for utilization and maintenance of the WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 2 October 2016 facilities will help reduce the effect of the project on native vegetation and wildlife habitat. The best method to mitigate loss of wildlife habitat and provide the greatest benefit for wildlife is to increase the availability of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction can create optimal conditions for the establishment of invasive, non-native species. Vehicles and equipment traveling from weed -infested areas into weed -free areas could disperse noxious or invasive weed seeds and propagates, resulting in the establishment of these weeds in previously weed -free areas. Several simple practices should be employed to prevent most weed infestations. The following practices should be adopted for any activity to reduce the costs of noxious weed control 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. REFERENCES Hanophy, W. 2009. Fencing with Wildlife in Mind. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver. Available online: http://wildlife. state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/LandWater/PrivateLandPrograms/DO WFencingWithWildlifelnMind.pdf USFWS. 2008. Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) (ES/GJ-6-CO-08-F0006) Re: BLM Colorado River Fluid Minerals Program Water Depletions. USFWS, Ecological Services. Grand Junction. WestWater Engineering. 2016. Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan for Ursa Operating Company, LLC's proposed Battlement Mesa PUD Phase II project. Grand Junction. WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 2 October 2016