HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.07 Application Part8 AES Peace Bear Ranch Solar, LLC | Davis Parcel
Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the US
Appendix B.
ANTECEDENT
PRECIPITATION TOOL
Apr
2020
May
2020
Jun
2020
Jul
2020
Aug
2020
Sep
2020
Oct
2020
Nov
2020
Dec
2020
Jan
2021
Feb
2021
Mar
2021
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
Rainfall (Inches)2020-11-03
2020-10-04
2020-09-04
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network
Daily Total
30-Day Rolling Total
30-Year Normal Range
30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in)70th %ile (in)Observed (in)Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product
2020-11-03 0.793307 1.918504 0.46063 Dry 1 3 3
2020-10-04 0.99685 1.645669 0.909449 Dry 1 2 2
2020-09-04 0.540551 1.255512 0.149606 Dry 1 1 1
Result Drier than Normal - 6
Coordinates 39.509357, -107.663327
Observation Date 2020-11-03
Elevation (ft)5747.16
Drought Index (PDSI)Extreme drought
WebWIMP H2O Balance Wet Season
Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft)Distance (mi)Elevation Weighted Days (Normal)Days (Antecedent)
RIFLE GARFIELD CO AP 39.5264, -107.7264 5529.856 3.562 217.304 2.377 8165 90
SILT 7.2 ESE 39.4906, -107.6612 5816.929 1.301 69.769 0.676 1 0
SILT 1.2 SSW 39.5327, -107.668 5458.99 1.632 288.17 1.205 8 0
RIFLE 3ENE 39.5572, -107.7261 5469.16 4.703 278.0 3.424 34 0
RIFLE 39.5447, -107.7853 5435.04 6.944 312.12 5.292 2562 0
GLENWOOD SPGS #2 39.5181, -107.3172 5895.013 18.46 147.853 11.036 576 0
SHOSHONE 39.5703, -107.2267 5992.126 23.643 244.966 16.431 7 0
AES Peace Bear Ranch Solar, LLC | Davis Parcel
Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the US
Appendix C.
ORDINARY HIGH
WATER MARK
DATASHEET
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet
Project: Date: Time:
Project Number: Town: State:
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
Investigator(s):
Y / N Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Y / N Is the site significantly disturbed?
Location Details:
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
Brief site description:
Checklist of resources (if available):
Aerial photography
Dates:
Topographic maps
Geologic maps
Vegetation maps
Soils maps
Rainfall/precipitation maps
Existing delineation(s) for site
Global positioning system (GPS)
Other studies
Stream gage data
Ga ge number:
Period of record:
History of recent effective discharges
Results of flood frequency analysis
Most recent shift-adjusted rating
Gage heights for 2 -, 5 -, 10 -, and 25-year events and the
most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:
1.Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and
vegetation present at the site.
2.Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.
3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units.
a)Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b)D escribe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the
floodplain unit.
c)Identify any indicators present at the location.
4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.
5.Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
Mapping on aerial photograph GPS
Digitized on computer Other:
Wentworth Size Classes
Project ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Cross section drawing :
OHWM
GPS point: ___________________________
Indicators:
Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
Change in vegetation species Other: ____________________
Change in vegetation cover Other: ____________________
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low-Flow Channel Active Floodplain Low T errace
GPS point: ___________________________
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: __________________
Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____%
Community successional stage:
NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)
Indicators:
Mudcracks Soil development
Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other: ____________________
Presence of bed and bank Other: ____________________
Benches Other: ____________________
Comments:
Cross section ID:
AES Peace Bear Ranch Solar, LLC | Davis Parcel
Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the US
Appendix D.
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
AES Peace Bear Ranch Solar, LLC | Davis Parcel
Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the US
Photo 1 (S-1). Ephemeral irrigation ditch S-1 in the northwestern portion of the
Study Area.
Photo 2 (S-1). Ephemeral irrigation ditch S-1 in the northwestern portion of the
Study Area.
AES Peace Bear Ranch Solar, LLC | Davis Parcel
Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the US
Photo 3. Overgrazed sagebrush habitat view in the northern portion of the
Study Area.
Photo 4. Juniper habitat view in the northern portion of the Study Area.
AES Peace Bear Ranch Solar, LLC | Davis Parcel
Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the US
Photo 5. Unconsolidated bottom wetland W-1 in the western poriton of the
Study Area.
Photo 6 (W-1). Looking at ephemeral irrigation ditch S-1A in the center portion
of the Study Area.
AES Peace Bear Ranch Solar, LLC | Davis Parcel
Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the US
Photo 7 (S-2b). Facing East. Ephemeral irrigation ditch S-2b in the western
portion of the Study Area.
Photo 8 (W-2). Facing West. Unconsolidated bottom wetland W-2 in the
northern portion of the Study Area.
AES Peace Bear Ranch Solar, LLC | Davis Parcel
Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the US
Photo 9 (W-3). Looking southeast at unconsolidated bottom wetland W-3 in the
northern portion of the Study Area.
Photo 10 (S-3). Ephemeral irrigation ditch S-3 in the southwestern portion of
the Study Area.
AES Peace Bear Ranch Solar, LLC | Davis Parcel
Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the US
Photo 11 (S-4). Ephemeral irrigation ditch S-4 in the southwestern portion of
the Study Area.
Photo 12. Overview of habitat in the southeastern portion of the Study Area.
AES Peace Bear Ranch Solar – Land Use Change – Major Impact permit application (11/5/2021)
AES Peace Bear Ranch Solar – Garfield County 47
Please see the following pages for the Biological Resource Report – AES Peace Bear Ranch Solar, LLC
published in October 2021.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT
Appendix C2
OCTOBER 2021
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT
Holy Cross Photovoltaic + BESS Portfolio Peace Bear Site Investigation
Garfield County, Colorado
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
AES Peace Bear Project | Garfield County, Colorado
Biological Resources Report
October 2021 | i
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AES AES Peace Bear Solar, LLC
BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
CNHP Colorado Natural Heritage Program
CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife
CWA Clean Water Act
DC Direct Current
ESA Endangered Species Act
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MW Megawatt
MWh Megawatt Hours
Project Holy Cross Photovoltaic + BESS Portfolio Peace Bear Site
U.S.C. United States Code
USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS US Geological Survey
AES Peace Bear Project | Garfield County, Colorado
Biological Resources Report
October 2021 | ii
Table of Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................................. Inside Front Cover
Introduction and Project Description ............................................................................................ 1
Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................... 1
Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Results and Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 3
FEDERAL SPECIES .......................................................................................................................... 3
STATE SPECIES .............................................................................................................................. 4
MIGRATORY BIRDS .......................................................................................................................... 6
BIG GAME SPECIES ......................................................................................................................... 7
NON-NATIVE PLANTS (NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE)................................................................................. 9
Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 10
References ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Tables
Table 1: Fauna Species Detected in the Project area .................................................................................. 2
Table 2: Federally Listed Species ................................................................................................................. 3
Table 3: State Special Status Species .......................................................................................................... 5
Table 4: Weed Species Detected ............................................................................................................... 10
Appendices
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Site Photographs
Appendix C USFWS IPaC Report
AES Peace Bear Project | Garfield County, Colorado
Biological Resources Report
October 2021 | 1
Introduction and Project Description
AES Peace Bear Solar, LLC (AES) is proposing a paired Photovoltaic + Battery Storage (BESS) project
(Project) to support Holy Cross Energy’s 2030 goal of using 100 percent renewable energy. The Project
involves the development of a greenfield solar array targeting up to 16 megawatt (MW) direct current / 10
MW alternating current plus 20 megawatt hours of battery storage. The Project site is located in
southeastern Garfield County, approximately 3 miles south of Silt, Colorado (Appendix A: Figures 1 and
2). The Project occurs within Section 21 and 22, Township 6 South, Range 92 West. AES is in the advanced
stages of design and land acquisition for the Project. Construction is scheduled to begin after May 1, 2022
and conclude within 6 to 8 months.
This report analyzes the potential effects on special status species including federally listed species
protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) [16 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 1531], Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) [16 U.S.C. § 703–712], and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) [16
U.S.C. 668 et seq.]. The state species analyzed for effects include Colorado’s threatened and endangered
species protected under Title 33. Parks and Wildlife. Article 2. Nongame and Endangered Species
Conservation § 33-2-105, state species of special concern, and big game ungulate species.
Environmental Setting
The Project area lies within the Shale Deserts and Sedimentary Basins Ecoregion IV (Chapman et al. 2006;
CNHP 2021a). The average elevation in the Project area is about 5,775 feet. Precipitation in the Project
area averages about 12 inches annually, with most accumulation occurring from March to May and August
to October (PRISM 2021). Annual temperatures in the Project area average between 9 degrees up to 90
degrees Fahrenheit (PRISM 2021). The eastern portion of the Project area is a disturbed Inter-Mountain
Greasewood Flat ecological system currently dominated by noxious weeds. The western portion of the
Project area is characterized by Inter-Mountain Basin Big Sagebrush Shrubland with Colorado Plateau
Pinyon-Juniper Woodland ecological systems bordering the Project area (CNHP 2021a) (Appendix A:
Figure 2). The typical baseline conditions (i.e., topography, soils, and vegetation) defining the ecological
systems in the Project area are detailed below.
Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrublands are found on well-drained and non-saline soils of
broad basins between mountain ranges, or on plains and foothills (CNHP 2021a). These shrublands are
dominated by basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata) and/or Wyoming big sagebrush
(Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis), and often with scattered juniper trees (Juniperus spp.). Other
shrubs, including rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus or Ericameria spp.), winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata),
and antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), may be present in some stands. Perennial grasses typically
contribute less than 25 percent vegetative cover (CNHP 2021a).
Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands occur on the dry mountains and foothills of the Colorado
Plateau region from the western slope of Colorado to the Wasatch Range, and south to the Mogollon Rim
(CNHP 2021a). Two-needle pinyon (Pinus edulis) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) dominate the
tree canopy. Pinyon and juniper may also form sparse shrublands on rocky, shallow soils or tablelands
where vegetation is largely confined to small soil pockets in exposed bedrock. These matrix-forming
woodlands often occur in a mosaic with other systems, including sagebrush shrublands, Gambel oak
shrublands, and semidesert shrublands. The understory is highly variable and may be shrubby, grassy,
sparsely vegetated, or rocky (CNHP 2021a).
Native vegetation occurs within the western portion of the Project area and consists primarily of sagebrush,
pinyon-juniper, rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), and winterfat.
AES Peace Bear Project | Garfield County, Colorado
Biological Resources Report
October 2021 | 2
Sagebrush dominates about 40 percent of the entire site, in areas with gently sloping terrain. Pinyon-juniper
woodlands occur in sections of the Project area associated with sloped and steep, rocky terrain and well
drained soils. Forbs and grasses occur in the uplands throughout the Project area. Crested wheatgrass
(Agropyron cristatum), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), common sunflower (Helianthus annuus), gumweed
(Grindelia squarrosa), and common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) are common grasses and forbs in
the Project area (Appendix B: Photographs 1 – 6). Non-native weed species consisting of Russian thistle
(Salsola tragus), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), and Russian knapweed
(Rhaponticum repens) occur primarily in the eastern portion of the Project area (Section 4.5 and Appendix
B: Photographs 7 and 8).
Wildlife species identified during the Project area site survey are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Fauna Species Detected in the Project area
Common Name Scientific Name Special Status
BIRDS
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos MBTA-protected
Black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia MBTA-protected
Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus MBTA-protected
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus MBTA-protected
Horned lark Eremophila alpestris MBTA-protected
Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus MBTA-protected
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis MBTA-protected
Scrub jay Aphelocoma woodhouseii MBTA-protected
Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo MBTA-protected
MAMMALS
Coyote Canis latrans None
Mountain cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii None
Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus None
Methods
A desktop review of the Project area was conducted prior to the on-site survey using 1 meter resolution
imagery, U.S. Geological Service (USGS) landcover data, and an unofficial U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) federal species list. The desktop review also
utilized publicly available information (state and federal) and state proprietary data to identify previously
recorded raptor nesting locations and state species with a potential to occur within and near the Project
area. An official USFWS IPaC report was generated for the Project (Appendix C). The IPaC report
identified nine federally threatened, endangered, or candidate species that were analyzed for direct and
indirect effects from Project activities. Also, a list of state species was identified using publicly available
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) data. Seven state species of special concern were identified
with the potential to occur in the Project area or within the surrounding vicinity. In addition, information and
guidance are provided within the IPaC report for the protection of migratory birds under MBTA and BGEPA.
AES Peace Bear Project | Garfield County, Colorado
Biological Resources Report
October 2021 | 3
Following the desktop review, a site survey was conducted within the Project area on November 3, 2020.
The purpose of the site survey was to identify the presence of suitable habitat for listed and/or protected
species and migratory birds. A delineation of the aquatic features, including wetlands and Waters of the
United States, was also performed in support of the requirements for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). The results of this delineation are included in a separate report.
Results and Analysis
Federal Species
The ESA of 1973 established a program to conserve and protect federally listed plants and animals, and
their critical habitats. Critical habitat for a threatened or endangered species is defined as (1) the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species on which are found those physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species that may require special management considerations for the conservation of the
species. No critical habitat occurs within the Project area for any federal species.
Proposed species are not protected by the take prohibitions of Section 9 of the ESA until the rule to list is
finalized. However, under Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA, federal agencies must confer with the USFWS if their
action will jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species. Nine federally listed threatened,
endangered, and candidate species were analyzed for their potential to be affected by Project activities
(Appendix C and Table 2).
Due to a lack of suitable habitat within the Project area, none of the federally listed species are expected
to occur within the Project area or otherwise be impacted by Project activities. The Mexican spotted owl
(Strix occidentalis lucida) and the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) do not have suitable nesting
or foraging habitat within or near the Project area and therefore will not occur or be impacted by Project
activities. There are no suitable wetlands in the Project area that could support the Ute ladies'-tresses
(Spiranthes diluvialis). The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) could occur during migration (spring and
fall) but is not expected to breed or otherwise inhabit the Project area beyond transient movement to more
suitable breeding or overwintering habitat. The DeBeque phacelia (Phacelia submutica) requires unique
alkaline clay soils that are absent from the Project area; therefore, this species is not expected to occur.
And finally, the four fish species will not be impacted because Project activities will not result in direct or
indirect effects to water quality or quantity of the Colorado River or its tributaries.
Table 2: Federally Listed Species
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Listing
Status Habitat
Suitable
Habitat in
Project Area
Potential to
Affect
Species
INSECTS
Monarch
butterfly
Danaus
plexippus Candidate
Habitat often contains native
milkweeds (Asclepias spp.), the
primary food plant for larvae, and
other flowers to provide nectar for
adults. Suitable habitat also includes
trees or shrubs for shade and roosting.
Breeding and migratory habitats are
often synonymous as they contain the
same key components (milkweed,
nectar sources, and roosting structure)
that sustain monarch reproduction and
migration (WAFWA 2019).
No No
AES Peace Bear Project | Garfield County, Colorado
Biological Resources Report
October 2021 | 4
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Listing
Status Habitat
Suitable
Habitat in
Project Area
Potential to
Affect
Species
BIRDS
Mexican
spotted owl
Strix
occidentalis
lucida
Threatened
Old growth mixed-conifer forests used
throughout the range which may
include Douglas fir, white fir,
southwestern white pine, limber pine,
and ponderosa pine. Rocky canyons
are also utilized and often preferred for
nesting (Wrigley et al. 2012).
No No
Yellow-billed
cuckoo
(western
population)
Coccyzus
americanus Threatened
A riparian obligate, preferring large
and contiguous patches (greater than
20 hectares) of multiple vegetation
layers; favored habitat for nesting is
shrubs and foraging occurs in trees)
(CPW 2020a). Cottonwood-willow
forests (Populus spp. - Salix spp.) are
most often used (CPW 2020a).
No No
FISH
Bonytail chub Gila elegans Endangered
These four species are restricted to
the Colorado River basin and its major
tributaries (UCEFP 2021).
No No
Colorado
pikeminnow
Ptychocheilus
lucius Endangered No No
Humpback
chub Gila cypha Endangered No No
Razorback
sucker
Xyrauchen
texanus Endangered No No
PLANTS
DeBeque
phacelia
Phacelia
submutica Threatened
Restricted to exposures of chocolate
to purplish brown and dark charcoal
gray alkaline clay soils derived from
the Atwell Gulch and Shire members
of the Wasatch Formation. These
expansive clay soils are found on
moderately steep slopes, benches,
and ridge tops adjacent to valley floors
of the southern Piceance Basin in
Mesa and Garfield Counties, CO
(USFWS 2021b).
No No
Ute ladies'-
tresses
Spiranthes
diluvialis Threatened
Riparian edges, gravel bars, old
oxbows, high flow channels, and moist
to wet meadows along perennial
streams. Prefers stable wetland and
seepy areas associated with old
landscape features within historical
floodplains of major rivers. Also found
in wetland and seepy areas near
freshwater lakes or springs (USFWS
2021c).
No No
Source: USFWS 2021a
State Species
The species discussed within this section were identified based on a desktop review of CNHP data (CNHP
2021b), Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) raptor nesting data (CPW 2021a), and the CPW threatened
and endangered species list (CPW 2021b) for the Project Area. These data sources were used to identify
AES Peace Bear Project | Garfield County, Colorado
Biological Resources Report
October 2021 | 5
a list of species that have a historical record of occurrence within the Project area and/or similar habitats to
those within the Project area. In total, seven state species of special concern were identified as having the
potential to occur within the Project area (Table 3). It should be noted that state species of special concern
are not afforded regulatory protection.
Table 3: State Special Status Species
Common
Name
Scientific
Name Rank1 Habitat Description
Suitable
Habitat in
Project Area
Potential to
Affect
Species
MAMMALS
Townsend’s
big-eared bat
Corynorhinus
townsendii
pallescens
SC
Mines, caves, and large rock cavities up
to elevations of 10,000 feet and forages
along the edge of vegetation (CPW
2021c).
Yes
(Foraging) No
AMPHIBIANS
Northern
leopard frog
Lithobates
pipiens SC
Occur between 3,000 and 12,000 feet in
wet meadows, shallows of marshes,
ponds, lakes, reservoirs, streams, and
irrigation ditches (CPW 2021c).
Yes Yes
REPTILES
Midget faded
rattlesnake
Crotalus viridis
concolor SC
Many terrestrial habitats including
sandhills, semidesert shrubland,
mountain shrubland, riparian zones,
pinyon-juniper woodland, and montane
woodland with sandy or rocky soils.
Absent from wet areas and high
mountains. Takes shelter in crevices,
woodpiles, brushy vegetation, or
mammal burrows. Hibernates in rodent
burrows or outcrops (CPW 2021c).
Yes Yes
BIRDS
Greater
sandhill
crane
Antigone
canadensis
tabida
SC
Breeding birds are found in parks with
grassy hummocks and watercourses,
beaver ponds, and natural ponds lined
with willows or aspens. They nest in
wetlands and shallow marshes. Sandhill
cranes feed in mudflats around
reservoirs, moist meadows, and
agricultural areas. During migration and
winter, sandhill cranes regularly feed in
dry fields, returning to water at night
(CPW 2021c).
No No
Peregrine
falcon
Falco peregrinus
anatum SC
Inhabit open spaces usually associated
with high cliffs and bluffs overlooking
rivers and coasts (CPW 2021c).
Yes
(Foraging) No
Bald eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus SC
Large rivers and waterbodies, often
nesting in cottonwood trees and other
large trees (CPW 2021a).
No No
FISH
Roundtail
chub Gila robusta SC
Roundtail chub occur in cool to warm
water over a wide range of elevations in
rivers and streams throughout the
Colorado River basin, often occupying
open areas of the deepest pools and
eddies of mid-sized to larger streams
(CPW 2021c).
No No
1 Rank – SC = state species of special concern
AES Peace Bear Project | Garfield County, Colorado
Biological Resources Report
October 2021 | 6
Foraging habitat for the Townsend’s big-eared bat exists within and near the Project area, primarily adjacent
to the riparian and wetland areas associated with the Colorado River. These areas could support insect
populations that would attract foraging bats in the evenings. However, the Project area does not contain
caves or other cavern-like structures that could support roosting. Due the lack of roosting habitat, no effects
on the Townsend’s big-eared bat are expected.
The northern leopard frog is found in a wide variety of habitats in Colorado, including banks and shallow
portions of marshes, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, beaver ponds, and streams, especially those with rooted
aquatic vegetation (Wrigley et al. 2012). Leopard frogs require three major habitat types to complete their
life cycle: (1) shallow breeding ponds with no predaceous fish for the tadpole life stage, (2) summer upland
habitat areas for adult feeding, and (3) lake, stream, or pond overwintering habitat (Smith and Keinath
2007). Breeding pools contain mats of algae and clear water, and eggs are laid on emergent vegetation in
shallow water (Wrigley et al. 2012). Northern leopard frog habitat occurs within and surrounding the Project
area and is primarily associated with upland impoundment ponds. Leopard frogs could occur throughout
the Project area but are most likely to occur near wet or depressional areas with standing water or thick
upland grasses. The Project could result in some limited direct and indirect effects to leopard frogs foraging
in uplands; however, the displacement or death of a few individuals would not reduce the species’ viability.
Peregrine falcons hunt on the wing and are known to take a variety of small to medium sized birds, the
occasional insect, small mammals (including bats), and fish (USFWS 2001). Foraging habitat for the
peregrine falcon exists within and near the Project area and is associated with the riparian area of the
Colorado River. This area would support potential prey that may attract peregrines (USFWS 2001). Due to
the presence of known nesting sites in the vicinity of the Project area, peregrine falcons could occasionally
use the Project area for foraging. While indirect effects from Project activities could result in peregrine
falcons temporarily avoiding the Project area for foraging, the species would not be directly or adversely
impacted by Project activities.
Habitat for the midget faded rattlesnake could occur anywhere within the Project area, but the species
prefers dry, rocky habitat that provides escape cover, thermal cover, and hibernacula (Travsky and
Beauvais 2004). The species’ preferred habitat in the Project area is associated with pinyon-juniper
woodlands. Therefore, avoiding or minimizing impacts on pinyon-juniper woodlands would reduce the
potential for impacts on the species.
If any state special status species or other wildlife are injured or killed as a result of the Project, or a species
is identified within the Project area and requires removal or documentation, CPW should be contacted. The
nearest CPW office is located at 88 Wildlife Way, Glenwood Springs, CO (970.947.2920).
Migratory Birds
Project activities that could disturb nesting birds are defined as those involving human encroachment and
notable habitat disturbance within the Project area. The most likely nesting birds to be impacted by Project
activities include shrub and ground nesting species. However, pre-construction nesting surveys would
significantly reduce the chances of impacting avian species or violating MBTA. If Project activities involving
vegetation clearing are scheduled to occur within the general nesting season (May 1–August 31), nesting
surveys are recommended to be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than one week prior to Project
disturbances. Any active nests identified prior to or during Project activities should be avoided until the
young are no longer dependent on the nest for survival.
Similar to MBTA, BGEPA prohibits the unlawful killing, capturing, or disturbance to bald and golden eagles
(Aquila chrysaetos), including their parts, nests, or eggs. Bald eagles are typically observed near rivers or
large lakes but can be found in open, dry country, particularly during migration and winter foraging. Bald
eagles typically build nests in large trees near waterbodies or rivers due to their affinity to prey on fish
AES Peace Bear Project | Garfield County, Colorado
Biological Resources Report
October 2021 | 7
(Wrigley et al. 2012). Golden eagles inhabit grasslands and shrublands in Colorado and nest on cliffs or in
large trees with an unobstructed view of the surrounding habitat (CPW 2021a). Construction activities
should not occur within 0.25 mile of an active bald eagle or golden eagle nest. Should a different species
of raptor choose to nest within the Project area, specific avoidance recommendations should be followed
as outlined within the CPW Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors
2020 (CPW 2020b).
A large stick nest was mapped as occurring about 400 feet outside of the Project area’s southeastern corner
(Appendix A: Figure 2). The stick nest was last recorded in May 2011 as active and occupied by golden
eagles. However, the nest was not located upon survey of the area and therefore the nest is presumed to
have been abandoned and deteriorated over the past decade. A great horned owl was detected during the
Project survey and likely nests in the vicinity or potentially within the Project area. Due to the confirmed
presence of raptors in the area, nearby nesting sites, and suitable habitat in the Project area, pre-
construction nesting surveys are recommended prior to Project activities that are scheduled to occur within
the raptor nesting season (February 15 to July 15). However, raptors or other migratory birds that do
establish nests within or near the Project area boundary, despite or prior to construction, should be reported
to local wildlife agencies for impact minimization guidance. If an active nest is detected within the Project
area, the following measures would be implemented to avoid violating federal law:
• Construction activities are temporarily halted near the nest to minimize disturbance and allow for
an accurate determination of species,
• A temporary 100-foot-radius work exclusion zone is established around songbird nests,
• A temporary 0.25-mile-radius work exclusion zone is established around raptor nests, and
• The USFWS Lakewood, Colorado Field Office or the nearest CPW office (970.947.2920) shall be
contacted for additional technical and regulatory guidance. The USFWS is the primary jurisdictional
authority for bird species protected under MBTA and BGEPA.
Big Game Species
The Project area contains habitat for big game species, including mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and
Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis). Specifically, the Project area contains severe winter range and
winter concentration area for elk and mule deer (Appendix A: Figures 3 and 4). Severe winter range for
both species is defined as that part of the species’ overall range where 90 percent of the individuals are
located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two
worst winters out of ten (CPW 2021d). The winter concentration area for both elk and mule deer is that part
of their winter range where densities are at least 200 percent greater during the same period in the average
five winters out of ten (CPW 2021d).
In western Colorado below about 7,000 feet, elk inhabit pinyon-juniper and sagebrush habitats during the
fall and winter when forced to move to lower elevations for food and cover from severe weather (Bishop
2021). Along with sagebrush and pinyon-juniper communities, elk use agricultural land for forage (WAFWA
2021). In winter, pinyon-juniper serves as important thermal and seclusion habitat but provides limited
forage (WAFWA 2021). Elk can inhabit a diversity of habitats across Colorado because while preferring
grasses and forbs, they will also consume large amounts of shrubs during winter. In the late summer when
grasses and forbs start drying out, elk browse shrubs and other plants such as antelope bitterbrush,
serviceberry, sagebrush, or mountain mahogany (Randall 2017). Sagebrush is browsed more in winter
when grasses are difficult to access under snow cover. Therefore, elk are capable of meeting their
nutritional requirements across a spectrum of habitat conditions (Bishop 2021).
AES Peace Bear Project | Garfield County, Colorado
Biological Resources Report
October 2021 | 8
Similar to elk, mule deer in mountainous regions migrate to lower elevations in fall to escape snow and cold
temperatures. While snow depths of 18 to 24 inches are tolerable, lower levels are sought in order to
conserve energy (NRCS 2005). Mule deer are classified as intermediate feeders rather than strict grazers
or browsers. Therefore, vegetation communities consisting of mixed species are more beneficial for deer
than homogenous communities. The most important winter habitat for mule deer on the western slope are
sagebrush stands with adjacent pinyon-juniper woodlands (NRCS 2000). Riparian areas also provide
important mule deer browsing habitat and thermal cover. Snowberry, golden currant, American plum,
skunkbush sumac, and Wood’s rose are common understory plants in riparian habitat (NRCS 2000). The
optimum cover habitat is generally about 40 percent of the overall deer use area (NRCS 2000).
Functional habitat loss would occur as a result of the Project because the Project area contains moderate
quality habitat for big game winter forage (sagebrush) and cover (pinyon-juniper). The Project area contains
about 45 acres of sagebrush habitat with adjacent and surrounding patches of pinyon-juniper habitat. The
sagebrush in the Project area is low growing, averaging about 1 foot tall, with mixed grasses and forbs.
Disturbances on pinyon-juniper habitat would mostly be avoided, but much of the sagebrush habitat would
be disturbed or otherwise functionally removed and replaced with native grasses. The southeastern section
of the Project area is dominated by noxious weeds and mixed grasses (Appendix B: Photographs 7 and
8). Cattle grazing and agricultural disturbances have likely contributed to the spread of noxious weeds in
the Project area (Section 4.5). The Project area is also being used for dumping trash and other waste/debris.
While big game species likely forage in the general area and use the pinyon-juniper habitat for winter cover,
the Project area represents moderate quality habitat due to the extensive noxious weeds, cattle grazing,
and human disturbances. Elk and mule deer would migrate to more productive habitats at higher elevations
in spring and summer.
To minimize disturbances on elk and mule deer, no Project activities would occur between December 1 to
April 30 (CPW 2021e). Exceptions to this time limitation for construction or related Project activities would
not be permitted for this Project (CPW 2021f). CPW would require that off-site mitigation occur at a 1:1 ratio
to offset the loss of functional habitat due to the Project (CPW 2021e; CPW 2021f). As the Project proceeds,
AES would continue to coordinate with CPW regarding an off-site mitigation strategy in an effort to identify
a habitat improvement project(s) that would aid local wildlife (CPW 2021f).
General considerations such as lower vehicle speeds, awareness training, and other hazard mitigation
measures would be implemented during construction and operation of the Project. A permanent fence
(about 7 feet tall) would be installed surrounding the solar field installation for public safety and wildlife
exclusion. Escape ramps would not be required as a part of the exclusion fence design. Additional guidance
and design considerations can be found within CPW’s Fencing with Wildlife in Mind document. The current
fencing design proposed for the Project is detailed in Exhibit A below.
AES Peace Bear Project | Garfield County, Colorado
Biological Resources Report
October 2021 | 9
Non-native Plants (Noxious and Invasive)
A non-native plant is generally defined as a species that has been introduced with human help (intentionally
or accidentally) to new habitat in which the plant is not known to naturally occur. An invasive plant is a non-
native plant that is able to establish on many sites, grow quickly, spread to the point of disrupting plant
communities or ecosystems, and/or result in economic or human harm (USDA 2021). According to the
Colorado Noxious Weed Act (§ 35-5.5-101 through 119, Colorado Revised Statutes), a noxious weed is a
non-native plant that is detrimental to economic crops or native plant communities, poisonous to livestock,
and/or a carrier of insects, parasites, or diseases (CDA 2021). In Colorado, noxious weeds are categorized
as list A, B, or C plants (CDA 2021). List A noxious weeds are those designated for eradication on all
county, state, federal, and private lands. List B species are those whose further spread has been mandated
to be stopped. List C species are recommended for control and proactive management.
AES Peace Bear Project | Garfield County, Colorado
Biological Resources Report
October 2021 | 10
The site survey identified non-native plant populations occurring throughout most of the eastern half of the
Project area (Appendix A: Figure 2). Russian knapweed is the highly dominant non-native weed species
in the Project area (Appendix B: Photographs 7 and 8). Non-native plants could be spread to or from the
Project area by means of equipment and materials. Ground disturbance associated with Project
construction has the potential to increase the rate at which non-native weeds and other invasive species
colonize and spread, possibly resulting in long-term, adverse impacts on native vegetation. Therefore, weed
control measures should be implemented to help minimize the spread of non-native plants during and after
construction. The development of a weed management plan is recommended to identify and effectively
implement weed control measures. In order to properly document all non-native weed species and develop
an effective weed management plan, a survey for non-native weeds species would need to be conducted
during the growing season.
Control measures may include one or more mitigation methods, including: (1) mechanical, (2) chemical,
and (3) prevention through equipment inspection. A complete list of Colorado’s noxious weeds is available
on the Colorado Department of Agriculture’s noxious weed list (CDA 2021). The weed species recorded in
the Project area are listed in Table 4.
Table 4: Weed Species Detected
Common Name Scientific Name Weed Listing Occurrence Pattern
Downy brome (Cheatgrass) Bromus tectorum C Common throughout entire Project area
Musk thistle Carduus nutans B Small populations throughout Project area
Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens B Dominant in mapped noxious weed area
Russian thistle Salsola tragus No Status Common throughout Project area
Source: CDA 2021
Conclusion and Recommendations
As a result of the desktop review and Project area site survey, nine federally listed species under the ESA
and seven state special status species were identified that have the potential to occur, at least seasonally,
in the Project area or surrounding vicinity. However, no federal species were determined to have the
potential to occur within the Project area due to a lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, no federal species
would be affected directly or indirectly by Project activities.
Habitat for two state species of special concern (midget faded rattlesnake and northern leopard frog) was
noted to occur in the Project area. However, these two species are unlikely to occur in the Project area or
be impacted by Project activities because the available habitat is of lower quality and/or would only be used
for transient movement. Foraging habitat for the peregrine falcon and Townsend’s big-eared bat was also
noted to occur within the Project area. Raptors and various other migratory bird species were detected in
the Project area during the surveys. Therefore, to avoid violating federal law (MBTA and BGEPA), nesting
surveys are recommended prior to Project activities if construction is scheduled to occur inside of the
nesting season (February 15–July 15 for raptors and May 1–August 31 for other migratory birds) (CPW
2020b).
The Project is not expected to result in the death of individual special status species (federal or state listed)
but would result in the loss of some habitat, primarily for big game species. Therefore, the Project would
require three key impact minimization measures for protecting big game wildlife, including: (1) wildlife
exclusion fencing, (2) seasonal construction limitations, and (3) mitigation for functional habitat loss.
AES Peace Bear Project | Garfield County, Colorado
Biological Resources Report
October 2021 | 11
References
Bishop 2021 Bishop, Chad J. (2021). Colorado Parks and Wildlife: Lesson 2: Understanding Elk in Colorado. Available
online: < https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/EHU-CH2-L02.aspx >
CDA 2021 Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) 2021. Noxious Weed Species. Available online:
<https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/agconservation/noxious-weed-species>.
Chapman et al.
2006
Chapman, S.S., Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Price, A.B., Freeouf, J., and Schrupp, D.L., 2006, Ecoregions
of Colorado (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia,
US Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,200,000). Available online:
<ftp://newftp.epa.gov/EPADataCommons/ORD/Ecoregions/co/co_front.pdf>.
CNHP 2021a Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2021a. Ecological Systems of Colorado. Available online:
<https://cnhp.colostate.edu/projects/ecological-systems-of-colorado/ >.
CNHP 2021b CNHP. 2021b. General location data (within 7.5 minute quadrangles) and status of rare and/or imperiled
species. Available online: <https://cnhp.colostate.edu/ourdata/about-requesting-cnhp-data/>.
CPW 2020a Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2020a. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (western population). Available online:
<https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/WetlandsProgram/PrioritySpecies/Factsheet-and-Habitat-
Scorecard_YellowBilledCuckoo.pdf>.
CPW 2020b CPW. 2020b. Recommended Buffer Zone and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors (2020).
<https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/Raptor-Buffer-Guidelines.pdf>.
CPW 2021a CPW. 2017. Raptor Nesting Spatial Data. Obtained from Colorado Parks and Wildlife in January 2021.
CPW 2021b CPW. 2021. Threatened and Endangered State Species List. Available online at:
<http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx>.
CPW 2021c CPW. 2021. Species Profiles. Available online: <http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx>.
CPW 2021d CPW. 2021. Colorado Parks and Wildlife GIS Species Activity Mapping Definitions. Available online:
<https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Maps/CPW-Public-GIS-Species-Activities-Definitions.pdf>.
CPW 2021e CPW. 2021. CPW Recommendations to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Wildlife from Land Use
Development in Colorado. Available online: <file:///C:/Users/aphillip/Desktop/Projects/2020/AES/
Reporting/Reports/Biological%20Survey%20Report/CPW_Recommendation%20for%20Development.pdf>.
CPW 2021f CPW. 2021. Personal communication between HDR biologist (Andrew Phillips) and CPW Area
Wildlife Manager (Scott Hoyer) regarding effects on big game species. Coordination occurred in
September, 2021.
NRCS 2000 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2000. Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Fact Sheet.
Available online: <https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/CO/Muledeer.pdf#:~:text=Mule%20
deer%20are%20an%20important%20economic%20wildlife%20species,limiting%20factors%20for%20Color
ado%E2%80%99s%20mule%20deer%20%28Ellenberger%201999%29.>.
NRCS 2005 NRCS. 2005. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet: Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Available
online: <https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_010100.pdf>.
PRISM 2021 PRISM Climate Group: Northwest Alliance for Computational Science and Engineering. Available online:
<http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/>.
Randall 2017 Randall, Brianna. (2017) Sage Grouse Initiative: Do Elk Need Sagebrush? Available at:
https://www.sagegrouseinitiative.com/sagebrush-species-spotlight-elk/.
Smith and
Keinath 2007
Smith, B.E. and D.A. Keinath. 2007. Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens): A Technical Conservation
Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available online:
<http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182078.pdf>.
Travsky and
Beauvais 2004
Travsky, Amber and Gary P. Beauvais. (2004). Species Assessment for the Midget Faded Rattlesnake
(Crotalus viridis concolor) in Wyoming. Prepared for United States Department of the Interior Bureau of
Land Management.
AES Peace Bear Project | Garfield County, Colorado
Biological Resources Report
October 2021 | 12
UCEFP 2021 Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Program (UCEFP). About the Endangered Fish Page.
Available online: <http://www.coloradoriverrecovery.org/general-information/about-fish.html>.
USDA 2021 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2021. Native, Invasive, and Other Plant-Related Definitions.
Available online: <https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ct/technical/ecoscience/invasive/?cid
=nrcs142p2_011124>.
USFWS 2001 US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Peregrine Falcon Habitat Model. Available online:
<https://www.fws.gov/r5gomp/gom/habitatstudy/metadata/peregrine_falcon_model.htm>.
USFWS 2021a USFWS. 2021. Information for Planning and Consultation. Online: <https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/>.
Consultation Code: 06E24100-2021-SLI-0182; Event Code: 06E24100-2021-E-00414.
USFWS 2021b USFWS. 2021. ECOS Environmental Conservation Online Syste. DeBeque phacelia (Phaceila submutica).
<https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4639#lifeHistory>.
USFWS 2021c USFWS. 2021. Endangered Species | Plants. Ute-Ladies’-Tresses Orchid. <https://www.fws.gov/mountain-
prairie/es/uteLadiestress.php#:~:text=Location%3A%20Populations%20of%20Ute%20ladies,the%20upper
%20Colorado%20River%20basin%2Chttps://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/uteLadiestress.php#:~:text
=Location%3A%20Populations%20of%20Ute%20ladiesthe%20upper%20Colorado%20River%20basin%2
C>.
WAFWA 2019 Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). 2019. Western Monarch Butterfly
Conservation Plan, 2019–2069. Version 1.0. Available online: <https://wafwa.org/wpdm-package/western-
monarch-butterfly-conservation-plan-2019-2069/>.
WAFWA 2021 WAFWA. 2021. Implementation of Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3362: COLORADO ACTION
PLAN: “Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors”. Available
online: <https://wafwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2018-Final-Colorado-State-Action-
Plan.pdf#:~:text=Sagebrush%20steppe%20and%20grasslands%20dominate%20the%20Great%20Basin,b
ands%20of%20both%20species%20using%20these%20areas%20year-round.>.
Wrigley et al.
2012
Wrigley, M.J., M. White, B. Elliott, M. Comer, R.E. Torretta, P. Gaines, S. Olson, K. Meyer, M. Painter, J.
Windorski, F. Quesada, and M. Welker. 2012. Threatened, endangered, and Forest Service sensitive
species on the Pike and San Isabel National Forests (updated June 2012). Unpubl. Rpt. US Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Comanche and Cimarron National
Grasslands. Salida, Colorado. 115pp + appendices. Available online:
<https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_032420.pdf>.
Note: Citations accessed September 2021
AES Peace Bear Project | Garfield County, Colorado
Biological Resources Report
Appendix A
Figures
Appendix A
AES Peace Bear Project | Garfield County, Colorado
Biological Resources Report
October 2021 | A-1
Figure 1: Project Area Location