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)

51.1248 (Little Snake) L

LITTLE SNAKE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT

LEVEL III INTERIM WILDLIFE IMPACT REPORT

Reservoir Options

Presented to:

STATE OF WYOMING

WYOMING WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

DECEMBER, 1984

Prepared By:

WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .•.•••••

PROjECT DESCR IPT ION • • • • • Project Area Description.

METHODS ••• • Aquatic Terrestrial.

WILDLIFE RESOURCES ••. Aquatic ••••• Terrestrial

POTENTIAL IMPACTS Aquatic .• Terrestrial ..

RECOMMENDATIONS . Genera 1 Recommendat ions. • . • • .

Aquatic Recommendations Mitigation Recommendations ••.•••

Aquatic .••.•.••. Terrestrial .••••••••••

Combined Impacts to Wildlife. . ••• Enhancement Opportunities ..

SELECTED REFERENCES ••• • • •

Page

1

1 1-2

2 2-6 6-7

7 7-10

10-14

14 14-16 16-19

19 19

19-20 21

21-22 22 22 22

23-24

I NTRODUCT ION

This level 3 reconnaissance study is written to provide preliminary fishery and wildlife concerns on the Little Snake River water development project. Data in this report has been taken from Wyoming Game and Fish ( WG F) f i 1 e san d from fed era 1 and p r i vat e i n v est i gat ion s con d u c ted i nth i s area. Impacts have been further evaluated through on-site inspections, mapping, and wi ldl ife and fisheries studies and inventories. The report covers four reservoir alternatives including Fish Creek, Upper Savery, Sandstone, and Three Forks. This report provides wildlife and fishery con­cerns and ranks the four alternatives according to their impact to wildlife. Some i nformat i on and conc 1 us ions may change as the project becomes better defined or changes are made. The Fish Creek site has also been discussed in a prev i ous report to Wyomi ng Water Deve 1 opment Commi ss i on (WWDC) (Rudd and Oedekoven, 1983). In addition, the collector system which would be used to collect water for the Fish Creek reservoir is also discussed in a separate report to WWDC (Wyo. Game and Fish Dept., 1984).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

In 1979, a water management study of the Little Snake River Basin was initiated by the Wyoming State Legislature. The study called for a plan to develop stored water within the Little Snake River Basin for transfer to the North Platte System and for additional in-basin uses. Since that time, a number of potential storage sites, pipelines and collector systems have been suggested for this purpose. This report discusses wildlife and fishery impacts associated with four of these alternatives. Of these sites, only Fish Creek currently has a collection pipeline associated with it. Since a separate report has been prepared on this proposed pipeline, it will not be covered here. However, when the various projects are ranked for impacts to wi 1 dl if e and fi sheri es, the co 11 ect i on pi pe 1 i ne wi 11 be cons i dered along with its impacts when Fish Creek is compared to alternative reservoirs.

Project Area Description

The Little Snake River Basin lies in south central Wyoming south and east of the to\'JO of Saratoga (Figure 1). The continental divide separates the Little Snake River Basin from the North Platte River basin. The major tributaries to the Little Snake River in Wyoming are Savery and Muddy Creeks. The headwaters of the Little Snake River are in Colorado, but it enters Wyoming near the to\'JO of Slater and flows west along the border through the town of Baggs, Wyoming. Three of the four reservoir sites are located along Savery Creek and the fourth is located on the Little Snake River, mostly in Colorado (Figure 1). Sizes and locations of all these reservoirs are in Table 1. The site location maps are in Figures 2 through 5.

- 1 -

(

t ORTH SAVERY AND FISH CREEK

RESERVOIR

WYOMING

SARATOGA 2

---C'6LORADo - ------ -----

~ -N-

I

o I 2 '3 4 5 Miles

.,...... -SCALE

Figure 1. Study Area Map With Reservoir Sites Plotted.

1a

/ .-

12

TI6N

8

)/ --1----1-...

- ... --.. ~ ... ~~~... I "'~'" ~ ... , .. ""'---- ...

1. .'"

- ... - ... ~ ")

j

L,,J /;/

'7r~ ... J/~.:~" /"'7 y.// .. : v: r\. ..... .','

/. ~~ ... -1). ---;.'.

. .' /,'. .,/ \..-'\... . . I. . " .. ' ... / //\1 ... /., SOv "'J 2,.,. ..': r./.

-"--~ 6',:;, /.... '/' .. ' c......:.-/ . .. ------ ... '

... ~ ... "'--"""""

'\ '\ .~

~' 13 17

.. .-/-------.. ~

1 -N-

\

\.... 0 ~r~ ... \ ... ,-: ... ,... '-... ~

V :' "'7.. 19 ""'-"'_"'---'" ... ~-V-"'.r'''~ ". '" At "'---'"

(t·

! R 88 W R87W

o IMile /

-( ..

/ ... ':

" Fi<Jurc 2. Nor1h SU\lt:ry ond Fi'ih Cretlk Study Arta Map.

Ib

-: ..,:)

;; yJ

.::: "0 "0 r.> ..., (J) 0 <: r.>

.< (J)

c c.

l:> ~ 0 c

....... ~

n c 3' ~

()

0° £ :I: 0 ~

~

~ 0

(I) Q.

1/2 I Mile

{ -N-

I

TI5N

TI4N

- +- ----""'-+--

14

-1"------

/

26

R89W R88W

7

24

MULE DEER MIGRATION

ROUTE

)

j

o 1/2 1 Mile

~ N

\

MEDICINE BOW

NATIONAL FOREST

R86W Rf ------ -

R87W

ROUTT

N

I I FOREST

I I

__ ---J o 1/2 1 Mile

Figure 5. Three Forks Study Area Map with Critical Habitat Plotted.

Ie

Tab 1 e 1. Sizes, locations, and elevations of reservoir alternatives for the Little Snake River Water Project.

Size Location Elevation Reservoir Site (Acres) (Dam) (MHWL)

Fish Creek 945 SWi,SEi, Sec. 18 7,800 TI6N, R87W

Upper Savery 1,200 NEi,NEi, Sec. 35 7,167 TI5N, R89W

Sandstone 830 NE i , NE *, Sec. 2 6,958 TI3N, R89W

Three Forks 1,550 SWi, Sec. 18 7,161 TI2N, R87W

METHODS

Aquatic

In order to identify areas in the Little Snake River Basin where fishery concerns could present potential conflicts to water development, a four cri­teria method is used. It is designed to aid evaluation and resolution of potential conflicts in the water development planning process.

Stream reaches are identified as having high, moderate, and low poten­tial fishery conflict. Although final project design will dictate the ac t u a 1 d eg r e e 0 f imp ac t , the a qua tic i mp ac t pot e n t i a 1 w h i c h mig h t res u 1 t from a planned or future development activity is addressed by this report. Close coordination with the WGF is recommended on those areas with high and moderate potential conflict to incorporate features which will minimize conflicts and avoid development where potentially serious conflicts cannot be eliminated by design features.

Water development projects may offer the opportunity for fisheries enhancements. Areas of low conflict present the opportunity for the greatest fishery benefits. These beneficial aspects could include develop­ment of reservoir habitat, instream flow enhancement, protection from habi­tat degradation due to flooding, and increased public access. While areas of low conflict offer the greatest opportunity for enhancement, increasing degree and number of conflicts will require increasingly intensive mitiga­tion measures with reduced opportunity for beneficial impacts.

Stream reaches were evaluated using four criteria. The first was stream class. Classification of stream fisheries is composed of five categories:

Class 1. Premium trout waters, fisheries of national importance. Class 2. Very good trout waters, fisheries of statewide importance. Class 3. Important trout waters, fisheries of regional importance. Class 4. Low production waters, fisheries frequently of local impor-

tance, but generally incapable of sustaining substantial fishing pressure.

- 2 -

Class 5. Very low production water, often incapable of sustaining a fishery.

Class 1 and 2 streams represent the very best stream fisheries in Wyoming. This very valuable and scarce public resource warrants protection. These streams comprise only 10.4% of the total stream miles in Wyoming. Also, Class 1 and 2 streams typically are streams which have fishery values and characteristics which cannot be replaced by a reservoir. For these reasons, a high degree of conflict with proposed development could exist on any Class 1 or 2 stream reach.

The importance of the fishery resource generally decreases from Class 3 to Class 5. Moderate conflicts would be expected on Class 3 streams. Class 4 streams present low conflicts and the opportunity may exist to enhance the fishery resource on some of the lower class streams. Information on stream class was obtained from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department Stream and Lake Inventory. This computerized inventory and classification of Wyoming fisheries was developed in late 1960's and has been updated annually.

Presence of aquatic species was the second criterion. Spec i es were ranked using the following criteria:

I. Federally listed threatened or endangered species.

II. State listed rare species (Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 1977), which include:

1. A species that occupies only a small percentage of the preferred habitat within its range or a species that is found throughout its range in extremely low den­sities; cannot always be found by a skilled observer even during intensive survey work,

2. Species with known declining populations and/or habitat cond it ions or wi th i nd i cators that the i r popu 1 at ions and/or habitat conditions are declining throughout all or part of their geographic range. Known accidental species records are not included,

3. High priority to maintain or increase current population levels or to document population levels of undetermined species. Species of high interest.

III. Indigenous trout species.

I V • Game f ish.

Documented federally listed, threatened or endangered or state rare spe­cies (both game and nongame fish) were ranked as a potentially high conflict. Native game fish species were rated as having a moderate conflict and non-native game fish were rated as a low conflict. This criterion only addresses the presence of documented species. Issues pertinent to a par­ticular fish population (e.g., high standing crop, self-sustaining) are addressed in other criteria.

- 3 -

Two s p e c i e s , Color ado R i ve r cut t h r 0 at t r 0 u t ( Sal mo c 1 ark i p 1 e uri tic us) and bluehead suckers (Catostomas discobolus), considered rare by WGF (1977) h a v e bee n doc u me n ted i n the Lit t 1 e S n a k e R i ve r Bas in. A h i g h po tent i a 1 confl ict has been ass igned to stream reaches where these spec ies are pre­sent. No federally listed threatened or endangered species have been docu­mented in the Little Snake River Basin in Wyoming, but water depletion may affect downstream reaches which contain threatened or endangered species.

The third criterion was the management concept under which the stream is managed. The five concepts are: wild, species, trophy, basic yield and put-and-take (Stone, 1978).

The objective of the wild concept is to provide fishermen with the opportunity to catch fish which are of wild origin. Such fisheries are sup­ported entirely by natural recruitment. Waters considered for this concept must have those attributes which allow fish to complete their full life cycles in adequate numbers to support a fishery. This excludes the applica­tion of this concept from many waters and emphasizes the importance of pre­serving the integrity of these aquatic ecosystems so that management under this concept can be maintained. The following criteria have been established as guidelines for management under the wild concept:

1. Waters with high natural recruitment potential. 2. Population densities must be capable of sustaining a fishery

without supplemental stocking.

The species concept is applied to fisheries where the main management objective is to provide a fishery comprised of a particular species or subspecies. Prime examples are management of certain streams to maintain or reestablish their native trout species.

The trophy concept is nearly self-explanatory. The objective of manage­ment under this concept is to provide the opportunity to catch larger than average or trophy fish.

The objective of the basic yield concept is to provide general fishing opportunity. These fisheries are primarily supported by fish which are of hatchery origin but which grew to a catchable size in the wild. This is in contrast with situations where fish raised to a catchable size in a hatchery are stocked.

The put-and-take or catchable concept is based upon the stocking of fish which were raised to a catchable size in the hatchery.

Spec i es present, in add i t i on to the management concept, were used to evaluate the potential conflict for this criterion. Streams with indigenous game fish and managed under the wild, species, or trophy concept were rated as having a potentially high conflict. Streams with non-native game fish managed under wild, species, or trophy, were rated as moderate conflict. Basic yield regardless of the species was also rated as a moderate conflict. Streams managed under the put-and-take concept have a low conflict.

The fourth criterion, utilization, was used to address the myriad of special uses associated with the lotic resource. Examples of a high conflict special use would be a stream under study for inclusion in the Wild

- 4 -

and Scenic River System or serving an irreplaceable state or federal func­tion (e.g., wild brood stock) or intensive public use. An example of moderate conflict would be high public use. A brief explanation is provided for the special uses which have a high or moderate conflict in the matrix analysis.

Each stream or stream reach was ranked in descending order by the degree of potential conflict using matrix analysis (Table 2). Some streams are broken down into stream reaches for the Department I s management purposes. These reaches are identified by stream name and water number associated with the particular reach in the Stream and Lake Inventory. A stream reach with a high conflict for each of the four criteria would present the highest potential conflict. Using this logic, a stream with a high conflict under only one criterion, while still having a high conflict, would be rated below a reach which has a high confl ict under more than one criterion. The various classification reflects only relative potential impacts and should not be used to obtain a point score or a specific quantitative estimate of impacts.

Bureau of Land Management surface management quad maps were used as the base map. Each stream or stream reach is de 1 i neated by name, water number, and degree of potential conflict.

Table 2. Conflict classification summary for basin-wide evaluations.

Category

Stream Class

Description

1 2 3 4 5

Potent i a 1

High

Moderate Lo\'/

Conflict

H H M L L

Species Present Federally listed threatened or endangered State listed rare

H H M L

Native game fish Non-native game fish

Management Concept Species, Trophy H Wild - native trout H Wild - non-native game fish M Basic yield M Put and take L

Special Use Wild and Scenic (existing or proposed) H Serves irreplaceable state or federal function H Intensive public use H Serves replaceable state or federal function M Moderate to high public use M

In addition to the potential conflict classification, site specific habitat evaluations were made using the Habitat Quality Index (HQI) (Binns, 1982). Where possible, given the time constraints, species inven-

- 5 -

tories and populations estimates were updated using electrofishing tech­niques.

The Habitat Unit (HU) concept was used to address potential losses in stream habitat with the various reservoirs using HOI evaluations. A HU is the qual ity of habitat necessary to support one pound of trout per acre. Binns (1976, 1979) derived and described the justification and limitations of this approach.

Habi tat eva 1 uat ions conducted in the Savery Ora i nage thi s year are biased low as a result of the flooding experienced this year. Damage to the stream habitats, particularly eroding banks, are reflected in the habitat evaluation and result in a lower habitat value. This does not appear to be a problem in this evaluation because all streams in the drainage appeared to suffer the same degree of impact. As the streams return to a condition of equilibrium, the habitat value will undoubtedly increase.

A catchable trout stocking program is being conducted on stream reaches at the Fish Creek and Sandstone sites. Population estimates which reflected these stocking programs were not used in these evaluations.

Terrestrial

All vegetation types on the proposed reservoir sites have been habitat mapped. Aerial photos were used to locate and map vegetation types present on each reservoir site and these were then checked for accuracy during on­site visits. Once these maps were completed, the acres of each vegetation type were measured and summed. These vegetation maps and summaries for each reservoir are included in this report.

Small mammal data was obtained by on-site trapping, reviewing the South Central Animal Density Study (Wyo. Game and Fish Dept., 1980), and by reviewing the Wyoming Mammal Atlas (Findholt, 1981). On-site small mammal trapping using sherman live traps and museum special snap traps was con­ducted during September in 1983. Traplines were run in four vegetation types which represented the most common types to be flooded. The vegetation types included: mountain mixed shrub, sagebrush grassland, willow riparian, and cottonwood riparian.

Each trapline consisted of 25 trapping stations with one live trap and two snap traps at each station. Stations were placed 15 meters apart and traps were baited with an oatmeal-peanut butter mixture. Each trapline ran for 5 to 7 days and all traps were checked daily for captures. All mammals caught were identified and recorded on field forms.

Nongame bird data \\fas obtained from on-site bird transects and by reviewing the Wyoming Avian Atlas (Oakleaf et ale 1982). In 1983, three breeding bird transects were conducted on the Fish Creek site. The vegeta­tion types sampled included sagebrush, wet meadow, and willow riparian. In 1984. transects were placed in the cottonwood ripari an, mountain shrub, sagebrush, and willow vegetation types. These were chosen because they were the most common on all of the reservoir sites. During 1983, belt transects 1,000 meters long and 100 meters wide were used in all vegetation types. In 1984, this belt transect was used in the cottonwood, sagebrush, willow types but a spot census was used in the mountain shrub type. This spot cen-

- 6 -

sus consisted of writing down all birds that were heard or observed during a five minute sampling period within 50 meters of the center of the sample point. Five stations were used in the mountain shrub type. All birds observed or heard within 50 meters of the center line of the belt transect were recorded while conducting these censuses. All censuses were conducted between one-half hour before sunrise and 10 a.m. during the month of June. One census in each type was conducted in 1983 and three in 1984.

Winter range surveys were conducted by the WGF for antelope, mule deer, and elk (Moody, pers. comm.). Additional surveys have been made for elk by the Rocky Mountain Forest, Range and Experiment Station (Ward 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984). These surveys are normally made with fixed wing aircraft but helicopters have also been used for elk censuses. Big game range maps are used to plot out big game seasonal ranges and movement corridors and these maps represent the accumulated data on these species as gathered by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Information on sharp-tailed grouse was obtained from a two-year study of sharp-tails in this area (Oedekoven, 1984) •

Several on-site visits to these proposed reservoirs were made to conduct general wildlife censuses. These were made while making trips to conduct the above bird and mammal transects and at other times of the year during 1983 and 1984. All wildlife observed were recorded on field forms and later entered into the WGF data storage and retrieval system. These sites have also been toured with other Game and Fish and U.S. Fish and Wildlife employees to evaluate potential impacts.

Existing information on these sites was obtained by interviewing WGF Biologists familiar with these sites. In addition, current and past wildlife reports as well as wildlife data banks were reviewed to determine the status of a variety of wildlife species utilizing these sites.

WILDLIFE RESOURCES

Aquatic

Streams within the Little Snake River Basin have been summarized following the conflict classification method (Table 3). A map was prepared which illustrates the streams and the potential conflict associated with each reach (Figure 6).

Proposed Upper Savery Reservoir

A reservoir with a surface area of 1,200 acres and a storage capacity of 59,577 acre-feet would be located on Savery Creek about two miles below the confluence of Little Savery Creek. Approximately 7.8 miles of Savery Creek and 3.2 miles of Little Savery Creek would be flooded.

Savery Creek (Water Number 871280-04) is a Class 3 stream supporting moderate populations of rainbow, brown, brook and cutthroat trout; mountain whitefish; flannelmouth, mountain, white and bluehead suckers; creek chubs; speckled dace; Bonneville redside shiner; and mottled sculpin. The bluehead sucker is considered rare and flannelmouth sucker is considered uncommon in Wyoming (Wyoming Game and Fish, 1977). Presence of these species pose a

- 7 -

Table 3. Conflict classification matrix for all streams managed by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in the Little Snake River Drainage.

Stream and Conflict Classification Criteria Confl ict Stream Species Managarent Special

Stre<JTl Name Location* Water NlJ'TtEr Ra1J!!.L. Class Present Cone t Use CCJl1Tents North Fcrk Big R87W, TI4N, 511 870368-04 H M H H Colorado River cutthroat trout Sandstone Creek IlBn~ed for an unique species

Big Sandstone Creek R89.t1, TI4N, 536 871330-04 H M H H Colorado River cutthroat troot rmnaged for an uniqt.e species

North Fork Little R8&J, T12N, 514 871840-04 H M H H Colorado River cutthroat trout Snake River managed for an uniqt.e species

Little Savery Creek ROOW, TI5N, 519 8713~04 H M H H M Bluehead sucker present Cutthroat trout managed as a wi 1 d fi st"eries. r.tx:Jer ate pres sure -15 flTll. days/mi. /yr •

-.J Big S<Nery Creek R89A, TI2N, 518 87128)..04 H M H L H B llEhead sucker present OJ Highest fisteman pressure in cr a i nage-40 furl. days/mi. / yr •

OWer B~he lcr Creek RB&J, TI4N, 517 870750-04 H L H H Co lor ado River cutthroat trrut managed for an un; qt.e spec i es

Bochelor Creek R8&J, TI4N, 519 871686-04 H L H H Colorado River cutthroat trrut managed for an unique species

~ Creek RffiW, T14N, 524 871340-04 H L H H Colorcm River cutthroat trrut managed for an uniqt.e species

West Branch R87W, T14N, 524 872345-04 H L H H Colorado River cutthroat trout ~ Creek rmnaged for an uniqlE species

He 11 CanjUl Creek R89IJ, T14N, 524 ffl1370-04 H L H H Colorado River cutthroat trrut rmnaged for an unique species

Table 3. Continued

Stream and Conflict Classification Criteria Coofl ict Stream Species Managerrent Speci al

S trecll1 Nr3TE Location* Water ~r Rati Class Present Cooc t Use COlTTEnts Hask ins Creek R8&I, T14N, S34 871720-04 H L H H Colorado River cutthroat trout

managed as a wild fisheries

West Braoch R8&J, T 14N, S22 871722-04 H L H H Colorado River cutthroat trout Hask ins Creek rranaged as a wild fisheries

West Branch of R8fYtJ, TI2N, S14 871860-04 H L H H Colorado River cutthroat troot N<rt h F <J"k of rranaged for an uniqte species Little Snake

Hatch Creek R87W, T15N, S18 871485-04 H L H H Colorado River cutthroat trout at managed for an unique species

RaiD it Creek RBeN, T13N, S26 871870-04 H L H H Colorado River cutthroat trout managed for an un;qte species

-...J Druglas Creek R87W, TI4N, S10 871360-04 H L H H Colorado River cutthroat troot '7

managed as a wild fisheries

So lam.n Creek R85W, T12N, 57 871800-04 H L H H Colorado River rutthroat trrut managed for an uniqLe spec ies

Rose Creek R85W, T12N, S18 871~-04 H L H H Colorado River rutthroat trwt managed for an uniqte species

Green T inter Creek R85W, TI2N, 54 871910-04 H L H H Colorado River cutthroat trout managed for an unique species

Harrison Creek R85W, T12N, 54 871920-04 H L H H Co lorado Ri ver cutthroat trrut managed for an unique species

Deaanan Creek R85W, T13N, S33 871940-04 H L H H Colorado River cutthroat trout managed for an uniqte species

Third Creek R85W, T13N, 527 871944-04 H L H H Co lorado River cutthroat trrut managed for an uniql£ species

· able 3. Conti rued

StreclTl and Conflict Classification Criteria Conflict Stream Species Managerent Special

Strean Nffie Location* Water ~r Rati Class Present Coocept Use CO'lllEnts

Ted Creek R85W, TI3N, 527 871945-04 H L H H Colorado River cutthroat trout rmncged for an unique species

Dale Creek R85W, TI3N, S26 871950-04 H L H H Colorado River cutthroat trout rmnaged for an unique species

Rtndine Creek R85W, TI3N, 526 871955-04 H L H H Colorado River cutthroat trout rmnaged for an unique species

North Fcrk ROOW, T 16N, S22 871430-04 H M H L M Bluehead sucker present Savery Creek M:xJerate pressure -

20 00. days/mi. /yr •

L itt le Snake R~, TI2N, S14 871015-04 H M H L BhJehead sucker present River (Sec. 2)

... J ~

Dirtynan FCK'k ROOW, TI5N, S15 871400-04 H L H M Colorado River cutthroat trout

Mill Creek R87W, TI4N, S20 871350-04 H L H M Colorado River cutthroat trout

Mu(}jy Creek ROOW, TI8N, S31 871235-04 H L H M Bl uehead sucker present

Littlefield Creek RB9IJ, TI7N, S18 871240-04 H L H M Bl ueread sucker present

Beaver Creek R87W, TI5N, S14 871520-04 H L H M Colorado River cutthroat trout

Mud1y Creek R91W, TI2N, S5 871040-04 H L H L BhJehead sucker present

Little Snake River R92W, TI2N, S14 871010-04 H L H L B1 uehead sucker present (SEI:. 1)

East Fork ROOW, TI5N, S15 871470-04 M M M M M r.txIerate pressure -Savery Creek 20 frm. days/mi. /yr •

Jock Creek R85W, TI7N, S30 856250-04 M M L M M fttJderate pressure -20 ftm. days/mi. /yr •

Table 3. Continued.

Stream and COlflict Classification Criteria Cooflict Stream Species MlnagalEnt S~ial

StreCJl1 N3TE Location* Water Nurrber Rating Class Present Cone t Use Canrents

Battle Creek R88W, T12N, S13 871620-04 M M L M

Tiny Creek R89.oJ, T15N, S13 871410-04 M L M M

RoarirY:l Fcrk L itt le R8&I, T12N, 516 871800-04 M M L M Snj:e River

West Fork R87W, TI3N, S22 871660-04 M M L M Batt le Creek

Strawberry Gulch R86tJ, TI4N, S14 870540-04 M L L M Creek

r-b< i nney Creek ROOIJ, T17N, S12 871200-04 M L L M -.J 0.

Little Sandstone R89iJ, TI3N, 52 871320-04 M L L M Creek

F u 1 ton Creek R89..J, TI5N, S14 871420-04 M L L M

Evanoff Creek R88W, TI6N, S22 871440-04 M L L M

Mill Creek R87W, T 16N, S22 871465-04 M L L M

Mexican Creek R87W, T15N, 515 871500-04 M L L M

Bear Creek R87W, T15N, 516 872487-04 M L L M

5tr~rry Creek R87W, TI5N, 515 871510-04 M L L M

Fly Creek RffiW, T12N, 516 871500-04 M L L M

Later Big R87W, T12N, S6 871621-04 M L L M Gulch Creek

Table 3. Cont irued.

Stream and Conflict Classification Criteria Coofl ict Stream Species ManagerTEnt Special

Stream N~ Location* Water ~r Ratin Class Present Conc t Use CCJTTTEnts

Lost Creek RBGJ, TI3N, 56 871680-04 M L L M

MinOOtl Creek RB&I, TI4N, S~ 871700-04 M L L M

Baby Lcte Creek R86W, TI3N, ~ 871710-04 M L L M

East Braoch R8&1, TI4N, S22 871724-04 M L L M Has!< ins Creek

Smith Creek RBGJ, T 14N, 526 871740-04 M L L M

East Fork R86W, TI4N, S26 871742-04 M L L M Smith Creek U~r Big R87W, TI3N, S31 871770-04 M L L M Gulch Creek

-....J ro

Cottorn-ood Creek R8&I, TI2N, S18 871780-04 M L L M

Spring Creek R87W, TI2N, S14 871700-04 M L L M

Sherard Creek ~, TI3N, S15 871005-04 M L L M

Sa]e Creek R86W, TI8N, 518 856100-04 M L L M

East Fork R89IJ, TI7N, 520 871250-04 L L L L Muddy Creek

Wild COil Creek R91W, TI5N, 519 871110-04 L L L L

Fish Creek R87W, TI6N, S18 871450-04 L L L L

Loco Creek R89iJ, T13N, 511 871310-04 L L L L

Lati~ Creek R87W, TI5N, 517 872486-04 L L L L

Table 3. Continued.

Stream and Conflict Classification Criteria Coofl ict Stream Species Managarent Special

5 t reiJl1 N CITE Location* Water ~r Rati Class Present Cone t Use CCJTTTEnts

Man' s Creek R87W, TI5N, 518 872487-04 L L L L

Hartt Creek ROOW, TI5N, 511 872481-04 L L L L

Sooth Fcrk RB7W, TI6N, S6 872446-04 L L L L 0etlJ Gulch

Cabin Creek R87W, TI6N, S31 872447-04 L L L L

Sooth F crk Hartt R87W, T15N, S6 872482-04 L L L L

[)rep Gulch R88W, TI6N, S35 872445-04 L L L L

H = High Potential Conflict -.....J M = Moderate Potential Conflict ""'" L = Low Potential Conflict

* Locat ion represents cbmstrean end of stream reach a - Tentative, additional information is required.

Figure 6.

R92W

Potential fisheries conflicts on streams in the Little Snake River Drainage.

i -N-

t SCALE

0 4

COLORADO

R90W

+

~ 871

5 Miles

----- - --------------------- ---------

R88W

mtHml

-

+

R86W

LEGEND

High potential conflict

Moderate potential conflict

Low potential conflict

More information needed

8!56250-04

LITTLE SNAKE MANAGEMENT

RIVER WATER PROJECT

WYOMING

COLORADO

TI8N

TI6N

TI4N

TI2N

high potential conflict. Population density of these sensitive species has yet to be quantified, but available information would indicate their present status is tenuous in Savery Creek in the area of proposed impact. A value of 170.4 HU has been determined for the reach of Savery Creek which would be flooded.

Little Savery Creek (Water Number 871390-04) is a Class 3 stream sup­porting moderate populations of rainbow, brown, brook and cutthroat trout; mountain whitefish; bluehead, mountain and white sucker; speckled dace; Bonneville redside shiner; and mottled sculpin. Presence of the rare bluehead sucker poses a high potential conflict. Population density of this rare species has yet to be quantified, but available information would indi­cate their present status is tenuous in the area of proposed impact. A value of 49.8 HU has been determined for the reach of Savery Creek which would be flooded.

An estimated 220 stream HU would be lost with the proposed Upper Savery Reservoir.

Proposed Sandstone Reservoir

This reservoir is proposed on Savery Creek just below the confluence of Little Sandstone Creek. High water line would be at elevation 6,930 with a surface area of 830 acres and storage capacity of 52,040 acre-feet. The proposed reservoir would flood approximately 7.7 miles of Savery Creek, 1.9 miles of Big Sandstone Creek and 2.3 miles of Little Sandstone Creek.

Savery Creek (Water Number 87280-04) is a Class 3 stream supporting moderate populations of rainbow, brown, brook and cutthroat trout; mountain whitefish flannelmouth, mountain, white and bluehead suckers; creek chubs; speckled dace; Bonneville redside shiner; and mottled sculpin. The bluehead sucker is considered rare and flannelmouth sucker is uncommon in Wyoming. Presence of these species pose a high potential conflict. Available infor­mation indicates that a viable population of both species exists in the area of proposed impact. A va 1 ue of 303.4 HU has been determi ned for the reach of Savery Creek which would be flooded.

Big Sandstone Creek (Water Number 871330-04) is a Class 3 stream, sup­porting moderate populations of rainbow, brook and Colorado River cutthroat trout; mountain whitefish; mountain, white and bluehead suckers; speckled dace; creek chub s; and mott 1 ed scu 1 pin. Presence of the rare b 1 uehead sucker and Colorado River cutthroat trout pose a high potential conflict. Although, based on available information, the presence of these rare species in the area of impact is tenuous. A value of 42.7 HU has been determined for the reach of Big Sandstone Creek which would be flooded with the pro­posed reservoir.

Little Sandstone Creek (Water Number 871320-04) is a Class 4 stream sup­porting low populations of rainbow and brook trout; mountain sucker; speckled dace; creek chub; and mottled sculpin. Water is diverted out high in the drainage impacting the aquatic habitat below the diversion. Creek chub, speckled dace and mottled sculpin were the only species collected with this year1s sampling efforts in the area of proposed impact. Based on the HOI analysis and sampling efforts, zero HU would be lost with the flooding of the reach of Little Sandstone Creek.

- 8 -

An estimated 346.1 stream HU would be lost with the proposed Sandstone Reservoir.

Proposed Fish Creek Reservoir

Fish Creek Reservoir is proposed on North Fork Savery Creek just below the confluence of Fish Creek. The high water line will be 7,820 ~ 10 feet with a storage capacity of 60,000 acre-feet (Vic Anderson, pers. communication). Water would be developed for storage by use of a 27 mile collector system. The proposed reservoir would flood approximately 2.4 miles North Fork Savery Creek and 2.5 miles of Fish Creek. Both streams are stocked with catchable rainbow trout each year because fishing pressure is high and habitat is limited at the proposed reservoir site.

North Fork Savery Creek (Water Number 871420-04) is a Class 3 stream supporting moderate populations of rainbow and brook trout; mountain white­fish; mountain and bluehead suckers; creek chubs; speckled dace; and mottled sculpin. Presence of the rare bluehead sucker would pose a high potential impact. However, based on available information, the presence of this species is tenuous. A value of 13.1 stream HU has been determined for the reach of North Fork Savery.

T he area of proposed impact also provi des important spawni ng habi tat which is not addressed by the HU concept. Redd counts for brook trout averaged 1.4 of stream above the dam site and 1.7 per 100 feet of stream below the dam site. This spawning habitat is very important to the downstream reaches of the North Fork Savery Creek (Fred Stabler, BLM, per­sonal communications June 1984).

Fish Creek (Water Number 871450-04) is a Class 4 stream supporting popu­lations of rainbow and brook trout; mountain whitefish; mountain sucker; speck 1 ed dace; and mot t 1 ed scu 1 pin. No sens i t i ve spec i es are known to be present in Fish Creek. A value of 101.7 stream HU has been determined for the reach that would be flooded.

An estimated 114.8 stream HU would be lost with the proposed reservoir. The potential loss of stream HU at the reservoir site is minor when compared to the potential loss with the collector system. Miller (1980) estimated the loss of 1,419.5 stream HU, of which 262.7 HU were the rare Colorado River cutthroat trout, with the proposed Jack Creek to Battle Creek pipe-1 ine. A total of 51 streams (28 streams support game fish and 11 support Colorado River cutthroat trout) could be impacted with the proposed Fish Creek collector system.

Proposed Three Forks Reservoir

A 1,550 acre reservoir is proposed on the Little Snake River to store 135,000 acre-feet of water. The reservoir would lie along the Colorado-Wyoming line. The majority of the proposed reservoir is in Colorado below the three forks of the Little Snake River. Stream miles flooded in Wyoming would include 1.3 miles of the Roaring Fork and 0.4 mile of North Fork Little Snake.

Roaring Fork (Water Number 871800-04) is a Class 3 stream supporting moderate populations of rainbow trout, brook trout, and mottled sculpin. No

- 9 -

sensitive species have been documented in the stream. A value of 79.9 stream HU has been determined for the stream reach which would be flooded on Roaring Fork in Wyoming.

North Fork Little Snake is a Class 3 stream supporting good populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and mottled sculpin. Presence of the rare Colorado River cutthroat trout poses a high potential conflict. A value of 70.3 stream HU has been determined for the reach of North Fork Little Snake in Wyoming which would be flooded.

Aquatic analyses contained in this report address only potential impacts in Wyoming with the Three Forks site. Consultation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) would be necessary to address the potential impacts in Colorado.

Terrestrial

Habitat Description

Fish Creek

This proposed reservoir will inundate approximately 945 acres of terrestrial habitat. Of this, there are 151 acres of wet meadow, 189 acres of willow riparian vegetation, and 605 acres of sagebrush grassland (Figure 2a). Because of the linear shape of this reservoir, it will inun­date over 9 mi les of intermittent and permanent stream channel s. Most of the wet meadow habitat is found along the main channels of Fish and North Savery Creeks. The willow types are also found along these riparian bot­toms. Surrounding these bottoms is the sagebrush grassland type.

Upper Savery

The dam site for this reservoir would be located just downstream of Bird Gulch and will back water over four miles upstream and will inundate 1,200 a c res 0 f wi 1 d 1 if e h a bit at. T he v e get at ion t yp est 0 be flood e din c 1 u de 54 acres of riparian willows, 28 acres of wet meadow, 108 acres of sagebrush grassland, and 264 acres of mountain shrubs (Figure 3a). The willow and wet meadow types are found within the flood plain while the other types are adjacent to the bottoms.

Sandstone

The dam site for this proposed reservoir will be located just downstream of Little Sandstone Creek and just upstream of the Boyer Ranch. This reser­voir will back water over six miles upstream and will inundate 830 acres of wildlife habitat. The vegetation types to be lost include 349 acres of riparian cottonwood, 291 acres of wet meadow, 95 acres of sagebrush grassland, 26 acres of alders, 20 acres of aspen, and 23 acres of spruce and mixed shrubs (Figure 4a). This site is the most diverse site vegetatively of those found on Savery Creek.

- 10 -

Wet Meadow

v/1 Salix Riparian

SogelHu,h - Grassland

SCALE

I Mile

f'ifJlIrC 20. North Savery and Fish Creok Study I\roo Mop with Veoctntion Plotted.

lOa

.."

i .0 c ; VI

~

11 c 'Q

I 'Q e ~

(j') Q < ,. .;. (j')

c ~

'<

1> SCALE ~

~

0 0 1/2 I Mile

LEGEND ~

I-' Q

0 'Q

-::t

CJ Sagebrush- Grassland • --=r

< ,.

~ Salix Riparian .0 ,. -Q

Q ;:)

'"'0 Wet Meadow 0 -•

~ Mountain Sh rubs ~

a Aspen

! N I

I

Figure 4a.

======~\ .. -;::, ======= ==========~~.c,=========== ~======~~-, :=======-::./" , ~.,~~~~~~~ , , :-::::::::::::::3'. I'~i __________ __ " )r-::====== , , \..

============~~-~~~~,==========~ ============~\~',C:==========~ =========1'~;=========~ ----------.... " t .. ..----------. ~~------------­----------a.'. ' ,'I~5-------::::::::::::::::::~~,' t' ,\~\-------­:::::::::::::::::::::j,' .. ,' , r) ------

\ ,.-,------,IC======

IOc

LIIIND

.... , .... 0., ... I ...... SOI

CIJ) - e.". __ It,"._ ~ - .. , ............... ., ~ - .111 ••• , .. ,. ••

~ - At •• , ""., •• "

o - ,,,.'C.,.,,,· S •••• , ....... , .•• '77 .... "':LV

~j

,r-,... \_'_1

,r-" \_i.. 1

- ..... - 1, ... eI·'"

- •• t ...... .

- ,.,. bru." "r.,

'000 '''lOO ••• o 2000

Scel, lit , .. ,

Three Forks

This proposed reservoir is the only one to be located on the little Snake River drainage which crosses the Wyoming/Colorado border. The majority of this reservoir would be in Colorado, but approximately 300 acres of wildlife habitat would be flooded in Wyoming, including 160 acres of grassland, 100 acres of sagebrush/mixed shrubs, 28 acres of cottonwood, and 21 acres of aspen. Overall, if the reservoir is constructed, it will flood 1,707 acres; 743 wet meadow, 192 cottonwood, 502 sagebrush/grass, 160 aspen, 51 mountain shrub, 37 conifers, 20 willo~/s, and 2 wetland acres (Figure 5a). The 1,707 acre reservoir is somewhat larger than the 1,550 acre reservoir size assumed in the report.

Wildlife ~ The Project Area

Elk

All four reservoir sites lie within the Baggs elk herd unit. This herd unit has a post-hunt population estimate of 3,070 elk while the objective for this herd is 4,200 elk. The Fish Creek site, although classified as elk summer range, gets little elk use. The main reasons for this are that the site contains little hiding cover and it has a well-traveled road crossing through it. The co 1 1 ector pip eli n e that wi 11 g at her water for the F ish Creek Reservoi r crosses through elk surrrner range and an elk cal vi ng area. The Upper Savery Reservoir would inundate several migration corridors for elk that migrate through this area during the spring and fall. The Sandstone Reservoir site is also used as a migration corridor but also con­tains some elk calving grounds and is used by wintering elk. Three Forks would inundate major migration corridors for elk which cross from Wyoming into Colorado to winter.

Mule Deer

All four proposed reservoir sites lie within the Baggs deer herd unit. This herd unit has an estimated post-season population of 11,000 mule deer, while the objective is 13,000. All four reservoir alternatives are classified as mule deer summer range. The Sandstone site also contains some winter/yearlong range on the lower portion of the proposed reservoir site. Migration corridors also cross the Upper Savery, Sandstone, "and Three Forks sites.

Antelope

All four reservoir sites are within the Baggs antelope herd unit. This herd unit has a 1984 post-season population of 4,000 antelope, while the objective for this herd is 7,200. All three sites on Savery Creek are classified as summer range for antelope. Upper Savery and Sandstone also cont a in mi grat i on corr i dors that ante lope use as they move between summer and winter ranges.

The Three Forks Reservoir site contains little habitat for antelope.

- 11 -

LEGEND

k:/.~:.~><J Cottonwood Riparian

- Willow Riparian

D Grass Meadow

~ Sagebrush/ Gross N .. Confers

EZ2J Aspen

o 1/2 Imile

SCALE

Figure Sa. Three Forks Reservoir Site with Vegetation Plotted,

l1a

Small Game/Furbearers

Small game species found in this area include red squirrels, cottontail and snowshoe rabbits. Cottontails and snowshoes can be expected on all four reservoir sites, but red squirrels would only be expected on the Sandstone site. Red squirrels are also common in the timbered areas that the Fish Creek collectors system would pass through.

A variety of furbearers are found in this area. Species observed include beaver, muskrat, long-tailed weasels, badgers, and bobcats. Although these species are known to inhabit the reservoir areas, there are no population estimates available for them. All of the above species could be expected on any of the four reservoirs but generally the sites with greater habitat diversity such as Sandstone and Three Forks have the best habitat for furbearers.

Game Birds

Four species of game birds are found in this area including sage grouse, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, blue grouse, and mourning doves. Since the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are considered rare in Wyoming, they will be discussed under the Endangered and Sensitive Species section. Mourning doves are found in most vegetative types but the best habitat for these birds would be on the lower elevation more diverse sites like Sandstone and Three Forks. Sage grouse are associated with the sagebrush types more than any other but may utilize the stream bottoms as well. Fish Creek contains the most sagebrush vegetation and the other three sites contain very little. All four sites contain little habitat for blue grouse but they are a possible resident, especially in the willow bottoms and aspen stands.

Waterfowl

All four reservoir sites contain waterfowl habitat and 17 species of waterfowl have been observed in this area. The Fish Creek site contains small beaver ponds and slow moving stream segments that are used by both diving and puddle ducks. Upper Savery contains the stream channel and several off-channel oxbows and wet depressions that are used by waterfowl. In addition, this site supports some temporary wetlands in the wet meadow vegetation types. Sandstone also contains some wet meadow temporary wetlands and the stream channel is used by waterfowl. Several small ponds would also be inundated on this site. Three Forks reservoir site contains valuable waterfowl habitat. All of the potential sites contain upland habitat for nesting waterfowl and the wet meadow types are particularly important for this purpose.

Downstream of the proposed Sandstone reservo; r on Savery Creek and on the Little Snake River is an important waterfowl habitat complex. Along the flood plains in these areas are ponds, depressions, oxbows, wet meadows that cons i st of permanent and temporary wet 1 ands. Many of the agr i cu 1 tura 1 hay lands are also used by waterfowl for nesting and feeding. These wetlands are important to waterfowl through most of the year.

- 12 -

Nongame

This area of the state supports a very diverse group of nongame birds and mammals. The vegetation types found here could potentially support 224 species of nongame birds and 42 species of nongame mammals. To date, 110 species of nongame birds and 18 species of nongame mammals have been iden­tified in this area (Appendix 1).

From trapping that we conducted in four vegetation types during 1983, eight species of nongame mammals were captured. These species included masked shrews, least chipmunks, Richardson's ground squirrels, deer mice, northern grasshopper mice, bushy-tailed woodrats, gapper's red-backed voles, and long-tailed voles. Of these vegetation types sampled, three species and 29 individuals were captured in the riparian cottonwood type, four species and 17 individuals in the willow riparian, five and 18 in the sagebrush­grassland, and five and 75 in the mountain shrub type (Appendix 2). In the South Central Study (Wyo. Game and Fish Dept., 1980), 12 species were cap­tured in 10 different types.

Thirty species of nongame birds were observed on breeding bird transects in four vegetation types during 1984 (Appendix 2). Eighteen species and an average of 42 individuals were observed on the cottonwood riparian transect. Sixteen species and an average of 19 individuals were observed on the moun­tain shrub transect. The willow riparian type had 19 species and 34 indivi­duals while the sagebrush grassland type had 11 species and 11 birds per transect.

Great blue herons are common along Savery Creek and the Little Snake River. These birds nest in colonies in trees and there are two such colo­nies in this area. One is located on Savery Creek and one on the Little Snake River. Although these areas will not be inundated, they could be adversely affected by a reservoir being built. If the riparian cottonwood communities are lost or reduced because of reduced flows downstream of any reservoir, this could reduce nesting habitat for herons.

The western smooth green snake (Opheodrys vernalis blanchardi) which is considered rare in Wyoming (Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 1977) is pre­sent in the area of proposed impact. The preferred habitat for this snake is forested areas at lower elevations in the montane and foothill zones.

Feder~ Endangered And Sensitive Species

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse

Although Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are not federally classified as endangered or threatened, they are rare in Wyoming. The only known breeding population of these birds in Wyoming is in the Baggs/Savery area (Figure 7). Based on the known breeding and wintering areas for these grouse, only the Sandstone and/or Three Forks sites appear to have any potential for impact to these species. To date, nine different breeding grounds have been located and these are generally characterized by a mixed shrub community including big sagebrush, bitterbrush, serviceberry, and snowberry. During the winter months, sharp-tails are commonly found along the riparian areas where cottonwoods, willows, and hawthorn provide roosting and feeding habi-

- 13 -

tat (Oedekoven, 1984). Although these two reservoirs do not remove any known breeding or wintering habitat, they do contain potential habitat for these birds.

Bald Eagles

The bald eagle is federally classified as endangered in Wyoming. It is a fall/winter resident in much of this part of the state and is often observed along the major stream courses. The BLM estimates that between 25 to 30 eagles winter in this area. Bald eagles have been observed along Savery Creek near the Sandstone reservoir site (Figure 7). Wintering bald eagles will feed on fish and waterfowl and will scavenge on road-killed and winter killed animals. They use the riparian areas for feeding and roosting with cottonwood trees often being used as favorite roosting places. They also utilize the open habitats for feeding. The Three Forks and Savery sites both contain roosting and feeding habitat for eagles. The other sites get less use by eagles, but do contain some potential habitat for these birds. Bald eagles have nested in this part of Wyoming in the past but no active nests are now known to exist.

Greater Sandhill Cranes

Greater sandhill cranes are listed by the state of Colorado as being endangered. Sandhills nest along Savery Creek and the Little Snake River and they also stage in these areas. Greater sandhill cranes are commonly found on the Three Forks site and have been observed nesting downstream of the Sandstone site. The importance of these reservoir sites to greater sandhill cranes is not well known.

Prairie Dog

Searches for prairie dogs were made at each reservoir site, but none were observed.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Aquatic

Each of the proposed reservoirs poses a high potential conflict to aquatic wildlife resources (Table 4). Mitigation will be required to mitigate both stream HU loss and the loss of habitat for the sensitive nongame species. Mitigation for the sensitive species will require mitiga­t i on i n-k i nd.

An analysis of potential impacts at the Fish Creek Reservoir site is inadequate without addressing the potential impacts associated with the collector system. The potent i al impacts of the collector system greatly outweigh the potential impacts associated with the reservoir site. Pot en t i ali mp ac t s wi t h t he colle c t i on c or rid or will be add res sed i n t he Little Snake Water Management Project, Level III Interim Fish and Wildlife Impact Report, Collector System (Wyo. Game and Fish Dept., 1984).

In addition to the loss of 150 stream HU in Wyoming, the normal high water line of Three Forks Reservoir will be 1.5 stream miles from the fish barrier constructed on North Fork Little Snake River by the WGF. This

- 14 -

LEGEND

C::. Bold Eogle Locotions

o Shnrptnil Reproduction Area

@ Shorptoil Wintering Aren

t ORTH SAVERY AND FISH CREEK

RESERVOIR

t -N-

I

___ WYOMI.!'!G ______________ _

CCLORADO

o I 2 3 4 5 Miles -- ............ SCALE

Figure 7. Ucuorvoir Locntions with Bold Englo Locations and Columbian Sharptail GraUDe Habitat Plotted.

14t1

barrier was constructed to prevent contamination of the North Fork Little Snake River enclave of Colorado River cutthroat trout. The increased human activity associated with the reservoir may result in the introduction of undesirable species above the barrier. The North Fork Little Snake River enclave is closed to fishing above the confluence of the West Fork. The increased human act i v i ty as soc i ated wi th the reservoi r wi 11 also pose an enforcement problem with the closure.

The analysis of impacts at the Three Forks site addresses the potential impacts in Wyoming. Consultation with the CDOW would be necessary to address the potential impacts in Colorado.

Adequate fisheries and channel maintenance instream flow releases are required to prevent impacts to downstream reaches. Potential impacts with any of the reservoir sites will be greatly magnified without adequate instream flows.

Table 4. Sensitive species present and estimated stream trout habitat units (HU) which would be lost with the proposed reservoirs.

Proposed Reservoir Upper Savery

Sandstone

Fish Creek

Three Forks

Sensitive Species Present

Bluehead sucker Flannelmouth sucker Bluehead sucker Flannelmouth sucker Colorado River cutthroat trout Bluehead sucker Colorado River cutthroat trout ~/ Colorado River cutthroat trout

Trout HU Lost 220

346

115~/

150Q./

a. Colorado River cutthroat trout are not present at the reservoir site. If a collector system is used to develop water for the site, there would be impacts on streams containing Colorado River cutthroat, and stream HU lost could increase dramatically.

b. Of the 150 HU lost, 70.3 are a mix of Colorado River cutthroat and rain-bow trout. These data do not ref lect potent i a 1 impacts in Colorado which could be substantial.

A biological assessment must be made prior to the final EIS to determine the effect of any of the proposed reservoirs on endangered species. Federal agencies involved in the permitting, authorizing or funding of a proposed reservoir including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), must con­sider whether project actions proposed in the Upper Colorado River basin will affect the Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius) or humpback chub (Gi 1 a~). Both the Co lorado squawf ish and humpbaCk chub evo 1 ved ina river system that was characterized by great seasonal and annual fluc­tuations in flow, turbidity, and temperature. Construction projects, water depletions, and other uses since the early 1900's have drastically altered flow patterns, water quality, and river channel characteristics, and elimi­nated many of the quiet backwater nursery areas to the point that much of the essential habitat once utilized by these endangered fish species no

- 15 -

longer exists. Both the Colorado squawfish and humpback chub are now currently in danger of extinction and are officially listed by USFWS as endangered spec i es. Dep 1 et i on of any add it i ona 1 water from the Colorado River Basin may impact the continued survival of the Colorado squawfish and humpback chub.

No federally determined proposed critical habitat for endangered species has been designated within the area of construction. Both species are currently considered extinct in Wyoming by the WGF, but consultation with the USFWS is required concerning potential downstream effects.

Terrestrial

Elk

Inundation of the Fish Creek site will remove 945 acres of summer range for elk. The collection pipeline associated with this Fish Creek site could create a disturbance to elk that calve and summer in this area (Wyo. Game and Fish Dept., 1984). Building the Upper Savery site would flood 1,200 acres of summer range for elk and block a migration corridor now used by elk. The Sandstone site would remove 830 acres of summer range for elk. It would also block two major elk movement corridors, some winter range, and part of a calving area. Three Forks Reservoir would remove 300 acres of summer range for elk in Wyoming and would again block some movement corri­dors for elk migrating between Wyoming and Colorado.

The areas that are classified as elk summer range are also used as tran­sition ranges in the late fall and early spring. For most of these areas, this is the period of heavy use. None of the sites contain optimum summer range for elk. The Fish Creek site gets the least amount of elk use and represents the site of least potential impact, assuming recommendations to offset potential impacts from the collection pipeline are followed. The loss of migration corridors on the Upper Savery site should not be signifi­cant and elk shou 1 d move arou nd any proposed reservo i r to get to wi nter ranges. This site is not heavily used by elk, probably because of its lack of cover. The Sandstone site contains the most optimum habitat for elk and although it does not receive much summer use, it is used in early spring and late fall by elk and is considered an important wintering area. If the pro­posed reservoir causes migrating elk to funnel to the south and none to the north to winter ranges, it could overcrowd the winter ranges in this area.

In addition to the direct loss of habitat, there is a strong possibility that any reservoir in this area would attract recreationists. If this is the case, in the winter or during the calving period any proposed reservoir could have a negative impact on elk. The added d-isturbance in this area could cause additional stress to elk along Savery Creek. It may also discourage elk from using this area. This would remove more habitat than the direct loss from inundation and may ultimately reduce the carrying capa­city for elk in this area.

- 16 -

Mule Deer

Building the Fish Creek site will flood 945 acres of mule deer summer range, but will not flood any critical ranges or major migration corridors. The Upper Savery reservoirs would remove 1,200 acres of summer range and flood some migration corridors for deer. Sandstone reservoir is also on summer range and would result in a loss of 830 acres. This reservoir would also remove winter range for mule deer and flood migration areas. Three Forks reservoir would remove 300 acres of summer range in Wyoming and would flood migration corridors for deer.

The loss of summer range for mule deer wi 11 cause deer that now use these sites to shift to other summer ranges. This will increase the number that summer on adj acent areas and may cause deer to summer on 1 ess than opt imum summer range. Since these reservoi rs wi 11 inundate product i ve riparian areas, there is a strong possibility that the number of deer that summer here may be reduced. The disruption of migration corridors could be significant if animals change their winter distributions because of these reservoirs. The loss of winter range as on the Sandstone site is unde­sirable because of the high densities of mule deer that winter in this area. In addition, the use of a reservoir in this area by recreationists will create a source of disturbance to wintering mule deer. This added stress will not be beneficial to wintering deer and could impact survival rates of deer in this area.

Antelope

The three reservoirs on the Savery Creek would remove summer habitat for antelope. The Fish Creek site contains the best habitat for antelope, then Upper Savery and lastly Sandstone. Antelope prefer the open sagebrush areas, although they will utilize the wet meadows found along the flood plain. Antelope tend to avoid timbered areas such as those that are found at Sandstone and Three Forks sites.

Small Game/Furbearers

All sites will remove habitat for small game species. The Sandstone site will have the largest impact to small game because of the diversity of vegetation that it supports. Since riparian areas are heavily used by small game, the reservoirs will remove important habitat for these species.

Most species of furbearers will be eliminated from the actual reservoir site in this area including badgers, long and short-tailed weasels, and bob­cats. Beaver and mink will have less desirable habitat after inundation. Overall, any proposed reservoir will reduce densities and diversities of furbearers. The Sandstone site will have the largest impact because of the vegetative diversity it supports, but Three Forks is also a valuable site to these species.

Game Birds

There will be a loss of game bird habitat no matter which reservoir is built. The Fish Creek reservoir would remove sage grouse habitat. The Upper Savery, Sandstone, and Three Forks sites would cause a loss of habitat for sage grouse and blue grouse. All sites would remove habitat for

- 17 -

mourning doves, but the Three Forks and Sandstone sites contain the best habitat for these birds.

Waterfowl

The Three Forks site contains the most productive habitat for waterfowl and higher densities of ducks and geese nest here as compared with the other sites. Sandhill cranes stage and nest along the Little Snake River and along Savery Creek and have been observed on the Three Forks site. The Fish Creek site with its small beaver ponds is the next most productive site for duck production. The small ponds are important for ducks which use them for feeding and brood rearing while they use the surrounding upland areas for nesting. Upper Savery contains some oxbows and wet meadow habitat that is used by waterfowl as does Sandstone and Three Forks. All of these sites contain stream habitat that is used by both puddle and diving ducks. The addition of a reservoir in this area will not benefit waterfowl production and so will cause a negative impact to waterfowl. The Little Snake River downstream of the Three Forks site contains some very productive waterfowl habitat. If storage of water reduces wet 1 ands downstream of any proposed reservoir there will be a significant loss of waterfowl habitat off site as well.

Nongame

All of the proposed reservoirs contain populations of nongame birds and mamma 1 s, and each vegetat i on type conta ins a uni que communi ty of nongame species. The more vegetatively diverse a habitat is, the greater the den­sity and diversity of nongame wildlife. Since riparian areas are diverse, productive communities, they also maintain higher densities and diversities of nongame species than other vegetative types. All four sites are impor­tant for this reason. Between the proposed reservoirs, there are different degrees of diversity within these riparian communities. The Sandstone and Three Forks sites contain very diverse vegetative communities, and therefore are important sites for nongame. Upper Savery woul d be the next most diverse and Fish Creek last. The impacts to nongame would follow this same order. The Sandstone and Three Forks sites are especially valuable because of the cottonwood communities they support. These communities are unusual and support a unique group of plants and animals. They are also important for raptors that use them for nesting and as roost sites while resting and hunting. All nongame mammals will be lost on any reservoir site and the communities of nongame birds will be greatly changed.

Federally Endangered And Sensitive Species

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse

The Fish Creek and Upper Savery sites have no known habitat for sharp­tailed grouse. The Sandstone site has potential summer and winter habitat for these birds and they have been observed in the areas around the reser­voir. The status of sharp-tails on the Three Forks site is unknown, but this site does contain habitat for these birds. The loss of habitat for these birds is undesirable, especially since they are rare in Wyoming. The Sandstone and Three Forks sites do contain habitat for sharp-tails, and the building of either reservoir will remove potential habitat for these birds.

- 18 -

Bald Eagles

There has been no documented use of bald eagles at any of the proposed reservoir sites. Bald eagles do commonly winter in this area and have been observed downstream of the Sandstone site. Because the Three Forks and Sandstone sites conta in cottonwood trees and because they are both we 11 developed riparian areas, there is a high probability that they do get some use by eagles. Building a reservoir in these areas would remove some habi­tat for these birds. Further consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be necessary to assess any potential impacts to bald eagles.

Sandhill Cranes

The Three Forks site will remove areas currently used by sandhills and all the sites contain potential nesting habitat. Additional information on sandhills in this area is necessary before any impacts can be predicted. Some habitat will be lost to flooding, but there is a greater potential impact from losses in riparian/wetland areas. If these riparian areas are lost or reduced because of reductions in downstream flows, the impact to sandhill cranes would be much larger than the loss to inundation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

General Recommendations

1. A biological assessment must be made prior to the final EIS to determine the effect of the proposal on endangered species. The lead federal agency must comply with the consultation requirement of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Section 7(a)(I) of the ESA states that Federal agencies shall utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered species. Section 7(a)(2) states that Federal agencies shall insure that any programs authorized by such agencies are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered spe­cies.

2. An assessment must be made to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regarding salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. Salinity is probably the single most important water quality parameter in the Colorado River Basin (Anonymous, 1981).

3. Consultation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife is required to address potential impacts in Colorado.

4. The Upper Savery site is the preferred alternative. Both the Sandstone and F ish C r e e k sit e s are dis c ou r ag e d due toe x t r erne 1 y h i g h po ten t ; a 1 i mp act to f ish and / 0 r wi 1 d 1 i fer e sou r c e s . Ran kin g 0 f the T h r e e For k s site is also impossible due to an incomplete data base for Colorado. However, the potential impacts in Wyoming pose a high conflict for the Three Forks site without addressing potential impacts in Colorado.

Aquatic Recommendations

A. Upper Savery Reservoir is the preferred site of the four options. While it is the preferred site, it must be recognized that a high degree of potential impact to the area's wildlife resources exists.

- 19 -

Construction would result in the loss of 220 stream HU. Presence of the rare b1uehead and uncommon flannelmouth sucker is tenuous. Mitigation measures appear more feasible at this site.

B. Development of the Sandstone site ;s discouraged.

Construction would result ;n the loss of 346 stream HU. Available information indicates a viable population of the rare bluehead sucker and uncommon flannelmouth sucker exists in the area of pro­posed impact. Presence of the rare Colorado River cutthroat trout in the area of impact is tenuous.

C. Development of the Fish Creek site is discouraged.

Construction would result in the loss of 115 stream HU, but if a collector system is used to develop water for the site, stream HU loss could increase by ten fold. Presence of the rare bluehead sucker is tenuous. Colorado River cutthroat trout are not present at the reservoi r s ;te but as many as 11 streams with the rare cutthroat could be impacted by the collector system. The WGF has documented evidence that further development of water collection facilities in the Upper Little Snake River Basin without adequate safeguard will seriously diminish the capacity of the impacted streams to maintain current populations levels of the Colorado River cutthroat trout. Unless protective measures are taken, thi s trout subspecies will be qualified for classification as threatened or endangered by the Federal Government (Wyoming Game and Fish 1977). Construction would also flood valuable brook trout spawning habitat.

D • A n a 1 y sis of i mp ac t s for the T h re e For k s sit e i s bas e don an incomplete data set. An impact analysis by the Colorado Division of Wildlife is required before the potential impacts at this site can be compared to the sites in Wyoming. The following are poten­tial wildlife impacts in Wyoming.

Construction of the reservoir will result in the loss of 150 stream HU. Of the 150 HU which would be lost, 70.3 are a mix of Colorado River cutthroat and rainbow trout. Normal high water line would be 1.5 stream miles below the fish barrier constructed on the North Fork Little Snake River to protect the population of Colorado River cutthroat trout. I ncreased human act; v ity assoc i ated with the reservoir could result in the introduction of undesirable species and pose an enforcement prob 1 em for the fish i ng closure on the enclave. Since it is the largest reservoir proposed, it would have the greatest affect on salinity and endangered fishes in downstream reaches.

E. Minimum pools comprising 20 to 30% of the storage capacity of the reservoir should be provided for fisheries.

- 20 -

Mitigation Recommendation

Aquatic

We recommend no development on streams with populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout. Four resource categories of decreasing importance have been identified, by the USFWS, with mitigation planning goals of decreas i ng st ri ngency deve loped f or these categor i es to be u sed under the USFWS Coordination Act to protect and conserve the Nation's wildlife resour­ces (Table 5)(Federal Register 1981). The position statement of the WGF for the Cheyenne water supply project is (1977): liThe Wyoming Game and Fish Department has documented evidence that further development of water collec­tion facilities in the Upper Little Snake River Basin without adequate safe­guard will seriously diminish the capacity of the impacted streams to maintain current population levels of the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout, Salmo clarki pleuriticus Cope. Pure populations of this sub-species of trout are very rare in the United States. Unless necessary flows and pro­tective measures are taken, this trout subspecies will be qualified for classification as threatened or endangered by the Federal Government." Based on this position statement, mitigation for the Colorado River cutthroat trout would be resource category number one, no loss of existing habitat value under USFWS policy.

Tab 1 e 5. Resource categories and mitigation planning goals.

Resource Designation Mitigation Planning Categ~o_r~y~ _____________ C_r_i_t_e_r_ia ________ . _______________ G_o_a_l ______ ~ ____ _

1

2

3

4

High value for evaluation species and unique and irreplaceable.

High value for evaluation species and scarce or becoming scarce.

High to medium value for evaluation species and abundant.

Medium to low value for evaluation species.

No loss of existing habitat value.

No net loss of in-kind habitat value.

No net loss of habitat value while minimizing loss of in-kind habitat value.

Minimize loss of habitat value.

De vel 0 p me nt 0 n sit e s wit h a v i ab 1 e pop u 1 at ion 0 f the r are b 1 u e h e ad sucker would be resource category number two, no net loss of in-kind habitat value. Mitigation of this type will be both difficult and costly.

An instream flow release 33% of average flow or the natural flow, whichever is less, should be used in the reconnaissance level planning. Adjustments may be required due to channel configuration and seasonal fisheries considerations.

Consideration should also be given to a channel maintenance flow regi­men. A method to address channel maintenance has been developed by the U.S. Forest Service (Rosgen, 1982). While periodic bank full flows are necessary for channel maintenance, peak releases in excess of channel capacity are detrimental to the fisheries and should be avoided.

- 21 -

Adequate safeguards must be incorporated into design and construction plans to prevent the problems and accidents which are all too common with construction in streams. Sediment control plans must be developed and implemented. Water quality standards established by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality must be maintained. Adequate funds should be available to implement additional sediment control measures to correct unforeseen problems.

Mitigation for the Upper Savery site appears to be the most feasible of the four reservoir sites. Mitigation may be accomplished by instream flow releases from the reservoir. Reduction in peak flows while augmenting late summer flow may provide sufficient stream habitat improvements in downstream reaches to mitigate stream losses associated with reservoir development.

Terrestrial

Because of the general nature of this report, specific terrestrial miti­gation recommendations will not be developed here. Mitigation will be designed to offset the loss of terrestrial wildlife habitat for any proposed reservoir. The amount of mitigation will depend upon the site chosen. Terrestrial mitigation will be highest for the Sandstone site. Because of the many losses of habitat for elk, deer, nongame, etc. associated with the impacts from this proposed reservoir, it will be difficult to mitigate. Three Forks also has high wildlife values and it, too, would be a difficult site to mitigate.

Combined Impacts To Wildlife

Based on the predicted impacts from the various reservoir alternatives, the Upper Savery site is the recommended alternative by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Any other site would appear to have serious impacts to either the fishery or terrestrial resources in this area, and we strongly recommend against their construction.

Enhancement ~rtunities

Aquatic

Assuming adequate mlnlffiurn pools are provided, all of the reservoirs could provide a reservoir fishery. Quantification of possible enhancements wi 11 be completed as project detai ls, specifically reservoir operat lonal regimes, become available.

- 22 -

Selected References

Annear, T.C. and A.L. Conder. 1983. Evaluation of instream flow methods for use in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 248 pp.

Anonymous. 1981. Revised Draft E.I.S. Cheyenne Stage II water diversion proposal, appendix. Rocky Mountain Region USDA Forest Service, Medicine Bow National Forest, Laramie, Wyoming. 354 pp.

Baxter, G.T. and J.R. Simon. 1970. Wyoming fishes. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Bulletin No.4, 168 pp.

Binns, N.A. 1977. Evaluation of trout habitat that would be impacted by Cheyenne's proposed phase II water development in the North Fork Little Snake River drainage. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Project No. 5076-09-6002, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 21 pp .

-------::---::----::-. 1977. Present status of indigenous population of cutthroat,

Salmo clarki, in southwest Wyoming. Fisheries Technical Bulletin No.2, Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 59 pp.'

. 1978a. Evaluation of habitat quality in Wyoming trout ---------:--streams. Pages 221-242 in Anonymous. Classification, inventory and analysis of fish and wildlife habitat, the proceedings of a national symposium at Phoenix, Arizona, January, 1977. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-78/76, Washington, D.C •

. 1978b. Quantification of trout habitat in Wyoming. Pages ----::~-=-=.----:=-32-45. Transactions of the Bonneville Chapter, American Fisheries

Society, Salt Lake City, Utah.

_---=:--:-.,--_~_. 1979. A habitat qual ity index for Wyomi ng trout streams. Fishery Research Report Number 2. Wyoming Game and Fish Department;, 75 pp.

. 1982. Habitat quality index procedures manual. Wyoming Game ----,--=-~-

and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 209 pp.

Conder, A.L. and B. Rudd. 1984. Little Snake River water management pro­ject, depth level III interim report, collection corridor. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. In press.

Federal Register. 1981. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mitigation policy. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Vol. 46, No. 15. pp. 7646.

Findholt, S., R. Oakleaf, and B. Long. 1981. Working draft of Wyoming Mammal Atlas, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Game Division, Cheyenne, WY 25 pp.

- 23 -

Miller, D.O. 1980. Quantification of trout habitat that could be impacted by Stage III of the Little Snake River water management project. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 77 pp.

Oakleaf, R., H. Downing, B. Raynes, M. Raynes, O.K. Scott. 1982. Wyoming Avian Atlas, Wyoming Game and Fish Department and the Bighorn Audubon Society.

Oedekoven, 0.0. 1984. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse habitat use and popu­lation distribution. M.S. Thesis. Dept. Zoo. and Phy., Univ. Wyo., Laramie, WY.

Rudd, B., and O. Oedekoven. 1984. Little Snake River Project Level II Terrestrial Wildlife Impact Report (The Fish Creek Site). Wyo. Game and Fish Dept., Cheyenne.

Sk inner, M. M. and M. D. Stone. 1982. trout habitat quality in Wyoming. Collins, Colorado. 67 pp.

Identification of instream hazards to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft.

Stone, M.D. 1978. Wyoming's catchable trout program as defined by fishermen attitudes. Proceedings of the Wild Trout-Catchable Trout Symposium, 1978, Eugene, Oregon. pp. 14-17.

Taylor, D.W. 1982. Eastern Sierra Riparian Vegetation: Ecological Effects of Stream Diversions. U.S. Forest Service.

Ward, L.W. 1981 to 1984. Little Snake River KRCRA ELk Study, Annual Reports. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Laramie, WY.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 1977. Current status and inventory of wildlife in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 133 pp.

1980. Densities of animals on potential coal lease sites in south-central Wyoming. For BLM Cont. No. YA-512-C77-7.

1984. Little Snake River Water Man age me nt Pro j e c t Level I I lOr aft I n t e rim Wi 1 d 1 i f e I mp act R ep 0 r t • T he collector system.

- 24 -

APPENDIX I

Birds and Mammals observed and expected in the Little

Snake River Area

Asterisked species are those that have actually been observed and/or cap­tured in this area.

NON - G A t-11':

CO/llIllI)1) 1,001)

Horned Grebe Eared Grebe Western Grebe Pied-billed Grebe White Pelican Double-crested Cormorant Great Blue Heron* Snow Egret Blnck-crowned Night Heron American Bittern \..J hit e - f ace d I b i s W his t lin g S \v a n Turkey Vulture", Goshar.vk* Sharp-shinned Hawk* Cooper I s Hawk,', Red-tailed Hawk* Broad-winged Hawk Swainson's Hawk-:: ~ough-legged Hawk* Ferruginous Hawk* Golden Eagle·" 13 (j l d E a g 1 e -:, Harsh Hawk,'· Gryfi-llcon P r Cl i r i e F ale a n -:( Peregrine Falcon Merlin-:' American Kestrel* Black-necked Stilt American Avocet Semipalmated Plover I( i 1 t deer", Snowy Plover Mountain Plover* Black-bellied Plover N it r b 1 (2 d l; 0 d wit Long-billed Curlew UplLlnd Sandpiper (; r e ; I t e r Y (~ 1 1 0 'vI leg s Lcss~r Yellowlegs*

SPECIES LIST ------------

Ruddy Turnstone Wilson's Phalarope'" Northern Phalarope Long-billed Dowitcher* San de r 1 i n g* Semipalmated Sandpiper Western Sandpiper Least Sandpiper· ... Baird's Sandpiper* Pectoral Sandpiper Stilt Sandpiper Herring Gull California Gull Ring-billed Gull Franklin's Gull Bonaparte's Gull Forester l sTern Caspian Tern Black Tern Ro c k Do v e Yellow-billed Cuckoo Solitary Sandpiper ~oJillet

S~otted Sandpiper Black-billed Cuckoo Screech Owl* Great Horned Owl* Burrowing Owl Long-eared Owl·', Short-eared Owl Saw-whet Owl Poor-will* Common Nighthawk* Chimney Swift White-throated Swift* Broad-tailed Hummingbird·\­Rufous Hummingbird Calliope Hummingbird Belted Kingfisher* Com m 0 n F 1 i c k e r·\­Red-headed Woodpecker* Lewis I : • ..Joodpecker'"

l{ C P I- C ~~ (~ 11 L ,; L h 0 ~; (:! S pee i e sob s e r v e don the pro j e c tar L' a .

N () N - (: A ~ll': Con lin 1I ~ d

Yeiio\.J-urcasleu Chat-:' \.J i 1 son I s \.J ; 1 r b 1 e r ,', i\ 1\1 l~ r i. C ;1 II I{ c d ~; t il r L ;',

II{)II~;C SI),ll-rOw ~obolink

Western Meadowlark* Yellow-headed Blackbtrd Ked-winged illackbird* Northern Oriole;\" Brewer's Blackbird* Common Grackl c-",

Brown-headed Cowbird·" Western Tanager* Rose-breasted Grosbeak ~lack-headed Grosbeak* Indigo Bunting La z u 1 i Bun tin g* Dickcissel Evening Grosbeak Cassin's Finch-,t( House Finch Pin e G r 0 S b e a k .', Gray-crowned Rosy Finch Uiack Rosy Finch Brown-capped Rosy Finch Common Redpoll P i It e Sis Ie in;', Am~rican Goldfinch* Lesser Goldfinch Red Crossbill." White-winged Crossbill Green-tailed Towhee* Rufous-sided Towhee Lark Bunting Savannah Sparrow Grasshopper Sparrov) ~aird's Sparrow Vesper Sparrow Lark Sparro\J Hiack-throated Sparrow Sage Sparrow", Dark-eyed Junco

Gray-headed Junco* Tree Sparrow·': Chipping Sparrow* CIa y - color e d Spa r r 0 \J

Brewer's Sparrow* Harris' Sparrow W hit e - c row ned Spa r r () \o/~,

White-throated Sparrow Fox Sparrow* Lincoln's Sparrow* Song Sparrow", McCown's Longspur Chestnut-collared Longspur Snow Bunting

WATERFOWL --------

Canada Goose 7C' S now Goo s e-:' Mallard* Ga dvla 11 i', Pintail·', Green-winged Teal* Blue-winged Teal* Cinnamon Teal* Am e ric a n Wig eon ,', Northern Shoveler Redhead;'· Ring-necked Duck Canvasback* Lesser Scaup'" Common Goldeneye Barrow's Goldeneye Bufflehead Ruddy Duck Common Merganser* Red-breasted Merganser Sandhill Crane* Virginia Rail So r a 1',

American Coot* Common Snipe-"C'

thnse <i pee i e sob s e r v e don the pro j e c tar e;\ •

N ( ) N - C 1\ ~II': con tin 1I e d ------------------

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker-:' Williamson's Sapsucker il air y \~ 0 0 d p e c k t.! r .. ', o 0 w n y \..J 0 () d P t.! C k e r ~\-

Northern Three-toed Woodpecker Eastern Kingbird Western Kingbird Cassin's Kingbird Ash-throated Flycatcher Say's Phoebe* Willow Flycatcher* Least Flycatcher Hammonds Flycatcher Gray Flycatcher Western Flycatcher* Western Wood Pewee* Olive-sided Flycatcher* Horned Lark;'; Violet-green Swallow* T r e e S w all 0 Itl ;';

13 a n k S ~v allow ~': R 0 ugh - W l n g e c.I S \-.1 allow -,': [>:lrll SW:lllow-'" eLi. [1 S \.J ; ILL () W ".';

Purple fvlartin G r Ll y J ~l Y -,': B L 1I (~ J Ll Y S L (.: 1 1 !..! r 's .J.:J Y -:. Scrub J.:Jy Bl.:Jck-billed Magpie* Common Raven;'· Com m 0 nCr 0 \v -,': Pinon Jay Clark's Nutcracker* Black-capped Chickadee* Mountain Chickadee;'· Plain Titmouse Common Bushtit W Il i. t e - b r e <l s ted N II tll':'l t c h Red-breasted NuLh.:Jlch* Pygmy Nuth<1Lch Bro\vn Creeper

Dipper)': House Wren"" Bewick's Wren Long-billed Marsh Wren Canon Wren Rock Wren* Gray Catbird;" Brown Thrasher"" Sage Thrasher"\­American Robin* Hermit Thrush"" Swainson's Thrush* Gray-cheeked Thrush Veery'" Western Bluebird Mountain Bluebird* Townsend's Solitaire* Blue-gray Gnatcatcher i ':

Golden-crowned Kinglet Ruby-crowned KingleL* Hater Pipit Bohemian \.~axwing

C e dar Wax w i. n g ;'(

l~ art her 11 S h r i. k e Loggerhead Shrike S J: a r 1 in g* Solitary Vireo Red-eyed Vireo War b 1 i n g Vir e 0 -:.

Black and white Warbler Tennessee Warbler* Orange-crowned Warbler* Virginia's Warbler Northern Parula y ell 0 w War b 1 e r ... '( Yellow-rumped Warbler* Townsend's Warbler Blackpoll Warbler Ovenbird Northern Waterthrush MacGillivray's Warblcr* Common Yellowthroat*

t{ cpr e sell I: s t: 110 s e s p e c i e sob s e r v e don the pro j e eta r c ,1 •

N (l N - (; J\ ~II': Con lin, I (. d

UP!. J\ N D GAM \.: 1\ 1 I{ D S -----------.------

Hlue Grol\se ......

S h a r p - t .1 i 1 e d C r 0 use -.'r Sage Grouse ... ·' King-necked Pheasant Gray Partridge Mourning Dove--'"

MAHMALS

Masked Shrew* Dusky Shrew,', Dwarf Shrew* Water Shrew Pygmy Shrew Long-legged Myotis Long-eared Myotis Silver-haired Bat Big Brown Bat Pika Whit~-tailed Jackrabbit* Least Chipmunk;!.-Uinta Chipmunk Yellow-Gellied MarmoL* Richardson Ground Squirrel* Thirteen-lined Ground Squirrel Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel* ~.J hit e - t ail e d P r air i e Dog ,', Northern Pocket Gopher* Olive-backed Pocket Mouse Ord's Kangaroo l{,lt Western Harvest Mouse Deer Mouse,': White-footed Mouse Nor the r n G r ass 110 P per i'10 use Bushy-tailed Wood Rat--', Gapper's Red-backed Vole He.1 til e r Vol e M 0 n tan e Vol e-:: Long-tailed Vole Prairie Vole

Sagebrush Vole W est ern J u m pin g MOil!; e -.', Porcupine'" Coyote* Red Fox";\-Swift Fox l{accoon* Fisher Wolverine Spotted Skunk Striped Skunk

.:, l{ e I) r L: ::i e 11 t s L h 0 s e s p e c i e sob s e r v e don the pro j e c tar t: il •

I.' II 1 { I; 1-: /\ I { I': I { S

UeaveC:'-~'1 u s k r a L .::

Pin e i'1,1 r L i 11 .:;

E r III i 11 l~ ',';

Long-tailed Weasel* Least Weasel Hink Badger"\' Bobcat·'(

SHALL G/\HE

Mountain Cottontail* Desert Cottontail Snowshoe Hare* Red Squirrel,'·

T i~O P 11 '{ GA:·IE

illacl<. Bear": Hount<.Jin Lion;':

B Ie (;A t·1 E

Elk·'; ;·1 u 1 e 0 e e r ~':

P r U 11 g 11 0 r II .':

RepresenLs those species observed on the project area.

APPENDIX 2

tv1ammals captured during trapping and birds observed on

Breeding Bird Transects in the Little Snake River Area

1983 and 1984.

SMALL MAMMAL SUMMARY FOR THE LITTLE SNAKE RIVER PROJECT

Locations: 1. NEi,SEi, Sec. 2, T 131~ , R89W 2. SE*,SEi, Sec. 18) TI6N, R87W 3. SWi,SWi, Sec. 25, TI5N, R89W 4. SEi,SEi, Sec. 2, TI3N, R89W

Vegetat ion Type: 1. Cottonwood riparian 2. Sagebrush grassland 3. Willow riparian 4. Mountain shrub

Dates of Trapping: 1. September 26-28 2 September 12-17 3. September 17-21 4. September 7 12

Trapping Pressure: 25 Sherman Live Traps 50 Museum Special Snap Traps (One live trap and two snap traps) per station

Location 4 Locat ion 2 Location 3 Location 1 Date Captured:

Septarber 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23

Species Captured:

Masked Shrew 1 1 3 2 1

Least Chiprrunk 1 1 1 2 1

Richardson I s Ground Squi rre 1 1 1 2

Deer Mouse 16 15 16 8 13 4 3 2 1 3 5 1 1 12 9 4

I~orthern Grasshopper tvbJse 2 1

Bushy-tailed Woodrat 1

Gapper's Red-backed Vole 1 2

Lmg tailed Vale 1

Project: Little Snake River

V e get at ion T yp e : Willow Riparian

L ocat ion: SESE Section 26, T15N, R89w

Species Observed Date and Number

6/13/84 6/20/84 6/26/84

1. Brewers Blackbird 14 7 6 2. Ameri can Rob i n 7 1 2 3. Rough-winged Swallow 2 4. Barn Swallow 2 5. American Kestrel 2 6. C inn amo n Tea 1 4 1 7. Ye 1 1 moJ War b 1 e r 7 2 3 8. Green-tailed Towhee 3 9. Song Sparrow 2 5 5

10. Common Grackle 4 4 11. Western Flycatcher 1 12 Western Wood Pewee 1 13. Common Crov, 1 14. Red-winged Blackbird 3 15. Killdeer 1 16. Mourning [Jove 1 17. S \v a ins 0 n IsH a w k 1 18. Cliff Swallow 2 19 Unknown 5 2

Project: Little Snake River

Vegetation Type: Sagebrush Grassland

Locat ion: NESE Section 26, TI5N, R89W

Species Observed Date and Number

6/13/84 6/20/84 6/26/84

1. Brewers Sparrow 6 31 2. Green-tailed Towhee 6 3 4 3. Killdeer 2 4. Kestrel 1 5. Turkey Vulture 1 6 Black-billed Magpie 1 7. Common Crow 1 1 8. Mourning Dove 1 9. Hummingbird 1

10. American Robin 1 11. Unk novln Sparrov, ,

.1.

Project: Little Snake River

Vegetation Type: Willow Riparian

Location: SESE Section 26, T15N, R89W

Species Observed Date and Number

6/13/84 6/20/84 6/26/84

1. Brewers Sparrow 14 7 6 2. American Robin 7 1 2 3. Rough-winged Swallow 2 4. Barn Swallow 2 5. American Kestrel 2 6. Cinnamon Teal 4 1 7 • Yellow Warbler 7 2 3 8 Green-tailed Towhee 3 9. Song Sparrow 2 5 5

10. Common Grackle 4 4 11. Western Flycatcher 1 1 12. Western Wood Pewee 1 13. Comon CrOvl 1 14. Red-winged Blackbird 3 15. Kill deer 1 16. ~1ourni ng Dove 1 17. S Vi a ins 0 n IsH a \'J k 1 18. Cliff Swallow 2 19. u nk nown 5 2

Project: Little Snake River

Vegetat ion Type: Mountain Shrub

Locat ion: Section 11, TI3N, R89W

Species Ubserved Date and Number

6/13/84 6/20/84 6/26/84

1. Hummingbird 6 2 5 2. House Wren 1 3 3. Yellow Warbler 4 3 1 4 Flycatcher 2 1 5. T }~ee Sparrow 1 6. American Robin 3 6 4 7. Black-billed Magpie 2 8. Audubon's Warbler 1 9. Green-tailed Towhee 2 1

10. Junco 1 11. Song Sparrow 1 12. Red-tai led Hawk 1 1 13. Brewer's Blackbird 1 14. Common Crow 1 15. Mourning Dove 1 16. U nk nown 1