Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff report 06.03.2011BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT June 3, 2011 Clevi_c t l 2 Attention: Phil Vaughan PVCMI — Land Planning Division 1038 County Road 323 Rifle, CO 81650 RE: Enterprise Gas Processing, LLC — Piceance Creek Pipeline Loop (PDPA 6829) Dear Phil, Upon review, the Application was deemed technically complete on May 5, 2011 and has been reviewed against the submittal requirements required in Article IX of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. This letter shall constitute Garfield County's review of the project. I. Project Overview Enterprise Gas Processing, LLC (Applicant) proposes to construct a new 20.8 mile pipeline that will transport natural gas from the Piceance Basin in Garfield County to the Meeker Gas Plant located in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. The portion of the pipeline that Garfield County will review is approximately three (3) miles long in Sections 22, 27, and 34, Township 4 South, Range 96 West, Garfield County, Colorado. The purpose of this pipeline is to provide safe, reliable, and cost effective transportation of natural gas produced in the area. The pipeline is accessed from County Road 215 (CR 215) and then through Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. property via Stewart Creek Road. The zone district is Resource Lands — Plateau. The new pipeline is 36 -inch in diameter and is located on entirely on fee simple land. A 36 -inch pig launcher and pig receiver will be constructed at the end of the pipeline at Station 1098 +26.49. The construction right-of-way is generally 75 feet in width and the permanent easement is 50 feet wide. The majority of the proposed pipeline is located in an existing, disturbed right -of -way in an effort to reduce further surface disturbance. 11. Ownership The proposed pipeline is located on Piceance Creek Ranch Limited and Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. property. There are no buildings within 350 feet of the proposed pipeline. 0375 County Road 352, Building #2060 • Rifle, CO 81650 1 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 625 -5900 • Fax: (970) 625 -5939 (970) 945 -8212 • Fax: (970) 384 -3470 Ili. Notice to Surface Owners The proposed pipeline is situated on property owned by Piceance Creek Ranch Limited and Encana Oil and Gas (USA). Evidence of surface owner notification and surface agreements has been provided. IV. Need for Proposed Action The purpose of this pipeline is to construct a pipeline to deliver natural gas from gas wells in the Piceance Basin area to the Meeker Gas Plant and then to market. The transportation of natural gas via pipeline is a critical process in delivering gas to the market system as is needed to keep up with the natural gas production curve of the natural gas gathering system. V. Regulatory Permit Requirements The following table provides the applicable permit agency name, permit required, and status of permit for this application. The CDPHE permits for stormwater and hydrostatic testing have been issued but not the permit for Fugitive Dust Emissions. Permit Agency Permit Needed Permit Status Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment - Water Quality Control Division Colorado Discharge Permit System stormwater The CDPS Permit was issued on 5/03111, Permit # COR D3Ff613 US Army Corp of Engineers Nationwide Permit 12 for Utility Activity — Not Required Letter from WestWater Engineering letter dated 3/24/11 indicates that there are no Waters of the U.S. located within subject site. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division Fugitive Dust Emissions Land Development GP03 General Permit applied for on 3/29/11 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division Colorado Discharge Permit System Hydrostatic Testing of Pipelines The CDPS was issued 5/18111, Permit # COG604102 VI. Primary Project Participants The names of project participants were provided and are as follows: Company Name Contact Address Phone NumberlEmail Address Enterprise Gas Processing, LLC Authorized Representative Mr. Alex Lopez P.O. Box 1298 Grand Junction, CO 81502 (970) 261 -6305; aslopez @eprod.com Rooney Engineering Project Designer Zachary Bauer, PE 12201 East Arapahoe Road, Suite C -10 Centennial, CO 80112 (303) 705 -9313 JFC Engineers and Surveyors Project Surveyor Joseph W. Manatos, PLS 1515 Ninth Street, Suite A Rock Springs, WY 82901 (307) 362 -7519 Pipeline Construction Company TBD VII. Project Facilities Permanent project facilities include a permanent row (50 feet wide), pig launcher, and pig receiver. The pig launcher and receiver shall be painted juniper green to blend with the surrounding environment. VIII. Construction Schedule 2 Construction of the pipeline is scheduled to begin upon receipt of application permits and will take approximately 22 weeks to complete. IX. Sensitive Area Survey Several reports are provided to address areas of concern within and adjacent to the proposed pipeline including a Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report prepared by WestWater Engineers dated March 2011 and Class I Cultural Resource Inventory prepared by Grand River Institute dated March 10, 2011. Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report Federal Listed Threatened, Endangered, Candidate Wildlife Species The Biological Resource Report Sensitive Areas Report indicates that habitat for nesting and brooding area of the federal Candidate of Greater Sage- grouse occurs within the project area and signs of this bird were observed during the site survey. In order to mitigate impacts to this species the Applicant shall implement Best Management Practices (BMP) of Appendix C of the Parachute - Piceance -Roan Greater Sage - grouse Conservation Plan (2008) identified in the Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report. The Colorado pikeminnow is a federally - listed fish species that occurs in the White River. East Stewart Gulch is a tributary to Piceance Creek which flows into the White River. In order to protect this species from accidental spills of toxic materials and sedimentation Best Management Practices, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) shall be followed. State listed Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Wildlife Species Four state listed threatened, endangered, or special concern species may occur within the project area including American Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle, Northern leopard Frog and Townsend's Big -eared Bat. This report does not indicate that these species are present within the subject area. Raptors and Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) During the July 19 -22 2010 site survey, five raptor nests were observed within the project area; two occupied; and, three unoccupied. None of these nests were in danger of direct removal but activities associated with the proposed project have the potential to affect raptor populations through nesting disturbance. The Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report indicates that it is probable that raptors will nest within the project area survey boundary in 2011 and previously unoccupied nests could become occupied or new nest locations could be established by nesting raptors before pipeline construction begins. Therefore, the report recommends that if the project is not completed prior to 2011 nesting season, the area should be re- inventoried by a qualified biologists to locate any previously known or new raptor nests that may be affected by construction activities. If occupied nests are discovered, the potential for possible effects to raptors could be reduced by scheduling construction activities so there is no interference with breeding, nesting, and brooding rearing of the species occupying the nest sites. The report also recommends temporal and spatial restriction guidelines for construction activities near active nests based on BLM stipulations (BLM 1997), CDOW recommendations (Craig 2002 and Klute 2008), and literature review of nesting season timing for raptors in the Roan Plateau region (Andrews and Righter 1992, Kingery 1998). Recommendation for the raptor species that could possibly nest in the project area are summarized in Table 6 of the report. No BCC were observed in the study area. 3 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species of Plants (TESS) The Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report indicate that there is no TESS habitat is within the subject project area. Wetlands No Waters of the United States or wetlands were observed within the project area. Staff recommends the BMPs and mitigation recommendations identified in the Biological Resource Report Sensitive Areas Report prepared by WestWater and dated March 2011 be made conditions of approval and are attached as Exhibit A. Class I Cultural Resource Inventory The Class I Cultural Resource Inventory by Grand River Institute dated March 10, 2011 indicates that "no effect" is deemed appropriate for the proposed pipeline and no further work is recommended. X. Revegetation Plan The Stormwater Management Plan dated November 2010 and Weed Management Plan dated March 2011, provide adequate reclamation methods and seed mixes to reclaim the disturbed areas of the pipeline corridor. XI. Weed Management Plan An Integrated Vegetation and. Noxious Weed Management Plan prepared by WestWater Engineering dated March 2011 is contained within the application. XI1. Emergency Response Plan An Emergency Response Plan is included within the application. X1II. Traffic Impact The primary staging areas and pipe materials storage are located in Rio Blanco County. It is anticipated that the pipe will be hauled to the construction right -of -way via CR 215, and then through Encana property via access on Stewart Creek. The work day for this project will begin at 5:00 am and end at 8:00 pm, Monday through Saturday. All vehicles of employees will be parked at the primary staging area and personnel will be transported to the work area in either Company vehicles or within a large capacity vehicle from Rio Blanco County to the site. Only contractor vehicles will be allowed on to the pipeline right -of -way. The majority of the traffic from employees and contractors will occur between 7:00 am and 8:00 am and 5:30 pm to 6:30 pm. Number and type of vehicle trips anticipated to be are: 15 to 20 pickup trucks, 10 to 15 large heavy trucks, and six to 10 large capacity trucks. XIV. Staging Areas All staging areas are to be located in Rio Blanco County. XV. Hydro Test Water A Hydrostatic Best Management Practices (BMP) Management Plan has been developed for this application. This plan addresses discharge activities associated with hydrostatic testing of new pipelines and the associated BMPs that will be required to manage the discharges. There is no discharge points located within Garfield County. 4 XVI. Referral. Comments Staff referred the application to the following State agencies and/or County Departments for their review and comment. Comments received are briefly mentioned below or are more comprehensively incorporated within the appropriate section of this report. Comment letters are attached and labeled as noted. A. County Road and Bridge Department (Exhibit B): This agency has no issues with this application. B. County Vegetation Management (Exhibit C): This agency's comments are as follows: Integrated Vegetation and Weed Management • The integrated•vegetation management plan is acceptable. • It is recommended that the Applicant remove any old spotted knapweed plants prior to the construction of the pipeline. Reclamation • The surface are disturbed by the pipeline will be 47.87 acres. A revegetation security of $119,675 (47.87acres x $2,5001acre) is requested. • The Applicant shall provide the Vegetation Management Department with the original tags from each seed bag. The seed mix in the Plan shall match the seed mix used in the field. Do not use a seed mix containing yellow sweet clover (Me/ilotus offcinalis) or annual yellow sweetclover (M. indicus). • The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully re- established according to the Reclamation Standards in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the County, upon successful revegetation establishment, to request an inspection for security release consideration. • The Reclamation Standards at the date of permit issuance are cited in Section(s) 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (Resolution #2002 -94). Erosion Control • Any straw or hay bales used in erosion control shall be certified weed free. C. Garfield County Development Engineer -- Contract (Exhibit D): This consultant indicated the following: • The plans show that there are existing pipelines that will be in conflict with the proposed 36" diameter pipe and 48" minimum cover. No construction details are provided that illustrate how these conflicts will be resolved. The Applicant needs to provide more information concerning mitigation of pipeline crossings, separation, and depths. D. Rio Blanco County Planning Department: No comments received. E. Grand Valley Fire Protection District: No comments received. F. Surface owners — Piceance Creek Ranch Limited and Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc.: No comments received. XVII. SUMMARY OF REVIEW The Applicant proposes to construct a new 20.8 mile pipeline that will transport natural gas from the Piceance Basin in Garfield County to the Meeker Gas Plant located in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. Approximately three (3) miles of this pipeline is located in Garfield County in Sections 22, 27, and 34, Township 4 South, Range 96 West, 6th P.M., Garfield County, Colorado and will be reviewed by the County. The subject pipeline right -of -way is located on fee land and will deliver natural gas from gas wells in the Piceance area to the 36 -inch diameter for transportation to the Meek Gas Plant. The purpose of this pipeline is to provide safe, reliable, and cost effective transportation of natural gas produced in the area. 5 The County's Consulting Engineer, Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering and the Applicant's Representative, Phil Vaughan, Phil Vaughan Construction Management Land Planning & Permitting discussed the comment identified under Exhibit D and it was concluded that construction details of points of crossing of proposed pipelines crossing and existing pipelines will not be necessary and no condition of approval will be set regarding this matter, see Exhibits E and F. Upon substantive review of the documents submitted against the required standards and criteria in Section IX of the Unified Land Use Code Resolution 2008, as amended, Staff has made a determination of Approval with Conditions for the Enterprise Gas Processing, LLC — Piceance Creek Pipeline Loop (PDPA 6829). The specific conditions include the following: 1. Any equipment used in construction or operation of a pipeline shall comply with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Rules and Regulations, Section 802, Noise Abatement. Additionally, all power sources used in pipeline operations shall have electric motors or muffled internal combustion engines. 2. Pipeline operations shall be located in a manner to minimize their visual impact and disturbance of the land surface. Facilities shall be painted in a uniform, non - contrasting, non - reflective color, to blend with the adjacent landscape. Right -of -way shall be located in existing disturbed areas unless safety or visual concerns or other adverse surface impacts clearly dictate otherwise. 3. The Applicant shall provide the County with a digital alignment of the pipeline once constructed in a format readable to the County Geographic Information System (GIS) analyst. 4. In no case shall an operator engage in activities which impact Federal or State threatened and endangered species. 5. Air contaminant emissions shall be in compliance with the applicable permit and control provisions of the Colorado Air Quality Control Program, Title 25, Resolution 7, C.R.S. 6. All operations shall comply with all applicable Federal and State Public Health and Environment, Noise, and Air and Water Quality Control standards. 7. Should an abandoned pipeline be removed, it shall be subject to the original revegetation and weed management requirements in the original application. 8. Financial Security for Reclamation: Prior to permit approval, the Applicant shall provide the County with a bond to the amount of $119,675 (47.87 acres x $2,500 /acre) is requested. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the County, upon successful revegetation establishment, to request an inspection for security release consideration. 9. The Applicant shall provide the Vegetation Management Department with the original tags from each seed bag. The seed mix in the plan shall match the seed mix used in the field. Do not use a seed mix containing yellow sweet clover (Melilotus offcinalis) or annual yellow sweetclover (M. indicus). 6 10. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully re- established according to the Reclamation Standards in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the County, upon successful revegetation establishment, to request an inspection for security release consideration. The Reclamation Standards at the date of permit issuance are cited in Section(s) 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (Resolution #2002 -94). 11. Any straw or hay bales used in erosion control shall be certified weed free. 12. The Applicant shall have the project area re- inventoried by qualified biologists to locate any previously known or new raptor nests that may be affected by the proposed pipeline. A letter summarizing their findings shall be submitted to Garfield County Planning Department for review. 13. The Applicant shall adhere to the Biological Resource Report Sensitive Areas Report's (March 2011) wildlife BMPs and mitigation recommendations as identified in Exhibit A. 14. Prior to the Issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide the Garfield County Building and Planning Department a copy of the CDPHE air permit. This determination has been sent to the Board of County Commissioners to determine if they wish to call up the matter. The BOCC has 14 days to determine if they need to call up the application. If there is no call up, on June 10, 2011 the County will be able to inform you that the permit has been approved and can be recorded. Do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, Molly Orkild- Larson, AICP, RLA Senior Planner 970.625.5903 7 Results: No fish habitat exists in the project area; no fish inventories were conducted. EXHIBIT s 4.6 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species of Plants (TESS) The occurrence and distribution of TESS plants are strongly influenced by geologic formations and the resulting soil types present in an area. Individual TESS plant populations are usually scattered and often are comprised of a small number of individual plants. This is primarily a result of specific soil and moisture requirements of each species and the high variability in the distribution and surface exposure of the layers within the suitable geologic formations. Results: The nearest known potential habitat for any TESS plant is approximately nine miles north of the Garfield/Rio Blanco county line; no TESS habitat occurs in Garfield County in the project area. 4.7 Waters of the United States (WOUS) WOUS include water features likely to be within the jurisdiction of the ACOE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Jurisdictional waters may include drainage courses (e.g., streams or ephemeral drainages that connect to streams via surface flow or subsurface connection), ponds, lakes, wetlands, and springs. 4.7.1 Procedures Drainages indicated by blue lines on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps were compared with Enterprise project maps to determine which drainages might be impacted by pipeline construction activity. Those drainages were located, photographed, and recorded. Evidence of an OF-IWM was noted. Additional potential jurisdictional drainages which were encountered during field surveys but not necessarily indicated on topographic maps or having an ordinary high water mark (OHWM), were also recorded. Three photos were taken of each potential ACOE drainage - up slope, down slope, and at a point where the alignment may intersect it. WWE biologists surveyed the area for potential wetlands, springs, and seeps along drainages and upland areas. Hydrology, soil, and vegetation characteristics were used to determine potential wetlands. Each potential wetland was photographed and the location was recorded for future delineation and verification by ACOE. Results: No WOUS or wetlands were observed in the Garfield County portion of the project. In the Garfield County portion of the proposed alignment, the pipeline remains on top of the ridge and does not intersect any drainages. 5.0 IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General Wildlife Impacts and Recommendations Project construction will affect on -site wildlife habitat and native vegetation. Locating the pipeline within an adjacent existing pipeline corridor will lessen the potential effects to wildlife. The primary effects would be habitat alteration and displacement of individuals through disturbances related to increased development. The human disturbance that will be associated with the pipeline construction activities will indirectly cause some wildlife species to avoid the area, at least during the periods of human activity. Some wildlife species will become accustomed to the human activity while maintaining a distance that is tolerable. The impact to WestWater Engineering Page 12 of 23 March 2011 wildlife as a result of the pipeline installation and operation is relatively minimal and would not affect the overall status of wildlife populations of the area. However, the project and its ongoing activities will contribute to the overall cumulative impacts on wildlife populations of the area that are experiencing gradual habitat loss, fragmentation, alteration, and displacement through increased development. The following recommendations for mitigation are presented for maintenance and improvement of wildlife habitat and prevention of human- caused impacts to resources. 5.1.1 Effects on Elk and Mule Deer The project will not significantly affect big game populations since the total area of disturbance is small relative to the total amount of similar habitat that is available in the project area. However, the project's disturbance to big game habitat will be cumulative to the previous habitat alteration that has occurred in the region. Construction of the pipeline will affect on -site vegetation and wildlife habitat by reducing the forage and cover available. Potential effects include the short term loss of elk winter range. As a short term effect, human presence and activities during pipeline construction may create an avoidance area for elk and mule deer populations within and immediately adjacent to the project area. However, in some instances deer and elk may have habituated to human disturbance factors. There will also be a short term loss of big game forage until disturbed sites are adequately rehabilitated with appropriate vegetation. 5.1.1.1 Recommendations for Mule Deer and Elk Because the proposed project lies within a sensitive area for wintering big game (as defined by the 2009 COGCC rules), consultation with CDOW is recommended before project development. CDOW may recommend construction restrictions during the winter period. Disturbances associated with construction activities will likely cause elk and mule deer to select habitats in more secluded areas away from construction. Establishment of suitable vegetation through reclamation may attract big game to forage within the disturbance area associated with the project. 5.1.2 Effects on Raptors No raptor nests are in danger of direct removal. Activities associated with the proposed project have the potential to affect raptor populations through nesting disturbance depending on the distance from a nest to the disturbance. Two occupied raptor nests observed (RTHA -1, RTHA- 3) are less than 0.25 miles from the proposed pipeline alignment, which is within the nesting buffer for Red - tailed Hawks (Craig 2002, Klute 2008). During the 2011 nesting season, it is probable that raptors will nest within the project area survey boundaries. It is also possible that previously unoccupied nests could become occupied or new nest locations could be established by nesting raptors before pipeline construction begins. 5.1.2.1 Recommendations for Raptors If the project cannot be completed prior to the 2011 nesting season, the area should be re- inventoried by qualified biologists to locate any previously known or new raptor nests that may be affected by construction activites. If occupied nests are discovered, the potential for possible effects to raptors could be reduced by scheduling construction activities so there is no interference with breeding, nesting, and brood rearing of the species occupying the nest sites. WestWater Engineering Page 13 of 23 March 2011 WWE recommends temporal and spatial restriction guidelines for construction activities near active nests based on BLM stipulations (BLM 1997), CDOW recommendations (Craig 2002 and Klute 2008), and literature review of nesting season timing for raptors in the Roan Plateau region (Andrews and Righter 1992, Kingery 1998). Recommendations for the species that could possibly nest in the project area are summarized in Table 6. Table 6. Timing And Buffer Recommendations For Active (Occupied) Raptor Nests * Great Homed Owls and Kestrels are relatively tolerant of human activity. Keep activity to a minimum during breeding season. 5.1.3 Effects on Other Bird Species The effects on foraging and nesting habitat to a small number of passerine bird species is expected to be minimal. Vegetation that will be removed from the site is not unique and loss of habitat will not affect overall bird populations. 5.1.3.1 Recommendations for Bird Species In order to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, efforts to reduce potential impacts on nesting birds should be implemented by clearing brush and trees on the project site outside of the nesting season. Nesting season for migratory birds is generally considered to occur between May 15 and July 31 in this area for most species. June 1 to July 15 is the peak period when most incubation and brood rearing takes place. If brush/tree clearing can occur prior to May 1 most affected birds will relocate to alternate nesting sites. After mid -to -late July most fledging has occurred and brush/tree clearing impacts would be minimized. Establishment of suitable vegetation through reclamation in cleared areas will help restore nesting and foraging habitats for birds. 5.1.4 Effects on Black Bear and Mountain Lion Due to low population densities and large home ranges of both black bear and mountain lion, and because of the extensive amount of available habitat for these species, no significant effects from this project for these species are expected. WestWater Engineering Page 14 of 23 March 2011 y yI . I �� f.: American Kestrel Bald Eagle 0.50 mile 15 October - 31 July Cooper's Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 August Golden Eagle 0.50 mile 15 December - 15 July Great Horned Owl * Long -eared Owl 0.25 mile 1 March - 15 July Northern Harrier 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 August Peregrine Falcon 0.50 mile 15 March - 31 July Prairie Falcon 0.50 mile 15 March - 15 July Red - tailed Hawk 0.33 mile 15 February - 15 July Sharp- shinned Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 August Swainson's Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 July * Great Homed Owls and Kestrels are relatively tolerant of human activity. Keep activity to a minimum during breeding season. 5.1.3 Effects on Other Bird Species The effects on foraging and nesting habitat to a small number of passerine bird species is expected to be minimal. Vegetation that will be removed from the site is not unique and loss of habitat will not affect overall bird populations. 5.1.3.1 Recommendations for Bird Species In order to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, efforts to reduce potential impacts on nesting birds should be implemented by clearing brush and trees on the project site outside of the nesting season. Nesting season for migratory birds is generally considered to occur between May 15 and July 31 in this area for most species. June 1 to July 15 is the peak period when most incubation and brood rearing takes place. If brush/tree clearing can occur prior to May 1 most affected birds will relocate to alternate nesting sites. After mid -to -late July most fledging has occurred and brush/tree clearing impacts would be minimized. Establishment of suitable vegetation through reclamation in cleared areas will help restore nesting and foraging habitats for birds. 5.1.4 Effects on Black Bear and Mountain Lion Due to low population densities and large home ranges of both black bear and mountain lion, and because of the extensive amount of available habitat for these species, no significant effects from this project for these species are expected. WestWater Engineering Page 14 of 23 March 2011 5.1.4.1 Recommendation for Black Bear and Mountain Lion No specific recommendations are required. 5.1.5 Small Mammals The amount of available habitat for small mammals, including bats, should not be affected significantly by the proposed project. The amount of disturbance is not expected to affect small mammal populations. 5.1.5.1 Recommendations for Small Mammals No specific recommendations are required. 5.1.6 Reptiles The amount of available habitat for reptiles should not be impacted significantly by the proposed project. The amount of disturbance is not expected to affect reptile populations. 5.1.6.1 Recommendations for Reptiles No specific recommendations are required. 5.1.7 Effects on Amphibians No habitat for amphibians in the project area in Garfield County was observed during surveys. Construction of the pipeline project in Garfield County is not expected to affect amphibian populations. 5.1.7.1 Recommendations for Amphibians No specific recommendations are required. 5.1.8 Effects on Endangered Fish The Colorado pikeminnow is a federally - listed fish species that occurs in the White River. Potential impacts from the project include sedimentation, and spills of chemicals, fuels from equipment, or other hazardous materials. 5.1.8.1 Recommendations for Endangered Fish East Stewart Gulch is a tributary to Piceance Creek which flows into the White River. Controlling soil erosion and preventing accidental spills of toxic materials will help prevent negative effects to fish species that occupy the river. The soils on the ridge top where the pipeline is to be built exhibit a moderate degree of erosion which periodically effect silt loads and water quality of the White River during significant runoff events. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) should be followed to reduce any potential impacts to downstream fish populations and associated aquatic environments. 5.1.9 Recommendations for Greater Sage - grouse GrSG are likely using the sagebrush habitat in the project area for nesting and brood - rearing. Appendix C of the Parachute - Piceance -Roan Greater Sage - grouse Conservation Plan (2008) includes a list of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to lessen the impact of gas development activities on GrSG. The following list was extracted from the plan: WestWater Engineering Page 15 of 23 March 2011 • Within suitable sage - grouse habitat, avoid all surface disturbances within 0.6 miles of any GrSG lek between March 15 and May 15. • Within suitable GrSG habitat, avoid breeding /nesting season (March 15- July7) road construction (and logically, pipeline construction), drilling and well completion within four miles of any active or potentially active GrSG lek except when such activities would not disrupt breeding or nesting activities, as determined in consultation with CDOW. • Within four miles of an active or potentially active sage - grouse lek, keep total surface disturbance within sage - grouse habitat to 1% or less. (After reclaimed lands re -grow sufficient native vegetation they would no longer be counted towards the calculated percentage.) • Place road and pipeline rights -of -way such that they avoid critical habitat and mitigate their effects whenever possible. • Practice reclamation techniques that speed recovery of pre- existing vegetation (e.g., brush - beating of sagebrush for site clearance, retention of topsoil with native seed). • Avoid aggressive, non - native grasses (e.g., intermediate wheatgrass, pubescent wheatgrass, crested wheatgrass, smooth brome, etc.) in reclamation seed mixes. • Develop site specific reclamation plans and consult with CDOW on seed mixes, apply seed most effectively during the late fall and early winter. 5.1.10 Other Wildlife Mitigation Practices 5.1.10.1 Erosion Efforts to control and repair soil erosion within the project area should be implemented. Disturbed soils within the project area are susceptible to erosion and downstream water quality could be negatively affected by increased soil erosion. The loss of top soils can negatively affect plant life and subsequent wildlife habitat values of the area. In addition to stormwater management around the project site, other current factors (noxious weeds, livestock grazing, other natural gas development) affecting soil erosion should be managed and remedial measures implemented. 5.1.10.2 Fences Numerous livestock fences will likely be dismantled and rebuilt as part of the pipeline construction project. Rebuilt fences that are designed for easy passage of deer and elk can allow these animals to utilize the native and planted vegetation for forage and move about the adjacent areas freely as they search for food and cover. In addition, properly designed fences will prevent deer and elk from being injured or suffering death as a result of becoming entangled as they attempt to jump over or pass through a fence. Generally, wire fences that do not exceed 42 inches in height and have 12 -inch spacing between the top two wires will allow deer and elk to pass over a fence without conflict. The BLM utilizes a 40 -inch maximum height specification for livestock fencing on federal lands when deer and elk are present (BLM 1989). The publication presented by CDOW, "Fencing with Wildlife in Mind" provides fence designs that are friendly to wildlife and is available at the CDOW web site at http:// wildlife. state. co .us /NRlydonlyresB0D65D61 -6CB0- 4746 -94F1- 6EE 194E 1 C230 /0 /fencing.pdf. WestWater Engineering Page 16 of 23 March 2011 5.1.10.3 Traffic Construction and service vehicle drivers should be encouraged to maintain modest speeds to reduce the chances of striking wildlife on public and private roads. Advisory signs with this cautionary message could be placed on roadways of the area. Posting speed limit signs where collisions with wildlife will most likely occur (on county and energy - industry roads) will help reduce losses to wildlife as a result of vehicle encounters. 5.1.10.4 Restoration and Maintenance of Habitat Reclamation plans should include efforts to restore the native vegetation communities once construction is complete in the project area. The companion report to this document, the "PCP Loop Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan, Garfield County, Colorado" (WWE 2011), contains a recommended seed mixture for reclamation of the disturbed areas. If properly applied this seed mixture will benefit all wildlife populations in the area. The report also recommends ongoing control of noxious weeds which will aid the establishment of desired vegetation in the reclaimed area. 5.2 TESS Plants Impacts and Recommendations 5.2.1 Impacts No threatened, endangered or sensitive plants were found and no impacts are expected. 5.2.2 Recommendations No specific recommendations are required. 5.3 WOUS Impacts and Recommendations 5.3.1 Impacts In Garfield County, the proposed PCP Loop will not cross any drainages or impact any wetlands. 5.3.2 Recommendations No specific recommendations are required. 6.0 REFERENCES Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado. BLM. 1989. Manual, Handbook H- 1741 -1, "Fencing ". Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. BLM. 1997. Record of Decision and Approved White River Resource Area, Resource Management Plan. United States Bureau of Land Management, Meeker, Colorado. CDOW. 2008. Colorado Greater Sage - grouse Conservation Plan. Colorado Greater Sage- grouse Steering Committee, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. CDOW. 2009. Species Activities Maps. Natural Diversity Information Source. Colorado Division of Wildlife; http: l/ ndis. nrel. colostate .edulftplftp_response.asp. Accessed 2010. WestWater Engineering Page 17 of 23 March 2011 From: Wyatt Keesbery To: Molly Orkild- Larson Subject: 36" pipeline Date: Monday, May 09, 2011 8:58:48 AM After reviewing the proposed Piceance Creek Pipeline Loop for Enterprise Gas Processing, Road and Bridge has no issues with the plan, and sees no reason for this not to proceed. WYATT KEESBERY Garfield County Road & Bridge Foreman / Rifle and Silt District 0298 CR 333A Rifle, Co. 81650 wkeesbery@garfield-county.com Office- 970 -625 -8601 Fax- 970- 625 -8627 Cell- 970 -309 -6073 EXHIBIT m 0 MEMORANDUM To: Molly Orkild- Larson From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the Enterprise Piceance Creek Loop Pipeline PDPA -6829 Date: May 23, 2011 Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this project. My comments are as follows: Integrated Vegetation and Weed Management • The integrated vegetation management plan is acceptable. • It is recommended that the applicant remove any old spotted knapweed plants prior to the construction of the pipeline. This will help get some of the seed source out of the area. The applicant has committed to doing this action under Submittal Item Tab 12. Reclamation • The surface area disturbed by the pipeline will be 47.87 acres. A revegetation security of S 119,675 (47.87 acres x $25001acre) is requested. • The applicant shall provide the Vegetation Management Department with the original tags from each seed bag. The seed mix in the Plan shall match the seed mix used in the field. Do not use a seed mix containing yellow sweet clover (Melilotus off cinalis) or annual yellow sweetclover (M indicus). • The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the County, upon successful revegetation establishment, to request an inspection for security release consideration. • The Reclamation Standards at the date of permit issuance are cited in Section(s) 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (Resolution #2002 -94). Erosion control • Any straw or hay bales used in erosion control shall be certified weed free. May 24, 201 1 Ms_ 10 oily Ctrkild- Larson Garfield County Building & Planning 0375 County Road 352, Building 2060 Rifle, CO 81650 MOUNT//11N GLOSS ENGINEERING, INC. CIVIL AND FNVIRo \ti1FNi ll C.QVSI:LTING AND DESIGN EXHIBIT it) RE: PDPA -6829, Piceance Creek Loop Pipeline: Enterprise this Processing, LLC Dear Molly: This office has perf rTied. a review of the documents provided for the Piceancc Creek Loop Pipeline of Enterprise Gas Processing. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following comment: • The plans show that there are existing pipelines that will he in conflict with the 36" pipe diameter and 48- minimum cover. No construction details were included that show how these are to be resolved. The Applicant should provide more information concerning mitigation of pipeline crossings. separation, and depths.. Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely. Mount. n Cross Engi , ecring, Inc. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.rnountaincross- eng.coln From: phll Vaughan To: Molly Orkild- Larson; chrisamountalncross- ena,cont Cc: phllic Vaughan Subject: RE: Chris Hales comment on Piceance Creek Loop Pipeline Date: Friday, May 27, 2011 B:56:04 AM Attachments: Consulting Engineer.odf EXHIBIT Chris, Thanks for taking time to speak this morning. As discussed Enterprise contacts the Utility Notification Center of Colorado for locates. Upon completing the locate, Enterprise potholes the areas where the new pipeline will cross existing pipelines. Enterprise contacts operations personnel for the respective pipeline company to field review and to discuss the crossing. In most situations, but not always, the new pipeline will be installed beneath the existing pipeline. In all situations the pipelines will be installed with a minimum of 24 inches of separation at the crossing. Thanks again for your assistance and please contact me with questions. Sincerely, Phil Vaughan Phil Vaughan Construction Management, Inc. 1038 County Road 323 Rifle, CO 81650 970-625-5350 From: Chris Hale [ mailto :chris @mountaincross- eng.com] Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 9:20 AM To: Molly Orkild- Larson Subject: RE: Chris Hale's comment on Piceance Creek Loop Pipeline Yes. Thanks. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 970.945.5558 From: Molly Orkild- Larson [ mailto: morkild - larson @garfield- county.com] Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 8:59 AM To: Chris Hale Subject: FW: Chris Hale's comment on Piceance Creek Loop Pipeline EXHIBIT Does this response satisfy your concerns regarding the crossing of the pipelines?