STATE OF COLORADO

Bill Owens, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

DIVISION OF WILDLIFE     

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

Bruce McCloskey, Director

6060 Broadway

Denver, Colorado  80216

Telephone: (303) 297-1192

November 15, 2005

Ms. Cecilia Joy

Project Manager

Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 1

18500 East Colfax Avenue

Aurora, CO 80011

Dear Ms. Joy:

The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) expresses thanks for the opportunity to review and to provide comment regarding the Draft PEIS (DPEIS) for the I-70 Project between Glenwood Springs and C-470 in Colorado. We regret the unintentional delay in returning these comments to you. At the same time, the comments represent the review and professional recommendations of several of our employees, and we trust that you and your team will consider them as you continue the drafting of alternatives for future I-70 corridor plans. Thank you, in advance. We look forward to continuing to work with CDOT on this project. 

We understand that the DPEIS presents twenty “build alternatives” and a “no-action” alternative for increasing transportation capacity along the I-70 corridor. Of these, nine preferred alternatives have been identified and are currently under consideration by FHWA and CDOT. A single preferred alternative is not selected at this point in time, and will be identified in the forthcoming Final PEIS. When this is completed, another document in the Tier 2 analysis will contain subsequent design and environmental analysis. Site specific, project level details are not readily available in the current document, and we look forward to reviewing the details that will be further described in that document.

Following is an overview of our comments on this DPEIS.

A diversity of vegetation types and wildlife habitats will be impacted as a result of this project. Wetlands, grasslands, shrub lands and forested areas will be affected by the proposed project, representing habitat for a variety of wildlife species. To determine wildlife impacts one must take a landscape view of the project – and not look solely at the mapped critical habitats. Both direct impacts (e.g., habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, barriers to wildlife movement, animal vehicle collisions etc.) and indirect impacts (e.g., induced growth, increased recreation use, noise, and harassment etc.) will result from this project.  Cumulative impacts, the combination of the direct and indirect impacts, must be considered and addressed as well. 

There are opportunities to mitigate many of these impacts. CDOW field staff participated in the ALIVE committee (A Landscape Level Inventory of Valued Ecosystems) over the past several years. The results of this effort included the identification of 14 critical wildlife linkage zones. While 14 zones were identified as critical, additional zones need treatment. CDOW also participated in SWEEP (Stream and Wetland Ecological Enhancement Program). The work of these committees will be especially important to fully integrate design with wildlife and water resource needs during the Tier 2 analysis.

We offer the following comments on the current document. General comments are included first, with an appendix of specific comments communicated by our field staff.

There are two primary types of wildlife impacts that are addressed in the PEIS, “Direct Impacts,” which includes wildlife barrier effects, animal vehicle collisions (AVC), and habitat loss and fragmentation; and “Indirect Impacts,” including increased growth, increased recreation, and increased zone of impact.  The PEIS did not provide any details regarding or estimate quantity of “cumulative impacts” for the alternatives.

There will be increased growth that will have adverse effects to wildlife habitat and populations. Mountain valleys that contain important habitat and serve as wildlife migration and movement pathways are often subject to development. While the no action alternative will not address the existing wildlife movement barrier effects, all build alternatives will further increase barrier effects, and also potentially increase AVC impacts from the highway.

Jersey/Texas barriers, if used, should be developed to leave gaps or small holes so that small and medium sized wildlife species can successfully cross.

Any wildlife underpasses that are implemented should be designed, constructed and placed to maximize their effectiveness for wildlife movement. Making them as small as possible could make them less effective and may even compound the problem.

Table 3.2-1 describes much of what was discussed in ALIVE and other meetings. It is unclear what is meant by “proposed mitigation” and what will actually be implemented. CDOW would like to see mitigation plans more clearly described prior to the selection of a preferred alternative, and articulated in the selected alternative.

Tables that show impacted acreages need to be broken out to describe more specific locations. Listing total acreages does not adequately account for the difference in habitat; i.e., the loss of ten acres in one place may have a much different impact than the loss of ten acres somewhere else.  An example is the Bighorn Sheep range, as shown on Volume II, page RM-5, map 3.2-5. Here there is only a very small area of bighorn winter range (severe winter range and concentration areas); the loss of ten acres in this location would have a much greater impact than the loss of similar acreage in a location with more winter range areas.  

Boreal toad, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (PMJM) and PMJM habitat may be impacted (as well as other T/E Species). Appropriate consultation and permitting needs to be obtained from appropriate agencies, including Senate Bill 40 clearance from CDOW.

The Canada lynx, a federally threatened species, is also impacted by development in the I-70 corridor. To date; the Division of Wildlife has documented four lynx killed on I-70. Two of these were killed on Vail Pass and the other two were killed within 2 miles of the Bakerville exit east of the Eisenhower Tunnel. Based on radio collar data and these mortalities I-70 represents a barrier to lynx movement in central Colorado. This barrier is not insurmountable as numerous lynx (70-100) have successfully crossed. However, the mortality rate of 4-7% is significant.  We would appreciate the opportunity to work with CDOT on developing strategies to ensure lynx can continue to cross I-70 and to reduce or mitigate mortalities associated with attempts to cross.

Small mammal and migratory bird impacts are not evaluated in depth.

Contaminants from road deicing may affect vegetation and are likely to bring wildlife closer to the roads, increasing the chances for AVC. Alternatives should be considered.

Stream channelization from highway construction will destroy or degrade wetland functions and values. Effective mitigation efforts must be identified and implemented to compensate for these impacts.

A noxious weed management plan needs to be developed and implemented to protect vegetative communities from invasion of noxious weeds during and after construction activities. The first phase of this would be to inventory and identify weed colonies along the corridor. Treatment of these areas and monitoring of other parts of the corridor need to be included.

A reclamation plant species list should be provided. This list should be geared towards non-palatable plants on the side of the road to help minimize attracting wildlife to the roadway to feed (and increasing AVC). It is understood that using species that are non-palatable to wildlife should reduce the AVC but it will increase the impacts from loss of habitat.

We appreciate your consideration of these comments. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

John Bredehoft

Assistant Director, Field Operations

CC:   Eric Odell, Conservation Biologist

Bill Andree, Tom Kroening, Shannon Schwab, Craig Wescoatt, Ty Petersburg, Tom Howard, District Wildlife Managers

        Pat Tucker, Lyle Sidener, John Hood, Area Wildlife Managers

        Ron Velarde, Northwest Regional Manager

        John Bredehoft, Public Services Manager

Appendix of specific comments

Pg-ES-8 Problematic areas: This section speaks to areas with problems expected by 2025 if no action is taken, but not all of these areas are discussed in the PEIS.  Also, there is no discussion on what the impacts to these sites will be if only part of the plan is funded, i.e. the section up to Summit County. 

Pg-ES-22 Areas of safety concern: There is only one mention of animals in this section. The accident rate for AVC seems to warrant additional comments on AVC. 

Pg-ES-26 Key Wildlife Habitat and Wildlife Movement:  The maps for Eagle County do not include mule deer winter range or migration corridors.  All mule deer habitat in Eagle County is considered critical habitat as mapped by WRIS, including winter range.  This point was made at several of the ALIVE meetings, but the maps still do not reflect this.  Once the Eagle County deer winter range and migration corridors are included on the maps, it will be evident that the acreage impacted is higher, and this increase should be noted.

The statement that “mule deer have been declining probably in response to management that favors elk and livestock” is not entirely accurate.  The CDOW has not been managing to favor livestock, or in many areas, elk.  The areas west of Vail Pass have been increasing elk licenses each year and have also been aiming habitat improvement projects to benefit deer more than elk.  Mule deer numbers have decreased due to several factors, but active management to benefit livestock (in Eagle County) is not one of them.  The reasons for declining mule deer are numerous and varied but clearly loss of habitat, from both roads and development is a major component. Loss of habitat should be addressed here as a factor, as should the future impact to wildlife habitats from improving the road system through these areas.

Habitat loss: This section needs to address impacts by specific locations, and provide more detail. Habitat loss must be related to specific sites, as it is clear that stating the acreage lost does not communicate the real value of the habitat. For example, losing 10 acres of mule deer winter range in Eagle County could result in a much different impact than losing 10 acres on the Front Range.  Although the habitat types may be mapped under the same specifications, all similar habitats are not of equal value, each one needs to be evaluated for the general herd conditions in the area of the impact.  It is critical that the impacts be displayed for each area, not on a system wide analysis.

Current barriers to wildlife crossings (in addition to those assumed in the build alternatives descriptions) need to be addressed. Areas that are currently barriers to crossing will only become worse with an improved highway capable of carrying more traffic unless adequate underpasses are developed. The issue of correcting the current areas that are wildlife barriers was discussed during the ALIVE meetings. If these barriers are not corrected, the impact from not correcting them needs to be described in the PEIS. Also during the ALIVE meetings CDOT developed a map showing all of the barriers to wildlife along the entire length of I-70, including wildlife fencing, guard rails, towns, jersey barriers, rock cliffs, etc. This map presented an excellent picture of the barrier effect I-70 and the associated impacts growth has on wildlife.  Perhaps more important was that it showed where wildlife could cross.  This map should be presented in the PEIS. 

Pg-ES-42 Cumulative impacts: This section does not provide the reviewing public with enough detail.  The cumulative impacts to wildlife from a project this size can’t be detailed in one paragraph.  For the review to have meaning there needs to be a listing of the impacted species and acres of habitat impacted directly and indirectly.  Areas that will impact important wildlife crossings should be listed along with the mitigation planned for those areas.

Pg-3.2-2 Dominant vegetation: The Wolcott area, north facing, should include Mountain shrub. From Edwards to Avon, north facing, there are no agricultural lands; in this section the majority of property is too steep, or is already developed.  South facing, there are no agricultural lands; in this section there is a golf course, and there are subdivisions that include a couple of small sagebrush and mountain shrub areas.

Pg-3.2-3 Influence of past activities: Regarding the third paragraph: the impacts from I-70 are difficult to quantify, but they are clearly very significant.  Direct loss of habitat, fragmentation of habitat, blocking migration corridors, AVC, increased growth of towns and communities are all impacts from I-70.

Pg-3.2-5 Animal-Vehicle Collisions (AVC): This section needs to stress the point that, unfortunately, there is very limited data on the actual number of AVC.  In a nine year period from Eagle to Vail Pass (mp 147 to 188) we were able to document 370 road kills (big game and other wildlife), so the estimated figures of 923 AVC between Glenwood and C-470 in ten years seems very low.  The fact that a large number of the AVC on I-70 involve semi-trucks that don’t stop or report the accidents plays a large part in why the reported number is so low.  A better example would be to show the AVC rate with the 16-50% reporting rate factored in. 

The AVC rate shown does not include bears and lions which in some areas can be a significant number.  The section from Wolcott to Vail (mp 156 to 173) had 6 road-killed bears just this year. In addition we responded to 3 other reports and found evidence a bear was hit but did not finds the carcass.  In addition, the AVC does not include small and medium sized mammals, or birds, reptiles and amphibians; these, depending on the location, can be significant numbers.

The report should show which areas currently have eight foot deer fencing and/or wildlife crossing structures. When this information is compared with the AVC rate you get a different picture.  Dowd Canyon has eight foot deer fencing on both sides plus the Mud Springs deer underpass, yet the AVC rate is still over 0.5.  The Eagle area has three spanning bridges and eight foot deer fence on both sides yet the AVC rate is 0.3.  This will also highlight the problem of inadequate fence maintenance.

Pg-3.2-6 Key Wildlife Habitat: The PEIS does not currently show mule deer winter range and migration corridors as critical habitat for Eagle County.  The deer migration corridor in Eagle County is generally considered to be the 2^nd largest in CO.; the first is the Piceance deer herd.  The migration corridor is mapped on the north side of I-70 from Dowd Junction to Dotsero.

Pg-3.2-12, 13     Linkage interference zones and mitigation: There are numerous errors that need correction in this section regarding where the deer fence is located and where it isn’t, including the following; 

Zone 3: there is not an existing fence for the entire distance between Eagle and Wolcott on the north side.

Mitigation section: small mammals are finally addressed with “Investigated median barriers with gaps large enough to accommodate small mammals…” To be effective, barriers must be placed every .25 mile.  This should be mitigation on all zones of I-70.

Zone 4: there is deer fencing in this zone on the north side of I-70 from the Edwards exit west to approximately Wilmor Lake. There are no wildlife crossing structures in this area.  I-70 has shut down on numerous occasions to let 200 – 300 elk cross I-70.   The USFS 400 acre trade no longer includes 300 units of housing.  This zone contains mule deer winter range and part of the migration corridor.  This section has significant conflicts especially with elk trying to cross I-70 to the north to access winter range due to development pressure on the south side of I-70. Since 1996 there has been an average of nine documented road-killed elk in this section annually. This represents an increase from approximately two annually prior to 1996.

Mitigation section: this section on mitigation is good; however, the need for a wildlife crossing structure between MM 163 - 165.5 should be noted. Without a crossing structure the elk will walk around the fence at the two exits and become a problem on Highway 6 and on the spurs roads at Avon and Edwards.  Jersey barriers should have openings or gaps that allow for the passage of small mammals.

Zone 5: In Dowd Canyon on the south side of I-70 the forest vegetation comes down to the deer fence, within 100 feet of I-70.  The deer fence is on both sides of I-70 within Dowd Canyon, but stops at the West Vail interchange and at the I-70 bridge over the Eagle River.  There is no deer fence on the south side of I-70 west of the bridge over the Eagle River.  The deer fence starts again on the north side of I-70 at the half interchange at Eagle Vail and goes west to the Avon exit.  This section of deer fence will be partially removed for the development approved on the private land.  The property on the north and south side of I-70 from the Avon exit east to the new half interchange at Eagle Vail is private with development approvals for approximately one million square feet of commercial space and 1,700 units.  The only lease the CDOW has in this section is on the State Land Board section; the other parcels of land were purchased to protect the migration corridor for mule deer, and are owned by the CDOW.

Mitigation section: any jersey barriers should have openings or gaps that allow for the passage of small mammals.  Replacing the existing Mud Springs deer underpass with a much larger structure would be critical to improving the wildlife movement across I-70 in this section.

Pg-3.2-23: Mitigation Measures: the section on wildlife needs to point out that even if a right of way was once disturbed, if it was properly re-vegetated it is providing habitat now; any loss of habitat should be mitigated.

Pg-3.3-5 River Otter have been documented in the Eagle River, Gore Creek and the Colorado River.

Pg- 4-11 Affected Environment: Wildlife Habitat: Primary wildlife issues should include not only the potential for fragmentation of habitat and barrier effects on wildlife movement, but also the direct and indirect habitat loss from I-70 construction, AVC, accelerated growth from I-70 construction and increased wildlife impacts from increased recreation use in rural areas (a result of increased accessibility).

Volume II

Please consider the following corrections and recommendations.

Pg-RM-4 Map 3.2-4, Mule Deer habitats: map is missing mule deer winter range.  In Eagle County all deer habitats are considered critical habitat; therefore both mule deer winter range and migration corridors need to be shown and included in the evaluation of the habitat impacts from the I-70 project. The migration corridor should be shown on the north side of I-70 from Dowd Junction going west to Dotsero; the 9,000’ elevation is roughly the upper boundary of the migration corridor because of snow depth.  The corridor also extends on the south side of I-70 at Dowd Junction where the deer stage before migrating.  The red arrows are not migration corridors but migration patterns; needs correction.

Pg-RM-8 Map 3.2-8,     Wildlife Linkage Interference Zones:  There are several sections within the Glenwood Canyon that are barriers to wildlife due to the elevated highway and retaining walls.

Pg-RM-12, Map 3.2-12, Wolcott to Avon: This map does not show the wildlife fencing that is in place from Edwards exit (MM 163) west on the north side of I-70 down to approximately MM 161.2.

Pg-Rm-13, Map 3.2-13, Dowd Canyon area: There is no wildlife fencing on the south side of I-70 west of the Minturn exit.  There is wildlife fencing on the north side of I-70 starting at about MM 169 and going west to the Avon exit.

Pg-F-21, Boreal Toad: There is a breeding population in the Gore Creek drainage outside of USFS lands within the Town of Vail.  This population is approximately 100 yards from I-70, so any additional width in this area could impact the population.

Pg-F-22, Cutthroat trout: The statement that cutthroat evolved from the rainbow trout is misleading; correct, or indicate they evolved from a similar ancestor.

Pg-F-29, Elk:      There is nothing said regarding the elk on the west side of Vail Pass; missing Big Game Units 34, 35, 36, 44, 444, 45.

Pg F-30: Regarding the statement that estimating the impacts from REZ related disturbances is difficult: estimated impacts should still be provided. The fact that it is difficult to quantify the impacts doesn’t lessen the impacts or the need to define the impacts. Using the simple USFS study of road disturbance of ¼ mile each side of the road would provide a starting point.  The charts provided within the PEIS greatly underestimate the impact on wildlife from the REZ.  In addition, there are numerous studies on impacts from recreation and human disturbances on elk (Alldredge, deVergie, Phelps).   These studies were completed in Eagle County within resort areas where the elk should be somewhat accustomed to human disturbance; however, the studies showed human disturbance to be a major factor on elk calving and changing the movements and habitat use by elk.

Pg-F-30, Mule Deer: It is unclear why mule deer on the west side of Vail Pass were left out.   The same BGUs apply for deer that applied for elk. Also the deer population in Eagle County under the proposed new DAU plans will be shown as being reduced because the habitat no longer exists to meet this population level. Note that BGU 44 is a quality deer unit.

Pg-F-35, Moose: Moose are found year round in Eagle County; three have been killed on I-70, one of which killed the driver of the vehicle.  Moose extend from Vail Pass to Dotsero.  The AVC occurred in the East Vail, Eagle Vail and Wolcott areas.  Moose have been documented crossing I-70 in Vail, Dowd Junction, Eagle Vail, Wolcott, and Dotsero. 

ES–8, Problematic Areas: There is a listing of the Eagle Interchange (147) and the Gypsum (140) as being problematic.  There is no mention or discussion of the impact on the either or both of these interchanges if or when the airport interchange is constructed.  Have there been studies to determine whether the completion of this airport interchange may result in a reduction of traffic from airport destination travelers and local traffic for both the Eagle and the Gypsum interchanges? Will the Eagle County Airport Interchange EA be included in this PEIS?

ES–22, Areas of Safety Concern: In addition to the curve at milepost 156, there is an increased movement of wildlife (elk) around milepost 157 from the south to the north.  Because of the rapid urbanization in the areas adjacent to the Eagle River there are new wildlife movement patterns being observed.  AVCs are only briefly mentioned but seem to be on the increase and are consistent with these movement corridors. 

ES–26, Key Wildlife Habitat and Wildlife Movement: There is a lack of consistency between the ARNF and the WRNF relative to the wildlife chosen to be representative for the study.  Mule deer should be considered as the indicator species of big game mammals in the Eagle River corridor for this study. Areas used as winter range, severe winter range, concentration areas, and migration corridors should be mapped and used in this study.

Animal –Vehicle Collisions: Reported AVCs usually occur only because there is damage to the involved vehicle. Minor accidents and AVCs involving semi-trucks or other vehicles in which damage is negligible go unreported.  Assuming 923 AVCs were actually reported over the ten years period from 1988 to 1998, as reported in the Barnum 2002 report, and extrapolating this number using the 16% to 50% reporting rate (Romin and Bissonette 1996, Messner et, al. 2002),  the actual number of AVCs could range anywhere between 1846 to 5768 big game animals actually involved in collisions. It should be noted that this number does not include other species of wildlife for which there is not a reporting or recording procedure. Also of note, but not recorded, is the number of scavengers/carrion eating wildlife species, many of them raptors, who hunt roadsides and feed at AVC sites; many of these species are also lost to AVCs.

Barrier Effect to Wildlife Movement: A portion of wildlife fence in Eagle County is in disrepair.  The fence allows wildlife access to I-70 and then “traps” them on the road. Making the maintenance of the fence a priority, and providing funding for annual fence operation and maintenance, needs to be addressed in this document.

Cumulative Impacts, Wildlife Issues in the Corridor:  “Deer fence” does exist in various sections along I-70 at this time yet the sections that are fenced are not documented in the report.  A comparison of the number of AVCs reported in sections of the fenced interstate with unfenced sections could illustrate the effectiveness or ineffectiveness due to maintenance of fencing in reducing AVCs.

Pg-3.2-21, Summary Barrier Effect: Before expansion occurs, existing wildlife movement barriers need to be addressed. Fences need of maintenance and Jersey and Texas barriers need redesigning to accommodate wildlife movement.

- CDOT has identified four zones in Summit County in which wildlife crossings would be considered.  We have prioritized two of the zones for wildlife crossings:  Zone 7: Copper Mountain to the East side of Vail Pass; and Zone 9a: Laskey Gulch.  Zone 7 has several existing bridges that would require the construction of additional bridges/underpasses on opposite lanes to allow wildlife to go under the interstate in both directions.  These mitigation measures have the greatest potential to benefit wildlife.  A crossing at Laskey Gulch, Zone 9a, would provide substantial benefits.

-Animal Vehicle Collisions (AVC): We have identified an area that was not within any of the identified zones or mentioned in the PEIS, but that requires fencing to reduce AVCs. The area is located between mile post 205 at Silverthorne and mile post 203 at Frisco, on the north side of the interstate.  Only the north side of the interstate needs to be fenced, because most animals come from the north and cross to the south.  The south side is essentially a small habitat island – once the animals get there they usually move back across the interstate. In this area, many deer are hit crossing, especially in spring and fall; elk use the area and are hit more often in the winter.  More recently moose have moved down Salt Lick and Ryan Gulch to try to cross, resulting in the potential for more serious collisions. 

Zone 7 currently has the highest AVC rate in Summit County.  If constructed properly, the proposed mitigation measures for Zone 7 could reduce AVC in this zone.