Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1.2 Application Part 3
Location: A-12, See boring location plan Dale Started: 9!912008 Groundwater (ft): No Groundwater Encountered Dale Completed: 91912068 Drilling Company: Geo Search Equipment: Track Mounted CME 55 Logged By: N. Pilcher Hole Diameter (in); 4 Drilling Method: Solid Flight Auger Hammer Type: Automatic -8035 -8030 . 8 o n - 20 -8015 25 —solo L7 z - 30 O -8005 O LL1 p-' 0 Z 35 iT 0 a. Drafted By: N. Pitcher Dat£eptember 15, 2008 DESCRIPTION Appx. Surface Elevation (ft): 8036.00 Surface Condition: Grasses and Shrubs CLAY: with extensive gravel -sized bedrock fragments, stiff to very stiff, moist, tight brown, tan to brown and gray Sample Interval 11 5 6 FIELD m o. I -- a) 0. E v7 CAL e A5 CAL 14 CAL 12 Interbedded SILTSTONE and MARLSTONE: slightly sandy to sandy. very hard, slightly moist, gray and brown Boring Refusal at 25.5 ft. KL EINFEL DER IMP .0..4. kohl OryGMI- CAL 16 50/2 CAL 256 Total Depth (ft): 25.5 c o$' 84 87 �z c A e 18.7 16.6 Project Number: 97191 BORING LOG L LABORATORY Plasticity index 37 Marathon Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado J 2 BORING B-1 2 ,,Sheet 1 or 1 Dale Started: 919/2008 Location: B-13, See boring location plan Date Completed, 9/9/2008 Groundwater (ft): No Groundwater Encountered Drilling Company: Geo Search Equipment: Track Mounted CME 55 Logged By: N. Pifcher Hole Diameter (in): 4 Drilling Method: Solid Flight Auger Hammer Type: Automatic Total Depth (ft): 15.5 Elevation (feet) 0 to 76to 5 a o C9 DESCRIPTION Appx. Surface Elevation (ft): 8025,00 Surface Condition: Grasses and Shrubs FIELD LABORATORY Sample Interval • S.C D 1 2 Li I Plasticity Index CLAY: with gravel size bedrock fragments, stiff. moist, brown with gray 10 alive gray -8005 20 —5000 25 —7995 30 —7990 35 Interbedded SILTSTONE and MARLSTONE: slightly sandy to sandy, hard to very hard, slightly moist (very moist at soil -bedrock contact), brown to gray Boring Refusal at 15.5 fl. 1 7 9 CAL BULK 14 7 10 CAL 14 a 5019 CAL 57 91 87 23.2 29.3 UCS = 9800 far L KLE"INFELDER Mph! FtoPro. Mph! SaWtiDn Drafted By: N. Pilcher Datsgeptember 15, 2008 Project Number: 97191 BORING LOG Marathon Compressor Station Garfield County, Cotorado BORING B-13 Sheet 1 or 1 Location: 8-14, See boring location plan Date Started: 9/912008 Groundwater (ft): No Groundwater Encountered Dale Completed: 9/9/2008 Drilling Company: Geo Search Equipment: Track Mounted CME 55 Logged By: N. Pilcher Hole Diameter (in): 4 Drilling Method: Solid Flight Auger Hammer Type: Automatic Total Depth (ft): 25.0 0 8 LU w -8030 N DESCRIPTION Appx. Surface Elevation (ft): 8034.00 ESurface Condition: Grasses and Shrubs a. 12 0 -8025 -8005 - 30 -8000 35 CLAY: with gravel size bedrock fragments, very stiff, moist, brown with gray Interbedded SILTSTONE and MARLSTONE: slightly sandy, medium hard to very hard, moist to moist, gray and brown Boring Refusal at 25.0 fi. FIELD LABORATORY Sample interval 3 CAL 15 16 BULK 50111 CAL 47 II50112 CAL 43 50/2 CAL 256 `m 50/2 CAL 258 F c Al id 89 18.6 a U J (3 O 38 7 J (-2.=--.\KL.EINFEL-DER I.9 annpe. fight few yont Drafted 8y: N. Pilcher Datiaeptember 15, 2008 Project Number: 97191 BORING LOG Marathon Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado BORING B-14 Sheet 1 of 1 Date Started: 919/2008 Location- B-15, See boring location plan Date Completed: 919/2008 Groundwater (fl): No Groundwater Encountered - Drilling Company: Geo Search Equipment: Track Mounted CME 55 Logged By: N. Pilcher Hole Diameter (in): 4 Drilling Method: Solid Flight Auger Hammer Type: Automatic Total Depth (ft): 17.5 a 0 - w 0 S 12 a Q w 312 (9 FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION • " f. - 8030 :0974, 5 yi�� - 8025 � ere 10 -8020 -8015 s -8010 -8005 0 0 -8000 6 z 0 15 20 25 - 30 - 35 Appx. Surface Elevation (k): 8033.00 Surface Condition: Grasses and Shrubs CLAY: sandy, with gravel -size bedrock fragments, stiff 10 very stiff, moist, brown to dark brown C m a to E rn BULK b F C .E CL La <ui m LS 2 3 0- 10 17 CAL 23 Interbedded SILTSTONE and MARLSTONE: slightly sandy to sandy, very Hard, slightly moist, brown 10 gray 19 31 CAL 43 Pig 5013 CAL 171 97 20.8 01 - Boring Refusal Refusal at 17.5 f1. KL EINFEL DER arp r Pacpre.Mgne marwns. Drafted By: N. Pilcher Dateleptember 15, 2008 Project Number: 97191 BORING LOG Marathon Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado BORING B-15 Sheet et 1 Location: B-18, See boring Location plan Date Started: 9/8/2008 Groundwater (fl): No Groundwater Encountered Date Completed: 918/2008 Drilling Company: Geo Search Equipment: Track Mounted CME 55 Logged By: N. Pilcher Hole Diameter (in): 4 Drilling Method: Solid Flight Auger Hammer Type: Automatic Total Depth (ft): 17.0 Elevation (feet) 4 8 -8030 5 —8025 10 —8020 15 J R [.9 —8015 20 - O _N E-8010 25 F z —8005 30 - o N' Or '- 0 0 f a g O 8000 35 m a Drafted By: N. Pitcher o Datkleptember 15, 2008 DESCRIPTION Appx. Surface Elevation {fl): 8035,00 Surface Condition: Grasses and Shrubs CLAY: with gravel size -bedrock fragments, medium to very stiff, moist, brown to mottled brown, bedrock fragments from 4 to 14 feet Interbedded SILTSTONE and MARLSTONE: very hard, slightly moist, brown Boring Refusal at 17.0 ft. rmr C • fb 3 5 FIELD i— u E b rn BULK CAL 7 10 14 CAL 20 s0/0 CAL Q. 00 91 101 �7 z c O o 13.2 21.0 E J Q LABORATORY Plasticity Index ti Exp. = 045 , UCS = 4800 psf 1 LK EINA-EL DER Eriph, 4X31. NrgM wr,o Project Number: 97191 BORING LOG Marathon Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado BORING B-16 Sheet 1 of 1 Elevation (feet) Location: Groundwater (ft): Drilling Company: Hole Diameter (in): Hammer. Type: w a -8015 5 -8010 10 - -8005 15 - `8000 20 - a -7995 25 - 0 yup v v 1 - a z -7990 30 H S - 0 cc O z -7985 35 O x 171 Ori B-17, See boring location plan No Groundwater Encountered Geo Search Equipment: Track Mounted CME 55 4 Drilling Method: Solid Flight Auger Automatic Date Started: 9)812008 Date Completed: 9/8/2008 Logged By: N. Piloher Total Depth (ft): 6.0 DESCRIPTION Appx. Surface Elevation (ft): 8020.00 Surface Condition: Grasses and Shrubs TOPSOIL: silt, clayey and sandy, soft, slightly moist, dark brown, with organics SHALE: hard to very hard, slightly moist, dark brown Boring Refusal at 8.0 ft. FIELD LABORATORY E W V) BULK ■ 50!8 CAL 85 E a Plasticity Index O r - KL EINFEL DER An+phl People, Algbi SaWI onf. oa Drafted By: N. Pilcher Dateeptember 15, 2008 Project Number: 97191 BORING LOG Marathon Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado BORING B-1 Sheet 1 or 1 A 8 9 6 m x 0 0 0 0 W K a 2 0 u i 0 E re P Location: B -t8, See boring location plan Groundwater (ft): No Groundwater Encountered Drilling Company: Geo Search Equipment: Track Mounted CME 55 Hole Diameter (in): 4 Drilling Method: Solid Flight Auger Hammer Type: Automatic Date Started: 9/812008 Date Completed: 9/8/2008 Logged By: N. Pilcher Total Depth (ft); 3.0 Elevating (feet) —8015 is 0 5- - 8010 10 - — 8005 15- -8000 20 - _ — 7995 25 —7990 30 - — 7985 35 DESCRIPTION FIELD LABORATORY J C Appx. Surface Elevation (ft): 8017.00 Surface Condition: Grasses and Shrubs SHALE: very bard, slightly moist. gray 10 tan Sample Interval Boring Refusal at 3,0 ft. t- o — U_ a 0. as N 2V a Plasticity Index '24 6 'ill KLE/NFEL DER LRh[ Deo?4. 149M 1o'ulmnt. Drafted By: N. Pilcher DatCeptember 15, 2008 Project Number: 97191 BORING LOG Marathon Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado BORING B-18 Sheol 1 of 1 Date Started: 9/15/2008 Location: B-19, Sea boring location plan Date Completed: 9/15/2008 Groundwater (ft): No Groundwater Encountered Drilling Company: Geo Search Equipment: Track Mounted CME 55 Logged By: N. Pilcher Hole Diameter (in): 6 Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Automatic Total Depth (fi): 47.0 - Elevation (feet) Depth (feet) FIELD LABORATORY DESCRIPTION Sample Type Approximate Equiv. SPT Blow Count Dry Density (pd Moisture Content t%) Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Passing #4 Sievef/t). Passing f#200 Sieve (°/a? Appx. Surface Elevation (ft): 8110.00 Surface Condition: Grasses and Shrubs „ c W E c (5. n -`° - ta - SAND: slightly clayey to clayey with gravel -size bedrock fragments. medium dense, moist, dark brown to light brown, organics 0-1 feet - — — - ,,!! CLAY: sandy with gravel -size bedrock _ - -8105 5 •/40 fragments, very stiff to hard, slightly j .♦ < �� .� moist. light gray to gray t. i/' 4/i , ‘'41e; 20 25 CAL 38 `— _ _ 0i �j�I II 50/10 CAL 51 --8100 10 _ "4 e/� more rocklless soil with depth r'4 fit ji • ;. ji�� J/ i coRE — - -8095 15 AW ,.. /CORE S Recovery = 88% _ - - Uinta Formation interbedded SILTSTONE and MARLSTONE with occasional fine-grained SANDSTONE lenses. slightly weathered to very weathered,- slightly fractured to very fractured, thinly bedded to laminated RQD - 13% — — _ - — 8490 20CORE - sandy tense very weathered, sandy. iron staining Recovery = 88% RQD = 15% — _ - __._ —8085 25CORE - - very weathered, sandy. iron staining- very weathered, sandy, iron staining 103 17.3 Recovery = 77% RQD =17% — UCS = 96.500 psf - - -$080 30CORE; i- very weathered, sandy, iron staining (non cemented) Recovery = 7S % ROD — - _ - -8075 35 LK E/NF-EL DER Bq tIWO.MO! SolOom. BORING LOG Marathon Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado BORING _1 9 Sheet 1 of 2 ' : Drafted By: J. Edwards 1 Datrseptember 16, 2008 Project Number: 97191 d 8 8070 40 8065 45 8060 50 - 8055 55 8050 60 - 8045 65 - 8040 70 - 8035 75 DESCRIPTION Uinla Formation interbedded SILTSTONE and MARLSTONE with occasional fine-grained SANDSTONE lenses, slightly weathered to very weathered, slightly fractured to very fractured, thinly bedded to laminated(continued) sandy and friable sandy and friable throughout sample (non-cemented), easier drilling harder drilling Sample Interval FIELD t - m N CORE CORE CORE 5O❑ 3 m h { o U 103 20.9 LABORATORY Plasticity Index Recovery = 100% ! RQD = 23% UCS = 98,900 psf - Recovery c 67% - RQD=O% — Recovery = 45% RQD = 0% Boring Refusal at 47,0 ft. 103 17.3 KL.EINFEL. DER \........."0"40"140( Tor. Om, Drafted By: J. Edwards DatiBeptember 16, 2008 Project Number: 97191 BORING LOG Marathon Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado BORING B-1 9 Sheet 2 of 2 cul NOLLVA313 a a b g a 5 a tu 0 cn Ir 0 a' E U a, 0 • Q+ ▪ Q1 • W L m 4 z z r r w Wr-w 3 • 7.3 ce a U -45 (u) NOI1dn313 Proposed Site Elevation = 8045' (i) NOLI.VA313 mu n 0 Qua 0 0 0 z 0 m 0 W J 0 C ro 0 2 a • s O. O 0 c O 'C 2 Q2 gW QY 1LL MWM EliW Q ✓ � Z 1-,11- L�.1 W W� ate. 0 a (i) NOIIVAT13 (4) NOLLVAJ North-South Cross Section Through Site O O N Proposed Site Elevation = 8045' 'D A CC Jg 2 0 t o fd o r 8. a N o 8 1:- z z w 6 C7 ZLu PROFILE OF BORING LOGS 0 •a N so in 47 ti Q U c o 4 Q. V d cn [b k t. w ao W gw 1211 2 z z { ' F-. • F• - ce Q. U CL (4) NOLLVA313 ? 7i KLE/ KLEINFEL, DER Propk_ Night SaYkIli. APPENDIX C Laboratory Test Results 100 1— la 60 >- 55 z50 1— 45 W a 40 uJ 0. 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCITES 1 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 1 6 4 3 2 1 374 112378 3 6 a10 14 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 140200 HYDROMETER 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 100 10 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 01 0.01 0.001 COBBLES fine JC06f5 e GRAVEL coarse SAND medium fine SILT OR CLAY Specimen Identification B-2 at a depth of 24 ft. Classification LL PL P1 Cc Cu Siltstone and Maristone fragments 34 27 7 2.86 6.35 D100 D60 030 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay 37.5 23.434 15.723 3.693 88.5 10.2 1.4 LK EINPEL DER e+ight Apple Pght faNGMc 611 Corporate Circle, Ste. C Golden, Colorado 80401 p1303.237.6601 fl303-237-6602 kleinfalder.com GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Marathon Compressor Station Location: Garfield County, Colorado Number: 97191 Figure C_1 U.S SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 1 U. S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3!4 1123/8 3 4 6 810 14 16 20 30 40 50 80 100 140 200 100 95 I I 11111 1 1 11 I I I 90 — 85 80 75 I 70 65 F_ z 60 55 r m cc 5O z 45 I 1- z w a40 w 0. 35 30 • 25 20 15 \11111111NIL5 10 0 100 10 GRAIN 0 1 SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND coarse fine coarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY Specimen Identification Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu B-7 at a depth of 4 ft. Sandy Gravel (bedrock fragments) 1.85 B.43 0100 060 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay 25.4 15.051 7.048 1.785 79.4 18.6 2.0 613 Corporate Circle, Ste. C Golden, Colorado 80401 C:CLEINFELDERp1303-237-6601 Pim Pape kohis 4.00 f1303-237.6602 kleinfeider,com GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Marathon Compressor Station Location: Garfield County, Colorado Number: 97191 Figure C-2 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS l HYDROMETER 6 d 3 2 1,5 1 314 1723!8 3 9 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 104140200 100 95 90 85 80 75 -t-•-- 1[, 70 65 2 1\_ w 60 . , _. 55 to Z 50 1' 1- 45 z w 40 CCLI o_ 35 30_\\01\\., 25 20 T 15 10 5 100 10 0 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COBBLES coarse I fine coarse medium fine - Specimen Identification Classification LL PL P1 Cc Cu 6-11 at a depth of 4 ft. Sandy Gravel (bedrock fragments 7.75 124.65 D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay 25.4 11.676 2.911 0.094 63.5 28.9 9.5 611 Corporate Circle, Ste. C GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Golden, Colorado 80401 KL E/NFELDER P1 303- 237-6601 . ,QillSci (1303-237-6602 a,, ,.. p«kA \�, kleinfelder.com Project: Marathon Compressor Station Location: Garfield County, Colorado Number: 97191 Figure C 2 1- w 60 >- 55 oC z 50 1` 45 w 40 w a 35 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 30 25 20 16 10 5 0 U S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U S. SIEVE NUMBERS 1 HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1 3/4 1/23!8 3 4 6 610 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 14D 200 T 1 1 T 1-'T 1 e 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 10 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 01 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND coarse ' fine coarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY Specimen Identification Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu B-12 ata depth of 19 ft. Gravel (bedrock fragments) 0.89 20.90 D100 37.5 D60 16.017 D30 3.301 611 Corporate Circle, Ste. C /� Golden, Colorado 80401 KLE/NF'ELDER p1303-237.6601 0,.9,, Veapl,. iNni sorworr (1303-237-6602 kleinfelder.eom 010 0.767 %Gra vel °/ 63.1 oSand 34.6 %Silt %Clay 2.3 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Marathon Compressor Station Location: Garfield County, Colorado Number: 97191 Figure C-4 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 1 U S. SIEVE NUMBERS I 30 . R 50 100 „„ 200 HYDROMETER 6 3 .5 3!5 4 - n 14 �u yu ou 100 I l l I I i I r 1 i [ I 1 1 95 ' 90 5 :111 111 ' I1 0 751 III 7511��1111111� 1 w 6D 11��1111111� !! 1 ��I111111 Mill IN >_ 5511 El) -1 1111 I w5011• :1__ 45 III 'IUI Illi1411 40 ,>_ I1EMill11 3s 1 30 25 111 20 15 10 II _ .■ 1 1111 III 0 100 10 1 01 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COBBLES coarse fine coarse medium fine Specimen Identification Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu B 4 6 13 14 at a depth of 0 ft. Clay with Gravel -Sized Bedrock Fragments 37 26 11 D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Sit L %Clay 19 3.119 31.4 38.5 30.1 611 Corporate Circle, Ste. c Golden, Colorado 80401 KLEINFEL DER p1303-237-6601 ✓e,in(p pfv.Awn(fo-LkOM. f1303-237.6602 kleinfelder,com GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: Marathon Compressor Station Location: Garfield County, Colorado Number: 97191 Figure C-5 U.S. SIEVE OPENING 6 4 3 2 IN INCHES I U S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYOROMETER t 3f4 112318 3 4 6 610 1416 20 30 40 50 80 1001200 100 95 1 I i iII190II lili 11 I�111 :501119111111111111111111.11101111111111 75�70I iff- III III 6���MIiiiiI'IIIII 65II 6 60 55 I 11111111 wii: 1 MINI z 111 1111111 'al w40 I 1 11111 0 Lu35 III Ill 30 25 20 15 1111 IIIII11111111111 10 f lif 0 1 100 10 1 0 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND coarse fine coarse medium line SILT OR CLAY Specimen Identification Classification LL PL Pi Cc Cu B 8 9 11 15-17 at a depth of 0 ft. Clay with Gravel-Size Bedrock Fragments 39 24 15 D100 D60 D30 D10 %Grave! %Sand %Silt %Clay 37.5 0,122 18.3 25.4 56.3 611 Corporate Circle, Ste. C GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION �� Golden, Colorado 80901 KLE7NFELDER pI303-237-6601 typhi aroy.. m9nr so,,,ao,,,. f 130 3-2 37- 660 2 \...,:z_________ kleinfelder.corn Project: Marathon Compressor Station Location: Garfield County, Colorado Number: 97191 Figure C"6 SWELUSETTLEMENT (%) •1 •3 -4 -5 -b -7 01 STRESS (ksf) 0 c t c a Location: B-3 Soil Type: Sandy Clay With Bedrock Fragments Depth: 4.0 feet Moisture Content = 19.5 % Water Added at 1,000,000 psf Dry Unit Weight = 95.1 pcf Volume Change at Wetting = -2.9 91 MARATHON S:OMPRFSSf7R,C KL E/NFELDER Brig [ eePPe. Right 1.h." r. Drafted.By: 14. Pilcher Date: October. 2006 Project Number: 97191 SWELLISETTLEMENT TEST Marathon Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Figure C \ 1 3- 1 .-. 1r 01 STRESS (ksf) 0 c t c a Location: B-3 Soil Type: Sandy Clay With Bedrock Fragments Depth: 4.0 feet Moisture Content = 19.5 % Water Added at 1,000,000 psf Dry Unit Weight = 95.1 pcf Volume Change at Wetting = -2.9 91 MARATHON S:OMPRFSSf7R,C KL E/NFELDER Brig [ eePPe. Right 1.h." r. Drafted.By: 14. Pilcher Date: October. 2006 Project Number: 97191 SWELLISETTLEMENT TEST Marathon Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Figure C SWELLISETTLEMENT (%) 11 -I0 .0 STRESS (KM) 10 Location: B-16 Soil Type: Clay With Gravel Sized Bedrock Fragments Depth; 4.0 feet Moisture Content = 13,2 % Water Added at 1,000,000 psf Dry Unit Weight = 90.7 pcf Volume Change at Wetting = 0.0 % 100 i (,_ - - -. . . . ,.... . . ,,,- . ✓ KL EINFEL DER a&.¢'ItPoop II. A,ht10 yGMI. rn �� r Drafted By: N. Pitcher Date: October, 2008 Project Number: 97191 SWELLISETTLEMENT TEST Marathon Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Figure C-8 PRESSOR STATIONS c Drafted By: ;i Date: October, 2008 135 130 125 120 115 110 100 Source of Material Description of Material Test Method Lab Number 95 • 90 85 B4, 6, 13, 14 (composite) Clay with Gravel -Sized Bedrock Fragments ASTM f] 698 Method C TEST RESULTS Maximum Dry Density Optimum Water Content 80 94,3 PCF 23.3 ATTERBERG LIMITS LL PL P1 -200 37 26 11 30 Curves of 100% Saturation for Specific Gravity Equal to: 2.80 750 2.70 5 10 15 20 25 30 WATER CONTENT, % 35 40 45 KL E/NFEL DER "4"101e.V1cr.irnbe� Project Number: 97191 MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Marathon Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Figure C-9 DRY DENSITY, pcf 135 130 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 L c 0 0 0 Z 0 E Drafted By: 0 Date: 80 75 0 Source of Material Description of Material Test Method Lab Number B8, 9, 11, 15-17 (composite):.. Clay with Gravel -Size Bedrock Fragments ASTM D698 Method C TEST RESULTS Maximum Dry Density 95.3 PCF Optimum Water Content 19.8 % ATTERBERG LIMITS LL PL PI -200 39 24 15 56 Curves of 100% Saturation for Specific Gravity Equal to: 2.80 2.70 2.60 5 10 15 20 25 WATER CONTENT, % 30 35 40 45 K EINFEL DER ' 0 0 people, A�pne Sn4npni. October, 2008 Project Number: 97191 MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Marathon Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Figure C=10 Shear Stress - Pounds per Square Foot Shear Stress - Pounds per Square Foot 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 0 0.1 0 2 0.3 Shear Displacement - Inches Peak Ultimate 0 1000 2000 3000 Normal Stress - Pounds per Foot Sample Location B-8, 9, 11, 15.17 @ 0 4000 Soil Type Clay with Gravel Rate: PBE, Drained, Wet Test Method ASTM D-3080 Normal Stress, psf 500 1000 2000 4000 Peak Shear Stress, psf NA 982 1601 3346 Ultimate Shear Stress, psi NA 982 1601 3316 Displacement nate, in/min NA 0.005 0.005 0.005 Slarling Dry Density, pc! NA 91.2 91.2 91.2 Starling Wel Density, per NA 108.7 108.7 108.7 Slarling Water Content. % NA 19.30% 19.30% 19.30% Peak Friction Angle: 38 Ultimate 38 Cohesion, psi: 124 124 TESTED BY BK TEST DATE 9/19/08 KLEINEELDER Checked By: DA Drafted By: B.K. Garceau Project Number: 97191 Date: October 9, 2008 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Marathon Compressor Denver, CO Figure c-11 O] 0 J- 0 0 Q • ..nwrc1L/pH wqy ER ' UNCONFINED • LIQUID' PLASTICITY ; ELECTRICAL SOLUBLE! GONIPRESSIVE DESCRIPTION LIMIT; INDEX , RESISTFVITY; [SULFATES: STRENGTH Sy) ' (:) {ohm-cros) 'L (x) (x1 ' (Pin C• I Sas:xc a^c vacs-.: ^e-- _ y },- n ro o Ind . CI) t� f, 3 N SS '- - w > J•J] y 4) P .. co 1 u N i •u :" 0 e, > u jJ .t • l7 u a::s:> tt q u Fj ,, (0 NI I m 1+ A 0 m :. . V'. iI +jr! I I a 1 0 : i> 1 - J) ri n in � `S i . l') I .. r 1[ I 1 I n o in >r: �; i 1 3 I e I t7 us >r; �] :D ?_.4 0 1) V ' ' o c : A ; N I In d >"- 1] N V e . [!j I 1 I i w s I iu u i, n cl, c] [] W. €3 c] . f 3 C] I I J ' v >A N m Ni M cl >A J] N u i; M N in P 3> ;•',.'F, t7 ' N I d v F. 0 N t� �. `t re i_ !? '0 u N ]] `') -d 0 ) I I u 1 ) 1 iC u N I I 0 c] tO y r, ) , b '1 F4 0 r. o ;J ° !, 0 t I ',O I l) 5. .- 0 I ''' •A C� I; 3 0 f) li _ Q co •-I N N Wf] C] v] f] ID NI 14 I ) 10 1. 140 yy :a r] m MI^ lig h: t n] 0i u v ru m m (0 4.3 N ri M m n1 yl f IV `1 I . n�ry v 1 `?'.. v n1 N v W v .- m :n Y N v —1-1-1 1 of 91'1.'1 9.'.i9 ^, 19 9i0 0 � 1 m l .] c] N n n n.4' m T•m m m' m j m M 1 m m 1 fi] m I ^y 1 6 m m m ai [11 li] ni r(I m I I I I iJll m IIJI m go TABLE C-) SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS O Z U w 0 O a. a I SAMPLE LOCATION I MOISTURE ORY c GRADATION I PERCENT ATTERBERG LIMITS 1 MINIMUM ' CHLORIDE ; pH : WATER I UNCONFINED i, ! BORING DEPTH I CONTENT DENSITY:GRAVEL 1 SAND I PASSING i LIQUID: PLASTICITY' ELECTRICAL! i SOLUBLE' COMPRESSIVE ! OESCRIPTION II I NO. . (FEET) i NO. 700 LIMIT INDEX ' RESISTIVITY! 1 :SULFATES: STRENGTH II I (PCF) ' (Y.) ' (a) SIEVE ' MI ohm cros %I .-. ZA) ' (Ps() I -_._.. _.. .... N it 4 n 1' m n - n r ri C 53 B P ii F. i 1 u KL EINFEL DER Wight N.M. AVM toluri t APPENDIX D Stability Analysis cTo )c 0O\§ k k�)\) $!$«Side—§?S-06 22 DDE a.6 $65 iC \ \ 009 9§ OOP . . Siitstone/M&] (Hard) 31 0 \ ) \ƒ \Q) ® > o -Q =two \»4 /#& Inco mE cra CO CD 0 ED § QUOTATION PUP � a g m 0 QUOTATION PROVIDED BY: a 0 o 6 Mr. Gary Thompson Ph 281-371-7500 Eau: 281-371-0132 Emai r ..1 1 m m�" g 4. OS e r r Q Q -Ni a a ^ m O t p '9 = N e - b 8 y a O 4 N o h W . m W N in b bN N m N - A tl RR K O 3072 ea _�I O n O p V 1 k 1111 IhtIIh g 3 IIJIIUHIf A .1 1 e e ® . Waste gas exit Velocity per PPA 40 CFR 60.10 -I , v A e 1 i gN x .2 � . e P Ca z g o, 4 •a Fes. g' 0t, a _ a ▪ P g.n x E v '& a ,g i a 6l'47 El 4 I 4 1 4 I 8. E ,.... ri ▪ cl 1 ,..,., m .1.- `9) !.::4 !,,, i cal 8. i ID o 111 Ts Ts ▪ a rn e v ^ ma 3 aaS aa o1•4 ,, H P,a e ., °.f 4 A a a 3 JIHIIIj g r,�+ jflJ'Jflflj I e m a n 4 . g' • oiiIf1 Wao p p. w R $9 `� m w U ai 01 n U N i� N i 49.g 'J .� G t: may. M O �I b() �yFa1 {xp v Eat. .g1017:4 C 54 tS O.� 9 aR- N U cU+4E 314 `ri a ..c i_241;• �� V A da o o �A i o _4 >pig m I .zP 9t ,74g �g og j$ q .5N 43 Id 13 § b 8 w ma•w,-'4 M 'a • 0 git 4'0'78 1�%�Fh7ilo o�Uc• NCoo 1 11181.2ItlgAd mo-a,n Q 8 80;g Opm .5 5 °6 .40P N a Z• 4 3y g^w' a SaittESI o 44°04 g p a p^ �• a3o$4�~ ppaa Jll' t o IHIILIjI pyp%q fro!: l6 p @'aFaNr s� LIA a F - o l -SZ. �_ 1-293a A45 g C stl 1 z x grA S o1 '63 SFS w b 5 § 3.1 a 3x llAT>pg FFII � Ptd lig g. 411�. u.5 0.4 .� 2 zo 0 t m u 40.0 sg3 g u o.11ag pp -211.6T.6° S. W l,5:0 c ar7w p F..ed70 48t m m m I 4 x a o YY g ,n 5� k It L 4 O x By v H '2 Fa x T m 1 5 4 p 1 1 w ' F 'Jipyp�, .O IbVUb E' Li 'v "' t a • !C i'3, '3 q 41 2 2 6 QdoQ¢ i J,444.9ij ya p e6 �L ▪ g 3•E 1 NN S aa2 co c3 m e o �o m a t 5. E. U m V a .d''m 'd y 0.16 gl '.L "� Edi is S 4A W .7 �.` 8 ,a. o o-7 ° 4 4 $ 17,0 m71' s 13'87,11' '•m 0y 47 011141' 'O lTCN 'O O.O wa �•^ 8�} U 4^. Q a .Wf m mX z a e ...e.,4 e 0 g. 5 cl'A " Mit fi v,,, Is s 4s a6A as. e o m & 'i i1j1jij 1c !p !lip e 4$+ �. a rn j 'q v u7: A 41 b .Z G 4+ ,U 11 fs i ] m14 iS'g o 1 '' 1" V CCm>j5 1 N ^ t A i1J;!:1IJuJililu H a 2 w 'n 6 3l2Y L'1gY rgi NIA3>w�pIRMO 33151 e II �. l S 31v1assvain .111'0114.i 111tl11V ' 11 .i( HIS 0. I F b 00 $- 113141 s S 'masa EIOrNNnaa DRI 11 ICO 471 0 ]Jia ZS SOS .1.0 Mcu 4 r xc� a -.is MO511..9 aaq. � 3 gams „'Y/E, 7,iVJ+I 8SV7d-s3, 9CVS gat c..wc1.e.c MatA mow/ammo a PaR a ra 631 R n 4 Yui P z a A if 5 1 a 1E A } ri714A COvsrR t T N MANAEIEMEiNT, 1038 Comy Rd 3231 IN;. RiflE, CO 8!650 Enterprise Gas Processing, LLC Marathon Gathering System- Development Plan Review for Right - of -Way Application Submittal Item Tab II- Sensitive Area Survey 9.07.04 (10) Please find below relevant sections of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution in regards to the Marathon Gathering System and the Jackrabbit Compressor Station. 9.07.04 (10) "Sensitive Area Survey: List the types and areas of concern along the pipeline right-of-way, such as: sensitive plant populations, cultural, archeological, paleontological resources and wetlands identified during preconstruction environmental surveys, if applicable." 9.07.06 (3) a. notes "Pipeline operations shall be located in a manner to minimize their visual impact and disturbance of the land surface. a. The location of right-of-way shall be away from prominent natural features and identified environmental resources." 9.07.06 (5) "In no case shall an operator engage in activities which threaten an endangered species." Enterprise Gas Processing, LLC has contracted with a respected environmental science firm, WestWater Engineering from Grand Junction, CO. The following reports are attached: A. Wildlife and Sensitive Areas Report dated September 2008 prepared by WestWater Engineering. B. Report on the Class I and Class III Cultural Resources Inventory prepared by Grand River Institute dated September 2, 2008. C. Environmental Overview for the Marathon -Enterprise Piceance Creek Area Pipeline Development dated July 2008. D. Limited -Results Cultural Resource Survey Form dated 4/16/08 for 21 acre pipeline staging area and the 7 acre office/storage staging area. E. Habitat Assessment for the Collbran Pipeyard Parcels dated 5/2/08. Page 1 of 4 WestWater Engineering has prepared a review and analysis of the proposed right-of-way alignment in regards to identification of the following: A. Threatened and Endangered Plant Species- None identified within the proposed right-of-way. B. Federal Listed Threatened, Endangered, Candidate Wildlife Species- None identified within the proposed right-of-way. C. State Listed Threatened, Endangered Special Concern Wildlife Species - Greater Sage -Grouse, American Peregrine falcon and the Colorado River cutthroat trout may occur within the project area. D. Birds of Conservation Concern- Raptors- Page 8 of 23. Ten nests were observed during the survey within 0.33 miles of the alignment including five Red -Tailed Hawk, two Cooper's Hawk and four unidentified hawk nests. The raptor nesting season is generally considered to occur between mid-February and mid-August. Page 18 of 23 notes that 4 nests, COHA-1, COHA-2, RTHA-3 and RTHA-5 have been identified within 150 yards of the pipeline right-of-way. Mitigation Strategies are noted within Section 8.2.4 Page 21 of 23. The applicant will agree to a seasonal restriction of March 1 through July 15 with a buffer zone of 0.33 mile for the Red-tailed Hawk nests RTHA-3 and RTHA-5. The applicant will agree to a seasonal restriction of April 1 through August 15 with a buffer zone of 0.25 mile for the Cooper's Hawk nests COHA-1 and COHA-2. E. Birds of Conservation Concern- Other than raptors- Page 10 of 23. None identified within or near the proposed right-of-way. F. Greater Sage- Grouse- Page 10 of 23. An active lek- Bear Run, is situated near the pipeline right-of-way in Section 29. Mitigation Strategies are noted within section 8.2.3 Pages 20 and 21 of 23 - Restrict Construction of the pipeline within 0.6 mile of the Bear Run lek during the critical breeding season from March 1 to May 31. Limit disturbance of suitable nesting habitat to dates outside of April 15 to July 15. It should be noted that these two mitigations ultimately require construction restrictions from March 1 to July 15. G. American Elk and Mule Deer- Page 11 of 23. There are no mule deer or elk winter ranges along the route. This is a mule deer fawning habitat. The project schedule for construction of the pipeline will occur during the winter months and is within and parallel to existing pipeline rights-of-way, thus impacts should be minimal. H. Black Bear and Mountain Lion- Page 11 of 23. The pipeline route is within overall range for black bear and mountain lion. Page 18 of 23 notes that no adverse effect from this project for these species is expected. I. Small Mammals- Page 15 of 23. Page 19 of 23 notes that the small amount of new disturbance is not expected to affect small mammal populations. J. Other Bird Species- Page 15 of 23 notes the bird species in the area. The small amount of the new disturbance is not expected to affect the other bird species. Page 2 of 4 K. Reptiles- Page 15 of 23. Page 19 of 23 notes the small amount of the new disturbance is not expected to affect reptile populations. L. Amphibians- Page 15 of 23. Page 19 of 23 notes the small amount of the new disturbance is not expected to affect amphibian populations. M. Fish- Page 15 of 23. Page 19 of 23 notes the Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat in the West Fork of Parachute Creek and the potential for compromise of this habitat by decreased water quality conditions. A stormwater management plan has been developed for the project and attached in Tab 22- Construction Management Plan for the purposes of erosion and sediment control for disturbed areas. Other Mitigation Measures: Page 20 of 23- 1. Seeding of native mountain big sagebrush should be added to the revegetation plan. Local ecologically adapted sagebrush seed from the existing sagebrush vegetation within the project area should be used in reclamation. 2. Ongoing control of noxious and invasive weeds is recommended as an additional method to maintain native vegetation communities and favorable wildlife habitats. An "Integrated Vegetation and Weed Management Plan" is provided for this project in a separate report in Tab 13- RevegetationiWeed Management Plan. Enterprise Gas Processing, LLC will comply with all applicable state and federal laws during construction of the pipeline in regards to sensitive and rare plant species and federally listed threatened and endangered birds. Cultural, archeological, paleontological resources Please note that we have designed the new pipeline largely within existing disturbed right-of-way areas, thus, there would not be any cultural, archeological or paleontological resources within this proposed right-of-way. The attached Grand River Institute survey bears this fact out with a determination of "No effect" for the project noted at the top of page 13 of the report. Wetlands Please see Tab 7- Regulatory Permit Requirements. Wetland disturbance is permitted by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers via the Nationwide Permit 12 for utility activities noted. Springs There is a spring noted on drawing 12499-1801-301 Rev. A- West Fork Parachute Creek HDD Crossing noted as "Area of Spring #5" at approximately Station 2+47.00. As per Page 3 of 4 the Environmental Overview for the Marathon -Enterprise Piceance Creek Area Pipeline Development dated July 2008, page 3-6, section 3.5.3 Springs, requires a pre - construction notification to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Consultation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife- J.T. Romatzke Phil Vaughan will be in contact with Officer Romatzke via phone and email regarding the proposed project for his comments. Thank you for your assistance on this project. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely Philip g B. Vaughan President PVCMI-Land Planning Division Page 4 of 4 WILDLIFE AND SENSITIVE AREAS REPORT MARATHON TRUNK PIPELINE GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Golden -mantled ground squirrel Prepared for: Enterprise Gas Processing, LLC Grand Junction, Colorado Prepared by: WestWater Engineering 2570 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 September 2008 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description Enterprise Gas Processing, LLC. (Enterprise) has requested WestWater Engineering (WWE) to complete a "Wildlife Impact and Sensitive Areas Report" for a proposed "special use permit" in Garfield County, Colorado. Enterprise is seeking the special use permit to install a 16 -inch natural gas trunk pipeline, which begins approximately 8.2 miles northwest of Parachute, Colorado. The pipeline begins in the NW 1/4 Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 97 West, and runs north for approximately 9.3 miles and terminates in the NW 1/4, Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 96 West (Figure 1). The pipeline will be constructed on private and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands and will parallel an existing gas line corridor along approximately 83% of its proposed alignment. Access to the project site is currently available via the Garden Gulch Road and various upgraded gravel roads that have recently been constructed in the project area for natural gas exploration and extraction. The primary use of the site and surrounding area is rangeland, wildlife habitat, and recent natural gas extraction/development. The project area is currently undergoing rapid natural gas development including drilling of wells, construction of pipelines, compressors and access roads. 1.2 General Survey Information In preparation for developing the following report, WWE biologists performed field surveys and assessments of wildlife, wildlife habitats, and habitats for sensitive plant species on the proposed project area. WWE conducted surveys during late May through June and August 25-28, 2008. The purpose of the surveys were to determine the wildlife and sensitive plant species that occupy the project area at varying periods during the year, and that would potentially be impacted as a result of pipeline construction and operational activities. Factors considered include: 1) soil type and texture; 2) existing land management; 3) absence or presence of wildlife and plant species including raptors, sage -grouse and other sensitive birds species; 4) special designations by Federal and State wildlife agencies; 5) the existing natural vegetation community and 6) wetlands/regulated waterways potentially within the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOS). This report provides written documentation that describes survey findings as well as recommended mitigation measures. This assessment and mitigation plan is intended to meet the wildlife requirement of Garfield County Regulation 9.07.04 (10) (Board of County Commissioners 2006). 2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING 2.1 Vegetation Vegetation at the higher elevations is diverse, but dominated by a mixture of mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata var. vaseyana), Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), snowberry (Symphoricarpos rotundifolius), aspen (Populus tremuloides) and Douglas -fir forests (Pseudotsuga menaiesii). Groves of aspen and Douglas -fir prefer northern exposures where soil moisture and temperatures are suitable for these species. WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 23 pages 9/19/2008 Figure 1: Enterprise Marathon Trunk Pipeline Location Biological Survey September 2008 oWestVNater Engineering rnr.v....4 C�e�.f�..rr Miles C F 2 4 5 r., E . it ° 1 [- LT r1 fir— _u RIO BLANCO CO 7-71 w Marathon Trunk Pipeline G 0 � 0 0 0 c-1 C r7 1_ 1 r-1 I C7 r---' GARFIELD COUNT'S C` "1_J jJ ° f' 7 l11 _r_J— uU —LS^ C._—tel I.- i rad' r LIF PARA CHUTE r J t �C SILT Legend R'C;:srd Pn.,ti n[ © Count1e3 - Girt63 ownership MESA COUNTY DEBEQ 7�4'Li- j U SFS STATE P PI.ATE elm r,la[ • Snurce Z-;i,cast.vaLY. , S 6 a - '__ _ ala�Enlelpl lse"A17ratrlpn Tlunk.211 1I)QnFlpelineL[ Itin En,1 Wt. Sept. 15 A variety of grasses and forbs are distributed throughout the understory in the lease area. A few common species include various wheatgrass species (Elymus spp. or Pascopyrun2 spp), bluegrass (Poa spp), Indian rice grass (Achnatherum hymenides), western yarrow (Achillea lanulosa), dandelion (Taraxacum spp), lupine (Lupinus spp), and sulphur buckwheat (Erigonium umbellatum). Riparian vegetation occurs along all the perennial streams; species include aspen, mountain willow (Salix spp.), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), serviceberry, sedges (Carex spp.) and rushes (Juncus spp). The climate for the Piceance Basin is considered semiarid with a wide range of temperatures and precipitation. The closest weather station is at the Altenbem Ranch on Roan Creek, which has provided reliable records to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) since 1948. The average annual precipitation at the ranch is 16.41 inches, with a record low temperature of minus 38 degrees Fahrenheit and a record high temperature of 104 degrees Fahrenheit (NOAA website: www.noaa.gov). The average annual precipitation at the upper elevations in the project area should equal, and likely exceed, that observed along Roan Creek. 2.2 Soils Soil types include loams and sandy loams that overlay broken shale derived from the Green River Formation. This formation is visible in the sheer canyons of Roan and Parachute Creek and the Roari Cliffs overlooking the towns of Rifle, Parachute and DeBeque, Colorado. In many areas, soils profiles are not extensive and often only 12-24 inches of soil overlays deep, broken shale deposits. Soil types and the vegetation supported vary with elevation and slope aspect. Mapped soil types, as published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), were reviewed to determine the soil types and vegetation characteristics of the project site and surrounding property (NRCS 2008). Six soil types are found in the project area and include the following: 1. Northwater-Adel complex, 5 to 50 percent slopes and vegetation is predominantly mature aspen groves with an understory of deciduous mountain shrubs, grasses and forbs. This soil types supports the large aspen complexes on the Roan Plateau. 2. Parachute-Irigul complex, 5 to 30 percent slopes and vegetation is dominated by sagebrush shrublands. 3. Parachute-Irigul-Rhone association, 25 to 50 percent slopes. Vegetation includes a mix of aspen and deciduous mountain shrubs including serviceberry with an understory of sagebrush. 4. Parachute -Rhone loams, 50 to 30 percent slopes and vegetation includes serviceberry, sagebrush and bitterbrush. 5. Silas loam, 1 to 12 percent slopes. Soils typically occur along drainage bottoms and supports aspen and riparian vegetation along perennial drainages. 6. Torriorthents, cool -Rock outcrop complex, 35 to 90 percent slopes. Slopes are often composed of bare shale soils with scattered sagebrush, grasses and forbs. This soil type is suitable habitat for sensitive plant species such as Piceance bladderpod. WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 23 pages 9/19/2008 2.3 Terrain Generally, the proposed pipeline alignment is located on a major north -south ridgeline of the Roan Plateau that separates Roan Creek on the west and Parachute Creek on the east. All the drainages are tributary to the Colorado River system, located to the south. The topography is typical of the Piceance Basin, which is comprised of steep slopes rising to rolling ridge tops. A series of smaller ridges and drainages bisect the high mesa area, creating a broken landscape supporting sagebrush steppe shrublands that are interspersed with deciduous mountain shrubs, aspen groves and Douglas - fir forests. Deep, white shale canyons are common throughout the main drainages (Parachute and Roan Creeks) with canyon walls dropping over 2,000 feet in horizontal distances of less than one- half mile in many areas. Major canyons located east of the pipeline alignment include Garden Gulch, Red Gulch and Light Gulch. There are numerous perennial streams and springs in the project area that flow into the Parachute Creek drainage. Elevations in the project area vary from 7,930 to 8,450 ft. 3.0 WILDLIFE AND PLANT SURVEYS 3.1 Background Information Descriptions of critical habitats for federally -listed threatened, endangered and candidate fish and wildlife species were reviewed in the Federal Register, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Wildlife habitat (activities) maps, provided via the internet web by the Colorado Division of Wildlife's (CDOW) "Natural Diversity Information Source" (NDIS), were reviewed and incorporated into this report in reference to mule deer, elk and state -listed threatened, endangered and species of "special concern"(CDOW 2008a). A list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BOCC) and their habitats for the Southern Rocky Mountain Region and the Colorado Plateau was reviewed. This list is published by the USFWS through a Memorandum of Understanding with the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), which places high conservation priorities for BOCC species (USFWS 2002). Not all of these BOCC species occur regularly in Colorado, some are present only as seasonal migrants. Of those known to breed in Colorado, only a portion are known or suspected to breed within the vicinity of the proposed pipeline. Avian literature sources such as the "Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country" (Righter et al. 2004) and the "Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas" (Kingery 1998) were reviewed to determine the likelihood for species occurrence within the project area. Bird identification and taxonomic nomenclature are in accordance with that applied by the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Project (Kingery 1998). The determination of the presence/absence of suitable habitat for Threatened, Endangered and "Sensitive Species" (TESS) plants was based on previous WWE observations of typical habitat occupied by BLM or USFS sensitive plants, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Rare Plant Field Guide (Spackman et al. 1997), and locations of species documented in the CNHP statewide database. 3.2 Survey Methods A preliminary review of the project area, using aerial photography maps, was conducted to familiarize personnel with vegetation types and terrain and as an aid to help determine the likelihood of the presence of threatened, endangered or sensitive wildlife and plant species. Field WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 23 pages 9/19/2008 data including general project location, boundaries and reported features were verified and/or recorded with the aid of a handheld global positioning system instrument (GPS) utilizing NAD83/WGS84 map datum, with all coordinate locations based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system within Zone 12S. WWE biologists physically surveyed the area to identify and locate wildlife species, wildlife sign (tracks, fecal droppings, and vegetation disturbance), vegetation communities and wildlife habitats. Vegetation types were determined through field identification of plants, aerial photography, and on -the -ground assessments of plant abundance. Identification of plant species was aided by using pertinent published field guides (Whitson et al. 2004, CWMA 2007, Kershaw et al. 1998). Visual searches for raptor and other bird species nests were focused on shale cliffs and aspen groves within a least a 0.25 mile distance from the proposed pipeline's centerline. Nest searches and bird identification were aided with the use of binoculars and song recognition, where needed. In addition to these visual and audio searching techniques, biologists used the recorded call play -back methodology described by P. Kennedy (Kennedy and Stahlecker 1993; the "Kennedy-Stahlecker-Rinker" method) as modified by R. Reynolds and others (1992) for the southwestern United States. WWE biologists used "Predation MP3 Game Caller" units and played the call of a Great Horned Owl or a Cooper's Hawk alarm call in an attempt to locate raptors who often respond to the presence and calls of other raptors. Photographs were taken of the general project location, surrounding vegetation and terrain. (Appendix A: Photos 1 and 2). 4.0 RESULTS OF SURVEY 4.1 TESS Plant Species Special status species of plants that may be present in the project area, and their habitats, are listed in Tables 1 and 2 in two categories: 1) Federal Candidate Species (1 species), and 2) BLM Sensitive Species (5 species). Nomenclature and habitat descriptions are based on the CHNP literature (Spackman et al. 1997). Table 1. Potential Federally -listed Threatened, Endangered and Candidate plant species Scientific Name Common Name Status* Habitat Preference Penstemon debilis Parachute penstemon C Endemic to Garfield County with only five known occurrences; sparsely vegetated, south facing, steep, white shale talus in the Mahogany Zone of the Parachute Creek Member of the Green River Formation. Elevation: 7,800-9,000 ft E= Federal Endangered, T= Federal Threatened, Federal Candidate Table 2. Potential BLM or CNHP listed sensitive plant species that may occur in the project area. Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Preference Gentianella tortuosa Utah gentian Green River Formation; barren shale knolls and slopes; elevation 8,500 to 10,800 feet. WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 23 pages 9/19/2008 Table 2. Potential BLM or CNHP listed sensitive plant species that may occur in the project area. Scientific Name Lesquerella parvi flora Mentzelia rhizomata Thal ictrurn heliophilum Sullivantia hapemanii var.purpusii Common Name: Piceance bladderpod Roan Cliffs blazingstar Sun -loving meadowrue Hanging garden sullivantia Habitat Preference Shale outcrops of the Green River Formation; on ledges and slopes of canyons in open areas; elevation 6,200 to 8,600 feet. Broken shale slopes of the Green River formation. Typically found on talus slopes below the Roan Cliffs. Broken shale slopes of the Green River formation. Typically found on talus slopes below the Roan Cliffs, often in habitat similar to Roan Cliff blazingstar. Occurs in and around waterfalls, wet cliff and boulders in shale geology on the Roan Plateau. Piceance bladderpod was observed along one low ridgeline north of Bear Run Creek. The site is not intercepted by the proposed pipeline alignment (Figure 2). The plants are located along a side hill of a small ridge line about 0.3 -mile west of the pipeline alignment. None of the other potential TESS plant species were observed during the biological survey. The terrain and soils do not appear suitable for sun -loving meadowrue and Roan Cliffs blazingstar. 4.2 Federal Listed Threatened, Endangered, Candidate Wildlife Species No federal listed threatened, endangered or candidate wildlife species are known to occupy the site of the proposed pipeline alignment and, thus, none of these species will be affected as a result of the proposed project. All perennial and ephemeral washes potentially affected by construction (silt loading) drain into Parachute Creek and from there into the section of the Colorado River that is designated critical habitat for the Federally endangered Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker (Maddux 1993). 4.3 State Listed Threatened, Endangered Special Concern Wildlife Species WWE biologists determined that three state listed threatened, endangered or special concern species may occur within the project area and are listed in Table 4 (CDOW 2008b). Table 4. Potential State -listed Threatened, Endangered and Special Concern wildlife species Scientific Name Common Name State Status Centrocercus urophasianus Falco peregrinus anatum Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus Greater Sage - Grouse American Peregrine falcon Colorado River cutthroat trout SC SC SC Habitat Preference Sagebrush dominated mountain steppe shrublands with rolling terrain. Large continuous areas of sagebrush on flat or gently rolling terrain with open areas in vicinity for leks. Breeds in Garfield County. High, sheer cliffs, typically overlooking open habitats including canyons and the Colorado River Valley. Elevation: 5,000 to 6,500 ft. Perennial mountain streams on the Roan Plateau in drainages of Parachute and Roan Creeks. * E= State Endangered T= State Threatened, SC = Species of Concern WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 23 pages 9/19/2008 4.4 Birds of Conservation Concern (BOCC) 4.4.1. Raptors Several raptor (birds of prey) species nest, reside, forage or pass through the general area of the pipeline project. Raptor species that are common to the area include Golden Eagle, Red-tailed Hawk, American Kestrel, Cooper's Hawk, Sharp -shinned Hawk, Northern Harrier, Peregrine Falcon, Flammulated Owl, Long-eared Owl and Great Horned Owl. The aspen groves and shale cliffs existing in the project area are of sufficient height and density for tree and cliff nesting raptors. Raptor species that are Listed as BOCC in the Southern Rockies and the Colorado Plateau, and which may occur in the project area, are listed in Table 5. In addition to the BOCC list, eight other species of raptors that could potentially be found nesting in the pipeline project area are also listed in Table 5. Table 5. Raptor species that may be present in the project area Comion Name Scientific Name BOCC Habitat& Breeding -Records Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii N • Cottonwood riparian to spruce/fir forests, including pifion/juniper woodlands. Nests most frequently in pines and aspen. Sharp- Hawkshinned Accipiter striatus N • High density young, or even -aged, stands of coniferous forest and deciduous forests of aspen or oak brush with small stands of conifers. Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis N • Diverse habitats including grasslands, pinon- juniper woodlands and deciduous, coniferous and riparian forests. Nests in mature trees (especially cottonwood, aspen, and pines) and on cliffs and utility poles. Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Y • Grassland, shrubland, agricultural areas, and marshes. Nests in areas with abundant cover (e.g., tall reeds, cattails, grasses) in grasslands and marshes. Also known to nest in high - elevation sagebrush. Northern Goshawk AccipterN gentiles • Typically in high elevation coniferous or aspen forest. Can occur in pit -ion -juniper habitat. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrines Y • Pinon-juniper woodlands and coniferous and riparian forest near cliffs. Nests on ledges of high cliffs away from human disturbance. Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Y • Grasslands, shrublands, agricultural areas, piton -juniper woodlands, and ponderosa forests. Prefers nest sites on cliffs and sometimes in trees in rugged areas. American Kestrel Falco sparverius N • Coniferous and deciduous forests and open terrain with suitable perches. Nests in cavities in trees, cliffs and buildings. Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Y • Nests in oak brush in shrubland and woodland communities on the Roan Plateau. WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 23 pages 9/19/2008 ((01 n Nam` Table 5. Raptor species that may be present in the project area Scientific Name .. Bocc Habitat &i -Breeding Records Flammulated Owl Great Homed Owl Northern Saw -whet Owl Long-eared Owl Otus flammeolus Bubo virginianus Aegolius acadicus Asio otus Y N N N • Found commonly on the Roan Plateau, nests in aspen groves above 7,000 ft. • Occupies diverse habitats including riparian, deciduous and coniferous forests with adjacent open terrain for hunting. • Mountain and foothills forest and canyon country. Significant use of pifiion juniper woodland and Douglas -fir. • Occupies mixed shrublands. Nests and roost in sites in dense cottonwoods, willows, scrub oak, junipers, tamarisk and dense forest of mixed conifers and as. ens. A total of ten nests were observed during the survey within 0.33 miles of the alignment including five Red-tailed Hawk, two Cooper's Hawk and four unidentified hawk nests. Of the five Red-tailed Hawk nests observed, four were active in 2008; one Cooper's Hawk nest was active; and none of the unidentified hawk nests were active (Table 6 and Figure 2). One inactive Golden Eagle nest was observed in Garden Gulch located in a cliff about 0.5 -mile east of the alignment. In this portion of Colorado, the raptor nesting season is generally considered to occur between mid- February and mid-August. Typically, owls and eagles are the first raptors to begin the annual • nesting cycle followed by members of the Genus Accipiter, Buteo, Circus and Falco. Usually, by mid-August all young birds have fledged and left the nest. Location information regarding the raptor nests observed during this survey is found in Table 6 and Figure 2. Table 6. Location of raptor nests in project area Number Zone Easting Northing Status RTHA-1 12S 739802 4390230 Active RTHA-2 I2S 7401 I 1 4387440 Inactive RTHA-3 12S 739991 4386420 Active RTHA-4 12S 743108 4381450 Active RTHA-5 12S 742817 4379490 Active COHA-1 12S 739591 43 8843 0 Active COHA-2 12S 739626 4388390 Inactive UNHA-1 12S 741015 4386310 Inactive UNHA-2 12S 740388 4385980 Inactive UNHA-3 12S 742871 4381350 Inactive GOEA-1 12S 743486 4380060 Inactive WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 23 pages 9/19/2008 Figure 2 Enterprise Marathon Trunk Pipeline Wildlife Impact and Sensitive Areas Raptors & TESS - September 2008 WestWater Engineering Environmental Consulting Services Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Legend Raptor Nests 77 Proposed Pipeline * Active Garden Gulchr Road r * 4narti ae LJ BLM Pitear a bladderKid " c RaptprNest Butter#4t3 ntilei Rl"WA"5f. ti �9 Jz? ' gY11 heap Souise- Z:tv estrester_GIS_UalatEnterpriseU, arathon TruninktaratnongpiehneRaptorsTESS.nrrd Spet 15 2008 .01, 4.4.2 Birds of Conservation Concern (BOCC) other than raptors In addition to raptors discussed above, WWE biologists surveyed the proposed pipeline route for the presence of sensitive or migratory BOCC that could potentially occur in the project area. BOCC habitat and nesting records, as described in the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas (Kingery 1998), Colorado Birds (Andrews and Righter 1992) and Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country (Righter et al. 2004) in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline are summarized in Table 7. Table 7. BLM sensitive & migratory bird species that may be present in the project area Common Name Scientific Name Virginia's Warbler Vermivora virginiae Williamson's Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus Habitat & Breeding Records • Dense shrublands and scrub forests of Gambel oak, pinon- juniper, mountain mahogany or ponderosa pine. Nests on the ground among dead leaves or on rock or log overhangs. • Nesting has been confirmed in Garfield County, including the Roan Plateau. Likely nester in the project area. • Occupies conifer forest, often mixed with aspen from 7,000 to 10,700 ft. Mainly nests in aspen groves. Migratory songbirds typically begin to arrive in Colorado in late April with the majority arriving and initiating breeding activity during the month of May and June. No sensitive BOCC species were observed during the survey. The migratory species most likely to nest in this project area is the Virginia's Warbler. Virginia's Warblers have been confirmed nesting in a variety of shrublands in environments including oakbrush, pinon juniper and aspen. It nests primarily in the understory of these plant communities, all of which occur in this project area. 4.4.3 Greater Sage -Grouse The Greater Sage -Grouse occurs in suitable habitat along the pipeline alignment and is recognized by the BLM and CDOW as a species of special concern. Greater Sage -Grouse occupy the sagebrush shrublands on the divide between the Parachute Creek and Roan Creek drainages. They require large, continuous areas of sagebrush habitat on flat gently rolling terrain, with vegetation dominated by sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata var. vaseyana) and generally lacking an overstory of mountain shrub or woodland species. Their breeding occurs in the spring on leks (strutting grounds), where dominant males display to attract females to mate. Once bred, the females disperse to build a nest and lay eggs. Recent research by the CDOW reveals that approximately 80 percent of the females nest within a 4 -mile radius of the lek on which they were bred (Colorado Greater Sage -Grouse Conservation Plan 2008). Residual grass cover mixed with a quality herbaceous component in the sagebrush understory results in increased survival of the nests and chicks through their early weeks after hatching. Self-sustaining sage -grouse populations require extensive patches of sagebrush dominated habitat for long-term viability. The patch size of sagebrush habitat necessary to support sage -grouse is not well known on the Roan Plateau. It is known that sage -grouse on the Roan Plateau prefer ridge - tops and are thought to spend little time on steep hillsides and in the bottom of gulches and draws. WestWater Engineering Page 10 of 23 pages 9/19/2008 Biologists inventoried the proposed pipeline alignment following transect routes through suitable habitat looking for grouse as well as grouse sign (droppings, feathers, tracks). All locations of grouse sign were recorded using handheld GPS units and locations are reported as UTM coordinates (Datum: NAD83, Zone: 12S). Special attention was focused on potential sage -grouse habitat on ridge -tops and other suspected habitat within the pipeline project area. Sage -grouse sign was observed in the project area, with the highest density of sign found in the north half of the project (Figure 3). An active lek (Bear Run) is situated near the pipeline right-of- way ight-ofway (ROW) in Section 29. Greater Sage -Grouse sign was observed in vegetative communities dominated by sagebrush, forbs and grasses, with slopes typically less than 20 percent. 4.5 Terrestrial Species 4.5.1 American Elk and Mule Deer The proposed pipeline alignment lies within CDOW, Game Management Unit (GMU) 32. In GMU 32, the project area is situated within mule deer and American elk overall range. It is also included in mule deer and elk summer range and in a portion of a Roan Plateau elk production area (Figures 4 and 5). No mule deer production areas are mapped by NDIS, but the entire area is within mule deer fawning habitat. Several fawns were observed during the June survey period. During the survey, mule deer and elk droppings and fresh tracks were observed frequently in the project area. There are no mule deer or elk winter ranges in the project area, due to the high elevation and deep snows that cover the area during the winter. Elk and mule deer utilize the summer range extensively on the Roan Plateau, following the snow line to higher elevations in the spring. Mule deer rely on the existing sagebrush and shrubs for their primary food source, while elk rely primarily on available grasses for food. Adjacent areas of aspen, Douglas -fir and scattered oakbrush/serviceberry copses provide necessary forage and production areas as well as escape, thermal, and loafing cover for deer and elk, particularly during the summer period. 4.5.2 Black Bear and Mountain Lion CDOW "NDIS" mapping shows the proposed pipeline to be within overall range for black bear and mountain lion. Black bear are a common resident mammal on the Roan Plateau. Black bears are omnivorous and the diet depends largely on what kinds of food are seasonally available, although their mainstay is vegetation. In spring, emerging grasses and succulent forbs are favored. In summer and early fall, bears take advantage of a variety of berries and other fruits. In late fall, preferences are for berries and mast (acorns), where available. When the opportunity is present, black bears eat a diversity of insects, including beetle larvae and social insects (ants, wasps, bees, termites, etc.), and they kill a variety of mammals, including rodents, rabbits, and young or unwary ungulates. The Roan Plateau provides important habitat to black bear during the late spring, summer and fall months with its abundance of berry and mast producing plants including serviceberry, chokecherry and Gambel oak. Black bear are in hibernation from mid-November through May. WestWater Engineering Page 11 of 23 pages 9/19/2008 tg1l1k(:xtttPilllN!tiftlil,c.1r4a:{..0;f ti ^� Figure 3 Enterprise Marathon Trunk pipeline Wildlife Impact and Sensitive Areas Sage Grouse - September 2008 WestWater Engineering Environmental Consulting Services Miles 0 0.25 0,5 1 1.5 Legend Sage Grouse Sign •-. Pr;,pnsedP+peline • Active Leks Inactne Leks t„ 1 Lek Buffer iOO.6 mel Nesting Habitat - ketave Lek t4 ins) Mesting Habitat - Inactive Lek {4 mi) LliSG Habitat y6Lr.t±cDQW 2407.i '�— Garden Gulch Road i BLta1 ^ter wu �= Z:7,•�r,rw 4er_ue� �aptFnterpr'Whim-anon TrunkiMarathonPi elineSayr•Grous V � ne. d Figure 4 Enterprise Marathon Trunk Pipeline Wildlife Impact and Sensitive Areas Deer Activity - September 2008 WestWater Engineering Environmental Consulting Services Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Legend - J Proposed Pipeline — —� Garden Gulch Rad - Summer Range ® WifiL r C3n:entrat;w - Write! Range r- iElr,� ,400//1/ I;I, �aui;e 2.1Westsutei ,s15_Dat nEnteapnsedMardni n Tiunklt.7aiatheaRpehneL:eer mxd Sept 15 2068 ctv Figure 5 Enterprise Marathon Trunk Pipeline Wildlife Impact and Sensitive Areas Elk Activity- September 2008 WestWster Engineering Environmental Consulting Services Miles 0 0.5 1 Legend —_'-■ Proposed RIPellne Garden Gulch Read Production Area ® Summer Ranoa ® vriter Cancrstratic:n - Winter Range n BLIT! �.'F oourar.cc.urVNS[w3ler_,,:,_JJaLrtIVeipnsr<.Mr:1chun Iic::r,I: a!o,tFonl-Vadl"eELIE.nb:ct Sprat 15., 2008 clv Mountain lion typically follow migrating deer herds in search of deer as the primary food source. Mountain lion have large territories and are highly mobile as they search for food or new territories. Mountain lion prefer to hunt in rocky terrain near woodland habitats. These habitat conditions occur within the project area. Mountain lion could travel through and hunt in the project area during the summer months. The project area is not mapped by CDOW as a potential mountain lion conflict area. 4.5.3 Small Mammals Common small mammal species (small game, furbearers, non -game) include coyote (Canis latrans), golden -mantled ground squirrel (Spermophilus lateralis), northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides), white-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii) and least chipmunk (Tamias minimus). 4.5.4 Other Bird Species The project areas' shrublands, aspen groves, understory grasses and Douglas -fir stands provide nesting and foraging habitats for various other migratory and non -migratory bird species, depending on the season of the year. Bird species observed during the survey included Bewick's Wren (Thryomanes bewickii), Black -billed Magpie (Pica pica), Common Raven (Corvus corax), Mountain Bluebird (Sialia currucoides), Brewer's Sparrow (Spizella breweri), Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), Tree Swallows (Tachycineta thalassina), Cliff Swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) and Green -tailed Towhee (Pipilo chlorurus). 4.5.5 Reptiles Western terrestrial garter snakes (Thamnophis elegans) were observed in the vicinity of Bear Run Creek on the north end of the pipeline ROW. This species is common on the Roan Plateau and is typically observed around perennial creeks and ponds. Smooth green snake (Liochlorophis vernalis) were not observed during surveys, but are known to occur on the Roan Plateau (Hammerson 1999). This species is not abundant across western Colorado; however, it is not listed as a sensitive species. Short -homed lizards (Phiynosoma hernandesi) were observed in the upland sagebrush habitats, particularly in the northern portion of the pipeline alignment. Both adults and young of the year were documented. From Garden Gulch north, this species appears to be fairly abundant along ridgelines in sagebrush habitats. It is not listed by the CDOW as a sensitive species. 4.6 Aquatic Species 4.6.1 Amphibians One species of amphibian was observed in the general area of the alignment. Tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum) were observed in a livestock watering pond about 0.5 miles west of the pipeline ROW north of Bear Run Creek. This species likely occurs across the Roan Plateau in suitable ponds and in the perennial streams and wetlands. The species prefers to breed in permanent ponds and small reservoirs and is not a sensitive species. 4.6.2 Fish The West Fork of Parachute Creek is the only perennial steam known to support fish populations in the project area. Brown trout are known to occur about 200 yards downstream from the pipeline crossing in this drainage. The pipeline alignment crosses six other perennial steams between the WestWater Engineering Page 15 of 23 pages 9/19/2008 West Fork and Garden Gulch. No fish populations are known to occur in these headwater drainages. All drainages affected by the pipeline flow into the Parachute Creek drainage and eventually the Colorado River. Parachute Creek support a reproducing population of Colorado River Cutthroat trout below the West Fork falls. Other species in the main stem of Parachute Creek include rainbow trout, speckled dace, brook trout and white suckers. 4.7 Wetlands and Waterways Springs, seeps and wetlands are essential components of wildlife habitat. The proposed pipeline alignment crosses nine ACOE regulated perennial streams (Table 8; Figure 6). Fringe wetland vegetation borders the perennial streams. Table 8. Stream crossings for the Marathon Trunk pipeline, 2008 Stream name W. Fork Parachute Creek Unnamed tributary to W. Fork of Parachute Creek (Sec. 7, T5S, R96W) Willow Creek N. Fork Little Creek 12S 12S 12S Eastrng _ 740112 740041 740526 Nor thing 4390517 4390154 4386145 Width in.) 70 48 40 Depth in. 12 8 12 Little Creek House Log Gulch Circle Creek Unnamed tributary to Garden Gulch Sec. 12, T6S, R97W (Intermittent -crosses near a spring) Corral Gulch (Garden Gulch above falls) 5.0 AFFECTS TO WILDLIFE 12S 12S 12S 12S 12S 12S 741505 742198 743093 742762 741482 742685 4385015 4383663 4382932 _ 4379419 4385051 4380265 46 36 48 40 20 36 9 6 6 8 4 8 5.1 Wildlife Impact Assessment Construction of the pipeline will likely affect site-specific native vegetation and the suitability of wildlife habitat adjacent to the project site. Affects will be minimized by locating the pipeline within and adjacent to the currently disturbed ROWs. The project and its ongoing activities will contribute; however, to the overall cumulative impacts to the wildlife populations of the area that are experiencing gradual habitat loss, fragmentation, alteration and displacement through increased development. 5.1.1 Terrestrial Species 5.1.1.1 Elk and Mule Deer Potential affects include the temporary loss of a small amount of summer range, fawning, and calving habitat along the ROW in previously undisturbed areas. Effects to summering mule deer and elk are expected to be minimal, if construction occurs during this time. Since the pipeline parallels an exiting ROW, the minimal loss of forage is not significant. Construction during the winter would not affect big game species, since the area is not in winter range. WestWater Engineering Page 16 of 23 pages 9/19/2008 Figure 6 Enterprise Marathon Trunk Pipeline Wildlife Impact and Sensitive Areas Stream Crossings - September 2008 \hlestWater Engineering Environmental Consulting Services Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Legend • Stream Cossings • Garden GtIIcA Road -pr_r PropeserJ Nipelirre n BLM Map Soursr Z. 5MstwateT_GIS_Mta:Entzrpeise Marathon Ti unt5MarathonPipelineRaptorsTESS.m=d r,I. 5.1.1.2 Birds Greater Sage -Grouse: Sage -grouse are highly dependent on sagebrush dominated habitats on the Roan Plateau. The quality and quantity of this habitat type dictates its suitability for sage -grouse. Disturbance to sagebrush shrublands that reduces the availability and suitability of presently occupied habitat would affect this species. Sage -grouse would potentially be affected by pipeline construction due to effects on breeding, brood -rearing and winter habitats. Effects could be direct and indirect. Direct effects would be loss of habitat caused by ground disturbance to sagebrush vegetation. Indirect effects would result from factors such as equipment noise and the presence of humans in suitable habitats. Since the pipeline alignment is along an existing ROW corridor, the amount of disturbance would be limited to new affected areas of suitable sage -grouse habitat. Effects will mostly occur along ridgelines in the area north of Garden Gulch. There are only two known leks (Bear Run and Garden Gulch) in the project area; loss of either site would potentially jeopardize the sustainability of the sage -grouse population that currently exists along the Parachute Creek -Roan Creek Divide. The highest risk of impacts would occur in the area around the Bear Run lek site. The Bear Run lek is near enough to the planned development to be directly and indirectly affected by construction activities. The lek is located approximately 200 yards east of the pipeline ROW. In this area, the main Garden Gulch all-weather access road has also been constructed in the past several years, which adds additional traffic disturbance factors in the project area. The Garden Gulch Lek is located far enough away from the alignment such that no effects are expected. Construction occurring during the critical breeding season from March 1 to May 31 could interfere with mating and reduce the nesting success of female sage -grouse. The most significant impact to sage -grouse would involve the abandonment of the lek by sage -grouse due to human disturbance. Additionally, since 80 percent of hens nest within four miles of the lek, disturbance to suitable nesting habitat between April 15 and July 15 would negatively affect annual chick production. Passerine Species: The affects to foraging and nesting habitat to a small number of bird species is expected to be minimal. Raptors: No nest sites are located in sites where removal of the nest tree is a concern. Raptor nesting within 0.25 miles of the pipeline alignment could potentially be indirectly affected by disturbance associated with pipeline construction including equipment and human presence. Nest sites that are in direct -line of site of construction activities have the most potential for being adversely affected. If there is vegetation or terrain features that tend to protect the nest, effects of disturbance are often mitigated. However, four nest sites (COHA-1, COHA-2, RTHA-3 and RTHA-5) have been identified that are within 150 yards of the pipeline ROW. These sites are the most vulnerable to potential negative effects of construction activities including abandonment causing mortality of chicks. 5.1.1.3 Black Bear and Mountain Lion Due to the large home range of both black bear and mountain lions, and because of the extensive amount of available habitat for these species, no adverse affect from this project for these species is expected. WestWater Engineering Page 18 of 23 pages 9/19/2008 5.1.1.4 Small Mammals The amount of available habitat for small mammals should not be affected significantly by the pipeline project. Disturbance will occur primarily within an existing pipeline ROW with only a small amount of new disturbance in the southem portion of the pipeline. This small amount of new disturbance is not expected to affect small mammal populations. 5.1,1.5 Reptiles The amount of available habitat for reptiles should not be affected significantly by the proposed pipeline project. Disturbance will occur primarily within an existing pipeline corridor, with only a small amount of disturbance in the northern portion of the pipeline. This small amount of new disturbance is not expected to affect reptile populations. 5.1.2 Aquatic Species 5.1.2.1 Amphibians The amount of available habitat for amphibians should not be affected significantly by the proposed pipeline project. Disturbance will occur primarily within an existing pipeline corridor, with only a small amount of new disturbance in the northern portion of the pipeline. This small amount of new disturbance is not expected to affect amphibian populations. 5.1.2.2 Endangered Fish Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat in the West Fork of Parachute Creek in the project area potentially could be compromised by decreased water quality conditions. Any increase in erosion runoff could negatively affect endangered fish recovery due to a decrease in water quality. 6.0 AFFECTS TO TESS PLANT SPECIES The Piceance bladderpod population found during biological surveys is located about 0.4 -miles west of the pipeline alignment. No effects are expected to the bladderpod population from this project. 7.0 AFFECTS TO WETLANDS Affects to perennial stream habitats and ACOS waters are likely to be minimal. No aquatic wildlife species should be affected in the vicinity of pipeline construction. Water quality may be temporarily affected due to increased sediment loads. 8.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations for mitigation are presented for maintenance and improvement of wildlife habitat quality as well as for the prevention of human -caused wildlife affects. 8.1 Maintenance and Restoration of Habitat In the Rocky Mountain Region, sagebrush communities have declined over the years and continue to do so as a result of development and habitat conversion. In many areas, cheatgrass and other exotic grass invasion has limited the recovery of habitats by greatly reducing re-establishment of native species. WestWater Engineering Page 19 of 23 pages 9/19/2008 Mountain shrub, sagebrush and native grasses are key food sources for elk, mule deer and sage - grouse and provide nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of migratory birds and small mammals. Reclamation plans should include efforts to restore these vegetation communities, particularly the sagebrush community for sage -grouse. Reclamation recommendations include the following: 1. Seeding of native mountain big sagebrush should be added to the re -vegetation plan. Local, ecologically adapted sagebrush seed from the existing sagebrush vegetation within the project area should be used in reclamation. 2. Ongoing control of noxious and invasive weeds is recommended as an additional method to maintain native vegetation communities and favorable wildlife habitats. An "Integrated Vegetation and Weed Management Plan" is provided for this project in a separate report. 8.2 Planning for Sensitive Time Periods and Areas 8.2.1 Mule Deer and Elk Disturbance associated with construction equipment and personnel may cause elk and mule deer to select habitats in more secluded areas away from the pipeline corridor during construction. Construction should be completed as quickly as possible, especially during the month of June in the sections near the elk production areas (Figure 5). Confining activity to the immediate ROW and moving quickly through the areas near the elk production areas wilI minimize disturbance to elk. If construction occurs during the winter months (November 15 -April) big game will not be in the project area due to the deep snow conditions. 8.2.2 Migratory Birds Vegetation clearing activities, in relation to construction and development projects, would have less impact to migratory birds if conducted outside the primary nesting season of May 15 to August 1. 8.2.3 Greater Sage -Grouse In order to reduce the likelihood that sage -grouse populations decline in the project area, effective natural gas pre -development planning and post -development practices offer the best prospect for mitigating adverse affects to sage -grouse populations. Planning development with projects engineered to avoid, minimize, and mitigate affects of natural gas development are approaches that result in the most favorable mitigation outcomes. Wildlife managers have developed best management practices (BMPs) and guidelines, which can be used to help mitigate natural gas development impacts in these habitats. The opportunity exists to enhance the existing sage -grouse habitat in order to offset habitat losses attributable to natural gas development and should be implemented to protect and enhance leks, nesting habitat and essential winter habitat. As with all guidelines, adaptive approaches should be used and the best available science should be applied when implementing these guidelines. It is recommended that construction activities be done in such a way as to minimize disturbance to Greater Sage -Grouse habitat. Lek habitat and nesting/brooding rearing habitat are critical habitats that are linked biologically and cannot be separated easily for protective management practices. Lek sites need protection during WestWater Engineering Page 20 of 23 pages 9/19/2008 the breeding season and habitat protection and management year-round to secure their integrity. After breeding, female sage -grouse nest in close proximity to leks. Sage -grouse research shows that 52 percent of nest sites occur within two miles of the lek and approximately 80 percent of nesting occurs within four miles of lek sites (CCP 2008). Protection concerns are concentrated within a short radius of the lek during the breeding season and thereafter the radius of protection expands to include essential nesting/brood-rearing habitat. After the completion of the mating period (March 1 -May 31), including protection of lek habitat, protection transitions into a broader area that includes nesting/brood rearing habitat (April 15 -July 15), such that the two features cannot be separated. Based on CDOW recommendations, construction activities should be avoided within 0.6 mile of the Bear Run lek during the March 1 -May 31 breeding period. The most critical location is the ridgeline from the pipeline alignment along the Garden Gulch Road to the lek site. The existing 2 - track road that leads from the Garden Gulch road to the lek should be permanently closed. As the distance of construction increases from the lek the level of disturbance decreases. Since the pipeline alignment is along an existing pipeline corridor, affects to nesting hens (April 15 -July 15) is reduced. 8.2.4 Raptors Activities associated with the proposed project have the potential to impact raptor populations. In order to reduce the potential for affects to nesting raptors, it will be important that the project proponent schedule construction activities such that they do not interfere with breeding, nesting and brood rearing activities. CDOW's (Craig 2002 and Klute 2008) recommended raptor nest site avoidance standards for the species observed in this survey are summarized below (Table 9). If the project cannot be completed prior to, or after, the next nesting season, the known nest should be re - inventoried by qualified biologists. If any birds are found behaving in a manner consistent with nesting, every effort should be made to apply the timing Iimitation and buffer distance stipulations. Table 9. Timins and buffer recommendations for active raptor nests Species Buffer Zone Seasonal: Restriction Red-tailed Hawk 0.33 mile 1 March - 15 July Swainson's Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 August Sharp -shinned Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 August Cooper's Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 August American Kestrel * * Peregrine Falcon 0.5 mile 15 March - 31 July Prairie Falcon 0.5 mile 15 March - 31 July Golden Eagle 0.25 mile + alt. nests 1 January - 15 July Bald Eagle 0.50 mile 15 December - 15 July Northern Harrier 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 August Long-eared Owl 0.25 mile 1 March - 15 July Flammulated Owl 0.25 mile 1 April —1 August Northern Saw -whet Owl 0.25 mile 1 March — 15 July Great Homed Owl * * * Great Horned Owls and Kestrels are relatively tolerant of human activity. Keep activity to a minimum during breeding season. 8.3 Other Mitigation Practices WestWater Engineering Page 21 of 23 pages 9/19/2008 8.3.1 Erosion Control, Soil Stability and Water Quality Efforts to control 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. 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. Prior to construction in the vicinity of potential stream crossings, appropriate consultation with the ACOE is recommended. To protect the integrity of the perennial stream ecosystems and the associated riparian habitat within the project area, precautions should be taken when crossing or intersecting the drainages identified. Standard BMPs, including adequate barriers and filtration methods, should be used to prevent and reduce soil from eroding into perennial streams and riparian areas. This may include the installation of check dams along small ephemeral drainages and vegetation restoration 9.0 REFERENCES Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado. Board of County Commissioners. 2006. Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, amended October, 2006. Board of County Commissioners, Building and Planning Department, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Colorado Greater Sage -grouse Steering Committee. 2008. Colorado greater sage -grouse conservation plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. CDOW. 2008a. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Natural Diversity Information Source. http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlife.asp. CDOW. 2008b. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Wildlife Species of Concern. Threatened and Endangered List. CDOW Web Home Page: httpa/wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/ThreatenedEndangeredList. Craig, Gerald R. 2002. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. CWMA. 2007. S. Anthony, T. D'Amato, A. Doran, S. Elzinga, J. Powell, 1. Schonle, and K. Uhing. Noxious Weeds of Colorado, Ninth Edition. Colorado Weed Management Association, Centennial. Hammerson, G. A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado, Second Edition. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Kennedy, P. L., and D. W. Stahlecker.1993. Responsiveness of nesting northern goshawks to taped broadcasts of 3 conspecific calls. Journal of Wildlife Management, 57:249-257. Kershaw, Linda, A. MacKinnon, and J. Pojar. 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountains. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. Kingery, H. E. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. WestWater Engineering Page 22 of 23 pages 9/19/2008 Klute. 2008. Maddux, H., L. Fitzpatrick, and W. Noonan. 1993. Colorado River Endangered Fishes Critical • Habitat. Biological Support Document. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah/Colorado Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, 225 pp. NRCS. 2008. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey: http:Uwebsoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/. Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith and E. L Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. General Technical Report RM -GTR -217, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.. Righter, R., R. Levad, C. Dexter, and K. Potter. 2004. Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa • • Country. Grand Valley Audubon Society, Grand Junction, Colorado. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. USFWS. 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Whitson, T. D. (editor), L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee, and Robert Parker. 2004. Weeds of the West, Ninth Edition. Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with Cooperative Extension Services, University of Wyoming. Laramie. WestWater Engineering Page 23 of 23 pages 9/19/2008 APPENDIX A Photo 1. Vegetation and terrain in the Garden Gulch area along the existing pipeline corridor Photo 2. Typical vegetation and terrain on the north end of the pipeline near the W. Fork of Parachute Creek Appendix A 9/19/2008 WestWater Engineering Report on the Class I and Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for a Sensitive Area Study on BLM and Private Lands for the Proposed Marathon Trunk Discharge Pipeline and Compressor Site in Garfield County, Colorado, for EPCO, Inc. GRI Project No. 2874 2 September 2008 Prepared by Carl E. Conner (Principal Investigator) and Barbara Davenport Grand River Institute P.O. Box 3543 Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 BLM Antiquities Permit No. C-52775 State of Colorado Antiquities Permit No. 2008-63 Submitted to Board of County Commissioners Garfield County, Colorado Abstract At the request of EPCO, Inc. (as represented by Westwater Engineering) Grand River Institute conducted a Class I and Class III cultural resources inventory for a Sensitive Area Study in relation to an anticipated Special Use Permit Application with Garfield County for the Proposed Marathon Trunk Discharge Pipeline and Compressor Site. The study is for a linear route of —9.25 miles and a block area of —18 acres. These are generally located on the Roan Plateau west of Parachute Creek and east of Conn Creek/Roan Creek. This work was undertaken to ensure the project's compliance with county, state, and federal laws and regulations governing the identification and protection of cultural resources on privately owned lands that will be affected by a government action. This work was performed under State of Colorado Antiquities Permit No. 2008-63 and BLM Permit No. C-52775. The purpose of the cultural resources investigation was to identify previously recorded resources within or near the project area that may be adversely affected by the proposed action as part of the Class I, to inventory the proposed pipeline route to a width of 200 feet (60m), to inventory the 18 acre block for the proposed compressor site, and to evaluate those resources identified. A total of 224 acres (22 BLM and 202 private) were subject to an intensive (Class III) inventory. The Class I files search, Cass III inventory, and report preparation were performed between August 11`h and September l', 2008. As a result no sites have been previously recorded within a mile of the project area and no new sites were documented by the intensive inventory. Accordingly, a determination of "no effect" for the project is recommended pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800). ii Table of Contents Introduction 1 Location of the Project Area 1 Environment 1 Paleoclimate 5 Files Search Results 6 Archaeological Assessment of Cultural Resources 7 Relevant Historical Background post -1880 9 Study Objectives / Research Design 11 Field Methods 11 Summary and Recommendations 12 References 13 List of Figures and Tables Figures 1-3. Project location maps 2-4 Table 1. List of projects previously conducted near the study area 6 111 Introduction At the request of EPCO, Inc. (as represented by Westwater Engineering) Grand River Institute conducted a Class I and Class Ill cultural resources inventory for a Sensitive Area Study in relation to an anticipated Special Use Permit Application with Garfield County for the Proposed Marathon Trunk Discharge Pipeline and Compressor Site. The study is for a linear route of —9.25 miles and a block area of —18 acres. The files search, inventory, and report preparation were conducted between August 11th and September 1', 2008. This work was performed under State of Colorado Antiquities Permit No. 2008-62 and BLM Permit No. C- 52775 by Carl E. Conner (Principal Investigator) and Barbara J. Davenport. This inventory was undertaken to ensure the project's compliance with state and federal legislation governing the identification and protection of cultural resources on privately owned lands that will be affected by a government action. It was done to meet requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended in 1992), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq., as amended), and Article 80.1, Colorado Revised Statutes. These laws are concerned with the identification, evaluation, and protection of fragile, non-renewable evidence of human activity, occupation, and endeavor reflected in districts, sites, structures, artifacts, objects, ruins, works of art, architecture, and natural features that were of importance in human events. Such resources tend to be localized and highly sensitive to disturbance. All work was performed according to guidelines set forth by the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) of the Colorado Historical Society. Location of the Project Area The study area is located on the Roan Plateau west of Parachute Creek and east of Conn Creek/Roan Creek. It lies in T. 5 S., R. 96 W., Sections 7, 18, 19, 20, 29, 30, 32 and 33; and, T. 6 S., R. 97 W., Sections 1, 12, and 13; 6th Principal Meridian (Figures 1-3). Environment The project area is within the Piceance Creek Basin, one of the major geologic subdivisions of Colorado. The Piceance Creek Basin is an elongate structural downwarp of the Colorado Plateau province that apparently began its subsidence approximately 70 million years ago during the Laramide Orogeny. Sediments from surrounding highlands were deposited in the basin, accumulating to a thickness of as much as 9000 feet by the lower Eocene epoch, when subsidence ceased. Regional uplift occurred in the Late Tertiary, and erosion of the area has continued since (Young and Young 1977:43-46). The Green River formation underlies the study area. 1 Elevation of the project area ranges from about 7660 feet -to -8480 feet, which falls within the Transitional Zone. The natural vegetation cover in the canyon bottoms is sagebrush/ grasslands. The higher elevation ridges have groves of aspen, common particularly at the heads of drainages. On the ridge tops and sides, the understory is quite thick, consisting of chokecherry, smooth maple, serviceberry, and wild rose. On the steep slopes bordering these uplands is found the only coniferous forest type of the project area, the Douglas fir. Associated understory is light --predominantly snowberry, serviceberry, and barberry. The flat terrain of the project areas is occupied by mountain big sage and western snowberry. Gentle north and east - facing aspects support a mountain brush community—Utah serviceberry, gambel oak, and snowberry. Ground cover ranges from 80 to 100 percent. Soils on ridgetops are shallow loams with intermixed shale, or fractured shale. Away from the ridge, soils deepen and become darker and loamier. Nineteen mammal species—among them the deer mouse, least chipmunk, short -tailed weasel, mule deer, and black bear—and 38 bird species are known in the Douglas fir community. Arvid the aspen environment are 16 mammals—including the deer mouse, masked shrew, least chipmunk, northern pocket gopher, montane vole, porcupine, striped skunk, short -tailed weasel, red fox, deer, and elk—and 30 birds. The mountain brush community attracts 37 bird species and 27 mammal species, among these the rock squirrel, bushy -tailed woodrat, deer mouse, porcupine, least chipmunk, beaver, muskrat, raccoon, striped skunk, coyote, red fox, and the short -tailed weasel (Union Oil Company, Energy Mining Division 1982:H14-18). Present land use includes energy development, open range for domestic animals, and modern hunting. Climatically, the region is characterized as having a steppe -type climate. Average annual rainfall ranges roughly between 12 and 24 inches. On the Roan PIateau at 8000 feet, the average annual rainfall is 25.66 inches and the average annual temperature is 35.5° F. (ibid.:182, Tables K.1 .5 and K.1.7). Temperatures have varied between -20 degrees F. in winter and 90 degrees F. in summer with a frost free seasonal range of 70 to 100 days. Agriculture is limited by the low rainfall, a short period of frost -free days, and low winter temperatures (USDA SCS 1978). Paleoclimate Relatively small changes in past climatic conditions altered the exploitative potential of an area and put stress upon aboriginal cultures by requiring adjustments in their subsistence patterns. Therefore, reconstruction of paleoenvironmental conditions is essential to the understanding of population movement and cultural change in prehistoric times (Euler et al. 1979). To interpret whatever changes are seen in the archaeological record, an account of fluctuations in past climatic conditions must be available or inferences must be made from studies done in surrounding area. Generally, only gross climatic trends have been established for western North America prior to 2000 BP (Antevs 1955; Berry and Berry 1986; Mehringer 1967; Madsen 1982; Wendlund and Bryson 1974; Peterson 1981). Scientific data derived from investigations of prehistoric cultures and geoclimatic and bioclimatic conditions on the southern 5 Colorado Plateau over the past two millennia have achieved a much greater degree of resolution (Dean et al. 1985). Files Search Results Cultural resource investigations in the region have yielded surface diagnostic artifacts and excavated cultural materials consistent with the regional cultural history. Evidence provided by chronometric diagnostic artifacts and radiocarbon analyses indicate regional occupation during the PaIeoindian Era, Archaic Era, Formative Era, and Protohistoric Era. Historic records suggest occupation or use of the region by EuroAmerican trappers, settlers, miners, and ranchers as well. Overviews of the prehistory and history of the region are provided in documents published by the Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists entitled Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado Plateau (Reed and Metcalf 1999), and by the Colorado Historical Society entitled Colorado Plateau Country Historic Context (Husband 1984). Many of the prehistoric sites that were previously recorded in the Roan Plateau area have been identified as open lithic scatters. Most are likely to have been open camps (albeit for a short period) as there are no local lithic procurement sites in the Basin. The remains of wickiups (brush shelters) have been identified at a relatively high number of sites in the area. Historic site types recorded in the region have been ranch complexes, cabins, trails/roads, and herder camps. A file search for known cultural resources within the project area was made through the Colorado Historical Society's Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and the BLM White River and Glenwood Springs Field Offices. This review identified seven reports that have been done in the general area, which are listed in Table 1. The files search indicated no cultural resources occur within about one mile of the study area. Table 1. List of projects previously conducted within about 1.0 mile of the study area. [T. 5 S., R. 97 W., Sections 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 29, 30, 32 and 33 T. 6 S., R. 97 W., Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, and 14] Survey ID GF.LM.NR666 Project/author/date Title: Negative Cultural Resources Report of the PDC/Chevron Lease Road Segment, Garfield Colorado Author: Piontkowski, Michael Date: 06/27/2003 Contractor: Uncompahgre Archaeological Consultants for Mineral Land Services 6 Survey ID Project/author/date GF.LM.R252 Title: A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the Dawson Geophysical Trail Ridge 2-D Seismic Project (Original and Addendum) Author: Frizell, Jon P., Jeffery Derks, and Elizabeth Frizell Date: 08/27/2003 Contractor: North Platte Archaeological Services for Dawson Geophysical GF.LM.NR786 Title: Encana Oil and Gas (USA): Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Double Willow P066, P067, P068 and P069 Well Pads and Access Road/pipeline Rights-of-way in Garfield County, Colorado Author: Brogan, John M. Date: 10/01/2004 Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants for Encana Oil and Gas (USA) GF.LM.NR804 Title: Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of Conoco -Phillips' Proposed Well Pads DWU-G33-496, SGU-134-496, and NPF-N07-596 and Access Roads in Garfield County, Colorado Author: Reed, Charles A. Date: 11/15/2006 Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants GF.LM.NR830 Title: Conoco Phillips Wells G35, M33, M34, E06, and Associated Access Roads and Pipelines, a Class III Cultural Resource Inventory in Garfield County, Colorado (BLM # 07-54-02) Author: McDonald, Kae Date: 05/18/2007 Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants GF.LM.NR835 Title: Conoco Phillips Well N07 596 Access Road Reroute, a Class Iii Cultural Resource Inventory in Garfield County, Colorado (BLM-WRFO# 07-54-11) Author: McDonald, Kae Date: 09/20/2007 Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants GF.LM.NR836 Title: Eight Conoco -Phillips Well Pads and Associated Access Roads 2007 Drilling Program on the Roan Plateau Garfield County, Colorado (BLM-WRFO# 07-54-09) Author: Metcalf, Michael D. Date: 11/01/2007 Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants Archaeological Assessment of Cultural Resources in the Region Previous archaeological studies in the general vicinity have suggested regional occupation for as long as 8000 years, although recently an inventory of block units south of this study area within the Doghead GAP (Conner et al. 2006) provided direct evidence of the presence of 7 Foothill -Mountain Paleoindian occupation at 5GF1323, which pushes the regional prehistoric occupation dates back to about 10,000 yr BP. Historic records also indicate a permanent Euro - American presence in the region began as early as the late 1880's. Notably, many of the newly and previously recorded resources in the general area indicate it was intensively occupied during the Protohistoric Era. In fact, a Ute Trail is known to have crossed through the study area and branched in two directions: to Roan and Parachute Creeks. Unfortunately for many of the sites where wickiups were present, post -cutting and wood collection by the Historic EuroAmerican • settlers and ranchers over the past 125 years has nearly wiped out evidence of their presence. Also, surface collection of diagnostic artifacts has impacted the sites and affected the assignment of cultural/temporal associations. In general, although the study area was probably not continuously occupied prehistorically, it seems to have offered an attractive environment for gathering, floral processing, hunting, as well as lithic procurement and processing. Site density in these higher elevations is relatively low, probably due to two factors: access to permanent water, and strategic topographical positioning. Campsites are often located near the springs or stream convergences for reasons of acquiring water and for the procurement/processing of floral and faunal resources. The apparent differences in the characteristics of the upland and lowland sites may be due to factors other than cultural selection. The lowland sites are subjected to more artifact collecting than the uplands, and the areas along the Colorado River have been subject to few cultural resource surveys. The upland area exhibits a very thick vegetation cover that may be limiting discovery of features and additional artifacts. Lowland sites exhibit greater variability in site types. While the uplands are limited to isolated finds, open camps, and lithic scatters; the lowlands contain these site types and open architectural sites, sheltered sites, and a single tool stone procurement area. The lowland sites contain higher frequencies of cultural features or evidence of features. These features include fire -cracked rock scatters, charcoal stains, hearths, stone structures, and wickiups. All of the prehistoric sites contain low numbers of artifacts, including very limited numbers of debitage, bifacial tools and expedient tools. This suggests conservation, curation, and reuse of flaked stone tools in an area where tool material sources are limited. Lowland sites tend to be situated in the pinyon -juniper vegetation community in greater frequencies than is suggested by the relative proportion of the pinyon -juniper to other vegetation communities. The sites in the uplands are distributed proportionally to the size of the vegetation communities, with the mountain shrub and sagebrush communities exhibiting the highest site density. Too little is known of the age of the sites to make any definitive statements. The distribution of site ages based on projectile points and ceramics is generally the same as portrayed in Reed and Metcalf (1999), but the Iack of absolute dating precludes any conclusions in this area. Lithic scatters exhibit a smaller site size than open camps in both the lowland and 8 upland settings. Isolated finds are distributed across a wider range of slopes than lithic scatters or open camps. The differences in the type and distribution of historic sites are: Sites in the uplands are limited to sheep and cattle raising activities and are primarily post -1889. Sites in the uplands are distributed proportionally to the size of the vegetation communities, with the mountain shrub and sagebrush communities exhibiting the highest site density. Sites in the lowlands display a greater diversity in types and are found mainly in the pinyon -juniper and sagebrush zones. The historic sites in the lowlands are concentrated near transportation corridors and near permanent water sources, particularly the habitation sites. Sites indicative of particular economic activities are spread across the landscape. During 1980, the BLM 's Glenwood Springs Resource Area was subject to an archaeological survey that randomly sampled three percent of its managed lands. A total of 17,400 acres was surveyed for cultural resources. As a result, 58 prehistoric sites and 2 historic sites were recorded, an average of about 2 sites per section (.0034/acre). Three types of prehistoric sites were distinguished by the study; limited activity areas, short-term camps, and large habitation sites. These were classified on the basis of site size and the diversity of artifacts/activities represented. Notably, the sites were unevenly distributed and varied by vegetation community. The highest site density, about 5.0 sites/section (.0078/acre), occurred in pinyon/juniper and sagebrush communities. Concurrently, the greatest number of sites located during the survey tended to occur in or near the pinyon/juniper community. Other environmental factors found to be important during the statistical analysis of the settlement patterns included 1) vertical distance between the site and the primary water source is a greater controlling factor that the horizontal distance, 2) sites tend to be near or on points of vantage, 3) sites tend to be located in forested areas, preferably with a southern exposure and, 4) sites tend to occur on flat ground (less than 40% grade) in areas of relatively low surface relief (Burgess et al. 1980:108-120, 138- 139). In general, the region exhibits a relatively low site density and sites tend to cluster near permanent water sources. Relevant Historical Background post -1880 The Ute people occupied large areas of Western Colorado until about 1881. Due to the White River Ute's discontent that lead to the "Meeker Massacre," as the incident became know, a congressional investigation lead to the Treaty of 1880 that stipulated the removal of the White River bands to the Uintah Reservation in northeastern Utah. The Uncompahgre band was to be given a small reservation in the vicinity of the confluence of the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers. Aware of the value of these agricultural lands, however, the commission charged with enforcing the terms of the treaty, under the direction of Otto Mears, manipulated the location process using a loophole in the treaty language, and the Uncompahgres were given lands in Utah near the Uintah Reservation. The Southern Ute bands were left on the small reservation in southwestern Colorado that had been given them by the Treaty of 1873. On 1 September 1881, the last of the 9 Utes were moved to their new reservations in Utah, and western Colorado was completely opened to the whites. Interest in the potential agricultural lands of westem Colorado (namely the Uncompahgre, Gunnison, Colorado, Dolores, San Miguel, White, and La Plata River valleys) had been growing for some time prior to the Utes' banishment, and by the spring of 1881 frontier towns closest to the Ute lands were "crowded with people, anxious to enter the Reservation and take possession of the most desirable locations (Haskell 1886:2)." Only days after the last of the Utes had been expelled, settlers began rushing onto the reservation lands. Settlement activity spread quickly -- during the autumn months of 1881 land claims were staked, townsites were chosen, and railroad routes were surveyed (Haskell 1886, Borland 1952, Rait 1932). However, because the former reservation lands were not officially declared public Iands until August 1882, the first year of settlement activity was marked by a degree of uncertainty regarding the legality of land claims. When finally announced, the 1882 declaration did not allow home -stead entries on the newly opened lands, but only pre-emptions, or cash entries, at the rate of $1.25 per acre for agricultural land, $5.00 per acre for mineral land (Borland 1952:75). By 1895, the major portion of the land along Manure Creek had been claimed, mostly under Cash Entry patents. The settlers raised their own food and availed themselves of the plentiful game in the area. Gardens, hay fields, and orchards were planted, and irrigation ditches were dug to divert the creek's water to cultivated fields. Large herds of cattle and sheep were accumulating, grazing the valley floor and the vast open range above, driven to the uplands via trails leading up the various gulches. Because the area was still fairly remote, competition for lands had not yet begun. Travel in and out of the Rifle area was restricted to horse and/or wagon. There were several well- developed Ute trails, and in the early 1880s, the federal government had built the aforementioned road between the White and Grand Valleys. In 1885 a toll road opened along the Grand River between Rifle and Grand Junction; prior to the building of this road through DeBeque Canyon, the route to Grand Junction had been a two-week journey "through the Cedar Hills, up Kimball Creek...down the "Sawtooth Range to Fruita and then back to Grand Junction" (Murray 1973.5). But, despite this network of trails and roads, Parachute remained pretty much isolated. With the coming of the D&RG railroad in 1890, however, new pressures were brought to the area. More and more settlers arrived, competing not only for arable land but also for grazing privileges on the unpatented public domain of the surrounding uplands. Increasing numbers of cattle and sheep were imported, some being run as commission cattle for outside investors (ibid:84). Open warfare between cattle and sheep ranchers ensued, resulting in the slaughter of thousands of animals. Four thousand sheep belonging to Messrs. Starkey and Charlie Brown were killed by masked men who tried to drive the animals over cliffs at the head of a Clear Creek tributary and above the GranIee Schoolhouse (LaPoint et al. 1981:3-51). Another 4000 sheep belonging to J.B. Hurlburt were driven to their deaths above Ben Good Creek, a tributary of East Fork. The animosity between cattlemen and sheepmen continued into the 1900s. Finally, 10 Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934, bringing to an end to the free range by providing for regulated grazing and an end to the Sheep -Cattle Wars. Cash Entry, Desert Land, and Homestead patents continued to be granted into the 1920s and 30s. Ranching and farming were still the most important economic activities in the Parachute area and remained so until the 1960s and 1970s when many of the farms and ranches of the region were bought up by large companies interested in the large-scale extraction of oil shale and natural gas. Study Objectives / Research Design The goals of this study were to conduct a Class III (intensive) cultural resources inventory of approximately 9.25 miles for the pipeline R -O -W and a block area of about 18 acres for the compressor site. The objectives were: 1) to identify and record cultural resources within previously unsurveyed areas within a 200 -foot -wide corridor and the block area; 2) to revisit and reevaluate previously recorded sites that may be affected by the development; 3) to evaluate their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); 4) to make management recommendations for the newly recorded cultural resources; and, 5) to assess any impacts to the sites determined "field eligible." The inventory work was to be clone to specifications of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Field Methods A Class III, 100% pedestrian, cultural resources survey was made by walking a series of transects in intervals spaced at 15 -meters along both sides of the center line of the proposed pipeline to cover a 200 foot -wide (60m) corridor and as N -S and E -W lines within the block area. Cultural resources were sought as surface exposures and were characterized as sites or isolated finds. A site is the locus of previous human activity (50 year minimum) at which the preponderance of evidence suggests either a one-time use or repeated use overtime, or multiple classes of activities. For example: a) Isolated thermal feature such as hearths are to be designated as sites, due to the interpretable function of such utilization and the potential for chronometric and economic data recovery, b) Single element rock art panels are to be designated as sites due to the interpretable nature of such an event and the potential diagnostic value of the motif, c) Similarly, isolated human burials are to be designated as sites, or d) Loci exhibiting ground stone and flake stone in association. An isolate refers to one or more culturally modified objects not found in the context of a site as defined above. Note that this definition makes no reference to an absolute quantitative standard for the site/isolate distinction. For example: a) A discrete concentration of flakes from the same material regardless of the number of artifacts present likely represents a single, random 11 event and is properly designated as in isolate, or b) Similarly, a ceramic pot bust is to be recorded as an isolate, regardless of the number of sherds that remain. All cultural resources that qualify as sites, such as prehistoric open camps, lithic scatters, occupied overhangs/rockshelters, and evidence of historic occupation, were to be recorded as they were encountered to standards set by the BLM and the SHPO. These were then to be evaluated for determining eligibility for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Sites were to be recorded using the following methods of mapping and note taking. The basic approach to the data collection is the continuous mapping of observed artifacts and features by recording UTM coordinates (NAD 83 Datum) using a Trimble Geo XT. Site maps were to be created using corrected GPS data and ARCMAP. Photographs were to be taken at each site and included general views and specific artifacts or features. Field notes and photo negatives for this project are on file at Grand River Institute. No artifacts were collected. Summary and Recommendations The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) directs that federal agencies protect cultural resources that possess significant values. Significance is a quality of cultural resource properties that qualifies them for inclusion in the NRHP. The statements of significance included in this report are field assessments that support management recommendations to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The final determination of site significance is made by the controlling agency in consultation with the SHPO. The Code of Federal Regulations was used as a guide for site evaluations. Titles 36 CFR 50, 36 CFR 800, and 36 CFR 64 are concerned with the concepts of significance and (possible) historic value of cultural resources. Titles 36 CFR 65 and 36 CFR 66 provide standards for the conduct of significant and scientific data recovery activities. Finally, Title 36 CFR 60.6 establishes the measure of significance that is critical to the determination of a site's NRNP eligibility, which is used to assess a site's research potential: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of State and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; or b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in the prehistory or history. The eligibility determination and consultation process is guided by Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR 60, 63, and 800). Final determinations of National Register eligibility and effect are made by the controlling agencies in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. 12 The files search and intensive inventory indicated no cultural resources occur within the project area. Accordingly, a determination of "no effect" for the project is recommended pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800). References Antevs, E. 1955 Geologic -climate dating in the west. American Antiquity 20:317-355. Borland, Lois 1952 Ho for the reservation; settlement of the Western Slope. Colorado Magazine 29(1):56-75. Berry, Claudia F. and Michael S. Berry 1986 Chronological and Conceptual Models of the Southwestern Archaic. In: Anthropology of the Desert West, ed. by Carol J. Condie and Don D. Fowler, pp. 253-327. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 110. Salt Lake City. Burgess, Robert J.; Kenneth L. Kvamme; Paul R. Nickens, Alan D. Reed; and Gordon C. Tucker 1980 Class 11 cultural resource inventory report of the Glenwood Springs Resource Area, Grand Junction District, Colorado. Ms on file, Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction. Conner, Carl E., James C. Miller and Nicole Darnell 2006 Class III (intensive) cultural resource inventory of three block acreages within the South Parachute Geographic Area Plan (GAP) domain in Garfield County, Colorado, for Williams Production RMT. Ms on file, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs Field Office. Dean, Jeffery S.; R. C. Euler; G. J. Gumerman; F. Plog; R. H. Hevly; and T. N.V. Karlstrom 1985 Human behavior, demography and paleoenvironment on the Colorado Plateau. American Antiquity 50(3):537-554. Euler, Robert C.; G. J. Gumerman; Thor N.V. Karlstrom; J, S. Dean; and Richard H. Hevly 1979 The Colorado Plateaus: Cultural dynamics and paleoenvironment. Science 205(4411):1089-1101. Haskell, Charles W. 1886 History and Description of Mesa County, Colorado. Edited and published by the Mesa County Democrat, Grand Junction. 13 Husband, Michael B. 1984 Colorado Plateau Country Historic Context. Colorado Historical Society, Denver. LaPoint, Halcyon, Brian Aivazian, and Sherry Smith 1981 Cultural resources inventory baseline report for the Clear Creek Property, Garfield County, Colorado, Volume I. Laboratory of Public Archaeology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Madsen, David B. 1982 Great Basin paleoenvironments: summary and integration. In:Mand and Environment in the Great Basin, D.B. Madsen and J.F. O'Connell, editors. Society of American Archaeology Papers No. 2, pp.102-104. Washington, D.C. Mehringer, Peter J. 1967 Pollen analysis and the alluvial chronology. The Kiva 32:96-101. Murray, Eriene D. 1973 Lest We Forget—A Short History of Early Grand Valley, Colorado, Originally called Parachute, Colorado. Quahada, Inc., Grand Junction. Peterson, Kenneth P. 1981 10,000 years of change reconstructed from fossil pollen, La Plata Mountains, southwestern Colorado. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Seattle. Rait, Mary 1932 History of the Grand Valley. M.A. thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder. Reed, Alan D. and Michael D. Metcalf 1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River Basin. Colorado Historical Society, Denver. Union Oil Company, Energy Mining Division 1982 Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board Permit Application. Phase II: Parachute Creek Shale Oil Program. Volumes VI and VII. Union Oil Company of California, Parachute. USDA Soil Conservation Service 1978 Technical Guide I1E: Range Site Descriptions. Wendlund, Wayne M. and Reid A. Bryson 1974 Dating climatic episodes of the Holocene. Quaternary Research 4:9-24. 14 Young, Robert G. and Joann W. 1977 Colorado West, Land of Geology and Wildflowers. Wheelwright Press, Ltd. 15 PBS&J Project No. 046148200 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW FOR THE MARATHON -ENTERPRISE PICEANCE CREEK AREA PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared for: EPCO, Inc. 2727 North Loop West, Suite 700 Houston, Texas 77008-1044 Prepared by: PBS&J 1250 Wood Branch Park Drive, Suite 300 Houston, Texas 77079 and 4601 DTC Boulevard, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado 80237 July 2008 046148200 Contents Page Acronyms and Abbreviations Ili 1.0 INTRODUCTION..... 11 2.0 METHODS 2-1 3.0 RESULTS ....... .............................. 3.1 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 3-1 3.2 VEGETATION 3-1 3.3 SOILS 3.2 3.3.1 Mapped Soils 3-2 3.3.2 Observed Soils 3-2 3.4 HYDROLOGY 3-4 3.5 POTENTIAL WATERS OF THE U.S. 3-5 3.6.1 Open Water Areas 3-5 3.5.2 Wetlands 3-5 3.5,3 Waterbodies ....3-6 3.5.4 Ditches ...3-7 3,6 THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES.,. 3-7 3.6.1 Birds 3.9 3.6.2 Fish 3.9 3.6.3 Mammals 3.9 3.6.4 Plants .3-10 3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3-10 4.0 CONCLUSION 4-1 5.0 REFERENCES 5-1 Tables Table 1 Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species Potentially Occurring in Garfield County 3-8 Appendices Appendix A Project Maps Appendix B Tables Appendix C Welland Determination Data Forms Appendix D Representative Photographs Appendix E Nationwide Permit 12, General Conditions, and Colorado Regional Conditions 04614820o ii MEW Acronyms and Abbreviations BIOTICS Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System CNHP Colorado Natural Heritage Program CSU Colorado State University DGPS Differentially -corrected global positioning system EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NAS National Audubon Society NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWP Nationwide Permit OHWM Ordinary high water mark PCN Pre -construction notification PEM Palustrine emergent PFO Palustrine forested PSS Palustrine scrub -shrub SHPO State Historic Preservation Office USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WTI Wetland Training Institute 04614E12W iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION PBS&J has been contracted by EPCO, Inc. ("Enterprise") to conduct environmental investigations for the proposed Marathon -Enterprise Piceance Creek Area Pipeline Development ("Project"). On December 4- 5, 2007; _Tune 24-26, 2008; and July 10-11, 2008, PBS&J ecologists conducted environmental investigations within the proposed Project area for waters of the U.S., including wetlands, subject to jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In accordance with 2007 Nationwide Permit ("NWP") General Conditions 17 and 18, threatened and endangered species and cultural resources were also evaluated within the proposed Project area. Approximately one foot of snow had fallen the day before the December 4-5 site visit and features were not readily observable. The June 24-26 and July 10- 11 site visits occurred after spring snowmelt but before the onset of dry summer conditions. The proposed Project consists of approximately 18.1 miles of new 20 -inch pipeline, 3.8 miles of new 16 - inch pipeline, 12.3 miles of new 10 -inch pipeline, 1 1.2 miles of new 6 -inch pipeline, and 17.3 miles of new 4 -inch pipeline as well as a 25.30 -acre compressor station in Garfield County, Colorado. The proposed Project is northwest of Parachute, Colorado, in Township 5 South, Range 96 West; Township 6 South, Range 97 West; and Township 6 South, Range 96 West. The network of pipelines connects to the north at West Fork Parachute Creek with an existing 36 -inch multiple carver pipeline. Please refer to the Project Vicinity Map in Appendix A for a depiction of the proposed pipeline routes. The proposed Project area is within the Parachute -Roan watershed of the Colorado River Basin (Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"] and Colorado State University ["CSU"], 2008). 04614820D 1-1 PlISI 2.0 METHODS Impact assessments to potential jurisdictional areas (including wetlands) as defined in 33 CFR 328, were evaluated within a 300 -foot survey corridor roughly centered on the proposed pipeline centerlines. Aerial photography, National Wetlands Inventory ("NWI") maps, and soil survey publications were reviewed and all areas were ground-truthed during field investigations. As required by existing regulations and regional conditions, potential wetlands, as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manua], were evaluated based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). The Draft Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (USACE, 2007) was also referenced. At the time of the field investigations, dominant plant species were recorded to assess the vegetation component of the area, the area was inspected for indicators of wetland hydrology, and the soils were inspected for indicators of hydric conditions. Reed (1988) was utilized to determine the indicator status of the dominant plant species. Taxonomy of plant species follows Weber and Wittmann (2001), Shaw (2008), and Carter (2006). At those sites where the vegetation, soil, and hydrology criteria were met, the site was determined to be a wetland and categorized following suggestions of Cowardin, et ai. (1979). Impact assessments to potential waters of the U.S., as defined in 33 CFR 328, were conducted along the proposed Project corridors. This evaluation included assessments of intermittent and perennial streams, navigable and non -navigable waterways, wetlands, and other special aquatic sites. Jurisdiction of potential waters of the U.S., including wetlands, was assessed according to the criteria outlined in the USACE Jurisdictional Form Instructional Guidebook (USACE and EPA, 2007). Trimble GeoXH differentially -corrected global positioning system ("DGPS") units, with accuracy of less than 3 feet, were used to map each feature delineated on the ground. 046146200 2-1 PBSI 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION Enterprise proposes to install the proposed Project in Garf eld County, Colorado. The proposed Project is northwest of Parachute, Colorado, in Township 5 South, Range 96 West; Township 6 South, Range 97 West; and Township 6 South, Range 96 West, The network of pipelines connects to the north at West Fork Parachute Creek with an existing 36 -inch pipeline. More specifically, the proposed pipeline intersects the Cutoff Gulch, Circle Dot Gulch, and Red Pinnacle U.S. Geological Survey ("USGS") 7.5 -minute series topographic quadrangle maps. The following report details the results of PBS&J's environmental investigation for the proposed Project. This report contains information about vegetation, hydrology, soils, federally -listed threatened and endangered species, and potential waters of the U.S., including wetlands, identified within the proposed Project area. This information was obtained through desktop reviews and field investigations. Please refer to Appendix A for topographic and aerial -based map excerpts of the proposed Project area. Please refer to the tables in Appendix B for a listing of all wetlands and waterbodies identified within the proposed Project area. 3.2 VEGETATION The Project area is in the Escarpments ecoregion, which is characterized by extensive, deeply dissected, cliff -bench complexes that rise dramatically from the Shale Deserts and Sedimentary Basins ecoregion and the Semiarid Benchlands and Canyonlands ecoregion to the forested mountain rim (Chapman et al., 2006). The Escarpments ecoregion includes major scarp slopes of the Book Cliffs and Roan Cliffs, where local relief can be as great as 3,000 feet, and the region is prone to landslides. Natural vegetation varies according to aspect and moisture availability, ranging from Douglas fir forest on steep, north -facing slopes at higher elevations to desert and semidesert grassland or shrubland on lower, drier sites; pinyon pine juniper woodland often dominates escarpments and benches that are covered by shallow soils (Chapman et al., 2006). Typical vegetative communities in this ecoregion include pinyon pine juniper woodland, mountain mahogany, aspen, and Douglas fir forest. During the field investigations, conducted on December4-5, 2007; June 24-26, 2008; and July 10-11, 2008, five vegetative communities were observed: sagebrush-bunchgrass, pinyon pine -juniper woodland, aspen woodland, willow/riparian, and palustrine emergent ("PEM") wetland. Descriptions of each vegetation community are provided below. Typical vegetation within the sagebrush-bunchgrass community, the dominant community in the Project area, includes big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata, UPL), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria 045148200 3-1 spicata, UPL), needle and thread (Hesperostipa comate, UPL), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidi(orus, UPL), threadleaf snakeweed (Gutierrezia microcephela, UAL), and pricklypear (Opuntia polyacantha, UPL). Based on the technical criteria outlined in Environmental Laboratory (1987), the vegetation observed within the sagebrush community is not representative of a hydrophytic plant community. Typical vegetation within the pinyon pine -juniper woodland community includes pinyon pine (Pinus edulis, UPL) and oneseed juniper (Junipetus monosperrna, UPL) with an understory of mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus, UPL) and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii, UPL). Occasional ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa, FACU-) and Gambel oak (Quercus gambellii, UPL) are also present. Based on the technical criteria outlined in Environmental Laboratory (1987), the vegetation observed within the pinyon pine juniper community is not representative of a hydrophytic plant community. Typical vegetation within the aspen woodland community is dominated by quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides, FAC), mountain mahogany (Cercocaipus montanus, UPL), big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate, UPL), and cheatgrass (Anisantha tectorum, UPL). Based on the technical criteria outlined in Environmental Laboratory (1987), the vegetation observed within the aspen community is not representative of a hydrophytic plant community. Typical vegetation within the willow/riparian community includes various willows (Salix spp., FAC- OBL), sedges (Carex spp., FACU-OBL), rushes (Juncus spp., FAC-OBL), spikerushes (Eleocharis spp., FACW-OBL), and cottonwood (Populus angustifolia, FAC). Based on the technical criteria outlined in Environmental Laboratory (1987), the vegetation observed within the willow/riparian community is representative of a hydrophytic plant community. Typical vegetation observed within the PEM wetland community includes alpine -nerve sedge (Carex neurophora, FACW), creeping spikerush (Eleocharis palustris, OBL), and water sedge (Carex aquatilis, OBL). Based on the technical criteria outlined in Environmental Laboratory (1987), the vegetation observed within the PEM wetland community is representative of a hydrophytic plant community. 3.3 SOILS 3.3.1 Mapped Soils The Soil Survey for the Douglas -Plateau Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties and the Soil Survey for the Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service i"NRCS" j (2008b) indicate that the proposed Project crosses 12 soil types. A brief description of each soil type crossed by the proposed Project is provided below. 046148200 3-2 PBSI Irigu! channery loam, 9 to 50 percent slopes (36) - The NRCS (2008b) describes this series as well drained soils found on mountainsides and ridges. This soil is not listed as hydric on the hydric soils list for Colorado (NRCS, 2008a). Happle-Rock outcrop association, 2510 65 percent slopes (46) - The NRCS (2008b) describes this series as well drained, moderately permeable soils found in canyons and mountains. This soil is not listed as hydric on the hydric soils list for Colorado (NRCS, 2008a). Irigul-Starman channery looms, 5 to 35 percent slopes (50) - The NRCS (2008b) describes this series as well drained, moderately permeable soils found on hills and mountains. The parent material consists of residuum weathered from sandstone and shale. This soil is not listed as hydric on the hydric soils list for Colorado (NRCS, 2008a). Northwaler-Adel complex, 510 50 percent slopes (52, C0682) The NRCS (2008b) describes this series as well drained, moderately permeable soils found on mountainsides. The parent material consists of colluvium derived from sedimentary rock and/or residuum weathered from sedimentary rock. This soil is not listed as hydric on the hydric soils list for Colorado (NRCS, 2008a). Parachute loam, 25 to 65 percent slopes (52, Garfield Mesa) -- The NRCS (2008b) describes this series as well drained, moderately permeable soils found on mountainsides. The parent material consists of residuum weathered from sandstone. This soil is not listed as hydric on the hydric soils list for Colorado (NRCS, 2008a). Parachute -Roan looms, 5 10 30 percent slopes (53) The NRCS (2008b) describes this series as well drained, very slowly to moderately high permeable soils found on ridges and mountainsides. The parent material consists of marl and/or residuum weathered from sandstone. This soil is not listed as hydric on the hydric soils list for Colorado (MRCS, 2008a). Parachute-Irigul complex, 510 30 percent slopes (55) - The NRCS (2008b) describes this series as well drained, moderately high permeable soils found on hills and mountains. The parent tnaterial consists of residuum weathered from. Shale and siltstone and/or residuum weathered from sandstone and shale. This soil is not listed as hydric on the hydric soils list for Colorado (NRCS, 2008a). Parachute Irigul-Rhone association, 25 to 50 percent slopes (56) - The NRCS (20086) describes this series as well drained, moderately high permeable soils found on mountains. The parent material consists of colluvium derived from sandstone and shale/or residuum weathered from siltstone. This soil is not listed as hydric on the hydric soils list for Colorado (NRCS, 2008a). Parachute -Rhone foams, 5 to 30 percent slopes (57) -The NRCS (2008b) describe this series as well drained, moderately high permeable soils found on mountains. The parent material consists of hard 04614820D 3-3 residuum weathered from sandstone and siltstone. This soil is not listed as hydric on the hydric soils list for Colorado (NRCS, 2008a). Roan loam, 30 to 70 percent slopes (61) - The NRCS (2008b) describes this series as well drained, moderately high permeable soils found on ridges and mountainsides. The parent material consists of marl and/or residuum weathered from sandstone. This soil is not listed as hydric on the hydric soils list for Colorado (NRCS, 2008a). Silas loam, 1 to 12 percent slopes (63) -- The NRCS (2008b) describes this series as moderately well drained, moderately high permeable soils found on alluvial fans and valley floors. The parent material consists of mixed rock alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. This soil is not listed as hydric on the hydric soils list for Colorado (NRCS, 2008a). Torriorthents, cool -Rock outcrop complex, 35 to 90 percent slopes (65) — The NRCS (2008b) describes this series as well drained, moderately low to high permeable soils found on ridges and mountainsides, The parent material consists of marl and/or residuum weathered from sandstone. This soil is not listed as hydric on the hydric soils list for Colorado (NRCS, 2008a). 3.3.2 Observed Soils Soils within the proposed Project area observed during field surveys varied between communities. Typical observed soils exhibited textures ranging from gravelly loam to muck and generally exhibited matrix hues of 2.5Y, 7.5YR, and I OYR. Mottles were not observed in any of the soil samples. Soils observed in wetland areas within the proposed Project area typically developed under anaerobic conditions. There was some variation in wetland soils across the proposed Project area. Hydric soils observed within the proposed Project area ranged from black (2.5/N and 2,5Y 2.5/1) to olive brown (2,5Y 4/4). For detailed descriptions of observed soils within individual wetlands of the Project area, refer to the Wetland Determination Data Forms provided in Appendix C. Soils observed in upland areas within the proposed Project area typically developed under aerobic soil conditions. These soils varied between upland communities. Soils were considered non -hydric if they contained a chroma of 2 or higher in unmottled soils (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Observed upland soils within the proposed Project area typically ranged from black (7,5YR 2.5/1 and 10YR 2/1) to dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4). 3.4 HYDROLOGY Indicators of wetland hydrology observed in the PEM wetland community included inundation, saturation, hydrogen sulfide odor, and drainage patterns. No indicators of wetland hydrology were observed within the sagebrush, pinyon pine juniper woodland or aspen communities. 045146200 3-4 PBSI For site-specific observations of hydrology identified at each wetland location, please refer to the Wetland Determination Data Forms provided in Appendix C. 3.5 POTENTIAL WATERS OF THE U.S. Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, identified within the proposed Project area exhibited a surface connection to a waterbody subject to Section 404 jurisdiction. Within the proposed Project area, surface tributary connections contribute to the Parachute -Roan watershed of the Colorado River Basin. Descriptions of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, identified within the proposed Project area are provided in the following sections. Four types of potentially jurisdictional wetlands and waterbodies were identified, including open water areas, PEM wetlands, springs, and streams. Non jurisdictional linear waterbodies lacked an ordinary high-water mark ("OHWM") and included ditches and headwater drainages. Four open water areas (i.e., ponds), two PEM wetlands, seven springs, and 40 waterbodies (i.e., streams) were identified during field surveys. Of the waterbodies identified within the proposed Project area, 21 were classified as ephemeral, 15 as intermittent, and 4 as perennial. One open water area, 1 wetland, 6 springs, and 25 waterbodies were identified within the 300 -foot survey corridor of current pipeline alignments or compressor station footprint and meet the technical criteria outlined in the USACE Jurisdictional Form Instructional Guidebook (USACE and EPA, 2007) to be considered waters of the U.S. Please refer to Appendix B for a listing of all wetlands and waterbodies identified in the vicinity of the proposed Project area. Appendices C and D contain Wetland Determination Data Forms and representative photos of waters of the U.S., respectively. 3.5.1 Open Water Areas Open water areas are aquatic habitats that are permanently inundated at a mean annual depth greater than 6.6 feet or permanently inundated areas less than or equal to 6.6 feet in depth that do not support rooted - emergent or woody plant species. One open water area identified in the field within the 300 -foot survey corridor of current pipeline alignments is subject to Section 404 jurisdiction (Pond 4). This consists of an impoundment on Stream 35; however this feature is not crossed by the proposed Project. 3.5.2 Wetlands PEM wetlands are dominated by emergent and rooted herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens. These plants are typically perennial and can tolerate water at their base, but they cannot survive long periods completely submerged (National Audubon Society ("NAS"1, 1991). Two PEM wetlands (Wet 1 and Wet 2) were identified in the field within the 300 -foot survey corridor of current pipeline alignments that exhibited a surface tributary or significant nexus connection to waterways that are subject 045148200 3-5 to the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. However, these two PEM wetlands are not crossed by the proposed Project. Palustrine scrub -shrub ("PSS") wetlands are dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall. Woody vegetation in this wetland type may contain true shrubs, young trees, or trees and shrubs that are stunted by environmental conditions (NAS, 1991). No PSS wetlands were identified within the 300 -foot survey corridor of the proposed Project. Paiustrine forested ('`PFO") wetlands are typically flooded and seasonally flooded forests containing woody vegetation that is 20 feet tall or taller (NAS, 1991). No PFO wetlands were identified within the 300 -foot survey corridor of the proposed Project. 3.5.3 Springs Springs are defined in the Finalized Regional Conditions for the State of Colorado (see Appendix E) as any location where groundwater emanates from a point in the ground and do not include seeps or other discharges that do not have a defined channel. Six springs were identified in the field within the 300 -foot survey corridor of current pipeline alignments that meet the preceding definition. Although it appears that none of the springs would be crossed by the proposed Project, any ground disturbing activities within 100 feet from the identified springs would require a pre -construction notification ("PCN") to the USACE, Sacramento District, prior to initiating construction activities, per Regional Condition requirements. 3.5.4 Waterbodies Perennial streams are waterbodies that contain flowing water year-round during a typical year. The water table is above the stream bed for most of the year, and groundwater is the primary source of water for stream flow. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow (Wetland Training Institute ("WTI"], 2002). One perennial stream that has an OHWM and is subject to Section 404 jurisdiction (Stream 33) would be crossed by the 10 -inch Discharge Route. Because the Finalized Regional Conditions for the State of Colorado (see Appendix E) require submittal of a PCN for crossings of perennial streams, PBS&1 recommends that directional drilling construction techniques are utilized to cross this perennial stream. Intermittent streams are waterbodies that have flowing water during certain times of the year when groundwater provides water for stream flow. During dry periods, intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow (WTI, 2002). Eleven intermittent streams that have an ONWM and are subject to Section 404 jurisdiction (Streams 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 20, 21, 23, and 32) would be crossed by current pipeline alignments. Ephemeral streams are waterbodies that flow only during and for a short duration after precipitation events in a typical year. An ephemeral stream, unlike an upland swale, has an OHWM and is therefore 046148200 3-6 considered a water of the U.S. Seven ephemeral streams that have an OHWM and are subject to Section 404 jurisdiction (Streams) would be crossed by current pipeline alignments. An additional 6 ephemeral streams that have an OHWM and are subject to Section 404 jurisdiction (Streams 14-19) are located within the footprint of the proposed compressor station. Please refer to Table 2 in Appendix B for a list of all waterbodies in the vicinity of the proposed Project area. 3.5.5 Ditches Ditches identified within the survey corridor are man-made features constructed in upland soils and are typically ephemeral in nature, Flowing only during and for a short duration after precipitation events in a typical year. Ditches identified within the survey corridor are above the water table year-round and, therefore, groundwater is not a source of water flow. Ditches were present alongside all of the access roads throughout the proposed Project area, most of which had gravel "socks" to reduce velocities and catch suspended sediment and also had small rock -lined detention basins at their outfalls to hillsides or streams. 3.6 THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES PBS&J requested a Tier 2 search of the Colorado Natural Heritage Program ("CNHP") Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System ("BIOTICS") on June 19, 2008, for occurrences of natural heritage elements (significant natural communities and rare, threatened or endangered plants and animals) known or suspected to occur in the proposed Project area. Additionally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species list for Garfield County (USFWS, 2008) was referenced. In addition to file reviews of the CNHP BIOTICS files and the USFWS county list, PBS&J ecologists evaluated the proposed Project area for the federally listed threatened and endangered species and their associated habitats during detailed field surveys. Table 1 provides a summary of federally listed threatened and endangered species designated by the USFWS as potentially occurring within the proposed Project area. Descriptions of each of the federally listed threatened and endangered species follow Table 1. 046148200 3-7 Table 1 Species County Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Potentially Occurring in Garfield Common Name (Scientific Name)' Federal Status 2 Bonytail (Gila elegans) E Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) T Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychooheilus Lucius)© E De Segue phacelia (Phacelia submutica) C Humpback chub (Gila cypha) E Mexican spotted owl (Stdx occidentalis lucida) 1' Parachute beardtongue (Penstemon debifis) C Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) © E Uinta Basin hookiess cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus) 1' Ute ladies' -tresses orchid (Spiranthes drluvlalls) T Yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) C ®= There is designated critical habitat for the species within the county = Threatened, E = Endangered; C = Candidate 3.6.1 Birds 7 Mexican spoiled owl — The Mexican spotted. owl is federally listed as threatened in Garfield County, Colorado. Mexican spotted owls occur in varied habitat, consisting of mature montane forest and woodland, shady wooded canyons, and steep canyons. In forested habitat, uneven -aged stands with a high canopy closure, high tree density, and a sloped terrain appear to be key habitat components. They can also be found in mixed conifer and pine -oak vegetation types. Mexican spotted owls generally nest in older forests of mixed conifer or ponderosa pine/Gambel oak. Nests are found in live trees in natural platforms, snags, and on canyon walls. Elevation ranges from 4,100-9,000 feet. Potential habitat for the Mexican spotted owl exists within the proposed Project area; however, this species was not observed during field investigations. Yellow -billed cuckoo — The yellow -billed cuckoo is federally listed as a candidate species in Garfield County, Colorado. Yellow -billed cuckoos breed in large blocks of riparian habitat, particularly woodlands with cottonwoods and willows and dense understory foliage appears to be an important factor in next site selection, Historical records indicate that yellow -billed cuckoos were generally local and uncommon in scattered drainages of the arid and semiarid portions of western Colorado. The species is now considered extremely rare and nearly extirpated. Although potential habitat for the yellow -billed 046146200 3-8 vim cuckoo exists within the Project area, given the "extremely rare" and "nearly extirpated" status, it is very unlikely that this species is present and no observations of the species were made during field investigations. 3.6.2 Fish Bonytail The bonytail is federally listed as endangered in Garfield County, Colorado. Bonytails are considered big, or mainstream, river species, preferring pools and eddies of warm, often heavily silted, swift moving waters. However, they do occur in reservoirs as well. Bonytails were historically found throughout the Colorado River Basin in larger turbid rivers. Potential habitat for the bonytail was not identified within the proposed Project area during field investigations. Colorado pikeminnow The Colorado pikeminnow is federally listed as endangered and designated critical habitat exists in Garfield County, Colorado. Colorado pikeminnows are endemic to the Colorado River Basin and many of its main tributaries (Gunnison, White, Yampa, Little Snake, Dolores, San Juan, Uncompahgre, and Animas Rivers). The Colorado pikeminnow thrives in swift flowing muddy rivers with quiet, warns backwaters. Potential habitat for the Colorado pikeminnow was not identified within the proposed Project area during field investigations. Humpback chub -- The humpback chub is federally listed as endangered in Garfield County, Colorado. Humpback chub are presently only found in the Little Colorado River and adjacent portions of the Colorado River. Habitat preferences for this species are not well understood; humpback chub have been associated with a variety of habitats ranging from pools with turbulent to little or no current; substrates of silt, sand, boulder, or bedrock; and depth ranging from 3-45 feet. Potential habitat for the humpback chub was not identified within the proposed Project area during field investigations. Razorback sucker -- The razorback sucker is federally listed as endangered and designated critical habitat exists in Garfield County, Colorado. Historically, this species occurred in the Colorado, Green, and San Juan River basins. Presently, razorback suckers are restricted to the lower Yampa and Green Rivers, mainstream Colorado River, and lower San Juan River. Adult razorback suckers prefer shallow swift waters of mid -channel sandbars (less than 12 feet deep) during the summer months, and slow runs, slack waters and eddies (2-4.6 feet) in the winter. Potential habitat for the razorback sucker was not identified within the proposed Project area during field investigations. 3.6.3 Mammals Canada lynx — The Canada lynx is federally listed as threatened in Garfield County, Colorado. Canada lynx generally occur in boreal and montane regions dominated by coniferous or mixed forest with thick undergrowth, but also sometimes enter open forest, rocky areas, and tundra to forage for prey. Den sites 046146200 3-9 tend to be in mature or old-growth stands with a high density of logs. Potential habitat for the Canada Iynx was not identified within the proposed Project area during field investigations. 3.6.4 Plants De Begue phacelia — The De Beque phacelia is federally listed as a candidate species in Garfield County, Colorado. This species occurs on sparsely vegetated, steep slopes; in chocolate brown or gray clay; and on Atwell Gulch and Shire Members of the Wasatch Formation at elevations of 4,700-6,200 feet. Soils often have large cracks due to the high shrink -swell potential of the clays. Potential habitat for the De Beque phacelia was not identified within the proposed Project area during field investigations. Parachute beardtongue -- The Parachute beardtongue is federally listed as a candidate species in Garfield County, Colorado. This species occurs on sparsely vegetated, south facing, steep, white shale talus of the Parachute Creek Member of the Green River Formation at elevations of 8,000-9,000 feet. Soils are a mixture of thin shale fragments and clay. Potential habitat for the Parachute beardtongue exists within the Project area; however, this species was not observed during field investigations. Uinta Basin hookless cactus The Uinta Basin hookless cactus is federally listed as threatened in Garfield County, Colorado. This species occurs on rocky hills, mesa slopes, and alluvial benches as well as in desert shrub communities at elevations of 4,500-6,000 feet. Potential habitat for the Uinta Basin hookless cactus was not identified within the proposed Project area during field investigations. Ute ladies' -Tresses orchid — The Ute ladies' -tresses orchid is federally listed as threatened in Garfield County, Colorado, This species occurs on sub -irrigated alluvial soils along streams and in open meadows in floodplain at elevations of 4,500-6,800 feet. Potential habitat for the Ute ladies' -tresses orchid was not identified within the proposed Project area during field investigations. No observations of threatened or endangered species were made during the field investigations. Although potential habitat is present in the Project area for the Mexican spotted owl and Parachute beardtongue, designated critical habitat is not present for either of these species in the vicinity of the Project. The CNHP BIOTICS review did not indicate the presence of any federally threatened, endangered, or candidate species within 1 mile of the proposed Project area. Species-specific surveys for the Mexican spotted owl and Parachute beardtongue would be required to confirm the absence of these species within the proposed Project area; however, based on literature reviews and subsequent field investigations, it is unlikely that these species would be impacted during construction or operation of the proposed Project. 3.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES In June 2008, PBS&J requested a search of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office ("SHPO") records for known, recorded terrestrial cultural resources within the proposed Project area. The results of the SHPO records search are included in Appendix A. No previously documented cultural resources sites 046148200 3-10 that are eligible or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places ("NRHP") were identified within the proposed Project area during literature reviews. 0.46546200 3-11 MR 4.0 CONCLUSION Four types of waters of the U.S., including open water areas (i.e., ponds), PEM wetlands, springs, and streams were identified within the 300 -foot survey corridor of current pipeline alignments and compressor station footprint, consisting of 1 pond, 1 wetland, 6 springs, and 25 streams, All of these features were considered to be waters of the U.S. Regional Conditions require submittal of a PCN for perennial stream crossings; therefore, PBS&i recommends that directional drilling construction techniques are utilized at the crossing of the 10 -inch Discharge Route at West Fork Parachute Creek (Stream 33). Based on literature reviews and field investigations, no threatened or endangered species were identified within the proposed Project area. Although potential habitat is present in the Project area for the Mexican spotted owl and Parachute beardtongue, designated critical habitat is not present for either of these species in the vicinity of the Project. Specific surveys for the Mexican spotted owl and Parachute beardtongue would be required to confirm the absence of these species within the proposed Project area; however, based on literature reviews and subsequent field investigations, it is unlikely that these species would be impacted during construction or operation of the proposed Project, Upon Enterprise's request, PBS&J can coordinate presence/absence surveys for these species. Based on a review of the Colorado SHPO database, no sites eligible for listing in the NRHP were identified within the proposed Project area. Based on field investigations and the recommendations made in this report, this Project would be authorized by NWP 12, A PCN is not required if the following conditions are met in addition to the General Conditions and Regional Conditions of the NWP program: • No mechanized land clearing in a forested wetland for the pipeline right-of-way. • A Section 10 permit is not required. • The pipeline length in waters of the U.S. does not exceed 500 feet. • The pipeline is not placed within a jurisdictional area (Le., water of the U.S.), and it does not run parallel to a stream bed that is within a jurisdictional area. • Discharges associated with the construction of substations do not result in the loss of greater than 1/10 acre of waters of the U.S. • Permanent access roads constructed above grade in waters of the U.S. do not exceed a distance of 500 feet. 045148260 4-1 • Permanent access roads constructed in waters of the U,S. are not constructed of impervious materials. • The pipeline or permanent access roads do not cross perennial waters or special aquatic sites. • Discharges of dredged or fill material does riot occur within 100 feet of the point of groundwater discharge of natural springs. • Federally listed threatened and endangered species or designated critical habitat are not affected and are not in the vicinity of the project. • Discharges of dredged or fill material does not occur in Designated Critical Resource Waters. In the event that the Project design is modified in a way that would require workspaces or impacts beyond the 300 -foot survey corridor employed during field investigations, a supplemental assessment would be necessary to ensure that construction activities comply with the terms and conditions of NWP 12 and the Regional Conditions for the State of Colorado (attached as Appendix E). To remain in compliance with these terms and conditions, all ground disturbing activities should be no less than 100 feet from identified springs, and the crossing of West Fork Parachute Creek should not be constructed by open cut. Q44141200 4-2 5.0 REFERENCES Carter, J. L. 2006. Trees & Shrubs of Colorado. Mimbres Publishing, Silver City, New Mexico. Chapman, S. S., Griffith, G. E., Ornernik, J. M., Price, A. B., Freeouf, J., and Schrupp, D. L. 2006. Ecoregions of Colorado (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,200,000). Colorado State University. 2008. "River Basins of Colorado." Available online at http://waterknowledge.colostate.edu/basinmap.htm. Accessed Monday, June 9, 2008. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79.31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y -87-I, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. "Surf Your Watershed." Available online at http://cfpub.epa.govlsurf/locate/index.cfm. Accessed Monday, July 14, 2008. National Audubon Society (NAS). 1991. Saving Wetlands: A Citizen's Guide for Action in Florida: Available online at http://www.audubon.org/states/f1/fl/main/wetlands/chp2.htm. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008a. "Hydric Soils State Lists." Available online at http://soils.usda.gov`use/hydric/lists.state.html. Accessed Monday, July 14, 2008. . 2008b. Soil Data Mart on-line soil information for Garfield County, Colorado. Available online at http://soildatamart.nres.usda.gov.State.aspx. Accessed Tuesday, July 15, 2008. Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. "National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Intermountain (Region 8)." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.8). Shaw, R. B. 2008. Grasses of Colorado. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. "Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region," J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble, eds., Technical Report , U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. U.S. Army Corps of' Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. "Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species: Colorado Counties," Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Colorado Field Offices. 048148200 5-1 February 2008. Garfield County. Available online at http://www.fws.govrmountain- prairieJendspp/countylists/colorado.pdf. U.S. Geological Survey. 1962. "Red Pinnacle, Colorado," 7.5 -minute series topographic map, photoinspected 1973. Reston, Virginia. . 1971. "Circle Dot Gulch, Colorado," 7.5 -minute series topographic map, photoinspected 1973. Reston, Virginia. . 1971. "Cutoff Gulch, Colorado," 7.5 -minute series topographic map, photoinspected 1973. Reston, Virginia. Weber, W. A. and R. C. Wittmann. 2001. Colorado Flora, Westem Slope. Third Edition. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. Wetland Training Institute, Inc. (WTI). 2002. Nationwide Permits Complete: Volume 1. Robert J. Pierce and Sam Collinson, eds., David E. Dearing, contributing author. WTI 02-3. 046148200 5-2 Appendix A Project Maps 048148200 .I . I • r• • Mv.•.•.1 • 1 r.. ..▪ '. F=�w ....W; ® a e w .......I.. . . .. w em.e * .. ... •.• ma. a... 2,004 A.000 0,000 0,006 fool 2.01%AI Branch Pat 10 LS b: 3,0 lk.wln TX70J1 011.0c. 16.193.010l Fm; :66.461.)47 EPCO, Ina Maro on. Enterprise Picaance Creek Area Pipolloo Oovalapment Cutoff Gulch Quadrangle Garfield County, Colorado Shat 1 of 3 ✓ r• ri or romaIRW0 Is11rl +3.WG b6 No Owf lr.`OO ps: # ta, was S b. MW16f4QOPpgled+mvUU ID co.. wan!. 1. ru Pluoth 11111.10 punt y YIM/e], W lr... rrrwYo, �7 .77/11111 ,.ue It i.�alY•n , Pa,AWM-0 fY•ala , SWIM ea. I1 talumm Arm 1 • • damn r,..1 ...-,..won • • am n. 0 2.000 3.000 0000 &00o • r1 { ! 131M iC7;» rk kiim,Fk •rY quo • 10FR13,11W Faa::0I.1 . Hf EPCO, Inc, Marathon • Enterprise Rename Crook A100.151110000 Development Circle Dot Gulch Quadrangle Garfield County, Colorado S hill 2 013 I.yvx 0)1 I0SE.r11/11 auk:l'. 2A%'_ Mib. o0.4Ip0 ale: IJ, l a. 1011 F b: Lit W .1 a 11070 y.. • Tm..... n { r. . t • ..real.. GS w..�.�..rwr......*.. o. Irv*. . nom. 0 2,000 4.000 0,000 0, P♦ 0 I:Ai rdixr tFPak Dim Sate ]to h9C at,491.51e1 fit, 2$1.49111N1 EPCO, ln0. Marathon - Enterprise Pfceance Greek Area PlpoNne Development Red Pinnacle Quadrangle Garfield County, Colorado Shoat 3 of 3 Pr.vmrd ar' PSUJOI ri Scut t' • Lara: Jab w. NE54 Gi.. Jul 1e. 20.1 Appendix B Tables Table 1: Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands, Springs, and Ponds Table 2: Potential Jurisdictional Waterbodies 046148200 Quad Name Cirde Dot Gulch Cut Off Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Cut Off Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Cirde Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Cut Off Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch 0. a. 0a) 0 Q. 8 >O O C S 'CI C eu ` 040 U ti 0ca C 0 0 m LL og ge. R C c liI O C u O 0g 11P, 49 7d 2 Li G O 0 1 E 00 0 0 Q 1— a) Circle Dot Gulch 0 UY West Fork Parachute Creek 0 J N c ea co E 6.14 ''11'' O uJ 0 c ic 0 0 C N 0 0 0 0 W a 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0. N O 0 v 0 O 0 0 z 0 a, N v 0 0 0 0 N 0 z 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 z 0 0.. a. 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 z 0 a. N O O 0 0 c 0 el z 172 U) r^ 0 z a. S 0 O O 0 0 z 0. N 'Nn 0 z E2 a. O 0 0 0 0 rs z 0. cn 0 z 07 a. U) N 0 0 0 O 0 0 z 0. z 0. 0 0 S 0 z a N 0 z a. O 0 0 0 0 0 0 z oc N z oc N 0 0 d O 0 0 z a. 0 z 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q v 0 0 0 O 1ggW 0 0. 0. r, 4 toe Table 1, Page 1 .62 o. CO e Table 1, Page 2 n A az m 0 2a N 0- a n F. N yU 1i1 b z Circle Dot Gulch 0 O O 0 N E c E c Circle Dot Gulch Red Pinnacle N M O O O O O -o U c 2 p. 0 o z r Cr) E E co a) E 4) Q. L1! N co Lu Circle Dot Gulch N O O 0 F 0 N ami c E 2 Corral Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch 0 0 0 c'S Circle Dot Gulch N N N I N r r r 0 Q 0 Q O 0 U (..)cD 0 0 0 0 N E to N aci U 9. 0 co LU Ci) (NI W O 0 Q Not Crossed E Eo 4) 0 u] 0 0 a)) 4c 4 ) 1)) la 12 '12 CO CO (13 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 c O 1 0 It 1- 1- b E E E C C N Q 0 0 4c) 0. 0 N E 2 CO Circle Dot Gulch STREAM 10 N 0 c 0 E co N 0 O Not Crossed M E v 1 E 4S STREAM 11 STREAM 12 N 0 c 0 v 0 N c E c House Gulch STREAM 13 Circle Dot Gulch N N o Q c 0 r r E E .12Q H O 0 1 T 0 O 2 P 12 C7 I - � EE 0 = STREAM 14 STREAM 15 Table 2, Page 1 g 4. Al C LI (71 0 .Q U U ' U V C O O 0 0 0 IIIIIIII1111111111111E DO QO Q 'o o O MI .21 � O OIt vii M c 5 � � O y O O L o � a : : U U U U U U U r 0 _•• r 0 Z 0 0 0 2 Z Mt MOM lL0 a�} L jHilrObbbO �E�cz Circle Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch U 0 2 U O O ma 2 0 mE to 2 U) E E 0)2 0 tiaE cc 2 z CCa)am m c c co 2 U o g g 66 Eox a) a 2 co 1 g b g 43 Cut Off Gulch Cut Off Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Cirde Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Circle Dot Gulch Q. 41) y aaG E g r�r 0 Q 0 0 §. 0 0 U 0 N Q 0 5 0 a4) a 0 CV 0 0 Not Crossed 0 O •o 2 0 z° N 0 0 Not Crossed N g Not Crossed N 0 Not Crossed U.; O S. iii d 0 E Cr) to E a West Fork Parachute Creek E a) E N W Circle Dot Gulch u) E N a) a til 6 lV E co N 0) E a) C J Z a) E C STREAM 37 C) E N la .E C 4) -J E (a N a IX l0 a) DO STREAM 39 E w cn E m z a) CO 2 E 2 D STREAM 40 E ami 6 a) E . Ul Y3 v m E u) a) Q i O 3 D 61 a m rz) c a 0 a v a to 8 m a E ro 8 0 . 5o Z 30h ED E c D z 'ET7 § 4) 40 C ca 2 yam 163) il C a N a1 Eva Table 2, Page 3 048148200 Appendix C Wetland Determination Data Forms PIM WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Arid West Region City/County: Garfield county Sampling Date: 6(24108 Project/Site: Revised 20 -inch Route Applicant/Owner: EP _i. Inc. Investigator(s): f 4 rovitz/Marshall Landform (hiilslope, terrace, etc.): Valley Subregion (LRR): Interior Deser(LRR Dl Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Northwater-Adel complex Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology _ naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling State: CO Sampling Point: VVET1 DPI Section, Township, Range: S13. T6S.R97W Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 5-50 39°31'03.48" N Long: 108°10'38.72" W Datum: NAD 83 NWI classification: PEMB No (If no, explain In Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances present? Yes X , No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ..)S__ No Hydric Safi Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _L.__ No Remarks: Narrow valley with hillside seep that drains into an impoundmen adjacent to this wetland. which combines with the Clow through the wetland All three wetland criteria met; sample location is a wetland. VEGETATION Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) 1. Ppnulus tremutoides 2. 3. 4, gaoling/Shrub Stratum 1. Artemisia tridentate 2. 3. 4. 5. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No which then drains into this wetland area. A natural spring is located to create a channel that becomes an unnamed tributary to Garden Gulch, Absolute Dominant Indicator ° C ver Booties? Status 5 .mss- - FAC Total Cover: 5 Herb Stratum 1. Carex neuroohora 2. „ gleocharis palustris 3. Taraxacu(n ofcinaie 4, 5. 8. 7, 8. _10 , �Y .5_ Total Cover: 10 Woody ine Stratum 1. 2. FACW 09L _ 1_ �o.FACU+ Total Cover. _ 76 Total Cover: % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 Total Number of Dominant Species Across Alt Strata: 4 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species , x 2= FRC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = --,� Column Totals' (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators: Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is $3.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophyllc Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 3 Remarks: Vegetation dominated by Carex neurophore within a narrow valley approximately 30 feet wide. Arid West — Version 11-1-2006 US Army Corps of Engineers SOIL Sampling Point: WET1 DP1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators,) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color (moist) __�/_ Color (moist) % _ Type' Loc Texture Remarks 0-8 2.5/N 100 �� �... Mucic 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Deo/ellen RM=Reduced Matrix. 2focation: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. Hydric Soli Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Hislic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) „2, 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (Ail) Thick Dark Surface (Ai 2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) Sandy Gteyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soil criterion met. HYDROLOGY Sandy Redox (S5) T Stripped Matrix (86) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Radox Depressions (F8) Vernal Pools (F9) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 crn Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vedic (F18) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydric Soft Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (env one indicator Is sufficient) Surface Water (Ai) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (61) (Nonriverine) Sediment Deposits (62) (Nonriverine) Drift Deposits (63) (Nonriverine) Surface Soil Cracks (66) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (i37) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Fiald Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X , No Depth (inches): 2 Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Sett Crust (811) Biotic Crust (612) - Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) C_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) - Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) - Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) - Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) - Other (Explain in Remarks) Yes X No Depth (inches): at surface Water Marks (61) (Riverine) Sediment Deposits (82) (Riverine) - Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Drainage Patterns (810) - Dry -Season Water Table (C2) - Thin Muck Surface (C7) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Shallow Aquitard (03) FAC -Neutral Test (05) (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No , Describe Recorded Date (stream gauge. monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), I./available: N/A Remarks: Nearby hillside seep drains into an impoundment, which then drains into the sample area. in addition, there is a natural spring adjacent to the sample area that contributes hydrology. The spring flow combines with the flow through the sample area to create a channel that ultimately becomes an unnamed tributary of Garden Gulch. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West -- Version 11-1-2006 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Arid West Region Project/Site: Sevised 20 -inch Route ApplicanUQwner: EPCO. Inc. Investigator(s): Ntorpvitz/Marshpll Section, Township, Range: 513. TBS. R97W Landform (hlllslope, terrace, etc.): Valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Subregion.(LRR): Interior Deserts fLRR 01 Lat: _39°31'08.27' N Long: 10890'38.59' W Soil Map Unit Name: Norihwaler-Adel complex NW classification: Are climatic / hydrologk conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X _ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X , No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology ,___ naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features. etc. City/County: Garfield County Sampling Date: 6124/08 State: CO Sampling Point: WET1 DP2 Slope (%): A:50_ Datum: NAD 83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Sod Present? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks: This is a paired data point with Sampling Point 1. None of the wetland criteria were mot: area is not a wetland. Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes__ No X VEGETATION Absolute Dominant Indicator DigaMejum (Use scientific names.) % Cover Species? Status 1. Poprrlus tremuloides 2. 15 - Yes FAC 3. 4. Total Cover: 15 Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. Artemisia trrrdentata 2. 3. 4, 5. _a__ _AL__ _1PL Total Cover: 20 Herb Stratum 1. Taraxacum ofiicinate 5 — _ FACU+ 2. 'jr : ul lefolNo FACU 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total Cover: 10 woody tine Stratum 1. 2. Total Cover: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 25 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: , 0 _ (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across Alt Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Spectes That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (ANB) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: MullloIv bv: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 _ FAC species 15 x 3 = 45 FACU species 10 x 4 = 40 UPL species g0 x 5 = 100 Column Totals: 45 (A) 185 (B) Prevalence Index = BIA = 4.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Teat is 1,50% Prevalence index is s3.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) r Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present Hydrophytic vegetation Present? Yes No X Remarks: Vegetation alterton not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West -- Version 11-1-2006 SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators) Samphng Point 1T1 DP2 Depth Matrix Redox Features finches) Color(moist) Color(moist) Tyne'_ 0.12 1.ocx 10YR 211 —� Silt loam Texture Remarks 12-14 .5YR�31L _ .� Silt loam rType: C=Concentration, D=Deietion, RM=Reduced Matrix 2Locatiom PL= P Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to ail LRRe, unless otherwise noted.) ore _ Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Metrix (SS) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Vernal Pools (F9) Hlstosol (A1) Histic Epipecton (A2) Black Hlsttc (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (L RR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Hydric soils criterion not met. HYDROLOGY Lining. RC=Root Channel, M=Matrlx. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vedic (F1 8) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophylic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydric Soft Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) .__. Surface Water (A1) - High Water Table (A2) - Saturation (A3) - Water Marks (Bi) (Nonriverine) - Sediment Deposits (82) (Nonriverine) Drift Deposits (83) (Nonrtverine) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Water-Stalned Leaves (B9) Field Observations: _ Sad Crust (B11) Biotic Crust (B12) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) - Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) - Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) - Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (CB) - Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? inrtudes caYes No X Depth (inches): .illa frin e Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: NIA Remarks: Hydrology criterion not met. Secondary Indicators [2 or more reouired) Water Marks (B1) (Rtverine) _ Sediment Deposits (82) (Rlverine) - Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) _ Drainage Patterns (Bt0) - Dry -Season Weiler Table (C2) - Thin Muck Surface (C7) - Crayfish Burrows (C8) - Saturation Visible on Aerial imagery (C9) - Shallow Aquiterd (D3) - FAC -Neutral Test (D5) US Army Corps of Engineer; Arid West - Version 11-1-2006 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Arid West Region Project/SIte: 10 -inch Discharae Route City/County: Garfield County Sampling Date: 7/10/08 Applicant/Owner: EPCO, Inc. State: CO Sampling Paint: WET2 DP1 lnvestigator(s): Morovitz/Marshall Section, Township, Range: 57. T5S R88W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley Local retef (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): _UL____ Subregion (LRR): Interior Deserts_iL R DI Lat: 3917'51.57" N Long: 108°12'09,84" W Datum: NAG) 83 Sod Map Unit Name: Silas loam NWI classification: N/A Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X , No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology X significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances' present? Yes No X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X Na Hydric Soil Present? Yes X , No Welland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: Road crossing of West Fork Parachute Creek has effectively dammed the creek (undersized culvert or not enough culverts) and created a broad, expansive wetland complex within the valley. All three wetland criteria met; sample location is a wetland. VEGETATION Tree Stratum 1. (Use sdentifc names.) Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yeah No Absolute Dominant Indicator Cover Species? Status 2. 3. 4. Total Cover. In t hr um 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. Total Cover: Herb Stratum 1 Carexneuronitora _IQ_ Yes FACW_ 2. Eleocharis oatusfres 1_ Yet:— _OBL 3. Carex aauatills 4. 5. B. 7. 8. Total Cover: 85 Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Total Cover. 96 Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 94 Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Remarks: Vegetation criterion met. US Army Corps of Engineers Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: lQ0 (AIB) Prevalence index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x5= Column Totals: - (A) Prevalence index = B!A (S) Hydrophytic Vegetation indicators: Dominance Test is >50% _ Prevalence Index is 53.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydrophyllc Vegetation Present? Yes X No Arid West— Version 11-1-2005 SOIL Sampling Point WET2 DPI Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators) Depth Matrix Jtedox Features (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) % , Type} 0-10 2,5Y 2.5/1 70 loci Texture Loam 10-1k 2.5Y 414 Sandy loam Remarks 'Type: C=Concentration, D Depletion RM=Reduced Matrix, Location: PL=Pare Lining RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. Hydric y Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted,) _ Histosol (A1) Histic Epfpedon {A2) _ Brad( Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Ali) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (84) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Sandy Redox (55) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface {F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Vernal Pools (F9) Remarks: Hydric soil criterion met. indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain In Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (any one Indicator is sufficient) X Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) X Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) (Nonrtverfne) _ Sediment Deposits (62) (Nonriverine) _ Drift Deposits (83) (Nonriverine) _ Surface Sall Cracks (86) inundation Visible on Aerial imagery (57) Water-Slatned Leaves (B9) Field Observations: Surfers Water Present? Yes X No Depth (Inches): 2-10 Water Tabbe Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe). w Salt Crust (B11) Biotic Crust (B12) Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (01) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (03) - Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) - Recent Iron Reduction In Plowed Soils (C6) - Other (Explain in Remarks) Yes X No Depth (inches): al 6141ce Secogdary impostors (2 or more required' _ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) - Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) - Drift Deposits (63) (Riverine) X Drainage Patterns (B10) - Dry -Season Water Table (C2) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) - Crayfish Burrows (08) - Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) - Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yuji_ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), if available; N/A Remarks: Road crossing of West Fork Parachute Creek has effectively dammed the creek and created a broad expansive wetland complex within the valley, Hydrology criterion met. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West — Version 11-1-2006 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Arid West Region Project/Site: 10 -inch Dlscharce Route ApplicanllOwner: EPCO Inc. Investigator(s): a II Section, Township, Range: 37. T5S. R96W Landform (hillsiope, terrace, etc.): Valley Local relief (concave, convex, none): Soontve Subregion (LRR): interior Deserts (LRR DI 108°12'09.66"W NWI classification: No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Of needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. City/County: Garfield County State: CO Sampling Date: 7/10108 Sampling Point: WET2 DP2 Lat: 36°37'51.93"N Soil Map Unit Name: Silas loam Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes_ X Are Vegetation Solt or Hydrology X significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? Long: Slope (%): 12_ Datum: NAD Q3 Hydrophylic Vegetation Present'? Yes _ No X Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Remarks: Road crossing of West Fork Parachute Creek has effectively dammed the creek (undersized culvert or not enough culverts) and created a broad, expansive wetland complex within the valley. All three wetland criteria met; sample location is a wetland. VEGETATION Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) 1. 2. 3. 4. Sanlina/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3, Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Absolute Dominant indicator % Cover Soecies? Status Total Cover: 4, 5. Herb Stratum 1. Elvmus alaucus Total Cover: 2. Rumex crispu&. 3, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Woody Vine Stratum 2. _A _^ Yes FACU ! —Vas FACW Total Cover: 75 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 25 Remarks: Vegetation criterion not mel. Total Cover: % Cover of Biotic Crust 0 Yea No X Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5Q (NB) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiolv bv: OBL spedes 0 . x 1 FACW spedes 1 x 2 = 2 FAC species 0 x 3 v 0 FACU species 1 x 4 = 4 UPL species 0 x 5 m 0 Column Totals: 2 (A) 6 (B) Prevalence Index a B/A 3.0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: (Dominance Test is '50% Prevalence Index is s3.0' Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophylic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydrophyttc Vegetation Present? Yes No X , US Arrny Corps of Engineers Arid West — Version 11-1-2006 SOIL Sampling Point WWT2 DP2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features finches) Color (moil() % - Color (moist) % Teel Loc2 Texture 0-14 _ 10Yij1.I4 100 Gravelly loam Remarks `Type: CwConcentration D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol(A1) r Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Suttlde (A4) Stratified Layers (A9) (LRR C) _ 1 cm Muck (A8) (LRR 0) Depleted Below park Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (SI) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (88) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Greyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Vernal Pools (F9) Remarks; Hydric soil criterion nol met. HYDROLOGY Welland Hydrology indicators: Primary Indicators (any orte indicator is sufficient) indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2cmMuck (Al 0)OAR R) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain In Remarks) 3(ndlcators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydric Sell Present? Yes No X _ Surface Water (Al) _ High Water Table (A2) _ Saturation (A3) _ Water Marks (61) (Nonriverine) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) W Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Surface Soil Cracks (66) inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Biotic Crust (B12) Aquatic invertebrates (613) w Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) T Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Solis (C6) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) - Sediment Deposits (B2) (Rive:ine) - Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) _ Drainage Patterns (610) - Dry -Season Water Table (C2) - Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) - Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) - Shallow Aquitard (D3) __. FAC -Neutral Teat (D5) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: NIA Remarks: Hydrology criterion not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West-- Version 11-1-2008 Appendix D Representative Photographs PBSJ 12fudauga: Looking at WET 1 from Spring 1 near pad 13C. 'f Rattiglio: Looking at impoundment that drains into WET 1 seen in preceding Photograph. Marathon -Enterprise Piceance Creek Area Pipeline Development EPCO, inc. Page 1 Description Representative view of perennial streams in the Project area. PHOTOGRAPH 3 pescriatiiogt Representative view of intermittent streams in the Project area. Marathon -Enterprise Piceance Creek Area Pipeline Development EPCO, Inc. PHOTOGRAPH 4 Page 2 Description: Representative view of ephemeral streams in the Project area. eseriationn: Representative view of open water pond in Project area. Marathon -Enterprise Piceance Creek Area Pipeline Development Page 3 EPCO, Inc. PHOTOGRAPH 7 Description: Representative view of springs in the Project area. View is of Spring 6 and Stream 32. PHOTOGRAPH 8 Descriptioq: View of WET 2 along West Fork Parachute Creek. The scar on the hillside at left is the 36 -inch PCP line. Marathon -Enterprise Piceance Creek Area Pipeline Development Page 4 EPCO, Inc. Description: Representative view of vegetation in the majority of the Project area, Description: Representative view of canyons and higher elevation vegetation in the Project area ����� 10 Marathon -Enterprise Piceance Creek Area Pipeline Development Page 5 EPCC, Inc. Appendix E Nationwide Permit 12, General Conditions, and Colorado Regional Conditions NATIONWIDE PERMIT 12 Utility Line Activities Effective Date; March 19, 2007 (NWP Final Notice, 72 FR 11182, para. 12) Utility Eine Activities. Activities required for the construction, maintenance, repair, and removal of utility lines and associated facilities in waters of the United States, provided the activity does not result in the Toss of greater than 'A acre of waters of the United States. Utility !Inas: This NWP authorizes the construction, maintenance, or repair of utility lines, including outfall and intake structures, and the associated excavation, backfill, or bedding for the utllty lines, in all waters of the United States, provided there is no change in pre-construction contours. A "utility line" is defined as any pipe or pipeline for the transportation of any gaseous, liquid, liquescent, or slurry substance, for any purpose, and any cable, line, or wire for the transmission for any purpose of electrical energy, telephone, and telegraph messages, and radio and television communication. The term "utility line" does not include activities that drain a water of the United States, such as drainage tile or french drains, but it does apply to pipes conveying drainage from another area. Material resulting from trench excavation may be temporarily sidecast into waters of the United States for no more than three months, provided the material is not placed in such a manner that it is dispersed by currents or other forces. The district engineer may extend the period of temporary side casting for no more than a total of 180 days, where appropriate. In wetlands, the top 8 to 12 inches of the trench should normally be backfilled with topsoil from the trench. The trench cannot be constructed or backfilled in such a manner as to drain waters of the United States (e.g., backfilling with extensive gravel layers, creating a french drain effect). Any exposed slopes and stream banks must be stabilized immediately upon completion of the utility line crossing of each waterbody. Utility line substations: This NWP authorizes the construction, maintenance, or expansion of substation facilities associated with a power line or utility tine in non-tktal waters of the United States, provided the activity, in combination with all other activities included in one single and complete project, does not result in the loss of greater than 1/2 acre of waters of the United States. This NWP does not authorize discharges into non-tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters of the United States to construct, maintain, or expand substation facilities. Foundations for overhead utility line towers, poles, and anchors: This NWP authorizes the construction or maintenance of foundations for overhead utility line towers, poles, and anchors in all waters of the United States, provided the foundations are the minimum size necessary and separate footings for each tower leg (rather than a larger single pad) are used where feasible. Foundations for overhead utility line towers, poles, and anchors: This NWP authorizes the construction or maintenance of foundations for overhead utility line towers, poles, and anchors in all waters of the United States, provided the foundations are the minimum size necessary and separate footings for each tower leg (rather than a larger single pad) are used where feasible. Access roads: This NWP authorizes the construction of access roads for the construction and maintenance of utility lines, including overhead power lines and utility line substations, in non-tidal waters of the United States, provided the total discharge from a single and complete project does not cause the loss of greater than 112-acre of non-tidal waters of the United States. This NWP does not authorize discharges into non-tidal wetlands adjacent to tidal waters for access roads. Access roads must be the minimum width necessary (see Note 2, below), Access roads must be constructed so that the length of the road minimizes any adverse effects on waters of the United States and must be as near as possible to pre-construction contours and elevations (e.g., at grade corduroy roads or geotextile/gravel roads). Access roads constructed above pre-construction contours and elevations in waters of the United States must be properly bridged orculverted to maintain surface flows. This NWP may authorize utility lines in or affecting navigable waters of the United States even if there is no associated discharge of dredged or fill material (See 33 CFR part 322). Overhead utility lines constructed over section 10 waters and utility lines that are routed fn or under section 10 waters without a discharge of dredged or fill material require a section 10 permit. This NWP also authorizes temporary structures, fills, and work necessary to conduct the utility line activity. Appropriate measures must be taken to maintain normal downstream flows and minimize flooding to the maximum extent practicable, when temporary structures, work, and discharges, including cofferdams, are necessary for construction activities, access fills, or dewatering of construction sites. Temporary fills must consist of materials, and be placed in a manner, that will not be eroded by expected high flows. Temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to pre-construction elevations. The areas affected by temporary fills must be revegetated, as appropriate. Notification: The permittee must submit a pre-construction notification to the district engineer prior to commencing the activity if any of the following criteria are met; (1) The activity involves mechanized land clearing in a forested wetland for the utility line right-of-way; (2) a section 10 permit is required; 1 (3) the utility line in waters of the United States, excluding overhead fines, exceeds 500 feet; (4) the utility line is placed within a jurisdictional area (Le., water of the United States), and it runs parallel to a stream bed that is within that jurisdictional area; (5) discharges that result in the Toss of greater than 1/10 -acre of waters of the United States; (6) permanent access roads are constructed above grade in waters of the United States for a distance of more than 500 feet; or impervious materials. (See (7) permanent access roads are constructed in waters of the United States with general condition 27.) (Sections 10 and 404) Note 1: Where the proposed utility line is constructed or installed in navigable waters of the United States (Le., section 10 waters), copies of the pre -construction notification and NWP verification will be sent by the Corps to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NCAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), for charting the utility line to protect navigation. Note 2: Access roads used for both construction and maintenance may be authorized, provided they meet the terms and conditions of this NWP. Access roads used solely for construction of the utility tine must be removed upon completion of the work, accordance with the requirements for temporary fills. Note 3: Pipes or pipelines used to transport gaseous, liquid, liquescent, or slurry substances over navigable waters of the United States are considered to be bridges, not utility lines, and may require a permit from the U.S. Coast Guard pursuant to Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. However, any discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States associated with such pipelines will require a section 404 permit (see NWP 15) NATIONWIDE PERMIT GENERAL CONDmONS Ggneral Conditions: The following general conditions must be followed in order for any authorization by a NWP to be valid: 1. Navigation. (a) No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation. (b) Any safety lights and signals prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through regulations or otherwise, must be Installed and maintained at the permittee's expense on authorized facilities in navigable waters of the United States. (c) The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, used States. Noiocate, or alter the claim shall e made against the United Statwork or es on ons Sacco account of any,suchout remo al or alteration. e to nited 2. Aquatic Life Movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the necessary life cycle movements of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species that normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's primary purpose is to Impound water. Culverts placed in streams must be installed to maintain low flow conditions. 3. Spawning Areas, Activities in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Activities that result in the physical destruction (e.g., through excavation, fill, or downstream smothering by substantiae turbidity) of an important spawning area are not authorized. 4. Migratory Bird Breeding Areas. Activities in waters of the United States that serve as breeding areas for migratory birds must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 5. Shellfish Beds. No activity may occur In areas of concentrated shellfish populations, unless the activity is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by NWPs 4 and 48. 6. Suitable Material. No activity may use unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.). Material used for construction or discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see Section 307 of the Clean Water Act). 7. Water Supply Intakes. No activity may occur in the proximity of a public water supply Intake, except where the activity is for the repair or improvement of public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank stabilization. 2 8. Adverse Effects From impoundments, If the activity creates an impoundment of water, adverse effects to the aquatic system due to accelerating the passage of water, and/or restricting its flow must be minimized to the Maximum extent practicable. 9. Management of Water Flows. To the maximum extent practicable, the pre -construction course, condition, capacity, and Location of open waters must be maintained for each activity, including stream channelizatfon and storm water management activities, except as provided below. The activity must be constructed to withstand expected high flows. The activity must not restrict or impede the passage of normal or high flows, unless the primary purpose of the activity is to impound water or manage high flows. The activity may aster the pre - construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters if it benefits the aquatic environment (e.g., stream restoration or relocation activities). 10. Fills Wfthin 100 -Year Floodplains. The activity must comply with applicable FEMA -approved state or local floodplain management requirements, 11. Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands or mudflats must be placed on mals, or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance, 12. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls. Appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls must be used and maintained in effective operating Condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other flits, as well as any work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. Permittees are encouraged to perform work within waters of the United States during periods of low -flow or no -flow. 13. Removal of Temporary Fills. Temporary fills must be removed in their entirely and the affected areas returned to pre -construction elevations. The affected areas must be revegetated, as appropriate. 14. Proper Maintenance. Any authorized structure or fill shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety. 15. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system while the river is in an official study status, unless the appropriate Federal agency with direct management responsibility for such river, has determined In writing that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the Wild and Scenic River designation or study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the appropriate Federal land management agency in the area (e.g., National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service). 16. Tribal Rights, No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights, 17. Endangered Species, (a) No activity Is authorized under any NWP which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened authorized under any NWP which "may affect" a listed or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as Identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or which will destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. No activity is species or critical habitat, unless Section 7 consultation addressing the effects of the proposed activity has been completed. (b) Federal agencies should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements of the ESA, Federal permittees must provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. (c) Non-federal permittees shall notify the district engineer if any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, or if the project is located in designated critical habitat, and shall not begin work on the activity until notified by the district engineer that the requirements of the ESA have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. For activities that might affect Federally -listed endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat, the pre -construction notification must include the name(s) of the endangered or threatened species that may be affected by the proposed work or that utilize the designated critical habitat that may be affected by the proposed work. The district engineer will determine whether the proposed activity "may affect" or will have "no effect" to listed species and designated critical habitat and will notify the non -Federal applicant of the Corps' determination within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre -construction notification. In cases where the non -Federal applicant has identified listed species or critical habitat that might be 3 affected or is in the vicinity of the project, and has so notified the Corps, the applicant shall not begin work until the Corps has provided notification the proposed activities will have "no effect" on listed species or critical habitat, or until Section 7 consultation has been completed. (d) As a result of formai or informal consultation with the FWS or NMFS the district engineer may add species-specific regional endangered species conditions to the NWPs. (e) Authorization of an activity by a NWP does not authorize the "take" of a threatened or endangered species as defined under the ESA. In the absence of separate authorization (e.g., an ESA Section 10 Permit, a Biological Opinion with "incidental take" provisions, etc.) from the U.S. FWS or the NMi=S, both lethal and non- lethal "takes" of protected species are in violation of the ESA. Information on the location of threatened and endangered species and their criticat habitat can be obtained directly from the offices of the U.S. FWS and NMFS or their worldwide Web pages at hitt:/lw+nStu.fws.cl v/ and htta:l w 2vosia.c ovlfisheries,htmj respectively. 18. Historic Properties. (a) In cases where the district engineer determines that the activity may affect properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, the activity is not authorized, until the requirements of Section 108 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have been satisfied. (b) Federal permittees should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Federal permittees must provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. (c) Non-federal permittees must submit a pre -construction notification to the district engineer if the authorized activity may have the potential to cause effects to any historic properties listed, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, including previously unidentified properties. For such activities, the pre -construction notification must state which historic properties may be affected by the proposed work or Include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic properties or the potential for the presence of historic properties. Assistance regarding information on the location of or potential for the presence of historic resources can be sought from the State Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, as appropriate, and the National Register of Historic Places nate ideee 33 ntification o 330.4(g)).efforTTheh'tch district engineer shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to carry out appropriate may include background research, consultation, oral history interviews, sample field investigation, and field survey. Based on the information submitted and these efforts, the district engineer shall determine whether the proposed activity has the potential to cause an effect on the historic properties. Where the non -Federal applicant has identified historic properties which the activity may have the potential to cause effects and so notified the Corps, the non -Federal applicant shall not begin the activity until notified by the district engineer either that the activity has rio potential to cause effects or that consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA has been completed. (d) The district engineer will notify the prospective permittee within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre - construction notification whether NHPA Section 106 consultation is required. Section 106 consultation is not required when the Corps determines that the activity does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties (see 36 CFR 800.3(a)). if NHPA section 106 consultation is required and will occur, the district engineer will notify the non -Federal applicant that he or she cannot begin work until Section 106 consultation is completed. (e) Prospective permittees should be aware that section 110k of the NHPA (16 U.S.C, 470h -2(k)) prevents the Corps from granting a permit or other assistance to an applicant who, with Intent to avoid the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA, has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the permit would relate, or having legal power to prevent It, allowed such significant adverse effect to occur, unless the Corps, after consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), determines that circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant. if circumstances justify granting the assistance, the Corps is required to notify the ACHP and provide documentation specifying the circumstances, explaining the degree of damage to the Integrity of any historic properties affected, and proposed mitigation. This documentation must include any views obtained from the applicant, SHPOFTHPO, appropriate Indian tribes if the undertaking occurs on or affects historic properties on tribal lands or affects properties of interest to those tribes, and other parties known to have a legitimate interest in the impacts to the permitted activity on historic properties. 19. Designated Critical Resource Waters. Critical resource waters Include, NOAA-designated marine sanctuaries, National Estuarine Research Reserves, state natural heritage es, and outstanding environmental national oionaogical resource waters or other waters officially designated by a state as having particular significance and identified by the district engineer after notioe and opportunity for public comment. The district engineer may also designate additional critical resource waters after notice and opportunity for comment. 4 (a) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States are not authorized by NWPs 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 29, 31, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 49, and 50 for any activity within, or directly affecting, critical resource waters, including wetlands adjacent to such waters. (b) For NWPs 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 38, notification is required in accordance with general condition 27, for any activity proposed in the designated critical resource waters including wetlands adjacent to those waters. The district engineer may authorize activities under these NWPs only after it fs determined that the impacts to the critical resource waters will be no more than minimal. 20, Mitigation. The district engineer will consider the following factors when determining appropriate and practicable mitigation necessary to ensure that adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal: (a) The activity must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (Le., on site). (b) Mitigation in all its forms (avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or compensating) will be required to the extent necessary to ensure that the adverse effects to the aquatic environment are rninimaf. (c) Compensatory mitigation at a minimum one-for-one ratio will be required for all wetland losses That exceed 1/10 acre and require pre -construction notification, unless the district engineer determines In writing that some other form of mitigation would be more environmentally appropriate and provides a project -specific waiver of this requirement. For wetland losses of 1/10 acre or Tess that require pre -construction notification, the district engineer may determine on a case-by-case basis that compensatory mitigation is required to ensure that the activity results En minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. Since the likelihood of success is greater and the impacts to potentially valuable uplands are reduced, wetland restoration should be the first compensatory mitigation option considered. (d) For losses of streams or other open waters that require pre -construction notification, the district engineer may require compensatory mitigation, such as stream restoration, to ensure that the activity results In minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment, (e) Compensatory mitigation will not be used to increase the acreage losses allowed by the acreage limits of the NWPs. For example, If an NWP has an acreage limit of 1/2 acre, it cannot be used to authorize any project resulting in the loss of greater than 1/2 acre of waters of the United States, even if compensatory mitigation is provided that replaces or restores some of the lost waters. However, compensatory mitigation can and should be used, as necessary, to ensure that a project already meeting the established acreage limits also satisfies the minimal impact requirement associated with the NWPs, (f) Compensatory mitigation plans for projects in or near streams or other open waters will normally include a requirement for the establishment, maintenance, and legal protection (e.g., conservation easements) of riparian areas next to open waters. In some cases, riparian areas may be the only compensatory m€tigat€on required. Riparian areas should consist of native species. The width of the required riparian area will eddress documented water quality or aquatic habitat loss concerns. Normally, the riparian area will be 25 to 50 feet wide on each side of the stream, but the district engineer may require slightly wider riparian areas to address documented water quality or habitat loss concerns. Where both wetlands end open waters exist on the project site, the district engineer will determine the appropriate compensatory mitigation (e.g., riparian areas and/or wetlands compensation) based on what is best for the aquatic environment on a watershed basis. In cases where riparian areas are determined to be the most appropriate form of compensatory mitigation, the district engineer may waive or reduce the requirement to provide wetland compensatory mitigation for wetland losses. (g) Permittees may propose the use of mitigation banks, in -lieu fee arrangements or separate activity -specific compensatory mitigation. In all cases, the mitigation provisions will specify the party responsible for accomplishing and/or complying with the mitigation plan. (h) Where certain functions and services of waters of the United States are permanently adversely affected, such as the conversion of a forested or scrub -shrub wetland to a herbaceous wetland in a permanently maintained utility line right-of-way, mitigation may be required to reduce the adverse effects of the project to the minimal level. 21. Water Quality, Where States and authorized Tribes, or EPA where applicable, have not previously certified compliance of an NWP with CWA Section 401, individual 401 Water Quality Certification must be obtained or waived (see 33 CFR 330.4(c)). The district engineer or State or Tribe may require additional water quality management measures to ensure that the authorized activity does not result In more than minimal degradation of water quality. 22, Coastal Zone Management. In coastal states where an NWP has not previously received a state coastal zone management consistency concurrence, an individual state coastal zone management consistency 5 concurrence must be obtained, or a presumption of concurrence must occur (see 33 CFR 330.4(d)). The district engineer or a State may require additional measures to ensure that the authorized activity is consistent with state coastal zone management requirements. 23. Regional and Case -By -Case Conditions. The activity must comply with any regional conditions that may have been added by the Division Engineer (see 33 CFR 330.4(e)) and with any case specific conditions added by the Corps or by the state, Indian Tribe, or U.S. EPA in its section 401 Water Quality Certification, or by the state in its Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination. 24. Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits. The use of more than one NWP for a single and complete project is prohibited, except when the acreage Toss of waters of the United States authorized by the NWPs does not exceed the acreage limit of the NWP with the highest specified acreage limit. For example, If a road crossing, over tidal waters is constructed under NWP 14, with associated bank stabilization authorized by NWP 13, the maximum acreage loss of waters of the United States for the total project cannot exceed 113 -acre. 25. Transfer of Nationwide Permit Verifications. If the permittee sells the property associated with the nationwide permit verification, the permittee may transfer the nationwide permit verification to the new owner by submitting a letter to the appropriate Corps district office to validate the transfer. A copy of the nationwide permit verification must be attached to the letter, and the letter must contain the following statement and signature: "When the structures or work authorized by this nationwide permit are still in existence at the time the property Is transferred, the terms and conditions of this nationwide permit, including any special conditions, will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this nationwide permit, and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below." (Transferee) (Date) 26. Compliance Certification. Each permittee who received the NWP verification from the Corps must submit a signed certification regarding the completed work and any required mitigation. The certification form must be forwarded by the Corps with the NWP verification letter and will include: (a) A statement that the authorized work was done in accordance with the NWP authorization, including any general or specific conditions; (b) A statement that any required mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions; and (c) The signature of the permittee certifying the completion of the work and mitigation. 27. Pre.Construction Notification. (a) Tinning. Where required by the terms of the NWP, the prospective permittee must notify the district engineer by submitting a pre -constriction notification (PCN) as early as possible. The district engineer must determine if the PCN is complete within 30 calendar days of the date of receipt and, as a general rule, will request additional information necessary to make the PCN complete only once. However, if the prospective permittee does not provide ail of the requested information, then the district engineer will notify the prospective permittee that the PCN Is still incomplete and the PCN review process will not commence until all of the requested information has been received by the district engineer. The prospective permittee shall not begin the activity until either: (1) He or she Is notified in writing by the district engineer that the activity may proceed under the NWP with any special conditions imposed by the district or division engineer, or (2) Forty-five calendar days have passed from the district engineer's receipt of the complete PCN and the prospective permittee has not received written notice from the district or division engineer. However, if the permittee was required to notify the Corps pursuant to general condition 17 that listed species or critical habitat might affected or in the vicinity of the project, or to notify the Corps pursuant to general condition 18 that the activity may have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, the permittee cannot begin the activity until receiving written notification from the Corps that is no effect" on listed species or "no potential to cause effects" on historic properties, or that any consultation required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (see 33 CFR 330.4(t)) and/or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation (see 33 CFR 330,4(g)) Is completed, Also, work cannot begin under NWPs 21, 49, or 50 until the permittee has received written approval from the Corps. If the proposed activity requires a written waiver to exceed specified limits of an NWP, the permittee cannot begin 6 the activity until the district engineer issues the waiver. If the district or division engineer notifies the permittee in writing that an individual permit is required within 45 calendar days of receipt of a complete PCN, the permittee cannot begin the activity until an individual permit has been obtained. Subsequently, the permittee's right to proceed under the NWP may be modified, suspended, or revoked only in accordance with the procedure set forth in 33 CFR 330.5(dX2). (b) Contents of Pre -Construction Notification: The PCN must be in writing and include the following information: (1) Name, address and telephone numbers of the prospective permittee; (2) Location of the proposed project; (3) A description of the proposed project; the project's purpose; direct and indirect adverse environmental effects the project would cause; any other NWP(s), regional general perrnit(s), or individual permit(s) used or intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity. The description should be sufficiently detailed to allow the district engineer to determine that the adverse effects of the project will be minimal and to determine the need for compensatory mitigation. Sketches should be provided when necessary to show that the activity complies with the terms of the NWP. (Sketches usually clarify the project and when provided result In a quicker decision.); (4) The PCN must include a delineation of special aquatic sites and other waters of the United Slates on the project site. Wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with the current method required by the Corps. The permittee may ask the Corps to delineate the special aquatic sites and other waters of the United States, but there may be a delay if the Corps does the delineation, especially if the project site is targe or contains many waters of the United States. Furthermore, the 45 day period will not start until the delineation has been submitted to or completed by the Corps, where appropriate; (5) If the proposed activity will result in the loss of greater than 1/10 acre of wetlands and a PCN is required, the prospective permittee must submit a statement describing how the mitigation requirement will be satisfied. As an alternative, the prospective permittee may submit a conceptual or detailed mitigation plan. (6) If any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, or if the project is located In designated critical habitat, for non -Federal applicants the PCN must Include the names) of those endangered or threatened species that might be affected by the proposed work or utilize the designated critical habitat that may be affected by the proposed work. Federal applicants must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with the Endangered Species Act and (7) For an activity that may affect a historic property listed on, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places, for non -Federal applicants the PCN must state which historic property may be affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic property. Federal applicants must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. (c) Form of Pre -Construction Notification: The standard individual permit application form (Form ENG 4345) may be used, but the completed application form must clearly indicate that it is a PCN and must include all of the information required in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this general condition. A letter containing the required information may also be used, (d) Agency Coordination: (1) The district engineer will consider any comments from Federal and state agencies concerning the proposed activity's compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs and the need for mitigation to reduce the project's adverse environmental effects to a minimal level. (2) For all NWP 48 activities requiring pre -construction notification and for other NWP activities requiring pre -construction notification to the district engineer that result in the Toss of greater than 112 -acre of waters of the United States, the district engineer will immediately provide (e.g., via facsimile transmission, overnight mail, or other expeditious manner) a copy of the PCN to the appropriate Federal or state offices (U.S. FWS, state natural resource or water quality agency, EPA, State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), and, if appropriate, the NMFS). With the exception of NWP 37, these agencies will then have 10 calendar days from the date the material is transmitted to telephone or fax the district engineer notice that they intend to provide substantive, site-specific comments. If so contacted by an agency, the district engineer will wait an additional 15 calendar days before making a decision on the pre -construction notification. The district engineer will fully consider agency comments received within the specified time frame, but will provide no response to the resource agency, except as provided below. The district engineer will indicate in the administrative record associated with each pre -construction notification that the resource agencies' concerns were considered. For NWP 37, the emergency watershed protection and rehabilitation activity may proceed immediately in cases where there Is an unacceptable hazard to life or a significant loss of property or economic hardship will occur. The district engineer will consider any comments received to decide whether the NWP 37 authorization should be modified, suspended, or revoked In accordance with the procedures at 33 CFR 330.5. 7 (3) In cases of where the prospective permittee is not a Federal agency, the district engineer will provide a response to NMFS within 30 calendar days of receipt of any Essential Fish Habitat conservation recommendations, as required by Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. (4) Applicants are encouraged to provide the Corps multiple copies of pre -construction notifications to expedite agency coordination. (5) For NWP 48 activities that require reporting, the district engineer will provide a copy of each report within 10 calendar days of receipt to the appropriate regional office of the NMFS. (e) District Engineer's Decision: In reviewing the PCN for the proposed activity, the district engineer will deterrnine whether the activity authorized by the NWP will result In more than minimal individual or cumulative adverse environmental effects or may be contrary to the public interest. if the proposed activity requires a PCN and will result in a Toss of greater than 1(10 acre of wetlands, the prospective permittee should submit a mitigation proposal with the PCN. Applicants may also propose compensatory mitigation for projects with smaller impacts. The district engineer will consider any proposed compensatory mitigation the applicant has included in the proposal in determining whether the net adverse environmental effects to the aquatic environment of the proposed work are minimal. The compensatory mitigation proposal may be either conceptual or detailed. If the district engineer determines that the activity complies with the terms and conditions of the NWP and that the adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal, after considering mitigation, the district engineer will notify the permittee and Include any conditions the district engineer deems necessary. The district engineer must approve any compensatory mitigation proposal before the permittee commences work. If the prospective permittee elects to submit a compensatory mitigation plan with the PCN, the district engineer will expeditiously review the proposed compensatory mitigation plan. The district engineer must review the plan within 45 calendar days of receiving a complete PCN and determine whether the proposed mitigation would ensure no more than minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment. If the net adverse effects of the project on the aquatic environment (after consideration of the compensatory mitigation proposal) are determined by the district engineer to be minimal, the district engineer will provide a timely written response to the applicant. The response will state that the project can proceed under the terms and conditions of the NWP. If the district engineer determines that the adverse effects of the proposed work are more than minimal, then the district engineer will notify the applicant either: (1) That the project does not qualify for authorization under the NWP and instruct the applicant on the procedures to seek authorization under an individual permit; (2) that the project is authorized under the NWP subject to the applicant's submission of a mitigation pian that would reduce the adverse effects on the aquatic environment to the minimal level; or (3) that the project is authorized under the NWP with specific modifications or conditions. Where the district engineer determines that mitigation is required to ensure no more than minimal adverse effects occur to the aquatic environment, the activity will be authorized within the 45 -day PCN period. The authorization will include the necessary conceptual or specific mitigation or a requirement that the applicant submit a mitigation plan that would reduce the adverse effects on the aquatic environment to the minimal level. When mitigation is required, no work in waters of the United States may occur until the district engineer has approved a specific mitigation plan. 28. Single and Complete Project. The activity must be a eingle and complete project. The same NWP cannot be used more than once for the same single end complete project. Further information 1. District Engineers have authority to determine if an activity complies with the terms and conditions of an NWP. 2. NWPs do not obviate the need to obtain other federal, state, or local permits, approvals, or authorizations required by Law. 3. NWPs do not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. 4. NWPs do not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. 5. NWPs do not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. Definitions Best management practices (BMPs): Policies, practices, procedures, or structures implemented to mitigate the adverse environmental effects on surface water quality resulting from development. BMPs are categorized as structural or non-structural. Compensatory mitigation: The restoration, establishment (creation), enhancement, or preservation of aquatic resources for the purpose of compensating for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization has been achieved. Currently serviceable; Useable as is or with some maintenance, but not so degraded es to essentially require reconstruction. Discharge: The term "discharge" means any discharge of dredged or fill material. Enhancement The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of an aquatic resource to heighten, intensify, or improve a specific aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement results in the gain of selected aquatic resource function(s), but may also lead to a decline in other aquatic resource function(s), Enhancement does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area. Ephemeral stream: An ephemeral stream has flowing water only during, and for a short duration after, precipitation events in a typical year. Ephemeral stream beds are located above the water table year-round. Groundwater is not a source of water for the stream. Runoff from rainfall is the primary source of water for stream flow. Establishment (creation): The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics present to develop an aquatic resource that did not previously exist at an upland site. Establishment results in a gain in aquatic resource area. Historic Property: Any prehistoric or historic district, site (including archaeological site), building, structure, or other object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of the interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National Register criteria (36 CFR Part 60). independent utility: A test to determine what constitutes a single and complete project in the Corps regulatory program. A project is considered to have independent utility if tt would be constructed absent the construction of other projects In the project area. Portions of a multi-phase project that depend upon other phases of the project do not have Independent utility. Phases of a project that would be constructed even if the other phases were not built can be considered as separate single and complete projects with independent utility. Intermittent stream: An intermittent stream has flowing water during certain times of the year, when groundwater provides water for stream flow. During dry periods, intermittent streams may not have flowing water. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow. Loss of waters of the United States: Waters of the United States that are permanently adversely affected by filling, flooding, excavation, or drainage because of the regulated activity. permanent adverse effects include permanent discharges of dredged or fill material that change an aquatic area to dry land, increase the bottom elevation of a waterbody, or change the use of a waterbody. The acreage of loss of waters of the United States is a threshold measurement of the impact to Jurisdictional waters for determining whether a project may qualify for an NWP; it is not a net threshold that is calculated after considering compensatory mitigation that may be used to offset losses of aquatic functions and services. The loss of stream bed includes the linear feet of stream bed that is filled or excavated. Waters of the United States temporarily filled, flooded, excavated, or drained, but restored to pre-construction contours and elevations after construction, are not included in the measurement of toss of waters of the United States. impacts resulting from activities eligible for exemptions under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act are not considered when calculating the loss of waters of the United States, Non-tidal wetland: A non-ttdat wetland Is a wetland that Is not subject to the ebb and flow of tidal waters. The definition of a wetland can be found at 33 CFR 328.3(b). Non-tidal wetlands contiguous to tidal waters are located landward of the high tide line (Le., spring high tide line). Open water: For purposes of the NWPs, an open-water is any area that In a year with normal patterns of precipitation has water flowing or standing above ground to the extent that an ordinary high water mark can be determined. Aquatic vegetation within the area of standing or flowing water is either non-emergent, sparse, or absent. Vegetated shallows are considered to be open waters. Examples of "open waters" include rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds. Ordinary High Water Mark: An ordinary high water mark is a line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics, or by other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas (see 33 CFR 328.3(e)). Perennial stream: A perennial stream has flowing water year-round during a typical year. The water table is located above the stream bed for most of the year. Groundwater is the primary source of water for stream flow. Runoff from rainfall is a supplemental source of water for stream flow. Practicable: Available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. Pre-construction notification: A request submitted by the project proponent to the Corps for confirmation that a particular activity is authorized by nationwide permit. The request may be a permit application, letter, or similar 9 document that includes information about the proposed work and its anticipated environmental effects. Pre- construction notification may be required by the terms and conditions of a natbnwide permit, or by regional conditions. A pre-construction notification may be voluntarily submitted in cases where pre-construction notification is not required and the project proponent wants confirmation that the activity is authorized by nationwide permit. Preservation: The removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, aquatic resources by an action in or near those aquatic resources. This term includes activities commonly associated with the protection and maintenance of aquatic resources through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms. Preservation does not result in a gain of aquatic resource area or functions. Re-establishment: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former aquatic resource. Re-establishment results in rebuilding a former aquatic resource and results in a gain in aquatic resource area. Rehabilitation: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural/historic functions to a degraded aquatic resource. Rehabilitation results in a gain in aquatic resource function, but does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area. Restoration: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former or degraded aquatic resource. For the purpose of tracking net gains in aquatic resource area, restoration is divided Into two categories: Re-establishment and rehabilitation. Riffle and pool complex: Riffle and pool complexes are special aquatic sites under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Riffle and pool compiexes sometimes characterize steep gradient sections of streams. Such stream sections are recognizable by their hydraulic characteristics. The rapid movement of water over a course substrate 1n riffles results in a rough flow, a turbulent surface, and high dissolved oxygen levels in the water. Pools are deeper areas associated with riffles. A slower stream velocity, a streaming flow, a smooth surface, and a finer substrate characterize pools. Riparian areas: Riparian areas are lands adjacent to streams, lakes, and estuarine-marine shorelines. Riparian areas are transitional between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, through which surface and subsurface hydrology connects waterbodies with their adjacent uplands. Riparian areas provide a variety of ecological functions and services and help improve or maintain local water quality. (See general condition 20.) Shellfish seeding: The placement of shellfish seed and/or suitable substrate to increase shellfish production. Shellfish seed consists of immature individual shellfish or individual shellfish attached to shells or shell fragments (i.e., spat on shell). Suitable substrate may consist of shellfish shells, shett fragments, or other appropriate materials placed Into waters for shellfish habitat. Single and complete project: The term "single and complete project' is defined at 33 CFR 330.2(1) as the total project proposed or accomplished by one owner/developer or partnership or other association of owners/developers. A single and complete project must have independent utility (see definition). For linear projects, a "single and complete project° is all crossings of a single water of the United States (i.e., a single waterbody) at a specific location. For linear projects crossing a single waterbody several times at separate and distant locations, each crossing is considered a single and complete project. However, individual channels in a braided stream or river, or individual arms of a large, Irregularly shaped wetland or lake. etc., are not separate waterbodies, and crossings of such features cannot be considered separately. Stormwater management: Stormwater management is the mechanism for controlling stormwater runoff for the purposes of reducing downstream erosion, water quality degradation, and flooding and mitigating the adverse effects of changes in land use on the aquatic environment. Stormwater management facilities: Stormwater management facilities are those facilities, including but not limited to, stormwater retention and detention ponds and best management practices, which retain water for a period of time to control runoff and/or improve the quality (i.e., by reducing the concentration of nutrients, sediments, hazardous substances and other pollutants) of stormwater runoff. Stream bed: The substrate of the stream channel between the ordinary high water marks. The substrate may be bedrock or inorganic particles that range in size from clay to boulders. Wetlands contiguous to the stream bed, but outside of the ordinary high water marks, are not considered part of the stream bed. Stream channelizatlon: The manipulation of a stream's course, condition, capadty, or location that causes more than minimal interruption of normal stream processes. A channelized stream remains a water of the United States. Structure: An object that is arranged in a definite pattern of organization. Examples of structures include, without limitation, any pier, boat dock, boat ramp, wharf, dolphin, weir, boom, breakwater, bulkhead, revetment, rlprap, jetty, artificial island, artificial reef, permanent mooring etructure, power transmission line, permanently moored floating vessel, piling, aid to navigation, or any other manmade obstacle or obstruction. Tidal wetland: A tidal wetland is a wetland (i.e., water of the United States) that is inundated by tidal waters. The definitions of a wetland and tidal waters can be found at 33 CFR 328.3(b) and 33 CFR 328.3(f), respectively. Tidal 10 waters rise and fail In a predictable and measurable rhythm or cycle due to the gravitational pulls of the moon and sun. Tidal waters end where the rise and fail of the water surface can no longer be practically measured in a predictable rhythm due to masking by other waters, wind, or other effects, Tidal wetlands are located channetward of the high tide line, which is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(d). Vegetated shallows: Vegetated shallows are special aquatic sites under the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. They are areas that are permanently Inundated and under normal circumstances have rooted aquatic vegetation, such as seagrasses in marine and estuarine systems and a variety of vascular rooted plants in freshwater systems. Waterbody: For purposes of the NWPs, a waterbody is a jurisdictional water of the United States that, during a year with normal patterns of precipitation, has water flowing or standing above ground to the extent that an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) or other Indicators of jurisdiction can be determined, as well as any wetland area (see 33 CFR 3283(b)). If a jurisdictional wetland is adjacent --meaning bordering, contiguous, or neighboring --to a jurisdictional waterbody displaying an OHWM or other indicators of jurisdiction, that waterbody and its adjacent wetlands are considered together as a single aquatic unit (see 33 CFR 328.4(c)(2)). Examples of "waterbodies" Include streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. AD D MORAL INFORMATION This nationwide permit is effective March 19, 2007, and expires on March 18, 2012. Information about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulatory program, including nationwide permits, may also be accessed at httpJ/www.swf.usace.army.tail/putldatetenvirontreoulatoridindex.asp or htto://www.usace,arrnv.milfcw/cecwo/req 11 §H ao wo gU 11 08 0- =e, - w PP dimc• vwcaE co 1 1 hee 0, • o mfg fihip • 2V VSyJ 2 C 7 u OIC y A C p 2-6552 .0@e N -9-0 Eo _ O E FEZ v n. l C co co 2.; 2 g m M Coto .6 aZ -o t= 54)15. — Xt,� - O m g w y o0`O35 o w v C 7 WgIct Eg Ili £`:a1 a2.g2 cg S do cp ilt io'20 oQ6 $� tE 8g g26E12,22 0. as o CI 2 C • a m CCC N N $•ESS I la y t:. ..Ell. il 1g 'plaili28 18 WR a} 10m •ttQ1 N C C O E Em d Q U- O L - S V a m l l �N A # s�•r e E g-2 tuag...GEc222� �. g 0•S a x6 Z 2% o a EE 8 a f t .0 f W •R .� B cft OC) a;q1 V 0.62-5; _ E Lu u 17 O € m U _ cy co GB cDU a` �imc o C m !n oi.. as 3 a 'R c tc c m m •a .141 mm m Q w. N4'C + O g e 0 L O p Z AES 0. a m$2• no - o 0 CCC c a Iiii� m e T 0, o° #g og* m a 4 Rtf-ii 3m3 oN w.dl=,Q ig 0, = a 9 21E13; aN—aGvEZ'bCm921 guUGpo Q g a U G •o �•Q�0 Ow � N pV2N,d 1V.C w ozcp cy0 Gbrs.p p§ W eLy tcmqg LO z o J a L O@ m m m c ano2 wR on C 13co •G i Q. Tic pg a N y E tl Em, sa 7�i Sitogott O U) 40 V O Q•c�i rgn ave ,k a 8.8 Se, n R C� m yzo "`•Op .0 HV!aN c406 --1=8 o ygf® 0 C D. a o �-� Z F" Q ,!S C C 0 m ttl /1 OW Q !3 G O7G m,�� •a 4J��i,,ii¢¢c mnn_c_op o_ 040 U 2 kiel mWp Es•w3orpM "16•�Sgg Ei fi EU•NE. 1w$= to 0.0 c o 11,11:11111 pp _ o .4 N5Z �. .�lCN,E y O :�o l� � � m� m gggS at'd C e lz yy N N Nr.E 1115- 0p W a0L4w c0 ' mo zPGg ZcAY_ c Z VE c'ag 'en FnE m E cv $ $� g=� Ny•v�f9�a� 132 CA • LLI Tvr a u m c _c cm2 2 o y S . �w.g. p 2 N 2, 02 g a g 0-,N CO U 3 or� • � � � � CLEW -2c6 .rft V z -z 0 08V7. m' o28p Vly Sr— zFa z m— 0 g.geN.coE .m$attmm me `n .iaaCca..8'b p U40-b-at N� Cyd , -o2 E, E C 3 0 f co. O tcom 7 h N g cgm g= G = N CCC 01. ty 'S c.re m IIIHH. m o� c�,ti L.N[J C es -02a. g Cil o4 U)_ a p ro 'b o 14:10c:io w� IA 0 y 1 r m 0 V 111! gy-llcm z.wo pC4 OW° O H'2,o'bco-olei� m •. c 0 ,� g =2-'2 Sirp a;:l• S a g —vvagAm C oE] E o g g C :C p 5. Of p p_C NE aN o gi81"1 gy_ m ro x mo b egmmc s roc.c maraz S'8 f,� 01 'w 8 K c 'R o m ' 8E wocove— Ern (5emila. II 0) lil ii: a'13 ro dl dl ? •:3-Z aggro,'m6a, c e N P u `S i y b1 o .8 rom= 2 a8 a, E.�, . ro b C 174 c74 cd 0.scom w CV_ 2 •ro cu 0. ti C NN G, 2 Q —82 ((((yyyypppN ii 2 eq II 5. c C m E C c r4 'S pE ro Q ro 3 ,V U2 k0.841_ r " .8 E 'm m 01 W U m f 6 16 r b a y7 N 4? O M pCp N �+ o ppC C �7 p A A m C E M m g co . Citi orOgg C.=D m C ILEX L5a 4 YL Aa dy c`-' m c m 0- ,-(1.3-51c o �� ro Q1 �'7 V 2,85°,4. �Et 00 �cLT. 82 Uc'�.-0Vl ..56rog tg I � c � C�o .r U2e^ VgajUC2�§ . W Cao`P, rnU+�gr$f4` �F=.0a -moaozro 3$ ara2nIT :§11g2 gg a v 2g- Lx ro pc c2 a 0 m0,5 oc � �Nro � +roams mp, �.QICy `rm ���d�r, �,ma.� moroS,e3 �a aQUn 0.Egm ro p . ti 10 ro �NCC�,.M �_fa C1. ilihfli V�•gg N +� 7lj8�C1"r u) �0N�cgm*- �7I,'Q,.00'C o�rn*�n Tom 4» m m•O o c ON C .7C yy� co =. ,a -ow g m g, {Cq ,7 N t= c4»2 1 y� ,Q „_ � m t o g ccg (O 'e Z po �. t1 N G u .O 2 .� G, 3 p w OY ffi O m N ro 22 - pp6.N •� '� 4� N Vi C ?' C L err W ENe¢rc5,FUmN„ �C An a roa)-c nl �+ roaC+�U r, ro==cv c py�m o m ya>m kyr Km EBti,, C) C S N m E r q z v� N 0 O O 42'-. r C01 . {c� n w � ro at Am if a m m a �Aagvi .a �,C l4 0o V5! W m . 42 gr ma/ M.r a p 0 u o r a 2 O o m a g2 o"..7 oo ;' 0 o E 0 c z t 11. b [7 G i G g•=-9 .SIS - DoE o ° fa 1 to D Z 12 E P N m $ o ('1 of E 'U ro o c ° pe =re 0 a tJ NiSSO E .40 8) 0.1o m= ° c _ 1CC CO p S O .O U w C0 20° 1-.38 .6q ao 11.sl 8 80 u- COCsi c c E F E i� V g ol- b c— mig-3 E 4) N Q m 0. c._ o mP ° 5g 0 m OAHP Use Only: OAHP Doc. No. OAHP Project No. Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation LIMITED -RESULTS CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY FORM (page 1 of 3) Small scale limited results projects include block surveys under 160 acres and linear surveys under four miles. To be included under these guidelines there should be no sites and a maximum of four Isolated Finds. See manual for instructions. This form must be typed. I. IDENTIFICATION 1. Report Title (include County): Class III Cultural Resources Inventory for two proposed pipe yard locations in Garfield County, Colorado for Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. 2. Date of Field Work: April 14 and 15, 2008 3. Form completed by: Carl E. Conner Date: April 16, 2008 4. Survey Organization/Agency: Grand River Institute Principal Investigator: Carl E. Conner Principal Investigator's Signature: Other Crew: Address: P.O. Box 3543, Grand Junction, CO 81502 5. Lead Agency / Land Owner: Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs Field Office Contact: Cheryl Harrison, Archaeologist Address: P.O. Box 1009, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 6. Client: Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. 7. Permit Type and Number: BLM -- C-52775 8. Report / Contract Number: GRI Project No. 2823 9. Comments: II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 10. Type of Undertaking: Construction of storage/staging areas for pipeline materials (-- 27 acres total). 11. Size of Undertaking (acres): 27 Size of Project (if different): 27 acres 12. Nature of the Anticipated Disturbance: Blading and grading for storage/staging yards. 13. Comments: The project area at the northeast has been previously disturbed by land clearing activities and is bordered by a compressor site; the block area to the southwest has been heavily disturbed by grazing activities. Limited -Results Cultural Resource Survey Form (pap 2 of 3) III. PROJECT LOCATION 14. Description: Project area is located approximately 5 to 8 miles northeast of the town of Debeque_ CO 15. Legal Location Principal Meridian: 6th X NM Ute Quad. Map: Parachute Date(s): 1962 Quad. Map: Red Pinnacle Date(s): 1962/1973 Township: 7 S Range: 96 W Secs.: 27 SW, SW Township: 8 S Range: 96 W Secs.: 5 NW, NW and 6 SE, NE 16. Total number of acres surveyed: 27 (private land) 17. Comments: IV. ENVIRONMENT 18. General Topographic Setting: Colorado River valley between Parachute and Debeque Current Land Use: Open range land, residential and energy development. 19. Flora: Sagebrush, greasewood, grasses and forbs. 20. Soils/Geology: Tan sandy soil / Gravels and alluvium deposits of the Quaternary Age 21. Ground Visibility: 20 - 30 % 22. Comments: Heavy greasewood vegetation covers much of the project area. V. LITERATURE REVIEW 23. Location of File Search: BLM GIenwood Springs Field Office & SI -IPO Compass Website Dates: April 4, 2008 24. Previous Survey Activity In the project area: No projects have been previously conducted within either of the two block areas, however, a block area of BLM Project #5407-10, "Encana 33 Proposed Well Pads Orchard 2 Mesa GAP in Garfield County, Colorado" conducted by Metcalf Archaeological Consultants in 2007 was surveyed just south of the pipe yard at the southwest. In the general area: Numerous energy related projects have been conducted within a mile of the present project area and are shown on the attached lists. Limited -Results Cultural Resource Survey Form {page 3 of 3) V. LITERATURE REVIEW (continued 25, Known Cultural Resources In the project area: None. In the general region: The previously recorded cultural resources near the two project areas are primarily historic features (i.e. water control features, bridges, roads etc.) although a few prehistoric sites have also been recorded (see attached lists', Additionally, overviews of the prehistory and history of the region are provided in the Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists publication entitled "Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River Basin" (Reed and Metcalf 1999) and the Colorado Historical Society's publication entitled "Colorado Plateau Count Historic Context" usband 1984 . 26. Expected Results: Limited cultural resources were expected due to previous disturbance and heavy vegetation cover. VI. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 27. The u ose of the stud was to identif and record all cultural remains over 50 ears old within the area of potential impact, to assess their significance and eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and make recommendations concerning management. If possible, the remains will add to our understanding of the prehistory and history of the region. VII. FIELD METHODS 28. Definitions: Sites were defined as a discrete locus of patterned activity greater than 50 years of age and consisting of five or more prehistoric artifacts with or without features or over 50 historic artifacts with associated features. Also, single isolated hearths with no other associated artifacts or features were to be recorded as a site. IF Isolated finds were defined as less than five artifacts without associated features. Exceptions to this definition include historic trash dumps without associated features; a single core reduction event with a single core and associated reduction debitage; a single pot drop, where the sherds are from a single vessel; or, a prospector pit with/or without artifacts and no associated historic structures or features. 29. Describe Survey Method: The proposed block areas were walked by two archaeologists in zi.g zag transects spaced approximately 15 meters apart within the flagged locations to cover a total of approximately 27 acres of private land. Crew members worked from USGS 7.5 minute series mass. VIII. RESULTS 30. List IFs if applicable. Indicate IF locations on the map completed for Part III. A. Smithsonian Number: Description: 13. Smithsonian Number: Description: 31. Using your professional knowledge of the region, why arc there none or very limited cultural remains in the project area? Is there subsurface potential? Most of the project areas lie within previously disturbed areas. There is no subsurface potential. EnCana GRI# 2823 Compass Search Pipe Yard at SW T. 7S.. R. 96W. Sec. 31, 32 Site ID Site Type Assessment UT\4 Coordinates SG -F.312 Open Canip Eligible - Field Title: Cultural Resources Inventory Report on Proposed Federal # 1-29 Well and Related New Access in Garfield County, Co for Barrett Energy Company Author: Conner, Car] E. Date: 09/22/1986 Contractor: Grand River Institute, Inc. 5GF.2937.1 Historic, Water Control Not Eligible - Officially Title: Piceance Basin Pipeline Class III Cultural Resources Inventory, Garfield and Mesa Counties, Colorado (SWCA 02-183) Author: Martin, William and Andrew Sawyer Date: 03/26/2002 Contractor: SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants for the I3LM, Grand Junction Field Office Project # Title/Author/Date/Contractor ME.CH.R1 Title: Dcbeque Canyon to Grand Valley Hist Author: Unknown Date: 01/01/1979 Contractor: Colorado Dept, Of Highways Hist MC.HW.R9 Title: Cultural Resources Report for Historic Resources, Debeque Canyon to Grand Valley, Garfield and Mesa Counties, Colorado (I 70-1[19]&[36]). Author: Unknown Date: 01/01/1979 Contractor: Colorado Department of Highways GF.LM.NR192 Title: Cultural Resources Inventory Report on Proposed Federal # 1-29 Well and Related New Access in Garfield County, Co for Barrett Energy Company Author: Conner, Car] E. Date: 09/22/1986 Contractor: Grand River Institute, Inc. MC.CI-I.R96 Title: Intcrstatcs 25, 70, 225, and 270, U.S. Highways 13 and 470 for the Proposed Adesta Conununicatious Fiber Optic System (C SW00.102) Author: Sherman, Stephen A. Tania R. Metcalf, Mary W. Painter, D. Chadwick Jones, Chistian J. Zier Date: 03/01/2000 Contractor: Centennial Archaeology for the Colorado Department of Transportation MC.LM.R232 I3LM #12702-1 Title: Piceance Basin Pipeline Class III Cultural Resources Inventory, Garfield and Mesa Counties, Colorado (SWCA 02-183) Author: Martin, William and Andrew Sawyer Date: 03/26/2002 Contractor: SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants for the I3LM, Grand Junction Field Office Project # Title/Author/Date/Contractor GF.LM.R366 BLM #1107-9 Title: Class 111 Cultural Resource Inventory Report for the Proposed Pipeline Route from the Orchard Unit Compressor to Ok-11 Well Location in Garfield County, Colorado for Encana Oil and Gas, Inc. (USA) (GRI NO. 26106)(BLM GSFO# 1107-9) Author: Conner, Carl and Barbara Davenport Date: 11/09/2006 Contractor: Grand River institute T. 8S., R., 96W., Sec. 5, 6 Site ID Site Type Assessment UTM Coordinates 5GF.519 Open Architectural Eligible - Officially 'Title: Piceanee Basin Pipeline Class III Cultural Resources Inventory, Garfield and Mesa Counties, Colorado (SWCA 02-183) Author: Martin. William and Andrew Sawyer Date: 03/26/2002 Contractor: SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants for the BLM, Grand Junction Field Office 50F.2741.1 Historic, Water Control Needs Data - Officially Project # Title/Author/Date/Contractor MC.C14.R96 Title: Interstates 25, 70, 225, and 270, U.S. Highways 13 and 470 for the Proposed Adesta Communications Fiber Optic System (C SW00-102) Author: Sherman, Stephen A. Tania R. Metcalf, Mary W. Painter, D. Chadwick Jones, Chistian J. Zier Date: 03/01/2000 Contractor: Centennial Archaeology for the Colorado Department of Transportation MC.R.R28 Title: Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of 373 Acres for the Proposed Debeque Wildlife Area, Mesa and Garfield Counties, Colorado (Original and Addendum Survey of 47 Acres) Author: Coulam, Nancy; Hurley, Warren Date: 06/01/2000 Contractor: Archaeologists for the Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region and SWCA Inc. MC.LIvI.R232 'Title: Piceanee Basin Pipeline Class III Cultural Resources Inventory, Garfield and Mesa Counties, Colorado (SWCA 02-183) Author: Martin. William and Andrew Sawyer Date: 03/26/2002 Contractor: SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants for the BLM, Grand Junction Field Office GF.LM.R366 Title: Class III Cultural Resource inventory Report for the Proposed Pipeline Route from the Orchard Unit Compressor to Ok-11 Well Location in Garfield County, Colorado for Encana Oil and Gas, Inc. (USA) (GRI NO. 26106)(BLM GSFO# 1107-9) Author: Conner, Carl and Barbara Davenport Date: 11/09/2006 Contractor: Grand River Institute Pipe Yard at NE T. 7S., R. 96W., Sec. 27, 28, 33, 34 Site ID Site Type Assessment UTM Coordinates 5GF.109 OPEN CAMP Eligible - Field Title: Preliminary Report on Cultural Resources Inventory Fourteen Locations on the Rifle to Grand Junction Segment Colorado Ute Electrical Association Rifle to San Juan 345 KV Transmission Line Project Author: Collins Susan M Date: 06/01/1985 Contractor: Nickens and Associates 50F.364 HISTORIC, BRIDGE Eligible - Officially 5GF.389 HISTORIC, STRUCTURE/FOUNDAT ION/ALIGNMENT Not Eligible - Field 5GF.392 HISTORIC, TRAIL/ROAD Needs Data - Officially 5GF.1247 ISOLATED FIND Not Eligible - Field 5GF.1324 HISTORIC, TRASH DUMP Not Eligible - Officially 5GF.1350 ISOLATED FIND Not Eligible - Field Project # Title/Author/Date/Contractor ME.CH.R1 Title: Debeque Canyon to Grand Valley I-Iist Author: Unknown Date: 01/01/1979 Contractor: Colorado Dept. or Highways Hist MC.HW.R9 Title: Cultural Resources Report for Historic Resources, Debeque Canyon to Grand Valley, Garfield and Mesa Counties, Colorado (I 70-1[19]&[3fij). Author: Unknown Date: 01/01/1979 Contractor; Colorado Department of Highways MC.LM.R247 Title: Preliminary Report on Cultural Resources Inventory Fourteen Locations on the Rifle to Grand Junction Segment Colorado Ute Electrical Association Rifle to San Juan 345 KV Transmission Line Project Author: Collins Susan M Date: 06/01/1985 Contractor: Nickens and Associates GF.LM.NRI 92 Title: Cultural Resources Inventory Report on Proposed Federal 1-29 Well and Related New Access in Garfield County, Co for Barrett Energy Company Author: Conner, Carl E. Date: 09/22/1986 Contractor: Grand River Institute, Inc. Project # Title/Author/Date/Contractor MC.LM.R68 Title: Grant Norpac Cultural Resource Inventory of a 39 Mile Seismic Line, Mesa and Garfield Counties, Colorado Author: Scott, John M Date: 04/01/1991 Contractor: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants for BLM Glenwood Springs Resource Area GF.LM.R112 Title: a Class 111 Cultural Resource Inventory of Three Stock Reservoirs in Smith and Kelly Gulches, Garfield County, Colorado (BLM-GSRA 83 1098-7) Author: Seacat, Todd B. Date: 04/28/1998 Contractor: Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs Resource Area MC.CH.R96 Title: Interstates 25, 70, 225, and 270, U.S. Highways 13 and 470 for the Proposed Adesta Communications Fiber Optic System (C SW00-102) Author: Sherman, Stephen A. Tania R. Metcalf, Mary W. Painter, D. Chadwick Jones, Chistian J. Zier Date: 03/01/2000 Contractor: Centennial Archaeology for the Colorado Department of Transportation MC.LM.R232 Title: Piceance Basin Pipeline Class III Cultural Resources Inventory, Garfield and Mesa Counties, Colorado (SWCA 02-183) Author: Martin. William and Andrew Sawyer Date: 03/26/2002 Contractor: SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants for the BLM, Grand Junction Field Office GF.LM.NR750 Title: Class II1 Cultural Resources Inventory for the Proposed Sg /143-28 Well Location in Garfield County, Colorado for Williams Production RMT (GRI #2524) Author: Davenport, Barbara Date: 05/13/2005 Contractor: Grand River Institute GF.LM.NR744 Title: Class 11I Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Pipeline to the Sg#43-28 Well Location in Garfield County, Colorado for Williains Production RMT (GRI #2584) Author: Conner, Carl E. Date: 09/09/2005 Contractor: Grand River Institute GF.LM.R366 Title: Class III Cultural Resource Inventory Report for the Proposed Pipeline Route from the Orchard Unit Compressor to OK-11 'Well Location in Garfield County, Colorado for Encana Oil and Gas, Inc. (USA) (GR1 NO. 26106)(BLM GSFO# 1107-9) Author: Conner, Carl and Barbara Davenport Date: 11/09/2006 Contractor: Grand River Institute OAHP Use Only: OAI-1P Doc. No. OAHP Project No. Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation LIMITED -RESULTS CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY FORM (page 1 of 3) Small scale limited results projects include block surveys under 160 acres and linear surveys under four miles. To be included under these guidelines there should be no sites and a maximum of four Isolated Finds. See manual for instructions. This form must be typed. L IDENTIFICATION 1.. Report Title (include County): Class I11 Invento of a Ehird i e and in relation to the Collbran Pi eline Project, as an ADDENDUM to: Class Ill cultural resources inventory for two proposed pipe yard locations in Garfield County, Colorado, Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. 2. Date of Field Work: April 30, 2008 3. Form completed by: Carl E. Conner Date: May 1, 2008 4. Survey Organization/Agency: Grand River Institute Principal Investigator: Carl E. Conner Principal Investigator's Signature: Other Crew: Address: P.O. Box 3543, Grand Junction. CO 81502 5. Lead Agency / Land Owner: Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs Field Office Contact: Cheryl Harrison, Archaeologist Address: P.O. Box 1009, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 6. Client: Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. 7. .hermit Type and Number: BLM -- C-52775 8. Report / Contract Number: GRI Project No. 2833 9. Comments: II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1(1; Type of Undertaking: Constnlction of storage/staging, areas for pipeline materials 27 acres total). 11. Size of Undertaking (acres): 8.4 Size of Project (if different): 8.4 acres 12. Nature of the Anticipated Disturbance: Blading and grading for storage/staging yards. 13. Continents: Limited -Results Cultural Resource Survey Forni (page 3 of3) III. PROJECT LOCATION 14. Description: Project area is located approximately 8 miles northeast of the town of Debeque, CO 15. Legal Location Principal Meridian: 6th X NM Ute Quad. Map: Parachute Date(s): 1962 Township: 7 S Range: 96 W Sec.: 33 NE NE 16. Total number of acres surveyed: 8.4 (private land) 17. Comments: IV. ENVIRONMENT 18. General Topographic Setting: Colorado River valley between Parachute and Debeque Current Land Use: Open range land and energy development. 19. Elora: Greasewood, grasses and forbs. 20. Soils/Geology: Tan silty soil / Gravels and alluvium deposits of the Quaternary Arae 21. Ground Visibility: 20 - 30 % 22. Comments: Heavy greasewood vegetation covers much of the pro'ect area. V. LITERATURE REVIEW 23. Location of File Search: BLM Glenwood Springs Field Office & SHPO Compass Website Dates: April 4, 2008 24. Previous Survey Activity In the project area: No _projects have been previously conducted within the block area In the general arca: Numerous energy related projects have been conducted within a mile of the present project area and are shown on the attached lists. Limited -Results Cultural Resource Survey Form (Page 3 of 3) V. LITERATURE REVIEW (continued) 25. Known Cultural Resources In the project area: None. In the general region: The previously recorded cultural resources near the two project areas are primarily historic features (i.e. water control features, bridges, roads etc.) although a few prehistoric sites have also been recorded (see attached lists). Additionally, overviews ofthc prehistory and history of the region are provided in the Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologistspublication entitled "Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River Basin" (Reed and Metcalf 1999),_and the Colorado Historical Society's publication entitled "Colorado Plateau Country Historic Context"(Husband 1984). 26. Expected Results: Limited cultural resources were expected due toprevious disturbance and heavy vegetation cover. VI. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 27. The purpose of the study was to identify and record all cultural remains over 50 years old within the area of potential impact, to assess their significance and eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and make recommendations concerning management. If possible, the remains will add to our understanding of the prehistory and history of the region. VII. FIELD METHODS 28. Definitions: Sites were defined as a discrete locus of patterned activity greater than 50 years of age and consisting of five or more prehistoric artifacts with or without features or over 50 historic artifacts with associated features. Also. single isolated hearths with no other associated arti facts or features were to be recorded as a site. IF Isolated finds were defined as less than five artifacts without associated features. Exceptions to this definition include historic trash dumps without associated features; a single core reduction event with a single core and associated reduction dcbitagc; a singlepot drop, where the sherds arc from a single vessel; or, a prospector pit with/or without artifacts and no associated historic structures or features. 29. Describe Survey Method: The proposed block area was walked by two archaeologists in zig zag transects spaced approximately 15 meters apart within the flagged location to cover a total of approximately 8.4 acres of private land. Crew members worked from USGS 7.5 minute series maps. VIII. RESULTS 30. List Ifs if applicable. Indicate IF locations on the map coinpleted for Part III. A. Smithsonian Number: Description: 13. Smithsonian Number: Description: 31. Using your professional knowledge of the region, why are there none or very limited culntral remains in the project area? Is there subsurface potential? Most of the project area lies within previously disturbed areas. There is no subsurface potential. EniCana CRT# 2833 Compass Search T. 7S., R. 96W., Sec. 27, 28, 33, 34 Site ID Site Type Assessment UTM Coordinates 5GF.109 OPEN CAMP Eligible - Field 12:7 49 580mE 43 64 2I0mN _5GF.364 HISTORIC, BRIDGE Eligible - Officially 12:7 49 614mE 43 64 251mN 5GF.389 HISTORIC, STRUCTURE/FOUIJDAT Not Eligible - Field 12:7 50 138mE 43 64 295mN ION/ALIGNMENT 5GF.392 HISTORIC, TRAIL/ROAD Needs Data - Officially 13:2 51 439mE 43 61 176mN 13:2 51 040mE 43 61 465mN TO.... 12:7 51 464mE 43 64 517mN 12:7 50 503rnE 43 64 977mN 5GF.1247 ISOLATED FIND Not Eligible - Field 12:7 50 750mE 43 63 670mN 5GF.1324 HISTORIC, TRASH Not Eligible - Officially 12:7 50 SOOmE 43 64 070rN DUMP 5GF.1350 ISOLATED FIND Not Eligible - Field 12:7 50 840mE 43 63 690mN Project # Title/Author/Datc/Contractor ME.CH.R 1 MC.HW.R9 Title: Debeque Canyon to Grand Valley Hist Author: Unknown Date: 01/01/1979 Contractor: Colorado Dept. Of Highways Hist Title: Cultural Resources Report for Historic Resources, Debeque Canyon to Grand Valley, Garfield and Mesa Counties, Colorado (1 70-1[19]&[36]). Author: Unknown Date: 01/01/1979 Contractor: Colorado Department of Highways MC.LIvI.R247 GF.LM.NR192 Title: Preliminary Report on Cultural Resources Inventory Fourteen Locations on the Rifle to Grand Junction Segment Colorado Ute Electrical Association Rifle to San Juan 345 KV Transmission Line Project Author: Collins Susan M Date: 06/01/1985 Contractor: Nickens and Associates Title: Cultural Resources Inventory Report on Proposed Federal it 1-29 Well and Related New Access in Garfield County, Co for Barrett Energy Company Author: Conner, Carl E. Date: 09/22/1986 Contractor: Grand River Institute, Inc. Project # Title/Author/Date/Contractor MC.LM.R68 Title: Grant Norpac Cultural Resource Inventory of a 39 Mile Seismic Line, Mesa and Garfield Counties, Colorado Author: Scott, John M Date: 04/01/1991 Contractor: Mctcalf Archaeological Consultants for BLM Glenwood Springs Resource Area GF.LM.R112 Title_ a Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of Three Stock Reservoirs in Smith and Kelly Gulches, Garfield County, Colorado (BLM-GSRA S3 1098-7) Author: Seacat, Todd B. Date: 04/28/1998 Contractor: Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs Resource Area MCCH.R96 Title: Interstates 25, 70, 225, and 270, U.S. Highways 13 and 470 for the Proposed Adesta Communications Fiber Optic System (C SW00-102) Author: Sherman, Stephen A. Tania R. Metcalf, Mary W. Painter, D. Chadwick Jones, Chistian J. Zier Date: 03/01/2000 Contractor: Centennial Archaeology for the Colorado Department of Transportation MC.LM.R232 Title: Piceancc Basin Pipeline Class III Cultural Resources Inventory, Garfield and Mesa Counties, Colorado (SWCA 02-183) Author: Martin. William and Andrew Sawyer Date: 03/26/2002 Contractor: SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants for the BLM, Grand Junction Field Office GF.LM.NR750 Title: Class III Cultural Resources Inventory for the Proposed Sg #43-28 Well Location in Garfield County, Colorado for Williams Production RMT (GRI #2524) Author: Davenport, Barbara Date: 05/13/2005 Contractor: Grand River Institute GF.LM.NR744 Title: Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Proposed Pipeline to the Sglf43-28 Well Location in Garfield County, Colorado for Williams Production RMT (GIU #2584) Author: Conner, Carl E. Date: 09/09/2005 Contractor: Grand River Institute GF.LM.R366 Title: Class I11 Cultural Resource Inventory Report for the Proposed Pipeline Route from the Orchard Unit Compressor to OK-11 Well Location in Garfield County, Colorado for Encana Oil and Gas, Inc. (USA) (GRI NO. 26106)(BLM GSFO# 1107-9) Author: Conner, Carl and Barbara Davenport Date: 11/09/2006 Contractor: Grand River Institute 746000 ).; 0 r'3 \ o . /E. PrIvi9ocr- . • 1 • • r 747000 ? Composite Quadrangle Maps Parachute (1962) and Red Pinnacle (1962/1973) Garfield County - Colorado U.S.G.S. 7.5' Series (topographic) Scale 1:24000 / Contour Interval 40 Feet T. 7 S. and T. 8 S., R. 96 W., 6th P.M. NAD 83 Zone 12 4 • 7-'• •-•... .:' , ) 4_ ; NI, 0 00 ---- .: .• iN C • /- ey „ /• i-- f . • - •Ct ) / I . ,-)'3 I / ' ' ') ____ 746000 747000 • 748000 749000 — ., - l , p:,!, -. 1,./\-/\, • . ., l'': V t .1,1 ' / ' ''. /-, ..-:-7 1 ... '.. .., ,.,' ...;•• l.1„.., .7.:,) ......'.- 2 ''......'-....7...'" : ' \ 4 / 21:!, ,i'. — r • • - ,',,. • „...., ; -,. V, i: i.:- •-,' , '1 —1 / •". . _..1, 1 ) - .- 1•/ / 1 .) •/' 5 ,,.• "". '',-;•1• • .. ? ,.i„..,..1 i.,1 -._.-- r• i„- 1....;„ . ,,,,,1 . •• . • • ) ..,;'..--)' • •,......—;...r.-----.77-‘, \ • 1.' Proposed Alternate i ••••• -, Pipeyard Locatiarn • i'-• • i 'OA acres) ‘I- - • • .-••• .21-• , 121 I - • • / L 7 S. • • • • -• 1/4, 1 ,•1 ' 7 '11 .9 ,..., ' ,... :' ....:: /,' , . . - '',"'.', / .-... PreviouslySurveyed ',/, Pipeyard Location ,.(113.7 acres)A / • ifl• 4 • • " •fc.r4,.• . • Previously Surveyed Pipeyard Location (8.3 acres) • ../..e•-$ „cr.' " ••_"„) • • r i ' • -:•• •••- • • . • , . ..... • '' ..., , .V........-^." r...„. ...- ,.......r......- • ; ,e, t i i' -'i'l -..q• .\ •, . . I 1 . . , i ' - 1 1 1 I.—...1-1.•••%4•-::•—‘.----'—'1, 1 . H, ' • Li t i r •-. - , 1 748000 749000 Figure 1. Project location map for the Class 111 inventory ora third pipe yard in relation to the Collbran Pipeline Project, as an ADDENDUM to: Class ill Cultural resources Inventory Report for two proposed pipe yard locations in Garfield County, Colorado for EnCana Oil and Gas (USA). Area surveyed is highlighted. [GRI Project No. 2833, May 1, 2008) 0 0 0 en 0 0 11) tr 0 0 0 0 1 H( A4 30 N SEE MAP 2409-284 RANCt{ ;trP ?.3t rA 71 0-1 1,4 A 1_, — ✓FrD r}fl TA i m!..? 'r urj r' M 27 ORCHARD UNIT COMP. SITE IA/MS PR OD 0,47" Dri< V '(L, ire? .?. wry f 2 COI.5;f / ✓IM!L Y Proposed Collbran Pipeline C:)LOF'r`. I Y Proposed Pipe Yard Location tC3r,I [:y ELEY. 6210 3 J .r�i'r • • YpY BY DATE REFERENCES GARFIELD COUNTY PARCEL MAPS ullnareal I • PREPARED • • • r EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. PREPARED EED SURATC1 Ow VEYING [Wale tom Wm MSRW GARFIFI j) 4000 (SCALE IN FEET) DATE: Ap ft24, 200E R^6F. 1•.2000' INTY 95M rq it 0 f K?OL, 7I A S;1 r' rl.i?f rFi &: LU/DA Proposed Pipe Yard & Offoe Site Locations Sections 5 & 6 TBS R96W, & Section 33, T7S, R96W Garfield County, Colorado f SHEET 7 or PROJECT MI: 074424 DMA vude Pipe Yard & Office Site Exhibit a5284 ThN \L -T - PROPOSED LOCATION: PIPE YARD 492(1 I .----, S i'LEGEND(NAD 27) [] LATITUDE 39922'58.51" LONGITUDE 106 08' 28.48" 0 LATITUDE 39°22'54.90" LONGITUDE 108°08' 31.48" ® LATITUDE 39°22'52.46" LONGITUDE 108'08' 36.08" g LATITUDE 39'22543.49" LONGITUDE 108'08' 49.83" / / F/ 1 ! /t LEGEND: PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD EXISTING ROAD Uintah Engineering & Land Surveying 85 South 200 East 'Vernal, Utah 3-4078 (435) 780-1017 (435) 789,i813 tk 1 , . L`_75 EI}Cana OIL & GAS (USA) INC. PROPOSED PIPE YARD SECTIONS 5 & 6, T8S, R96W, 6th P.M. TOPOGRAPHIC M A P 4 4 MONTH, DAY 08 YEAR SCALE 1"= I OOD', 1DRAlVN BY. J.L.G [RF.4[SED: 00-00-00 B 1'OPCI -,*L IN:\..„ i'' 4 Y tip 1 j1 '. s 2f PROPOSED LOCATION: OFFICE & YARD SI'Z'E 3 3016* �TSPECIAI,TY RESTAURANTS CORP 80 PCT STOCKTONRESTAURANT CORP.20.PCT. U7 /grs $07, f IT7S A8ST[[77���( t /04` 11 1 so OO 5 1 1, fo u ag ri 14, fi4 4 n '1 LEGEND: PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD EXISTING ROAD Uintah Engineering & Laud Sun -eying 85 Sotat.la 200 East 'Vernal Vlnla 84078 (435) 789-1017 '' VAN (435) 789-1813 EnCana OIL & GAS (USA) INC.. OFFICE & YARD SITE SECTION 33. T7S, R96W, Gth R.M. TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 16 DAY 04 YHkil SCALE: 1"= 200� I DEAN BY: .1.1,.G !REVISED: 00.00.00 4 MOiiIH B TOP( ) EnCana OIL & GAS (USA) INC. LOCATION LAYOUT FOR 7 ACRE OFFICE Sc YARD SITE SECTION 33, T7S, R96W, 6th P.M. NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Existing Pencelne Prevailing F-0.4' SCALE: 1" = 100' DATE: 04-15-08 Drawn By. D.R.Br,'..r r r � r r s r � r � r � "1,;,/ r r, tair �.5irr rr ..rr '.- " Approx. r Top of A, Cu{ Slope Sta. 54-74 ,c-1.9° cp Et 5006.4' —5006 (31 NE Sec. Cor Existing Pence/in— 9002 /8" c vc_cIE_ ' 1.. 4:0 { 4 'i t '1" A.146 Sta. 1+00 001- 1.-`57(--__t. 1 tis 7 c .: j 15.5 ( r „ Existing Access Road (Cale) El. 5000.8 NOTES: 3 IFIGURE #1I Elev Ungraded Ground At Southeast Corner FINISHED GRADE ELEV. AT Southeast Corner - 5000.3' = 5000.5' Existing 2– Track—/ yy / A'S*. .� Allit, S .. / Approx.," //i 2 Toe of/ F (12' Fill Slope , FJ. 5000.3' UINTAH ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING 05 sp. 200 Fast ° V®vna(, Utah 84078 0 (435) 789-4007 . c —, ...c za Z- V41.48 ..:06 1fq:i 4 ' !till 0 10-,70 '., 1 ,.1- . iI ill,t; oCaL1,1 o . -•co,›'." ... ii;!ii fi So .9:Z1 `-4 /No 2 R r 11 ff- Bda 9 hOT I [I I ' I 111'111 1 f 1 I I • 1 • .1 . I .1. . I I I I I _ . . . 1. HFf (4) Habitat Assessment for the Collbran Pipeyard Parcels EnCana Oil and Gas Garfield County, CO May 2, 2008 PREPARED FOR: EnCana Oil & Gas (U.S.A.), Inc. 2717 County Road 215 Parachute, CO 81635 PREPARED BY: Wildlife Specialties, L.L.C. P.O. Box 1231 Lyons, CO, 80540 1.0 Description and Proposed Action The Collbran Pipe yards were located in two distinct parcels. The smaller of the two parcels was approximately 7 acres (3.2 [hectares] ha) and located approximately 100 yards southwest of the intersection of Highway 6 and Garfield County Road 300. This intersection is located approximately 4.6 miles southwest of the Town of Parachute, Garfield County and 7.2 miles (11.52 kilometers [km]) northeast of the Town of DeBeque, Mesa County. The larger parcel was approximately 20 acres (9.1 ha) and located approximately 1.2 miles (1.9 km) west of the compression station (Figure 1). Both project areas are on the Parachute CO, US Geological Survey, 7.5 minute series topographical map. The elevation of the two parcels is approximately 5,000 feet (ft) (1,524 meters [m]) above mean sea level. The project area is located in the eco-region identified as the Southern Rocky Mountain Steppe— open woodland-coniferous forest—alpine meadow province of the dry domain (Bailey 1995). This eco-region is characterized by annual temperatures ranging from 2° to 7° C (35° to 45° F). A considerable amount of precipitation is in the form of snow and can equal up to 102 cm (40 inches) per year in higher elevations (Bailey 1995). Vegetation changes with altitude and slope aspect. The dominant plant community near the 7 acre parcel was dominanted by greasewood (Sacrobatus vermiculatus) with an understory of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and common velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus). Sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus sp.) and shadscale (Atriplex sp.). The most common herbaceous species on the site was common velvetgrass (Photo 1). The dominant plant community of the 20 acre parcel was sagebrush and grease wood with an understory of cheat grass. The eastern portion of this parcel burned in the past, removing all vegetation (Photo 2). Several ephemeral drainages dissected the parcel, flowing in a southerly direction, two of which were associated with box culverts constructed presumably to enable water to flow under Highway 6 (Figure 1; photos 3, 4). Prior to the issuance of appropriate permits by the Bureau of Land Management, a threatened and endangered species habitat assessment, per the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended) is required. Surveys are also required under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-711) to protect against violations of the MBTA. Surveys conducted in support of this report ensure compliance with the ESA and MBTA. 2.0 Habitat Assessment Surveys to assess the project area's suitability for use by state sensitive and federally listed threatened and endangered species and nesting raptors were conducted on 27 March, 2008 by Robert T. Magill of Wildlife Specialties, L.L.C. Mr. Magill has an M.S. degree in wildlife management from Texas Tech University in Lubbock Texas and has completed numerous threatened and endangered species habitat assessments and sensitive species surveys in Garfield County Colorado and throughout the intermountain west. Habitats within the 20 acre and 7 acre pipe yard parcels were assessed for overall quality to support wildlife and state sensitive species, federally protected species and nesting raptors on 27 March and 29 April, 2008 respectively. Using a pedestrian survey, a wildlife biologist assessed the' habitat types present, their condition and evaluated their suitability for supporting sensitive species. The project area was traversed to identify basic habitat types and document which 2 species were currently using these habitats. A hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) unit was used to identify the location of physical characteristics of the site pertinent to use of the area as wildlife habitat. Figure 1 shows the location of the both the 7 acre and 20 acre parcels within the greater landscape. Habitat assessments and sensitive species surveys were conducted before the breeding season for most migratory songbirds and raptors on the 20 acre parcel. Therefore, some species which may breed in the area may not have been present at the time the survey was conducted. Surveys and habitat assessments for the 7 acre parcel were conducted during the breeding season for raptors and early migratory songbirds. As a result of the timing of these surveys, late migrants or late nesting species might not be documented. Similarly, surveys for both parcels were conducted prior to the emergence of most reptiles, and despite warm temperatures during the visits, no reptiles were observed. 3.0 Results 7 Acre Parcel — No nest structures suitable for supporting nesting raptor nests were observed within this site. Although no nesting activity was observed within the project area, cottonwood trees (Populus fremontii) trees were present beyond the limits of the project area and were considered suitable for use by nesting raptors and common ravens (Corvus coram) and raptors. Although common ravens were observed within the vicinity of the parcel, nest structures suitable for their use were detected either on the project area or in adjacent cottonwood trees. This parcel bordered previously disturbed areas to the east. These areas had been cleared of most standing vegetation and were being used for industrial purposes at the time the habitat assessment was conducted (Photo 5). Habitats within the parcel itself were intact yet were heavily used by browsing and grazing ungulates, including but not limited to elk (Cervus elaphus) and livestock. Species observed within this parcel included elk, western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), blackbilled magpie (Pica hudsonia), Brewers sparrow (Spizella breweri), violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina) and American kestrel (Falco sparverius). Vegetation of the parcels was visually determined to be denser, and of higher quality for wildlife within the eastern portion of the parcel. Kestrels, magpies, and brewer's sparrows were all observed in the more densely vegetated eastern portion of the parcel. Due to the parcels proximity to areas with high levels of disturbance and the presence of cattle on the site, wildlife species expected to use or be observed within the site would be generalist species adapted to living in an altered environment, such as the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and raccoons (Procyon lotor). Invasive and noxious weeds were present throughout the parcel. Salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima) is on the Colorado Department of Agriculture's (CDOA) "B-List" of noxious weeds: the species has been identified as a target species for the development and implementation of a weed management plan to stop its continued spread (CDOA 2008) (Photo 6). Although present throughout rangelands of Colorado, and identified as an invasive species, cheat grass has not been officially identified as a noxious weed in Colorado. No other noxious weeds were observed within the parcel. 20 Acre Parcel No nest structures suitable for supporting nesting raptor nests were observed within this site. Although no nesting activity was observed within the project area, power towers and poles and 3 juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) and cottonwood trees (Populus deltoides) trees were present beyond the limits of the project area and were considered suitable for use by nesting raptors and common ravens (Corvus corax) and raptors. Common ravens were observed carrying nesting material (e.g. sticks, grasses) as they flew over the site. The two box culverts adjacent to the project site were visually inspected for evidence of use by either bats or swallows. The eastern most culvert contained evidence of previous use by nesting cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), however, no sign of bat use was observed (Photo 7). Rocky Mountain elk used all portions of this parcel as winter range. An active colony of white- tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys leucurus) was present along the southern edge of the parcel. Other species identified as using the area through either direct observation (auditory or visual) or through the presence of sign (scat, tracks) included coyote (Canis latrans), desert cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus audubonii), western meadowlark and Say's phoebe (Sayornis saya). Avian nomenclature was taken from Sibley (2000). Mammalian nomenclature was taken from Fitzgerald et al. (1994). Cheat grass was present throughout the parcel and is common across the rangelands of Colorado. Although the species is considered an invasive species, cheat grass has not been officially identified as a noxious weed in Colorado. No formally identified noxious weeds were observed within this parcel. 4.0'Conclusion Based on information obtained during surveys conducted at both the 7 acre and 20 acre parcels to be used for the development of a pipe yard, no state sensitive or federally protected species were determined to be using the area. Although the sagebrush habitats common within the 20 acre parcel are relatively contiguous with other habitats in the area, disturbances associated with previous energy development and associated infrastructure and the presence of the railroad likely preclude the use of these habitats by disturbance sensitive species. Both parcels are likely located within the foraging range of at least one pair of common ravens as indicated by the presence of an the observation of an individual carrying nesting material over tle.20 acre parcel and the observation of an individual common raven carrying food over the 7 acre parcel. Although no detailed surveys were carried out, tree dominated riparian and upland habitats provide suitable nesting areas for common ravens. Construction of the proposed pipe yard will not impact nesting activities of any state sensitive or federally protected species or raptor species. However, the removal of sagebrush-shrub dominated habitats may decrease nesting and foraging opportunities for species such as the western meadowlark and Brewer's sparrow. No.habitat critical or essential to the continued existence of any species protected under the ESA was identified within either the pipe yard or the compression station site. The implementation of the construction of facilities and their associated infrastructure is not expected to impact state sensitive or threatened and endangered species or raptors on either site. The noxious weed salt cedar was observed within the boundaries of the 7 acre parcel. Because the CDOA has identified salt cedar as a noxious species it is recommended that development of this parcel be implemented in coordination with CDOA management plans targeting the control of this species as well as in conjunction with any Best Management Practices outlined in the plan for ;controlling the distribution of the species. 4 5.0 Literature Cited Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. 2c1 ed. Rev. and expanded (1st ed. 1980). Misc. Publ. No. 1391 (rev.), Washington. Colorado Department of Agriculture. 2008. Noxious Weed Management Program. http://www.colorado.gov. Accessed 1 May, 2008. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado. 467 pp. Sibley, D.A. 2000. The National Audubon Society; the Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 543 pp. 6.0 Project Figures and Photos Photo 1. View west from northeast corner of the 7 acre parcel. Grasses along the edge of the road and throughout the parcel are cheat grass and common velvetgrass. 5 Photo 2. View southwest across the burned portion of the 20 acre parcel. Photo 3. View north toward downstream side of eastern most box culvert on the 20 acre parcel. 6 Photo 4. View north through second box culvert on the 20 acre parcel. 7 Photo 5. View east from southeast corner of '7 acre parcel. Industrial development, including gravel mining, is evident in the background. Photo 6. View east from southwest corner of 7 acre parcel. The state identified noxious weed salt cedar is highlighted by the yellow circle. 8 J Photo 7. Evidence of previous swallow use of the eastern most box culvert for nesting. The yellow circle highlights locations of old nests placed against the culvert wall and ceiling. 9 Figure 1: Location of the 7 and 20 acre parcels surveyed. lv Altkr Scale 1 inch = 2,750 feet Legend . Date: May 2008 7 & 20 acre parcels Prepared by: Wildlife Specialties, L.L.C. P.Q. Box 1231 Lyons, CO 80540 303-710-1286 91,Te :AA; Gall VA Cassia CiioN MANALMME, E 1038 Courrry Rd 323 \� Rifle, CO 81650 Enterprise Gas Processing, LLC Marathon Gathering System- Development Plan Review for Right - of -Way Application Submittal Item Tab 13- Rehabilitation Pian. Includes Revegetation Plan 9.07.04 (12) and Weed Management Plan 9.07.04 (13). Steve Anthony- Garfield County Vegetation Management - Philip Vaughan will make contact with Steve Anthony to discuss the project. Please see attached the "Marathon Gathering System Rehabilitation Plan." This rehabilitation plan includes the gathering system and the Jackrabbit Compressor station. Please also find attached "Noxious Weed Management Plan" prepared by Paller & Girard, Inc. dated August 2007 and an "Addendum to the Noxious Weed Management Plan for the project prepared by WestWater Engineering. Steve Anthony will need a quantity of the acreage to be disturbed to set forth the revegetation bond for the project. It is anticipated that this bond for the Marathon Gathering System would be released after 2 growing seasons. Page 1 of 4 The disturbed area is determined using the following method: Summary ROW Length and Acreage Totals For Federal and Fee Lands 20" and 16" trunk line Jackrabbit Compressor Station Marathon Gathering System Enterprise Gas Processing, LLC Owner Oldland Station 0+0.00 to 0+70.0 Length LF 70' x 75' width Construction ROW Acres .12 Total Surface Area Acres .12 Oldland Oldland Oldland Oldland BLM Oldland BLM TUA 50'x50' TUA 120'x40' TUA 105'x15' triangle 6+84.3 to 22+42.0 22+42.0 to 39+34.6 50'x50' 120'x40' 105'x15' triangle 1557.70'x 75' width 1692.60' x 85' width .057 .110 .018 2.682 3.30 .057 .110 .018 2.682 3.30 Chevron Chevron Chevron Berry/Marathon Berry/Marathon Chevron 39+34.6 to 71+57.1 71+57.1 to 102+38.8 102+38.8 to 114+73.6 114+73.6 to 152+494.3 152+494.3 to 222+71.3 222+71.3 to 230+35.4 230+35.4 to 263+41.80 263+41.80 to 283+46.9 3,222.50' x 75' width 3081.70' x 85' width 1234.80' x 65' width 3775.83' x 65' width 7021.87' x 100' width 764.1' x 83' width 3306.40' x 83' width 2005.10' x 100' width 5.548 6.01 1.84 5.634 16.12 1.455 6.30 4.60 5.548 6.01 1.84 5.634 16.12 1.455 6.30 4.60 Berry/Marathon Chevron 283+46.9 to 321+24.5 321+24.5 to 329+49.8 Berry/Marathon 329+49.8 to 349+81.8 3777.60' x 83' width 825.30' x 100' width 2032' x 83' width 7.198 1.89 3.872 7.198 1.89 3.872 Berry/Marathon Chevron 349+81.8 to _380+54.4 380+54.4 to 486+63.6 3072.60' x 83' width 5.85 5.85 10,609.10' x 100' width Page 2 of 4 24.355 24.355 Total Acreage Fee Land- Pipeline Right -of -Way: Total Acreage Fee lands for Jackrabbit Compressor Station: Total Acreage Fee Lands: Total BLM property: 9.31 acres 87.65 acres. 17.53 105.18 acres We are prepared to post a reclamation/revegetation bond for the 105.18 acres disturbed. We would propose to have one bond for the pipeline and one bond for the Jackrabbit Compressor Station. The Jackrabbit Compressor Station will operate in -perpetuity and thus the bond will be in place much longer than the pipeline revegetation bond. Staging Areas Please find attached the Reclamation Plan within the Stormwater Management Plan, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Discharge General Permit Certification No. COR -037959. This plan will address the 7 acre and 21 acre staging areas for the project. Please see the full plan in Tab 22. We would propose to have one bond for the 7 acre staging area and one bond for the 21 acre staging area. As per the Stormwater Management Plan, please see attached in Tab 22, the following seed mixture has been determined. Please find all of the reclamation details within the Stormwater Management Plan. i. EnCana High Mesa Reclamation Seed Mix (All grades accessible to drill seeder) (Crimped Straw Drill Seeding 2,0001bs/acre) Name %LBS/PLS/ACRE Regreen Cover Western Wheatgrass Thickspike Wheatgrass Indian Ricegrass Crested Wheatgrass Tall Wheatgrass Mountain Brame Slender Wheatgrass 20 % 15 % 10% 15 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % TOTAL 100 % @ 20 LBS/ACRE We will coordinate with Steve Anthony regarding the bond amounts per acre for reclamation/revegetation. Page 3 of 4 Thank you for your assistance on this project. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely ft \,. Philip B. Vaughan President PVCMI-Land Planning Division Page 4 of 4 ENTERPRISE GAS PROCESSING, LLC. MARATHON GATHERING SYSTEM REHABILITATION PLAN OCTOBER 25, 2008 The pipeline will be located on private property owned by numerous owners and U.S. BLM property. The soil should be stripped to a depth of approximately six (6) inches and stockpiled at the edge of the disturbed right-of- way. The expected duration of the project is 5 months. Topsoil stockpiles shall be preserved and water applied to prevent wind erosion. RECLAMATION Areas disturbed by construction will be reclaimed no later than the next available planting opportunity following pipeline construction. The objectives of reclamation will be as follows: 1. Stabilization of the disturbed areas will be conducted by providing wind and water erosion control to reduce soil loss. The stormwater management plan for the project shall be adhered to. 2. Utilize the prescribed seed mixtures and additional vegetation practices as described below to establish a self- sustaining vegetative rangeland cover. PIPELINE ABANDONMENT The pipeline will be abandoned in accordance with Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulations in place at the time of abandonment. BACKFILLING, GRADING, AND RE -CONTOURING Reclaimed areas will be sloped as per the project drawings and specifications. Page 1 of 6 TOPSOIL REPLACEMENT Soil salvaged during construction activities will be redistributed over the soil surface after subsoil has been replaced and additional backfilling; grading, and re -contouring steps have been completed as described below. Soil will be replaced by using front-end loaders, trackhoes, and dozers. Soil will not be replaced when it is excessively wet and/or frozen. SEEDBED PREPARATION / SOIL TILLAGE Seedbed preparation and soil tillage will be completed after the application of subsoil, topsoil, and any soil amendments. Soil tillage will be to a minimum depth of 4" utilizing a disk, chisel plow, or harrow. Seedbed preparation will also include removal of coarse fragments (rock material) that exceed 35% to 40% of the soil surface as well as rocks B" in diameter that occupy more than 10% of the soil surface. SEEDING METHODS AND TIMES If seeding is performed in the spring, it will be accomplished by May 15; if fall seeding is performed it will be completed after August 30 and before the soil freezes. Seeding efforts will consist of drill seeding with a rangeland drill to a planting depth of to 1/2" on slopes 3:1 or flatter. Broadcast seeding followed by harrowing or hand raking to lightly cover the seed with soil will be used on slopes steeper than 3:1, or on areas inaccessible for drill seeding equipment. All areas to be reclaimed will be mulched no later than 24 hours after seeding with a certified weed -free straw or grass hay material. Grass hay mulch will be applied at 1 1/2 tons per acre, or straw mulch will be applied at 2 tons per acre. Mulch material will be crimped into the soil surface with a commercial mulch crimper, a straight disc, or bulldozer tracks if too steep to otherwise crimp mulch in place. Seed tags shall be retained after planting and submitted to the Garfield County Vegetation Manager to verify the seed mixture and the quantity of seed planted. SEED MIXTURES Please see Table 1 for the seed mixtures. WEED CONTROL PLAN Prior to construction, a qualified person will inspect the proposed right-of-way and will inventory and map the proposed project area for any listed Garfield County noxious weeds. Based on this inventory and mapping, methods, materials, and timing of weed control measures will be specified. During the life of the pipeline operation, the operator will be obligated to regularly inspect the right-of-way and to inventory and treat any listed Garfield County noxious weeds. Page 2 of 6 TABLE 1 Final Reclamation Seed Mixture Common Name Scientific Name Pounds Pure Live Seed (PLS) per acre Mountain Brome Bromus Marginatus 6.57 Russian Wild Rye, VNS Psathyrostachys Juncea 6.43 Orchardgrass, profile Dactylis Glomerata _ 621 Intermediate Wheatgrass, Oahe Elytrigia Intermedia 6.02 QuickGuard Triticum Aestivum X Secale Cereale 5.85 Crested Wheatgrass, Hycrest Agropryron Cristatum 3.05 Pubescent Wheatgrass, Luna Total Elytrigia Trichophorum 37.75 lbs. Page 3 of 6 SITE REHABILITATION PLAN- JACKRABBIT COMPRESSOR STATION October 25, 2008 The Jackrabbit Compressor Station will be located on rangeland owned by Berry Petroleum Company and Marathon Oil Company. The facility area is 17.53 acres. The subject site appears to lie in the Parachute-Rhone-Irigul soil series as shown on the Garfield County Generalized Soils Types map dated 1/31102. These soils are better classified as deep to shallow, well drained, moderately sloping to steep soils on mountains and ridges. The soil should be stripped to a depth of approximately six (6) inches and stockpiled at the facility margins. Topsoil stockpiles will be seeded as described below in the section on seeding methods and times. RECLAMATION Two phases of reclamation are planned. Soil stockpiles and areas disturbed by construction that will not be utilized during the facility construction operation will be reclaimed immediately following construction. Final reclamation will be performed within one year of facility closure and removal. The objectives of reclamation will be as follows: 1. Stabilization of the disturbed areas will be conducted by providing wind and water erosion control to reduce soil loss. The stormwater management plan for the project shall be adhered to. 2. Utilize the prescribed seed mixtures and additional vegetation practices as described below to establish a self- sustaining vegetative rangeland cover for cattle pasture use. FACILITY AND STRUCTURE REMOVAL The facility will be abandoned in accordance with Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulations in place at the time of facility abandonment. Equipment will be removed from the site. BACKFILLING, GRADING, AND RE -CONTOURING Reclaimed areas will be sloped to 3:1 or less. Page 4 of 6 TOPSOIL REPLACEMENT Soil salvaged during construction activities will be redistributed over the soil surface after subsoil has been replaced and ,iditional backfilling; grading, and re -contouring steps have been completed as described below. Soil will be replaced by using front-end loaders, trackhoes, and dozers. Soil will not be replaced when it is excessively wet and frozen so as to jeopardize soil structure. SEEDBED PREPARATION/SOIL TILLAGE Seedbed preparation and soil tillage will be completed after the application of subsoil, topsoil, and any soil amendments. Soil amendments will include 250 pounds of 46-0-0 fertilizer per acre and mulched with 1 1/2 tons of certified weed free grass hay per acre crimped into the soil. Soil tillage will be to a minimum depth of 4" utilizing a disk, chisel plow, or harrow. Seedbed preparation will also include removal of coarse fragments (rock material) that exceed 35% to 40% of the soil surface as well as rocks 8" in diameter that occupy more than 10% of the soil surface. SEEDING METHODS AND TIMES Soil stockpiles and areas disturbed by construction that will not be utilized during compressor station operation will be seeded. If seeding is performed in the spring, it will be accomplished by May 15; if fall seeding is performed it will be completed after August 30 and before the soil freezes. Seeding efforts will consist of drill seeding with a rangeland drift to planting depth of "A" to 1/2" on slopes 3:1 or flatter. Broadcast seeding followed by harrowing or hand raking to lightly cover the seed with soil will be used on slopes steeper than 3:1, or on areas inaccessible for drill seeding equipment. All areas to be reclaimed will be mulched no later than 24 hours after seeding with a certified weed -free straw or grass hay material. Grass hay mulch will be applied at 1 1/2 tons per acre, or straw mulch will be applied at 2 tons per acre. Mulch material will be crimped into the soil surface with a commercial mulch crimper, a straight disc, or bulldozer tracks if too steep to otherwise crimp mulch in place. Seed tags shall be retained after planting and submitted to the Garfield County Vegetation Manager to verify the seed mixture and the quantity of seed planted. SEED MIXTURES Please see Table 1 for the seed mixtures. Page 5 of 6 WEED CONTROL PLAN A qualified person will inspect the facility site and will inventory and map the proposed project area for any listed Garfield County noxious weeds. Based on this inventory and mapping, methods, materials, and timing of weed control measures will be specified. The vast majority of the facility area will be graveled and will be devoid of vegetation. Williams Field Services reserves the right to modify this plan based on Best Available Technology (BAT) at the time of facility closure. TABLE 1 Stockpile and Disturbed Areas Reclamation Final Reclamation Seed Mixture Common Name Scientific Name Pounds Pure Live Seed (PLS) per acre Mountain Brome Bromus Marginatus 6.57 Russian Wild Rye, VNS Psathyrostachys Juncea 6.43 Orchardgrass, profile Dactylis Glomerate 6.21 Intermediate Wheatgrass, Oahe Elytrigia Intermedia 6.02 QuickGuard Triticum Aestivum X Secale Cereale 5.85 Crested Wheatgrass, Hycrest Agropryron Cristatum 3.05 Pubescent Wheatgrass, Luna Total Elytrigia Trichophorum 37.75 lbs. Page 6 of 6 ADDENDUM TO THE NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR MARATHON OIL COMPANY MARATHON TRUNK PIPELINE GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Typical vegetation and terrain along the Enterprise Marathon Truck pipeline alignment Prepared for: Enterprise Gas Processing, LLC Grand Junction, CO Prepared by: WestWater Engineering 2570 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 September 2008 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.0 Project Description Enterprise Gas Processing, LLC (Enterprise) has requested WestWater Engineering (WWE) to provide an addendum to a noxious weed management plan that was prepared for Marathon Oil Company in August 2007 (Paller & Girard, Inc.). This addendum includes a map of weed infestations that were observed during the WWE 2008 survey and is supplemental to the management of weeds outlined in the Paller & Girard report (attached). Enterprise is seeking a Garfield County special use permit to install a 16 -inch natural gas trunk pipeline, which begins approximately 8.2 miles northwest of Parachute, Colorado. The pipeline begins in the NW '/ Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 97 West, and runs north for approximately 9.3 miles and terminates in the NW 1/4, Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 96 West (Figure 1). The pipeline will be constructed on private and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands and will parallel an existing gas line corridor along approximately 83% of its proposed alignment. 2.0 General Survey Information WWE conducted weed surveys along the pipeline alignment from August 25-28, 2008. Locations of weeds were recorded with the aid of a handheld global positioning system (GPS) instrument using NAD83/WGS84 map datum, with all coordinate locations based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system in Zones 12S. 3.0 Observations Six listed weed species are found in the project area, three of which are Garfield County listed species (Table 1 and Appendix A). The most prevalent listed weeds are houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) and Musk thistle (Carduus nutans). Cutleaf nightshade (Solanum triflorum), an unlisted weed species was observed in several locations along the existing pipeline corridor. In one area, it was the dominant plant species observed in the disturbed soil. The locations of the listed weeds are plotted on the survey results map (Figure 1). Table 1. Observed Noxious Weed Locations in the Marathon Trunk Project Area Common Name* Scientific Name USDA Symbol General Location and Comments Bull Thistles Cirsium vulgare CIUU Scattered individual infestations were observed in disturbed areas along and adjacent to the pipeline alignment. WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 16 pages 9/23/2008 Table 1. Observed Noxious Weed Locations in the Marathon Trunk Project Area Common Name* Scientific Name USDA Symbol General Location and Comments Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus VETH Canada ThistleB Cirsium arvense CIAR4 Common along drainages, occasionally in small dense patches. Also scattered very thinly throughout much of the sagebrush and oak brush areas. Several small infestations were noted along a small tributary to the West Fork of Parachute Creek on the north end of the pipeline. Musk ThistleB Carduus nutans CANU4 HoundstongueB Cynoglossurn officinale CYOF CheatgrassC Bromus tectorum BRTE Generally not large infestations, but tends to occur in areas where moisture conditions are higher along steams and north facing slopes. Common throughout the existing pipeline corridor. Occasionally in large patches but mostly individual scattered plants. Thinly scattered throughout much of the survey area. Typically noted in areas of disturbance along the pipeline alignment and scattered in other areas, typically along existing 2 -track trails. * Government weed listing: Bold - Garfield County, Colorado. Superscript - Colorado State B or C list. 4.0 REFERENCES Paller and Girard. 2007. Noxious weed management plan for Marathon Oil Company, Garfield County, CO. Paller & Girard, Inc., WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 16 pages 9/23/2008 Figure 4: Enterprise Marathon Trunk Pipeline Biological Survey -Weeds September 2008 Westikater Engineering Environmental -Consulting Services Miles 0 025 05 Legend Weeds ✓ Bu Ii Ihk19e • Cenado lhlstk Oommen Houndstongue Cheatdnree ..^•�• Chealglass Houndslongee lAullein. Honndslnunge. Cheatfltann — Garden Uufcll Rend s—� Centellhle 8LM [ 1 el Appendix A. Species, location and number of weeks along the Marathon Trunk pipeline Plant Code CYOF CYOF CYOF CYOF CYOF CYOF CYOF CYOF CIVU CIVU CIVU CIVU CIVU Zone Eastin C!AR4 CYOF BRTE BRTE BRTE VETH VETH CYOF VETH VETH VETH BRTE B RTE CYOF CYOF VETH CYOF CYOF VETH VETH CYOF VETH VETH CYOF CYOF VETH VETH VETH CIVU 12S 738678 12S 738725 12S 738728 12S 738830 12S 738910 128 738950 12S 738950 12S 738900 12S 740076 128 740080 12S 740104 12S 740120 128 740125 12S 740110 12S 740074 12S 739677 12S 739770 12S 739780 12S 739780 12S 739882 12S 739861 CYOF CIAR4 CYOF WestWater Engineering 128 739756 12S 739910 12S 739760 12S 740160 12S 739766 128 739760 12S 739760 128 739772 12S 739815 12S 739838 12S 739859 128 740124 12S 740124 12S 740160 12S 740497 12S 740540 12S 740497 12S 740540 12S 740550 12S 740550 12S 740550 12S 740539 12S 743118 Northin 4387535 4387591 4387620 4387630 4387750 4387760 4387800 4387910 4390345 4390370 4390420 4390400 4390430 4390385 4390322 4387510 4387030 4387060 4387080 4387155 4387148 4387020 4386900 4386582 4386990 4386430 4386950 4386823 4386823 4386756 4386696 4386675 4386663 4386452 4386452 4386430 4386200 4386190 4386200 4386190 4386183 4386183 4386183 4386150 4382928 Appendix A #: Plants .:In:;.50'x50' <10 10-100 10-100 10-100 10-100 10-100 10-100 10-100 10-100 10-100 <10 <10 10-100 <10 <10 10-100 <10 10-100 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 100-500 10-100 10-100 10-100 <10 9/23/2008 Appendix A. Species, location and number of weeks along the Marathon Trunk pipeline Plant- Code : 'Zone : Fasting _. =Northing #..-.,P- latt6in 50:'x50' .. CIVU 12S 743118 4382928 <10 CYOF 12S 743071 4382788 10-100 CYOF 12S 743123 4382685 <10 CYOF 128 743138 4382645 <10 CYOF 128 743125 4382624 <10 CYOF 12S 743051 4382031 <10 VETH 12S 742715 4380150 <10 VETH 128 742707 4380133 CYOF 128 742641 4380034 10-100 CYOF 128 742687 4380149 VETH 12S 742694 4380219 CYOF 12S 742521 4381193 <10 CYOF 12S 742521 4381060 <10 CYOF 128 742532 4380945 <10 CYOF 128 742539 4380806 <10 CYOF 12S 742582 4380502 <10 CYOF 128 742620 4380400 <10 CYOF 128 742737 4380217 <10 CIAR4 128 742745 4380217 10-100 CIAR4 12S 742751 4380205 CIAR4 12S 742644 4379311 10-100 VETH 128 742644 4379311 10-100 CYOF 12S 742561 4379250 <10 CYOF 12S 742854 4379336 <10 CYOF 12S 742821 4379392 <10 CYOF 12S 738987 4387643 <10 BRTE 128 739782 4387091 10-100 BRTE 12S 739759 4387006 CIVU 12S 739014 4387146 <10 VETH 12S 739758 4387019 <10 VETH 128 735797 4386992 VETH 128 739755 4386978 <10 BRTE 12S 739752 4386963 10-100 BRTE 12S 739751 4386927 CYOF 12S 739747 4386841 <10 CYOF 12S 739745 4386811 <10 VETH 128 739745 4386811 <10 CYOF 12S 739742 4386787 <10 CYOF 12S 739773 4386732 <10 CYOF 12S 739809 4386679 CYOF 12S 739800 4386603 10-100 CYOF 128 739898 4386579 VETH 12S 739930 4386550 <10 VETH 12S 740028 4386478 10-100 VETH 12S 740084 4386460 WestWater Engineering Appendix A 9/23/2008 Appendix A. Species, location and number of weeks along the Marathon Trunk pipeline Plant Code VETH CYOF VETH CYOF CYOF CYOF VETH C1VU CYOF CYOF BRTE BRTE CYOF CYOF Zone 12S _Fasting, 740482 Northing_ 4286191 # PIants in 50x50' 12S 12S 12S 12S 128 12S 12S 128 12S 12S 12S 12S 12S 740482 740522 740522 743147 743204 743194 743086 743064 743022 742975 742610 742693 742679 4286191 4386168 4386168 4382592 4382379 4382334 4382070 4382041 4382008 4381930 4381463 4380288 4380384 10-100 10-100 10-100 10-100 10-100 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 CYOF CYOF CYOF CYOF CYOF VETH BRTE VETH CANU4, CIVU, CYOF CYOF 128 12S 12S 12S 128 12S 12S 12S 12S 742675 742577 742573 742546 742538 742538 739805 739471 740362 4380392 4380583 4380628 4380950 4381005 4381205 4388672 4387746 4386010 10-100 <10 <10 <10 <10 <50 CYOF BRTE VETH CANU4 CANU4 CANU4 CANU4 CANU4 CANU4 CYOF 12S 128 12S 12S 128 12S 12S 12S 12S 12S 128 740528 740756 740533 740526 740555 740554 740556 740571 740573 740575 740781 4386105 4385602 4386084 4386073 4386043 4386038 4386030 4386024 4386021 4386022 4385563 <10 <50 1 1 1 1 1 1 <10 CYOF 12S 740868 4385524 CYOF CYOF 12S 12S 740891 740918 4385494 4385445 <10 CYOF CYOF CYOF BRTE 12S 12S 12S 12S 740936 740966 740980 741019 4385413 _ 4385350 4385325 4385218 <10 <10 BRTE CYOF CYOF CYOF WestWater Engineering 123 12S 12S 12S 741049 741097 741195 741260 4385090 4385030 4385005 4385039 Appendix A <50 9/23/2008 Appendix A. Species, location and number of weeks along the Marathon Trunk pipeline Plant Code —_ Zone Easting ' . Northing Ming #;Plants in 50'x50' CIVU 12S 741294 4385033 <10 CYOF 12S 741315 4385024 <20 CYOF 12S 741340 4385050 <10 CYOF 128 741355 4385047 <10 VETH 12S 741374 4385053 10-100 CYOF 12S 741381 4385055 >500 CYOF 12S 741477 4385049 CYOF 12S 741495 4385018 10-100 CYOF 12S 741548 4384943 CYOF 12S 741572 4384923 10-100 BRIE 12S 741788 4384761 CYOF 12S 741795 4384709 <10 BRIE 12S 741843 4384533 CYOF 128 741892 4384591 10-100 CYOF 12S 741927 4384546 CYOF 12S 741991 4384223 10-100 CYOF 12S 742001 4384112 10-100 CIVU 12S 742193 4383661 10-100 CYOF 12S 742201 4383670 >500 CYOF 12S 742265 4383577 CYOF 12S 742336 4383461 <10 CYOF 12S 742355 4383442 10-100 CYOF 12S 742437 4383446 CYOF 12S 742531 4383492 <10 SOTR 12S 742686 4383493 10-100 CYOF 12S 742776 4383379 <10 CAN U4 12S 742840 4383311 <10 CYOF 12S 742846 4383299 <10 CIVU 12S 743088 4383050 <10 WestWater Engineering Appendix A 9/23/2008 NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR MARATHON OIL COMPANY GARFIELD COUNTY, CO. Prepared by Puller & Girard, Inc. August, 2007 INTRODUCTION: This plan is intended to be used as a guide for the management of Garfield County and State of Colorado designated noxious weeds on land leased, owned or managed by Marathon Oil Company in Garfield County, Colorado. Priority will be given to eradication of Garfield County designated noxious weeds. (See attached list). A Noxious Weed Inventory of will be performed on each proposed construction site as they are submitted to Garfield County for approval. The results, including a map of any infestations will accompany this document. Site specific control measures will also be included. This Weed Management Plan will emphasize prevention and early detection of noxious weeds which may occur on disturbed areas. I. Inventory and Mapping A visual inspection of the proposed project will be performed prior to the approval process. A map of the area will be included. The area will be re -inspected annually and if found, new weed infestations will be added to the map rising GPS coordinates. II. Prevention One of the best ways to prevent noxious weed from becoming established is to re - vegetate all newly disturbed areas with competitive species of plants as soon after disturbance as feasible. Seed mixtures for revegetation will be designated by Marathon Oil Company with the assistance of the Natural Resources Conservation Service or Colorado State University Cooperative Exstension Note: The recommended seed mixtures should be applied with a broadcast seeder followed by harrowing with a sharp- toothed harrow to achieve a cover depth of 1/4 to 2 inches. Drill seeding and/or hydroseeding may be utilized in some areas. If mulch is used it should be Certified weed -free straw or hay or packaged hydro mulch. Revegetation projects will be evaluated one year after completion for effectiveness. Ell. Treatment Priority will be given to Garfield County listed noxious weeds. Herbicide treatments will be approved by the Regulatory Specialist for Marathon Oil Company. All herbicide treatments will be performed by Colorado Departtnent of Agriculture licensed personnel using approved herbicides. Product label directions will be strictly adhered to. Special precautions to protect sensitive vegetation, surface and ground water resources will include: 1, No herbicide applications when wind exceeds 10 mph to reduce the chance of drift and related damage to non -target plants. 2. Only aquatic labeled herbicides will be used near surface water and wetlands. 3. l3areground herbicides will not be applied if heavy rainfall is expected to occur on the same day to reduce the chances of the product moving off-site. Methods' of Treatment: eatment: Chemical: Due to the nature of average weed infestations, chemical treatments will be the most effective and cost efficient. Herbicides will be applied by truck mounted power sprayers, ATVs and/or backpack sprayers as appropriate for each individual situation. Specific herbicides and application rates for commonly occurring noxious weeds are included in the attached document (Appendix A). Herbicide treatments of noxious weeds, if necessary, are expected to begin in the month of June at this elevation and continue thru August. Mechanical: Annual and Biennial noxious weeds may be controlled by chopping the root below ground level with a shovel or hoe. This tnethod can be used by Marathon field personnel when individual plants or small infestations are encountered. Evaluation of Treatments and Follow-up Treatments All treatments will be evaluated for efficacy in the fall and re -treatment will be perforrned if necessary. Inspections will be conducted throughout the spraying season and any new findings will be added to the GPS mapping system. TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: BIENNIALS Bull thistle: Spray with Tordon 22 K herbicide at 1 pint per acre when plant is in the rosette stage of growth, increase rate to 1 1/2 pints when plant has bolted. Musk thistle: Saint as Bull thistle. Houndstongue: Spray with Tordon 22k herbicide at 1 %x pints per acre in the rosette stage of growth. Common mullein: Spray with Escort or Telar herbicide at 1 ounce per acre prior to bloom. Add a quality surfactant. Or spray with Tordon 22K at 1 pint per acre when plant is in rosette stage. Common burdock: Spray with Redeem herbicide at 2 quarts per acre in rosette or in early bolt stage of growth. ANNUALS Russian thistle: Spray with 2,4-D 4 ]b. Amine at 2 quarts per acre in early spring. Add a high quality surfactant. Or spray with Roundup at 2 quarts per acre in early spring. 'Cochin : Same as Russian thistle. PERENNIALS Canada thistle: Spray with Tordon 22K herbicide at 1 quart per acre when plant is in bud to bloom stage of growth or during fall regrowth. BAREGROUND TREATMENTS: Spray designated areas with a preemergent herbicide such as Sahara DG at 10 pounds per acre plus Roundup at 2 quarts per acre in early spring prior to normal periods of rainfall. • 10 2I 12 1! I 2 11 24 24 10 - Si 27 31 6 16 1p 24 77 Legend PROPOSED FACILITIES G06 GAT0.6R•2G '444 6•34.11.14 ONES: 64E5111 F110076260 I/111 740P PA. COS FIDOR ROT EURVE EC• 0E422 P24 vo Onr Pad - pp 5.43 0657 741 . 7774,445 ILA 243,r 761 .P1.06077 iX Toe.. 6.61,426 20045 513E7013 25713 ASSUMED WELL LOCATIONS TO 60074567 67 FOC F1171.1.55. OtTO TO 00 5740E0 • 41 14 0.71.1.070T146461 FOLDS 705477V710007. 343.•6°.4.1.4366 77 74 2.cry 11425-45-1 i 11 14 21 71 24 It .13 24 .• (74 16 17 4 70 13 IS :6 77 17 23 22 11 54 12 11 i 24 1 25 17 IT 22 :9 9 15 :1 10 is 10 r, 24 26 31 12 7 14 15 33 24 ) 01112 41s as on 1 13 42 7 37 22 4 15 21 26 21 5 19 21 26 31 10 15 22 27 10 11 17 25 16 21 -2; :7 /1 21 I I 12 14 I> 77 2.1 20 25 35 70 12 1116 166,44 ra•s reA 1,3 46,52611•4-• Ark 2.4 6___.^4 Marathon Oil Company V,.P9 1 Piceance Basin Well Pad and Tower Locations 45., I. PUMPING STATION The proposed Pumping Station is located just west of Parachute Creek and just north of Williams Grand Valley Gas Plant. Existing vegetation on the site includes Big sagebrush, Rabbitbrush and Wheatgrasses on the undisturbed portion. Areas which have been previously disturbed are inhabited with animal weeds such as Russian thistle and Sunflower spp. A noxious weed inventory was conducted on August 1, 2007 by Palter & Girard, Inc. The only noxious weed detected was Musk thistle (Camillus nutans). The infestation is less than 25 plants in size and will be sprayed with an appropriate herbicide prior to construction. This site will be monitored for re-infestation and follow-up treatments will be performed as necessary. Existing vegetation at Pumping Station site. II. ROCK QUA1 I Y The proposed Rock Quarry site is located at N39 33569', W108 09.884'. Existing vegetation this site features Big sagebrush, Oak, serviceberry, Snowberry, needlegrasses and Lupine. A noxious weed inventory was conducted on August 1, 2007 by Pallor & Girard, Inc. No noxious weeds were discovered on this site. After construction of the quarry, the site will be re -inventoried and mapped . If any noxious weeds are discovered, they will be treated with and appropriate herbicide. Existing vegetation at the proposed Rock Quarry Site. III. PROPOSED GAS GATHERING RIGHT-OF-WAY The proposed gas gathering system is approximately 5 miles long (see attached map) and traverses a variety of elevations and vegetation types. Most of the proposed right-of- way is through undisturbed native vegetation as shown in the photographs below. A noxious weed survey was conducted on August 1, 2007 by Pallor & Girard, Inc. Most of the accessible sections of the right-of-way were walked by the surveyor. The more difficult to access sections were entered at random intervals from roads and other pipelines and visual inspections were performed. Only a few individual noxious weed plants were encountered and physically removed by the surveyor. Plants found were Bull thistle (Cirsiunr vulgare) and Houndstounge, (Cynoglossum officianle). One small infestation of I-loundstonguc and Common mullein was found in an area that had been overgrazed (See attached map). This area will be treated with an appropriate herbicide prior to any construction on the site. The entire right-of-way will be monitored annually for new infestations of noxious weeds and timely treatments will be made if necessary. Typical native vegetation found on the right-of- way. c c ex O L7 108°11.000 W O _I} 0 0 E ▪ 0 Ea ® N w o co0 CO 0 0 a) .17 >a rtt 0 E o O m d m OO o 0 0 co0 O )I .s N ,000'TEo6£ N ,000.0£06£ 1 „U vz� • I!. • -r 0 z N.102°12.262"17. \�t d V.' \ I , . Jt 1 i ��-f-- ..._../-) Ih l ti 4. • A ti \, 1a 1 0 0 b 0 0 108°12.000' • N ,0001£o6E N ,000'OEo3E ! .�a 108°14.000' W III. A. TYPICAL VEGETATIVE COVER ON EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY The proposed gas gathering system parallels an existing pipeline right-of-way in some areas. The existing right-of-way was inspected for noxious weeds during the course of the inventory. The revegetation in these areas has not yet become established and the vegetative cover is composed mainly of grasses and annual weeds. A few individual Hounclstongue and Bull thistle plants were encountered and were hand pulled. Typical vegetative cover on the existing pipeline. The information referenced below is contained in the Stormwater Management Plan approved for the CDPH&E Stormwater Discharge General Permit Certification No.COR-037959; Appendix B, Reclamation Plan: Re -vegetation The Contractor will be responsible for seeding the construction workspace, temporary use areas and off -construction workspace ancillary sites using the preferred seed mix, appropriate seeding methods, and approved application rates. The seeding requirements and scheduling of reclamation activities will be determined in coordination with BLM or fee -landowner. Species Selection and Sources Selection of grass and shrub species for revegetation will be based on pre - construction community composition and soil types, as well as establishment potential, soil stabilizing qualities, post -construction land use objectives, and BLM and fee -landowner recommendations. Native species will be utilized on BLM lands and native species will be utilized to the extent possible on fee -lands unless non - natives are specifically requested by a fee -landowner. Project seed will be certified weed -free and will be purchased from and blended by qualified producers and dealers. Seed mixes will be purchased from commercial seed vendors and must be state - certified weed -free mixtures. Seed bag tags will be collected and submitted to the BLM and appropriate county to confirm that the seed was purchased from a commercial seed vendor and was tested and certified. Seeding rate will be listed as pounds per acre of pure live seed (PLS). The Contractor will be responsible for providing all seed tags to the Environmental Inspector at the end of each day. The Environmental Inspector will provide seed tags and stationing seeded to the Environmental Manager who will provide the seed tags and stationing seeded to the BLM or county. Approved seed mixes, rates, and application areas are identified in Attachment 1. Seed Application Rates and Viability Seeding rates will be determined in PLS pounds per acre and seeds per square foot based on drilled application rates. Broadcast seeding rates will be twice the drill rate. Seed will be used within 12 months of testing to assure seed viability. If additional seeding is required in the year following construction, additional viability tests will be conducted to determine any need for adjustment of application rates. Wetlands will not be seeded. Successful recolonization by wetland species is generally related to effective topsoil salvage methods and sources of seed and rhizomes in adjacent areas. Streambanks will be seeded immediately upon completion of final cleanup as described in the Waterbody Crossing and Wetland Protection Plan. Seeding Methods and Procedures The Contractor will employ broadcast or drill seeding as determined in the field by the Environmental Compliance Inspector. Seeding activities will be contingent upon weather and soil conditions, and subject to evaluation by the Environmental Inspector. Seeding will not be permitted if there is more than 2 inches of snow on the ground unless approved by the Environmental Inspector and BLM Authorized Officer or field representative. Drill Seeding Drill seeding is the preferred seeding method and will be employed wherever soil characteristics and slope allow effective operation of a rangeland seed drill. Drill seeding will be performed perpendicular to the slope. Seed will be placed in direct contact with the soil at an average depth of 0.5 -inches, covered with soil, and firmed to eliminate air pockets around the seeds. Seed will be applied using a rangeland seed drill with a seed release and agitation mechanism sufficient to allow seeds of various sizes and densities to be planted at the proper seeding depth. Broadcast Seeding Broadcast seeding will be employed only in areas where drill seeding is unsafe or physically impossible. Seed will be applied using manually operated cyclone -bucket spreaders, mechanical spreaders, or blowers. Seed will be uniformly broadcast over disturbed areas. Broadcast application rates will be twice that of drill rates. Immediately after broadcasting, the seed will be uniformly raked, chained, dragged, or cultipacked to incorporate seed to a sufficient seeding depth. If the area is seeded prior to a soil crust forming, harrowing or raking may not be necessary. If any questions exist concerning the information referenced above please contact Chris Gauthier (Field Environmental Engineer) of Enterprise Products Operating, LLC directly at 303-330-7952 or through e-mail at cagauthier@epco.com. Reclamation Plan Reclamation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Goals and Objectives 1 2.0 Vegetative Clearing and Topsoil Salvage 1 2.1 Clearing 1 2.2 Topsoil Conservation 2 3.0 Reclamation Process 2 3.1 Agricultural Features 3 3.1 Rock Disposal 3 3.2 Final Cleanup 3 3.3 Topsoil Restoration 3 3.4 Permanent Erosion Control 4 3.5 Rock and Vegetative Debris 4 3.6 Seedbed Preparation 4 3.7 Soil Supplements 4 3.8 Revegetation 5 3.8.1 Species Selection and Sources 5 3.8.2 Seed Application Rates and Viability 5 3.8.3 Seeding Methods and Procedures 5 3.8.3.1 Drill Seeding 6 3.8.3.2 Broadcast Seeding 6 3.9 Grazing 6 4.0 Reclamation Schedule and Documentation 6 5.0 Post -Construction Monitoring and Evaluation 7 5.1 Revegetation and Erosion Control Monitoring 7 5.1.1 Monitoring Agricultural Fields 7 5.1.2 Evaluating Reclamation Success 7 5.2 Post -Construction Reporting 8 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1—Approved Seed Mixes, Rates, and Application Areas Collbran Pipeline Project August 2007 Reclamation Plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Reclamation Plan (plan) describes measures to be taken by EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. (EnCana) and its contractors (Contractor) for vegetative clearing, topsoil salvage and restoration, reseeding, and reclamation monitoring. Measures identified in this plan apply to work within the project area defined as the construction workspace, temporary use areas, and other areas used during construction of the project. EnCana and Contractor personnel are to be thoroughly familiar with this plan and its contents prior to initiating construction on the project. 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this plan is to describe prescribed methods for vegetative clearing, topsoil salvage, topsoil replacement, reseeding, and monitoring for reclamation success. This plan will be developed as the implementing document for relevant mitigation measures contained in the Environmental Assessment and may be updated prior to construction to ensure that all mitigation measures have been included. 1.2 Goals and Objectives The short-term objectives of reclamation are to control erosion and sedimentation and to minimize impacts to adjacent land uses. Properly executed construction practices and optimum scheduling will mitigate short-term impacts. Long-term objectives include controlling erosion and sedimentation, protecting water resources and soils, limiting the introduction and spread of noxious weeds, and returning disturbed areas to pre-existing condition. Monitoring during construction and post -construction will ensure that these goals are achieved. 2.0 VEGETATIVE CLEARING AND TOPSOIL SALVAGE 2.1 Clearing Vegetation will be cleared and the construction workspace graded to provide for safe and efficient operation of construction equipment and inspection vehicles, and to provide space for the storage of subsoil and topsoil. Construction activity and ground disturbance will be limited to approved, staked areas. Trees will be cut with a chain saw and/or mechanical shears and brush will be generally cut with a hydro -axe or similar equipment. Trees and brush will be cut as close to the ground as possible. Vegetative material will typically be chipped or shredded and incorporated into the topsoil. Stumps that are not shredded or chipped and incorporated into the topsoil will be removed and disposed of at an approved disposal facility. Collbran Pipeline Project 1 August 2007 Reclamation Plan 2.2 Topsoil Conservation Topsoil will be salvaged where required by the BLM and fee-Iandowners and protected along most of the pipeline route to facilitate revegetation of the construction workspace after construction is complete. Topsoil will be segregated using one of the following methods: from either the full -work area (full -construction workspace method), from the trenchline only (trenchline only method), or from the trenchline and working side (trench and working side method). On any lands requiring grading, the topsoil will be stripped from the entire portion of the construction workspace that requires grading. On BLM lands, all available topsoil up to a depth of 6 inches will be removed from the trenchline and working side of the workspace. On any lands requiring grading, the topsoil will be stripped from the entire portion of the workspace that requires grading. On fee -lands, topsoil will generally be stripped up to a depth of 6 inches from the trenchline; however, at the fee -landowner's request, more than 6 inches of topsoil may be salvaged and/or topsoil will be salvaged across the full -width of the construction workspace or a portion thereof. On any lands requiring grading, the topsoil will be stripped from the entire portion of the construction workspace that requires grading. Up to 12 inches of topsoil will be stripped across the full -width of the construction workspace in irrigated agricultural lands. Fee -landowner requirements are listed in the Fee -Lands Line List included as Attachment 2 of the Plan of Development. Topsoil will be stockpiled separate from subsoil and will not be used to pad the trench or construct trench breakers. Dry drainages or washes that cross the construction workspace will not be blocked with topsoil or subsoil piles. Topsoil and subsoil will be placed on the banks of the drainage. Gaps will be left periodically in the topsoil and subsoil windowed to avoid ponding and excess diversion of natural runoff during storm events. 3.0 RECLAMATION PROCESS After the final installation of the pipeline, all disturbed portions of the construction workspace (including the construction workspace, travel lane, and temporary use areas) will be returned to pre -construction grades and contours. Topsoil will then be replaced over the right-of-way from the approximate area in which it was stripped. Revegetation will be the primary method to stabilize soils and ensure permanent erosion control over the long term. Every effort will be made to complete final cleanup and installation of permanent erosion control measures within 30 days after final backfilling is completed. The following sections outline the pre -construction planning and sequential steps for restoring the construction workspace and temporary use areas following installation of the pipe and backfilling of the trench. Collbran Pipeline Project August2007 Reclamation Plan 3.1 Agricultural Features All irrigation ditches, cattle guards, fences, and artificial and natural livestock and wildlife water sources will be maintained and repaired to at least pre -construction conditions. Temporary measures will be provided, as agreed with the fee -landowner or BLM, for any of these facilities that are disrupted during the construction or reclamation process. BLM fence specifications are included in Attachment 3 of the Plan of Development. 3.1 Rock Disposal Excess rock is defined as all rock that cannot be returned to the existing rock profile in the trench or graded cuts, or is not needed to restore the construction workspace to a condition comparable to that found adjacent to the construction workspace. Excess rock will be randomly distributed across the construction workspace, piled or windrowed to create or enhance wildlife habitat, or arranged to block use of the reclaimed construction workspace by motor vehicles. If not practical, the Contractor will remove other excess rock from the construction workspace and haul it to an approved disposal site. EnCana will coordinate with fee -landowners or the BLM regarding the methods of disposal. On irrigated agricultural lands, rocks will be removed from at least the top 12 inches of soil and diligent efforts will be made to remove stones greater than 4 inches in any dimension if the off - construction workspace areas do not contain stones greater than 4 inches in any dimension. Requirements for rock removal may vary between fee -landowners and will be listed in the Fee - Lands Line List, included in Attachment 2 of the Plan of Development. 3.2 Final Cleanup Within 30 days after backfilling the trench, the Contractor will make every effort to complete final cleanup and installation of permanent erosion control structures. The construction workspace and other project -related areas where soil has been disturbed will be restored as close to pre -construction grades, compaction, and other conditions as possible. No solid waste, rock, trash, or vegetative debris will be buried on the construction workspace. Irrigated agricultural lands are of special concern and require precise re -contouring and trench compaction to return fields to pre -construction conditions. The Contractor will work closely with fee -landowners to ensure irrigated agricultural lands are effectively restored. Final compaction of disturbed areas will be returned to approximate pre -construction conditions. Any compacted areas, including but not limited to the travel lane, will be decompacted. Compacted areas will be decompacted with a scarifier to a depth of 6 to 10 inches prior to topsoil replacement and seeding. Compacted areas on irrigated agricultural land where topsoil was not salvaged will be decompacted to a depth of 18 inches using a paraplow or other deep tillage implement so as not to mix topsoil and subsoil horizons. 3.3 Topsoil Restoration After the trench has been backfilled and the construction workspace regraded, the Contractor will Collbran Pipeline Project 3 August 2007 Reclamation Plan redistribute topsoil to the approximate location from which it was originally removed. Restored topsoil will be left in a roughened condition to discourage erosion and enhance the quality of the seedbed. Topsoil will not be handled during excessively wet or frozen conditions. Topsoil will be redistributed as close to original salvage depths as possible. Segregation of subsoil and topsoil will be maintained throughout final cleanup procedures. The Contractor will be responsible for replacement of lost or degraded (mixed) topsoil with topsoil imported from an EnCana-approved and certified weed -free source. Additional erosion control and soil stabilization will be required in areas adjacent to or within drainages. See the Stormwater Management Plan and the Waterbody Crossing and Wetland Protection Plan for additional information. 3.4 Permanent Erosion Control Permanent erosion control methods will be utilized as needed for stabilization of slopes and soils as described in the Stormwater Management Plan. Permanent erosion control measures will be installed within 30 days after the trench is backfilled to aid in site stabilization wherever required. 3.5 Rock and Vegetative Debris Vegetative mulch and excess rock may be used to reduce erosion potential by providing additional surface relief structure. In areas with a pre-existing rocky surface material, the Contractor will spread rock over the construction workspace to maintain a surface appearance similar to that of adjacent undisturbed terrain. Suitable sites include naturally rocky slopes and areas that have a natural gravel, cobble, or boulder veneer on the surface. Suitable sites will be determined in conjunction with the BLM or the fee -landowner. On BLM lands and where approved by the fee -landowner, the Contractor will randomly distribute any windrowed trees, shrubs or other remaining vegetation debris over the construction workspace. Straw mulch or equivalent will be applied as discussed in the Stormwater Management Plan. 3.6 Seedbed Preparation The Contractor will scarify, till, or harrow the seedbed to a depth of 3 to 4 inches prior to seeding where needed to improve revegetation potential. Those sites where seedbed preparation is not practical (e.g., steep slopes, rocky areas, etc.) will be left with adequate roughness following topsoil replacement to create micro -environments for seed germination and growth, and to reduce the potential for soil movement. 3.7 Soil Supplements Generally, fertilizer will not be used unless requested by the fee -landowner. At this time, no Collbran Pipeline Project August 2007 Reclamation Plan areas have been identified that require fertilizer. 3.8 Revegetation The Contractor will be responsible for seeding the construction workspace, temporary use areas and off -construction workspace ancillary sites using EnCana-supplied seed mixes, appropriate seeding methods, and approved application rates. The seeding requirements and scheduling of reclamation activities will be determined in coordination with BLM or fee -landowner. 3.8.1 Species Selection and Sources Selection of grass and shrub species for revegetation will be based on pre -construction community composition and soil types, as well as establishment potential, soil stabilizing qualities, post -construction land use objectives, and BLM and fee -landowner recommendations. Native species will be utilized on BLM lands and native species will be utilized to the extent possible on fee -lands unless non -natives are specifically requested by a fee -landowner. Project seed will be certified weed -free and will be purchased from and blended by qualified producers and dealers. Seed mixes will be purchased from commercial seed vendors and must be state -certified weed - free mixtures. Seed bag tags will be collected and submitted to the BLM and appropriate county to confirm that the seed was purchased from a commercial seed vendor and was tested and certified. Seeding rate will be listed as pounds per acre of pure live seed (PLS). The Contractor will be responsible for providing all seed tags to the Environmental Inspector at the end of each day. The Environmental Inspector will provide seed tags and stationing seeded to the Environmental Manager who will provide the seed tags and stationing seeded to the BLM or county. Approved seed mixes, rates, and application areas are identified in Attachment 1. 3.8.2 Seed Application Rates and Viability Seeding rates will be determined in PLS pounds per acre and seeds per square foot based on drilled application rates. Broadcast seeding rates will be twice the drill rate. Seed will be used within 12 months of testing to assure seed viability. If additional seeding is required in the year following construction, additional viability tests will be conducted to determine any need for adjustment of application rates. Wetlands will not be seeded. Successful recolonization by wetland species is generally related to effective topsoil salvage methods and sources of seed and rhizomes in adjacent areas. Streambanks will be seeded immediately upon completion of final cleanup as described in the Waterbody Crossing and Wetland Protection Plan. 3.8.3 Seeding Methods and Procedures The Contractor will employ broadcast or drill seeding as determined in the field by EnCana. Seeding activities will be contingent upon weather and soil conditions, and subject to evaluation by the Environmental Inspector. Seeding will not be permitted if there is more than 2 inches of Collbran Pipeline Project 5 August 2007 Reclamation Plan snow on the ground unless approved by the Environmental Inspector and BLM Authorized Officer or field representative. 3.8.3.1 Drill Seeding Drill seeding is the preferred seeding method and will be employed wherever soil characteristics and slope allow effective operation of a rangeland seed drill. Drill seeding will be performed perpendicular to the slope. Seed will be placed in direct contact with the soil at an average depth of 0.5 -inches, covered with soil, and firmed to eliminate air pockets around the seeds. Seed will be applied using a rangeland seed drill with a seed release and agitation mechanism sufficient to allow seeds of various sizes and densities to be planted at the proper seeding depth. 3.8.3.2 Broadcast Seeding Broadcast seeding will be employed only in areas where drill seeding is unsafe or physically impossible. Seed will be applied using manually operated cyclone -bucket spreaders, mechanical spreaders, or blowers. Seed will be uniformly broadcast over disturbed areas. Broadcast application rates will be twice that of drill rates. Immediately after broadcasting, the seed will be uniformly raked, chained, dragged, or cultipacked to incorporate seed to a sufficient seeding depth. If the area is seeded prior to a soil crust forming, harrowing or raking may not be necessary. 3.9 Grazing Prior to and during construction, EnCana will keep grazing allotment permittees on BLM lands and ranchers on fee -lands informed regarding schedules to allow them ample opportunity to move livestock away from the construction workspace. Gates and fences will be installed along the construction workspace as required. Hard or soft plugs wilI be left or installed to allow livestock to cross to either side of the construction workspace during construction. Gates, fences, and cattle guards will be repaired or replaced after construction as agreed to with the fee - landowner or BLM. These facilities will be left in as good as or better shape than the pre - construction condition. Fences crossed by the pipeline and cattle guards or gates on access roads or within the construction workspace damaged during construction on BLM lands will be rebuilt or replaced in accordance with BLM specifications. BLM specifications are included in Attachment 3 of the Plan of Development. Fences will be properly braced prior to cutting and the permittee or rancher will be provided the opportunity to be present when the fence is cut and repaired. Riparian areas on BLM lands will be fenced until reclamation is successful. Fence will be installed around the incised banks and channel with a sufficient gap to allow for passage of wildlife or livestock up or down the channel. 4.0 RECLAMATION SCHEDULE AND DOCUMENTATION Reclamation activities will be determined in part by construction schedules and seasonal climatic conditions. Seeding and planting will be coordinated with other reclamation activities to occur as 6 Col!bran Pipeline Project August 2007 Reclamation Plan soon after seedbed preparation as possible. Upon completion of reclamation, EnCana's Construction Inspector, Environmental Inspector, and Land Agent will perform a final inspection of the construction workspace and ancillary facilities to verify that pre -construction commitments have been satisfied. A copy of the post - reclamation inspection form will be transmitted to the Contractor if any deficiencies or a need for remedial action is noted. 5.0 POST -CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND EVALUATION 5.1 Revegetation and Erosion Control Monitoring During the first growing season following construction and reclamation, EnCana will conduct intensive surveys to assess revegetation success, evaluate erosion control measures, and determine the need for further reclamation. Revegetation monitoring will include evaluation of the following parameters as compared to adjacent (off -construction workspace) vegetation: • percent total herbaceous cover (seeded species plus desirable volunteers), • new or expanded populations of noxious weeds, and • species composition. Areas with poor germination and/or growth will be evaluated to determine, if possible, the cause of the problem. Reclamation techniques will be modified as necessary to address any identified problems and appropriate remedial measures will be undertaken. The Contractor will be responsible for remediating any problem areas identified by EnCana for the first growing season following construction. Thereafter, EnCana will be responsible for obtaining a reclamation contractor to perform any necessary work. Erosion control monitoring will be performed in response to significant weather events and/or concurrently with the revegetation monitoring during the first year following construction. Success criteria for both are discussed in Section 5.1.2. Both erosion control and revegetation monitoring will be conducted routinely throughout the life of the pipeline to evaluate long-term survival of reestablished vegetation and the effectiveness of erosion control measures with specific attention to problem sites. 5.1.1 Monitoring Agricultural Fields EnCana will periodically monitor irrigation ditches and irrigated agricultural fields for two years following construction to ensure that field flow characteristics have been maintained. The Contractor will be notified if any remedial work is required. 5.1.2 Evaluating Reclamation Success EnCana is responsible for the stability and revegetation of all areas disturbed as a result of construction for the life of the pipeline. As discussed in Section 5.1, EnCana will conduct Collbran Pipeline Project 7 August 2007 Reclamation Plan intensive monitoring after the first growing season and routinely thereafter to assess soil stability and revegetation success. The Contractor will reseed any portion of the construction workspace that does not exhibit 50 percent total herbaceous cover (comprised of seeded species plus desirable volunteers) relative to adjacent (off -construction workspace) vegetation after the first complete growing season. Additional seeding will be completed during the next seeding season (fall or spring). In the event that first year revegetation is affected by precipitation amounts significantly below the annual average, EnCana may request deferment of additional seeding activities until the following seeding window. The reclaimed construction workspace will be considered stable when the surface appears similar to adjacent undisturbed land and the following accelerated erosion indicators do not exist: • perceptible soil movement (exceeding pre -construction conditions), • flow pattern development resulting in rills or gullies greater than 12 inches in depth , or • trench subsidence or slumping. Revegetation will be considered successful when the following criteria are met: • total herbaceous (seeded species plus desirable volunteers) cover is at least 70 percent of that on adjacent land, and • species composition is comprised of a mix of seeded species and desirable volunteers from adjacent communities. 5.2 Post -Construction Reporting EnCana will include a discussion of soil stability, vegetation success, noxious weed status and control treatments, and identified problems as part of a post -construction activity report to be submitted annually to the BLM until success criteria for all sites are met. Col'bran Pipeline Project August 2007 Reclamation Plan—Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT I—APPROVED SEED MIXES, RATES, and APPLICATION AREAS Collbran Pipeline Project August 2007 M117/Y4S4 A*--411111L6A, Rig Y i G:MU CMTI0,1 ANAgE11EN'i, 1038 Cowry Rd 323=\\ RiFIE, C0131650 Enterprise Gas Processing, LLC Marathon Gathering System- Development Plan Review for Right- of-Way ight- ofWay Application Submittal Item Tab 15- Emergency Response Plan 9.07.04 (14). Please see attached the "Emergency Response Plan- County Plan- Marathon Pipeline - Garfield County, Colorado." This document was submitted to David Blair with the Grand Valley Fire Protection District, Nick Marx with Debeque Fire Protection District and Chris Bomholdt- Emergency Operations Commander- Garfield County Local Emergency Planning Committee with the Garfield County Sheriff's Department. The 20" pipeline South of Section 33, Township 5 South, Range 96 West is within the Debeque Fire Protection District. The Jackrabbit Compressor Station located in Section 33, Township 5 South, Range 96 West and the 16" pipeline North of this location is within the Grand Valley Fire Protection District. The pipeline staging areas near Una are both located within the Grand Valley Fire Protection District. Prior to start of pipeline construction, an on-site preconstruction meeting shall be held and David Blair and Nick Marx shall be invited to attend and to speak regarding emergency response and the Grand Valley Fire Protection District and Debeque Fire Protection District. As per 9.07.04 (14), Enterprise Gas Processing, LLC agrees to reimburse the Grand Valley Fire Protection District and/or the Debeque Fire Protection District for costs incurred in connection with emergency response for the operator's activities at the site. Page 1 of 2 Thank you for your assistance on this project. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely Philip B. Vaughan President PVCMI-Land Planning Division Page 2 of 2 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC ETIVI COUNTY PLAN Marathon Pipeline GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO In Case of Emergency or an Uncontrolled Release Contact our Control Center 1-800-331-30321 1-800-546-3482 Enterprise Products Operating LLC Marathon Pipeline - Garfield County, Colorado Emergency Response Plan OVERVIEW Enterprise Products Operating LLC operates an interstate pipeline and/or facility in your county. The Emergency Response Plan is to assist you in planning and responding to a suspected or actual emergency on the mainline or at a facility. As in every emergency response the safety of responding personnel is critical, as the products carried in the pipeline are highly volatile when released. With this in mind, it is critical for emergency responders to train their personnel proper response to a suspected or actual emergency. The initial size up should be conducted rh mile upwind or crosswind from the site if detailed information from the site is unavailable. Pipeline Control will close any automated valves and local personnel will close manual valves as needed to mitigate any release. Emergency Responders are asked not to operate valves. Enterprise Products Operating LLC provides a copy the Emergency Response Plan to the following agencies as applicable. • County LEPC • Emergency Management Coordinators • County Sheriff / Emergency Communication Center (County) • Fire Protection Districts or Departments (with first due response) • State Patrol • City Police Enterprise Products Operating LLC requests you review the contents of the Emergency Response Plan with your agency personnel. Your agency may be asked to respond to any situation beyond the control of local Enterprise Employees or in situations where the closest Enterprise employee is several miles from the emergency. This may include, but not limited to - a release of product from a Pressure Relieving Device; product present within a facility or on a right of way from small devices or flanges; chemical spills or medical emergencies, an uncontrolled release of product from the pipeline; suspected criminal or terrorist activities and fire or explosions. Enterprise Products Operating LLC may meet with emergency responders during Pipeline Association Meetings, County LEPC Meetings, facility visits and drills. Emergency Responders are encouraged to contact the local Enterprise Products Operating LLC facility to assist in pre -planning and department meetings. This document is "control" with a revision date in the footer; any revision will reference the revision numbers. As revisions are received please replace the pages as applicable. For additional information contact the Area Safety Department. Emergency Response Plan Revised 05/05, Rev 0