Gunslinger Federal 2-12-1H Gunslinger Federal 6-12-1TFH ... · Gunslinger Federal 2-12-1H,...

Gunslinger Federal 2-12-1H Gunslinger Federal 6-12-1TFH Gunslinger Federal 4-12-1H Gunslinger Federal 7-12-1TFH

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT and EVALUATION

T153N, R97W, S12 SE, SW McKenzie County, North Dakota January 27, 2017 Prepared for: Slawson Exploration Company, Inc. By: David Schmoller, Yellowfield Biological Surveys, LLC Copyright, Yellowfield Biological Surveys, LLC

Gunslinger Federal 2-12-1H, Gunslinger Federal 6-12-1TFH, Gunslinger Federal 4-12-1H, Gunslinger Federal 7-12-1TFH Biological Assessment and Evaluation – January 2017 Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3

PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 PROJECT SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION ................................................................................................................................................ 4 FEATURES OBSERVED ................................................................................................................................................................ 4 FIELD INSPECTION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Botany .................................................................................................................................................................................. 5

DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Biological Assessments ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Biological Evaluations .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

DESCRIPTION OF AREA .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 AREA SURVEYED ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 ACCESS ROAD AND WELL PAD LOCATION .................................................................................................................................. 6 GEOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 SOILS .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Table 1. Soil Types in Project Area ..................................................................................................................................... 7 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 WILDLIFE .................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 WETLANDS............................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Table 2. Wetlands in Vicinity of Project ........................................................................................................................... 12 FEATURES ................................................................................................................................................................................ 12

Table 3. Wells within Analysis Area ................................................................................................................................. 12 EFFECTS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................................... 12

GENERAL .................................................................................................................................................................................. 12 ENDANGERED SPECIES ............................................................................................................................................................. 13

Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) ............................................................................................................................... 13 Whooping Crane (Grus americana) .................................................................................................................................... 13 Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) ............................................................................................................................... 15 Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) .............................................................................................................................. 15

THREATENED SPECIES .............................................................................................................................................................. 16 Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) ................................................................................................................................... 16

Table 4. Percent of Piping Plover Nest Initiations in Central North Dakota, April - June ................................................. 17 Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) ............................................................................................................. 19 Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) .................................................................................................... 21 Dakota Skipper (Hesperia dakotae) .................................................................................................................................... 21

CANDIDATE SPECIES ................................................................................................................................................................ 24 DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT .............................................................................................................................................. 24

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) ................................................................................................................................... 24 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 25

Table 5. Summary of Biological Assessment .................................................................................................................... 25 IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................................... 25

GENERAL .................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES ................................................................................................................................................... 25

Baird’s Sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) ............................................................................................................................. 25 Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) .................................................................................................................................. 26 Greater Prairie Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido) ................................................................................................................. 26 Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) ............................................................................................................ 27 Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) ............................................................................................................................ 27 Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) ....................................................................................................................... 28 Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii) ..................................................................................................................................... 28 Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) ............................................................................................................... 30 Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis) .......................................................................................... 30


Arogos Skipper (Atrytone arogos) ...................................................................................................................................... 30 Ottoe Skipper (Hesperia ottoe) ........................................................................................................................................... 31 Regal Fritillary Butterfly (Speyeria idalia occidentalis) ....................................................................................................... 31 Tawny Crescent Butterfly (Phyciodes batesii lakota) .......................................................................................................... 32 Northern Redbelly Dace (Phoxinus eos) .............................................................................................................................. 32

SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES ........................................................................................................................................................ 33 Slimleaf goosefoot (Chenopodium subglabrum) ................................................................................................................ 33 Blue lips (Collinsia parviflora) ............................................................................................................................................. 33 Torrey’s cryptantha (Cryptantha torreyana) ...................................................................................................................... 33 Nodding wild buckwheat (Eriogonum cernuum) ................................................................................................................ 33 Dakota buckwheat (Eriogonum visheri) ............................................................................................................................. 33 Missouri pincushion cactus (Escobaria missouriensis) ........................................................................................................ 33 Sand lily (Leucocrinum montanum) .................................................................................................................................... 34 Dwarf mentzelia (Mentzelia pumila) .................................................................................................................................. 34 Alyssum-leaved phlox (Phlox alyssifolia) ............................................................................................................................ 34 Limber pine (Pinus flexilis) .................................................................................................................................................. 34 Lance-leaf cottonwood (Populus x acuminata) .................................................................................................................. 34 Alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides) .................................................................................................................................. 35 Easter Daisy (Townsendia exscapa).................................................................................................................................... 35 Hooker’s Townsendia (Townsendia hookeri) ...................................................................................................................... 35

RAPTOR SPECIES OF CONCERN ................................................................................................................................................ 36 Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) ...................................................................................................................................... 36 Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) ....................................................................................................................................... 37 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ............................................................................................................................... 38 Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) ........................................................................................................................................ 38 Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) ................................................................................................................................... 38 Merlin (Falco columbarius) ................................................................................................................................................. 38

WATCH SPECIES ....................................................................................................................................................................... 39 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 39

Table 6. Summary of Biological Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 39 OTHER ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................................. 40

GENERAL .................................................................................................................................................................................. 40 MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ........................................................................................................................................ 40

Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) ............................................................................................................. 40 Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) ............................................................................................................ 42 Greater Prairie Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido) ................................................................................................................. 43 Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) ............................................................................................................... 43

HABITAT GUILDS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 43 Western Plains Riparian Guild ............................................................................................................................................ 43

DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 43 SPECIES AFFECTED ................................................................................................................................................................... 43

Table 7. Summary of Biological Assessment and Evaluation ........................................................................................... 43 CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 43 EFFECTS ................................................................................................................................................................................... 44 RECOMMENDED DESIGN CRITERIA .......................................................................................................................................... 45

Table 8. Listed Species and Habitat Sensitivity Periods ................................................................................................... 46 Table 9. Minimum Distance and Timing Guidelines ........................................................................................................ 47 Table 10. Bald Eagle Management Recommendations ................................................................................................... 47

LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................................................................................ 49 SELECTED REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................ 49 APPENDIX A. MAPS ............................................................................................................................................................. 52 APPENDIX B. NDPR RARE SPECIES LOCATIONS .................................................................................................................... 57 APPENDIX C. US FOREST SERVICE FORMS ............................................................................................................................ 58 APPENDIX D. RARE PLANTS OF THE DPG ............................................................................................................................. 62 APPENDIX E. FWS IPAC ........................................................................................................................................................ 63


ABSTRACT Yellowfield Biological Surveys, LLC, investigated the natural resources of the Gunslinger Federal 2-12-1H, Gunslinger Federal 6-12-1TFH, Gunslinger Federal 4-12-1H, Gunslinger Federal 7-12-1TFH, a 1,470-foot access road and 4.8-acre well pad proposed by Slawson Exploration Company, Inc. The project is located in McKenzie County, North Dakota. The entire well pad and access road would occur on US Forest Service (USFS) land on the McKenzie Ranger District of the Little Missouri National Grasslands (LMNG) of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG). The project is located in T153N, R97W, S12 SE, SW. Existing conditions were documented and recommendations were provided to assist USFS personnel to determine if the proposed activities adhered to the management intent of the DPG. The proposed access road and well pad would be situated upon a relatively level grasslands below river breaks. All of the project area is former broken lands, now reclaimed grassland dominated by reclamation species. Wooded draws, badland outcrops, and native grasslands, are in the analysis area but would not be intersected by the project. One wetland may be intersected by the project. Townsendia hookeri was located within the analysis area, 1,000 feet from the project area. One active Sharp-tailed Grouse lek is 7,000 feet from the project area, outside of the analysis area. Existing developments on USFS land include 2.71 miles of fence line, four stock dams, and two stock tanks. Cattle grazing is common. There are 0.70 mile of USFS road (FSR 868), 1.19 miles of state highway, and 0.42 mile of abandoned pasture road. There are 0.69 mile of county road on private surface. There are only six oil and gas wells in the analysis area. The proposed activities will have negative effects upon no Endangered species, 1 Threatened species, and no Designated Critical Habitat. The activities may impact 6 of the Sensitive Wildlife species, 3 of the Sensitive plant species, and 3 Raptor species of concern. The activities will not have adverse effects on any Watch plant species, no negative influences on any Management Indicator Species or Habitat Guilds. Using applicable design criteria, the project may impact individual rare species but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Using applicable design criteria, the project may impact individual rare species but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

INTRODUCTION

PROPOSED ACTION

Slawson Exploration Company, Inc. is proposing an oil and gas well pad and access road in McKenzie County, North Dakota. The access road would be 1,470 feet in length and the well pad would be 4.8 acres. The entire well pad and access road would reside on US Forest Service (USFS) land on the McKenzie Ranger District of the Little Missouri National Grasslands (LMNG) of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG). Site maps are contained in Appendix A.

PROJECT SUMMARY

Company: Slawson Exploration Company, Inc.

Company Contact: Eric Sundberg – Environmental Manager

Project Name: Gunslinger Federal 2-12-1H, Gunslinger Federal 6-12-1TFH, Gunslinger Federal 4-12-1H, Gunslinger Federal 7-12-1TFH

Project Type: Oil well pad and access road

Legal Description: T153N, R97W, S12 SE, SW

County: McKenzie

USGS Quadrangles: Tobacco Garden Bay (48103-A1-TF-024)

National Wetland Inventory Maps: Tobacco Garden Bay (48103-A1-TF-024)

Management Area: 6.1 - see Description of Area and Appendix B

Approximate Area Disturbance: 1,470-foot access road and 4.8-acre well pad

Date of Field Survey: May 18, 2016

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

This biological assessment is prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Dakota Prairie Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), Endangered Species Act, Sections 4(b)(2) (16 USC 1533) and 7 (16 USC 1536 (c)), and follows the standards established in 50 CFR Part 402‐Interagency Cooperation‐Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Other legislation that has a bearing on this assessment include: the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 2342352352), the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Executive Order 11990 "Protection of Wetlands" and Executive Order 13186 "Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds."


OBJECTIVE

An objective of the DPG is to sustain and conserve the resources and ecosystems under their administration. The DPG has organized the lands under its administration into Management Areas. These units of land are managed for a particular emphasis. The DPG has identified Desired Conditions for each of these areas. In turn, each of these areas has a prescription that is intended to achieve the Desired Condition.

When ground-disturbing activities are proposed on DPG-managed lands, Existing Conditions in the project area must be documented in order for the US Forest Service (USFS) to evaluate the proposed activities and determine their adherence to the management intent of the DPG.

Thus, the DPG directs that Biological Evaluations (BE) and Biological Assessments (BA) be conducted for these proposed actions. These (1) evaluate the potential effects or impacts of the action on listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat and (2) determine whether any such species or habitat are likely to be adversely affected or impacted by the action.

BE’s and BA’s are used in determining whether formal consultation or a conference is necessary. They provide a process and standard by which to ensure that endangered, threatened, sensitive, watch, raptor species of concern, or management indicator species or their designated critical habitat receive full consideration in the decision-making process. They ensure that ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non-native plant or contribute to animal species or trends toward Federal listing of any species. They promote compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act that actions of Federal agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed or proposed species. They assist USFS personnel to determine if the proposed activities adhere to the management intent of the DPG.

METHODS

RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION

These references were reviewed: (1) US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of threatened and endangered species that could occur in North Dakota (FWS 2008). (2) FWS list of threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat that could occur within the project area. The FWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPAC) Species List is presented in Appendix E. (3) DPG list of sensitive species and raptor species of concern (DPG 2015) is shown in Appendix D. (4) DPG list of invasive plant species (DPG 2015). (5) The DPG rare species database. (6) The North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department (NDPR) was consulted requesting historic and potential occurrences of listed species in the analysis area, including raptor nests and raptor species. The NDPR information is displayed in Appendix B. (7) Recovery plans, status surveys, and species descriptions for the listed species.

Other information was obtained from scientific journals, natural resource management organization websites, FWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Data, US Geological Survey topographic maps, and aerial photographs. Personal knowledge of the region was considered.

Prior to the field work, wildlife and plant characteristics and their habitats were studied to aid in field recognition.

FEATURES OBSERVED

Vegetation composition and conditions, wildlife, raptor nests, and unusual features were assessed within the project area. Also, active roads, reclaimed roads, well sites, utility lines, stock tanks, water waterlines, or other developments were described.

FIELD INSPECTION

Field inspection occurred on May 18, 2016. Surveys were conducted by David Schmoller.

Wildlife Field surveys were conducted to determine the presence or absence of wildlife species of concern. Habitats within and near the immediate area of the proposed activities were evaluated. The search for raptor species of concern was based on field surveys for raptors, raptor nests and potential raptor habitat within one-half mile of the proposed development. These observations were aided by records of previous raptor or raptor nest sightings and aerial photo interpretation. Similarly, Sharp-tailed and Sage Grouse surveys were based on field work as well as historical records. Surveys were


conducted on foot. Survey stations, or observation points, were located at locations with habitat that indicated a higher probability of containing listed birds, mammals, or fish. Observations were aided by binocular, spotting scope, and 60‐power digital camera. Aerial photographs and historical records were used to guide the survey track.

Botany Field surveys were conducted to determine the presence or absence of sensitive and watch plant species and habitat necessary to support these plant species. The project area was traversed on foot. All habitats likely to be disturbed by the proposed project were systematically surveyed. Areas were expanded, when necessary, to include additional critical habitat that might be affected.

Within the project area, the survey intensity was a floristic-based complete search. Searches were intensified in areas where sensitive or watch plant species were suspected to occur. In cases where vegetation was more homogeneous, the survey intensity became more intuitively controlled. A limited focus survey intensity was conducted on previously disturbed inclusions, such as intersecting waterlines or roads, usually dominated by alien, invasive species.

Within the project area, prominent plant communities, unique habitats, rare plant species, and invasive plant species were mapped and described. A complete species list of the area was compiled during the evaluation. Plants were collected as necessary to aid in identification. The majority of the species were distinguished based on field recognition. Nomenclature used follows Flora of North America, 1993.

Site and feature waypoints were recorded on a Garmin 60CSX. Photos were recorded on Lumix DMC-FZ40 and FZ70.

DETERMINATIONS

Biological Assessments These provide a determination as to the direct and cumulative effect of the proposed activities on (1) endangered species, (2) threatened species, and (3) their designated critical habitat. This determination was based upon research and field inspection and the evidence they gave of the presence or absence of the species and potential habitat within the project and analysis area. Determinations made were one of the following:

1. No Effect. Occurs when a project or activity will not have any effect on a listed species or critical habitat. 2. May Effect - Likely To Adversely Affect (LAA). Is likely to affect individuals or habitat with a consequence that

the action may contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

a. If the determination in the biological assessment is that the project May Effect - Likely To Adversely Affect a listed species or critical habitat, formal consultation must be initiated (50 CFR 402.12). Formal consultation must be requested in writing through the Forest Supervisor (FSM 2670.44) to the appropriate FWS Field Supervisor, or NMFS office.

3. May Effect - Not Likely To Adversely Affect (NLAA). May affect individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

a. If it is determined in the biological assessment that there are "effects" to a listed species or critical habitat, but that those effects are not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat, then written concurrence by the FWS or NMFS is required to conclude informal consultation (50 CFR 402.13).

4. Beneficial Effect. Written concurrence is also required from the FWS or NMFS if a beneficial effect determination is made.

No proposed species are on the DPG at this time.

Biological Evaluations These provide a determination as to the direct and cumulative impact of the proposed activities on (4) sensitive species or sensitive habitats. Sensitive wildlife species are segregated from sensitive plant species in this report. There was one candidate threatened or endangered species or critical habitat on the DPG at the time of the field survey – Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii). Sprague’s Pipit is also classified as a sensitive wildlife species and are analyzed as such. This determination was based upon research and field inspection and the evidence they gave of the presence or absence of the sensitive species and the habitat required to support them, and raptor nest sites and/or the raptor species and potential raptor habitat within the analysis area. Determinations made were one of the following:


1. No Impact (NI). A determination of "No Impact" for sensitive species occurs when a project or activity will have no environmental effects on habitat, individuals, a population or a species.

2. May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Toward Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species (MIIH). Activities or actions that have effects that are immeasurable, minor or are consistent with Conservation Strategies would receive this conclusion. For populations that are small - or vulnerable - each individual may be important for short and long term viability.

3. Will Impact Individuals or Habitat with a Consequence that the Action May Contribute to a Trend towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species (WIFV). Loss of individuals or habitat can be considered significant when the potential effect may be: (a) Contributing to a trend toward Federal listing (C-1 or C-2 species); (b) Results in a significantly increased risk of loss of viability to a species; or, (c) Results in a significantly increased risk of loss of viability to a significant population (stock).

4. Beneficial Impact (BI). Projects or activities that are designed to benefit, or that measurably benefit a sensitive species should receive this conclusion.

Additional determinations were made regarding the direct and cumulative outcomes of the proposed activities upon (5) raptor species of concern, and (6) management indicator species.

There are no watch species on the DPG at this time.

A revised Biological Assessment/Evaluation would be necessary should the following conditions develop subsequent to the filing of this Biological Assessment:

1. Additional information reveals action that may affect threatened, endangered, sensitive, or candidate species or designated critical habitat.

2. The proposed project is modified and the modifications may affect threatened, endangered, or candidate species or designated critical habitat.

3. The USFS lists a new species or habitat that may be affected by the proposed project

DESCRIPTION OF AREA

AREA SURVEYED

The analysis area comprised a minimum radius of one-half mile from the proposed access road and well pad, for a total of approximately 644 acres. Of this, 525 acres are on USFS land and 119 acres are on private surface. The project area comprised a 125' corridor on each side of the proposed 1,470-foot access road and 4.8-acre well pad, a total of approximately 14.4 acres. The entirety is on USFS land. Private and State surface were not included in this survey.

MANAGEMENT

The entire project footprint would occur within Management Area 6.1 – Rangeland with Broad Resource Emphasis. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands Management Plan (USFS 2002; page 3-43) states that “this area is primarily a rangeland ecosystem managed to meet a variety of ecological conditions and human needs. Ecological conditions will be maintained while emphasizing selected biological (grasses and other vegetation) structure and composition that consider the range of natural variability. These lands often display high levels of development, commodity uses, and activity; density of facilities; and evidence of vegetative manipulation.” It directs that landscape fragmentation from road construction would be discouraged, that valid existing rights would be honored when development is proposed, and that management activities that contribute to a loss of ecological integrity will be discouraged. Oil and gas leasing and development would be allowed. See Appendix A.

ACCESS ROAD AND WELL PAD LOCATION

The proposed access road departs from ND Hwy 1806, heads east, turns north, then back to the west for a total of 1,470 feet, terminating at the eastern boundary of the proposed well pad. Details are contained in the maps in Appendix A.

GEOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY

The survey area is within the Missouri Slope Uplands. Surface geology in the project area is the Glaciated Missouri Plateau Section of the Great Plains Province. This section is characterized by glacial drift of the Pliestocene Coleharbor Group; a generally thin veneer of igneous and metamorphic Precambrian to Paleozoic glacial erratics, deposited during


the Pleistocene Wisconsinan glacial event. Where the glacial drift is absent, the Paleocene interbedded sand, silt, mudstone, carbonaceous shale, and lignite of the Sentinel Butte formation is at the surface. Lignite beds in this part of McKenzie County are generally 1-3 feet thick, occasionally to 25 feet thick. The underlying Paleocene Bullion Creek formation is exposed at lower elevations, nearer to the Yellowstone River, in the river breaks. Along waterways in floodplains and terraces is the more recent Holocene erosional debris belonging to the Oahe Formation. The survey area occurs within the Tobacco Garden Creek watershed. Tobacco Garden Creek empties into the Missouri River (Lake Sakakawea), which is approximately 0.90 mile to the northwest of the project. The Little Missouri River is 28 miles to the south. The Yellowstone River is 40 miles to the west. In the river breaks, the geomorphology has an undulating, rugged aspect with buttes, steep-sided canyons, and badland outcrops. Landslides, slumps, and mass wasting are common. Upslope from the breaks the landscape levels off, is less severe in aspect, and has a thicker mantle of glacial veneer. Other geologic features include clinker, or porcelainite, beds, lignite veins, fossils, petrified wood, and sandstone concretions, relicts of ancient river channels.

SOILS

Dooley loams are the most common soil type in the project area, comprising 52-72% of the soil complex. Zahl loams are in all of the soil map units, but they are a minor component of the total project area. These soil types occupy the gentle rises and swales that dominate the project area. See Table 1 for details.

Table 1. Soil Types in Project Area

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres % of Area E3555D Zahl-Williams loams, 9 to 15 percent slopes 1.4 7.00% E3703B Dooley-Zahl complex, 3 to 6 percent slopes 14.1 68.40% E3703D Dooley-Zahl complex, 9 to 15 percent slopes 5.1 24.60%

Totals for Project Area 20.6 100.00%

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

The analysis area lies within two Ecoregions: The Missouri River Breaks Ecoregion and the Missouri Plateau Ecoregion. This project is located within the mixedgrass prairie province. Prior to settlement, the analysis area was dominated by mixedgrass prairie in the uplands, wooded draws in the breaks along the Little Missouri and Missouri Rivers.

Disturbance: All of the proposed access road and well pad would be constructed in “broken land,” land that was plowed after settlement, prior to 1958, most often planted in row crops and on level plains (Figure 1). They are evident in low-angle daylight photos of the project area (Figure 2). This land has a strong component of reclamation grasses and non-native species such as wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), and yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis). The DPG database shows five polygons of Broken Land intersecting the analysis area. Field inspection and aerial photos showed that the actual broken lands extended beyond the boundaries of the DPG polygons. The total DPG broken lands covered 179.6 acres or 34.2% of the 525 acres of analysis area on USFS land or 27.8% of the entire 644-acre analysis area. There are an additional 78.3 acres of hayfield and 9.4 acres of farmstead on private land within the analysis area. The Ridge Road Fire burned the entire analysis area on April 14, 2015. See Appendix A.

Figure 1. Broken land at center of proposed well pad with strong non-native component. Well stakes are from previous project. View is to E.


Figure 2. Low-angle light aerial photo showing east-west furrows from past agricultural practices in analysis area. Yellow line is proposed access road and well pad. Red dots are existing corner stakes from a different project. Orange line is approximate boundary for broken lands. GoogleEarth ® photo.

Native Vegetation: None of the proposed well pad and access road would reside on native vegetation. Within the analysis area, the native vegetation covers 376.7 acres. Within the USFS lands, the native vegetation covers 345.4 acres or 65.8% of the total. Nativity varies across these lands, being somewhat compromised toward the project area and broken lands. This is especially evident in the swales, where Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) may be dominant, and the uplands, where yellow sweetclover can dominate. Outside of the project area, away from the broken lands, extensive, contiguous, native habitats dominate. Six native plant community types were observed in the greater analysis area. (Faber‐Langendoen, 2001):

1. Great Plains Badlands Sparse Vegetation Complex (Figure 3) These are located on badland outcrops and eroding side slopes of buttes and hills.

2. Stipa comata ‐ Bouteloua gracilis ‐ Carex filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation (Figure 4) The undisturbed plateaus, table lands, and gentle side slopes above the swales and waterways in the project area contain upland grasslands dominated by green needlegrass (Stipa viridula), needle-and-thread (Stipa comata), red threeawn (Aristida purpurea), and blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis).

3. Prairie Wetlands: wet swales or intermittent creek bottoms (Figure 5) These contain hydrophytic species such as prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) and soft-stemmed bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani).

4. Fraxinus pennsylvanica ‐ Ulmus americana / Prunus virginiana Woodland (Figures 6) Also called “wooded draws,” they are found on cutbanks and bottomlands along creeks and deep swales.

5. Schizachyrium scoparium-Bouteloua (curtipendula, gracilis)-Carex filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation. (Figure 5) This is found on side slopes along ridges and valleys.

6. Symphoricarpos occidentalis Shrubland. (Figure 7) This is found in and around shallow swales. Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) is often co-dominant.


Figure 3. Badland outcrops along ravine on W edge of analysis area, along private/USFS border. View is to SW.

Figure 4. Upland grasslands dominated by needlegrasses 800’ to E of proposed well pad. View to E. Well pad corner stake is from a different project.


Figure 5. Prairie wetland (Wetland #2) along unnamed creek. This is a 0.09-acre PABFx wetland, an old impoundment in an intermittent stream bed. The stream is a riverine wetland (R4SBC). This dugout dam is 1000 feet to the south of the proposed access road. Stock tank is visible in upper left corner of photo. View is to SE. Photo taken June 30, 2013, two years before the Ridge Road Fire swept through the land in this view. This also shows reddish colored little bluestem, part of Schizachyrium scoparium-Bouteloua (curtipendula, gracilis)-Carex filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation. This vegetation type was harder to detect after the fire.

Figure 6. Wooded draws in breaks on east edge of analysis area. View is to S. These trees and shrubs were burned in the Ridge Road Fire.


Figure 7. Symphoricarpos occidentalis Shrubland visible in swale. Well pad stake is from another project. View is to N, 800’ E of proposed well pad.

WILDLIFE

Sharp-tailed Grouse were seen in three locations during the survey. One of these locations was within the analysis area. One active Sharp-tailed Grouse lek was observed 4,450 feet to the east of the analysis area. The remains of Sharp-tailed Grouse were observed at two locations within the analysis area. Apparently, they were the victims of coyote. A small cluster of Sharp-tailed Grouse scat was seen near an historic lek in the northwest quarter of the analysis area. One abandoned Golden Eagle nest was observed 3,170 feet to the east of the analysis area. Other birds in the vicinity included Western Meadowlark, Eastern Kingbird, Horned Lark, Vesper Sparrow, Ring-necked Pheasant, American Kestrel, Red-tailed Hawk, and Sharp-shinned Hawk. Other wildlife included pronghorn antelope, mule deer, and northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens). (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Some wildlife seen during the survey.

WETLANDS

The proposed well pad and access road may interest one wetland, Wetland #3, depending upon the exact well pad location (See Appendix A, Detail Map). Seven non-riverine wetlands are in the analysis area. Four are stock dams or dugouts (Figures 5 and 9). Three are palustrine wetlands created or enhanced by the construction of ND Highway 1804. Four riverine wetlands are in the analysis area; all are R4SBC wetlands, unnamed, intermittent creeks, dry most of the year. See Table 2 and Appendix A for details.


Figure 9. Wetlands 6 and 7 in analysis area. Green line is ownership, beige line is fence, which runs east and west. GoogleEarth ® photo

Table 2. Wetlands in Vicinity of Project ID NWI? ACRES WETLAND TYPE NOTES 1 Yes

1.12 PEM1C Dry most years based on aerial photos; highway construction enhanced

2 Yes 0.09 PABFx Old excavation in an intermittent stream bed.

3 Yes 0.71 PEM1C Dry most years based on aerial photos; highway construction enhanced; may intersect proposed well pad

4 Yes 0.09 PEM1C Dry most years based on aerial photos; highway construction enhanced

5 No 0.08 PABF Stock dam in intermittent stream bed

6 No 0.36 PABFx Stock dam in intermittent stream bed.

7 No 0.16 PABFx Stock dam in intermittent stream bed.

FEATURES

Within the USFS lands in the analysis area, there are 2.71 miles of fence line, four stock dams, and two stock tanks. Cattle grazing is common. There are 0.70 mile of USFS road (FSR 868), 1.19 miles of state highway, and 0.42 mile of abandoned pasture road. There are 0.69 mile of county road on private surface. There are only six oil and gas wells in the analysis area (Table 3 and Appendix A).

Table 3. Wells within Analysis Area FILE OPERATOR WELL NAME LAT LON STATUS 31210 BURLINGTON RESOURCES OIL & GAS COMPANY LP GLADSTONE 8-1-13MBH 48.0810843 -103.0961241 Confidential

31211 BURLINGTON RESOURCES OIL & GAS COMPANY LP GLADSTONE 6-1-13MBH 48.0810880 -103.0971272 Confidential

31212 BURLINGTON RESOURCES OIL & GAS COMPANY LP GLADSTONE 5-1-13TFH 48.0810887 -103.0973114 Confidential

31213 BURLINGTON RESOURCES OIL & GAS COMPANY LP GLADSTONE 4-1-13MBH 48.0810894 -103.0974956 Confidential



EFFECTS ANALYSIS

GENERAL

Design criteria are provided to avoid potential future effects unless there is a ‘no effect’ determination. If there are no adverse effects now or in the future, no avoidance measures are necessary.

There are no listed endangered or threatened plant species or proposed species on the DPG at this time.


Sprague’s Pipit is a Candidate Species and is considered under “Sensitive Wildlife Species.”

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Historical records show that wolf sightings are very rare within North Dakota. From 1981 to 1992, 10 wolves were killed in the Dakotas, five of them in 1991-92 (Licht 1992). One was shot in Dunn County in 1992, a den was discovered in the Turtle Mountains in 1994, and another was shot in Traill County in 2011. Additional sightings have been reported in the Killdeer Mountains in Dunn County (Johnson 1999). The Killdeer Mountains are about 40 miles to the south of the project area. Most wolves in North Dakota are likely dispersed animals that originated in northern Minnesota, Riding National Park or Spruce Woods Reserve, Manitoba. Currently, wolves are not known to inhabit the project area. The proposed project will have no effect on the gray wolf.

Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) Black-footed ferrets were historically found in North Dakota, mostly in the southwest portion of the state. They have been extirpated from the state. The Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan lists the need to reintroduce ferrets into suitable habitat. Since they rely almost exclusively on prairie dogs for food and den sites, suitable Black-footed Ferret habitat is large prairie dog towns or complexes of towns in close proximity to each other.

There is an active prairie dog town within the analysis area (#573), 1,600 feet to the south of the project area. The nearest location of potential black-footed ferret reintroduction is Management Area 3.63, 40 miles to the southwest of the project area. The nearest black-footed ferret population is 220 miles to the southeast on the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation. There are no known ferrets outside of the reintroduction areas and captive breeding locations and their existence outside of these locations is extremely unlikely. The proposed project will have no effect on the species.

Whooping Crane (Grus americana) Locations: According to the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) and the FWS recovery plan, “areas characterized by wetland mosaics appear to provide the most suitable stopover habitat.” Migration patterns show that the “cranes primarily used shallow, seasonally and semipermanently flooded palustrine wetlands for roosting, and various cropland and emergent wetlands for feeding.” The large reservoir margins in the Dakotas were included in this category. Riverine habitats are also used by the cranes during migration, roosting on “submerged sandbars in wide, unobstructed channels that are isolated from human disturbance” (CWS FWS 2007; page 18) (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Whooping Crane observations 1943-1999 in North Dakota and Montana (adapted from Austin 2001).

Migration: The Aransas-Wood Buffalo Whooping Crane population (AWBP) migrates “southeasterly through Alberta, Saskatchewan, and eastern Manitoba, stopping in southern Saskatchewan for several weeks in fall migration before continuing migration into the United States. They migrate through the Great Plains states of eastern Montana, North


Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Their spring migration is more rapid and they simply reverse the route followed in fall.” They spend three months of the year in migration (CWS FWS 2007; page 13).

On average, the AWBP depart from Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Texas between March 25 and April 15. The northward migration is normally completed in 2-4 weeks. Typically, nesting pairs arrive in Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP) in late April, lay eggs from late April to mid-May, and hatching occurs in late May to mid-June. The cranes remain in WBNP for the remainder of the summer. Normally, the autumn migration of AWBP from WBNP in Alberta begins in mid-September. Birds linger in northern Saskatchewan for 2-4 weeks then make a rapid migration to their wintering grounds at the ANWR, usually covering the distance in a week. Cranes have lingered in North Dakota into November. Winter storms play a role in migration timing.

Threats: Threats to Whooping Cranes in North Dakota include: (1) Damage to migration habitat as a result of drought, cattle grazing, contaminated runoff, widespread draining of prairie pothole wetlands and diversions of major river systems, (2) low genetic diversity, (3) power line collisions, (4) predation, and (5) illegal shooting. Whooping Cranes have shown an aversion to human activity. They will respond negatively to aircraft and humans on foot. This aversion may limit their ability to obtain food resources and weaken individuals and social structure.

Project: The proposed well pad and access road would may intersect Wetland #3. This is a very small, isolated, palustrine wetland. Four riverine wetlands are in the analysis area; all are R4SBC wetlands, unnamed, intermittent creeks, dry most of the year. There are seven non-riverine wetlands in the analysis area. Three are palustrine wetlands created or enhanced by the construction of ND Highway 1804. Four are palustrine stock dams or dugouts with open, shallow water (Figures 5 and 9). One is a PABFx wetland 1,000 feet to the south of the proposed access road; this wetland is separated from the proposed access road by a ridge (Figure 11). The other three are stock dams located on the opposite side of ND Highway 1804, over 1,200 feet to the west. The Yellowstone River is 40.5 miles to the west of the project and the Missouri River is 0.9 mile to the north. Suitable feeding wetland habitat is present in the analysis area in the shallows of the stock ponds, the riverine wetlands during periods of flow, and other three palustrine wetlands during high water. Records of Whooping Crane stopovers in interior McKenzie County are rare. No Whooping Cranes were seen in the survey. The project distance from and lack of intersect with suitable wetland habitat and the rarity of Whooping Crane sightings indicate that the proposed project will have no effect on Whooping Cranes or their habitat.

Figure 11. Distance between proposed access road and Wetland #2, a PABFx wetland carved out of an intermittent creek (R4SBC). Ridge between wetland and road is 1987 feet at the summit. Road is at 1961 feet along ND Highway 1804. Runoff would follow the ditch along the highway, moving south toward the intermittent creek where it meets the highway. The creek flows to the west. GoogleEarth ® photo


Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) Locations: According to the FWS recovery plan, “Interior least terns breed in the Mississippi and Rio Grande River Basins from Montana to Texas and from eastern New Mexico and Colorado to Indiana and Louisiana. From late April to August they occur primarily on barren to sparsely vegetated riverine sandbars, dike field sandbar islands, sand and gravel pits, and lake and reservoir shorelines” (FWS 1990; page ii). Essential breeding habitat in North Dakota for Interior Least Tern is found along “about 192 km [119 miles] of the Missouri River from Garrison Dam to the mouth of the Cannonball River south of Bismarck, and about 29 km [18 miles] of the Yellowstone River in North Dakota from the Montana border to the river’s confluence with the Missouri River. A few Interior Least Terns nest on islands, shorelines and sandbars along the reservoir, Lake Oahe, an impoundment on the Missouri River in North and South Dakota. In Montana, breeding Interior Least Terns recently have been recorded on the Yellowstone River, and on the Missouri River between Fort Peck Reservoir and North Dakota” (FWS 1990; page 3). Suitable riverine breeding habitat is “sparsely vegetated sand and gravel bars within a wide unobstructed river channel, or salt flats along lake shorelines. Nesting locations usually are at the higher elevations and away from the water’s edge” (FWS 1990; page 20) and occur during periods of normal to low flows. No records of Interior Least Terns in the analysis area were cited by the USFS, FWS or NDPR.

Habits: Interior Least Terns nest for 4 to 5 months, arriving in late April to early June and departing by early September. They show strong breeding site fidelity and a small home range. Human presence has been shown to reduce reproductive success. While Interior Least Terns subsist on a diet that includes numerous species of small fish, they also feed on crustaceans, insects, mollusks and annelids.

Threats: The conversion of the Missouri River from a braided river with numerous channels, sandbars, oxbows, and pools to a single, narrow, relatively uniform navigation channel has eliminated much of the tern’s habitat. In addition, reservoirs have submerged hundreds of miles of habitat, captured clay, silt and sand that build sandbars downstream, and produced discharges that fail to mimic those that occurred naturally. Other threats include surface or water contaminants, as by chemical spills, and vehicular and human traffic on beach habitat.

Project: The proposed well pad and access road may intersect Wetland #3. Four riverine wetlands are in the analysis area; all are R4SBC wetlands, unnamed, intermittent creeks, dry most of the year. There are seven non-riverine wetlands in the analysis area. Three are palustrine wetlands created or enhanced by the construction of ND Highway 1804. Four are palustrine stock dams or dugouts with open, shallow water (Figures 5 and 9). One is a PABFx wetland 1,000 feet to the south of the proposed access road; this wetland is separated from the proposed access road by a ridge (Figure 11). The other three are stock dams located on the opposite side of ND Highway 1804, over 1,200 feet to the west. The Yellowstone River is 40.5 miles to the west of the project and the Missouri River is 0.9 mile to the north. Suitable shoreline habitat is not present within the project area. Records of Interior Least Tern in interior McKenzie County are rare. No Interior Least Terns were observed in the survey. The proposed project will have no effect on Interior Least Terns or their habitat.

Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) Locations: The pallid sturgeon is known only to occur in the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers. It requires large rivers with swift and free-flowing, turbid, warmwater habitat with diverse and fluctuating structure. This diverse structure includes braiding, floodplains, oxbows, backwaters, sloughs, chutes, side channels, islands, sandbars snags, cutbanks, and organic debris. Most recent records show the pallid sturgeon in or near North Dakota in the following locations:

From the Missouri River between the Marias River and Ft. Peck Reservoir in Montana; between Ft. Peck Dam and Lake Sakakawea (near Williston, North Dakota); within the lower 113 km (70 mi) of the Yellowstone River to downstream of Fallon, Montana. (FWS 1993; page 5)

Habits: Historically, spawning migrations occurred during the two periods of spring floodflows: April, when snowmelt from the Great Plains entered the river system, and late May and June when snowmelt from the Rocky Mountains entered the river system. The sturgeon spawns from June to August. It is surmised that the sturgeon spawns over rough rock or gravel substrate found in the relatively swift waters in the main channel of the Missouri River. Suspended sediment provides essential cover for hatchlings and small sturgeon and maintains food sources adapted to turbid waters. Diet includes immature aquatic invertebrates and fish, primarily cyprinids.

Threats: Reservoirs along the Missouri River have been the primary threat to pallid sturgeon. This has: (1) altered the river dimensions (2) altered patterns of water velocity, discharge, depth, and temperature, (3) blocked fish movement, (4) reduced turbidity and organic debris, (5) reduced bed roughness, and (6) inundated spawning and nursing areas.


Approximately 36% of riverine habitat on the mainstem of the Missouri River has been lost due to the construction of six reservoirs and another 40% has been lost to channelization. As a result, most suitable spawning and foraging habitat has been lost. In turn, reproduction of the pallid sturgeon in the Missouri or Yellowstone Rivers had not been documented for decades. In recent years, some reproduction has been observed, a result of habitat restoration (Krentz 1997, FWS 2000, USGS 2007).

Project: The proposed well pad and access road may interest Wetland #3. The Yellowstone River is 40.5 miles to the west of the project and the Missouri River is 0.9 mile to the north. No pallid sturgeons were observed in the survey. A project such as this has the potential for a chemical spill which would have the potential to work its way into the Missouri River. However, with the implementation of a Spill Prevention, and Containment and Countermeasure Plan, measures to prevent, contain, or collect excess erosion, and HDD bypass at all wetland crossings, it is expected that the proposed project will have no effect on pallid sturgeon or its habitat.

THREATENED SPECIES

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Locations: Piping Plovers spend spring and summer months in North Dakota, breeding and raising young. Breeding, nesting, and foraging habitat occur in North Dakota on open, sandy to gravelly, sparsely vegetated beaches and bars along the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers. About 15% of the Plovers in North Dakota are found along the Missouri River from Garrison Dam south to the mouth of the Cannonball River and along the Yellowstone River in McKenzie County. The remaining 85% of Plovers in North Dakota can be found on alkali wetlands on the Missouri Plateau.

Habits: Piping Plovers spend 3-4 months in North Dakota, arriving from the third week in April to the second week in May. Nesting occurs from late April through June (Table 4) (Murphy 1999). Hatching begins in late May and continues into June. The adult birds begin to abandon nests as early as mid-July and normally, all Piping Plovers have left by early August. Some have stayed at the breeding grounds into September. Juveniles depart a few weeks later and normally, all have left by late August. Similar observations have been made for the Great Lakes population. Breeding site fidelity is variable from region to region, based on the shifting quality of nest sites as water levels, shoreline exposure, and gravel component vary from year to year. Piping Plovers feed on small invertebrates including worms, fly larvae, beetles, crustaceans, mollusks.

Threats: As with Interior Least Terns, the conversion of the Missouri River from a braided river with numerous channels, sandbars, oxbows, and pools to a single, narrow, relatively uniform navigation channel has eliminated much of the Plover’s habitat. Reservoirs have submerged hundreds of miles of habitat, captured clay, silt and sand that build sandbars downstream, and produced discharges that fail to mimic those that occurred naturally. Other threats to Piping Plovers include surface or water contaminants, as by chemical spills, vehicular and human traffic on beach habitat, and vegetation encroachment which provides cover for predators. On alkaline wetlands, Plover are threatened by cattle trampling, wetland drainage, and chemical contaminants.

Potential threats to Plover populations and individuals include the following (FWS 2013):

• Dredging and dredge spoil placement

• Seismic exploration

• Construction and installation of facilities, waterlines, and roads associated with oil and gas development

• Oil spills and oil spill clean-up

• Construction of dwellings, roads, marinas, and other structures

• Associated construction impacts such as staging of equipment and materials

• Beach nourishment, stabilizations and cleaning

• Certain types and levels of recreational activities such as all-terrain vehicular activity

• Stormwater and wastewater discharge from communities

• Sale, exchange, or lease of Federal land with suitable habitat that is likely to result in habitat degradation

• Marsh restoration

• Military maneuvers

Project: The proposed well pad and access road may intersect Wetland #3. Four riverine wetlands are in the analysis area; all are R4SBC wetlands, unnamed, intermittent creeks, dry most of the year. There are seven non-riverine wetlands in the analysis area. Three are palustrine wetlands created or enhanced by the construction of ND Highway 1804. Four


are palustrine stock dams or dugouts with open, shallow water (Figures 5 and 9). One is a PABFx wetland 1,000 feet to the south of the proposed access road; this wetland is separated from the proposed access road by a ridge (Figure 11). The other three are stock dams located on the opposite side of ND Highway 1804, over 1,200 feet to the west. The Yellowstone River is 40.5 miles to the west of the project and the Missouri River is 0.9 mile to the north. Suitable shoreline habitat is not present within the project area. Records of Piping Plovers in interior McKenzie County are rare. No Piping Plovers were observed in the survey. The proposed project will have no effect on Piping Plovers or their habitat.

Table 4. Percent of Piping Plover Nest Initiations in Central North Dakota, April - June

Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) Basis: In 2012, the Federal Register stated that “listing this species is warranted” and that the FWS was preparing proposed listing determinations (FWS 2012; pages 70008, 700013). On December 11, 2014, the FWS listed this species as Threatened (FWS 2014d; page 73706).

Location: Red Knots migrate from southern South America to breeding grounds in the Canadian Arctic, a distance of over 18,000 miles. The primary summer breeding grounds are in the Canadian Nunavut Territory. In the US, populations ordinarily winter from December to February along the Gulf of Mexico from Texas to Louisiana and the southeastern US from Florida to North Carolina. Some arrive as early as September and leave as late as May. There are other smaller overwintering populations along the gulf coast from the Florida panhandle, through Alabama and Mississippi, to eastern Louisiana and along the Atlantic coast in Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and Nova Scotia.

Spring and fall migrating Red Knots pass through shoreline habitats all along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. Their prime stopover is Delaware Bay, where an estimated 50 to 80 percent of all red knots stop during the spring. Other stopovers include James Bay, the northern Bay of Fundy, the north shore of the St. Lawrence Gulf, Cape Cod Bay, Chesapeake Bay, and Delaware Bay. There is evidence of inland migration routes, individual birds passing over Kentucky, the Great Lakes, and the Northern Great Plains (Figure 12). The FWS observes:

In the United States, data sets contain roughly 1,900 records of knots more than 25 miles from any ocean coast. Most records in the interior states show small numbers (fewer than 10) of knots, but there are multiple records in nearly every inland state...Use of an interior route through the United States and Canada has also been documented by resightings in Manitoba and Alberta, Canada of birds that had been marked in Florida. (FWS 2014c; page 2)

Another FWS report adds:

Geolocator results from seven red knots (one with 2 years of data) wintering in Texas showed that all these birds used a central, overland flyway across the midcontinental United States. Birds flew 1,600 to 2,000 mi to the first stopover. A Northern Great Plains stopover (Saskatchewan, Canada, and, for one bird, North Dakota, United States) was used by five of six birds in 2010, while southern Hudson Bay in Manitoba, Canada (the Nelson River delta and James Bay), was used by one bird in 2010 and all three birds in 2011. These findings support earlier reports of large numbers (1,000 to 2,500) of red knots in Saskatchewan and Alberta, Canada, between January and June. Following publication of the Newstead et al. study results, additional geolocator data became available showing six additional red knots stopping on the U.S. side of the Northern Plains—three in North Dakota, two in Montana, and one possibly in Nebraska…Geolocators on seven birds wintering in Texas showed they all used a similar and direct interior flyway across the midcontinental United States during the southbound migration. (FWS 2014b; pages 57-8)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

April 23-30 May 1-7 May 8-15 May 16-23 May 24-31 June 1-7 June 8-15 June 16-23 June 24-30


Chronology: The median Arctic arrival date is June 10 and the departure date is July 22; nonbreeding Knots have been reported during June along coastal, Great Lakes, and Northern Plains US and Canada. Knots migrating in the fall on the mid-Atlantic coast have been observed from July to late September. Knots on the spring interior migration route departed from Texas in mid-May, taking 2-3 days to reach Hudson Bay. Knots on the fall interior migration route arrived in Hudson Bay from mid to late July. They lingered for about 2 weeks before departing on a 2 to 3-day flight, arriving in Texas in August. (FWS 2014b) Thus, stopovers in North Dakota could be expected around mid-May and early August. Some individual knots use the Northern Plains in the spring and switch to the Great Lakes or Atlantic Coast in the fall.

Habitat: Within the US, during migration or overwintering, Red Knots live along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts in mangrove swamps, sandy beaches, tidal mudflats, oyster reefs, brackish lagoons, exposed bay bottoms, and salt marshes. On interior migration routes, the FWS observes:

Available information suggests that red knots use inland saline lakes as stopover habitat in the Northern Great Plains. For example, Skagen et al. reported peak counts of over 1,000 red knots between January and June over the period 1980 to 1996 at several saline lakes in the northern Plains of southern Canada. In May 2005, 25 red knots were observed at North Dakota’s Long Lake NWR…Long Lake is a natural saline lake, suggesting that this may be a habitat type used by inland-migrating knots. Geolocator data show red knots stopping in the Northern Great Plains in spring. Although the Northern Plains encompass a large area, most of the concentrations of red knots recorded in recent years have been at Chaplin, Reed, and Quill Lakes in Saskatchewan, Canada, all saline lakes. Further, geolocator data from one bird that stopped in North Dakota indicate this bird utilized a salty environment (e.g., natural alkaline lake or wetland). (FWS 2014b; page 68)

About 85% of the salt lakes in this region are playa lakes, drying up in late summer. It is theorized that Red Knots may also use freshwater lakes in the interior migration. There have been clusters of sightings of Red Knot along the Mississippi River and its tributaries on wetlands and sandbars and they have been regularly observed along a portion of the Missouri River in North Dakota since 2005. Elsewhere, they have been observed using manmade lakes. They have been seen on sewage lagoons in North Dakota, Minnesota, and Oklahoma. They have been seen on reservoirs in Colorado, Oklahoma, Iowa, Illinois, and Arkansas. They have been observed on fish hatchery ponds, river flood plains, and managed wetland complexes in Oklahoma. (FWS 2014b)

Figure 12. Distribution of Rufa Red Knot in North Dakota (Derived from ebird.org and FWS 2014).

Threats: The primary threat to Red Knots has been the decline of available horseshoe crab eggs in Delaware Bay. This has been the result of horseshoe crab harvests for fish bait and the biomedical industry. Lesser threats excessive beach


erosion due to major weather events, shoreline stabilization, protection and development, wind turbines, harmful algal blooms, and oil pollution. High water levels in inland lakes may be a deterrent to Red Knot stopovers. The FWS adds:

We have determined that the rufa red knot is threatened due to loss of both breeding and nonbreeding habitat; potential for disruption of natural predator cycles on the breeding grounds; reduced prey availability throughout the nonbreeding range; and increasing frequency and severity of asynchronies (‘‘mismatches’’) in the timing of the birds’ annual migratory cycle relative to favorable food and weather conditions. (FWS 2014a; page 27549).

Project: The proposed well pad and access road may intersect Wetland #3. Four riverine wetlands are in the analysis area; all are R4SBC wetlands, unnamed, intermittent creeks, dry most of the year. There are seven non-riverine wetlands in the analysis area. Three are palustrine wetlands created or enhanced by the construction of ND Highway 1804. Four are palustrine stock dams or dugouts with open, shallow water (Figures 5 and 9). One is a PABFh wetland 1,000 feet to the south of the proposed access road; this wetland is separated from the proposed access road by a ridge (Figure 11). The other three are stock dams located on the opposite side of ND Highway 1804, over 1,200 feet to the west. The Yellowstone River is 40.5 miles to the west of the project and the Missouri River is 0.9 mile to the north. None of the wetlands within the analysis area give evidence of saline conditions. The riverine wetlands are intermittent and seasonal. Aside from the dugouts and dams, no permanent open water is present. Thus, potential stopovers for Red Knot are few and small and distant within the analysis area.

No suitable wetlands would be intersected by the project. Indirect contact could occur through chemical spill, such as fuel or hydraulic fluid for equipment used in construction, and excess erosion; debris and/or chemicals may work their way downslope into the wetlands, impacting knot habitat. Human activity may disturb knots. No Red Knots were observed in the survey.

Determination: In view of the absence of historic observations of Red Knots in McKenzie County, the project limitations, and the long distance to the marginally suitable habitat in the analysis area, the proposed project will have no effect on Red Knot or its habitat.

Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Basis: In 2013, the FWS proposed to list the northern long-eared bat as an endangered species throughout its range (FWS 2013d; page 61046). It was listed as a threatened species on April 2, 2015.

Distribution: Northern long-eared bat occurs across temperate western North America, from southwestern Saskatchewan to southern Alberta and British Columbia, south to Baja California, east to western New Mexico, and north to the western Dakotas. Hence, North Dakota lies at the eastern edge of its range. There have been at least 37 observations of the species in North Dakota, including 34 in McKenzie County on LMNG land (Figure 13). The nearest sighting was 11 miles to the southwest along the Little Missouri River.

Habitat: Throughout its range, northern long-eared bats have been associated with coniferous montane forests. It uses caves or abandoned mines for hibernation in the winter. In the summer, it has been observed roosting in fissures of cliffs, sinkholes, railroad trestles, deserted buildings, hollow trees, clear-cut stumps, and the loose bark of ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, juniper, and green ash. It typically forages over water such as creeks, rivers, and reservoirs. Night, nursery, and maternity roosts must be in close proximity to foraging areas. Long flights to foraging sites consume large amounts of energy. A New Hampshire study showed the mean distances between roost trees and foraging area varied from 197 to 5,640 feet with a mean distance of 1,975 feet; a Prince Edward Island study showed the average distance between roost trees and foraging sites of 3,609 feet (FWS 2015). Home ranges may extend to three miles. It has been observed at altitudes from sea level to over 8,000 feet.

Threats: The greatest threat to northern long-eared bats is White-nose Syndrome, a disease caused by a non-native fungus, Pseudogymnoascus destructans. Bat numbers have declined 99% in the Northeastern US since the fungus appeared. As of August 31, 2016, the fungus has not appeared in ND (FWS 2016) (Figure 14). Other threats include roost disturbance, usually by recreational activities, silviculture practices that lead to monotypic stands and remove mature, den, and dead trees, wetland destruction, pesticide use, and wind energy turbines.


Figure 13. Populations of northern long-eared bat in the Northern Great Plains (Compiled from Jones and Choate 1978, Lausen 2009, Lampe et al. 1974, Jones et al. 1973, Tigner and Stukel 2003, Lenard et al. 2009).

Figure 14. Northern long-eared bat range in relation to White-Nose Syndrome and Pseudogymnoascus destructans-positive counties/districts as of August 31, 2016 (derived from USFWS 2016). Red star marks project area.

Project: Project: The proposed well pad and access road may intersect Wetland #3, a small, isolated, palustrine wetland. Four riverine wetlands are in the analysis area; all are R4SBC wetlands, unnamed, intermittent creeks, dry most of the year. There are seven non-riverine wetlands in the analysis area. Three are palustrine wetlands created or enhanced by the construction of ND Highway 1804. Four are palustrine stock dams or dugouts with open, shallow water (Figures 5,


9, 15). One is a PABFx wetland 1,000 feet to the south of the proposed access road; this wetland is separated from the proposed access road by a ridge (Figure 11). The other three are stock dams located on the opposite side of ND Highway 1804, over 1,200 feet to the west. The wetlands have scattered woodlands along their banks (Figures 5, 9, and 15). These contain mid-sized trees such as green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and juniper (Juniperus scopulorum). There are buildings at the farmstead in the northern extremity of the analysis area. There are culverts beneath ND Highway 1804. The Yellowstone River is 40.5 miles to the west of the project and the Missouri River is 0.9 mile to the north.

Design Criteria to avoid potential future effects: Best management practices should be used during activities to minimize disturbances and reduce effects as much as possible. Construction dates should avoid critical time periods. Winter construction would avoid direct contact with northern long-eared bats while they are likely away from the region, hibernating at their winter roosts. Avoidance of shelterbelts, wooded draws, and floodplain forests is recommended during the summer. Care to minimize destruction of snags, den, or mature trees is recommended during any time frame. Protection of surface water quality is essential. The developer will need to implement a Spill Prevention, and Containment and Countermeasure Plan for this project and measures to prevent, contain, or collect excess erosion. HDD technology or bypass should be used at all wetland crossings. Details are contained in the section “Recommended Design Criteria”.

Determination: There are numerous potential roost trees in the analysis area in wooded draws and along the intermittent creeks. Open water is present at the four stock dams along the intermittent creeks. Thus, the proposed project may affect individuals. However, the project will not intersect any suitable open water wetlands or wooded draws. This reality and the application of the appropriate design criteria above indicate that the project would not likely adversely affect individuals, and is not expected to contribute to a trend toward elevated federal listing or loss of viability to individuals, the population, or species. The effects are expected to be insignificant.

Figure 15. Wetland #2, a PABFx wetland in an intermittent stream, adjacent to trees and woods. Site is 1,000 feet to S of project area.

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) The distribution of the western prairie fringed orchid in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands is limited to the Sheyenne National Grassland in southeastern North Dakota, 288 miles to the southeast. The proposed project will have no effect on the western-fringed prairie orchid or its habitat.

Dakota Skipper (Hesperia dakotae) Habitat: The Dakota skipper can survive only on high quality, native, undisturbed tall grass and mid‐grass prairie. In North Dakota, these sites include ungrazed, native prairie with little bluestem, needle‐and‐thread and purple coneflower and dry, upland prairie dominated by little and big bluestems, needlegrass, purple coneflower (Echinacea purpurea), pale purple coneflower (Echinacea pallida), prairie coneflowers (Ratibida colmnifera), and blanketflower (Gaillardia aristata). It is also found in association with harebell (Campanula rotundifolia), white prairie clover (Dalea candida), fleabanes (Erigeron), black‐eyed Susans (Rudbeckia hirta), and evening primrose (Oenothera serrulata). It


appears to prefer purple coneflower and, to a lesser extent, harebell as nectar sources. They are not found on habitats dominated by exotic plant species. They are “almost universally absent from grazed prairies in North Dakota” (Royer 2002; page 7). The FWS states:

Dakota skipper populations have declined historically due to widespread conversion of native prairie for agriculture and other uses. This has left remaining Dakota skipper populations isolated from one another in relatively small areas of remnant native prairie. States and Canadian provinces in the original range of Dakota skipper have each lost 85%‐99% of their historical tallgrass prairie and 72%‐99.9% of their historical mixed‐grass prairie. This has left isolated fragments of native prairie, only some of which are suitable for Dakota skippers. Dakota skippers are sensitive to several types of artificial and natural disturbances and are almost always absent from remnant prairies that are overgrazed or otherwise degraded. Because of this sensitivity, the historical persistence of Dakota skippers may have depended on the vastness of the prairie and the availability of immigrants to repopulate areas in which the species had been eliminated by disturbances, such as fire or intensive bison grazing. (FWS 2007; page 1)

Royer observes that “a reliable indicator of possible presence in the more xeric west is a combination of Needle and Thread (Stipa comata) and Narrow‐leaved Purple Coneflower (Echinacea angustifolia) in rolling upland pastures.” (Royer 2003; page 36) The upper reaches of woody ash-oak draws with wide margins and that contain Viola, Aster, Apocynum, Asclepias, and Monarda provide excellent habitat for this species. Also, south-facing prairie hilltops adjacent to these woody draws that contain Andropogon/Stipa associations and large populations of Echinacea angustifolia provide excellent habitat. A reliable indicator of possible Dakota skipper populations in western North Dakota is rolling upland prairie with both Needle-and-Thread and Purple Coneflower (Royer 2003).

The FWS (2015) describes the most suitable habitat for Dakota skipper on the western edge of its range as a variant of the “Type B” habitat. This contains an association of little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii)

Gunslinger Federal 2-12-1H Gunslinger Federal 6-12-1TFH ... · Gunslinger Federal 2-12-1H,...

Documents

Transcript of Gunslinger Federal 2-12-1H Gunslinger Federal 6-12-1TFH ... · Gunslinger Federal 2-12-1H,...