Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Vegetation <br /> <br />Construction of the unit would eliminate 14 acres of existing vegetationt <br />consisting of sagebrush and greasewood communities. The sagebrush is dominated <br />by big sagebrush in association with other species, such as four-wing saltbrush. <br />Black greasewood is the dominant plant in the greasewood community and is found <br />in association with seablite. The well-pad would remove approximately 6.3 <br />acres of vegetation. The 3.7-rnile long pipeline would disturb about 4.5 acres <br />of vegetation, which would be reshaped and revegetated after construction. The <br />1.2-rnile long access road would cause the loss of 3.2 acres of vegetation. <br />After construction, all areas not needed for unit facilities, such as the <br />pipeline right-of-way, would be reshaped and revegetated. The net loss of <br />vegetation would be less than 10 acres. <br /> <br />Fish and Wildlife <br /> <br />The construction and operation of the test facilities for a limited two-year <br />period would have no adverse effect on the aquatic environment. The extrerrely <br />1= reduction in fl= of a maximun of 1.5 cfs, coupled with an irrproverrent in <br />water quality of dOlNl1stream water, would irrprove the aquatic habitat, <br />especially from the collection well site to the confluence with the San Miquel <br />River. <br /> <br />Initial construction and operation of the unit, with an increased in human <br />activity, could adversely affect sare wildlife species ranging from mule deer to <br />rodents. According to a BIM biologist, up to 300 Canada geese use the ]))lores <br />river near the injection well site during the winter for a resting area. During <br />construction these geese would probably be disturbed and move to areas of less <br />disturbance. Once construction activities were carpleted, these birds would <br />probably move back into the area. <br /> <br />After construction, small populations of rodents would be permanently lost <br />because of the presence of unit features, and sare raptor species may also be <br />affected. Accordingly, one raptor survey was conducted in April 1986, and <br />another one is planned for July 1986. These surveys are being conducted to <br />better assess the potential effects of the proposed test on raptors. Based on <br />the data of the first survey, the proposed test would not affect raptors in the <br />area. Overall, the unit would have a minor effect on fish and wildlife <br />resources. <br /> <br />Endangered Species <br /> <br />The Fish and wildlife Service (Fw.3) rendered a non-jeopardy oplnwn on the <br />unit in October 1977 for the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Colorado squawfish, <br />and the hunpback chub. In April 1986, Fish and wildlife Service and Reclamation <br />personnel conducted a raptor survey of the project area. One golden eagle nest <br />was identified as being active. Several other inactive old nests were <br />identified. The Colorado Division of Wildlife identified one peregine eyrie <br />approximately 2 miles from the collection well field. This eyrie is located <br />far enough away from construction and facility sites that no disturbance to <br />possible nesting peregines would occur. Through a cooperative effort, the Fish <br />and wildlife Service and Reclamation biologists will conduct another aerial <br />survey of the area in July 1986. <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />CO 5 '1 <br />