This is a digital document from the collections of the Wyoming Water Resources Data System (WRDS) Library.

For additional information about this document and the document conversion process, please contact WRDS at wrds@uwyo.edu and include the phrase

“Digital Documents” in your subject heading.

To view other documents please visit the WRDS Library online at: http://library.wrds.uwyo.edu

Mailing Address: Water Resources Data System

University of Wyoming, Dept 3943 1000 E University Avenue

Laramie, WY 82071

Physical Address: Wyoming Hall, Room 249 University of Wyoming

Laramie, WY 82071

Phone: (307) 766-6651 Fax: (307) 766-3785

Funding for WRDS and the creation of this electronic document was provided by the Wyoming Water Development Commission

(http://wwdc.state.wy.us)

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

Town of Buffalo Water Storage Tank, Level I1 Project

Prepared For:

Wyoming Water Development Commission Cheyenne, Wyoming

Prepared by:

States West Water Resources Corporation Cheyenne, Wyoming

In association with:

WEST, Inc. Cheyenne, Wyoming

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CITY OF BUFFALO

STORAGE TANK AND TRANSMISSION LINE

JOHNSON COUNTY WOMING

January 2003

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY A. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION B. CONTACT PERSON C. ABSTRACT D. COMMENT PERIOD

II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

III, ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING TED23 PROPOSED ACTION A. No Action Alternative B. Alternative No. 1 C. ~ l te rna t ive No. 2 D. Alternative No. 3 (Preferred Alternative)

TV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT A. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLANNING AREA B, PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE C. POPULATION AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS

V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT A. DIRECT AND INDIRECT MPACTS B. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

VI. MITIGATION OF ADVERSE IMPACTS

VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

m. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

IX, AGENCES CONTACTED

APPENDIX A - MAP OF LOCATXONS OF PROPOSED PROJECT

APPENDIX B - RESPONSE LETTERS FROM AGENCIES

APPENDIX C - CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT

APPENDIX D - BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY

A. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Applicant: City of Buffalo Address: 46 North Main Street

Buffalo, WY 82834 Project : Storage Tank and Transmission Line

B. CONTACT PERSON

Ken Gross, City Manager City of Buffalo 46 North Main Street Buffalo, WY 82834 (307) 684-5566

C. ABSTRACT

The proposed project will involve construction of a 2.5 million gallon water storage tank and two below-grade pressure reducing vaults, as well as installation of approximately 11,000 feet of 18-inch pipe and 8,600 feet of 16-inch pipe for distribution of water within the City of Buffalo.

D. COMMENT PERIOD

In conformance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wyoming Environmental Review Process, this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be subject to a 30 day public review period. The FONSI will be distributed to interested persons and agencies for their review. The FONSI will be available for public review at the Wyoming Department of Environmental Qualitymater Quality Division, 122 West 25" Street, Herschler Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming. All comments received will be given due consideration. Comments should be directed to:

Brian Mark, SRF Program Principal Water Quality Division Herschler Building, 4W 122 West 25h Street Cheyenne, WY 82002 Tel.: 307-777-7267; Fax: 307-777-5973 E-mail: bmarh~@..c;ra re.my.us

11. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The Town of Buffalo's treated water supply consists of water diverted from Clear Creek which is treated by a water treatment facility. The design capacity of the water treatment plant was 4.0 MGD. The back washing requirements of the water treatment process reduces the output capacity of the water treatment plant to 3.5 MGD . The Town of Buffalo has two water storage tanks. The first tank, located west of town near the water treatment plant, has a capacity of approximately 600,000 gallons. This tank is used as a storage tank and a chlorine contact chamber to develop the required contact time. The second tank is located south of town and has an approximate capacity of 750,000 gallons. The total capacity of the two tanks is 1 -3 5 million gallons (MG) although not all storage is actually usable due to the need for c h l o ~ e contact time. A new storage tank of about 2.5 million gallons is needed to obtain a total storage capacity of 3.75 million gallons. This would provide sufficient storage for emergency storage and W r e demands, and provide additional fire protection for the existing system. A storage tank located west ofBuffalo could also provide service to an area of logical fbture development.

In recent past years, the City of Buffalo has experienced difficulty in meeting peak daily demands without depleting the existing storage. In addition, the City has experienced difficulties maintaining pressures and adequate fire flows in the north portions of the town. New development in the north portion of town has been served only with pump stations without adequate fire protection. As the logical future growth of the town is in this area, the need for additional storage in the northwest portion of town has become evident. This prompted the current Level II study to develop conceptual designs and cost estimates for the City's water storage needs. A map of the proposed project locations is provided in Appendix A.

IU. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THIS PROPOSED ACTION

A total of 4 alternatives were examined for the purposes of correcting deficiencies with the City of Buffalo water storage and distribution system and providing adequate storage and service for a 20-year planning period. The alternatives follow:

A. No Action Alternative

This alternative is not acceptable because the City of Buffalo will be faced with an inadequate water supply, inability to maintain pressures, and inadequate fire flows in portions of town that could lead to public safety hazards.

B. Alternative No. 1

Alternative 1 was to construct a storage tank located near town. The tank location would be based on the hydraulic grade line of approximately 4800 feet, set by pressure reducing valves

servicing a large portion of the town. The tank would be designed to provide added storage to the users in the town's largest pressure zone and to provide a pressure relief for this zone. Currently the town has no pressure relief for this zone. If a PRV were to fail or stick in an open position this zone would over-pressure. It is believed this has occurred and is the probable cause of several water line breaks in recent years. With a properly positioned overflow in the tank, water would spill when the system pressure increases above the overflow elevation and the system pressure would not increase beyond this elevation. A transmission line for this alternative would tie into the existing distribution. The new line would loop the tank into the system at a location of the greatest benefit to the system. This alternative has serious drawbacks in that water into and out of the tank would have to come from a s i d e location. Chlorine residual could be a problem. This alternative would have the lowest construction cost, and could be upgraded to Alternative 2 in the future. The storage would be available to most of the existing distribution system, but not to areas of anticipated development. The total estimated cost for this alternative is $2.9 million.

C. Alternative No. 2

Alternative 2 would place the proposed tank at an elevation based on the town's current pressure zone, approximately 4800 feet, as in Alternative 1. This tank would service the largest pressure zone in the town and allow for pressure relief if the system were to over pressure. The transmission line for this alternative would tie into the system below the existing tank at the treatment plant and above existing pressure reducing valves. This would allow a high pressure line to supply the new subdivisions and potential growth on a higher pressure zone. Two existing pump stations, serving two recently constructed subdivisions, would be eliminated and replaced with pressure reducing valves. Storage for the new subdivisions and additional development would be available only fkom the existing 600,000 gallon tank near the treatment plant. The transmission line can also serve future expansion above the proposed tank with pressure from the existing 600,000 gallon tank. If needed, a h r e higher tank could be installed to allow storage for new growth that would extend to the city limits in this area. The total estimated cost for this alternative is $3.5 million.

D. Alternative No. 3 (Preferred Alternative)

The preferred alternative combines desirable aspects of Alternatives 1 and 2. The preferred alternative could maintain adequate storage and senrice to logical development areas west and north of town over the 20 year design period. A buried concrete tank was recommended with an 18-inch transmission main connecting the existing distribution system and the tank, and a 16-inch transmission main co~ecting the tank to the north portion of the distribution system. It was proposed that pressure reducing valves be installed on the transmission mains to provide service to areas not presently served without the use of pump stations and to allow the proposed storage tank to function properly with the existing system. Installation of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems were proposed on certain

components of the proposed system to allow operators to remotely control and monitor the fbnction of the proposed system. The total estimated cost for this alternative is $4.3 05 million.

ZV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. Description of Project Planning Area

The water system improvements will provide service within the incorporated city limits of Buffalo, Wyoming. Buffalo is the county seat of Johnson County, Wyoming and is located at the junction of Interstates 25 and 90 and U.S. Highway 16. It has a population of 3 900 (2000 census). Monthly average temperatures range from 27.4 9 in January to 69.39 in July. Major economic activities and sources of employment include services, retail trade, government, agriculture, and finance.

B. Proposed Alternative

The project is located in the City of Buffalo in Sections 27, 28, and 33, Township 5 1 North, Range 82 West, Johnson County, Wyoming. The proposed project consists of the construction of a 2.5 million gallon water storage tank. The proposed tank would be a buried concrete tank with the approximate dimensions of 133' diameter and 25' wall height. The tank would be constructed by excavating into an existing hill and backfiling the entire tank to provide near natural appearance. The top of the tank would be covered by approximately 2' of fill, leaving minimal tank appurtenances exposed. Piping to and from the tank consists of an 18-inch transmission main and a 16-inch supply main. Approximately 1 1,000 feet of 18- inch pipe would be installed. A below-grade pressure reducing vault would be installed on this line near the connection to the existing water supply to the town. A road bore is proposed under US Highway 16. An additional pipe from the tank to the northern portion of Buffalo will also be constructed. This supply line would include the installation of approximately 8,600 feet of 16-inch pipe and two below grade pressure reducing vaults. This pipe is proposed to parallel French Creek Road, and connect into the existing water distribution system in the northwest comer of town. A road bore is proposed for the crossing of a proposed 10-inch water line and French Creek Road. Another 10-inch water line is proposed from the 16-inch water main to the North Ridge Subdivision. This line passes through the town's abandoned landfill. All piping for the project is to be installed in an open cut trench, and backillled to natural ground. Completion of the project is scheduled in 2003. The project is illustrated in Appendix A.

C. Population and Demand Projections

The project's design water demand and design year are 4.9295 MGD and 2022, respectively. The design population for the year 2022 is 5387.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

A. DIRECT AND INDlRECT IMPACTS The proposed project should not have any significant adverse impacts on the planning area. Several issues were raised during the planning stages. These issues include: (1) impacts on prime agricultural lands; (2) impacts on wildlife; (3) impacts on wetlands; (4) impacts on archeological or historic sites; and (5) impacts on threatened or endangered species. Careful examination of each issue produced the following results:

(1) A response was not received from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS. However, during a field review of the project area, no farmlands were found to be present near any of the facilities.

(2) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined that the planned activities will not require processing of an individual permit. The activities qualify for authorization under the Nationwide Permit (NWP) 12. (See Appendix B)

(3) The Wyoming State Historic and Preservation Office (SHPO) performed a file search on October 10, 2002, which showed that sites may be in the area. The letter stated that the area has not been surveyed for cultural resources. SHPO stated that prior to disturbing any ground, an on-site cultural survey should be conducted for all project areas that have not been previously disturbed. There is the possibility that buried prehistoric or historic materials may exist and may be uncovered during project construction.

A Class IIt on-site cultural resources survey was conducted by the Oflice of the State Archaeologist and sent to SHPO (see Appendix C). No sites or isolated finds were encountered during the survey. SHPO has concurred that no sites meeting the criteria of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the planned project. SHPO recommended that the following stipulation be included in the project permit: if any cultural materials are discovered during construction, work in the area shall halt immediately and SHPO staffcontacted. Work in the area may not resume until the materials have been evaluated and adequate measures for their protection or collection have been taken.

(4) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) responded in a letter dated October 11, 2002. The USFWS provided a list of threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species that could be encountered on the project site. The list included bald eagle (Threatened), black-footed ferret (Endangered), mountain plover (Proposed) and black-tailed prairie dog (Candidate). In addition, the USFWS requested that surveys for migratory birds of high federal interest be conducted if any suitable habitat is present within 1 mile of any project features. The USFWS also recommended

avoiding construction during the raptor nesting season (February 1 - August 15) if possible or conducting surveys for raptor nests present in the project vicinity, which was defined as being within 1 mile for bald eagles and fermginous hawks or within 0.5 miles for all other raptor species. The USFWS also recommended that measures be taken to avoid wetland losses and riparian areas.

To satisfy USFWS concerns, a field visit was conducted and a Biological Assessment was prepared for the project (Appendix D). The assessment included a site visit to inspect the project area and surrounding area, database searches for records of sensitive species, and a review of relevant literature. The conclusion of the biological assessment is that the project is not likely to adversely affect the endangered, threatened, or proposed species, or jeopardize the continued existence of candidate species that may potentially occur in the project area. No raptor nests or important habitat for migratory birds were found near the project area. The USFWS concurred with results of the BA in a letter dated January 2, 2003.

(5) The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) responded that no crucial big game ranges, raptor nests, sage grouse leks, or sharp-tailed grouse leks are known to occur in the area. Based on their assessment, the WGFD doesnot anticipate any sigdicant impacts to terrestrial wildlife. The WGFD also concluded that the project would not directly impact aquatic resources. Recommendations included removal of vegetation only where trenching will occur, salvage and reuse of topsoil, reseeding disturbed areas with native seed and monitoring for weeds a minimum of two years, restoration or mitigation of impacted wetland, and use of best management practices to reduce sedimentation.

(6) The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division does not anticipate any adverse air quality impacts associated with the project, with the possible exception of dust problems during construction. They reported that good dust management should allow compliance with the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations.

(7) The Wyoming State Engineers Office finds no environmental impacts from the proposed project. However, their letter did state that the City of Buffalo needs to update their water rights with the State Engineers Office.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Unavoidable adverse impacts will include minor, short term increases in noise and ambient air particulate levels and increased traffic in the immediate vicinity of the construction activities. These impacts will be minor and short term in nature, and mitigated to the extent possible by including proper construction practices in the project specifications.

Construction of the project will result in the commitment of resources including capital, manpower, and materials.

Some minor short term increases in sedimentation may result from runoff from soils exposed in the course of construction.

VI. MITIGATION OF ADVERSE IMPACTS

After an evaluation of anticipated impacts of construction and operation of the proposed facilities, the following mitigation alternatives and recommendations were selected to minimize or eliminate these impacts.

(1) Should any archaeological artifacts be unearthed, construction will be halted and the State Historic Preservation Officer will be consulted. Accommodations will then be made as necessary for excavation and assessment of uncovered archaeological resources. This work would be done during the construction phase of this project.

(2 ) A survey for threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as for raptor nests and migratory birds of high federal interest, was conducted prior to construction activities. No species of concern were documented.

(3) The applicant agrees to perform: a) routine mitigation techniques for limiting direct runoff fi-om disturbed areas and dewatering devices, including berms, sediment traps, silt fences, water checks, etc. which will be effective in limiting possible erosion and sediment discharge; b) implement dust control measures at the access roads and construction sites; c) re-establish vegetation which was disturbed in accordance with local land-use type.

(4) The applicant will demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that he has or will have a fee simple or such other estate or interest in the site of the project, including necessary easements and right -0 f-way , as the Administrat or finds sufficient to assure undisturbed use and possession for the purpose of construction and operation for the estimated life of the project. This work must be done prior to the construction of the project.

VIT. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Two public meetings were held in ~uffalo to discuss the proposed project on December 3, 2002. One meeting was held bythe City of Buffalo and the other was held by the Wyoming Water Development Commission. The various alternatives and options available were discussed with concerned citizens and no comments were received.

VIII. FCEFERENCE DOCUMENTS

IX.

1. Biological Assessment of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species, Buffalo Tank Project, Johnson County, Wyoming, December 3, 2002, Gregory Johnson, WEST, Inc.

2. Class I11 Cultural Resources Survey of Two Proposed Water Lines, Buffalo Tank Project, Johnson County, Wyoming, December 2002, Richard Adams, Office of the Wyoming State Archaeologist.

AGENCIES CONTACTED

1. U. S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS 2. U. S . Army Corps of Engineers 3 . Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 4. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 5 . Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division 6. Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Appendix B contains the response letters fiom the listed agencies.

APPENDIX A

MAP OF LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECTS

DESK;NEo BLG BUFFALO TANK. LEVEL 11 RRnSlON STATES WEST WATER WARNING N A

RESOURCES CORPORATION ,, VEA s ,

h W I f f i

OJECT 409

1904 E. 15th STREET IF MIS BAR D O E PW REHEWn) CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82001 VEA NOT MEASURE 1 /2* PROJECT W,,,ACER PRWMINAAY DESIGN eu: s/az (307) 634-7848 THEN DRAWING IS

FAX: (307) 634-7851 NOT TO SCALE B L t , SITE PLAN OESCRIPTION OF RMSION BY DATE

??? 'T/02 m m ? OF ?

APPENDIX B

RESPONSE LETTERS m O M AGENCIES

United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Ecological Sewices 4000 Airport Parkway

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001

Greg Johnson Western Ecosystems Technology Inc. 2003 Central Ave. Cheyenne, WY 82001

January 2,2003

Dear Mr. Johnson:

Thank you for your letter of December 9,2002, and biological assessment (BA) of the Buffalo water tank and distribution line project. As referenced in your BA, the project will involve the construction of a 2.5 million gallon water storage tank, approximately 11000 feet of 18-inch pipe, 8,600 feet of 16-inch pipe, three below-grade pressure reducing vaults, and two connecting 10- inch water lines. In accordance with the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (1 6 U.S.C. 153 1 et seq.), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Buffalo Water Tank and Distribution Line Project for potential effects on threatened and endangered species.

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) . The Service acknowledges your determination that the Buffalo water tank and distribution line project is not likely to adversely affect bald eagles. This determination is based on the fact that no roost or nests occur within a mile of the project site. Additionally, as stated in the BA, there are currently no trees sufficiently large enough for eagles to roost in, nor are there foraging areas such as lakes or prairie dog towns in the project area.

Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) As reported in the Buffalo Water Tank BA, no prairie dog towns, a habitat requirement of black- footed ferrets, occur in, or adjacent to, the project area, therefore, the project is unlikely to adversely affect black-footed ferrets.

Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) You have determined that the Buffalo water tank and distribution line project is not likely to jeopardize mountain plover. The Service is aware of no mountain plover nest sightings in or near the project area and you have reported that there is no optimal nesting habitat for mountain plover, such as prairie dog towns or heavily grazed rangelands, in the project area.

Black-tailed Prairie Dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) You have reported that there are no black-tailed prairie dog colonies in the project area, therefore, the Buffalo water tank and distribution line project is not likely to jeopardize black- tailed prairie dogs.

Migratory Birds Migratory birds are not addressed in the Buffalo Water Tank BA. Please be aware that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 16 U.S.C. 703, prohibits the taking of any migratory birds, their parts, nests, or eggs except as permitted by regulations and does not require intent to be proven: Removal of any active migratory bird nest or nest tree is prohibited. Permits for nest manipulation, including removal or relocation may, under certain circumstances, be issued for inactive nests only. If any raptor nests are located on the project site, please contact this office so that we may work together to protect these species.

The Service feels that sufficient information was provided to determine the effects of this project on federally listed species and to conclude whether this project is likely to adversely affect those species. However, regulations under Section 7 of the Act provide that Service concurrence with this section may be provided only to the involved federal agency. In order to expedite the environmental review, if the involved federal agency concurs with your finding of no effect to listed species, then you may consider this action to be in compliance with the requirements of Section 7 (a)(2) of the Act, thereby concluding the consultation process.

We appreciate your efforts to ensure the conservation of federally listed species and migratory birds. If you have further questions on this subject, please contact Patricia 'Trish' Sweanor at the letterhead address or phone (307) 772-23 74, extension 3 9.

Sincerely,

ichael M. Long Field Supervisor

. Wyoming Field Office

cc: State of Wyoming Endangered Species Coordinator, Cheyenne, WY (J. Levin) WDEQ, WQD, SRF, Cheyenne, WY (B. Mark) WGFD, Nongame Coordinator, WGFD, Lander, WY (B. #Oakly) WGFD, Statewide Habitat Coordinator, WGFD, Cheyenne, WY (T. Collins)

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Ecological Services 4000 Airport Parkway

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001

October 1 1,2002

Greg Johnson Western Ecosystems Technology Inc. 2003 Central Ave. Cheyenne, WY 82001

Dear Mr. Johnson:

Thank you for your September 20,2002, letter and map informing our office of the Buffalo Water Tank project, located in the city of Buffalo in T 5 IN, R 82W sections 27,28, and 33, Johnson County, Wyoming. As referenced in your letter, this project will involve the construction of a 2.5 million gallon water storage tank and two below-grade pressure reducing vaults, as well as, installation of approximately 1 1,000 feet of 18-inch pipe, 8,600 feet of 16-inch pipe, and an unspecified length of 10-inch pipe. Please clarify if the pipeline shown on your map, in T 51N, R 82W section 33 and T 50N, R 82W sections 4 and 5, is an existing or proposed pipeline. Your map indicates that one pump station will be removed and another pump station will be converted to a pressure reducing vault.

In accordance with Endangered Species Act (Act), we are providing you with a list of threatened, endangered, and proposed species that could be encountered on your project site. We are providing you with information about the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and have enclosed a list of migratory birds of high federal interest in Wyoming. We are also supplying you with information about riparian area and wetland preservation, in accordance with the Clean Water Act.

'

Threatened, Endawered and Proposed Species

Species Status Expected Occurrence

Bald Eagle Threatened S tate-wide (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Black- footed Ferret Endangered Prairie dog towns (Mustela n igripes)

Mountain Plover Proposed Grasslands (Charadrius mon tanus)

Bald Ea~le: Habitat loss is a threat to the bald eagle's full recovery. Bald eagles nest and roost in large mature trees. Bald eagle nests and roosts are often reused year after year, however, yearly surveys to inventory newly created nests or roosts are vital. A disturbance-free buffer zone of 1 mile should be maintained around all active nests and winter roosts. Activity within 1 mile of an eagle nest or roost may disturb the eagles and result in "take." If a disturbance-free buffer zone of 1 mile is not possible, then project activities should be conducted outside of the nesting season (Feb 15 - Aug 15) or winter roosting season (Nov 1 - Apr 15), respectively.

Black-footed Ferret: Black-footed ferrets may be affected if prairie dog colonies are impacted. If black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) colonies or complexes greater than 79 acres will be disturbed by the proposed activities, surveys for ferrets should be conducted even if only a portion of the colony or complex will be disturbed. A complex is two or more colonies less than 7 kilometers (4.3 miles) f?om each other. If you determine that there are prairie dogs present on your proposed project area, please request the black-footed ferret survey guidelines from our office.

Mountain Plover: Mountain plovers are associated with short-grass prairie and shrub-steppe, grasslands, alkali flats, agricultural lands, cultivated fields, and prairie dog towns. Plovers may nest on sites where vegetation is sparse or absent, or near closely cropped areas, manure piles or rocky areas. Mountain plovers are rarely found near water and show a preference for previously disturbed areas or modified habitat. Survey guidelines have been established for Mountain Plover, and we are enclosing them to assist you with your work.

Candidate Species

The black-tailed prairie dog is a candidate species. Thls species was found to be warranted for listing, but critical listing was precluded by the need to work on higher priority species. We would appreciate receiving any information on the status of black-tailed prairie dogs in or near you project site. We recommend that you evaluate potential impacts of your proposed project to black-tailed prairie dogs now, to avoid or minimize possible project delays if the species is listed.

Mieratow Birds

The MBTA, 16 U.S.C. 703, prohibits the taking of any migratory birds, their parts, nests, or eggs except as permitted by regulations and does not require intent to be proven. Section 703 of the Act states, "Unless and except as permitted by regulations ... it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to ... take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, or possess ... any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird ..." The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 668, prohibits knowingly taking, or taking with wanton disregard for the consequences of an activity, any bald or golden eagles or their body parts, nests, or eggs, which includes collection, molestation, disturbance, or killing.

We have enclosed a list of migratory birds of high federal interest for Wyoming. If suitable habitat for any of these birds occurs on or within a mile of the permit area, surveys should be conducted to determine species presence. To minimize effects on raptors and the possibility of "take" under the MBTA, we recommend avoiding construction during the nesting season (February 1 - August 15). If this is not possible, we recommend the project area be surveyed for raptor nests and roosts. For nests found in the project area, a disturbance-free buffer zone of '/z

mile should be maintained during the nesting season for all species except fermginous hawks, and bald eagles, which should be protected by a 1 mile disturbance-free buffer.

Work that could lead to the take of a migratory bird, their young, eggs, or nests should be coordinated with our office before any actions are taken. Removal or destruction of nests, or causing abandonment of a nest could constitute violation of one or both of the above statutes. Permits for nest removal or relocation, may, under certain circumstances, be issued for inactive nests. No permits will be issued for active nests of any migratory bird species, unless removal is necessary for reasons of human health and safety. Therefore, if nesting migratory birds are present on, or near the project area, timing is a significant consideration in project planning.

WetlandslRi~arian Areas

Our office recommends measures be taken to avoid wetland losses in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11990 (wetland protection) and Executive Order 1 1988 (flood plain management) with the goal of "no net loss of wetlands." Impacts to riparian or stream side areas should be avoided. Any unavoidable encroachment into these areas should be minimized and quantitatively assessed in terms of functions and values, areas and vegetation type affected, potential effects on wildlife, and stream bank stability and water quality.

General Guidelines

We recommend that new construction, as well as modifications of existing project elements, be included in all survey protocols. Additionally, surveys should include all areas to be directly or indirectly affected by Federal actions and not only the immediate pipelines or storage tank sites. Section 7(d) of the Act requires that the Federal agency and permit or license applicant not make any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources which would preclude the formulation of reasonable and prudent alternatives until consultation on listed species is completed.

Thank you for your efforts to ensure the conservation of listed species, migratory birds and critical wildlife habitats in Wyoming. Please keep our office informed about project developments. If you have any questions please contact Patricia 'Trish' Sweanor at our office at (307) 772-2374, ext 39.

Sincerely,

" Michael M. Long - L ' f. 8 Field Supervisor

j

i ,, Wyoming Field Office

Enclosures (2)

cc: Statewide Habitat Protection Coordinator, WGFD, Cheyenne, WY District ~u~ervisor, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Lander, WY Director, Wyoming Water Development Commission, Cheyenne, WY Program Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cheyenne, WY

Migratory Bird Species of Management Concern in Wyoming (Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest in Wyoming)

Based on Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan. 1 May 2000 (Cerovski et al. 2000)

May 2,2002

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Field Office, 4000 Airport Parkway, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001

The Wyoming Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has compiled a list of migratory bird species fiom ongoing work among State and Federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the interested public that produced the Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan. This list will now serve as the Service's list of Migratory Bird S~ecies of Management Concem in Wvominq, replacing the previous list based on the Miaatory Nonname Birds of Management Concem in the United States: the1 995 list. The Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan identified "priority species" based on a number of criteria using the best information available for these generally un-studied species. In many cases, this list reflects identified threats to habitat because no information is available on the species population trends. In some cases it reflects identified population declines though no causal factors have been identified.

Partners in Flight (PIF) is the name given to the coalition of groups that produced the Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan. PIF developed a scoring system to rank species in order of conservation priority. A species' PIF score is the sum of seven sub scores rating the following biological criteria: relative abundance (RA), breeding distribution (BD), non-breeding distribution (ND), threats on breeding grounds (TB), threats on non-breeding grounds (TN), population trends (PT), and area of importance (AI). These criteria are more N l y described the end of this document. AI, PT and total PIF scores are listed for each species in Tables 1 and 2. Species with a PIF score of 18 or above, an A1 score of 3 or above, andlor PT score of 3 or above were identified as the highest priority species. For more information on the listing process, refer to the Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, available fiom the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4000 Airport Parkway, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001 ; or Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Nongame Branch, 260 Buena Vista, Lander, Wyoming 82520.

Table 1. Level I Species (Species clearly needing conservation action.) Wyoming has a high percentage of, and responsibility for, the breeding population of these species. Further monitoring and research of the natural history and distribution of these species is needed. The Partners in Flight (PIF) score, the Area of Importance (AI), Population Trend (PT) and primary habitat types are listed for each species.

PIF Species Score' A1 PT Primary Habitat Type(s)

Mountain Plover Trumpeter Swan Sage Grouse McCown's Longspur Baird's Sparrow Ferruginous Hawk Brewer's Sparrow. Wilson's Phalarope Franklin's Gull Sage Sparrow Swainson's Hawk Long-billed Curlew Short-eared Owl Northern Goshawk Peregrine Falcon Burrowing Owl Forster's Tern Bald Eagle Upland Sandpiper Black Tern Whooping Crane Piping Plover

Shortgrass Prairie, Shrub-steppe Wetlands

Shortgrass Prairie, Shrub-steppe Shortgrass Prairie Shrub-steppe, Shortgrass Prairie Shrub-steppe, Mountain-foothills Wetlands Wetlands Steppe, Mountain-foothills Shrub Plainsls asin Riparian Shortgrass Prairie Shortgrass Prairie HighlMid Elevation Conifer and Aspen Cliffs Shortgrass Prairie Wetlands Montane and Basin Riparian, Plains Shortgrass Prairie Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands, Aquatic

"From the PIF Priority Database (Carter et al. 1 997)

Table 2. Level I1 Species (Species needing monitoring.) Includes species of which Wyoming has a high percentage of and responsibility for the breeding population, species whose population trend is unknown, species that are peripheral for breeding in the habitat or state, or species for which additional knowledge is needed. The Partners in Flight (PTF) score, the Area of Importance (AI), Population Trend (PT) and primary habitat types are listed for each species.

Species PIF

Scorea AI PT Primary Habitat Type(s)

Calliope Hummingbird 23 5

Lewis' Woodpecker 23 3

Cassin' s Kingbird . 22 3

Lark Bunting 22 4 American White Pelican 2 1 3 Williamson's Sapsucker 2 1 3 Black-backed Woodpecker 2 1 3 Gray Flycatcher 21 3

Juniper Titmouse 21 3 Dickcissel 21 3 Chestnut-collared Longspur 2 1 2 Harlequin Duck 20 3 Snowy Plover 20 3 Black-chinned Hummingbird 20 2 steppeRufous Hummingbird 20 2 Red-naped Sapsucker 20 3 Three-toed Woodpecker 20 4 Willow Flycatcher 20 . 3 Hammond' s Flycatcher 20 2

cordilleran Flycatcher 20 3

Pygmy Nuthatch 20 3 Marsh Wren 20 3 American Dipper 20 3 Plurnbeous Vireo 20 3 Townsend's Warbler 20 3 Dusky Flycatcher 19 3

Mid Elevation Conifer, Montane Riparian Low Elevation Conifer, PlainsBasin Riparian Juniper Woodland, PlainsBasin Riparian Shortgrass Prairie, Shrub-steppe Aquatic Mid Elevation Conifer Mid and High Elevation Conifer, Juniper Woodland, Mountain-foothills Shrub Juniper Woodland Shortgrass Prairie Shortgrass Prairie Montane Riparian Wetlands Plainsh3asi.n Riparian, Shrub- Mid Elevation Conifer Aspen Mid and High Elevation Conifer, Montane and Basin Riparian, Plains High Elevation Conifer with Aspen, Montane Riparian Montane Riparian, Mid Elevation Conifer Low Elevation Conifer Wetlands Montane Riparian Mid and Low Elevation Conifer High and Mid Elevation Conifer Low Elevation Conifer, Aspen, Mountain- foo thills Shrub

Table 2. Level I1 Species, continued.

Species PIF

Score A1 PT Primary Habitat Type(s)

Western Bluebird 19 3 3

Sage Thrasher 19 5 2 Grasshopper Spanow 19 3 5 Bobolink 19 2 3 Common Loon 18 3 3 Black-billed Cuckoo 18 2 3 Red-headed Woodpecker 18 2 3

Yellow-billed Cuckoo 18 3 3 Eastern Screech-Owl 18 3 3 Western Screech-Owl 18 3 3 Great Gray Owl 18 3 3 Boreal Owl 18 3 3 Broad-tailed Hummingbird 18 2 2

Western Scrub-Jay Loggerhead Shrike Vesper Sparrow Lark Sparrow Golden-crowned Kinglet MacGillivray' s Warbler Ash-throated Flycatcher Bushtit Brown Creeper Merlin Sprague's Pipit Barn Owl White-faced Ibis American Bittern Common Tern Purple Martin

Juniper Woodland, Low Elevation Conifer Shrub-steppe Shortgrass Prairie, Shrub-steppe Shortgrass Prairie, Shrub-steppe Wetlands Plainsmasin Riparian PlainsBasin Riparian, Low Elevation Conifer Plainsmasin Riparian PlainslBasin Riparian PlainsBasin Riparian Mid and High Elevation Conifer High Elevation Conifer Montane Riparian, PlainsBasin Riparian, Mid Elevation Conifer Juniper Woodland Shrub-steppe Shrub-steppe Shrub-steppe High Elevation Conifer Montane and Basin Riparian, Plains Juniper Woodland Juniper Woodland Mid and High Elevation Conifer Low Elevation Conifer Grassland, PlainsIB asin Riparian, Shortgrass Prairie, Urban Wetlands, Aquatic Wetlands, Aquatic Wetlands, Aquatic Wetlands, Aquaticmasin Riparian, Montane Riparian

" From the PIF Priority Database (Carter et al. 1997) Nicholoff, S. 2002. Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 1.1, Wyoming Partners in Flight and Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Wyomin~ Partners In F l i~ht Process for Prioritizin~ S~ecies

Wyoming Partners In Flight developed the list of priority species based on seven criteria in the national PIF Database (Carter et al. 1997). This database is a defensible method of prioritizing species and habitats in need of conservation. The criteria include Wyoming-dependent and independent factors. The Wyoming-independent criteria are constant over a species' range and do not vary by species. The Wyoming-dependent criteria are the key components used to prioritize species and conservation actions. In the absence of more rigorous surveys, Breeding Bird Survey data dating back to 1968 were used to determine population trends in Wyoming.

. Criteria

Within each criterion below, a species was given a rank score fiom 1 to 5, with 1 being the least critical rank and 5 the most critical. Each species could potentially receive a low score of 7 and a high score of 35. However, setting conservation goals based only on total score could be misleading; therefore, each total score was reviewed in conjunction with its component parts.

1. Relative Abundance (RA) - The abundance of a species, in appropriate habitat within its entire range, relative to other bird species. RA gives an indication of a species' vulnerability to withstand cataclysmic environmental changes. A low score indicates higher relative abundance, and therefore a reduced risk of extirpation fiom population losses in one or more regions. High scores indicate lower relative abundance, and more vulnerability to drastic population declines.

2. Breeding Distribution (BD) - For breeding birds only. A relative measure of breeding range as a proportion of North America (defined as the continent, excluding Greenland, Panama and Caribbean islands, 22,059,680 krn2, National Geographic Society, 1993). BD provides an index of species' vulnerability to random environmental events. High scores indicate localized breeding, thus a higher threat of serious population decline fiom negative environmental changes. Low scores indicate wide breeding distribution, and less likelihood of extirpation.

3. Non-breeding Distribution (ND) - For wintering birds only. A relative measure of non- breeding range as a proportion of the land area of North America. ND is an index of species' vulnerability to environmental events. High scores indicate localized distributions on non- breeding grounds and higher threats of declines fiom negative environmental changes. Low scores indicate wide distribution on non-breeding grounds, and less likelihood of extirpation.

4. Threats on Breeding Grounds (TB) - For both breeding and wintering birds. The ability of habitat in an area to support populations of a species. Two factors are considered: 1) each species' demographic and ecological vulnerability (potential inability of a species to recover fiom population loss by normal reproductive effort due to low reproductive rate, high juvenile mortality, or both; and the level of ecological specialization of a species and, hence, its potential inability to withstand environmental change), and 2) habitat loss or disruption (a combination of the amount of habitat or conditions necessary for survival and reproductive success that has been lost since 1945, and the amount that is anticipated to be lost in the future). High scores indicate

either a large loss of habitat or a species that is an extreme ecological specialist. Low scores indicate a stable or increasing habitat or a species that is an ecological generalist.

5. Threats on Non-breeding Grounds (TN) - For wintering birds only. Range-wide threats on non-breeding, or winter, grounds. This is scored using the same criteria as threats on breeding grounds but reflects non-breeding issues, including migratory habitat.

6. Population Trend (PT) - The overall population trend of each species assigned independently for each state, province, or physiographic area. This criterion must meet two thresholds, reliability and magnitude, to warrant either a very high or very low score. When possible, a score is assigned using BBS data, which incorporates a population trend uncertainty score based on the statistical validity of the BBS data (i.e. a species must be detected on a minimum of 14 BBS routes per state for population trends to have statistical significance). This criterion was chosen to alert managers to species with modest, but certain, population declines.

7. Area Importance (AI) - For both breeding and wintering birds. The abundance of a species within a state, province, or physiographic area relative to its abundance throughout its range. This criterion helps direct conservation efforts toward areas that are most important to a species' survival. A1 is scored locally; therefore, high scores indicate that a large proportion of the species' breeding or winter range occurs in Wyoming, or a species is using a habitat that is only available in Wyoming. Low scores indicate that a small proportion of the species' range occurs in Wyoming, or the preferred habitat is widespread across its range.

Priority Species

Priority bird species in Wyoming were identified fiom the PIF Priority Database (Carter et al. 1997) and by qualitative, informed decisions. Species with a total score of 18 or above, A1 of 3 or above, andlor PT of 3 or above, or with a total score less than 18 but of significant local interest were identified as the highest priority species. However, as more infomation becomes available, the highest priority species for Wyoming may change. This is a dynamic database that allows for updated information to be periodically inserted and reviewed.

Literature Cited

Carter, M. F., W. C. Hunter, D. N. Pashley, J. S. Bradley, C. S. Aid, J. Price, and G. S. Butcher. 1997. Setting landbird conservation priorities for states, provinces, and physiographic areas of North America. PIF Database Final Report, Colorado Bird Observatory, .

Brighton.

Cerovski, A., M. Gorges, T. Byer, K. Duffy, and D. Felley. 2000. Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 1 .O. Wyoming Partners In Flight, Lander, WY.

Nicholoff, S. 2002. Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 1.1. Wyoming Partners In Flight and Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander. In press.

MOUNTAIN PLOVER SURVEY GUIDELINES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

March 2002

The mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) is a small bird (1 7.5 cm, 7 in.) about the size of a killdeer (C. vociferus). It is light brown above with a lighter colored breast, but lacks the contrasting dark breast-belt common to many other plovers. During the breeding season it has a white forehead and a dark line between the beak and eye, which contrasts with the dark crown.

Mountain plover breeding habitat includes short-grass prairie and shrub-steppe landscapes; dryland, cultivated farms; and prairie dog towns. Plovers usually nest on sites where vegetation is sparse or absent, conditions that can. be created by herbivores, including domestic livestock and prairie dogs. Vegetation in shortgrass prairie sites is typically less than 4 inches tall. Nest sites within the shrub-steppe landscape are also confined to areas of little to no vegetation, although surrounded by areas visually dominated by shrubs. Commonly, nest sites within shrub-steppe areas are on active prairie dog towns. Nests are commonly located near a manure pile or rock. In addition to disturbance by prairie dogs or livestock, nests have also been found on bare ground created by oil and gas development activities, and on dryland, cultivated agriculture in the southern part of their breeding range. Mountain plovers are rarely found near water. Positive indicators for mountain plovers therefore include level terrain, prairie dogs, bare ground, Opuntia pads, cattle, widely spaced plants, and horned larks. It would be unusual to find mountain plovers on sites characterized by irregular or rolling terrain; dense, matted vegetation; grass taller than 4 inches, wet soils, or the presence of killdeer.

These guidelines were developed by Service biologists and Dr. Fritz Knopf, USGS-. BRD. Keep in mind these are guidelines - please call the local Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services office, if you have any suggestions.

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR SURVEYS

On February 16, .I 999, the Service proposed the mountain plover for federal listing as threatened. Because listing of this species is proposed, the Service may recommend surveys for mountain plovers to better define nesting areas, and minimize potential negative impacts. The Service may recommend surveys for mountain plovers in all suitable habitat, as well as avoidance of nesting areas, to minimize impact to plovers in a site planned for development. While the Service believes that plover surveys, avoidance of nesting and brood rearing areas, and timing restrictions (avoidance of important areas during nesting) will lessen the chance of direct impacts to and mortality of individual mountain plovers in the area, these restrictions do nothing to mitigate

Use of a 4-wheel drive vehicle is preferable where allowed. Use of AWs has proven highly successful in observing and recording displaying males. Always seek guidance from land management agencies regarding use of vehicles on public lands, and always obtain permission of private landowners before entering their lands.

Stay in or close to the vehicle when scanning. Use binoculars to scan and spotting scopes to confirm sightings. Do not use scopes to scan.

Do not conduct surveys in poor weather (i.e., high wind, precipitation, etc.).

Surveys conducted during the courtship period should focus on identifying displaying or calling males, which would signify breeding territories.

For all breeding birds observed, conduct additional surveys immediately prior to construction activities to search for active nest sites.

If an active nest is located, an appropriate buffer area should be established to prevent direct loss of the nest or indirect impacts from human-related disturbance. The appropriate buffer distance will vary, depending on topography, type of activity proposed, and duration of disturbance. For disturbances including pedestrian foot traffic and continual equipment operations, a 114 mile buffer is recommended.

SURVEY TO DETERMINE PRESENCEIABSENCE

Larqe scalellona term proiects

I. Conduct the survey between May 1 and June 15, throughout the breeding range.

Visual observation of the area should be made within 114 mile of the proposed action to detect the presence of plovers. All plovers located should be observed long enough to determine if a nest is present. These observations should be made from within a stationary vehicle, as plovers do not appear to be wary of vehicles. Because this survey'is to determine presencelabsence only, and not calculate statistical confidence, there is no recommended distance interval for stopping the vehicle to scan for birds. Obviously numerous stops will be required to conduct a thorough survey, but number of stops should be determined on a project and site- specific basis.

avoid direct take of mountain plovers. The survey should include the route and a 114 mile buffer on either of the project corridor. If there is a break in construction activity in these areas of more than 3 days (e.g., between pipe stringing, trenching, or welding), an additional plover survey is necessary before construction activity can resume after that break in activity. Generally, mountain plovers are either establishing territories and nests in April, and from late June to early July young chicks commonly freeze in placg to avoid detection, increasing their vulnerability to direct take. After July 10, most mountain plover chicks are sufficiently mobile to reduce the risk of direct take.

2. If an active nest is found in the survey area, the planned activity should be delayed 37 days, or seven days post-hatching. If a brood of flightless chicks is observed, activities should be delayed at least seven days.

SURVEY TO DETERMINE DENSITY OF NESTING MOUNTAIN PLOVERS

We are assuming people will have received training on point counts in general before using this specialized point count technique adapted to mountain plovers.

Establishing Transects

I. Identify appropriate habitat and habitat of interest within geographic areas of interest.

2. Upon arriving in appropriate habitat, drive to a previously determined random starting point.

3. For subsequent points, drive a previously determined random distance of 0.3, 0.4 or 0.5 miles.

4. Each transect of point counts should contain a minimum of 20 points.

Conducting The Point Counts

I. Conduct counts between last week in June to July 4th at elevations equivalent to the eastern plains of Colorado (i.e., about 5,000 feet). Timing of counts at other elevations should be coordinated with the local FWS office.

Only 1 counter is used. Do not use a counter and recorder or other combinations of field help. Drivers are okay as long as they don't help spot plovers.

GENERAL HABITAT INDICATORS

Positive habitat images Stock tank (non-leaking, lea king tanks often attract killdeer)

Flat (level or "tilted") terrain

Burned fieldlprairielpasture

Bare ground (minimum of 30 percent)

"Spaced" grass plants

Prairie dog colonies

Horned larks

Cattle

Heavily grazed pastures

Opuntia pads visible

Negative habitat images Killdeer present (indicating less than optimal habitat)

Hillsides or steep slope

Prominent, obvious low ridge

Leaky stock tanks

Vegetation greater than 4 inches in height in short-grass prairie habitat

Increasing presence of tall shrubs

Matted grass (i.e., minimal bare ground)

Lark buntings

"Cottsetving Wildlife - Servitlg People"

October 14,2002

WER 10420 WEST, Inc. State Revolving Loan Fund Buffalo Tank, Level I1 Project Johnson County

Greg Johnson Environmental Coordinator WEST, Inc. 2003 Central Ave. Cheyenne, WY 82001

Dear Mr. Johnson:

The staff of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department has reviewed the proposed Buffalo Water Tank, Level I1 project in Johnson County. We offer the following comments.

Terrestrial Consideration

The project is located in yearlong range of the Buffalo antelope herd unit, and yearlong and winterlyearlong range in the North Bighorn mule deer herd unit. No crucial big game ranges, raptor nests, sage grouse leks, or sharp-tailed grouse leks are known to occur in the area. Thus, we do not anticipate any significant impacts to terrestrial wildlife.

In order to minimize any potential effects on wildlife habitat, we recommend the following:

removal of vegetation only where trenching will occur, all topsoil should be saved and spread over disturbed areas as soon as possible after disturbance to accelerate natural and artificial revegetation, disturbed areas should be reseeded with native vegetation, and monitored for at least 2 years for noxious weeds, and any wetland impacted by this project should be restored to pre-project conditions or mitigated in-kind.

Headquarters: 5400 Bishop Boulevard, Cheyenne, WY 82006-0001 Fax: (307) 777-4610 Web Site: http://gf.state.wy.us

Mr. Greg Johnson Page 2 - WER 10420 October 14,2002

Aquatic Consideration

From the information supplied, this project will not directly impact aquatic resources. In order to minimize indirect impacts such as sedimentation during storm events, we recommend that best management practices be followed to reduce sedimentation.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

BILL WICHERS DEPUTY DIRECTOR

BW:TC:as cc: USFWS

The State of Wyoming

Department of Environmental Quality 1043 Coffeen Avenue, Suite D Sheridan, Wyoming 82801

Jim Geringer, Governor - AIR QUALIIY LAND QUAUTY WATER QUALITY (307) 672-6457 (307) 672-6488 (307) 672-6457

. (307) 674-6050 Fax (307) 672-221 3 Fax (307) 67e6050

Mr. Greg Johnson Environmental Coordinator WEST, Inc. 2003 Central Avenue Cheyenne, WY 82001

October 9, 2002

RE: Buffalo Tank, Level I1 Project

Dear Mr. Johnson:

The Air Quality Division has reviewed your letter dated September 20, 2002 and the associated proposed project area map regarding the Buffalo Water Tank Project. The Wyoming Air Quality Division does not anticipate any adverse air quality impacts associated with the proposed water tank project, with the exception of possible dust problems during construction. Environmental planning for the construction phase should include effective dust control measures such as the application of water along haul roads and compaction, mulching, and reseeding during the post construction phase to reduce wind blown dust off of exposed acreage. Good dust management practices should allow you to comply with the Wyoming Air Quality Standards & Regulations, Chapter 3, Section 2(f). For your convenience, the Wyoming Air Quality Standards & Regulations are available to download electronically by Chapter. You can find rules on the Air Quality link at the following website: http://dea.state.wy.us.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact our office.

Sincerely,

Michael D. Warren District Engineer Air Quality Division

State Engineer's Office u

Herschler Building, 4-E Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 (307) 777-7354 FAX (307) 777-545 1

seoleg @state.wy.us

October 2, 2002

JIM GERINGER GOVERNOR

PATRICK T. TYRRELL STATE ENGINEER

Mr. Greg Johnson WEST, Inc. 2003 Central Ave. Cheyenne, WY 82001

Re: Buffalo Tank, Level I1 Project

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This letter is in response to your letter of September 20, 2002. This office finds no environmental impacts from the proposed pro j ect .

It does appear that the City of Buffalo needs to update their water rights with this office. It appears that some of the area the City of Buffalo is proposing to deliver water for is outside of the defined service area. The City should prepare a black-line, mylar map detailing their service area which is certified by a licensed land surveyor or engineer. This map can show areas outside of their current service area so future expansion can occur without updating their water rights for each expans ion.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at (307) 777-6168.

With best regards,

~ # n R. Barnes Administrator, Surface Water and Engineering Division

cc: Mike Whitaker, Superintendent - Water Division No. 2 Brian Mark, DEQ-WQD, Herschler Bldg, 4W, Cheyenne, WY 82002

Surface Water (307) 777-6475

Ground Water (307) 777-6 1 63

Board of Control (307) 777-6 1 78

REPLY TO A-CNTION OF:

DEPARTMENT OF T H E ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT

WYOMING REGULATORY OFFICE

2232 DELL RANGE, BLVD., SUITE 2 1 0

CHEYENNE, WYOMING 8 2 0 0 9 - 4 9 4 2

September 25,2002

Chandler Peter Regulatory Project Manager

Mr. Mike Besson Wyoming Water Development Commission Herschler Building, 4& Floor West 122 West 25th Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002

Dear Mr. Besson:

This is in response to WEST, Inc.'s request received September 23,2002 requesting comments on the Buffalo Tank, Level I1 Project which involves the construction of pumps, supply lines and storage tank. The work is proposed in Sections 27, 28, and 33, Township 51N, Range 82W, Johnson Comty, Wyoming.

As you know, the U.S. A m y Corps of Engineers regulates the placement of dredged and fill material into wetlands and other waters of the United States as authorized primarily by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). The term "waters of the United States" has been broadly defined by statute, regulation, and judicial interpretation to include all waters that were, are, or could be used in interstate commerce such as interstate lakes and rivers as well as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including ephemeral streams), mudflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, playa lakes, and ponds. The Corps regulations were published in the November 13, 1986, edition of the Federal Reeister (Vol. 51, No. 219) at 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330. A review of the information provided indicates that the supply lines will cross two areas that appear to be waters of the U.S. The first is located in Dump Draw in the northeast quarter of Section 33. The other crossing is located in the northeast quarter of Section 28. The installation of utility lines is typically authorized under the provisions of Nationwide Permit 12. A copy of the permit and its terms and conditions is enclosed for your information.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Chandler Peter at (307) 772- 2300. Your file number for the project is 200240225.

Sincerely,

Matthew A. Bilodeau Program Manager Wyoming Regulatory Office

Copy furnished:

Greg Johnson WEST, Inc. 2003 Central Avenue Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001

The State of Wyoming

Jim Geringer, Governor Department of Environmental Quality

Herschler Building l 122 West 25th Streetm Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002

ADMIN/OUTREACH ABANDONED MINES AIR QUALITY INDUSTRIAL SITING LAND QUALITY SOUD & HAL WASTE WATER QUALITY (307) 777-7758 (307) 777-61 45 (307) 777-7391 (307) 777-7368 (307) 777-7756 (307) 777-7752 (307) 777-7781 FAX 777-361 0 FAX 777-6462 FAX 777-561 6 FAX 777-6937 FAX 777-5864 Fax 777-5973 Fax 777-5973

October 2, 2002

Greg Johnsm Environmental Coordinator West, Inc. 2003 Central Avenue Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001

RE: Environmental ReviewBuffalo Tank, Level I1 Project

Dear Mr. Johnson:

Tile Land Quality Division of the W yonling Department of Environmental Quality regulates mining activity in the state. We ensure the mining is conducted to minimize impacts to the environment and to protect the safety and welfare of the public. We also ensure the disturbed lands are reclaimed to a condition equal to or better than it was premining. The review of the information submitted did not mention any mining associated with the project. I assume if any aggregate is needed for any of the project it will come from existing permitted sources. We therefore have no comments on the project. I would suggest that if any aggregate is required that it come from pits permitted with our agency.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you should have any questions, please call.

Sincerely,

~ichadd A. Chancellor ' ' Adrninis trator Land Quality Division

RAC: sg

xc: District III

vett Building -4 Central Ave.

Cheyenne, WY 82002

DEPARTMENT OF STATE PARKS & CULTURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE

(307) 777-7697 FAX (307) 777-642 1

Oct. 24,2002

Mr. Greg Johnson Environmental Coordinator Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. 2003 Central Ave. Cheyenne, WY 8200 1

Re: Buffalo Tank (SHPO File # 1002CLH014)

Dear Mr. Johnson:

Christi Hutchison of our staff has received information concerning the aforementioned project. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment.

A file search by our staff on Oct. 10,2002 for Township 51 North, Range 82 West, Sections 27,28, and 33 shows that sites are located within the proposed project boundary. The area has not yet been surveyed for cultural resources. Prior to any ground disturbing activity, an on-site cultural resource survey meeting the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48FR44716) should be conducted and adverse impacts to any significant cultural resource sites must be mitigated. The survey and. any necessary mitigation measures must be conducted by a professionally qualified archeologist or historian. A report detailing the results of these efforts must be reviewed by SHPO staff prior to our commenting on the project's effects on cultural resource sites.

Please refer to SHPO project control number 1002CLH014 on any hture correspondence dealing with this project. If you have any questions, contact Christi Hutchison at 307-777-6694.

Sincerely,

/ Judy K. Wolf Review and Compliance Program Manager

Jim Geringer, Governor John T. Keck, Director

APPENDIX C

CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT

CLASS III CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OF TWO PROPOSED WATER LINES,

BUFFALO TANK PROJECT, JOHNSON COUNTY,'WYOMING

BY

Richard Adams

Prepared for the

States West Water Resources Corporation

Submitted by

Office of the Wyoming State Archaeologist Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources

P.O. Box 343 1, University Station Laramie, Wyoming 8207 1

Project Number WY-5 1-02

December 2002

A class III cultural resource survey of two proposed waterlines west of Buffalo, Wyoming, in

Johnson County, was conducted by personnel from the Ofice of the Wyoming State Archaeologist. The

survey was conducted for States West Water Development Corporation. The project entailed a linear survey

of 42.1 acres (17 ha) of private land in T5 IN, R82W, Sections 33,28,32 and 27. No new cultural resources

were located.

SURVEY REPORT COVER PAGE b 1

AUTHOR(S): Adams, Richard

Consultant Project No: WY-51-02

Review and Compliance No:

REPORT TITLE (include client name, undertaking name, survey project type, and report number): CLASS m CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OF TWO PROPOSED WATER LINES, BUFFALO TANK PROJECT, JOHNSON COUNTY, WYOMING

Agency No:

Cultural Records Office No:

DATE OF REPORT (MO~YNR): December 11; 2002 LEAD AGENCY (e.g., BLM ADMMISTRATNE UNIT): State Historic Preservation Office SURVEY ORGANIZATIONfNAME: Office of the Wyoming State Archeologist

? A

FEDERAL PERMIT NO. (e.g., BLM CULTURAL RESOURCE USE PERMIT): 019-WY-SROl DESCRIPTION OF UNDERTAKING: Proposed water pipelines.

SURVEY METHODS: X Standard 30 Meter Transects - Non-Standard (Describe in body of report) -

Survey Width (Linear Projects Only): 30

COUNTY: Johnson

USGS QUAD MAPS (NAME, DATE): Buffalo 7.5' quadrangle, 1970.

LANDOWNER: - BLM -BuREC -FS -NPS X PRIVATE -STATE -USFWS OTHER (Specify): -

LEGAL DESCRIPTION (T/R/Sec) :

T51N, R82W Section 33 portions of CISE, CJNE, SWMEME, NE/NE/NE Section 28 portions of SE/SE/SE, NEISEISE, SENEISE, NEINEISE, SWISENE,

Nw/SE/NW, NE/SW/NE, NW/SW/NE, NE/SE/Nw, NW/SE/NW, SW/NE/NW, and NE/SE/NE

Section 32 S/S/SW/SW Section 27 NE/NE/NW, NW/NW/NE, SE/NE/NE

ACREAGE:

FILE SEARCH DATE(S) : 10/25/02 FIELD WORK DATE(S): 11/13/ 02 FIELD PERSONNEL: Richard Adams, Neal Heupel, and Alan Wimer

TOTAL: 42.1

FEDERAL: 0

NON-FEDERAL: 42.1

BLOCK: 0

LINEAR: 42.1

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTXNG

The project area is located in northern Johnson County, Wyoming in the foothills east of the Big

Horn Mountains (Figure 1). The proposed waterlines are located on the western boundary of the town of

Buffalo, Wyoming.

The proposed pipelines begin at a proposed tank location on a hilltop north of French Creek Road.

Both the 16 and 18 inch pipelines will be placed in the already disturbed area in the right-of-way of French

Creek Road where there is no chance for cultural resources to occur. The proposed 16 inch pipeline will stay

in the French Creek Road right-of-way all the way to its terminus at proposed PRV station #2 (Figure 1).

The proposed 18 inch pipeline heads south from a point just east of the Mountain Ridge subdivision across

a high Pleistocene terrace (Love and Christiansen 1985). A small exposure of the Wasatch Formation (Love

and Christiansen 1985) sandstone is exposed where the pipeline crosses Dump Draw. The 18 inch pipeline

connects with an existing water line south of US Highway 16.

Elevations in the project area range from 1463 m (4800 ft) to 15 18 m (4980 fi) above sea level.

Current natural vegetation in the project area is characterized by mixed-grass prairie (Knight 1994),

consisting of bunch grasses, forbs, and some scattered sage. Disturbed areas have crested wheatgrass, cheat

grass and forbs. Ground visibility was excellent, at least 85% of the ground was visible (Figure 2).

METHODS

A file search of the Ofice of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Cultural Records

database in Laramie, Wyoming was conducted on October 25,2002. The purpose of the file search is to

document previous cultural resource inventories.and known cultural resources within the project area. The

project area (T5 INy R82W, Sections 27,28,32 and 33, Johnson County, Wyoming) consists of two proposed

water lines totaling about 5680 m long with a 30 m wide survey corridor, this translates into a linear survey

of 42.1 acres of private and municipal land.

According to the file search there are have been two previous cultural resource inventories in the

project area. The Office of the Wyoming State Archaeologist (OWSA) surveyed for a sewer plant in Section

33 (accession number 81400), but no sites were recorded as a result of this project. OWSA also surveyed

the French Creek Road from the edge of Buffalo past the proposed tank location (accession number 95595).

Three sites were recorded in the project area: 48J01538 is an NRHP-ineligible trash dump on the south side

of the French Creek road (Figure 1). No trace of this site remains inside the right-of-way. 48J01536 and

Figure 1. Topographic map (USGS Buffalo quad) showing location of WY-5 1-02 project area.

.............

Ib

P

- -- ... . -. - .- -. . ..... - ... - . - - . . .

STATES WEST WATER RESOURCES CORPORATION

1004 E. 13th mnn C H E T I M . W I N G 82001

(307) AI4-MU FU: (307) 834-7111

@/W Mlc

- D I G , WARNING .,, IG - - v rms mm w q - -? MOT WSWE I/2 .- v A lMM DlUYlMG IS w n m s c u

View north from US Highway 16.

View north across project area.

Figure 2. Photographs of the WY-5 1-02 project area.

48J01537 are NRHP-ineligible cairns. The proposed tank will be located in the vicinity of 4850 1 53 7, but

as it is ineligible, there will be no effect by the proposed project..

The project was not staked at the time of survey. However, there were sufficient natural and man-

made landmarks to establish the project area boundaries. The project area was surveyed on foot, in overcast,

calm weather. The survey party walked the project area with transect spacing of no more than 30 meters.

The purpose of this procedure was to find surface occurrences of prehistoric and historic artifacts and

features. The location of proposed water lines were recorded with a GPS receiver and plotted on the

appropriate USGS 7.5' topographic map using iGage (1 999) All Topo Maps: Wyoming software.

All field notes, photographs, maps, etc., are housed at the Office ofthe Wyoming State Archaeologist

in Laramie, Wyoming. No artifacts were collected.

SURVEY RESULTS AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

No new cultural resources were located as a result of a Class Ill cultural resource survey of two

proposed water lines in Johnson County, Wyoming. No previously recorded, NRHP eligible sites will be

affected by the proposed project. Archaeological clearance is recommended for the proposed construction

project, with the stipulation that, should any subsurface cultural remains be located during construction, the

appropriate state and federal agencies be notified immediately.

REFERENCES CITED

iGage 1999 All Topo Maps, Version 4.2. iGage, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Knight, Dennis H. 1994 Mountains and Plains: The Ecology of Wyoming landrcapes. Yale University Press, New

Haven.

Love, J.D. and Ann Coe Christiansen 1985 Geologic map of Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver.

APPENDIX D

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED, PROPOSED AND CANDIDATE SPECIES

CITY OF BUFFALO WATER TANK AND PIPELINE JOHNSON COUNTY, WYOMING

Prepared for:

States West Water Resources Corporation Cheyenne, Wyoming

City of Buffalo, Wyoming

Prepared by:

Gregory D. Johnson Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc .

2003 Central Avenue Cheyenne, WY 82001

December 3, 2002

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BUFFALO TANK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1

METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . STATUS. HABITAT. AND BEHAVIOR OF SPECIES OF CONCERN 3 Threatened. Endangered and Proposed Species in Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bald Eagle 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mountain Plover 4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Black-footed Ferret 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Candidate Species 6

Black-tailed Prairie Dog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON SPECIES OF CONCERN AND SUGGESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MITIGATION 7

Threatened. Endangered and Proposed Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Bald Eagle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Mountain Plover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Black-footed Ferret . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Candidate Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Black-tailed Prairie Dog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

DETERMINATION OF EFFECT OF THE PROJECT ON SPECIES OF CONCERN . . . . 7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY 7

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 .

Figure 1 .

Endangered. threatened. proposed and candidate species which may potentially occur or are known to occur in the project area . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

LIST OF FIGURES Location of Project Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

LIST OF APPENDICES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A . Species Observed in Project Area 12 -

WEST, Inc . i

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BUFFALO TANK

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the primary regulatory agency for endangered, threatened, and candidate species. Listed and proposed species receive protection under the amended Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. The current position of the USFWS on candidate species is protection to the fullest extent possible to prevent their listing as threatened or endangered. Many state wildlife agencies and private conservation groups also have expressed a strong interest in monitoring and protecting candidate species and other species of concern. In addition to the ESA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires consideration of the environmental consequences, including consideration for protected species, of any federal or federally- funded action prior to implementation of that action.

This report was prepared as part of the ESA and NEPA compliance for construction of a water storage tank and pipeline on the west side of Buffalo, Wyoming. The report addresses the potential impacts of the project on endangered, threatened, proposed and candidate species that may be affected by construction. The following report summarizes results of a site visit, literature reviews, and searches of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) Wildlife Observation System (WOS) and Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WNDD) .

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project consists of the construction of a 2.5 million gallon water storage tank. The proposed tank would be a buried concrete tank with the approximate dimensions of 133' diameter and 25' wall height. The tank would be constructed by excavating into an existing hill and backfilling the entire tank to provide near natural appearance. The top of the tank would be covered by approximately 2' of fill, leaving minimal tank appurtenances exposed. Piping to and fiom the tank consists of an 1 8-inch transmission main and a 16-inch supply main. Approximately 1 1,000 feet of 18-inch pipe would be installed. A below-grade pressure reducing vault would be installed on this line near the connection to the existing water supply to the town. A road bore is proposed under US Highway 16. An additional pipe fiom the tank to the northern portion of Buffalo will also be constructed. This supply line would include the installation of approximately 8,600 feet of 16-inch pipe and two below grade pressure reducing vaults. This pipe is proposed to parallel French Creek Road, and connect into the existing water distribution system in the northwest comer of town. A road bore is proposed for the crossing of a proposed 10-inch water line and French Creek Road. Another 10-inch water line is proposed from the 16-inch water main to the North Ridge Subdivision. This line passes through the town's abandoned landfill. All piping for the project is to be installed in an open cut trench, and backfilled to natural ground. Completion of the project is scheduled in 2003. The project is illustrated in Figure 1.

-

WEST, Inc. 1

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BUFFALO TANK

METHODS

Investigations for the project area focused on but were not limited to:

• es tab1 ishing the current status, habitat use, and behavior of endangered, threatened, proposed and candidate species that may occur within the project area based on existing information,

determining the likelihood of the project adversely affecting endangered, threatened, proposed and candidate species,

determining the direct and indirect impacts of the project on endangered, threatened, proposed and candidate species,

identifying opportunities for avoiding or mitigating for adverse impacts of construction activity,

determining the expected status of endangered, threatened, proposed and candidate species after project completion, and

• identifying additional wildlife studies or federal or state wildlife permits necessary for construction to proceed.

Previously documented occurrences of endangered, threatened, proposed and candidate species within the project area were determined through searching the Wildlife Observation System database maintained by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department WGFD-WOS] and the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database maintained by the University of Wyoming (WNDD). The computer searches included the townships the project area is in as well as all neighboring townships. The WGFD-WOS is a computer database of wildlife observations made by WGFD personnel since 1975, and the WNDD is comprised of wildlife observations from several governmental and private sources. The University of Wyoming (UW) computer reference service utilizing the Wildlife and Fish Worldwide Review database from 197 1 to the present and the UW computer index were used in review and search of the literature.

A site visit was conducted on November 7, 2002. During the site visit, on-foot transect surveys were conducted within the area of disturbance and up to lh mile from the area of disturbance in all habitat types adjacent to and within the project area. Major habitat types were identified and the dominant plant species recorded. Many wildlife species are excellent indicators of habitat. All wildlife and wildlife sign observed in the project area were recorded.

WEST, Inc. 2

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BUFFALO TANK

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA

The project is located in the City of Buffalo in Sections 27, 28, and 33, Township 5 1 North, Range 82 West, Johnson County, Wyoming. Elevation in the project area ranges from approximately 4800 to 4950 feet. The tank will be placed adjacent to a main road (French Creek Road). The pipeline extension will run east along French Creek Road, turn south and run adjacent to a new housing subdivision, and then cut across a pasture and ephemeral drainage before connecting with an existing water line on the south side of U.S. Highway 16 (Figure 1). Topography in the project area consists of rolling hills and habitat is classified as midgrass prairie. All wildlife species and dominant plant species observed in the project area were recorded during the site visit (Appendix A).

STATUS, HABITAT, AND BEHAVIOR OF SPECIES OF CONCERN

A list of federally endangered, threatened, proposed and candidate species potentially occurring in the project area was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Table 1). The results of the site visit, WGFD-WOS search, WNDD search, and scientific literature search are summarized for each species. Additionally, the current known status and preferred habitat of each species is reviewed.

Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species in Project Area

According to the USFWS, the bald eagle (threatened) can occur statewide, the black-footed ferret (endangered) is a potential resident of prairie dog towns in the area, and the mountain plover (proposed) is a potential breeder in the project area.

Bald Eagle - Bald eagles are year round residents of Wyoming. Their main food source is medium to large fish, but they will also eat small to medium sized mammals, birds, and carrion. Because the main food source is fish (either caught or carrion), bald eagles use riparian, lake, or reservoir areas year round and usually nest in large trees within 1.4 krn (0.9 miles) of shorelines. Bald eagles nest in early spring, usually March, after returning fiom winter roost sites. Females lay two eggs and both parents incubate for about 35 days. Both parents feed the young for about three months before the fledgling is driven away. Winter concentrations of bald eagles require suitable roost sites as well as adequate food supplies. Wmter roost sites are located in areas with high densities of large, old trees that are protected from prevailing winds. Individual roost trees within these stands are the largest, oldest, and most structurally open. Winter foods are primarily fish and carrion.

Bald eagles historically occurred in most of North America and continue to be widely distributed throughout the U.S. and Canada. Human encroachment and the use of pesticides resulted in the eagle's range being greatly reduced to less developed areas across North America. Recent population increases have resulted in the species being down listed fiom endangered to threatened. In 1996 there

WEST, Inc. 3

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BUFFALO TANK

were 70 known pairs attempting to nest in Wyoming. The majority of nesting bald eagles occur in and around Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. However, their nesting range has been extending to include areas in central, south central, and north central Wyoming.

The WOS contained 17 records of bald eagles within the townships containing the project area. No records exist within 1 mile of project features. All the records occurred from mid-October through mid-March, indicating the area is used by migrating and wintering eagles, rather than breeders. There are no trees in the project area large enough for eagles to use for roosting or nesting, and no waterbodies that could be used for foraging. Bald eagle use of the project area is likely limited to the occasional migrant that might forage on winter-killed big game or other carrion in the project area.

Table 1. Endangered, threatened, proposed and candidate species which may potentially occur or are known to occur in the ~roiect area.

rl

Species Stam ' . 'Habitat Occurrence

Mammals

Black-footed Ferret Endangered prairie dog colonies historical observations in latilong" of (Mustela nigripes) project area (Clark and Stromberg

1987)

Black-tailed Prairie Dog Candidate short and mixed-grass resident in latilong of project (Cynornys ludovicianus) prairie (WGFD 1987), no records in project

area Birds

Bald Eagle Threatened coniferous forest, 17 records of migrantslwintering (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) cottonwood riparian, birds in project area, no records

aquatic areas within 1 mile of project facilities.

Mountain Plover Proposed shortgrass prairie, flat breeder in latilong of project (WGFD (Charadn'us rnontanus) topography 1997); several records in project area

" latilong = rectangle of 1 degree latitude and 1 degree longitude

Mountain Plover - Mountain plovers arrive on their breeding grounds, including those in Wyoming, from late March to late April after wintering in California, Texas, and Mexico. Atter courtship, several nest scrapes may be made before one is finally selected. The female will typically lay three eggs; however, clutch size can vary from one to four eggs. During years of high insect numbers, females can lay one clutch for the male to incubate and then a subsequent clutch for herself Eggs are incubated for 28-3 1 days and young fledge in 33-34 days. Both adults and chicks rely entirely on insects for food, eating mostly grasshoppers, crickets, beetles, and ants. Typical mountain plover habitat is arid, shortgrass plains with level to gently rolling topography. Vegetation is generally less than 10 cm in height and often consists of blue grama, buffalograss, bluebunch wheatgrass, low growing sagebrush, and other low forbs. Mountain plover use is ofien associated with prairie dog towns or heavily grazed or burned areas. They will also use areas in and around alkali flats and claypans.

WEST, Inc. 4

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BUFFALO TANK

Mountain plovers historically bred from northern New Mexico north to southern Alberta, Canada, and f?om central Utah east to eastern Montana, western South Dakota, western Nebraska, western Kansas, and northern Texas. Today they are usually found east of the Continental Divide in Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. Historic winter habitats included mainly California and Texas, with some birds wintering in Arizona, Nevada, and Mexico. Current distributions generally remain within historic ranges but with large decreases in population. In Wyoming, mountain plovers occur primarily in non-mountainous areas east of the Continental Divide; however, they also occur in and around the Red Desert and near the Green and Bear Rivers.

The WGFD has not documented breeding by this species in the latilong region of the project (WGFD 1997). There are no mountain plover records on the WNDD for the project area. There are no records on the WGFD-WOS database for the townships the project area is in. Vegetative characteristics at the site are generally unsuitable for mountain plovers because the vegetation is denser and taller than normally preferred by this species. The area does not appear to be grazed by livestock.

Black-footed ferret - Black-footed ferrets almost always occur in prairie dog colonies. Prairie dogs make up 90% of the ferret's diet and ferrets live in prairie dog burrows. Black-footed ferrets also occasionally eat mice, gophers, ground squirrels, and birds. Because black-footed ferrets are almost entirely nocturnal and utilize prairie dog burrows for food and shelter they are almost never seen even when known to be present. Black-footed ferrets breed fiom mid-March to early April. Gestation is 42-45 days and young remain in the below ground nest for another 40 days before emerging above ground for the first time. Litter size varies from 3-5 kits. Young ferrets will stay with the female until early to mid-August before they disperse and become independent.

Black-footed ferrets historically occurred wherever prairie dogs occurred. This range extended south from southern Saskatchewan and Alberta to central Texas and from eastern Nebraska west to eastern Utah. This included all non-mountainous areas in Wyoming. Currently, the only known black- footed ferrets existing in the wild have been reintroduced. In 1984 the last wild ferrets were captured and placed in a captive breeding facility at the Wyoming Game and Fish Sybille Research Unit. Since that time ferrets have been reintroduced into sites in Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Colorado, and Arizona. Black-footed ferrets were thought to be possibly extinct before the discovery of a population near Meeteetse, Wyoming in 198 1. Today, the only known ferrets in Wyoming exist at captive breeding facilities and at the Shirley Basin reintroduction site in Carbon County. There are plans to initiate a second reintroduction site at Thunder Basin National Grasslands in northeast Wyoming in the future.

No evidence of black-footed ferrets was found during field reconnaissance conducted for the Biological Assessment. The black-footed ferret occurred in the project area historically (WGFD 1997), and Clark and Stromberg (1987) include the project area in the range of ferrets. No observations of this species in the area have been reported to the WGFD-WOS or WNDD. Current existence of ferrets in the project area is doubtful, as no prairie dog towns occur in the area.

WEST, Inc. 5

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BUFFALO TANK

Candidate Species

The USFWS requests that species that are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered be considered during construction activities to protect them from further population declines. The only candidate species potentially occurring in the project area is black-tailed prairie dog (Table 1).

Black-tailed Prairie Dog - Black-tailed prairie dogs are small, stout ground squirrels. Individual appearances within the species vary in mixed colors of brown, black, gray, and white. The black- tipped tail is characteristic. The historic range of the black-tailed prairie dog included portions of 1 1 States, Canada, and Mexico. At present, the black-tailed prairie dog may be found scattered in remnant populations throughout much of the range that it once occupied. Factors affecting the range and distribution of the species include conversion of rangeland to cropland, sylvatic plague, and eradication. In Wyoming, black-tailed prairie dogs historically occurred on suitable habitat east of the Rocky Mountain foothills (Hall and Kelson 1959) below approximately 5,500 feet (1,676 meters) elevation. Presently, the species appears to be scattered throughout the same area. Statewide estimates of occupied habitat for Wyoming range fiom 16 million acres historically to 70,000- 1 80,000 acres in 1998 (Knowles 1998).

Black-tailed prairie dogs are diurnal, burrowing animals and spend most of the day above ground. The species is very social, living in population aggregations called colonies, towns, or villages. Groups of colonies comprise a complex. Historically, they generally occurred in large colonies that contained thousands of individuals, covered hundreds of thousands of acres, and extended for miles; most colonies are now much smaller. The colonial behavior is a significant characteristic of the species. Colonial behavior offers an effective defense mechanism by aiding in the detection of predators and deterring predators through mobbing behavior. It increases reproductive success through cooperative rearing of juveniles and aids parasite removal via shared grooming. However, it also has been noted that this behavior promotes the transmission of disease, which can significantly suppress populations.

Several biological factors determine the reproductive potential of the black-tailed prairie dog. Females usually do not breed until their second year and live 3-4 years. Females of the species produce a single litter, usually 4-5 pups, annually. Prairie dog dispersal is usually limited to approximately 3 miles (5 kilometers) or less, and individuals dispersing from home colonies generally move into an established colony rather than attempting to initiate a new colony. These limitations could restrict recruitment of animals into small and declining isolated populations and favor the reestablishment of individuals in nearby, recently abandoned colonies over the establishment of new, more distantly located colonies.

WEST, Inc. 6

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BUFFALO TANK

Although habitat does consist of mixed grass prairie, no black-tailed prairie dogs or sign were observed during the site visit. There are no records of this species on any of the databases searched.

IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON SPECIES OF CONCERN AND SUGGESTED MITIGATION

Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species

Bald Eagle - There are no known bald eagle winter roosts or nest sites near the project area, and this species has not been documented within a mile of the site. No large water bodies or other bald eagle foraging areas occur near the project site. There is one small stock pond in Dump Draw that could be used by an occasional migrant or winter visitor. Due to the relatively short time-frame of construction and small area of disturbance, the Buffalo Tank and waterline project is not expected to adversely affect bald eagles.

Mountain Plover - Mountain plovers have not been documented to breed in the latilong containing the project and there are no records of this species in the project area. The project area provides only marginal habitat for this species. The Buffalo Tank and waterline is not expected to jeopardize the mountain plover.'

Black-footed Ferret - Although black-footed ferrets occupied the area historically, there are no prairie dog colonies within the project area. Presence of ferrets in the project area is highly unlikely. The Buffalo Tank and waterline project is not expected to adversely affect black-footed ferrets.

Candidate Species

Black-tailed Prairie Dog - There are no prairie dog colonies in the project area. The Buffalo Tank and waterline is not expected to jeopardize the black-tailed prairie dog.

DETERMINATION OF EFFECT OF THE PROJECT ON SPECIES OF CONCERN

Based on the above information, construction of the Buffalo water tank and waterline extension is not likely to adversely affect endangered, threatened, or proposed species in the project area, ' including the threatened bald eagle, endangered black-footed ferret, and proposed mountain plover. The project is also not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of black-tailed prairie dog, a candidate species that may potentially occur in the project area.

SUMMARY

A Biological Assessment was conducted to assess effects on endangered, threatened, proposed and candidate species of the proposed City of Buffalo water storage tank and pipeline extension project. The proposed project will involve construction of a 2.5 million gallon water storage tank

WEST, Inc. 7

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BUFFALO TANK

and two below-grade pressure reducing vaults, as well as installation of approximately 11,000 feet of 18-inch pipe and 8,600 feet of 16-inch pipe for distribution of water within the City of Buffalo. A 1 is t of endangered, threatened, proposed and candidate species potentially occurring in the project area was obtained from the USFWS. An assessment of the potential for the Buffalo tank and waterline extension project to impact these species was conducted through a site visit and searches of the scientific literature, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wildlife Observation S ys tem and the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. Endangered, threatened, and proposed species potentially occurring in the project area were the threatened bald eagle, endangered black- footed ferret, and proposed mountain plover. The only candidate species potentially occurring in the project area is black-tailed prairie dog. The only one of these species documented within a township buffer of the site was bald eagle. No bald eagle records were within one mile of any project facilities, and all records were of wintering birds, rather than nesting birds. Based on results of the biological assessment, it appears that the Buffalo tank and waterline project is not likely to adversely affect the endangered, threatened or proposed species or jeopardize the continued existence of candidate species that may potentially occur in the project area. The status of the concerned species, both long- and short-term, is not expected to change following completion of the project.

WEST, Inc. 8

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BUFFALO TANK

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, S.H. and C.T. Patterson. 1998. Characteristics of bald eagle winter roosts in Wyoming. Prairie Nat. 20: 147-152.

Anderson, E., S. C. Forrest, T. W. Clark, and L. Richardson. 1986. Paleobiology, biogeography, and systematics of the black-footed ferret, Must& nieriDes (Audubon and Bachman) , 1 85 1. Great Basin Nat. Mem. 8: 1 1-62.

Bent, A. C. 1962. Life histories of North American shore birds. Dover Publications, Inc. New York.

Clark, T.W., T.M. Campbell, 111, M.H. Schroeder, and L. Richardson. 1984. Handbook of methods for locating black-footed ferrets. Wyoming BLM Wildlife Technical Bulletin No. 1.

Clark, T. W., and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History. Lawrence, Kansas.

Dinsmore, J. J. 1983. Mountain plover (- m). Pages 185- 196 in J. S . Armbruster (ed). Impacts of coal surface mining on 25 migratory bird species of high Federal interest. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWSIOBS-83/35.

Dorn, J.L., and R.D. Dorn. 1990. Wyoming Birds. Mountain West Publ., Cheyenne, Wyo. 138pp.

Forrest, S. C., T. W. Clark, L. Richardson, T.M. Campbell, 111. 1985. Black-footed ferret habitat: some management and reintroduction considerations. Wyoming BLM Wildlife Technical Bulletin No. 2.

Green, N.F. 1985. The bald eagle. Audubon Wildl. Rep. 1985. pp. 508-531.

Hall, E.R. and K.R. Kelson. 1959. The mammals of North America. Ronald Press Co., New York.

Hillman, C. N. and T. W. Clark. 1980. Must- . . . Mammalian Species No. 126. 3 pp.

Johnsgard, P. A. 1986. Birds of the Rocky Mountains. Colorado Associated University Press. Boulder, Colorado.

Knopf, F.L. 1996. Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus). In the Birds of North America, No. 21 1 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D . C.

- -

WEST, Inc. 9

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BUFFALO TANK

Knopf, F. L. and B. J. Miller. 1994. Charadrius montanus - montane, grassland, or bare-ground plover? The Auk 1 1 1504-506.

Knowles, C. J. 1998. An evaluation of shooting and habitat alteration for control of black-tailed prairie dogs. Pp. 53-56 in D.W. Uresk, G.L. Shenbeck, and R. Cefkin (technical coordinators). Eighth Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings. USDA-Forest Service General Technical ~ e ~ d r t .

Knowles, C. J. and P. R. Knowles. 1984. Additional Records of Mountain Plovers Using Prairie Dog Towns in Montana. Prairie Nat. 16: 183- 186.

Oakleaf, B., and B. Luce. 1992. First spring: ferrets return to the wild in Wyoming's Shirley Basin. Wyoming Wildlife 56(6):2 1-29.

Olson-Edge, S .L. and W.D. Edge. 1987. Density and distribution of mountain plover on the Charles M . Russell National Wildlife' Refuge. Prairie Nat. 19(4):233-23 8.

Parrish, T.L. 1998. Mountain plover habitat selection in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. M. S . Thesis, Univ. Wyoming.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 1997. Atlas of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

WEST, Inc. 10

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BUFFALO TANK

Figure 1. Location of Project Facilities

WEST, Inc. 11

I I t X i P R E u M I N m DESIGN I BLC I e/az DESCRIPTION OF RMSION

DEIGNED BLti BUFFALO TANK, LEVEL I1

RMSON STATES WEST WATER WARNING glG-*- A

RESOURCES CORPORATION - oraxm v R K T

1904 E 15th STREET IF THIS BAR DOES - D ~ N G CHEYENNE. WYOMING 82001 NOT MEASURE 1 /2' '/FA bRoJECr (307) 634-784 M E N DRAWING IS

FAX: (307) 634-7851

SITE PLAN NOT TO SCALE ' ~ q ,nr,

??? c u m 3 nr n

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT BUFFALO TANK

APPENDIX A. SPECIES OBSERVED IN PROJECT AREA

COMMON PLANTS Uplands along Waterline Extension

Silver Sagebrush Fringed Sagebrush Snakeweed Pricklypear Russian Thistle Phlox Yucca Prairie Sandreed C heatgrass Needle and Thread S q uinelt ail Blue Gramrna Bluebunch Wheatgrass Prairie Junegrass

Artemisia cana A rtemisia frigida Gutierrezia sarothrae Opuntia polyacantha Salsola australis Phlox sp. Yucca glauca Calamovirfa lonpyolia Bromus tectorum Stipa comata Sitanion hystrix Bouteloua gracilis Agropyron spicatum Koeleria cristata

Dump Draw Russian Olive Silver Sagebrush Green Rabbitbrush Skunkbush Sumac Licorice

1 Russian Thistle Canada Thistle Crested Wheatgrass Cheatgrass

Eleagnus anpstifolia Artemisia cana Chrysothamnus viscidzjlorus Rhus trilobata Glycyrrhiza lepidota Salsola australis Cirsium arvense Agropyron cristatum Bromus tectorum

L

Three-square Tufted Hairgrass

WILDLIFE

Scirpus pungens Descham~sia cemitosa

Y

Rabbitfoot Polypogon Foxtail Barley Alkali corderass

I 1

Polypogon monspeliensis Hordeum jubatum S~artina wacilis

WEST, Inc. 12

Pronghorn White-tailed Deer Canada goose American crow Black-billed Maeoie

Antilocapra americana Odocoileus virginianus Branta canadensis Corvus brachyrhynchos Pica pica