HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.08 Wildlife informationDivision of Reclamation Mining & Safety
Permit Application
RTZ INDUSTRIAL
SAND & GRAVEL MINING OPERATION
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
6,4.1 EXHIBIT H - Wildlife Information
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES INC.
NEPA• •WILDLIFE••VEGETATION••WILDFIRE MITIGATION— WETLANDS — PLANNING
Wildlife Assessment Report
for
Proposed RTZ Industrial Gravel NEnes
Garfield County, Colorado
Prepared for;
Zancanella & Associates, Inc.
August 2007
0222 BOBCAT LANE • REDSTONE . COLORADO • 81623
PHONE/FAX: (974) 963 -2194 * CELL: (970) 349 -4454
EMAIL: ERIC.PETTERSONQSTARBAND.NET
R71 7 Qau) ! Fit, _ iFildfi e Axrewggg Raw _ �I rrr P�rsl 20f)i
i 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 reclarnation 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 Pacific 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, 6 "" Principal Meridian.
The property can be divided into three habitat types: 1. Uplands are dominated by greasewood
(Sarcobatus vermlculatus) 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, CROW, and other
regulatory entities.
1.1 EVALUATED SPECIES
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 scientific 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:
htti):Hwilcllife, state.co.us /W IdlifeSpeciesl SpeciesOfConcernl ThreatenedEndangeredList /1-istOfThre
atenedAndEndangeredSpecies,htni 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
Petterson, 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,
ROCKY MOUNTAIN EcoLoGicm, SERVICES, INC,
RTZ Grave! Pits i s die rt AXW1 200 7
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
❑ Bald Eagle (Delisted from ESA on July 8, 2007)
Q Yellow- billed Cuckoo (Federal Candidate Species)
o River Otter (State Threatened)
o Colorado Pikeminnow (Federally Endangered)
o Razorback Sucker (Federally Endangered)
a 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 knees 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 fitter (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).
PtKY MOUNTAIN FCOLCIC.ICAL SERVICES, INC.
Yu r i h
Table of Contents
1 SUMMARY ...................................................... ....................... ....... ... ............ ..................... ................... .. .... ...2
1.1
EVALUATED SPECIES ............................................................................................. ..............................2
1.2
FIGURE 1: LUcATION of RTZ P RoPERTY .......................................................... ..............................5
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS & SPECIES BIOLOGY ............................................ ..............................6
2.1
EXISTING WILDLIFE HABITAT AND USE ........................ ................ ..... ....._. .............. ..... .. ............. .... 6
3 IMPACTS ASSESMENT ............................................................................................. .............................13
3.1
FEDERALLY THREA'T'ENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ............................... .............................13
3.2
ImPACI'S To BALD EAGLE .................................................................................... .............................14
3.2.1 FIGURE 4: BALD EAGLE HABITAT USE ............................................ .............................15
3.3
IMPACTS To YEI..Low -BTT.i _I?I] CucKoo ............................................................. .............................16
3.4
IMPACT'S To COLORADO RIVER ENDANGERED FISH SPECIL -S ....................... .............................16
3.5
IMPACTS To MULE DEER HABITAT .................................................................... .............................19
3.5.1 FIGURE 2: DEER WINTER RANGE ......................................... .............................20
3.6
IMPACTS ro ELK HABITAT ................................................................................... .............................21
3.6.1 FIGURE 4: ELK WINTER RANGE... ................... .............................................................
Z2
3.7
IMPACTS TO RIVER O rER .................................................................................. .............................23
4 IMPACT MINIMIZATION RECOMMENDAT iONS ................... ................ ...... .............................24
4.1
LIGHTING & GAmE USE ....................................................................................... .............................24
4.2
ROADS ..................................................................................................................... .............................24
4.3
FENCES .................................................................................................................... .............................24
4.4
LANDSCAPING AND REvFGETATION ........... ............................... .................25
4.5
DomFsnc DOGS .................................................................................................. .............................25
5 LITERNFURE
CITED & GENERAL REFERENCES ....................................... .....,.......................27
?*R,,'.KY MOUNTAIN ECnL[ (;wAi. SERVICES, IN(- 4
RTZ Gravel Pits- I MiLldlik Assessment or Ro Amomet 2nn7
- 1
1.2 FIGURE 1,. LOCATION OF RTZ PROPERTY
im
I RocKyi\101UN-rAiNEcoLoc-tcALSERvicEslNc-
&U Gwel his Wildkfe Asmrsment Am i
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS & SPECIES BIOLOGY
The upland areas, dominated by greasewood shrublands, also has infrequent rabbitbrush
(Chrysothamnus nauseosus), halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), Japanese brome (Brvmus
japonicas), wooly plantain (Plantago patagonica), and widely scattered saltbush (Rtripfex
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
(Tamarix remosissima) dominates the current vegetation, and widely scattered Russian olive
(Eiaegnus angushfolia) (also a noxious weed) exists. Within the basins of the borrow pits,
vegetation is dominated by coyote willow (Salr`x exigua), tamarisk, cattail (Typha latifolia), and
patches of hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus). Yellow sweetclover (Melilotus offlcinale) and
knotweed (Poiygonum douglash) 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 saltrgrass (Distichlis sirida), reed cana ygrass (Phatarvides arundinacea) and
common reed (Phragmites autrafis).
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 Sectkm 3 below.
u Deer
Current CDOW NUS maps delineate lowland riparian forests and adjacent upland shrubWW
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 difference of hab#ats along the
severe winter range delineation line crossing the property. However, the presence of the existing
gravel mining operaiicm 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 pinyon juniper (Pines edulis and Juniperus
osteosperma, respectively) habitats. Deer would likely begin to move out of the project area in the
early spring, as snowmen on southfacing slopes facWdates an exiler green -up of potential browse
species. The number or amount of deer utilizing the property could not be determined solely based
on scat and tracks observed.
In discussions with CDOW Area BkAogist John Broderick, gas development of the Little AWak Creek
area and Samson Mesa area has pushed wintering deer into riparian forests areas along the
? MoLwrAIN ECOLoGicu. Savimss INC.
RTZ G -Ind Fits [Y!j416.4sse'Med Ro wd ^ AN-W-St 2QQ7
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 302 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 Afimli Creek
area, and Samson Mesa area has pushed wintering elk further north across the Colorado Rhw,
onto the shrubby upland habitats on and around the RTZ property. However, on the project area,
the most significant evidence of elk 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 springtime, and
move into higher elevations on Battlement Mesa. Therefore Yx eased elk 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, elk may once again utilize habdats akmg these upland
mesas. However, with the direct kms of habitat to roads, wek pads, and other associated
infrastnadure, and likely foreseeable persistent human activities in the area, some continued level of
elk use of riparian habkats 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 listed 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 geograp fn location, the I=NNS established fm recovery region;.
The distribution, recovery goals, and implementation of protection for the bald eagle varied widely
from region to region. A recovery team was established for each region which prepared a recovery
plan describing the terns and tasks necessary to help improve the bald eagle population specific to
each location. The five regions are as follows: Morthem States, Chesapeake Bay, Souk,
Southwestem, and Pacft (1=WS 1995b). The bald eagle was delisted from the End
Species list due to meeting of recovery targets on July 8, 2007.
Historically, bald eagles nested throughout North America. Population numbers greatly decreased
during the 1900s due to shooting, habitat alteration, pesticide use (especially DDT) and oltm
actions. Since being listed, 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 Colorado, known nesting bald eagles have increased in number
from only one pair to over 21 pairs in the last two decades (Gross 1998).
?RtKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC.
Z G rave! M4 AW912007
The bald eagle is an uncommon -to- locally- common winter resident in western valleys, in mountain
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 (Populus spp.) and conifer snags adjacent to these water bodies. In 1995,
up to 1,000 wintering bald eagles were documented in the State (Gross 1998). 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 consbW 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 breading 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 Gariueld 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 cottonwood
trees suitable for roosting are not availa )lle on the property, and ft 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 cottornNood 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 king tails. There are two
recognized subspecies of Cocoyzus amencanus, Coccyzus anwricanus arrieficanus (the eastern
version) and its western counterpart, Coccyzus americanus occidentalis. These two subspecies are
differentiated by tall, 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 American, their preferred habitats
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-billed 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' regurgitated insects (FWS
2406).
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 populations have been dedming in
recent years throughout much of their range. This decline is most €ilcety due to habitat loss and
fragmentation. Other tlxeate to cuckoo populations include poisoning from pesticides and other
environmental contaminants and collision with towers and tall buildings during their nocturnal
migration. (Hues 1999)
Yellow- billed cuckoos occur on the westem slope of Colorado, mostly along the larger river systems
where wide riparian systems have provided extensive cottonwood overstories with shrubby
?- tKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVIC s, INC
RTZ Crwxd Pits A.y L r�lt nt E*Qd &" 2007
understories. 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
Northern 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 14 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, lakes, 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
1994, Melquist et al. 1981, and others).
Because of the river otter's aquatic life, many aspects of the species' behavior and ecology are not
well understood. They are active year round and do not hibemate. Otters 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 female, who may exhibit territorial
behavior. Yearting otters, unrelated juveniles, and occasional adult otters may joint 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
estatAshing 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, pens. com. 2005).
Adult otters apparently have few natural predators, although individuals have been killed by bobcats,
dogs, coyotes, and foxes (Fitzgerald et 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 Endmered Fish
The four endangered fish species existing in the Colorado River are generally found below the
RifiefDeBeque area, near Grand Junction and further downstream. The US Fish and Wildlife
Service lists the humpback chub (Gda cypha), bonytaii chub (G elegrans), Colorado pikemirviow
(FVchocheilus lucius), and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act. Endemic to the Colorado River Basin, populations of these fishes had
declined throughout their historic range due largely to habitat loss or habitat degradation (mainly
through dams and water diversions) and introduction of competitive and predatory rtomabve fish
species. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Reoamry Impien*mtation Program was
PtKy MoL -NTAm ECOLOGICAL SUV1CPS, Nf-
RT L C nmi Pits — -- - - Vildh eA.rresrment Rbart - AMU 2007
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 (Xyrauchen fexanus]
Species Biology & Ecology
The razorback sucker (Xyrauchen fexanus) 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 including slow runs, shallow to deep
pools, backwaters, eddies, and other slow velocity habitats associated with sand substrates (Tyus
and Karp 1990, Osmundson and Kaeding 1991). During spawning, preference appears to consist of
gravel and cobble substrates clear of fine materials.
Historically, razorback stackers were found in the mainstem Colorado River and major bftAaFka in
Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and in Mexico (Hinckley 1983).
Population declines can be attributed to construction of dams and reservoirs, introduction of
normative fishes, and dewatering of the Cokarado 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 cokect+ed from isolated ponds adjacent to the Col rado River near
DeBeque, Colorado (Burdick 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 adjac eM to the river. Razorback suckers have been doaurnarded as far upstream
as river mile 183.8 and in 1988 as far as river mile 235 near Rile, Colorado (FWS 1999; Burdock
1992)_ To date, FWS has stocked 1 0,998 4 to 114nch razorback suckers in the upper Colorado
Diver near Parachute, Colorado. Razorback suckers have been documented drifting over all three
diversion structures (Burdick 200D). The Recovery Program approved ptaris to stock 102,100 64nch
and 30,6W 124nch razorback suckers between Rifie and DeBeque Carryon, Cokxado whin the
next fire 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 1994). The Project Area is within a tributary watershed to designated critical habitat
of the Colorado River in Colorado, Mesa and Garfield Counties, as follows: The Colorado River and
its 1 OD-year flood plain from the Colorado River Bridge at exit 90 north off Interstate 70 in T.BS.,
R.93W., section 16 (6th PM) (Rifle e)it] downstream to Westwater Canyon in T.203S., R_25E_, section
12 (Salt Lake PM) kKkKWV the Gunnison River and its 100 year flood plain from the Redlands
Diversion Dam in TAS., R1W., section 27 (Ute Meridian) to the confluence with the Colorado River
in T 1 S. , RAW., W., section 22 (Ute Meridian).
?!:KY ii«r TAINT ECOLOGICA .'SFRVI[. &S, INC. 10
RTZ Gratxl Pik _ Wild k��Gi at Asrgiut 2D07
Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychochelius Lucius
Species Biology & Ecology
The Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychochedus lucius) was listed as endangered by the FWS 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 sleep pools, eddies, or mixing zones as nesting areas near the spawning sites (Holden 1999).
Warn water temperature, discharge, and photoperiod (on or near Spring Solstice) are possible
spawning and/or spawning migration cues (Holden 1999). Adult Colorado pikeminnow have been
collected from all habitat types but most frequently from low-velocity areas including runs, eddies,
backwaters, and pooh canyon mouths. During spring (pre - runoff and runoff) adults tend to use
backwaters, flooded mouths of washes, and other tovwvekwAy habitats that are warmer than main
channel habitats. As warm 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 3999).
Historically, Colorado pikeminnow were distributed throughout warm water reaches of the Colorado
River Basin from Wyoming to Mexico. By the 1978's, the fish was extirpated from the lower basin
below Glen Canyon dam and from portions of the upper basin. Colorado pikeminnow are currently
restricted to the upper Colorado River Basin and inhabit warm water reaches in the Colorado,
Green, and San Juan Rivers and their associated tributaries. Population declines can be attributed
to construction of darns and reservoirs, introduction of nonnative fishes, dewatering of the Colorado
River system and the loss of natural hydrology (FINS 1999). In the Colorado River, Colorado
pikeminnow are found in low numbers with recnAment in pulses from infrequent strong year chases
(osmundson and Burnham 1998). In the spring of 2000, sixty -five 14 to 18 -inch adult Colorado
Pikeminnow were stocked in the upper Colorado River near Parachute, Colorado. These fish were
fitted with radio- transmitters to monitor movements. Fish have been documented driRiiV 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 6) San Juan River.
The Project Area is within a tributary watershed to designated critk:al habdat for the Colorado Rif m
in Colorado, Mesa and Garfield Counties which reads as follows: Colorado, Mesa and Garfield
Counties; and Utah, Grand, San Juan, Wayne, and Garfield Counties. The Colorado River and its
704 -year flood plain from the Colorado River Bridge at exit 94 north off Interstate 70 in T. 6 S_, R. 93
W., section 16 (8th Principal Meridian) (Rifle exit) downstream to North Wash, ind x* g the Dirty
Devil arm of Lake Powell up to the full pool elevation, in T. 33 S., R 14 E., section 29 (Salk Lake
Principal Meridian).
Bonytail Chub (Gila elegans)
Species Biology & Ecology
The bonytail (Gila elegans) was classified as endangered by the FWS on April 23, 1 980; 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 cyphs) and roundtail chub
(Gila robusta). Bonytail appear to prefer pools and eddies rattier than areas with more current (FINS
1990b). Bonytail in Lake Mohave appear to occupy iacustrine habitat rather than upstream dverine
P ocsY MOUNTAIN EcoLoGicAL SERV[cES, rxr 71
= Gnaw Pity -- _ iY/eldlife Asrar me -- —�A e
habitat near Hoover Dam. Cold water releases from Lake Mead are Relieved to limit the use of the
riverine habitat (FWS 1990b).
Historically, the bonytail was distributed throughout the Lipper 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 (river mile 137) in T.10 S., R.104 W., section 25 (8th Principal
Meridian) downstream to Fish Ford in T.21 S., R.24 E., section 35 (Salt Lake Principal Meridian).
Hum back Chub (Gila cMa)
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
(<5W mm) that is endemic to the Colorado River Basin. The humpback is closely related to the
bonytail (Gila elegans) and the roundtail chub (Gila robusta). The humpback chub requires warmer
water to induce spawning (>20"C). Adult humpbacks appear to prefer whK& water canyons;
however, its original distribution is not known. Data in Black Rocks and Westwater Canyon imficates
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. Unfit 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 1999).
The Project Area is adjacent, but not within, designated critical habitat. Critical habitat dudes a
portion of the Colorado River approximately 120 river miles 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 (6th Principal Meridian) downstream to Fish
Ford in T. 31 S., R. 24 E., section 35 (Salt lake Principal Meridian).
?OCKV MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC'. 12
RI "L C;rrrtzll�ila
3.2.1 FIGURE 4: BALD EAGLE HABITAT USE
i; Rocky Mountain Bald Eagle Habitats Drawn By: Eric Petterson
Ecological Services, Inc. Figure 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone, CO 83623 RTZ Industrial- Gravel Pits Date: May 2007 Miles
970.963.2190 Garfield County, Colorado 4
eric. etterson starband.net Scale: 1:15,479
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL. SERVICES, INC.
15
RTZ Gravel Pits tY/ildl(fg Assessment ROW 14ugust 2(]07
3.3 IMPACT'S TO YELLOW-BILLED 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 chose
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 would 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- billed 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 area) would be compromised to some degree,
with the good possibility of total avoidance of the area. The degree to what activities will preclude
cuckoo use is, at this time, unknown.
This potential indirect impact to cuckoo habitat will likely persist until gravel operations cease in
approximately 90 years. After such time, potential cuckoo use of the cottonwood woodland habitats
on the property will likely be undeterred.
3.4 IMPACTS TO COLORADO RwEA 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 sucoessful 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 cis are required to accomplish this. Sediment plumes which occur
immediately before or during egg laying can smother eggs and hatchlings, reducing reproductive
success (USFWS 9998 ).
Flooding of gravel pits post - excavation can be either a benefit and/or a detriment for the four
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
PtKY MOUNTAINi EcoLoGicAL S6Rv;CES, INC, 16
RTZ Gnant Pils Rnum.Ayessmext Emgrt Au 200
species act (Dill 1944, Osmundson and Kaeding 1989, Behnke 1980, Joseph at al. 1977, Lanigan
and Berry 1979, Minckley and Deacon 1968, Meffe 1985, Propst and Bestgen 1991, Rinne 1991,
and others). Data collected by 4smundson 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 1982,
Tyus et 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 smaller 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 (1996) 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 limitations 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 (1996) 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: sallmouth bass, northern pilke,, 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 :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
reclamatlon, 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
outsloping 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.
Wager depletions- The project wiH drill two water wells on the property for needed waters for dust
suppression and gravel mining 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
ROCKY ETC UN fMN E( OLOC;iCAL SERVICFS, INC- 17
RTZ Gmex! Picts IYfMAt, Amam i R" �1rrQ rt 2007
stream flows and evaporative lass. 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 moment ouW- priority
depletions. The analysis conducted for the RTZ Gravel Pits has compiled by Baicomb & Green LLC
with the technical assistance from Zancanella 8 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 wells. 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 tote!
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 deplefions, the Applicant will purchase the remaining contract water
required to augment full build out of the second gravel pit (Phase il).
Following 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 arse feet per year. Of that amount, 34.4 acre feet will be out -of-
priority during the historical call period from downshram senior water right hokk s on the Coiaaado
River (which includes 10% 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 instream flows which may
have direct and/or indirect impacts to the four Colorado River Endangered fish species.
In summary, it is unlikely 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 acciderM 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
pond(s) with seasonal flooding water regimes that would actually benefit the four endangered fish
species.
ftKYNIOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 18
Z Gr a _ hidli e # Re . At ust M7
3.5 IMPACT'S TO MULE VEER 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, wintering mule deer populations in the greater area wig
likely decrease due to toss 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, tart still likely contributes to overall negative impacts to
winter range for mute deer in the greater area. During the spring, summer, and fall monf, 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
unlikely during gravel mining operations.
After development of the gravel pits (acrd subsequent flooding of pits), mule deer will likely return to
using the area, however the Ions of upland shrubby habitats, and conversion of upland habitats to
roads and flooded pits will reduce future long -term use of the property, aside from continued use of
undisturbed habitats. With potential revegetativn of un -used areas (especially if native shrub
species 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
Duman use of the property.
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 disturbance agents within the
greater area.
?- tKy JMoumrAIN E.coLOGICAL SERvIcEs, INN. 19
IU7 Grmr ll3rts lVildeArresstrteut &,Uri Argr'ts 2007
3.5.1 FIGURE 2: DEER WINTER RANGE
Note- Entire area is mapped as sun=er range by CDOW; therefore this habitat depiction %vas not included.
f
- Legend .�
tf>
interstates O
RTZ- bol.lndary r
MULE—DEER winter STATE
t €
MULE—DEER-winter—concentration—STATE
MULE_DEER- winter_range_STATE
t �c% � Pg�C.r� '�,!_� "., f•"' Y, f° ,ti .;� fd €.m,° t r,r!',t j/
* ':' �,, � t'�. ! ..� ..• , � - { .£aka `���''9'/''� 4' 1' . . .s ,` t i . a t `3 i "X - a#
+.�a xi, \ � 'r ♦ C e 1a, °��,�y, rr i r
i 1 t� •r •'� ray„ > + , F#�'.0 t, ,. _ jr F - t ikpti� ?..`•�7� yi5 :�+ t ` * -t } 'L?G'ii � i�4 .
' :r.�.t ''` r{ t �' ` r a s � .'.J _ �" �• ��xxn.' sS` �.' �`} i� . '���j, 'a 14y �; ''_ { Sc 4 . titi ,
fi +t6t' -�.} .� + .� .�. ,i +• :..s ' *Y.,� ,, -s � �.� st k k S.-{Si
r �. ,r ,t . r s. , " �J • � r: ' r a i �s�. r +� *i
y
,
/�•. . n� iF - gip. � f / !
{ r l �a '1 Yt f!
F
� , /0'
Rocky Mountain
Ecological Services, Inc.
Mule Deer Winter Ranges
Figure
Drawn By: Eric Petterson
;Pf JI
0222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone, CO 81623
970,963.2190
eric.pelkerson starband.net
RTZ Industrial- Gravel Pits
Garfield County, Colorado
2
Scale: 1:15,479
f
-
f r x•41
�A'�Z t ,
i
* ':' �,, � t'�. ! ..� ..• , � - { .£aka `���''9'/''� 4' 1' . . .s ,` t i . a t `3 i "X - a#
+.�a xi, \ � 'r ♦ C e 1a, °��,�y, rr i r
i 1 t� •r •'� ray„ > + , F#�'.0 t, ,. _ jr F - t ikpti� ?..`•�7� yi5 :�+ t ` * -t } 'L?G'ii � i�4 .
' :r.�.t ''` r{ t �' ` r a s � .'.J _ �" �• ��xxn.' sS` �.' �`} i� . '���j, 'a 14y �; ''_ { Sc 4 . titi ,
fi +t6t' -�.} .� + .� .�. ,i +• :..s ' *Y.,� ,, -s � �.� st k k S.-{Si
r �. ,r ,t . r s. , " �J • � r: ' r a i �s�. r +� *i
y
,
/�•. . n� iF - gip. � f / !
{ r l �a '1 Yt f!
F
� , /0'
Rocky Mountain
Ecological Services, Inc.
Mule Deer Winter Ranges
Figure
Drawn By: Eric Petterson
Date: May 2007
0222 Bobcat Lane, Redstone, CO 81623
970,963.2190
eric.pelkerson starband.net
RTZ Industrial- Gravel Pits
Garfield County, Colorado
2
Scale: 1:15,479
ICY 14'ictmrA[N ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC.
0 0,125 0.25 0,5 0.75 1
- Miles
20
RTZ GoxZ Pia t e As esr Vd_1kkrd
3.6 IMPACTS To 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, pers. cam. 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 utilized 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 will 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
will 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 negatwe
impacts to winter range for ells 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 gas extraction activities, and thus some level of habitat fragmentation.
After development of the gravel pits (and subsequent flooding of pits), ells 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 tong -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.
ftKY MOUNTAIN ECOLocacAL SERvic . j c 21
RTZ Caravel Pity Aur&t st 2of37
3.6.1 FIGURE 4: ELK WJNTER RANGE
i1 { 4
- L V v1 V n N
interstates
RTZ- botindary
f 1..
ELK - severe_ winter_ STATE
ELK-winter_ concentration_ STATE t fit
ELK-winter_ range_ STATEr W- '
,
a ty
N s f f s,
tAt( i l -• 1/ f 9 11.♦�4 \ R . � A R \. ♦ \ 1 �' b`
r,
4 �N
,
i
l
Rocky Mountain Elk Whiter Ranges Drawn By: Eric Petterson
Ecological Services, Inc. Figure - 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
4222 Sobcat. Lane, Redstone, CO 81623 RTZ Industrial- Gravel Pits Elate: May 2007 - Miles
J
970.963.2190
Garfield County, Colorado`
edc.petterson starband,net Scale; 1:15,479
Rom MOUNTAIN RCOl.oGrCAL SERVICES, INC. 22
AT Z Grape! Pit LYlildli e _ JLw meat Ke __. u2 _7
3.7 IMPACTS To RIVER OTTER
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 raining 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 mining 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 impacts to water quality from the proposed
operations. RTZ has implemented a water depletion augmentation plan which would result in no net
decreases to instream flows in the mainstem 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 : 'K 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.
PICKY MouN7,uN EcoL.ocicAL SERVICEs, W c. 23
! " I • •1 r11 ��.2d— elf
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 "hest management practices" to consider for wildlife, which would allow for continued wildlife use
of areas within the development.
4.1 LIGHTING & GAME 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 striving 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 700) 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:
o Fences should consist of two rails, with the upper rail 44 inches above the ground, and the
top of the bottom rail 24 inches 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.
o For barbed wire fences, middle wires can be smooth woven wire. The bottom wire should
be at least 16° off the ground, 20° would be better, but this may be too high to keep cattle
calves from crawling under the fence.
o Buck and rail fences are practically impossible for big game species to cross, therefore buck
and rail fences are strongly discouraged.
o Prior to construction, snow fencing or silt fencing should be erected at the edge of the
construction areas to contain disturbance to native vegetation by indirect construction
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 Widll#e out of
industrial areas.
ROCKY A10L NTAIN r'.[.( UX. I[;AI. SERVICES, INC. 24
RT'Z Crm! Pits IYald4fa Asaassmant Retort Arrust 2007
4.4 LANDSCAPING AND REVEGETATION
As the area is used as winter range (and critical winter range), reclamation of road cuts,
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 DOMESTIC DOGS
Dogs can have a significant 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 vulnerable during the winterlearly
spring, when their energy reserves are depleted, food resources are most limited, and mast 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:
a Dogs should not be allowed to run free on the property during the winter months
(November 15 through March 1), unless under leash control.
a 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 who are not in
compliance with this dog policy will be responsible for any and all costs the CDOW 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 will be financially responsible for costs of controlling
dogs. CDOW and County representatives may be granted access 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.
PtKY MOUNTAIN ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, WC. 25
ue! itr i�dkfdAjuiptent Roo Audrg�r M
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed gravel mining operations, please feel
free to tail if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Eric Petterson
Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc.
jotl),N Mc)LwrAIN EcoLc (GiCAL SF.KwEs, hoc 26
RT7 Grayel Pirs Kiwi Asseament R*Qrt _ -- _ - -. zj�jW2 77
5 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 Junction, 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.
hftp: /Iwww.fws. govt endangered /candidatesi2005.CNOR° %2411 May05%20FR. pdf
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. U.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. RO. Box 849, Niwot, CO 80544.
Forman, R.T.T. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review
of Ecological Systems. 29, 247.231.
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. Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). Pp. 1 -28 in A. Poole, F. Gill, eds. The
Birds of North America, Vol. 418. Philadelphia, PA: The Birds of North America.
Martinez, A. 2047. 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.
Mincidey, W.L., P.C. Marsh, J.E. Brooks, J.E. Johnson, and B.L. Jensen. 1991. Management toward
recovery of razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). In W.L. Minckley and J.E. Deacon, Eris.
Battle Against Extinction. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Osmundson, D.B. and Burnham. 1998. Status and Trends of the Endangered Colorado squawfish
in the Upper Colorado River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:959 -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.
Osmundson, 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.
RCx:KY MOUNTAIN ECOL.CYGIGAT, SERVICES, INC. 27