Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.23 Wildlife asssesment reportE 1101� ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. NEPA•• WILDLIFE• ■VEGETATIDN••WILDFfR.E MITIGATION— WETLANDS - PLANNING Wildlife Assessment Report for Proposed RTZ Industrial- Gravel Mines Garfield County, Colorado Prepared for: Zancanella & Associates, Inc. August 2007 0222 BOBCAT LANE • REDSTONE • COLORADO • 81623 PHONE/FAX: (970) 963 -2190 • CELL: (970) 309 -4454 EMAIL: ERIC, PETTERSON@STARBAND.NET RIZ Gwpel ffi[ E "h Arnessrmf_�ap�_ - -- — -- - W 2007 1 SUMMARY This Wildlife Assessment Report details the wildlife use & potential impacts and provides recommended mitigation measures for the proposed operation and development of a series of gravel pits, approximately 4.5 west of Parachute in Garfield County, Colorado (see Figure 1). The proponent (RTZ Industries) is proposing the mining and extraction of approximately 600,000 yards of gravel over a project area of 78 acres. It is anticipated that the mining will occur in three phases and that the reclamation will entail open water ponds. Future residential development of the property may occur, but these activities are not formally proposed at this time. The proposed mining schedule will be 150,000 tonslyear for approximately ten years. This report is for the Garfield County Special Use Permit Application process. The site is located adjacent to the Colorado River (on a site referenced on USGS Topographic maps by the name "Una"), in an area bordered to the east by Garfield County Road 302, and existing and active gravel pit operations, to the north by the Union Pack Rail Road line, and Interstate 70. To the west of the property is undeveloped land. The southern boundary of the property is the Colorado River. The legal description for the property is NW 114, Section 33, Township 7 South, Range 96 West, a Principal Meridian. The property can be divided into three habitat types: 1. Uplands are dominated by greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) flats, 2. Previously disturbed and excavated borrow pits (used to berm the Colorado River with levees in the recent past) and 3. Cottonwood riparian woodlands immediately adjacent to the Colorado River. This wildlife analysis is conceptual, based on information provided by Zancanella and Associates. This analysis is based on initial project level planning, and final design and planning of the project may change with feedback from Garfield County, US Army Corp of Engineers, CDOW, and other regulatory entities. 1.1 EVALUATED SP$ciEs Information on species status, distribution, and ecology was derived from USFWS recovery plans, Colorado Natural Heritage Program maps and reports, Colorado Division of Wildlife habitat mapping, discussions with CROW Area Biologist John Broderick, CDOW Aquatic Biologist Anita Martinez, various scienfi is studies and reports, as well as field reviews. The US Fish and Wildlife list of Threatened and Endangered Species was used to determine if any species potentially occurred within or adjacent to the property. Additionally, the Colorado Division of Wildlife's list of Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern was referenced to determine if any species had potential habitat on or adjacent to the property (see: htt :// wildlife .state.co.usfViildlife5,ep cies/ peciesOfCgncern/ Threa _tenedEndangeredList /ListOfThre atenedAndEndant eredS e�] cies.htm for the complete CROW list). Research was conducted by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services to determine relevant habitat associations, life history traits, the rangewide or statewide distribution of known populations, and current status and trend of each species. The Colorado Natural Heritage database was consulted to ascertain the existence of known occurrences within the project area. Habitat surveys were conducted in April 2007 by Eric Patterson, Principal Ecologist of Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc, and in May 2007 by Eric Petterson, and Mindy Wheeler, Plant Ecologist with WP Natural Resource Consulting, LLC. I:ICY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. RTl ! ja S Pits EL49ft Assrsimml E -- - - - _ f WYI7007 Species chosen for impacts analysis have high biological, political, and public interest, as well as regulatory guidance. Individual wildlife species and groups not specifically mentioned in this assessment are not "insignificant ", they are just not presently at issues because the limited extent of the proposed gravel mining operations would avoid or minimally impact these unmentioned species and their habitats. The following selected species either have habitat on or adjacent to the property: o Elk o Mule Deer o Bald Eagle (Delisted from ESA on July 8, 2007) o Yellow - billed Cuckoo (Federal Candidate Species) o River Otter (State Threatened) o Colorado Pikeminnow (Federally Endangered) o Razorback Sucker (Federally Endangered) o Humpback Chub (Federally Endangered) o Bonytail Chub (Federally Endangered) The property contains limited roosting habitat for bald eagles, despite the fact that large diameter cottonwood trees have recently fallen down. The live cottonwood trees, for the most part, are too small in diameter to adequately provide suitable roosting sites. The Colorado River in the vicinity of the project site contains habitats for the four Endangered fish species. Critical habitat as delineated by US Fish and Wildlife Service, within the stretch of river adjacent to the property only exists for razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow. Colorado River cutthroat trout (State Species of Concern) has suitable habitat in many of the perennial streams along the Colorado River tributaries. The development of the property should not impact the ability of this species to utilize suitable riverine habitats near the project area. Colorado River cutthroat trout generally do not utilize the mainstem of the Colorado River aside from incidental movements and incidental flushing during high water events. River Otter (State Threatened) has suitable habitat within the Colorado River. No decreases to instream flows within the Colorado River will occur due to this project. RTZ has filed for augmentation water rights in order to offset potential out -of- priority depletions due to consumptive use from gravel mining operations, dust control, and evaporative losses. Please see Section 3.7 below for more information. As the project has no planned activities that would have direct impacts to fish populations in the Colorado River, this project should have no impacts on river otter populations or their habitat. The project has been designed to avoid significant wetland areas on the property, as well as riparian habitats adjacent to the Colorado River. Incidental impacts to wetlands must be in compliance with section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as regulated by the US Army Corp of Engineers (Colorado and Gunnison Basin Regulatory Office). jpt[CY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC �I it s■. ' •e. r . 1 t 113; Table of Contents 1 SUMMARY .............................................................,.................................,....,...........,..... ...........................,..2 1.1 EVALUATED SPECEBS ............................................................................................. ..............................2 1.2 FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF WF'Z PROPER` rY .......................................................... ..............................5 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS & SPECIES BIOLOGY.... ...................................................................... 6 2.1 EXISTING WnDLTE HABITAT AND USE ................... ......................................... ..............................6 3 IMPAC'T'S ASSESMENT ............................................................................................. .............................13 3.1 FEDERALLY THREA'T'ENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ............................... .............................13 3.2 IMPACTS To BALD EAGLE .................................................................................... .............................14 3.2.1 FiGuItE 4: BALD EAGLE HABITAT USE ............................................ .............................15 3.3 IMPACTS To YELLOW -BU LED CucKoo ............................................................. .............................16 3.4 IMPACTS TO COLORADO RIVER ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES ....................... .............................16 3.5 IMPACT'S TO MULE DEER HABITAT .................................................................... .............................19 3.5.1 FIGURE 2; DEER WINTER RANGE ......................................... .............................20 3.6 IMPACT'S To ELK HABrr AT ................................................................................... .............................21 3.6.1 FIGURE 4: ELK WINTER RANGE ...................................................... .............................22 37 IMPACTS TO RrvER QT MR ................................................................................. .............................23 4 IMPACT MINIMIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... .............................24 4.1 LmHTING & GAME USE ....................................................................................... .............................24 4.2 ROADS ..................................................................................................................... .............................24 4.3 4.4 FENCE s ............................................ .................................................................. LANDSCAPING AND REVEGETATION ................................................................. .. ............... .................. 24 .............................25 4.5 DOMESTIC DOGS ................................................................................................... .............................25 5 LITERATURE CITED & GENERAL REFERENCES ....................................... .............................27 ftkY MOU- rAiN EcoLocicAL SERVICES, INc 4 Private USFS TZ IA nr IVOK ful I L4 jL AWN �"r' i is •. ! 1 ' �''- -• ��?� - - -.� ,;�.• f'?,`J �� r rb ■,ff.'s .]'..' �j � .. ti�, - :L� F•. t+'��'- �`i:'_�' � f`?'i ��, ;�. ;n'j': F f � . L � -st. -, ,fit, �.•� -� j! ~�4.Y its '. ,�.' , ] � � � • _ �S�`. �.:.' '!_: :a•. , I `�; rte• • '� � �' _.r_ -i s:• r':si `'� LUZAIMM NM2 NEW' -M 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS & SPECIES BIOLOGY The upland areas, dominated by greasewood shrublands, also has infrequent rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), halogeton (Halogeton glomerafus), Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus), wooly plantain (Plantago patagonics), and widely scattered saltbush (Atriplex confertifolia). In general, these habitats are produced by highly alkali soils. The understory plant diversity observed was low, but this may have been due to the time of year the site was visited. Past and current grazing of these areas occurs, and this also may have negatively impacted the understory plant diversity on this site. Within the borrow pit areas on the property, vegetation and habitats are dominated by consecutive rings of vegetation around the pits, as likely determined by water pooling and subsequent soil moisture regimes. Around the edges of the borrow -pits, cottonwood (Populus deltoids) is present, but is dying off due to insufficient soil moisture. Within this zone, the noxious weed tamarisk (Temarix ramosissima) dominates the current vegetation, and widely scattered Russian olive (Elaegnus aagustftia) (also a noxious weed) exists. Within the basins of the barrow pits, vegetation is dominated by coyote willow (Salix exigue), tamarisk, cattail (Typha latifolia), and patches of hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus). Yellow sweetclover (Meh7otus officinale) and knotweed (Polygonum douglasi►) was also common in the disturbed areas_ Along the riparian floodplain adjacent to the Colorado River, a stand of cottonwood ranging from young to mature in age classification dominated the site. The understory of the stand was very dense with coyote willow, tamarisk, Russian olive, and small patches of cattail. Grasses in this area were dominated by saltgrass (Disticirlis stslcta), reed canarygrass (Phalerokkw arunedinacea) and common read (Phragmites autralis). 2.1 EXISTING WILDLIFE HABITAT AND USE Wildlife use patterns within the area are described based on existing habitat types, indirect evidence of use (scat, prints, etc.), and direct observation of wildlife species. Due to the time of year, summertime wildlife species using the site (mostly birds) would have been virtually impossible to visually detect. Discussions of potential impacts to wildlife and habitat follow in Sect km 3 below. Mule ©der Current CDOW NDIS maps delineate lowland riparian forests and adjacent upland shrubland habitats both north and south of the project area and along the Colorado River as mule deer winter range. Areas north of the Interstate, and partially within the project area are delineated as severe winter range, and areas south of the Colorado River as a winter concentration area. Based on more intensive, site specific inventories of the property, there was no drflerence of habitats along the severe winter range delineation km crossing the property. However, the presence of the existing gravel mining operations immediately to the east of the project area, and the busy county road would likely produce human activity levels and traffic that would preclude full deer use of the eastern end of the property. Deer use of the property during the winter months was evidenced by scat. Deer use likely begins during early winter, as snows begin to accumulate in pinyonyuniper (Pines edulis and Juniperus osteosperma, respectively) habitats. Deer would likely begin to move out of the project a" in the early spring, as snowmelt on southfiaang slopes facili es an earker green-up of p int browse species. The number or amount of deer utilizing the property could not be determined solely based a on scat and tracks observed. In discussions with CDOW Area Biologist John Broderick, gas development of the LittleAlkafi Creek area and Samson Mesa area has pushed wintering deer into riparian forests areas a" the a RMXV MOUNTAIN F-CoLOGiew. SERVI[ :FS, INC. L Z Gravel Pit, - -- Ii/kkfa Aga immt R&kd - - - .,4l MA 2007 Colorado River. Therefore increased deer use of the RTZ property and surrounding habitats may be a recent phenomenon, which would likely continue for the next few years while the natural gas resources in the area are being developed. After gas pads are established, and drilling activities diminish, mule deer may once again utilize habitats along these mesas. However, with the direct loss of habitat to roads, well pads, and other associated infrastructure, and likely foreseeable persistent human activities in the area, some continued level of mule deer use of riparian habitats for winter ranges will likely persist for some time. There was no evidence of mule deer fawning activities on the property. Elk Current CDOW NDIS maps delineate most of the river bottom habitats south of the Colorado River and south of the project area as elk winter range and elk winter concentration areas. Based on more intensive site surveys, elk use of the property was evident from significant amounts of scat. The presence of the gravel mine operations and county road 342 immediately east of the project area likely precluded significant elk use of the eastern side of the project area, as evidenced by lack of scat. In discussions with CDOW Area Biologist John Broderick, gas development of the Little Alkali Creek area, and Samson Mesa area has pushed wintering elk further north across the Colorado River, onto the shrubby upland habitats on and around the RTZ property. However, on the project area, the most significant evidence of ells use was in the riparian bottomland forests adjacent to the Colorado River. Elk appear to migrate to the south after snows begin to melt in the sprtigtime, and move into higher elevations on Battlement Mesa. Therefore increased elk use of the RTZ property and surrounding habitats may be a recent phenomenon, which would likely continue for the next few years whille the natural gas resources in the area are being developed. After gas pads are established, and drilling actives diminish, elk may once again utilize habitats a" these upland mesas. However, with the direct loss of habitat to roads, weds pads, and odw associated infrastructure, and likely foreseeable persistent human activities in the area, some continued level of elk use of riparian habitats for winter ranges will likely persist for some time, and elk use of the area will be compromised. There was no evidence of elk calving activities on the property. Bald Eagle After the ESA was passed in 1973, the bald eagle was fisted as endangered throughout the lower 48 states except in five states, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon, where it was listed as threatened. Based on geographic location, the FWS established five recovery regions. The distribution, recovery goals, and implementation of protecbon for the bald eagle varied v6 dety from region to region. A recovery team was established for each region which prepared a recovery plan describing the terms and tasks necessary to help improve the bald eagle population specific to each location. The five regions are as folkyws: Northern States, Chesapeake Bay, Southeast, Southwestern, and Pacific (FWS I%%). The bald eagle was deed from the Endangered Species List due to meeting of recovery targets on July 8, 2407. Historically, bald eagles nested throughout North America. Population numbers greatly decd during the 1900s due to shooting, habitat alteration, pesticide use (especially DDT) and other actions. Since being fisted, the population has greatly increased so that there are breeding populations in the Canadian provinces, in all but two states in the United States, and in Mexico (though populations are limited). In Cokwado, known nesting bald eagles have increased in rwamber from only one pair to over 21 pairs in the last. two decades (Gross 1996). ?Ro= Mot NTAm Ecoi.oCIca SERvicuc,1xc- A Z Grayl Pitt -- TWUNte A c sessm�p� Ii rt _ _ Auer The bald eagle is an uncommon -to- locally- common winter resident in western valleys, in mountain d parks, and on the eastern plains of Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1994). During the winter they congregate around larger rivers, open lakes, and reservoirs, where they roost in large or small numbers on cottonwoods (Popukus spp.) and conifer snags adjacent to these water bodies. In 1995, up to 1,000 wintering bald eagles were documented in the State (Gross 1598). Crippled waterfowl, carrion, and small mammals provide food. Hunting is typically conducted from a perch near water. In the summer, many bald eagles migrate north, but a few pairs remain in the State. Nesting season extends typically from February through July, when these raptors construct very large stick nests in tall deciduous or conifer trees or utilize existing nest structures. Eagles will commonly use the same nest site for multiple generations. Threats to bald eagles include management actions that result in the decrease in breeding and winter habitat quality and quantity. Disturbances within one quarter mile of nests may lead to nest abandonment and decreased survival (FWS 1995b) During the past two years, bald eagle have begun to reestablish nest sites within Garfield County, however, most eagles migrate to the north in mid to late March. Along the Colorado River, eagles perch on large cottonwood trees adjacent to or hanging above the river. Current CDOW NDIS mapping indicates that the project area lies within a larger matrix of roosting sites and winter range. Specific site visits indicate that larger, more suitable oattorm ood trees suitable for roosting are not available on the property, and the property only contains two cottonwood trees of significant size suitable for roosting. Other potential cottonwood roosting snags (dead trees) on the property have recently fallen down. The proposed gravel mining pits are located away from cottonwood woodland forests, and avoid the best long-term potential habitats on the property. Yellow - billed Cuckoo Yellow - billed cuckoos are medium birds (26 to 30 cm long; 55 to 65 g) with long tails. There are two, recognized subspecies of Coccyzuus americanus; Coccyrzus ameufcanus aufrericanus (the easWn version) and its western counterpart, Coccyzus americanus occidente is. These two subspecies are differentiated by tail, wing and bill length (Hughes 1999). Yellow-billed cuckoos prefer open woodlands with clearings and a dense shrub Layer. They are often found in woodlands near streams, rivers or lakes. In North Arnerica, their pr+eierred habMs include abandoned farmland, old fruit orchards, successional shrubland and dense thickets- In winter, yellow- billed cuckoos can be found in tropical habitats with similar structure, such as scrub forest and mangroves (Hughes 1999). Yellow - gilled cuckoos primarily eat large insects including caterpillars, katydids, cicadas, grasshoppers and crickets. They also occasionally eat bird eggs, snails, small vertebrates such as frogs and lizards and some fruits and seeds- Parents feed their chicks' regurgi ded insects (FWS 2006). Yellow - billed cuckoos are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. They are considered threatened or endangered in several states, and are a candidate for protection under the ESA. Yellow - billed cuckoos are common in parts of their range, but populatons have been declining in recent years throughout much of their range. This decline is most likely due to habitat kossi and fragmentation. Other threats to cuckoo populations include poisoning from pesticides and other environmental contaminants and collision with towers and tall buildings during their nocturnal X migration. (Hughes 1999) Yellow- billed cuckoos occur on the western slope of Colorado, mostly along the larger river systems where wide riparian systems have provided extensive cottonwood overstories wish shrubby ROCKY hfou -NTAIN ECOU)MC.AL SERMCS, INC- KTZ Gravel Pits - _ _ „Wildl;'f Asamral Rd2d ANpd2007 undersiories. Most notably this occurs along the Gunnison and Colorado River systems in the vicinity of Grand Junction and Delta. The property contains potentially suitable habitat for the yellow - billed cuckoo at this time. River Otter Northam river otter (Lutra canadensis) inhabit riparian habitats that may occur from low elevation deserts to high valleys of Colorado. Otters require permanent water of relatively high quality with an abundance of fish and/or crustaceans (crayfish) and are usually found in streams with fairly high flows (a minimum of 10 cfs). During the winter months, otters continue to need streams with relatively high amounts of open, ice -free water, deep pools, and good access to the shoreline. Historically, and currently, otters are mostly commonly found in Colorado using lower to moderate elevation, larger rivers. Otters are also known to have colonized larger ponds, takes, and flooded gravel pits. Fish are the primary food source for otters, particularly slow-swimming fish species. In streams where they are abundant, crustaceans can make up a significant portion of the otters diet. Most research indicates that abundant prey is needed to support otter use of an area (Mack 1985, Malville 1990, Melquist et al. 1981, and others). Because of the river otter's aquatic fife, many aspects of the species' behavior and ecology are not well understood. They are active year round and do not hibernate. O tare in the Upper Colorado drainage are mostly diurnal in winter and more nocturnal in summer, with the least amount of activity in late summer and early fall. River otters are social, forming family groups led by the adult femaie, who may exhibit territorial behavior. Yearling otters, unrelated juveniles, and occasional adu# otters may join with family groups. The river otter once occurred in most of the major river drainages in Colorado, and was extirpated. Starting in 1976, Colorado started reintroduction efforts in several drainages, with an initial goal of establishing two populations (Goodman 1984). in 1998 a more intensive reintroduction program was started by CDOW. River otters are now known to utilize the Eagle and Colorado rivers, downstream of Dowds Junction, and may occur up the Roaring Fork River system. River otters use both terrestrial resting sites and dens when not actively moving. Beaver bank dens are particularly favored sites. Along the Colorado and Eagle Rivers, they accounted for most of the denning sites used (B.Andree, pers. com. 2005). Adult otters apparently have few natural predators, although individuals have been killed by bobcats, dogs, coyotes, and foxes (Fitzgerald st al. 1994). Most mortality is thought to occur from trapping and road kills. Habitat destruction and water pollution have an impact as well. The Colorado River and riparian woodlands adjacent to the river provide habitat for river otter. River otter very rarely leave riparian habitats and venture into upland habitats. Colorado River Endamered Fish The four endangered fish species existing in the Colorado River are generally found below the Rifle/DeBeque area, near Grand Junction and further downstream. The US Fish and Wildlife Service lists the humpback chub (Gila cypha), bonytail chub (G elegens), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) as endangered under" Endangered Species Ad. Endemic to the Colorado River Basin, populations of these fishes had 4 ;�= declined throughout their historic range clue largely to habitat loss or habitat degradation (mainly through dams and wader diverslons) and introduction of compagive and predatory rive fish t species. The Lipper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery implennentation ProVram was ?ty MoUNMAIN Ecor ocicAL SFxvims, INc. R7Z Grac+el Pits _ _ 1 ilclltji. resrmW,& - — M7 established in 1988 with the goal of recovering these four endangered fishes in the face of current and foreseeable future water depletions from the Upper Colorado River Basin. Although the proposed project would not likely have any direct impact on these fishes, indirect effects, namely through post - mining use of ponds, could have indirect impacts on these species; therefore, they are analyzed in detail below. Razorback Sucker Wymuchen texanus) Species Biology & Ecology The razorback sucker (Xyrouchen texanus) was listed as endangered by the FWS on October 23, 1991; critical habitat was designated on March 21, 1994. The razorback sucker is an endemic species unique to the Colorado River Basin. Razorback sucker were historically abundant and widely distributed within warm water reaches throughout the Colorado River Basin. The species can be identified by its large fleshy subterminal mouth and is the only sucker with an abrupt sharp -edged dorsal keel behind its head. Razorback suckers occupy a variety of habitats during their lives. In general, razorback suckers prefer calmer, flatwater reaches over higher velocity whitewater or canyon reaches (Minckley et al. 1991). Adults occupy shoreline and mainline channel habitats inducting slow runs, shallow to deep pools, backwaters, eddies, and other slow velocity habitats associated with sand subsh-ates (Tyus and Karp 1990; Csmundson and Kaeding 1991). During spawning, preference appears to consist of gravel and cobble substrates clear of fine materials. Historically, razorback suckers were found in the mainstem Colorado River and major trRxAwies in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and in Mexico (Hinckley 1963). 09 Popuiabon dedines can be attributed to construction of dams and reservoirs, introduction of nonnative fishes, and dewatering of the Colorado River system (FWS 1999). In the Colorado River, most razorbacks are found in the Grand Valley near Grand Junction, Colorado (FWS 1999). In 1991 and 1992, 28 adults were collected from isolated ponds adjacent to the Colorado River new DeBeque, Colorado (Bcadick 1992). Razorback sucker's range in the Colorado River currently extends upstream to the City of Rifle, Colorado. Most razorbacks, have been documented in flooded gravel pit ponds adjacent to the river. Razorback suckers have been wed as for upshearn as river mile 183.6 and in 1988 as far as river mile 235 ram Ride, Colorado (FWS 199% Eltuck tk 1992). To date, FWS has stocked 14,898 4 to 114nch razorback suckers in the upper Colorado River near Paracihute, Colorado. Razorback suckers have been documented drifting over all three diversion structures (Burdick 2000). The Recovery Program approved plan to stock 102,100 64nch and 30,600124nch razorback suckers between Rifle and DeBeque Canyon, Colorado within the next five years [FWS 1999). The three designated areas of critical habitat encompass 1) Colorado, Mesa and Garfield Counties, 2) Colorado, Delta and Mesa Counties and 3) Utah, Grand, San Juan, Wayne, and Garfield Counties (FWS 1594). The Project Area is within a tributary watershed to designated critical habitat of the Colorado River in Cokrado, Mesa and Garfield Counties, as follows: The Colorado River and its 100 -year flood plain from the Coloado River Bridge at exit 90 north off Interstate 70 in T.BS., R.93W., section 16 (6th PM) (Rifle exit) downstream to Westwatar Canyon in T.20S., R.25E., secbm 12 (Salk lake PM) including the Gunnison River and Its 100 year flood plain from the Redlands Diversion Dam in T.1S., R1 W., section 27 (Ute Meridian) to the confluence with the Colorado River in T.1S., RAW., section 22 (Ute Meridian). E KY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC 10 W' Assessment R001 ,4Z Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychochelius lucius) Species Biology & Ecology The Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) was listed as endangered by the FINS on March 11, 1967; critical habitat was designated on March 21, 1994. The Colorado pikeminnow (formerly known as the Colorado squawfish) is an endemic species unique to the Colorado River Basin. It is the largest cyprinid fish native to North America. Spawning sites are comprised of clean - cobble substrate with deep interstitial voids (FWS 1999). The Colorado pikeminnow is believed to migrate to pool /riffle areas near the spawning sites. The fish appear to use deep pools, eddies, or mixing zones as resting areas near the spawning sites (Holden 1999). Warm water temperature, discharge, and photoperiod (on or near Spring Solstice) are possible spawning and/or spawning migration cues (Holden 1995). Adult Colorado pikeminnow have been collected from all habitat types but most frequently from low - velocity areas including runs, eddies, backwaters, and pooled canyon mouths. during spring (pre-runoff and r oxM adulir tend to use backwaters, flooded mouths of washes, and other low-velocity habitats that are warner than main channel habitats. As warn waters and flows recede, they use eddies and other low - velocity habitats associated with the main channel. During the fall and winter they continue to use lower-velocity shoreline habitats (holden 1999). - Historically, Colorado pikeminnow were distributed throughout warm water reaches of the Colorado River Basin from Wyoming to Mexico. By the 1970'x, the fish was extirpated from the lower basin below Glen Canyon Dam and from portions of the upper basin. Colorado pikeminnow are currendy restricted to the Upper Colorado River Basin and inhabit warn water reaches in the Colorado, 0 Green, and San Juan Rivers and their associated tributaries. Population declines can be attributed to construction of dams and reservoirs, introduction of nonnative fishes, dewatering of the Colorado River system and the loss of natural hydrology (FWS 1999). In the Colorado River, Colorado pikeminnow are found in low numbers with recruitment in pulses from infir+equent strong year classes (Osmundson and Sumham 1998). In the spring of 2000, sixty -five 14 to 18 -inch adult Colorado Pikerninnow, were stocked in the upper Colorado River near Parachute, Colorado. These fish were fitted with radio-transmitters to monitor movements. Fish have beenn documented afritft over the Grand Valley Project Dam. The six designated areas of critical habitat encompass 1) Yampa River, 2) Green River, 3) White River, 4) Gunnison River, 5) Colorado River and 8) San Juan River. The Project Area is within a tributary watershed to designated critical habitat for the Colorado River in Colorado, Mesa and Garfield Counties which reads as follows: Coknrado, Mesa and Garfield Counties; and Utah, Grand, San Juan, Wayne, and Garfield Counties. The Colorado River and its 100 -year flood plain from the Colorado River Bridge at exit 90 north off Interstate 70 in T. 6 S., R. 93 W., section 18 (6th Princes Meridian) (Rifie exit) downstream to North Wash, including the Dirty Devil arm of Lake Powell up to the full pool elevation, in T. 33 S., R 14 E., section 29 (Salt Lake Principal Meridian). Bon ii Chub Gda a ans Species Biology & Ecology The bonytail (Gila elegans) was classified as endangered by the FWS on Apra 23, 19W; critical habitat was designated on March 21, 1994. Bonytail are considered big or mainstream river species that prefer pools and eddies. It has an elongated body with a thin caudal peduncle, which gives the bonytail its name. Bonytail are closely related to humpback chub (Gila cypha) and roundtail chub (Gila robusta). Bonytad appear to prefer pools and eddies rather than areas with more current (FWS 1990b). Bonyta l in Lake Mohave appear to occupy lacustrine habitat rather than upstream riverine ftKY MOUNTAIN F.cowc -.icAL SERvicEs, INc- 11 Ra-Gnowipill -_____— 9?5 1 Fabr _ _ ANAWt 2007 habitat near Hoover Dam_ Cold water releases from Lake Mead are believed to limit the use of the 6 riverine habitat (FWS 1990b). Historically, the bonytail was distributed throughout the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basin. Currently the bonytail is restricted to portions of Lake Mohave and Lake Mead and small non - reproducing populations in upper basin in Desolation and Cataract Canyons (FWS 1990b). Extensive work since 1974 to develop hatchery stock primarily from Lake Mead was conducted by the FWS. Stocking in the Upper Colorado River between Palisade and Loma, Colorado is being considered by the Recovery Program. The Project Area is adjacent to, but not within, designated critical habitat. Critical habitat was designated by the FWS in 1994 consisting of portions of the Yampa, Green and Colorado Rivers. The critical habitat area is described as: Utah, Grand County; and Colorado, Mesa County, the Colorado River from Black Rocks giver mile 137) in T.10 S., R.104 W., section 25 (6th Principal Meridian) downstream to Fish Ford in T.21 S., R.24 E., section 35 (Salt Lake Principal Meridian). Hum back Chub Gila cyphal Species Biology & Ecology The humpback chub (Gila cypha) was classified as endangered by the FWS on March 11, 1967; critical habitat was designated on March 21, 1994. The humpback chub is a medium -sized fish (<500 mm) that is endemic to the Colorado River Basin. The humpback is closely related to the bonytaii (Gila elegans) and the roundtail chub (Gila robusta). The humpback chub requires warmer water to induce spawning (>20° C). Adult humpbacks appear to prefer white -water canyons; however, its original distribution is not known. Data in Black Rocks and Westwater Canyon indicates that young utilize shallow areas (FWS 1999). The original distribution of humpback chub is unknown. Fossil records trace humpback chub to about 4000 B.C. but the species was not described until the 1940s. Until the 1950s, humpback chub was known only to occur in the Grand Canyon. Specimens were later documented from the Upper Green River, the lower Yampa, the White River, and the Colorado River near Moab, Utah. The largest populations occur in the Little Colorado and Colorado Rivers in the Grand Canyon, and in Black Rocks and Westwater Canyon in the upper Colorado River. Fish have also been documented in DeBeque Canyon and one fish was collected in the Gunnison River (FWS 9999). The Project Area is adjacent, but not within, designated critical habitat. Critical habitat includes a portion of the Colorado River approximatety 120 river mites downstream from the project area_ The designation is as follows: Utah, Grand County; and Colorado, Mesa County. The Colorado River from Black Rocks in T. 10 S., R. 104 W., section 25 (Bth Principal Meridian) downstream to Fish Ford in T. 31 S., R. 24 E., section 35 (Salt Lake Principal Meridian). etxy MoL N-wN EmLoGICAL. SERVICES, INc 12 BIZ Grape) aq ,'Id , e . .m e A "O7_ (a 3 IMPACTS ASSESMENT This section details the likely impacts of the proposed gravel mining faits on the selected wildlife species listed in this report. Impacts may be from direct changes to habitat, indirect effects of human occupation, traffic, and use of heavy equipment, and cumulative effects of other surrounding activities that may have a cumulative impact on wildlife habitat and wildlife use patterns in the area. 3.1 FEDERALLY THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The proposed gravel mining activities occur within or adjacent to Federally threatened or endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Federally listed species that occur in this general area of the State include. • Canada lynx • Bald Eagle (Delisted July 8, 2007) • Southwestem Willow Flycatcher • Yellow - billed cuckoo (proposed) • Slender moonwort • Black- footed ferret • Colorado pikeminnow • Razorback sucker ■ Humpback chub ■ Bonytall chub ■ Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly Of these Federally listed species, only bald eagle, yellow - billed cuckoo, and the four endangered fish species have habitats that may be within the vicinity of the property. The Colorado Division of Wildlife lists a number of species as Species of Concern, State Threatened and State Endangered. For the complete list, see: htto:llwildiife. state.cfl,usIWiidlifeSpecieslS eciesOfConcern/ ThreatenedEndan AeredList/ListOfThreatenedAndE ndan ere S ecies.htm Species listed by CDOW which may have habitats within and near the project area include the Federally listed species (above), and additionally river otter. ROCKY'VIOUNTAW ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, iNC 13 s' ■ ' f a, ' acv r : I�1 3.2 IMPACTS To BALD EAGLE Bald eagles have been delisted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service on July 8, 2007 because the species has met recovery goals, and signs indicate that the species will continue to recover. Bald eagles are still protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald. and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The CDOW WRIS mapping (see Figure 4) indicates that the area contains bald eagle winter ranges and bald eagle roosting sites. Site survey and verification indicated that the property only contains marginal bald eagle roost sites, and the availability of suitable roosting that could be impacted by gravel mining operations on the property is extremely limited. Bald eagle use would further only be limited to winter time roosting, as no suitable nest trees are available on the property. Bald eagle that happen to be roosting on the one tree on the property would likely be flushed by heavy equipment operation on the property, and human activities would likely preclude all but incidental Bald eagle use of the property. The existing gravel mine operations and busy CR 302 next to the proposed RTZ pits further decrease the suitability of the site to any extensive bald eagle use. Gravel mining operations could potentially decrease bald eagle use of some of the mature cottonwood stands on the southern side of the Colorado River; however this is somewhat speculatory, as some eagles would be extremely sensitive to gravel mining operations and would abandon the area, while other bald eagles would not be visibly alarmed by operations, -and may continue to utilize the cottonwood stands undisturbed. Before bald eagle use of the site could consistently occur, the majority of the cottonwood trees on the property would have to mature to larger diameter trees with more substantial lateral branches. Based on the average size of the existing cottonwood trees, this would not likely occur for another 20+ years. After mining has completed and flooding of the gravel pits occur, fish stocking in the ponds could potentially attract eagle use, but due to the lack of suitable roosting trees, this is unlikely. With dxlisting, impacts to bald eagle would not longer need consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service, but bald eagle would still be somewhat protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A* KY NIOU- STAIN ECo L0[il(:Af. SFRVICF-S, lNr- 14 FF interstates v A RTZ-boundary BALD EAGLE-roost sites a BALD EAGLE-winter r nge fvt 1. W4... .1 Ulf P_ r. rS a. 3. -01 k, A A Y 40 L Z, i. 'Ov J if f V 2. ri. k, 9 r. rp 'Ile i. �K IT ' r9 ME W VO X, n. a y 1. Jx rr - 111Z, 4, j. XtIn �M N. A. I . . -�,- -�A 1. 7A tl 71� 7, S 0 3.3 IVPACT 5 YELLOW-BILLED To CUCKOO The property contains young to mature -aged cottonwood stands with shrubby understories. As previously discussed, these habitat conditions are suitable for yellow - billed cuckoo. The gravel mine operations, for the most part, avoid direct impacts to these habitat types. The vast majority of the proposed activities are placed north of the cottonwood woodland types, and into the upland greasewood communities. The use and noise of heavy equipment during the gravel mining operations may indirectly scare off (flush) or diminish the suitability of the habitats on the property for significant yellow - billed cuckoo use. As little is known about the behavioral responses of cuckoo to human activity and noise, the likelihood of cuckoo being precluded from using the cottonwood stands is somewhat speculatory. Some mining operations further away from suitable habitats on the property may not bother cuckoo, while operations closer to the cottonwood stands may preclude cuckoo use of those habitats. Further, there may be a differential use of habitats when comparing foraging areas and nesting areas. Cuckoo may tolerate mining activities to a level that woad allow foraging use of the property, but nesting activities may be (likely be) precluded. All of these statements are somewhat speculatory based on the paucity of literature on yellow -WHed cuckoo in Colorado and their habitat use patterns and reactions to nearby human/heavy equipment activities, but it is likely safe to assume that while gravel mining operations are in place, cuckoo use of the cottonwood stands during the summer months (when cuckoo are in the areal would be compromised to some degree, with the good possibility of total avoidance of the area. The degree to what activities will preckrde cuckoo use is, at this time, unknown, This potential indirect impact to cuckoo habitat will likely persist until gravel operations cease in approximately 10 years. After such time, potential cuckoo use of the cottonwood woodland habitats on the property will likely be undeterred. 3.4 IMPACTS TO COLORADO RIVER ENDANGERED FisH SPECIES The direct impacts to the four Colorado River endangered fish species would be primarily limited to transport of sediments and/or contaminants into the Colorado River. Although permitting of gravel mining operations requires submittal of a Stormwater Management Plan, accidents can occur which deliver sediments into the Colorado River. Despite this threat, the four Colorado River fish species have evolved with high levels of sediment loading to their aquatic environments, and it is highly unlikely that the gravel mining operations would be able to produce a sediment plume thick enough, or for a long enough duration that would produce anoxic conditions for these fish species. Sediment loading into the Colorado River can, however, deposit silt and other fine sediments on gravel beds and clean gravelly- cobbly surfaces within the river which can decrease fish egg laying and hatching success for these fish species. All of the four endangered fish species require clean gravel beds for successful egg laying and reproduction. Normally, the Colorado Rivers high flow waters will clean and leave some gravel beds exposed for fish, but it has been determined that flows at least 12,500 cfs are required to accomplish this. Sediment plumes which occur immediately before or during egg laying can smother eggs and hatchlings, reducing reproductive success (USFWS 1995). Flooding of gravel pits post - excavation can be either a benefit and/or a detriment for the four 19 endangered fish species. Competition and predation from non - native fish is one of the primarily reasons for population decreases and subsequent protection of these fish under the endangered PROM 11 oLwTmN EcoL+oGICAL SEzvius, INC. 16 species act (Dill 1944, Qsmundson and Kaeding 1989, Behnke 1984, Joseph at al. 1977, Lanigan and Berry 1979, Minckley and Deacon 1968, Meffe 9985, Propst and Bestgen 1991, Rinne 1991, and others). Data collected by asmundson and Kaeding (1991) indicated that during low water years, nonnative minnows capable of preying on or competing with larval endangered fishes greatly increased in numbers. More than 50 nonnative fish species were intentionally introduced in the Colorado River Basin prior to 1980 for sportfishing, forage fish, biological control and ornamental purposes (Minckely 1 582, Tyus at al. 1982, Carlson. and Muth 1989). Nonnative fishes compete with native fishes in several ways. The capacity of a particular area to support aquatic life is limited by physical habitat conditions. Increasing the number of species in an area usually results In a smatter population of most species. The size of each species population is controlled by the ability of each life stage to compete for space and food resources and to avoid predation. Some nonnative fishes' life stages appear to have a greater ability to compete for space and food and to avoid predation in the existing altered habitat than do some native fishes' life stages. Tyus and Saunders (1998) site numerous examples of both indirect and direct evidence of predation on razorback sucker eggs and larvae by nonnative species. Nonnative fishes often are stocked in and enter rivers from off- channel impoundments. The periodic introduction of these nonnative fishes into a river allows them to bypass l'im'itation to reproduction, growth, or survival that they might encounter in the river. Consequently, populations of nonnative fishes in the river are enhanced. Endangered and other native species in the river experience greater competition and predation as a result. Tyus and Saunders {1998} concluded that the nonnative fish impacts played a significant role in the decline of the Colorado River endangered fishes. Particularly, three non - native fish can have significant negative impacts on native endangered fish species: smallmouth bass. northern Dike, and channel catfish have by far the most significant negative impacts on native Colorado River fish species. Flooding of the gravel pits may produce habitats for non - native fish species, and intentional stocking with non-native fish species may be detrimental to the four endangered fish species. CDOW requires that all water inlets and outlets have screened apertures using <% inch mesh to prevent accidental fish releases into the Colorado River. CDOW also has a required list of approved fish for stocking within the 100 year flood plain. The 100 year flood plain within this section of the Colorado River is approxirnately 5 feet above high water mark of the river. If, post reclamation, the project has potential surface hydrological connection to the Colorado River within 5 feet of the 100 year water level, then only CDOW approved fish species may be stocked in the gravel pit ponds. But on the other hand, proper management of some of the ponds could improve habitat for the native fish species. Post- mining, shaping of outflows of pits that allow for high -water inundation from the Colorado River, but further allow for subsequent drainage /evaporation during the fall and winter can produce habitat conditions suitable and desirable for endangered fish use. These temporary shallow pools allow for warm water temperatures, which assists with rapid growth in young fish. The gentle ouWoping of these ponds would allow for fall drainage and drying of these ponds, which would prevent these pools from being used by non - native fish. Water depletions- The project will drill two water wells on the property for needed waters for dust suppression and gravel miring operations. Further the applicant has provided documentation on the evaporative loss of water from subsequent flooding of gravel pits. Therefore the applicant has prepared and filed a water court application in District Court, Water Division 5 for the waters needed for dust suppression and gravel mining operations, as well as for addressing minimum PtKY MObNTAnv ECOL061CAL SERVICES, INC 17 RTC' Gravel Pik GY/ildGfa Ar arsnrarrtiatwrt Ayxmd 2007 stream flows and evaporative loss. These waters needed for system augmentation are being acquired from upstream adjudicated sources. It is estimated that the water diversion and depletion for gravel production is 4.4 acre feet per year, which is to be distributed equally by month throughout the year. Of that, it is estimated that 10,000 gallons of water per day will be required for dust control during mining operations. The amount of water used per year for dust control is approximately 8.4 acre feet, which is to be distributed equally by month throughout the year. Total water diversion and depletions for gravel production and dust control are estimated to be 12.8 acre feet annually. Total annual depletions associated with the gravel mining operations and water evaporation at full build out of the gravel pits will equal 63.8 acre feet. The RTZ gravel pits will be located within 500 feet of the Colorado River in a shallow, highly porous gravel formation hydraulically connected to the Colorado River. The timing of depletions from the Colorado River from the uses of the gravel pit ponds are presumed to be instantaneous. Depletions to the Colorado River will occur during the historical call period from downstream senior water right holders on the Colorado River, including in- stream requirements for Colorado River Endangered fish species. Therefore the applicant has filed for water rights needed to augment depletions. Augmentation water will be provided from storage water sources pursuant to a contract with the West Divide Water Conservancy District as necessary to augment out -of- priority depletions. The analysis conducted for the RTZ Gravel Pits (as compiled by Balcomb & Green LLC with the technical assistance from Zancanella & Associates) indicates that 38.8 acre feet of contract water will be provided to replace the depletions of the gravel mining operations which includes 10% attributable to transit losses associated with delivery of reservoir storage water. As build out of the RTZ Gravel Pits will occur over several years, the applicant's augmentation obligation will correspond to development of the gravel pit welts. Because full build -out of the RTZ Gravel Pits will not occur for several years, the Applicant proposes to purchase the augmentation contract water in two phases. The Applicant has proposed to purchase 31.8 acre feet of the total estimated contract water required to augment full build out of the first gravel pit (Phase 1). As gravel mining progresses and before additional contract water is needed to augment the Applicant's increased water depletions, the Applicant wiM purchase the remaining contract water required to augment full build out of the second gravel pit (Phase 11). Potiowing the cessation of mining activities and after the reclamation phase, the only consumptive use of water will be caused by evaporation from the RTZ Gravel Pits. Total annual evaporative losses are estimated to be 63.8 acre feet per year. Of that amount, 3+4A acre feet wig be out -of- priority during the historical call period from downstream senior renter rkjtd holders on the Colorado River (which includes 100/6 for transit losses from storage reservoirs). Evaporative losses which are out of priority depletions will be augmented using contract storage water. Because of this augmentation plan, there will not be any decreases in irstrearn flows which may have direct and/or indirect impacts to the four Colorado River Endangered fish species. In summary, it is unflicety that the gravel mining operations would negatively affect the four endangered Colorado River fish species; however accidental spills or discharges into the Colorado River could have temporary negative effects on spawning habitats. The greatest long-term concerns from the gravel pits is the intentional or accidental stocking of the remaining ponds with non- native fish species, which could escape into the Colorado River and negatively compete with the four endangered fish species for habitat requirements. Conversely, it is possible to design the ponds) with seasonal flooding water regimes that would actually benefit the four endangered fish species. ? a 'ROCKY Mouwrnuv Ecor oGicAL 5Exvims, INc 18 9 3.5 IMPACTS To MULE DEER HABITAT Mule deer habitats on the property include both the riparian deciduous woodlands, as well as the saltbush uplands. The majority of the activities associated with the gravel mining operations occur within the upland areas, avoiding the riparian woodlands. Despite the avoidance of direct impacts to best habitat, the mining and operation of the gravel pits, along with truck traffic, heavy equipment use, and other associated activities will result in mule deer generally avoiding the area around the gravel pits while such operations are underway. Some light, incidental use of the riparian woodlands by mule deer along the Colorado River may still continue. As mule deer generally are only utilizing the area during the winter months, impacts to mule deer will therefore generally occur only during the winter months. These impacts would include avoidance of the area, possible increased mortality from increased road use, forcing of deer onto other adjacent properties, and subsequently more winter competition for resources in the greater area around the property. Combined with the cumulative Impacts of area natural gas exploration and extraction and increased road traffic, vAntertng mule deer poputatiom in the greater area will likely decrease due to loss of habitat effectiveness, and direct losses of habitats. The amount of impact to mule deer populations from this one project (the RTZ gravel pit operations) is likely an immeasurably small cumulative Impact, but still likely contributes to overall negaEtive impacts to winter range for mule deer in the greater area. During the spring, vxrmw, and fall months, most deer are utilizing higher elevation habitats. Large riparian cottonwood woodlands along the Colorado River do likely support some light year -round use by mule deer, but due to the limited size of the riparian woodlands on the property, any substantial deer use of these habitats would be 4 unlikely during gravel mining operations. After development of the gravel pits (and subsequent flooding of pits), mule deer will likely return to using the area, however the loss of upland shrubby habitats, and conversion of upland habitats to roads and flooded pits will reduce future bnA -term use of the property, aside from continued rase of undisturbed habitats. With potential r+evegetation of unused areas (especkaly if native shnab spades are used that mimic native vegetation profiles), limited mule deer habitat use may return in areas on the property. Long -term use of the property is not officially planned at this time; therefore there should be no long -term continuing indirect impacts due to human uses, domestic dogs, and other associated human use of the property. 1 In summary, the conversion of this property to a gravel mine and subsequently an area dominated by ponds and reclamation grass types will reduce effective mule deer habitats within the area. This will not necessarily cause measurable decreases in mule deer numbers in the greater area, but will likely end up having immeasurable Impacts on deer survivability and end of winter weights and health when combined with other habitat altering activities and diiste rbance agents within the greater area. Rocky MmNTAiN EcowwcAL SExxvlc ms INc- 19 g. Y. jkl er m * 3.6 IMPACTS T© ELK HABITAT ' Elk wintering on the property has likely been increasing in the last couple of years due to the extensive natural gas exploration and extraction occurring south of the area, which is occurring in historic elk winter ranges (Broderick, pars. com. 2007). This has resulted in the increased elk use of the property, as evidenced by scat as well as "elk trails' through the riparian woodland areas. The mining and operation of the gravel pits, along with truck traffic, heavy equipment use, and other associated activities will result in elk generally avoiding the area around the gravel pits while such operations are underway. Some light, incidental use of the riparian woodlands along the Colorado River may still continue. As elk are generally utilizing the area only during the winter months, impacts to elk will therefore generally occur only during the winter months. These impacts would include avoidance of the area, possible increased mortality from increased road use, forcing of elk onto other adjacent properties, and subsequently more winter competition for resources in the greater area around the property. As the property is only recently being utifized as elk winter range due to natural gas extraction operations south of the project area, elk use of these winter ranges on the property are a new phenomenon. After the majority of natural gas extraction operations have completed south of the project area, elk use of those winter ranges may resume, although habitats will be much more fragmented due to new roads, well pads, and other infrastructure impacts. Elk would then, possibly, return to using their more historic Ranges and would cease to use the RTZ property. While the RTZ property is being mined, and areas natural gas fields are being developed, elk" be forced onto smaller and more fragmented habitats, and use of the RTZ property as a "refuge' would cease. General levels of natural gas extraction activities in the greater area will keep elk herds moving and wilt generally mean that elk must utilize smaller winter ranges, and possibly less optimal foraging areas. The amount of impact to elk populations from this one project (the RTZ gravel pit operations) is likely an immeasurably small cumulative impact, but still likely contributes to overall negOve impacts to winter range for elk in the greater area. During the spring, summer, and fall months, elk are utilizing higher elevation habitats, far away from the RTZ property, but likely still within areas experiencing some level of gals extraction activities, and thus some level of habitat fragmentation. After development of the gravel pits (and subsequent flooding of pits), elk may or may not return to using the area, as this property has never really been a long -term winter range area where elk have shown a high degree of site fidelity. However the loss of upland shrubby habitats on the property, and conversion of upland habitats to roads and flooded pits will reduce future potential kmg -term use of the property, aside from Incidental use of undisturbed habitats. Post - mining long -term use of the property is not officially planned at this time; therefore there should be no long-term continuing indirect impacts due to human uses, domestic dogs, and other associated human use of the property at this time. In summary, the conversion of this property to a gravel mine and subsequently an area dominated by ponds and reclamation grass types will reduce the existing elk use patterns within the area. This one project will not necessarily cause decreases in elk numbers in the greater area, but may end up having immeasurable impacts on elk survivability and end of winter weights and health when combined with other habitat altering activities within the greater area. • ?*ROM MoiuiNuAjN Ec[x. wAZ SERvims, JNc 21 W• VIM a;;,,ar. -u. '•:�' rr' ?,� - ,:c;, . ,r- - .-h; -- •Q� � - - ..� _ •ca�.- s•:.,- x�,.. � �".� „,�, r.4. f:r� ' ?�-�� �'�� � F• .�i, �.], i ,.f{' �? "'a � .:M. ��1, - .,e;:�' � .- .�,.._::.,Q•.. :.a.; r .:�• •y{ .,�_., . ,,�p • �., �" : - '�.�<E� �.l ' %'',;�.0 � 6�: .: c� ' • "rr ;�:, .�..• ;u £�"i” : - � r,r r .: �`A • r•L � ' - � � '� . y e d �LC• - ez •��. :ivy., .... ,. f e 40— ".�.. vs V�' • `c' :' � �d.• •.�:.. is r - c •k - s' s �% i i '•. 4 . r.w '.r :' :•: e. �s:`� � ��d" _ ".! u.�: �`• r'a ..�.:��- -,,.� •:fig °• �•e 'a ..ay �?":.. '. +L • • A- a "'r`. . s °il ; i' "-:i" .:,p'� �:r`°'s .: Vii: •.'.. _ � " .E 1. r• a '.yrk• �. 33 5= i.. 2r ..: •� -�. .: .. w X41' r� n _ '.• Y • '�i, Vii' • X _ l .. •str, -�A•� ay }} n / J5: i' - tti n. J '. Y • •'Y � �t:. '.:tip 'X` VA mow. �l $ A c - •a L ?'• r 4•. k <'' ; . ct F df' . �' r - L.�..'�. °c1 .•. 'r � r" 'r" y'e• r`r " ..: a:. . Q. i v fi .fir• d.- 3� '�6•:a e.• ,r ,r .. ti. . •. .... _.. ,. ,r.. „ ".... ��u ..�. - "f?r :`a�' - is �! '>y •ft 0.. _ _ - '�V. x-�J -a Z". :nb i �`f;,• , nom•. i' •. �,Jq �.'•' d r.. -'.� . . � �-� r - r.'••$• ,v ..y �'. '': r , _ : � � fit• �',-.._" a � . s '� 'v •a, •':,i::r: 4 . •i ter± .:;Y� £ '<, 8 -'� "c•- aF' = " ,�.-? x:ur •..3': :•fir''::, s . . sP - sr ih° tFr "•<.' '_ �1us'� -.`- .'7 7� a y-. • •3i. J: �r 3. 2 v � - • "I• r sr • _ I ".��' r i'irr `' >`r of •h r < °u y _ 9�� -� ��.. ..,f•�' ��j� tV r.0. fir; •:�F.c -:: "�; � ..,`E . . a • Tq;ri �d • � . a1 - I •''t �� � "a .r . � :" }?: � �', !-•,.' X' •isf •�.frr :zf. ,�,�� �3. >, r � .; i�: a•= - ..r...y;: a -r'�r 'r 4"�d r=•. cif :'c: 1�: ;• ,r ..t'• •t- �� Yd �s• r�-� fI ��¢ r ie� �': � , r.- a'= :'�.,'�: gib. . •;?� : - .a::.�9' =' {. _ •r." fir J. °.[s,: - �Y� "��'. ^r' ;3 . A wit'. •'r : "a � = -r' ��!! � r. a • y� Ric:' - `'.= j�`;... � � ..r.T<<.r: = "•.: `� ;fir-- :`a''.�'�'-•J cs'a�" ��'� `s � •°o � � ' -�.. ".: .. °r .. ,.. st .. �. .J, .aY� .. _ .�.,.:'�.:'',5`w1fL� "'.:'.pe'•: =', _i• .:�.3_:.•I "!F��if�! i9:��i�'!'��i��- RW.�i•.re E'l'i' „Ar r i•_ �•. eLfv �'.4 !t ff ._'�•i•. .. � •s,Y��{Yti`i't "� Yom'.: JwA- i��RY. ✓ice. •. ,e - r. i ✓, s 1 j., RTZ Gma/Mr F- ddifaAssa mmiErhart fluQUSt2007 3.7 IMPACTS To RIVER Q'I"I`ER River otter generally require medium to larger sized rivers with abundant prey species (fish), The Colorado River which runs adjacent to the property provides suitable habitats to support river otter, and it is likely that river otter occur within the greater area around the property. Because of this, there is the potential for gravel mining operations to directly or indirectly impact river otter and their habitats. As the gravel mining operations have purposefully been set back and away from riparian and wetland habitats and operations will generally be confined to upland habitats, direct impacts to river otter are highly unlikely. River otter would have to leave the Colorado River, cross through riparian woodland habitats, and enter into what effectively will be an industrial area for impacts to occur. This is not to say that river otter would never enter into an active gravel mining operation, but the likelihood is very small. Indirect impacts of the operations that would impact river otter would likely be associated with diurnal noise and activity, which would occur during the opposite time of day that otters are generally active nighttime). During the winter months, otters do become more active during the daylight hours, which would put them potentially more in conflict with minim activity periods. The level of noise and activity of the diurnal mining operations would likely preclude long -term or significant otter use of the riparian areas on the property for bank denning and/or pup rearing. As permitted, the mining operations should have no impacts to otter prey base and habitats through following guidance of a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) as permitted by Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Following guidance outlined in these permits should preclude the most significant potential negative imparts to water quality from the proposed operations. RTZ has implemented a water depkWon augmentation plan which would result in no net decreases to instream flows in the mairmtem of the Colorado River_ The most significant potential threat to river otter would be from the stocking of the subsequent ponds with non - native or un- approved fish species. Introductions (even accidental) of non - native fish have proven to be detrimental to the ecology of indigenous fish species of the Colorado River. While many fish species would be suitable prey for river otter, management direction has been to provide native fish and historic fish stocking ratios in order to provide long -term system stability for river otter repopulation success. CDOW requires that all water inlets and outlets have screened apertures using :S_' /. inch mesh to prevent accidental fish releases into the Colorado River. CDOW also has a required list of approved fish for stocking within the 100 year flood plain. The 100 year flood plain within this section of the Colorado River is approximately 5 feet above high water mark of the river. If, post reclamation, the project has potential surface hydrological connection to the Colorado River within the 5 foot 100 year water level, then only CDOW approved fish species may be stocked in the gravel pit ponds. In summary, the proposed gravel pit operations should have no direct impacts on river otter. There is the slight chance that river otter could wander into mining areas, but this is extremely unlikely. Following best management practices should protect otter habitat from most accidental discharges of sediment into the Colorado River. Stocking of ponds, should be with native Colorado fish species, or with fish species known to not compete with indigenous fish species of the Colorado River, in order to keep healthy native fish populations (prey) available for river otter use. • ?%RMXY MoL.wTmN FcoLomcAL SHRvim% INc. 23 RTZ Auk 4 IMPACT MINIMIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following sections present recommendations for consideration to minimize the potential impacts to wildlife from the proposed mining operations. Many of these recommendations are considered to be "best management practices" to consider for wildlife, which would allow for continued wildlife use of areas within the development. 4.1 LIGHTING & CAME USE Because the area will likely receive use by mule deer and elk during the night, nighttime lighting of the property outside of the mining areas and excessive lighting of roads (beyond what is required for safe driving conditions) is not recommended in order to allow big game use of the area. Further, lighting of existing winter range beyond the mining areas is strongly discouraged (for instance; from bright flood - lights illuminating cottonwood woodlands or shrubby uplands). 4.2 RoADs Along the existing and new roads that would occur in this area, the following requirements should be followed, o Fences along the roads should be minimized aside for security reasons. Old, non - functional fences should be removed to facilitate wildlife movement. o Large or extensive retaining walls (defined as slopes greater than 70*) should be minimized, or if needed, retaining walls longer than 60' in length should have "steps" or other features to allow wildlife to cross the area if engineering allows such features. 4.3 FENCES In order to continue the effective use of the area by big game animals, fencing that would inhibit big game movement is strongly discouraged. Additionally, existing fencing that is not necessary for operations should be removed as soon as possible. Fences to delineate the property should comply with the following specifications: • Fences should consist of two rails, with the upper rail 44 inches above the ground, and the top of the bottom rail 24 incites above the ground. This will allow adult animals to easily jump over fences, even in deep snow, and will allow calves and fawns to crawl under or pass through the rails. • For barbed wire fences, middle wires can be smooth woven wire. The bottom wire should be at least 16' off the ground, 2iY would be better, but this may be too high to keep cattle calves from crawling under the fence. • Buck and rail fences are practically impossible for big game species to cross, therefore buck and rail fences are strongly discouraged. • Prior to construction, snow fencing or silt fencing should be erected at the edge of the construction areas to contain disturbance to native vegetafion by indirect construcfm activities (i.e. trampling of vegetation by equipment, etc.). o If wildlife hazards exist on the property during operations (i.e. deer or elk are in harms way on the property during operations), then fences may be erected to keep wildlife out of industrial areas. P'R!CKY MOLWAIN EcoLocfcAL SBRvims, INN- 24 RTZ Gludlk E" -dwmw Lod J&-%9 2007 4.4 LANDSCAPING AND REVEGETATION As the area is used as winter range (and critical winter range), reclamation of road outs, infrastructure routes and open spaces will need to occur using similar native plant species and vegetation profiles. Revegetation should also occur as soon as possible, however planting in the spring after big game have left the area would be best as newly planted materials would likely be browsed first, and plants with little time to set roots will likely be pulled up by grazing big game. Noxious weeds should be treated bi- annually in order to minimize their spread and impact on winter range and increase the success of revegetation activities. Revegetation along roadsides should not include trees and tall shrubs within 10 feet of the road to improve visual detection of wildlife along roadsides and to minimize road kill. Local native grasses, (orbs and low shrubs may be planted along roadsides to keep wildlife habitat conditions as viable as possible. 4.5 DoME nc Does Dogs can have asignificant impact on wildlife and the ability for wildlife to effectively use otherwise available habitats. Dogs can chase and kill wildlife, or so exhaust and injure wildlife that wildlife dies later. Larger mammals such as deer and elk are especially vuloerable during the wintedearly spring, when their energy reserves are depleted, food resources are most limited, and-most of the adult females are pregnant. Young wildlife are also vulnerable to attack and harassment by dogs. Even if not chased by dogs, wildlife tends to avoid areas where dogs are kept outside, which has the effect of creating a barrier to wildlife movement and reducing the available habitat. Domestic dogs, unless they are seeing -eye dogs or assistance dogs for the disabled, should be prohibited and never be allowed to run free. To minimize the impacts of dogs on wildlife, the following recommendations are presented: t o Dogs should not be allowed to run free on the property during the winter months (November 15 through March 4), unless under leash control. 1 o Loose dogs should be prohibited. This includes dogs owned by contractors, subcontractors, delivery personnel, home owners and their guests. Loose or uncontrolled dogs can have a significant impact to big game through direct and indirect mortality, increased stress, and displacement from preferred ranges. In the past, CDOW has had numerous reports of dogs brought to construction sites by workers which chase and harass wildlife. Stray or loose dogs may be controlled by CDOW or Garfield County, which could include destruction of dogs chasing wildlife, as permitted by Colorado law. Under Colorado law, persons whoa are not in compliance with this dog policy will be responsible for any and all costs the CROW or Garfield County may incur due to control of loose dogs on the property. if operators knowingly permit illegal dog activity on the property, those persons wili be financially responsible for costs of controlling dogs. CROW and County representatives may be grarded arms to the property to, enforce any of the dog restrictions and other wildlife restrictions set within these recommendations. CDOW enforcement may include the capture or destruction of any dogs running at large on the property, regardless of where the dogs may have originated. xOM MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SFRVICFS, INC 25 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed gravel mining operations, please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Eric Petterson Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. 1 ftKY MoLw- TAw FkDwGICAi_ $ERvirm, INS 26 405 LITERATURE CITED & GENERAL REFERENCES Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1994. Colorado birds, a reference to their distribution and habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History. 442 pp. Broderick, J. 2007. Personal communication. Glenwood Springs Area Wildlife Biologist, Colorado Division of Wildlife. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Burdick, B.D. 1992. A plan to evaluate stocking to augment or restore razorback suckers in the Upper Colorado River. US Fish and Wildlife Report, Grand .function, Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 2005. Element Occurrence Records System. Ft. Collins, CO. Federal Register 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule. FR 70(90) 24870-24934. http:/hNww.fws.gov/endangere&candkiates/2005.CNOR%201 Finch, D.M. 1992. Threatened, Endangered, and Vulnerable Species of Terrestrial Vertebrates in the Rocky Mountain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -215, Fort Collins, Colorado. IJ.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 38p. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History. University Press of Colorado. P.O. Box 849, Niwot, CO 80544. *orman, R.TT and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecological Systems. 29, 207 -231. Holden, P.B. (Ed.). 1999. Flow recommendations for the San Juan River. San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, N.M. Hughes, J. 1999. Yelkyw- billed cuckoo (Coocyzus americanus). Pp. 1 -28 in A. Poole, F Gill, ads. The Birds of North America, Vol. 418. Philadelphia, PA: The Bid of North America. Martinez, A. 2007. Personnel communication June 1, 2007. Western Colorado Aquatic Biologist. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Grand Junction, Colorado, Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. Minckley, W.L. 1983. Status of the razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) (Abbot), in the lower Colorado River Basin, Southwest Naturalist 28(2):165 -187. Minckley, W.L., P.C. Marsh, J.E. Brooks, J.E. Johnson, and B.L. Jensen. 1951. Management toward recovery of razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). In W.L. Minckley and J.E. Deacon, Eds. Battle Against Extinction. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Osmundson, D.B. and Bumham. 1998. Status and Trends of the Endangered Colorado squarfsh in the Upper Colorado River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:955-972. Osmundson, D.B. and L.R. Kaeding. 1991. Flow recommendations for maintenance and enhancement of rare fish habitat in the 15 -Mile Reach during October -June. Final Report. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, Colorado, mundson, D.B., R.J. Ryel and T.E. Mourning. 1997. Growth and survival of Colorado squawfish in the upper Colorado River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136: 687 -698. PtMOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 27