HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.05 Raptor Survey Report
RAPTOR SURVEY REPORT
CAERUS OIL AND GAS
BJU N23-496 CDP
Cover Photo: Habitat conditions at the site of the proposed BJU N23 496 CDP location.
Prepared for:
Caerus Oil and Gas
143 Diamond Avenue
Parachute, CO 81635
Prepared by:
May 2021
WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 9 May 2021
INTRODUCTION
Caerus Oil and Gas (Caerus) requested that WestWater Engineering (WestWater) conduct raptor
surveys for the proposed BJU N23-496 CDP location (Figure 1). The project would be located
on private surface with minerals owned by the federal government and administered by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) White River Field Office (WRFO) in Section 23, Township
4 South, Range 96 West.
Raptor surveys were conducted on May 15, 2021. The objectives of the surveys were to locate
raptor (bird of prey) nest sites and identify potential raptor habitat and use areas.
PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
Terrain
The proposed CDP would be located on a ridgetop east of the East Fork of Stewart Gulch. The
ridgetop is divided by ephemeral drainages that typically drain west into the East Fork of Stewart
Gulch or east into an unnamed tributary. The BJU N23-496 would be situated at an elevation of
approximately 8,180 feet (Figure 1). Terrain in the general vicinity is composed of rolling ridges
divided by draws and drainages that flow north toward Piceance Creek.
Soils and Geology
The project would be located on two soil types as described in Table 1 (NRCS 2020).
Table 1. Soils occurring in the project area.
Map
Unit
Symbol Soil Name Description
53 Parachute-Rhone loams, 5 to 30
percent slopes
Occurs on mountain slopes at an elevation of 7,600
to 8,600 feet. Parent material is colluvium over
residuum weathered from sandstone and shale.
61 Rhone loam, 30 to 70 percent
slopes
Occurs on ridges and mountainsides from 7,600 to
8,600 feet in elevation; parent material is Marl
and/or residuum weathered from sandstone. Not
prime farmland
Vegetation
The proposed project would be located in a vegetation community composed primarily of
sagebrush shrublands with an understory of native forbs and grasses. Aspen woodlands,
mountain shrublands, and oakbrush shrublands are present along the sideslopes and draws
surrounding the project area. Common plants observed in the project area are described in Table
2.
WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 9 May 2021
Table 2. Common plant species occurring in the project area.
Common Name Scientific Name Abundance* Habitat Type
Grasses and Grass-like plants
Basin wildrye Leymus cinereus x Sagebrush shrublands,
mountain shrub
Bluebunch
wheatgrass
Pseudoroegneria
spicata xx Sagebrush shrublands,
mountain shrub
Canada wildrye Elymus canadensis x Sagebrush shrublands,
mountain shrub
Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum x Sagebrush shrublands,
mountain shrub
Indian ricegrass Achnatherum
hymenoides x Sagebrush shrublands,
mountain shrub
Kentucky
bluegrass Poa pratensis xx Sagebrush shrublands,
mountain shrub
Needle and thread Hesperostipa comata x Sagebrush shrublands,
mountain shrub
Prairie Junegrass Koeleria macrantha xx Sagebrush shrublands
Sandberg
bluegrass Poa secunda xxx Sagebrush shrublands,
mountain shrub
Smooth brome Bromus inermis x Sagebrush shrublands,
mountain shrub
Forbs
Arrowleaf
balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagitta xxx Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
Barneby's thistle Cirsium barnebyi x Sagebrush shrubland
Bastard toadflax Comandra umbellata x Sagebrush shrubland
Common
dandelion Taraxacum officinale x Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
Common yarrow Achillea millefolium xx Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
Fineleaf
hymenopappus Hymenopappus filifolius xx Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 9 May 2021
Table 2. Common plant species occurring in the project area.
Common Name Scientific Name Abundance* Habitat Type
Geyer's sedge Carex geyeri x Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
Hollyleaf clover Trifolium gymnocarpon x Sagebrush shrubland
Lambstongue
ragwort Senecio integerrimus x Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
Largeflower
hawksbeard Crepis occidentalis x Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
Lobeleaf
groundsel Packera multilobata x Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
Longleaf phlox Phlox longifolia xx Sagebrush shrubland
Mat penstemon Penstemon caespitosus x Sagebrush shrubland
Mountain
deathcamas Zigadenus elegans x Sagebrush shrubland
Navajo fleabane Erigeron concinnus x Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
Northwestern
Indian paintbrush Castilleja chromosa xx Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
Pygmyflower
rockjasmine
Androsace
septentrionalis x Sagebrush shrubland
Rayless tansyaster Machaeranthera
grindelioides x Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
Rocky Mountain
springparsley Cymopterus planosus xx Sagebrush shrubland
Rosy pussytoes Antennaria rosea xxx Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
Silvery lupine Lupinus argenteus xx Sagebrush, mountain
shrub
Spiny phlox Phlox hoodii xxx Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
Sulphur flower
buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum xxx Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
Thriftmock
goldenweed Stenotus armerioides x Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 9 May 2021
Table 2. Common plant species occurring in the project area.
Common Name Scientific Name Abundance* Habitat Type
Twolobe larkspur Delphinium
nuttallianum x Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
Winged
buckwheat Eriogonum alatum xxx Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
Shrubs/Trees
Antelope
bitterbrush Purshia tridentata xx Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
Broom snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae x Sagebrush shrubland
Creeping barberry Berberis repens x Mountain shrub
Gambel's oak Quercus gambelii xx Mountain shrub
Mountain
mahogany Cercocarpus montanus xx Mountain shrub
Mountain
snowberry
Symphoricarpos
oreophilus xxx Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides x Mountain shrub
Utah serviceberry Amelanchier utahensis xxx Mountain shrub
Woods’ Rose Rosa woodsii x Mountain shrub
Mountain
Sagebrush
Artemisa tridentata ssp.
Vasayana xxx Sagebrush shrubland
Yellow
rabbitbrush
Chrysothamnus
viscidflorus x Sagebrush shrubland,
mountain shrub
* x= uncommon in project area.
xx= moderate frequency throughout project area.
xxx = common frequency throughout project area.
SURVEY METHODS
Data locations were recorded using handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) units (Datum:
Zone 12, NAD83) and photographs were taken of the habitat, terrain, and biological features
found during the survey. Aerial photographs were consulted to determine survey routes and areas
of suitable raptor nesting habitat.
Raptor surveys were conducted on foot within a 0.25-mile buffer of the project features in
suitable woodland raptor nesting habitat (Figure 2). Raptor surveys for the project were
conducted in accordance with WRFO protocols (Smithers 2012) during May 2021. Survey
WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 9 May 2021
transects in suitable woodland habitat were spaced approximately 50 meters apart or less in areas
of highly suitable habitat. Woodland raptor nest surveys were aided by using call playback
methodology (Iverson and Fuller 1991; Kennedy and Stahlecker 1993; Mosher and Fuller 1996;
Mosher et. al. 1990; Reynolds et. al. 1992) using electronic digital game calls. Call station
locations are depicted on Figure 2. Data collected included tree height, nest height, tree diameter
at breast height (DBH), nest diameter, nest depth, nest slope, nest aspect, nest status, (occupied,
unoccupied, or unknown), and general condition of the nest.
RESULTS
Mature aspen woodlands and oakbrush shrublands within the survey area provide suitable raptor
nesting habitat. Approximately 67 acres of suitable woodland raptor nesting habitat were
surveyed (Figure 2). In suitable woodland nesting habitat, tree height ranged from 20 feet to 60
feet on average. There are no suitable cliffs or rock outcrops within one-half mile of the project
area to support nesting raptors.
Several species of raptors may potentially inhabit the region (Table 3) (Andrews and Righter
1992, Sibley 2000, and Wickersham 2016). Common species include Cooper’s Hawk, Great
Horned Owl, Long-eared Owl, Red-tailed Hawk, and Sharp-shinned Hawk. The Flammulated
Owl is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) and Northern Goshawk is a BLM Sensitive
Species (USFWS 2008 and BLM 2015).
Table 3. Raptor species that may be present in the project area.
Common Name Scientific Name BCC /BLM Sensitive
American Kestrel Falco sparverius No
Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii No
Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus BCC
Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus No
Long-eared Owl Asio otus No
Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis BLM Sensitive
Northern Pygmy Owl Glaucidium gnoma No
Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus No
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis No
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus No
Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni No
Observations
No raptor nests were observed during surveys (Figure 2). A Red-tailed Hawk was observed
flying in the project area; however, the hawk did not display defensive behavior that would
indicate potential nesting nearby.
Recommendations
If project related activities (i.e. construction, drilling and completions) are delayed to a
subsequent year, during the breeding and nesting period (Feb. 1 to Aug. 15) for raptors, it is
recommended that a raptor survey be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to activities
WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 9 May 2021
occurring. If an occupied raptor nest is observed during subsequent surveys, it is recommended
that the timing limitations be applied from February 1 to August 15th or until the chicks have
fledged the nest, as outlined in the BLM WRFO Resource Management Plan and Oil and Gas
Development Amendment (BLM 1997 and BLM 2015).
REFERENCES
Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and
Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado.
BLM. 2015. BLM Colorado State Director’s Sensitive Species List. Bureau of Land
Management, Colorado.
BLM. 2019. White River Field Office (WRFO), Little Snake Field Office (LSFO), Kremmling
Field Office (KFO), Standards for Contractor Inventories for Special Status Plant Species
& Noxious Weed Affiliates, Field Season 2019. Bureau of Land Management, White
River Field Office, Meeker, CO.
Iverson, G.C. and M.R. Fuller. 1991. Woodland nesting raptor survey techniques. Pp 118-124 in
Proc. Midwest Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop. National Wildlife
Federation, Washington D.C.
Kennedy, P. L., and D.W. Stahlecker. 1993. Responsiveness of nesting northern goshawks to
taped broadcasts of 3 conspecific calls. Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 249-257.
Kershaw, L., A. MacKinnon, and J. Pojar. 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountains. Lone
Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington.
Mosher, J.A. and M.R. Fuller. 1996. Surveying woodland hawks with broadcasts of Great
Horned Owl vocalization. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 24: 531-536.
Mosher, J.A., M.R. Fuller, and M. Kopeny. 1990. Surveying woodland raptors by broadcast of
conspecific vocalizations. Journal of Field Ornithology. 61:453-461.
NRCS. 2021. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.
Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce Jr., G.
Goodwin, R. Smith and E. L Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the
northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. General Technical Report RMGTR-
217, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Sibley D.A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York.
Smithers, B. 2012. White River Field Office Diurnal Raptor Survey Protocol. U.S. Bureau of
Land Management, White River Field Office, Meeker, CO.
USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division
of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia.
Wickersham, L.E. (editor). 2016. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas
Partnership, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver.
WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 9 May 2021
WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 9 May 2021