Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />4.0 ENDANGERED SPECIES ANALYSIS METHODS <br /> <br />4.1 Vegetation <br /> <br />Records of sensitive plant locations, summaries of habitat requirements, and field surveys were <br />used to determine the project's effects on ESA and ~A protected species and plants of <br />concern. ~ayajo Kamral Heritage Program (l\:"1\IIP) records were queried to produce lists of all <br />sensitive plants recorded within one-mile of proposed facilities, within three-miles of proposed <br />facilities, and with potential habitat near the project area (Nl':""HP 2003). New Mexico Rare Plant <br />Technical Council (r-.;"1v1RPTC) species summaries were used to evaluate the potential for the <br />project area to support sensitive plants. Distribution information for each species was also <br />gleaned from the NMRPTC. <br /> <br />Field surveys provided a more detailed picmre of potential project effects on protected species. <br />Approximately 290 miles of proposed pipeline alignment were surveyed from the fall of 1999 <br />through the summer of 2000. Additional surveys for Mesa Verde cactus were conducted during <br />2002. Two surveyors walked the proposed route in increments and described the vegetation <br />along the centerline and up to 100 feet on each side. Particular focus was placed on known and <br />potential habitats for sensitive species. \Vithin key habitats for sensitive species both sUlveyors <br />canvassed the area to achieve 90-95 percent ground survey coverage. All species encountered <br />were recorded and populations of species of concern were described in detail (ER! 2002). <br /> <br />4.2 Insects <br /> <br />Basic distribution and habitat information on insects of concern was gleaned from the Biota <br />Information System of New Mexico (BISON). This information was compared against habitats <br />that the project will affect to determine impacts to sensitive insects. <br /> <br />4.3 fish <br /> <br />Impacts on protected and sensitive fish were evaluated based on projected effects on hydrology <br />and water quality, and each species' local distribution, habits and risk of entrainment. We <br />compared each species' current, local distribution and habitat use with the areas affected by <br />project activities. First, we searched published reports and agency data to determine the current <br />distribution of threatened and endangered fish. \Ve also gathered information from SJRIP reports <br />on habitat use within affected project areas. Next, we conducted on-site evaluations of riparian <br />habitats at the PN~1 diversion site and searched SOOP reports for current information on aquatic <br />habitats. Finally, we compared threatened and endangered species distribution and habitat needs <br />to the ayailability of those habitats in affected project areas. Given this data, both Colorado <br />pikeminnow and razorback sucker were determined to potentially spawning upstream of the <br />proposed intake. The size at which Colorado pikeminnow larvae exit the drift and the dates of <br />peak spawning for Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker in the San Juan River were <br />determined based on San Juan River smdies (Platania et al. 2000, Brandenburg, et al. 2004). <br />USGS data were used to calculate average flows (1993-2003) at Farmington during spawning <br />(CSGS 2003). The proportion of larvae entrained was estimated based on the proportion of flows <br />diyerted during peak drift. <br /> <br />BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT <br />NAVAJO GAllUP WATER SUPPLY PROJECT <br />September 3. 2004 <br /> <br />Page 2S <br />