HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 Land Use Change Permit 6.10.11.pdf111114 iRNMINNOW I iVINIKIWTRAilfiti 11 11 1
Reception#; 804122
06/2012011 03:40:34 PM Jan Alberico
1 of 9 Rec Fee:$0.0O Doc Fee :0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT
to
Enterprise Gas Processing, LLC
for the
Piceance Creek Pipeline Loop 36" Natural Gas
Pipeline
(County Project No. PDPA 6829)
In accordance with and pursuant to Article IX of the Garfield County Unified Land Use
Resolution of 2008, as amended, the Director of the Building and Planning Department
hereby authorizes, by this Administrative Pipeline Development Permit, the following
activity:
A 3.09 mile pipeline corridor that will encornpass a 36-
inch natural gas pipeline needed for Enterprise Gas
Processing, LLC that is situated in Sections 22, 27, and
34, Township 4 South, Range 96 West, Garfield County
Colorado.
This Land Use Change Permit is issued subject to the Biological Resource Report Sensitive
Areas Report's (March 2011) wildlife recommendations attached as Exhibit A and
conditions set forth in Exhibit B (attached hereto), and shall be valid only during compliance
with such conditions and other applicable provisions of the Garfield County Unified Land
Use Resolution of 2008, the Building Code, and other regulations of the Board of County
Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado.
BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT,
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Fred A. Jarman, AIC
Building & Planning De
ment, Director
Dat
Exhibit A
Results: No fish habitat exists in the project area; no fish inventories were conducted.
4.6 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species of Plants (TESS)
The occurrence and distribution of IESS plants are strongly influenced by geologic formations
and the resulting soil types present in an area, Individual TESS plant populations are usually
scattered and often are comprised of a small number of individual plants. This is primarily a
result of specific soil and moisture requirements of each species and the high variability in the
distribution and surface exposure of the layers within the suitable geologic formations.
Results: The nearest known potential habitat for any T'SS plant is approximately nine miles
north of the GarfieldfRio Blanco county line; no TESS habitat occurs in Garfield County in the
project area.
4.7 Waters of the United States (WOUS)
WOUS include water features likely to be within the jurisdiction of the ACOE under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. Jurisdictional waters may include drainage courses (e.g., streams or _
ephemeral drainages that connect to streams via surface flow or subsurface connection), ponds,
lakes, wetlands, and springs.
4.7.1 Procedures
Drainages indicated by blue lines on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps were
compared with Enterprise project maps to determine which drainages might be impacted by
pipeline construction activity. Those drainages were located, photographed, and recorded.
Evidence of an OHWM was noted. Additional potential jurisdictional drainages which were
encountered during field surveys but not necessarily indicated on topographic maps or having an
ordinary high water mark (OHWM), were also recorded. Three photos were taken of each
potential ACOE drainage - up slope, down slope, and at a point where the alignment may
intersect it.
WWE biologists surveyed the area for potential wetlands, springs, and seeps along drainages and
upland areas. Hydrology, soil, and vegetation characteristics were used to determine potential
wetlands. Each potential wetland was photographed and the location was recorded for future
delineation and verification by ACOE.
Results: No WOUS or wetlands were observed in the Garfield County portion of the project. In
the Garfield County portion of the proposed alignment, the pipeline remains on top of the ridge
and does not intersect any drainages.
5.0 IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 General Wildlife Impacts and Recommendations
Project construction will affect on-site wildlife habitat and native vegetation. Locating the
pipeline within an adjacent existing pipeline corridor will lessen the potential effects to wildlife.
The primary effects would be habitat alteration and displacement of individuals through
disturbances related to increased development. The human disturbance that will be associated
with the pipeline construction activities will indirectly cause some wildlife species to avoid the
area, at least during the periods of human activity. Some wildlife species will become
accustomed to the human activity while maintaining a distance that is tolerable. The impact to
WestWater Engineering Page 12 of 23 - March 2011
1111 Pr, 11111111,%14L 11 11 1
Reception #: 804122
06/20/2011 03:40:34 PM Jean Rlberico
3 of 9 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
wildlife as a result of the pipeline installation and operation is relatively minimal and would not
affect the overall status of wildlife populations of the area. However, the project and its ongoing
activities will contribute to the overall cumulative impacts on wildlife populations of the area
that are experiencing gradual habitat loss, fragmentation, alteration, and displacement through
increased development.
The following recommendations for mitigation are presented for maintenance and improvement
of wildlife habitat and prevention of human- caused impacts to resources.
5.1.1 Effects on Elk and Mule Deer
The project will not significantly affect big game populations since the total area of disturbance
is small relative to the total amount of similar habitat that is available in the project area.
However, the project's disturbance to big game habitat will be cumulative to the previous habitat
alteration that has occurred in the region. Construction of the pipeline will affect on -site
vegetation and wildlife habitat by reducing the forage and cover available. Potential effects
include the short term loss of elk winter range. As a short term effect, human presence and
activities during pipeline construction may create an avoidance area for elk and mule deer
populations within and immediately adjacent to the project area. However, in some instances
deer and elk may have habituated to human disturbance factors. There will also be a short terns
loss of big game forage until disturbed sites are adequately rehabilitated with appropriate
vegetation.
5.1.1.1 Recommendations for Mule Deer and Elk
Because the proposed project lies within a sensitive area for wintering big game (as defined by
the 2009 COGCC rules), consultation with CDOW is recommended before project • development.
CDOW may recommend construction restrictions during the winter period. Disturbances
associated with construction activities will likely cause elk and mule deer to select habitats in
more secluded areas away from construction. Establishment of suitable vegetation through
reclamation may attract big game to forage within the disturbance area associated with the
project.
5.1.2 Effects on Raptors
No raptor nests are in danger of direct removal. Activities associated with the proposed project
have the potential to affect raptor populations through nesting disturbance depending on the
distance from a nest to the disturbance. Two occupied raptor nests observed (RTHA -1, RTHA-
3) are less than 0.25 miles from the proposed pipeline alignment, which is within the nesting
buffer for Red - tailed Hawks (Craig 2002, Klute 2008). During the 2011 nesting season, it is
probable that raptors will nest within the project area survey boundaries. It is also possible that
previously unoccupied nests could become occupied or new nest locations could be established
by nesting raptors before pipeline construction begins.
5.1.2.1 Recommendations for Raptors
If the project cannot be completed prior to the 2011 nesting season, the area should be re-
inventoried by qualified biologists to locate any previously known or new raptor nests that may
be affected by construction activates. If occupied nests are discovered, the potential for possible
effects to raptors could be reduced by scheduling construction activities so there is no
interference with breeding, nesting, and brood rearing of the species occupying the nest sites.
WestWater Engineering Page 13 of 23 March 2011
1111 ripnitioyok Gr IrI NyhinWiti lit IN 11111
Reception #: 804122
06/20/2011 03:40:34 PM Jean Rlberico
4 of 9 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doo Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
WWE recommends temporal and spatial restriction guidelines for construction activities near
active nests based on BLM stipulations (BLM 1997), CDOW recommendations (Craig 2002 and
Klute 2008), and literature review of nesting season timing for raptors in the Roan Plateau region
(Andrews and Righter 1992, Kingery 1998). Recommendations for the species that could
possibly nest in the project area are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6. Timing And Buffer Recommendations For Active (Occupied) Raptor Nests
^�� yr+sa. wkT, YF
�� ��:= Y'S'
eaFY'r1 3� -
American Kestrel
*
*
Bald Eagle
0.50 mile
15 October - 31 July
Cooper's Hawk
0.25 mile
1 April 15 August
Golden Eagle
0.50 mile
15 December - 15 July
Great Horned Owl
'`
Long -eared Owl
0.25 mile
1 March 15 July
Northern Harrier
0.25 mile
1 April - 15 August
Peregrine Falcon
0.50 mite
15 March - 31 July
Prairie Falcon
0.50 mile
15 March - 15 July
Red- tailed Hawk
0.33 mile
15 February - 15 July
Sharp- shinned Hawk
0.25 mile
1 April 15 August
Swainson's Hawk
0.25 mile
1 April - 15 July
'' Great Horned Owls and Kestrels are relatively tolerant of human activity. Keep activity to a minimum during breeding season.
5.1.3 Effects on Other Bird Species
The effects on foraging and nesting habitat to a small number of passerine bird species is
expected to be minimal. Vegetation that will be removed from the site is not unique and loss of
habitat will not affect overall bird populations.
5.1.3.1 Recommendations for Bird Species
In order to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, efforts to reduce potential impacts on
nesting birds should be implemented by clearing brush and trees on the project site outside of the
nesting season. Nesting season for migratory birds is generally considered to occur between
May 15 and July 31 in this area for most species. June 1 to July 15 is the peak period when most
incubation and brood rearing takes place. If brush/tree clearing can occur prior to May 1 most
affected birds will relocate to alternate nesting sites. After mid -to -late July most fledging has
occurred and brush/tree clearing impacts would be minimized. Establishment of suitable
vegetation through reclamation in cleared areas will help restore nesting and foraging habitats for
birds.
5.1.4 Effects on Black Bear and Mountain Lion
Due to low population densities and large home ranges of both black bear and mountain lion, and
because of the extensive amount of available habitat for these species, no significant effects from
this project for these species are expected.
WestWater Engineering Page 14 of 23 March 2011
111117.6NYht1imeo. 1411.1114 11 111
Reception #: 804122
06/20!2011 03:40:34 PM Jean Alberioo
5 of 9 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
5.1.4.1 Recommendation for Black Bear and Mountain Lion
No specific recommendations are required.
5.1.5 Small Mammals
The amount of available habitat for shall mammals, including bats, should not be affected
significantly by the proposed project. The amount of disturbance is not expected to affect small
mammal populations.
5.1.5.1 Recommendations for Small Mammals
No specific recommendations are required.
5.1.6 Reptiles
The amount of available habitat for reptiles should not be impacted significantly by the proposed
project. The amount of disturbance is not expected to affect reptile populations.
5.1.6.1 Recommendations for Reptiles
No specific recommendations are required.
5.1.7 Effects on Amphibians
No habitat for amphibians in the project area in Garfield County was observed during surveys.
Construction of the pipeline project in Garfield County is not expected to affect amphibian
populations.
5.1.7.1 Recommendations for Amphibians
No specific recommendations are required.
5.1.8 Effects on Endangered Fish
The Colorado pikeminnow is a federally - listed fish species that occurs in the White River.
Potential impacts from the project include sedimentation, and spills of chemicals, fuels from
equipment, or other hazardous materials.
5.1.8.1 Recommendations for Endangered Fish
East Stewart Gulch is a tributary to Piceance Creek which flows into the White River.
Controlling soil erosion and preventing accidental spills of toxic materials will help prevent
negative effects to fish species that occupy the river. The soils on the ridge top where the
pipeline is to be built exhibit a moderate degree of erosion which periodically effect silt loads
and water quality of the White River during significant runoff events. Best Management
Practices (BMPs) and Spill Prevention, Control, and Counteuneasures (SPCC) should be
followed to reduce any potential impacts to downstream fish populations and associated aquatic
environments.
5.1.9 Recommendations for Greater Sage- grouse
GrSG are likely using the sagebrush habitat in the project area for nesting and brood- rearing.
Appendix C of the Parachute- Piceance -Roan Greater Sage - grouse Conservation Plan (2008)
includes a of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to lessen the impact of gas development
activities on GrSG. The following list was extracted from the plan:
WestWater Engineering Page 15 of 23 March 2011
1111 ' N WI 11 id I i l��'G�I I�+�ICf 4+��i41�� 11111
Reception #: 804122
06/2012011 03:40:34 PM Jean Rlberico
6 of 9 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
• Within suitable sage - grouse habitat, avoid all surface disturbances within 0.6 miles of any
GrSG lek between March 15 and May 15.
• Within suitable GrSG habitat, avoid breeding/nesting season (March 15- July7).road
construction (and logically, pipeline construction), drilling and well completion within
four miles of any active or potentially active GrSG lek except when such activities would
not disrupt breeding or nesting activities, as determined in consultation with CDOW.
• Within four miles of an active or potentially active sage - grouse lek, keep total surface
disturbance within sage - grouse habitat to 1% or less. (After reclaimed lands re -grow
sufficient native vegetation they. would no longer be counted towards the calculated
percentage.)
• Place road and pipeline rights-of-way such that they avoid critical habitat and mitigate
their effects whenever possible.
• Practice reclamation techniques that speed recovery of pre - existing vegetation (e.g.,
brush- beating of sagebrush for site clearance, retention of topsoil with native seed).
• Avoid aggressive, non - native grasses (e.g., intermediate wheatgrass, pubescent
wheatgrass, crested wheatgrass, smooth brome, etc.) in reclamation seed mixes.
• Develop site specific reclamation plans and consult with CDOW on seed mixes, apply
seed most effectively during the late fall and early winter.
5.110 Other Wildlife Mitigation Practices
5.1.10.1 Erosion
Efforts to control and repair soil erosion within the project area should be implemented.
Disturbed soils within the project area are susceptible to erosion and downstream water quality
could be negatively affected by increased soil erosion. The loss of top soils can negatively affect
plant life and subsequent wildlife habitat values of the area. In addition to stormwater
management around the project site, other current factors (noxious weeds, livestock grazing,
other natural gas development) affecting soil erosion should be managed and remedial measures
implemented.
5.1.10.2 Fences
Numerous livestock fences will likely be dismantled and rebuilt as part of the pipeline
construction project. Rebuilt fences that are designed for easy passage of deer and elk can allow
these animals to utilize the native and planted vegetation for forage and move about the adjacent
areas freely as they search for food and cover. In addition, properly designed fences will prevent
deer and elk from being injured or suffering death as a result of becoming entangled as they
attempt to jump over or pass through a fence. Generally, wire fences that do not exceed 42
inches in height and have 12 -inch spacing between the top two wires will allow deer and elk to
pass over a fence without conflict. The BLM utilizes a 40 -inch maximum height specification
for livestock fencing on federal lands when deer and elk are present (BLM 1989). The
publication presented by CDOW, "Fencing with Wildlife in Mind" provides fence designs that
are friendly to wildlife and is available at the CDOW web site at
http:/ /wildlife. state. co .us /NR/rdonlyresB0D65D61 -6CB0- 4746 -94Fr 1-
6EE194E1 C230 /0 /fencing.pdf.
WestWater Engineering Page 16 of 23 March 2011
1111 Pi PYt'd11hl011M M LAIM111311, 1e1 Mill 11 11 1
Reception# 804122
06/20/2011 03:40:34 PM Jean Alberico
7 of 9 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
5.1.10.3 Traffic
Construction and service vehicle drivers should be encouraged to maintain modest speeds to
reduce the chances of striking wildlife on public and private roads. Advisory signs with this
cautionary message could be placed on roadways of the area. Posting speed limit signs where
collisions with wildlife will most likely occur (on county and energy - industry roads) will help
reduce losses to wildlife as a result of vehicle encounters.
5.1.10.4 Restoration and Maintenance of Habitat
Reclamation plans should include efforts to restore the native vegetation communities once
construction is complete in the project area. The companion report to this document, the "PCP
Loop Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan, Garfield County, Colorado"
(WWE 2011), contains a recommended seed mixture for reclamation of the disturbed areas. If
properly applied this seed mixture will benefit all wildlife populations in,the area. The report
also recommends ongoing control of noxious weeds which will aid the establishment of desired
vegetation in the reclaimed area.
5.2 TESS Plants Impacts and Recommendations
5.2.1 Impacts
No threatened, endangered or sensitive plants were found and no impacts are expected.
5.2.2 Recommendations
No specific recommendations are required.
5.3 WOUS Impacts and Recommendations
5.3.1 Impacts
In Garfield County, the proposed PCP Loop will not cross any drainages or impact any wetlands.
5.3.2 Recommendations
No specific recommendations are required.
6.0 REFERENCES
Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and
Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado.
BLM, 1989. Manual, Handbook H-1741-1, "Fencing ". Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior.
BLM. 1997. Record of Decision and Approved White River Resource Area, Resource
Management Plan. United States Bureau of Land Management, Meeker, Colorado.
CDOW. 2008. Colorado Greater Sage- grouse Conservation Plan. Colorado Greater Sage- grouse
Steering Committee, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver.
CDOW. 2009. Species Activities Maps. Natural Diversity Information Source. Colorado
Division of Wildlife; http: l / ndis. nrel. co lostate.edulflp /ftp_response.asp. Accessed 2010.
WestWater Engineering Page 17 of 23 March 2011
1111 rinthivonim AN 11111
Reception #: 804122
06/20/2011 03:40:34 PM Jean Alberica
8 of 9 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Exhibit B
Conditions of Approval
1. Any equipment used in construction or operation of a pipeline shall comply with the Colorado Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission Rules and Regulations, Section 802, Noise Abatement.
Additionally, all power sources used in pipeline operations shall have electric motors or muffled
internal combustion engines.
2. Pipeline operations shall be located in a manner to minimize their visual impact and disturbance of
the land surface. Facilities shall be painted in a uniform, non - contrasting, non - reflective color, to
blend with the adjacent landscape. Right -of -way shall be located in existing disturbed areas unless
safety or visual concerns or other adverse surface impacts clearly dictate otherwise.
3. The Applicant shall provide the County with a digital alignment of the pipeline once constructed in a
format readable to the County Geographic Information System (GIS) analyst.
4. In no case shall an operator engage in activities which impact Federal or State threatened and
endangered species.
5. Air contaminant emissions shall be in compliance with the applicable permit and control provisions
of the Colorado Air Quality Control Program, Title 25, Resolution 7, C.R.S.
6. All operations shall comply with all applicable Federal and State Public Health and Environment,
Noise, and Air and Water Quality Control standards.
7. Should an abandoned pipeline be removed, it shall be subject to the original revegetation and weed
management requirements in the original application.
8. Financial Security for Reclamation: Prior to permit approval, the Applicant shall provide the County
with a bond to the amount of $119,675 (47.87 acres x $2,500/acre) is requested. The security
shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to
the Reclamation Standards in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. It is the responsibility
of the applicant to contact the County, upon successful revegetation establishment, to request an
inspection for security release consideration.
9. The Applicant shall provide the Vegetation Management Department with the original tags from
each seed bag. The seed mix in the plan shall match the seed mix used in the field. Do not use a
seed mix containing yellow sweet clover (Melilotus offcinalis) or annual yellow sweetclover (M.
indicus).
10. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully re- established
according to the Reclamation Standards in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. It is the
responsibility of the applicant to contact the County, upon successful revegetation establishment, to
request an inspection for security release consideration. The Reclamation Standards at the date of
permit issuance are cited in Section(s) 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the Garfield County Weed
Management Plan (Resolution #2002 -94).
11. Any straw or hay bales used in erosion control shall be certified weed free.
1 of 2
VIII '�MYEII ihF � l �l��'h�r 'fY ��l i RI 11111
Reception#: 804122
06/20/2011 03:40:34 PM Jean Rlberico
9 of 9 Rem Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
12. The Applicant shall have the project area re- inventoried by qualified biologists to locate any
previously known or new raptor nests that may be affected by the proposed pipeline. A letter
summarizing their findings shall be submitted to Garfield County Planning Department for review.
13. The Applicant shall adhere to the Biological Resource Report Sensitive Areas Report's (March
2011) wildlife BMPs and mitigation recommendations as identified in Exhibit A.
14. Prior to the Issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide the Garfield County
Building and Planning Department a copy of the CDPHE air permit.
2 of 2