HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080258.tiff EQ re ctENT Op fry
F
47/7
•° A. �$3\ `c ! ff0:rts
Kinder Morgan Interstate Transmission, LLC Docket No. CP07-430-000
Colorado Lateral
Expansion Project
�
Environmental Assessment
Cooperating Agency:
i
U.S. Department of Energy,
i-7,
Western Area Power Administration
Washington, DC 20426
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON,D.C.20426
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS In Reply Refer To:
OEP/DG2E/Gas 1
Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas
Transmission, LLC
Docket No. CP07-430-000
TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission)
has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) on the natural gas pipeline facilities
proposed by Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC (Kinder Morgan) in the
above-referenced docket. Kinder Morgan's proposal (the Colorado Lateral Expansion
Project) is to construct about 41.4 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline in Weld County,
Colorado.
The EA was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969. The staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with
appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and
operation of the proposed Colorado Lateral Expansion Project, as well as five lateral
distribution pipelines totaling 10.8 miles, also in Wtld County, Colorado.
The purpose of the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project is to provide an additional
reliable source of natural gas to Greeley, Colorado. This project would add 57 million
cubic feet per day of pipeline capacity from the Cheyenne Hub to distribution points in
the Greeley market area.
The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC. A limited number of
copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Public Reference Room
888 First Street NE, Room 2A
Washington, DC 20426
Docket No. CP07-430-000 - 2 -
Copies of the EA have been mailed to federal, state, and local agencies; public
interest groups; affected landowners; interested individuals; newspapers and libraries in
the project area; and parties to this proceeding.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure consideration
prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that we receive your
comments on or before the date specified below. Please carefully follow these
instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
• Send an original and two copies of your comments to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE, Room lA
Washington, DC 20426;
• Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 1, PJ-11.1;
• Reference Docket No. CP07-430-000; and
• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC
on or before February 11, 2008.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments,
interventions, or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions of the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the "e-Filing"
link and the link to the User's Guide. Before you can file comments you will need to
create a free account by clicking on "Login to File" and then "New User Account." You
will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a
"Comment on Filing."
Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to make the
commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the
proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Only intervenors have the right to
seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. Anyone may intervene in this proceeding
based on this EA. You must file your request to intervene as specified above.' You do
not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
' Interventions may also be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
See the previous discussion of filing comments electronically.
Docket No. CP07-430-000 - 3 -
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's
Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the FERC Internet website
(www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on "General
Search" and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field (i.e., CP07-430). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.Qov or toll
free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link on the
FERC Internet website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by
the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called eSubscription which
allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This
can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically
providing you with notifications of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to the eSubscription link on the FERC Internet website.
Kimberly D. Bose
Secretary
COLORADO LATERAL EXPANSION PROJECT
ENVIRONMENAL ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ii
List of Figures ii
Abbreviations and Acronyms iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Process 1
1.2 Purpose and Need 2
1.3 Proposed Facilities 2
1.4 Public Review and Comment 3
1.5 Permits, Approvals, and Regulatory Requirements 3
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION 4
2.1 Project Description 4
2.2 Land Requirements 5
2.3 Construction Methods 7
2.4 Future Plans and Abandonment 10
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 10
3.1 Geology and Soils 10
3.2 Water and Wetlands 12
3.3 Vegetation, Fisheries, and Wildlife 17
3.4 Special Status Species 21
3.5 Cultural Resources 22
3.6 Land Use, Recreation, and Visual Resources 24
3.7 Air Quality and Noise 29
3.8 Reliability and Safety 31
3.9 Cumulative Impacts 37
4.0 ALTERNATIVES 37
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 40
APPENDICES
Appendix A Mainline Facility Maps 45
Appendix B Non-Jurisdictional Facility Maps 54
Appendix C List of Preparers 58
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Major Permits, Licenses, Authorizations, and Clearances
Required for the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project 4
Table 2 Water Supply Wells and Springs Within 150 Feet of the
Colorado Lateral Expansion Project 13
Table 3 Waterbodies Crossed by the Colorado Lateral Expansion
Project 14
Table 4 Wetlands Crossed and/or Impacted by the Colorado
Lateral Expansion Project 16
Table 5 Seed Mix for the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project 19
Table 6 Acreage Affected by Construction and Operation of the
Colorado Lateral Expansion Project 25
Table 7 Planned Developments Within 0.25 Mile of the
Colorado Lateral Expansion Project 27
Table 8 Public Lands Crossed by the Colorado Lateral Expansion
Project 28
Table 9 Estimated Construction Emissions (in tons) for the
Colorado Lateral Expansion Project 30
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 General Location of Facilities; Colorado Lateral
Expansion Project 6
Figure 2 Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections for the
Proposed Colorado Lateral Expansion Project 8
ii
ABREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS
Atmos Atmos Energy Corporation
Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
CDOW Colorado Department of Wildlife
CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO carbon monoxide
Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
CRP Conservation Reserve Program
CWA Clean Water Act
dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale
WAPA U.S. Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
Dth/d Dekatherms per day
EA Environmental Assessment
EAC Early Action Compact
EI Environmental Inspector
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FR Federal Register
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
HCA High Consequence Area
hp horsepower
HDD horizontal directional drill
Kinder Morgan Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC
Lan day-night sound level
MAOP Maximum allowable operating pressure
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Memorandum Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation
Facilities
MMcfd million cubic feet per day
MP milepost
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1979
NGA Natural Gas Act
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NO,, nitrogen oxides
NOI Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSA noise sensitive areas
OEP Office of Energy Projects
iii
OPS Office of Pipeline Safety
Pb lead
PEM palustrine emergent
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Plan Kinder Morgan's Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and
Mitigation Plan
PM particulate matter
Procedures Kinder Morgan's Wetland and Waterbody Construction and
Mitigation Procedures
project Colorado Lateral Expansion Project
PSCo Public Services Company of Colorado
psi pounds per square inch
PSS palustrine scrub/shrub
Secretary Secretary of the Commission
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SPCC Plan Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure Plan
VOC volatile organic compound
iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Process
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC)
prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to address the potential environmental
effects of the construction and operation of facilities proposed by Kinder Morgan
Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC (Kinder Morgan). These facilities are referred to in
this EA as the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project. This EA was prepared in compliance
with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the
Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1500-1508 [40 CFR 1500-1508]), and the
Commission's implementing regulations under 18 CFR 380.
On August 6, 2007, Kinder Morgan filed an application in Docket No. CP07-430-
000 under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission's
regulations for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) to
construct, own, operate, and maintain about 41.4 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline and
4 meter stations in Weld County, Colorado.
This assessment of environmental effects is an important and integral part of the
FERC's decision as to whether to issue Kinder Morgan a Certificate to construct and
operate the proposed facilities. Ourt principal purposes in preparing this EA are to:
• identify and assess potential effects on the natural and human environment
that would result from implementation of the proposed action;
• assess reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that would avoid or
minimize effects on the environment; and
• identify and recommend alternatives and specific mitigation measures as
necessary to minimize environmental effects.
The FERC is the lead federal agency for preparation of this EA. This effort was
undertaken with the participation and assistance of the Department of Energy, Western
Area Power Administration (WAPA), which acted as a cooperating agency under NEPA.
The EA will provide a basis for coordinated federal agency decision-making in a single
document, avoiding duplication between federal processes. In addition to the lead and
cooperating agencies, other federal, state, and local agencies may use the EA in
approving or issuing permits or approvals for all or part of the proposed project (see
section 1.5 of this EA).
"We,""us,"and"our"refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
1
1.2 Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed Colorado Lateral Expansion Project is to provide an
additional reliable source of natural gas to Greeley, Colorado. Kinder Morgan's proposal
is designed to add 57 million cubic feet per day (MMcfd) of pipeline capacity from the
Cheyenne Hub to distribution points in the Greeley market area and to enhance the ability
of interconnecting pipeline companies and their customers to transport natural gas from
the Cheyenne Hub to various market areas along the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountain
Front Range in Colorado (the plains extending from Fort Collins on the north to Colorado
Springs and Pueblo on the South). Kinder Morgan proposes to commence service on its
Colorado Lateral Expansion Project in time for the 2008 winter heating season.
1.3 Proposed Facilities
The Colorado Lateral Expansion Project consists of the construction of about 41.4
miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline from the existing Rockport Compressor Station to a
point on the west side of the City of Greeley. This pipeline would parallel an existing
natural gas utility corridor for about 94 percent of its length.
Four delivery meter stations would be constructed along the proposed right-of-way
(the Eaton, Bracewell, Greeley North and West, and Greeley South Meter Stations).
Kinder Morgan would also construct a check meter and 12-inch-diameter pig2 launcher
within its existing Rockport Compressor Station; a 12-inch-diameter pig receiver within
its proposed Greeley South Meter Station; five 12-inch-diameter block valves (one within
each proposed meter station and one at milepost [MP] 15.5); and auxiliary equipment at
each of the proposed meter stations.
Non-jurisdictional Facilities
The non-jurisdictional facilities related to the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project
consist of five lateral distribution pipelines totaling about 10.8 miles to supply the cities
of Greeley and Eaton, Colorado. The laterals would be constructed by Kinder Morgan,
on behalf of Atmos Energy Corporation (Atmos), a local distribution company.
These laterals would be subject to the review and jurisdiction of the Colorado
Public Utilities Commission and would not be under the FERC's jurisdiction. However,
we believe the laterals are an integral component of the proposed project and we have
included an assessment of the lateral pipelines in this EA.
2 A pipeline "pig"is a device designed to internally clean or inspect the pipeline. A pig launcher/receiver
is an aboveground facility where pigs are inserted or retrieved from the pipeline.
2
1.4 Public Review and Comment
Kinder Morgan held a public open house in Greeley for the Colorado Lateral
Expansion Project on April 10, 2007, providing project information and soliciting public
comments on the proposed project.
On August 30, 2007, the FERC issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Colorado Lateral Expansion Project and
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was mailed to about
350 entities, including federal and state agency representatives; county and local
government agencies (including libraries); elected officials; affected property owners
along the proposed route; parties on the FERC's official service list for this proceeding;
and other interested individuals. The NOI was published in the Federal Register on
September 7, 2007 (72 FR 51433), and solicited comments on environmental matters
pertaining to Kinder Morgan's application.
The FERC received comments from the Public Service Company of Colorado
(PSCo) asking that the non jurisdictional facilities be included in our environmental
review and stating that infrastructure currently exists (PSCo's existing line) to transport
the gas, thus negating the need for the project. The City of Greeley requested that the
proposed Greeley North & West Meter Station and the Greeley South Meter Station
comply with the Greeley Comprehensive Plan, providing for commercial development
along the city's arterial corridors. Those and other environmental issues we identified
during scoping are addressed in this EA.
We made a site visit on October II, 2007, to examine the proposed route and
identify potential environmental concerns. The site visit consisted of drive- and walk-
throughs of the project area and included visits to locations of environmental concern
brought up during scoping.
1.5 Permits, Approvals, and Regulatory Requirements
The FERC is the lead federal agency responsible for authorizing natural gas
pipeline facilities. Various federal, state, and local permits, in addition to the FERC
Certificate, are necessary for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline
facilities. A list of major federal and state permits, licenses, authorizations, and
consultations relevant to this project is presented in table 1.
3
TABLE 1
Major Permits, Licenses, Authorizations, and Consultations Associated with the
Colorado Lateral Expansion Project
Permit/Consultation/Authorization I Agency I Status
Federal
Certificate of Public Convenience Federal Energy Regulatory Application filed August 6, 2007
and Necessity Commission
Section 7 Endangered Species Act U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Surveys submitted June 7,2007
Section 10/404 permit U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide permit would be applied for
8 weeks prior to construction.
License agreement and License Department of Energy,Western Initiated July 20,2007
Outgrant Area Power Administration
State of Colorado
Right-of-way grant State of Colorado,State Lands Grant application submitted July 20,
Trust 2007
Utility permit Colorado Department of Permit application would be submitted
Transportation 45 days prior to construction
Threatened and endangered species Colorado Division of Wildlife Consultation initiated June 18,2007
consultation
Cultural resources consultation Colorado State Historic Preservation Consultation initiated June 18,2007
compliance Office
Hydrostatic test water permit and Colorado Department of Public Permit application would be submitted
stormwater construction permit Health and Environment(CDPHE), 1 month before uptake
Water Quality Control Division
Construction dewatering permit CDPHE,Water Quality Control Permit application would be submitted
Division 7 days before dewatering
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 Project Description
Kinder Morgan's proposed Colorado Lateral Expansion Project involves new
transmission facilities from Kinder Morgan's existing Rockport Compressor Station at
the Cheyenne Hub (a natural gas distribution center) to the City of Greeley, Colorado.
The project would be located within Weld County, Colorado. The specific facilities are
described below:
• about 41.4 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline;
• meter stations and other aboveground facilities;
o Eaton Meter Station (200 feet by 200 feet fenced facility) at MP
30.25;
o Bracewell Meter Station (50 feet by 150 feet fenced facility) at MP
35.45;
o Greeley North and West Meter Station (200 feet by 200 feet fenced
facility) at MP 37.5;
4
o Greeley South Meter Station (200 feet by 200 feet fenced facility) at
MP 41.4;
o Check meter and 12-inch-diameter pig launcher within the existing
Rockport Compressor Station;
o 12-inch-diameter pig receiver within the proposed Greeley South
Meter Station;
o Five 12-inch-diameter mainline block valve settings (one within
each proposed meter station and one at MP 15.5); and
o Auxiliary equipment at each of the delivery meter stations.
• Non jurisdictional laterals and regulator facilities:
o Eaton Lateral (4.85 miles of 6-inch-diameter pipeline) and regulator
facilities (100 foot by 100 foot permanent site at each end of the
lateral);
o Bracewell Lateral (0.11 mile of 4-inch-diameter pipeline) and
regulator facility (50 foot by 100 foot permanent site at the
beginning of the Bracewell Lateral);
o Greeley South Lateral (2.0 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline) and
regulator facilities (100 foot by 100 foot permanent site at each end
of the lateral);
o Greeley North Lateral (2.0 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline) and
regulator facilities (100 foot by 100 foot permanent site at each end
of the lateral); and
o Greeley West Lateral (1.8 miles of 8-inch-diameter pipeline) and
regulator facilities (100 foot by 100 foot permanent site at each end
of the lateral).
2.2 Land Requirements
Kinder Morgan proposes to use a 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way for the
jurisdictional pipeline. About 94 percent of the route would be parallel to (and
overlapping) an existing natural gas utility corridor and offset from existing pipelines by
10 to 35 feet. The last 2.5 miles of the project would not parallel any existing pipelines.
A total of 353.6 acres would be disturbed for the construction right-of-way. During
operation of the project, Kinder Morgan would maintain a permanent 50-foot-wide right-
of-way that would affect about 251.3 acres. An additional 4.6 acres would be converted
to industrial use by operation of aboveground facilities (meter stations).
The lateral pipelines would be constructed within a 40-foot-wide construction
right-of-way, totaling about 52 acres of disturbance. The permanent right-of-way
(maintained by Atmos) would be 20 feet wide and affect about 26 acres. An additional
0.8 acre would be changed to industrial land use from aboveground facilities (regulator
facilities).
5
. .. .. ,. .,, ..
o �— f �' — "— Detail Area III
I —
Rockportf , 92 ) ,f c ' t\ CompressorH i 1/45" a v _ -�O - Station I
�\ 3 — i
I CD
® 1,s �� L. ��� I co
r
.� _ ��-�
8.2 -.V 87 1 11Z j �r I' - i • , I.
f I Oil I I
4
H ti p `tl i m S
1 •
�.
i• 0
F '• • ,
x _ 1
I
wElo rountY RC 10�t00 - !
• Fa'
LLINGTON( 01V I 1 NUNN.=
I: <�. )- i Legend
I S I 1\ ..,.j,
' o
. CD � Mainline
I 1'
Z - ` I t S
I I Fl mn_ I i Non-Jurisdictional Laterals
�:
tom; tw
. _______`__ Railroad
y j ,f� i ' t I PIERCE_ \ t\
5°`-' — ' + �i ; a 't Limited Access
\ 4
I . I
_ II `l c
_ o
� � `� - v • Major Road
'f, �f Pr —4 I 1 �! `,L . �' Ij
z'LL'INS . '7 - it , - 7
I- S,a ?v \ Eaton Meter Station ti \ `{I
it,,,,,, (j-- __- J Eaton Lateral
2 68-TIMNATN °':,:0-----$------ -----..7-I'------5 =WW/eld`ounty Rd oie: —
I^ o, SEVERANCE'- v '� "w a
y
N
� I
1, .WINDSOR - I Bracewell Lateral` w _; E
5rth `' Bracewell Meter Stationf -- --. Greeley North and Jr
"Greeley North and W � West Laterals
LL West .. _ .z 2 1 0 2 Miles
24e Meter Station ,-�+�. aux `.
rn ��' / Fi .:. pta �` GREELEY yin ■ ■
ND Mt t eeht 1 re tats,
a e : / Colorado Lateral Project—
o I Th° �Greeley South qs -'g 34 Weld County, Colorado
nod orb
er�\Meter Station w17 /7.EVANS ,�t eCT: '
.1460e` so w• • Greeley South LLatteeral-5°.: St—
Aso . so,- . - ` -_. FIGURE 1
- is — ��...._.�'-_._. -
"',, 1 �� LA SALLE�"`
6 .
Two new access roads, one each at the Eaton and Bracewell Meter Stations
respectively, would require a total of about 0.6 acre of disturbance. Additionally, two
pipe storage yards would be used to construct the project (16.4 acres in the town of Pierce
and 2.4 acres in Larimer County, Colorado). Both sites are currently in industrial use.
2.3 Construction Methods
The Colorado Lateral Expansion Project would be designed, constructed, operated,
and maintained in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations
in 49 CFR 192, "Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal
Safety Standards;" 18 CFR 380.15, "siting and maintenance requirements;" as well as
other applicable federal and state regulations. Kinder Morgan's proposed construction
would begin in April of 2008 and last about four months.
Kinder Morgan would use typical construction procedures to build the pipeline.
These activities consist of clearing, grading, trenching, stringing of pipe, pipe bending,
welding, pipe coating, lowering in, backfill, cleanup, and hydrostatic testing. The
aboveground facilities would be constructed using standard industry procedures. Kinder
Morgan would minimize potential impacts of pipeline construction and maintenance by
adopting the FERC's Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan
(Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures
(Procedures)3, as its own.
Kinder Morgan would clear the right-of-way of all large obstacles, such as trees,
rocks, brush, and logs. Fences would be cut and braced along the right-of-way and
temporary gates would be installed to control livestock and limit public access. In
agricultural and residential areas and areas requested by the landowner, Kinder Morgan
would stockpile topsoil separately from subsoil (or the upper 12 inches of topsoil, if
topsoil is deeper) along one side of the right-of-way, allowing the other side to be used
for access, material transport, and pipe assembly. A minimum of 3 feet of soil would
cover all pipelines installed during the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project. Road and
large stream crossings may require pipeline installation depth to exceed the typical 3 feet.
In addition, the installation depth may exceed 3 feet in agricultural lands that are active or
have the potential to be active in the future. Kinder Morgan would work with individual
landowners to provide appropriate pipeline depths in these areas.
Kinder Morgan would then string the 40- to 80-foot-long "joints" of epoxy-coated
pipe adjacent to the pipeline trench. Rocks and other debris that could damage the pipe
3 The FERC staffs Plan and Procedures are available on the FERC Internet website at
wvvw.fere.gov/industriesigas/enviro/guidelines.asp.
7
FIGURE 2
Typical Right-of-Way Cross Sections for the Proposed Colorado Lateral
Expansion Project
Typical Upland Construction Right-of-Way
El
BUFFER wawa— CONeim,cvoNLAN PPE STAGINGsueea� TOP Mil
N MI 1 we Of M
k
a. I ��1Mf ae1N�11YS
IYiINROS I a. Iei b /aWINnNt
ceenumerman
Typical Wetland Construction Right-of-Way
RAW. R.O.W.
BOUNDARY f BOUNDARY
TRENCH & PIPELINE
TOPSOIL
SEDIMENT WRIER
BAR TENCH
AS REQUIRED SPOIL I SEDuea BARRIER
AS REQUIRED
TOPSO
MURAL GRADE 1t MAX
TIMBER RIPRAP OR
EQUIPMENT MATS
25e 25. AS REQUIRED
SPOIL SIDE WORIONG SIDE
50'
or the coating would be removed from the trench. Then the pipe would be welded,
inspected, coated with epoxy to cover the welds, lowered into the trench, and the trench
backfilled. The pipeline would then be hydrostatically tested using municipal water as
the source of test water and the water would be released adjacent to the construction
right-of-way through an energy-dissipating device in a well-vegetated upland area.
After the pipeline trench has been backfilled, Kinder Morgan would finish grade
and remove any construction debris from the right-of-way. Original land contours would
be restored as nearly as practicable. Any compacted subsoils would be disked, and the
segregated topsoil would be returned as nearly as possible to its original horizon. Fences,
gates, driveways, and roads disturbed by construction would be restored to original or
better condition. The right-of-way would be reseeded. Revegetation would not be
considered complete until the right-of-way condition is similar to adjacent undisturbed
lands in density and composition, construction debris is removed, revegetation is
successful, and proper drainage has been restored. Vegetation maintenance on the
permanent right-of-way would not be conducted more frequently than once every 3 years.
Special construction techniques would occur at road, railroad, wetland, and
waterbody crossings, and in residential and agricultural areas. Railroads and paved roads
would be crossed by boring to minimize public inconvenience. Non-paved roads would
be open-cut or bored in coordination with and as approved by local authorities. Kinder
Morgan would use flag persons, signs, barricades, guardrails, signals, and/or road plates
when conducting open-cut crossings of roads.
Waterbodies would be crossed using a dry crossing method. Dry crossing
methods include the flume, dam and pump, and horizontal directional drill (HDD)
methods. One of the dry crossing methods would be used to cross all waterbodies
flowing at the time of construction. Kinder Morgan would install the pipe with a
minimum of 5 feet of cover from the waterbody bottom to the top of the pipeline. A
prefabricated segment of pipeline would be laid across the waterbody bed and continue
10 feet past the high banks on each side. Ditch plugs would be used to keep backfill from
sloughing toward the center of the waterbody. Banks would be restored as close to the
original grade as practicable.
Kinder Morgan proposes to use the HDD method at certain locations to avoid
direct impacts on sensitive areas or areas posing constructability issues, including Lone
Tree Creek (MP 12.5), Greeley Canal Number 2 (MP 34.4), the Cache La Poudre River
(MP 36.3), and State Highway 34 (MP 39.5). This process would involve boring a pilot
hole beneath the waterbody or roadway to the opposite bank and then enlarging the hole
with one or more passes of a reamer until the hole is the necessary diameter to
accommodate the pipe. A prefabricated pipe segment would then be pulled through the
hole to complete the crossing. A successful drill generally results in no impact on the
9
sensitive area. For this reason, an HDD is generally considered to be a preferred crossing
method for sensitive waterbodies.
However, an inadvertent release of drilling mud (frac-out) could occur along the
path of the drill due to unfavorable ground conditions. Because an inadvertent release of
drilling mud is a possibility in the project area, we recommend Kinder Morgan develop
an HDD Contingency Plan that describes how the drilling operations would be
conducted and monitored to minimize the potential for inadvertent drilling mud
releases or failure of the drill. The HDD Contingency Plan should discuss
procedures Kinder Morgan would implement to clean up drilling mud releases and
seal the drill hole if an HDD cannot be completed. This plan should be filed with the
Secretary of the Commission (Secretary) for the review and approval of the Director
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) prior to construction.
Kinder Morgan would not allow construction equipment, vehicles, hazardous
materials, chemicals, fuels, lubricating oils, or petroleum products to be parked, stored, or
serviced within 100 feet of any wetland or waterbody. Also, Kinder Morgan would
prohibit refueling and storage of hazardous substances within a 200-foot radius of any
private water well. Based on soil mapping and field observations, Kinder Morgan does
not anticipate the need for blasting to obtain the necessary trench depth.
2.4 Future Plans and Abandonment
Kinder Morgan has not identified any plans for future expansion of this portion of
its transmission system or plans for abandonment of the proposed facilities. Properly
maintained, and assuming adequate gas supplies and markets, the Colorado Lateral
Expansion Project is expected to operate for 50 years or more. If and when Kinder
Morgan abandons any of the proposed facilities, the abandonment would be subject to
separate approvals by the FERC and other federal, state, and local agencies.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
3.1 Geology and Soils
Geology
The proposed Colorado Lateral Expansion Project would cross the Colorado
Piedmont Section of the Great Plains Physiographic Province in Weld County. Below
the unconsolidated alluvial and gravel sediments of Quaternary and recent geologic time
are relatively horizontal sedimentary bedrock formations dating from the tertiary and late
cretaceous period.
10
Shallow bedrock is likely to be encountered in scattered locations throughout the
corridor. However, this bedrock is comprised of relatively soft, weathered, sedimentary
material and would be rippable with normal trenching equipment. Therefore, blasting is
not anticipated to be required for this project. Kinder Morgan has stated that if blasting
were needed, it would comply with all federal, state, and local requirements. Further,
blasting would be limited to the degree necessary to fracture the rock while minimizing
vibration, noise, blast-rock scatter, and dust. Any excess rock would be disposed of at a
state-approved commercial waste site.
The proposed pipeline would not cross any areas of active mineral exploitation.
Further, because 94 percent of the route would be adjacent to existing rights-of-way, no
significant interference with future oil and gas production fields would occur. The
Uniform Building Code seismic zone map indicates the project area is in a zone of
minimal seismic risk (International Conference of Building Officials, Inc., 1997).
Soils
The Colorado Lateral Expansion Project would cross 46 different soil mapping
units. Soils disturbed by the project have a wide range of characteristics: drainage
characteristics ranging from poorly drained to well drained, slopes ranging from 0 to 20
percent, erosion characteristics ranging from highly erodible to not highly erodible, and a
possibility of poor revegetation potential.
We evaluated the soils along the project to identify major soil characteristics that
could affect construction or increase the potential for construction-related soil impacts.
The potential impacts on soils from construction due to erosion hazards, soil mixing, soil
compaction potential, introduction of rock into the topsoil, and poor revegetation
potential were evaluated. Kinder Morgan would avoid or minimize impacts during
construction and operation of the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project by utilizing its Plan
and Procedures.
Construction of the pipelines would temporarily disturb prime farmland soils.
Prime farmland consist of soils classified as those best suited for the production of food,
feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. These soils generate the highest yields with the
least amount of expenditure. About 11.5 miles of land crossed by the project would
disturb prime farmland. This is about 28 percent of the total 41.4 miles of the proposed
pipeline. The majority of these impacts would be considered temporary in nature as
Kinder Morgan would implement the measures contained in its Plan and Procedures to
prevent erosion, compaction, and mixing of soils. Kim loam soils (which are considered
prime farmland if irrigated) would be impacted by the construction of aboveground
facilities. However, less than 5 acres of prime farmland would be permanently converted
to industrial use. While these soil resources would be permanently lost, the acreage
affected would not significantly reduce agricultural production within the project area.
11
Kinder Morgan proposes to conserve topsoil within croplands and pastures by
segregating the topsoil within the ditch line. Active croplands would return to
agricultural use after completion of the project. Prior to trenching, the topsoil from the
ditch line would be stripped and segregated from the trench spoil. This segregated
topsoil would be returned to the ditch following backfilling of the trench spoil. Further,
in pastureland and other areas vegetated with perennial species, and where requested by
the landowner, topsoil would be segregated from the ditch line only. However,
segregating topsoil from the ditch line only is not consistent with our Plan that requires
the stripping of topsoil from either the full work area or from the trench and subsoil
storage area (ditch-plus-spoil-side) and does not provide an equal or greater level of
protection. Therefore, we recommend that Kinder Morgan implement either full
right-of-way topsoil stripping or ditch-plus-spoil-side topsoil segregation method in
actively cultivated or rotated cropland and pastures, residential areas, and other
areas at the landowner's or land managing agency's request.
In residential areas, topsoil replacement (i.e., importation of topsoil) may be used
as an alternative to topsoil segregation per landowner agreement.
Upon completion of construction activities, all areas of project related disturbance
would be returned to pre-construction grade and re-seeded according to local Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) or landowner requirements.
In compaction-prone areas, Kinder Morgan has committed to identifying areas of
project-related compaction and would deep till, as necessary, to decompact the soils.
Kinder Morgan would also limit the distribution of rock greater than 4 inches in size to
reflect that of undisturbed adjacent areas. If contaminated or suspect soils (e.g., oil-
stained soils) were identified during construction, Kinder Morgan would suspend work in
the area until the type and extent of the contamination is determined. Kinder Morgan
would implement its Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC Plan)
that specifies cleanup procedures in the event of soil contamination from spills.
3.2 Water and Wetlands
Groundwater
Groundwater withdrawal in the project area is primarily used for agriculture
(greater than 90 percent). There is one alluvial aquifer(South Platte Alluvium Aquifer)
and two sedimentary rock aquifers (Dakota-Cheyenne Aquifer and Laramie-Fox Hills
Aquifer) that underlie the project area. Depth to the water table varies from 5 feet to
several hundred feet below the project, with typical well yields ranging from 10 to 100
gallons per minute. No protected watersheds for groundwater supply wells have been
identified in the project area, nor are there any U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) designated sole-source aquifers have been identified in Weld County.
12
Ten water supply wells were identified within 150 feet of the proposed work areas
(table 2). Kinder Morgan would attempt to narrow the right-of-way to avoid two wells
within the proposed right-of-way and increase the distance between other existing wells
and the proposed right-of-way. Further, Kinder Morgan would conduct pre- and post-
construction testing of water quality and flow rate. In the event that pipeline construction
activities result in an adverse effect on a well, Kinder Morgan would provide a temporary
replacement water supply and repair or replace the well and water lines.
TABLE 2
Water Supply Wells and Springs Within 150 Feet of the
Colorado Lateral Expansion Project
Milepost I Distance from Edge of Construction Right-of-Way
Wells
0.0 10
17.9 15
19.6 0
19.8 29
33.9 131
33.9 117
33.9 100
34.9 18
35.9 0
36.2 56
Springs
30.6 0
38.5 0
Two springs (MPs 30.6 and 38.5) that furnish water for livestock and wildlife are
within the proposed construction right-of-way. Kinder Morgan would comply with its
Procedures to minimize potential impacts on these springs, which include refueling
equipment at distances greater than 100 feet from springs (or obtaining approval from an
Environmental Inspector [EI]), locating extra workspace at distances greater than 50 feet
from springs, maintaining flow of springs during construction, not using herbicides or
pesticides within 100 feet of a spring during post-construction maintenance.
Spills or leaks of hazardous liquids have the potential for long-term impacts on
groundwater resources, especially in areas where there is a high susceptibility for surface
contamination. Accidental spills and leaks of hazardous materials associated with
equipment trailers; refueling or maintenance of vehicles; and other activities pose the
greatest risk to groundwater resources. Construction equipment, vehicles, hazardous
materials, chemicals, fuels, lubricating oils, and petroleum products would not be parked,
stored, or serviced within a 200-foot radius of any private well or within 100 feet of any
waterbody or wetland.
13
Surface Water
Construction of the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project would cross a total of 22
waterbodies, including perennial streams (4), intermittent streams (3), irrigation ditches
(14), and a pond. No major waterbodies (100 feet or greater from water's edge to water's
edge) would be crossed by the proposed project. Table 3 identifies the MP, name, type
designation, crossing width, state water quality classification, and crossing method for all
waterbodies to be crossed.
TABLE 3
Waterbodies Crossed by the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project
Name Milepost/Lateral Type Water Quality Width Crossing Method w
Classification''
Tributary to Owl 1.9 Intermittent R,A,Aq 21 Horizontal Directional
Creek Drill(HDD)
Lone Tree Creek 12.5 Intermittent R,A,Aq (warm 6 HDD
water 2 fishery
Open Water Pierce Lateral Irrigation ditch Not classified(NC) 12 HDD
(OW)21-1
OW 22-1 Collins Lateral Irrigation ditch NC 76 HDD
OW 22-2 Collins Lateral Irrigation ditch NC 26 HDD
Eaton Ditch 28.9 Irrigation ditch NC 38 HDD
Eaton Ditch 29.0 Irrigation ditch NC 51 HDD
Eaton Ditch 29.3 Irrigation ditch NC 52 HDD
25-1 29.9 Intermittent R,A,Aq 4 Dry crossing
OW 25-2 30.1 Irrigation Ditch NC 1 Dry crossing
OW 25-3 30.6 Pond NC 0 a Not Applicable
OW 26-1 31.3 Irrigation Ditch NC 4 Dry crossing
OW 26-1 31.6 Irrigation Ditch NC 3 Dry crossing
OW 27-2 33.6 Perennial R,A,Aq 4 Dry crossing
OW 28-2 Greeley Lateral Irrigation Ditch NC 0 u Not Applicable
Greeley#2 34.4 Irrigation Ditch NC 45 HDD
Canal
OW 29-3 35.7 Perennial R,A,Aq 9 Dry crossing
Cache la Poudre 36.3 Perennial R,A,Aq (Warm 57 HDD
River Water 2 fishery)
OW 30-5 36.8 Irrigation Ditch NC 5 Dry crossing
Sheep Draw 38.5 Perennial R,A,Aq 2 Dry crossing
Boomerang 39.5 Irrigation Ditch NC 9 HDD
Ditch
Loveland and 41.2 Irrigation Ditch NC 16 HDD
Greeley Canal
a/ R—recreation. Class 2 secondary contact. Defined as suitable or intended to become suitable for
recreational uses on or about the water.
A—agriculture. Defined as suitable or intended to become suitable for irrigation of crops usually grown in
Colorado and which are not hazardous for livestock drinking water.
Aq—class 2—cold and warm water aquatic life. Defined as waters that are not capable of sustaining a wide
variety of cold or warm water biota,including sensitive species.
b/ All waterbodies flowing water at the time of crossing would be crossed by a dry crossing method(i.e.,flume,dam
and pump,or HDD). If waterbody does not contain water,then it would be open cut.
c/ Waterbody would not be crossed, but is within the workspace.
14
The only significant potential to encounter contaminated stream sediments in the
project area is from agricultural chemicals, especially nitrate and nitrite. No municipal
watershed areas, water intakes, or surface water protection areas are in the project area.
Hydrostatic test water would be obtained from municipal or private irrigation canals with
landowner approval.
Kinder Morgan would cross most waterbodies using the HDD method. Successful
use of this method would eliminate impacts on these waterbodies as a result of
construction. Dry creeks would be open cut and any remaining flowing streams would be
crossed with another dry ditch technique (dam and pump or flume). The technique would
be selected based on site conditions at the time of the crossing. In accordance with its
Procedures, Kinder Morgan would maintain water flow in crop irrigation systems, unless
shutoff is coordinated with the affected parties. Further, Kinder Morgan would restore
irrigation ditches to pre-existing condition or to a stable angle after construction is
complete.
The use of dry crossing methods would limit sedimentation and turbidity in the
stream during construction. Open-cutting dry intermittent drainages may result in a
sediment plume during the next rain event. However, the proposed crossing methods in
addition to the use of its Procedures would limit the impacts on surface waters.
Wetlands
Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and normally do support, a prevalence of
wetland vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands can be a source
of substantial biodiversity and serve a variety of functions that include providing habitat
for wildlife, recreational opportunities, flood control,, and naturally improving water
quality.
Wetlands affected by the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project are regulated at the
federal and state levels. On the federal level, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to review and issue permits
for activities that would result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of
the United States, including wetlands.
Construction of the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project would cross 23 very small
wetlands, of which 14 would be temporarily impacted by the project. The remaining 9
wetlands would not be impacted because they would be crossed using the HDD method.
A total of 0.98 acre of palustrine emergent (PEM) wetlands and 0.08 acre of palustrine
scrub-shrub (PSS) wetlands would be temporarily impacted during construction
activities. The wetland type, crossing length, and locations are included in table 4.
15
The primary impact of the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project on wetlands would
be the temporary alteration of wetland vegetation. These effects would be limited to
during and immediately following construction. Generally, the wetland vegetation
community would transition back into a community with a function similar to that of the
wetland before construction. In general, emergent wetland vegetation would be expected
to reestablish within 3 years after construction, while scrub-shrub vegetation would likely
take somewhat longer. None of the aboveground facilities are located within field-
delineated wetlands or within a 100-year floodplain. No forested wetlands would be
crossed. The project would not result in any permanent impacts on wetlands.
TABLE 4
Wetlands Crossed and/or Impacted by the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project
ID Number Crossing Length Areas Impacted Location
(feet)" (acres)°r (MP)
PEM Wetlands
WL 11-1 6 0 12.5
WL 24-1 9 0 28.8
WL 25-3B 0 0.06 30.6
WL 25-4 43 0 30.9
WL 27-2 13 0.02 33.6
WL 28-2 0 0.07 34.6
WL 29-3 6 0.01 35.7
WL 30-4 19 0.02 36.5
WL 30-5 4 <0.01 36.8
WL 31-1 325 0.56 38.1
WL 31-2 23 0.05 38.5
WL 31-3 36 0.08 37.7 I
WL SL-1 138 0.11 41.3
PEM Total 0.98
PEM/PSS Wetlands
WL 21-1 7 0 25.5
WL21-2 0 0.01 25.5
WL 22-1 13 0 25.9 1
WL 25-1 26 0 29.9
WL 25-2 9 0.01 30.1
WL 29-1 0 0.01 35.4
WL 30-2 187 0 36.2
WL 30-3 5 0 36.3
WL 31-1A 133 0.05 38.1
WL 32-1 4 0 39.5
PEM/PSS Total 0.08
Wetland Total 1.06
a/ Wetlands with no crossing length would be within the construction right-of-way, but not crossed by the
pipeline.
b/ Wetlands with no acres impacted during construction would be crossed by the HDD method.
Kinder Morgan has agreed to restrict the construction right-of-way width to 50
feet in wetlands. Kinder Morgan would also cross several wetlands using the HDD
16
method, as noted in table 4. A successful HDD would eliminate impacts on those
wetlands. Additionally, Kinder Morgan would comply with its Procedures which would:
• restrict refueling within 100 feet of wetlands;
• require topsoil segregation in unsaturated wetlands;
• require installation of trench breakers at the wetland edges to prevent
drainage; and
• require restoration of the land to original contours, as practicable.
Implementation of these and other mitigation measures would limit wetland impacts to
the maximum extent practicable.
3.3 Vegetation, Fisheries, and Wildlife
Vegetation
The Colorado Lateral Expansion Project would cross vegetative cover types that
include agricultural land, wetland, residential/commercial land, and open land (see table 6
in the land use section of this EA). About 419.8 acres of vegetation would be temporarily
disturbed during construction, and about 256.5 acres would be impacted during operation
of the jurisdictional facilities. An additional 52 acres would be disturbed during
construction and 26 acres during operation of the non jurisdictional facilities. Wetland,
agricultural and residential/commercial land uses are discussed in the wetland and land
use sections, respectively, of this EA. No forested vegetation would be impacted as a
result of the project.
Vegetation in rangeland depends mostly upon soil moisture, but generally includes
a variety of grasses and shrubs. The most common species observed included alfalfa,
cereal rye, kochia, slender Russian thistle, smooth brome, blue grama, four-winged
saltbrush, fringed sage, pricklypear cactus, rabbitbrush, and yucca.
The primary impact of the pipeline facilities on vegetation would be the cutting,
clearing, and/or removal of existing vegetation within the construction work areas. The
degree of impact would depend on the type and amount of vegetation affected, the rate at
which the vegetation would regenerate after construction, and the frequency of vegetation
maintenance conducted during operation. Existing vegetation would be disturbed along
the entire construction right-of-way. In general, the swath of upland vegetation that
would be disturbed during construction of the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project would
be 75-feet-wide for the 12-inch-diameter mainline pipeline. The non jurisdictional
laterals would be constructed in a 40-foot-wide construction corridor.
The mainline would parallel and overlap existing rights-of-way for about 38.9
miles (or 94 percent of the route). The pipeline would be offset from existing pipelines
17
by 10 to 35 feet and the construction right-of-way would generally overlap the existing
rights-of-way by between 10 and 25 feet. This overlap would reduce impacts on
previously undisturbed lands by limiting the width of the overall corridor.
About 126.8 acres of rangeland land would be disturbed during construction and
about 82.6 acres would be maintained during operation of the project.
No permanent impacts would be expected on any vegetation from operation of the
proposed pipeline. However, permanent impacts on vegetation would be expected where
aboveground facilities would be located. To ensure that long-term impacts on vegetation
are minimized, Kinder Morgan would construct, restore, and maintain its pipeline in
accordance with its Plan and Procedures. Kinder Morgan would consult with the NRCS
to identify erosion control cover species to be planted after construction is completed.
Noxious Weeds
Kinder Morgan would control noxious weeds in the fall or spring with specific
controls recommended by the Weld County Weed Division (i.e., herbicides or
mechanical cutting). Proposed seed mixes for upland native grassland and wetland and
riparian areas are provided in table 5. Further, Kinder Morgan has agreed to develop and
file with the Commission a Weed Control Plan prior to construction of the project.
Fisheries
The Colorado Lateral Expansion Project would cross 4 perennial and 3
intermittent streams. Only two of the streams have state classified designations (the
Cache La Poudre River and Lone Tree Creek). Both of these waterbodies would be
crossed by the HDD method eliminating impacts to any species within the stream.
However, frac-out could occur in the project area. 1`f a frac-out were to occur, a release of
water and bentonite clay into the waterbody would result in increased turbidity and
sedimentation. Such a release could reduce dissolved oxygen, bury eggs and
invertebrates, and/or reduce light penetration. We believe implementation of our
recommendation for Kinder Morgan to develop an HDD Contingency Plan would
minimize the effects of a frac-out if one were to occur.
Wildlife
Wildlife species inhabiting the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project area are
characteristic of the habitats provided by the predominant vegetation communities. Crop
and pasture land typically provide very little habitat for wildlife, although during harvest
season cropland can become a significant forage area.
18
TABLE 5
Seed Mix for the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project'r
Common Name Scientific Name Seed Application Rate
(pounds/acre)b!
Seed Mix for Shortgrass Prairie
Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii 1.6
Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula 0.5
Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis 0.6
Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium 0.4
Indian ricegrass Acnatherum hymenoides 1.5
Prairie junegrass Koelera macrantha 0.1
Hairy false godenaster Heterotheca villosa 0.2
Dotted gayfeather Liatris punctata 0.25
Narrow leaf penstemon Penstemon angustifolius 0.25
Scarlet glovemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea 0.2
American vetch Vicia americana 3
Seed Mix for Wetlands and Riparian areas
Creeping bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera 0.1
Nebraska sedge Carex nebrascensis 0.4
Common spikerush Eleocharis palustris 0.3
Canada wildrye Elymus Canadensis 2
Fowl mannagrass Glyceria striata 1
Torrey rush Juncus torreyi 0.05
Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 0.8
Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii 3.2
Pale bulrush Scirpus pallidus 0.05
Yellow lndiangrass Sorghastrum nutans 2
Prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata 1.4
a/ Seed mix may be modified based on site-specific conditions,seed availability, and/or landowner
specifications
b/ Seeding rate is pounds per acre of pure live seed applied by drilling. Seeding rates in uplands would be
doubled if hydroseeded or broadcast.
White-tailed deer, ring-necked pheasant, wild turkey, morning dove, homed lark,
killdeer, red-winged blackbird, robin, coyote, eastern cottontail, swift fox, red fox,
raccoon, plains pocket gopher, bullfrogs, chorus frogs, bull snake, western rattlesnake,
and short-horned lizard are some examples of wildlife that could be present in
agricultural areas. Wildlife that could be present in open or rangeland areas include
several of the species mentioned above, as well as pronghorn, mule deer, red-tailed hawk,
Swainson's hawk, great horned owl, black-tailed prairie dog, black-tailed jackrabbit, and
plains pocket gopher. Several wildlife species associated with waterbodies could also be
present in the project area such as: bald eagle, great blue heron, mallard, and painted
turtle.
Within the construction right-of-way, impacts on wildlife populations would result
primarily from initial right-of-way clearing. Many animal species are mobile enough to
avoid direct impacts. Therefore, the main impact on wildlife would be displacement into
adjacent habitats. Some ground nesting or less mobile species may suffer mortality
19
during right-of-way clearing. However, the early successional grasses or shrubs during
restoration may provide seeds and foliage for food for small mammals and birds.
Once construction is complete and the right-of-way is restored, wildlife return to
the project area. Kinder Morgan would construct and maintain the Colorado Lateral
Expansion Project in accordance with its Plan and Procedures. No long-term wildlife
impacts are expected, as plentiful, suitable wildlife habitat is adjacent to the existing
right-of-way and the permanent right-of-way would receive limited vegetation
maintenance (a maximum of once every 3 years).
Migratory birds in the project area are species that nest in the United States and
Canada during the summer and migrate south to the tropical regions of Mexico, Central
and South America, and the Caribbean for the non-breeding season. Migratory birds are
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S. Code [U.S.C.] 703-711)
and Executive Order 13186 (66 FR 3853), which serve to protect migratory birds from
adverse impacts. The executive order was enacted, in part, to ensure that environmental
analyses of federal actions evaluate the impacts of actions and agency plans on migratory
birds. It also states that emphasis should be placed on species of concern, priority
habitats, and key risk factors and it prohibits the take of any migratory bird without
authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The destruction or
disturbance of a migratory bird nest that results in the loss of eggs or young is also a
violation of the MBTA.
A variety of migratory bird species, including both songbirds and raptors, are
associated with the habitats crossed by the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project route.
Because no forested areas would be disturbed by the project, no forest fragmentation
would occur. Impacts on habitat would be reduced by Kinder Morgan's adherence to its
Plan, which identifies the steps Kinder Morgan would take to minimize disturbance
during construction and restore disturbed areas following construction.
Kinder Morgan's anticipated construction start date of April 1, 2008 would
overlap the nesting season for many migratory bird species in the project area. Thus,
construction may cause disturbance leading to abandonment of a nest and destruction of
eggs or young. Indirect effects are associated with increased human presence and noise
from construction activity near enough to active nests to disturb the birds. We do not
believe that such effects would be significant for non-nesting birds, as individuals
temporarily relocating to avoid construction activity is a minor impact of limited
duration.
Kinder Morgan has agreed to conduct surveys for raptors if construction would
occur during the main breeding season (March 1 to July 15). No known active bald eagle
nests or roosts occur within 1 mile of the proposed project. An inactive ferruginous hawk
nest (MP 1.8) and an active great horned owl nest (MP 34.5) have been observed along
20
the project corridor. The inactive ferruginous hawk nest would be about 100 feet from
the proposed right-of-way and the great horned owl nest would be about 500 feet from a
proposed HDD boring entrance.
While there are not federal restrictions for construction adjacent to a great horned
owl nest, Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) typically recommends a 0.25-mile
buffer between construction and any active nest during the nesting season (January 21
through May 15). To assist the CDOW in its management and protection of this species,
we recommend that no construction occur within 0.25 mile of an active great horned
owl nest between January 21 and May 15.
If the inactive ferruginous hawk nest becomes active, CDOW recommends no
construction activity within 0.5 mile of the nest until the young have fledged or the nest
fails due to natural causes and is no longer in use. Kinder Morgan has agreed to
implement this and any other mitigation measures recommended by the CDOW for the
ferruginous hawk.
Additionally, Kinder Morgan would: employ best management practices during all
phases of construction; inspect open trenches daily for the presence of wildlife that may
have fallen in; and give a method of egress (ramps) for larger animals that may have
fallen in.
Any impacts on wildlife resources from construction and/or operation would be
minimized by Kinder Morgan's implementation of its proposed mitigation and our
recommendation.
3.4 Special Status Species
Special status species are those species for which state or federal agencies afford
an additional level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category
are federally listed species that are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as
amended, and those species that are state listed as threatened or species of concern.
Kinder Morgan, acting as the FERC's non-federal representative for the purpose
of complying with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, initiated informal consultation with the
FWS and CDOW regarding federally and state listed species with the potential to be
affected by the proposed Colorado Lateral Expansion Project. On June 7, 2007, Kinder
Morgan requested concurrence with its finding that no listed species would be impacted
by the proposed project. On July 10, 2007, the FWS responded, stating that no listed
species (including the federally threatened Preble's meadow jumping mouse, Ute ladies'-
tresses orchid, and Colorado butterfly plant) would be likely to be present within the
project area and that consultation regarding the project is complete. We concur.
21
Three Colorado state threatened species and one species of special concern (brassy
minnow, common shiner, Johnny darter and Iowa darter) have been reported to occur in
streams crossed by the project. With Kinder Morgan's proposed waterbody construction
crossing methods (either HDD or dry crossing method for any waterbody flowing water
at the time of construction), impacts on these species are not expected. Further, Kinder
Morgan would comply with a state-issued discharge permit and EPA -issued National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit.
No state-threatened burrowing owls or burrows were observed in the project area
(burrowing owls require prairie dog or other suitable burrows for nesting and roosting)
during Kinder Morgan's field surveys. If burrowing owls or burrows are discovered
during construction, Kinder Morgan has agreed to implement the Recommended Survey
Protocol and Actions to Protect Nesting Burrowing Owls (CDOW 2007). This protocol
recommends conducting surveys for burrowing owls between March 15 and October 31,
in the early morning (1/2 hour before sunrise until 2 hours after sunrise) and early
evening (2 hours before sunset until 1/2 hour after sunset). At least three surveys should
be conducted at each survey point and surveys should be separated by about one week. If
burrowing owls are present, Kinder Morgan would carefully monitor the activities of the
owls, noting and marking which burrows they are using. Kinder Morgan would wait to
initiation construction activities within 150 feet of any active burrows until after
November 1 or until it can be confirmed that the owls have left the burrow.
No mountain plover nests (state-species of concern) were observed within the
project area. However, if mountain plover nests are discovered, Kinder Morgan has
agreed to delay construction within 0.25 mile of any mountain plover nests until seven
days after any chicks have hatched and left the nest. No bank dens or other signs of state-
threatened river otters were observed in the project area. No state-listed threatened or
endangered species would be impacted by the proposed project.
3.5 Cultural Resources
Kinder Morgan conducted a cultural resources survey of the proposed project. A
200-foot-wide corridor was surveyed for the Colorado Lateral, and the Eaton, Bracewell,
Greeley North, Greely South, and Greely West Laterals. In addition, meter stations, extra
work spaces, off-load/storage yards, and access roads were surveyed. The reports for
these surveys (one for the jurisdictional facilities, and one for the non jurisdictional
facilities) were provided to the FERC and the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO). The survey report for the jurisdictional facilities was also provided to WAPA.
For the jurisdictional facilities, 48 cultural resource sites were identified; 29
previously recorded and 19 new sites. Of these, seven were recommended as eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). These include a segment of the Great
Western Railroad (5WL841.12), the Greeley No. 2 Canal (5WL842.1), the Larimer-Weld
22
Canal/Eaton Ditch/Eaton Canal (5WL844.2), the Loveland Greeley Canal (5WL898.4),
the Union Pacific Railroad-Cheyenne Branch (5WL1969.33), the Cheyenne to Richard
Lake Transmission Line (5WL3167), and the Firestien Farm complex (5WL5549).
Avoidance of these resources was recommended. Another two (5WL5561.1 and
5WL5567.1—both historic ditches) require additional data before NRHP eligibility can
be evaluated. All of these resources were identified on the Colorado Lateral. Kinder
Morgan indicated it would avoid effects on sites 5WL841.12, 5WL842.1, 5WL844.2,
5WL898.4, and 5WL1969.33 by boring beneath them, and not directly impact above-
ground sites 5WL3167 and 5WL5549. Kinder Morgan also proposed that because it
would restore ditches 5WL5561.1 and 5WL5567.1 to pre-construction conditions, there
would be no adverse effects to these two resources. In a letter dated July 16, 2007, the
SHPO agreed with these recommendations with the exception of site 5WL5549, for
which the SHPO requested additional information. The SHPO also requested additional
information on another site, 5WL302, in order to determine eligibility, as well as other
additional information.
For the non jurisdictional facilities, 21 cultural resource sites were identified, 10
previously recorded and 11 new sites. Of these, four were recommended as eligible for
the NRHP. These include a segment of the Great Western Railroad (5WL841.12), the
Larimer-Weld Canal/Eaton Ditch/Eaton Canal (5WL844.2), the Gates Siding (5WL855),
and an historic site (5WL1005). Avoidance of these resources was recommended.
Another three (5WL5564.1, 5WL5569.1, and 5WL5570.1—all historic ditches) require
additional data before NRHP eligibility can be evaluated. All of these resources were
identified on the Eaton Lateral. In its letter dated July 16, 2007, the SHPO agreed with
these recommendations, including that these seven sites should be avoided, and requested
clarification on a number of items.
Kinder Morgan responded to the SHPO's comments, provided additional
information, and indicated that upon further inspection, it would avoid site 5WL302 and
avoid all historic structures at site 5WL5549 (URS letter dated September 11, 2007). In
addition, Kinder Morgan indicated that for the seven eligible or "need data" sites
associated with the non-jurisdictional facilities, it would avoid or minimize effects using
boring, restoration, or barricading, and because of this, proposed that the project would
have no adverse effect on these sites. In a letter dated September 25, 2007, the SHPO
indicated that based on the information submitted, "a finding of'no adverse effect' for
the mainline and pipeline laterals is appropriate." The SHPO further indicated that
additional consultation would be necessary if Kinder Morgan could not carry out its
proposed protection of 5WL302, 5WL5549, and the other eligible or potentially eligible
properties. In a letter dated November 2, 2007, WAPA indicated that "the project is
unlikely to adversely affect the sites" managed by WAPA. We agree with the SHPO and
WAPA.
23
One segment along the Colorado Lateral (approximately 1.0 mile) was initially un-
surveyed due to denied access. Kinder Morgan provided a supplemental survey report
for this segment and some additional project modifications; no cultural resources were
identified. In a letter dated October 12, 2007, the SHPO indicated that no historic
properties would be affected by project activities in these areas. We agree.
Kinder Morgan contacted the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma,
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Northern Arapaho Tribe,
Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, Rosebud
Sioux Tribe, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs
regarding the proposed project, and followed up with these same groups. The Rosebud
Sioux responded that they did not have any concerns, but requested to be notified if any
sites would be affected by the project. No other responses have been received to date.
Kinder Morgan provided a plan to deal with the unanticipated discovery of historic
properties and human remains during construction. We requested revisions to the plan.
Kinder Morgan provided a revised plan which we find acceptable.
3.6 Land Use, Recreation and Public Lands, and Visual Resources
Land Use
About 471.8 acres of land would be affected by the construction right-of-way of
the proposed Colorado Lateral Expansion Project pipelines (jurisdictional and non-
jurisdictional). Of the 471.8 acres, 282.5 would remain as operational right-of-way while
the remaining 189.3 acres would be temporary right-of-way. All extra temporary
construction right-of-way would be allowed to revert to pre-construction land uses.
About 18.8 acres of land would be disturbed by contractor yards during
construction; however, these areas would be allowed to revert to pre-construction
conditions and uses following construction. About 5.4 acres of land would be
permanently affected by the construction and operation of aboveground facilities.
The proposed facilities would be located primarily on private land. However, land
owned by the state of Colorado, WAPA, and the cities of Thornton and Greeley would be
crossed, as would federal, state, and Weld County roads. The mainline would parallel
existing pipeline rights-of-way for about 38.9 miles (94 percent of the route). Railroads
and paved highway crossings would be horizontally bored. New permanent access roads
are proposed at the Eaton and Bracewell Meter Stations. No other new access roads are
proposed.
24
co
� o § » ; » 0) G 0) o « § ±
ooi |
: 6 , •o• -o_ r _
kg -`
et c
ea
to
f . ! _ „ o o = _
a2CI � `
C 0 , 0
0 111 11;
: , 6 , _ , _ ,
co
Of 0 -
CL
� � � co
o
� ) � o 0 , _ _ _ _ _ 4:3 co
R ■ « iit co
2 & 2 0 , 6 o0 , , , 0 co
\
CO
I.: CO
0 c.a ` o oi = oo = , , _
= co
2 .— ]
‘CI CC -
, , = o = _ _
) \ o , ° � > 0 m
* t ■ � _ k7 , )
0
fo.
! o ° _ ,0 O) ,0 = o 6 7n !
§/ [ ®
] §d
\ O.
CV , o CV OD CV
o , o.
_ CV
° k \ } k )
e � CO _ 0_a
I:40 0
/ _ o o , , ,0 000 • - - mac
Cal) 110- - 00V
.07 « CO 0.1 cg § 7 |
a = CO - „LO co : , _ _ .- co_ 7ao
o 2 co az
§ � } , , _ = 0 in o) 0 00 In, , _• ) / § a)
/ § � - wa)20E
co
] � J = o , , , , o o * faa
; palm )
0 , _ � 2 , ; f !
G ` a ] k0 2
Z � lk ) ) Dm , S2 ®� }! ! [®\ ; \ �
- | \7V ; § & . � f; � f� , � c . ,
u_ - ! ; - ° - 2 - )$ � ) ® lZfe
■ ` 2 cif 2 �� � ! ! ®! a! o , 2 oCa-
Two contractor yards would be used to construct the project (one in the town of
Pierce, Colorado, and the other an existing railroad siding about 7 miles west of MP 40).
Both sites are currently industrial areas.
Agricultural land consists primarily of winter wheat, corn, and alfalfa. About
264.8 acres of agricultural land would be impacted during construction; 161.1 acres
would be maintained during operation; and 2.84 acres would be permanently altered by
operation of meter stations (Bracewell, Eaton, Greeley North and South, and Greeley
South).
Construction-related activities such as grading, trenching, stringing, welding,
backfilling, and restoration could impact agricultural lands by leading to soil erosion;
interference with and damage to agricultural surface and sub-surface drainage and
irrigation systems; loss of fertile topsoil or mixing and subsoil; and soil compaction. All
of these impacts could result in reduced productivity or direct crop loss. Kinder Morgan
proposes to restore all disturbed areas associated with the construction of the project in
accordance with its Plan. Kinder Morgan's Plan includes typical measures such as
avoiding or minimizing topsoil/subsoil mixing and ensuring that compaction and other
construction-related effects are rectified.
Kinder Morgan would compensate agricultural landowners for actual crop losses
resulting from the removal of standing crops, disruption of planned seeding activity,
disruption of general farming activities, or other losses resulting from construction of the
pipeline as negotiated in individual easements with the landowners. Kinder Morgan
would conduct post-construction monitoring to evaluate right-of-way restoration within
affected agricultural areas. Restoration would be considered successful in agricultural
areas if crop yields are similar to adjacent undisturbed portions of the same field.
With implementation of Kinder Morgan's Plan, no impacts on agricultural lands
would be expected by the operation of the project, with the exception of aboveground
facilities. The 2.84 acres that would be converted to industrial land use by the operation
of the proposed meter stations would be a minor reduction in the productivity of the
region.
Eight planned commercial or new residential subdivisions would be located within
0.25 mile of the proposed project. Table 7 lists these proposed developments. The
Colorado Lateral Expansion Project would not conflict with any of the planned
developments.
However, dust, noise, and increased construction traffic could temporarily impact
residents in relative close proximity to the project. Kinder Morgan would control dust by
implementing a Fugitive Dust Control Plan that would include methods such as watering
the construction right-of-way, posting a speed limit on the construction right-of-way,
26
compressing dirt on disturbed areas to reduce wind erosion, installing gravel pads at road
crossings, and cleaning trucks, as needed, to reduce dirt and mud tracked onto roads
(track-out). Impacts on local traffic during construction would be minimized by Kinder
Morgan's use of flag persons, signs, barricades, guardrails, signals, and/or road plates.
Two residences (MPs 31.7 and 39.3) and 4 other out-buildings would be located
within 50 feet of construction workspace. As construction approaches the residences,
Kinder Morgan would install construction fencing at the edge of the construction right-
of-way before initiating earth moving activities. This fencing would extend for 100 feet
on either side of the residence. Kinder Morgan would restore any landscaping damaged
during construction. No residences would be within 25 feet, and no impacts would be
expected by operation of the project.
TABLE 7
Planned Developments Within 0.25 Mile of the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project
Development Approximate Effects on Development from the
Milepost Proposed Pipeline
Poudre River Ranch is a single-family Not within pipeline Not affected; pipeline would be across
subdivision under construction on the east side right-of-way road from planned development.
of 83r°Avenue at Poudre River Road
The Greens at Boomerang Links is a single- 37.6-38.0 Pipeline would be along a
family subdivision under review at the northeast greenbelt/utility corridor,would not
corner of 83r°Avenue and 10th Street affect development plans
The Boomerang subdivision is a mixed 38.1-38.5 Pipeline would be along a
commercial and residential development under greenbelt/utility corridor,would not
review at the Southeast corner of 83rd and 10`h affect development plans
Street
Stephens Farm is a proposed residential Not within pipeline Not affected; pipeline would be across
subdivision west of 83rd Avenue between 10'" right-of-way road from development
Street and Sheep Draw
Mountain Shadows is a residential subdivision 38.7-38.9 Pipeline right-of-way would be located
under construction west of 83rd Avenue and in an"outlor area of the development,
north of 18th Street Road. outside planned building area.
Mountain Vista Office Park is a developing Not within pipeline Not affected; pipeline would be located
commercial area east of 83rd Avenue between right-of-way across road from development.
18th Street Road and 20th Street
The Owl Ridge(aka Talon)development is a 39.3-39.5 Pipeline right-of-way is located in an
mixed industrial,commercial,and residential "outlot"area of the development,
project east and west of 83rd Avenue between outside planned building area.
20th Street and U.S. Highway 34.
Cobblestone is a residential subdivision under Not within pipeline Not affected; pipeline is outside area of
review south of U.S. Highway 34 and west of right-of-way development.
71s'Avenue.
Recreation, Public, and Special Use Lands
No special land use areas, such as orchards, specialty crops, operating mines,
national or state forests, Indian reservations, wildlife management areas, or conservation
areas would be crossed by the proposed project. No national or state wild and scenic
rivers, national trails, wilderness areas, scenic areas, or registered national landmarks
27
would be within 0.25 mile of the project. Additionally, no landfills or hazardous waste
sites would be within the project area.
The proposed project would cross land owned by WAPA. Additionally, Kinder
Morgan would construct a meter station on this property adjacent to a large electrical
substation. Public lands that would be crossed by the project (excluding roads) are
depicted in table 8.
TABLE 8
Public Lands Crossed by the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project
MP Land Use Owner
1.5-1.9 Rangeland State of Colorado
25.9-27.3 Agriculture City of Thornton
28.5-28.8 Agriculture City of Thornton
36.3-36.7 Rangeland/Recreation City of Greeley
37.5-38.0 Rangeland/Industrial WAPA
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands would be crossed around the town of
Nunn, by the proposed project. CRP lands are properties that have been taken out of crop
production and are usually planted with an herbaceous ground cover that will conserve
the soil. Kinder Morgan has agreed to consult with the NRCS regarding seed mixes for
restoring any CRP lands crossed.
The Poudre River Trail (currently under construction through a cooperative effort
between the cities of Greeley and Windsor) would be crossed by the proposed project.
The Poudre River Trail will be 20 miles long and extend from Island Grove Regional
Park in the City of Greeley to the Weld/Larimer County, Colorado line. This trail would
be crossed by the HDD proposed for the Cache La Poudre River. Therefore, no impacts
on the trail would be expected from construction or operation of the proposed project.
Visual Resources
No special or unique scenic features are present in the project area. No forested
areas would be cleared. No visual impacts would be expected from operation of the
pipeline after reestablishment of vegetation along the right-of-way. Aboveground
facilities could have visual impacts in the project area. The City of Greeley has
expressed concerns regarding the location of the proposed Greeley North and West Meter
Station and the Greeley South Meter Station. As a result, Kinder Morgan has agreed to
locate these meter stations in more amicable areas. However, these meter stations would
be visible to local residents. Therefore,we recommend that Kinder Morgan continue
to work with the City of Greeley to develop a visual screening plan for the Greeley
North and West Meter Station and the Greeley South Meter Station. Prior to
construction, Kinder Morgan should file the final visual screening plan for the two
28
facilities, including any consultations or comments from the City of Greeley, with
the Secretary for review and approval by the Director of OEP.
3.7 Air Quality and Noise
Air Quality
Air quality would be affected by equipment emissions used to construct the
proposed pipeline and metering facilities. Weld County is in the Denver-Boulder-
Greeley-Ft. Collins-Love, Colorado area and is in attainment (i.e., the area has attained
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards) for the following "criteria
pollutants": nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead
(Pb), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns
(PM10), and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5
microns (PM25). The EPA has designated Weld County as still subject to the 1-hour
ozone standard and is non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard for which nitrogen
oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) are precursors. However, because
the Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Ft. Collins-Love area is included in one of 14 areas listed in
40 CFR 81 Subpart C as participating in an Early Action Compact (EAC), its effective
date of non-attainment designation is deferred. By April 2008, these areas will be
designated as in attainment if they meet all their EAC requirements and have clean 8-
hour ozone data by December 31, 2007. They will be designated as non-attainment if
they do not meet all these requirements.
The General Conformity Rule is codified in 40 CFR 51, Subpart W and 40 CFR
93, Subpart B, "Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal
Implementation Plans." General Conformity, if applicable, refers to the process to
evaluate plans, programs, and projects to determine and demonstrate that they satisfy the
requirements of the Clean Air Act and applicable State Implementation Plan. Because
Weld County is in a maintenance area for the 1-hour ozone standard, Kinder Morgan
would need to demonstrate that the total direct and indirect emissions for criteria
pollutants would not exceed the threshold rates of 100 tons per year for NOx and VOC as
specified in 40 CFR 93.153(b)(2). If emissions exceed these rates, or if the emissions are
determined to be regionally significant, a General Conformity Determination is required.
Emissions associated with construction activities generally include 1) exhaust
emissions from construction equipment, 2) fugitive dust emissions associated with
vehicle movement in the project area, and 3) fugitive dust associated with trenching,
backfilling, and other earth-moving activities. The exhaust emissions would depend on
the equipment used and the horsepower(hp)-hours of operation. The quantity of fugitive
dust would depend on the moisture content and texture of the soils that would be
disturbed. Kinder Morgan proposes to start construction of its facilities in April 2008 for
29
a duration of four months. Table 9 shows the estimated construction emissions
associated with the jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional aspects of the project.
TABLE 9
Estimated Construction Emissions(in tons)for the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project
Jurisdictional Facilities
VOC NO, CO SO, PMlo
1.68 31.74 11.34 4.97 81.84
Non-Jurisdictional Facilities
0.83 I 18.90 I 4.58 I 3.02 12.77
The equipment emissions associated with the project would not exceed the
threshold rates for the duration of construction. Therefore, a General Conformity
Determination would not be required for this project.
Kinder Morgan would not burn any slash generated from construction activities.
Kinder Morgan would submit a land development air quality construction permit
application to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution
Control Division. In addition, Kinder Morgan would submit a Fugitive Dust Control
Plan, which would include methods to be used to reduce fugitive dust, such as:
• watering the construction right-of-way;
• posting a speed limit on the construction right-of-way;
• compressing dirt on disturbed areas to reduce wind erosion;
• reducing mud and dirt track-out by installing gravel pads prior to paved
roads; and
• cleaning trucks as needed to reduce track-out.
Once construction activities in an area are completed, fugitive dust and
construction equipment emissions would subside and the impact on air quality resulting
from the construction of the project would be minimized. Given the temporary nature of
the project and implementation of the mitigation measures presented, emissions
associated with construction would not result in a significant impact on air quality.
Noise
Noise associated with construction activities would be intermittent during the
construction period because of the transitory nature of the construction activities.
Construction-related noise is an unavoidable consequence of pipeline construction.
Operating construction equipment would be limited to that necessary to perform the
required activities. In addition, operation of construction equipment would typically
occur for 10 hours per day and 6 days per week. No noise impacts would normally occur
30
once the pipeline is fully operational because no compression or other noise-generating
equipment would be located along the pipeline route.
Kinder Morgan proposes to use the HDD crossing method at six locations along
the right-of-way where residences are within 2,000 feet of the drill site. Each HDD
operation may be required to continue through the night to ensure that the hole being
drilled does not collapse. The estimated duration of each HDD would range from about 7
to 10 days. The locations having nearby noise-sensitive areas (NSA) include:
• Lone Tree Creek (MP12.5): 1 residence;
• Ditch (MP 26): 3 residences;
• WCR 27 (MP 31): 4 residences;
• Greeley Canal No. 2 (MP 34.4): 5 residences;
• Cache La Poudre River (MP 36.3): 4 residences; and
• State Highway 34 (MP 39.5): 1 residence.
Kinder Morgan would notify the landowners at each NSA prior to commencing
HDD operations at each site. Kinder Morgan would also provide temporary housing
during periods of nocturnal drilling activities if residents consider the noise a nuisance.
Where possible, vegetative borders would be maintained between the HDD equipment
and any of the NSAs where drilling noise impacts have a potential to exceed a day-night
noise level (Ld ) of 55 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA).
However, Kinder Morgan has not filed plot plans identifying the proposed HDD
entry and exit locations or calculated noise levels at each of the NSAs. Additionally,
while Kinder Morgan has committed to maintain vegetative borders where possible and
provide housing to residents that consider the noise a nuisance, it does not state what
mitigation would be offered if the noise levels exceed 55 dBA. Therefore, to further
minimize noise impacts from HDDs, we recommend that Kinder Morgan file an HDD
noise analysis and mitigation plan, for the review and written approval of the
Director of OEP prior to construction. The plan should include a large scale
(1:3,600 or greater) plot plan identifying the proposed HDD entry and exit locations
and the nearest NSAs, quantify the estimated noise levels at the NSAs that would
result from the proposed HDD operations, and describe how noise levels would be
controlled so they do not exceed an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, or
alternatively, indicate what mitigation would be offered to the residents of those
NSAs.
Based on the short duration of construction and our recommendation, we conclude
that no significant noise impacts would occur as a result of this project.
31
3.8 Reliability and Safety
The transportation of natural gas by pipeline involves some risk to the public in
the event of an accident and subsequent release of gas. The greatest hazard is a fire or
explosion following a major pipeline rupture. Methane, the primary component of
natural gas, is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. It is not toxic, but is classified as a
simple asphyxiate, possessing a slight inhalation hazard. If breathed in high
concentration, oxygen deficiency can result in serious injury or death.
Methane has an ignition temperature of 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit and is flammable
at concentrations between 5 percent and 15 percent in air. Unconfined mixtures of
methane in air are not explosive. However, a flammable concentration within an
enclosed space in the presence of an ignition source can explode. It is buoyant at
atmospheric temperatures and disperses rapidly in air.
a. Safety Standards
The DOT is mandated to provide pipeline safety under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Office of
Pipeline Safety (OPS), administers the national regulatory program to ensure the safe
transportation of natural gas and other hazardous materials by pipeline. It develops safety
regulations and other approaches to risk management that ensure safety in the design,
construction, testing, operation, maintenance, and emergency response of pipeline
facilities. Many of the regulations are written as performance standards which set the
level of safety to be attained and allow the pipeline operator to use various technologies
to achieve safety. PHMSA ensures that people and the environment are protected from
the risk of pipeline incidents. This work is shared with state agency partners and others
at the federal, state, and local level. Section 5(a) of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
provides for a state agency to assume all aspects of the safety program for intrastate
facilities by adopting and enforcing the federal standards, while section 5(b) permits a
state agency that does not qualify under section 5(a) to perform certain inspection and
monitoring functions. A state may also act as DOT's agent to inspect interstate facilities
within its boundaries; however, the DOT is responsible for enforcement action. The
majority of the states have either 5(a) certifications or 5(b) agreements, while nine states
act as interstate agents.
The DOT pipeline standards are published in 49 CFR 190-199. 49 CFR 192
specifically addresses natural gas pipeline safety issues.
Under a Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities
(Memorandum) dated January 15, 1993 between the DOT and the FERC, the DOT has
the exclusive authority to promulgate federal safety standards used in the transportation
of natural gas. Section 157.14(a)(9)(vi) of the FERC's regulations (18 CFR) require that
an applicant certify that it will design, install, inspect, test, construct, operate, replace,
32
and maintain the facility for which a certificate is requested in accordance with federal
safety standards and plans for maintenance and inspection. Alternatively, the applicant
must certify that it has been granted a waiver of the requirements of the safety standards
by the DOT in accordance with section 3(e) of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act. The
FERC accepts this certification and does not impose additional safety standards other
than the DOT standards. If the Commission becomes aware of an existing or potential
safety problem, there is a provision in the Memorandum to promptly alert DOT. The
Memorandum also provides for referring complaints and inquiries made by state and
local governments and the general public involving safety matters related to pipeline
under the Commission's jurisdiction.
The FERC also participates as a member of the DOT's Technical Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee which determines if proposed safety regulations are reasonable,
feasible, and practicable.
The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the Colorado Lateral
Expansion Project must be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance
with the DOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in 49 CFR 192. The regulations are
intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent natural gas facility
accidents and failures. Part 192 specifies material selection and qualification, minimum
design requirements, and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion.
Part 192 also defines area classifications, based on population density in the
vicinity of the pipeline, and specifies more rigorous safety requirements as the population
density increases. The class location unit is an area that extends 220 yards on either side
of the centerline of any continuous 1 mile length of pipeline. The four area
classifications are defined as follows:
Class 1 Location with 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy.
Class 2 Location with more than 10 but less than 46 buildings intended for
human occupancy.
Class 3 Location with 46 or more buildings intended for human occupancy
or where the pipeline lies within 100 yards of any building, or small
well-defined outside area occupied by 20 or more people on at least
5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 12-month period.
Class 4 Location where buildings with four or more stories aboveground are
prevalent.
Class locations representing more populated areas require higher safety factors in
pipeline design, testing, and operation. Pipe wall thickness and pipeline design pressures,
33
hydrostatic test pressures, maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP), inspection
and testing of welds, and frequency of pipeline patrols and leak surveys must also
conform to higher standards in more populated areas. If a subsequent increase in
population density adjacent to the right-of-way indicates a change in class location for the
pipeline, Kinder Morgan would reduce the MAOP or replace the segment with pipe of
sufficient grade and wall thickness, if required to comply with the DOT regulations for
the new class location.
In 2002, Congress passed an act to strengthen the nation's pipeline safety laws.
The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (HR 3609) was passed by Congress on
November 15, 2002, and signed into law by the President in December, 2002. No later
than December 17, 2004, gas transmission operators were to develop and follow a written
integrity management program that contains all the elements described in section 192.911
and addresses the risks on each covered transmission pipeline segment. Specifically, the
law established an integrity management program which applies to all high consequence
areas (HCAs). The DOT (68 FR 69778, 69 FR 18228, and 69 FR 29903) defines HCAs
as they relate to the different class zones, potential impact circles, or areas containing an
identified site as defined in section 192.903 of the DOT regulations.
OPS published a series of rules from August 6, 2002 to May 26, 2004 (69 FR
29903), that defines HCAs where a gas pipeline accident could do considerable harm to
people and their property and requires an integrity management program to minimize the
potential for an accident. This definition satisfies, in part, the Congressional mandate in
49 U.S.C. 60109 for OPS to prescribe standards that establish criteria for identifying each
gas pipeline facility in a high-density population area.
The HCAs may be defined in one of two ways. In the first method, an HCA
includes:
• current class 3 and 4 locations;
• any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact radius4 is greater than
660 feet and there are 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy
within the potential impact circles; or
• any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact circle includes an
identified site6.
The potential impact radius is calculated as the product of 0.69 and the square root of the MAOP of the
pipeline in pounds per square inch multiplied by the pipeline diameter in inches.
The potential impact circle is a circle of radius equal to the potential impact radius.
6 An identified site is an outside area or open structure that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least
50 days in any 12-month period; a building that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 5 days a
week for any 10 weeks in any 12-month period; or a facility that is occupied by persons who are confined,
are of impaired mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate.
34
In the second method, an HCA includes any area within a potential impact circle
which contains:
• 20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy, or
• an identified site.
Once a pipeline operator has determined the HCAs on its pipeline, it must apply
the elements of its integrity management program to those segments of the pipeline
within HCAs. The DOT regulations specify the requirements for the integrity
management plan at section 192.911. The HCAs have been determined based on the
relationship of the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project centerline to other nearby
structures and identified sites. The majority of the pipeline route would be located in
class 1 and 2 locations. However, two sections of the project (MP 36.5-37.0 and MP
38.7-39.3) would be constructed in class 3 locations, and are consequently HCAs. The
pipeline integrity management rule for HCAs requires inspection of the entire pipeline in
HCAs every 7 years.
Part 192 prescribes the minimum standards for operating and maintaining pipeline
facilities, including the requirement to establish a written plan governing these activities.
Under section 192.615, each pipeline operator must also establish an emergency plan that
includes procedures to minimize the hazards in a natural gas pipeline emergency. Key
elements of the plan include procedures for:
• receiving, identifying, and classifying emergency events, gas leakage, fires,
explosions, and natural disasters;
• establishing and maintaining communications with local fire, police, and
public officials, and coordinating emergency response;
• emergency shutdown of system and safe restoration of service;
• making personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of
an emergency; and
• protecting people first and then property, and making them safe from actual
or potential hazards.
Part 192 requires that each operator must establish and maintain liaison with
appropriate fire, police, and public officials to learn the resources and responsibilities of
each organization that may respond to a natural gas pipeline emergency, and to
coordinate mutual assistance. The operator must also establish a continuing education
program to enable customers, the public, government officials, and those engaged in
excavation activities to recognize a gas pipeline emergency and report it to appropriate
public officials. Kinder Morgan would be required to provide the appropriate training to
local emergency service personnel before the pipeline is placed in service. No additional
35
specialized local fire protection equipment would be required to handle pipeline
emergencies.
b. Pipeline Accident Data
Since February 9, 1970, 49 CFR 191 has required all operators of transmission and
gathering systems to notify the DOT of specific types of incidents that occurred during
the operation of the natural gas transmission and gathering systems nationwide. The
DOT changed reporting requirements after June 1984 to reduce the amount of data
collected. However, because the 14.5-year period from 1970 through June 1984 provides
a larger universe of data and more basic report information than subsequent years, it has
been subject to detailed analysis, as discussed below.
From February 1970 through June 19848, the dominant incident cause was outside
forces, constituting 53.8 percent of all service incidents. Outside forces incidents result
from the encroachment of mechanical equipment such as bulldozers and backhoes; earth
movements due to soil settlement, washouts, or geologic hazards; weather effects such as
winds, storms, and thermal strains; and willful damage. An analysis of the outside forces
incidents shows that human error in equipment usage was responsible for approximately
75 percent of outside forces incidents. Since April 1982, operators have been required to
participate in "One Call" public utility programs in populated areas to minimize
unauthorized excavation activities in the vicinity of pipelines. The "One Call" program is
a service used by public utilities and some private sector companies (e.g., oil pipelines
and cable television) to provide preconstruction information to contractors or other
maintenance workers on the underground location of pipes, cables, and culverts. The
1986 through 2005 data show that the portion of incidents caused by outside forces has
decreased to 38.5 percent.
The frequency of service incidents is strongly dependent on pipeline age. While
pipelines installed since 1950 exhibit a fairly constant level of service incident frequency,
pipelines installed before that time have a significantly higher rate, partially due to
corrosion. Older pipelines have a higher frequency of corrosion incidents, because
corrosion is a time-dependent process. Further, new pipe generally uses more advanced
coatings and cathodic protection to reduce corrosion potential. The use of both an
external protective coating and a cathodic protection system, required on all pipelines
installed after July 1971, significantly reduces the rate of failure compared to unprotected
or partially protected pipe. Older pipelines also have a higher frequency of outside forces
incidents partly because their location may be less well known and less well marked than
Jones, D.J., G.S.Kramer, D.N. Gideon,and R.J. Eiber, 1986. "An Analysis of Reportable Incidents for
Natural Gas Transportation and Gathering Lines 1970 Through June 1984." NG-18 Report No. 158,
Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Association.
8 Data taken from NG-18 Report No. 158, Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas
Association(1987).
36
newer lines. In addition, the older pipelines contain a disproportionate number of smaller
diameter pipelines, which are more easily crushed or broken by mechanical equipment or
earth movements.
The available data show that natural gas pipelines continue to be a safe and
reliable means of energy transportation. Based on approximately 301,000 miles in
service, the rate of public fatalities for the nationwide mix of transmission and gathering
lines in service is 0.01 per year per 1,000 miles of pipeline. Using this rate, the Colorado
Lateral Expansion Project is not likely to result in more than one public fatality every
2,415 plus years. This would represent only a slight increase in risk to the nearby public.
3.9 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts result when impacts associated with a proposed project are
superimposed on, or added to, impacts associated with past, present, or reasonably
foreseeable future projects within the area affected by the proposed project. Although the
individual impacts of the separate projects may be minor, the combined effects of the
projects could be significant.
For this project, a variety of ongoing agricultural activities, industrial
developments, and residential developments could contribute to potentially significant
cumulative impacts. None of eight planned residential, commercial, and business
developments in the project area that we know about are anticipated to be significantly
impacted by the project (see EA section 3.6). We believe that the potential for significant
cumulative impacts as a result of construction and operation of the proposed project and
the eight planned developments would be limited primarily to impacts on land use and
soil resources.
The proposed project and the eight planned developments would result in both
temporary and permanent changes to current land uses and vegetation and involve soil
disturbance. The majority of the land use impact associated with the Colorado Lateral
Expansion Project would be temporary and minor, as most land disturbed would be
allowed to revert to prior use following construction and allow for reestablishment of
vegetation. The proposed mainline would parallel existing rights-of-way for 94 percent
of the route and Kinder Morgan would use its Plan to avoid or minimize the erosion
potential of this project. Given the topography and disturbed nature of the proposed
locations of the meter stations, the cumulative permanent impact attributable to this
project would be minimal.
We do not anticipate the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project significantly
contributing to any cumulative impacts on land use, vegetation, or soils as a result of
these projects.
37
4.0 Alternatives
Alternatives discussed in this section include the no-action alternative, system
alternatives, and route variations. We considered these alternatives to determine if any
were reasonable and preferable to the proposed action. Our evaluation criteria for
selecting potentially environmentally-preferable alternatives are:
• technical and economic feasibility and practicality;
• significant environmental advantage over the proposed project; and
• ability to meet the project objectives of adding 57 MMcfd of pipeline
capacity from the Cheyenne Hub to distribution points in the Greeley
market area, enhancing the ability of interconnecting the Cheyenne Hub to
various market areas along the Front Range, increasing supply options for
customers, and provide needed natural gas service to customers in time for
the 2008 winter heating season.
No-Action Alternative
Under the no-action alternative, the short- and long-term impacts identified in this
EA would not occur; however, the project's objectives would not be met. This
alternative would limit the distribution of gas to current levels. No Action would likely
result in one of two scenarios. If natural gas were to be provided by another supplier,
additional capacity may need to be constructed (see System Alternatives discussion
below). The other possibility is that customers would have to use alternative fuels.
Readily available alternative fuels are coal and oil, both of which would emit greater
amounts of PM, SO2, CO, hydrocarbons, and non-criteria pollutants during combustion
compared with relatively clean-burning natural gas. Renewable alternative energies such
as wind and solar are either not as reliable as traditional energy sources or are not yet
ready for large-scale commercial application. Therefore, we conclude that neither the No
Action nor the Postponed Action Alternative would be environmentally preferable to the
proposed action.
System Alternatives
We considered system alternatives to the proposed action that would make use of
other existing, modified, or proposed pipeline systems to meet the stated objectives of the
project. A system alternative would make it unnecessary to construct all or part of the
proposed project, although some modifications or additions to another existing pipeline
system may be required to increase its capacity, or another entirely new system may need
to be constructed. Such modifications or additions would result in environmental impacts
that could be less than, similar to, or greater than that associated with the proposed
project.
38
Alternative systems that service the Greeley area are owned by Colorado Interstate
Gas Company and Xcel Energy9; however, both of these systems are at or near capacity.
Kinder Morgan's proposed Colorado Lateral Expansion Project would bypass Atmos'
existing gas supplier, PSCo, which currently supplies Atmos with up to 46,784
dekatherms per day (Dth/d). Kinder Morgan's proposed expansion would initially
transport 47,000 Dth/d and ultimately transport up to 55,000 Dth/d. With minimal
expansion (e.g. increasing compression or looping]° of its current system), the existing
PSCo system could transport an equal volume of natural gas with fewer environmental
impacts.
Because PSCo has no application before the Commission and has not identified
the extent of the facilities it would need to provide a level of service equivalent to that
proposed by Kinder Morgan, we can't quantify the potential environmental impacts
attributable to such a system upgrade nor compare the impacts to those described in this
EA for the proposed action. However, given that PSCo's system extends between the
Cheyenne Hub at Greeley, it is likely that whatever upgrades it would need could be
accomplished with less facilities (and therefore, less disturbance and potential impacts)
than those currently proposed. On this basis of this assumption, one may conclude that
from a purely environmental standpoint, upgrading PSCo's existing system would be a
preferable alternative to the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project. However, this would
not meet the project objectives of enhancing the transportation options for market areas
along the Front Range in Colorado. The Commission will consider both the
environmental and non-environmental record in deciding whether to authorize Kinder
Morgan's proposal. We note that as proposed by Kinder Morgan and modified by our
recommendations, the Colorado Lateral Expansion Project would be an environmentally
acceptable action.
Route Variations
Because the proposed project would parallel an existing right-of-way and was
found to pose limited environmental impacts, we evaluated no route variations. In
addition, we received no comments suggesting alternate routing of the pipeline.
In response to the City of Greeley's request that Kinder Morgan locate its
proposed Greeley North and West Meter Station in a more industrial area, Kinder
Morgan has agreed to locate this meter station on the WAPA tract. The meter station
would be similar to the existing facilities (an electrical substation). Kinder Morgan also
agreed to locate the Greeley South Meter Station 400 feet to the east of its original
PSCo is a regulated operating company of Xcel Energy.
10 A pipeline loop is a segment of pipeline that is installed adjacent to or in the vicinity of an existing
pipeline and connected to the existing pipeline at both ends. A loop increases the volume of gas that can
be transported through that portion of the system.
39
location. This would avoid impacting any future development at the intersection of Two
Rivers Parkway and 37th Street. These locations were developed in consultation between
the City of Greeley and Kinder Morgan.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
We conclude that approval of this proposal would not constitute a major federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. This finding is based
on the analysis in this EA, Kinder Morgan's application and supplemental filings,
implementation of Kinder Morgan's proposed mitigation, and our additional measures
listed below. We recommend that the Commission Order contain a finding of no
significant impact and include the mitigation measures listed below as conditions to any
certificate the Commission may issue.
1. Kinder Morgan shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures
described in its application, supplements (including responses to staff data
requests), and as identified in the EA, unless modified by the Commission Order.
Kinder Morgan must:
a. request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a
filing with the Secretary;
b. justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions;
c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of
environmental protection than the original measure; and
d. receive approval in writing from the Director of OEP before using that
modification.
2. The Director of OEP has delegated authority to take whatever steps are necessary
to ensure the protection of all environmental resources during construction and
operation of the project. This authority shall allow:
a. the modification of conditions of the Commission Order; and
b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed
necessary(including stop-work authority) to assure continued compliance
with the intent of the environmental conditions as well as the avoidance or
mitigation of adverse environmental impact resulting from the project
construction and operation.
3. Prior to any construction, Kinder Morgan shall file an affirmative statement with
the Secretary, certified by a senior company official, that all company personnel,
EI, and contractor personnel will be informed of the EIs' authority and have been
or will be trained on the implementation of the environmental mitigation measures
40
appropriate to their jobs before becoming involved with construction and
restoration activities.
4. The authorized facility locations shall be as shown in the EA, as supplemented by
filed alignment sheets and data responses. As soon as they are available, and
before the start of construction, Kinder Morgan shall file with the Secretary any
revised detailed survey alignment maps/sheets at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000
with station positions for all facilities approved by the Commission Order. All
requests for modifications of environmental conditions of the Commission Order
or site-specific clearances must reference locations designated on these alignment
maps/sheets.
Kinder Morgan's exercise of eminent domain authority granted under NGA
section 7(h) in any condemnation proceedings related to the Order must be
consistent with the authorized facilities and their locations. Kinder Morgan's right
of eminent domain granted under NGA section 7(h) does not authorize it to
increase the size of its natural gas pipeline to accommodate future needs or to
acquire a right-of-way for a pipeline to transport a commodity other than natural
gas.
5. Kinder Morgan shall file with the Secretary detailed alignment maps/sheets and
aerial photographs at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 identifying all route
realignments or facility relocations, and staging areas, pipe storage yards, new
access roads, and other areas that would be used or disturbed and have not been
previously identified in filings with the Secretary. Approval for each of these
areas must be explicitly requested in writing. For each area, the request must
include a description of the existing land use/cover type, and documentation of
landowner approval, whether any cultural resources or federally listed threatened
or endangered species would be affected, and whether any other environmentally
sensitive areas are within or abutting the area. All areas shall be clearly identified
on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. Each area must be approved in writing by
the Director of OEP before construction in or near that area.
This requirement does not apply to extra workspace allowed by Kinder Morgan's
Plan and/or minor field realignments per landowner needs and requirements which
do not affect other landowners or sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands.
Examples of alternations requiring approval include all route realignments and
facility location changes resulting from:
a. implementation of cultural resource mitigation measures;
b. implementation of endangered, threatened, or special concern species
mitigation measures;
41
c. recommendations by state regulatory authorities; and
d. agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or
could affect sensitive environmental areas.
6. Within 60 days of the acceptance of its Certificate and before the start of
construction, Kinder Morgan shall file an initial Implementation Plan with the
Secretary for review and written approval by the Director of OEP describing how
Kinder Morgan will implement the mitigation measures required by the
Commission Order. Kinder Morgan must file revisions to the plan as schedules
change. The plan shall identify:
a. how Kinder Morgan will incorporate these requirements into the contract
bid documents, construction contracts (especially penalty clauses and
specifications), and construction drawings so that the mitigation required at
each site is clear to onsite construction and inspection personnel;
b. the number of EIs assigned per spread, and how the company will ensure
that sufficient personnel are available to implement the environmental
mitigation; t
c. company personnel, including EIs and contractors, who will receive copies
of the appropriate material;
d. the training and instructions Kinder Morgan will give to all personnel
involved with construction and restoration (initial and refresher training as
the project progresses and personnel change), with the opportunity for OEP
staff to participate in the training session(s);
e. the company personnel (if known) and specific portion of Kinder Morgan's
organization having responsibility for compliance;
f. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) Kinder Morgan will
follow if noncompliance occurs; and
g. for each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar project
scheduling diagram), and dates for:
i. the completion of all required surveys and reports;
ii. the mitigation training of onsite personnel;
iii. the start of construction; and
iv. the start and completion of restoration.
7. Kinder Morgan shall employ at least two EIs. The EIs shall be:
a. responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigation
measures required by the Commission Order and other grants, permits,
certificates, or authorizing documents;
42
b. responsible for evaluating the construction contractor's implementation of
the environmental mitigation measures required in the contract (see
condition 6 above) and any other authorizing document;
c. empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental
conditions of the Order, and any other authorizing document;
d. a full-time position separate from all other activity inspectors;
e. responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions
of the Order, as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements
imposed by other federal, state, or local agencies; and
f. responsible for maintaining status reports.
8. Kinder Morgan shall file updated status reports prepared by the head EI with the
Secretary on a bi-weekly basis until all construction and restoration activities
are complete. On request, these status reports will also be provided to other
federal and state agencies with permitting responsibilities. Status reports shall
include:
a. the current construction status of the project, work planned for the
following reporting period, and any schedule changes for stream crossings
or work in other environmentally sensitive areas;
b. a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance
observed by the EI during the reporting period (both for the conditions
imposed by the Commission and any environmental conditions/permit
requirements imposed by other federal, state, or local agencies;
c. a description of corrective actions implemented in response to all instances
of noncompliance, and their cost);
d. the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented;
e. a description of any landowner/resident complaints which may relate to
compliance with the requirements of the Commission Order, and the
measures taken to satisfy their concerns; and
f. copies of any correspondence received by Kinder Morgan from other
federal, state, or local permitting agencies concerning instances of
noncompliance, and Kinder Morgan's response.
9. Kinder Morgan must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP
before commencing service from the project. Such authorization will only be
granted following a determination that rehabilitation and restoration of the right-
of-way and other areas of project-related disturbance are proceeding satisfactorily.
10. Within 30 days of placing the certificated facility in service, Kinder Morgan
shall file an affirmative statement with the Secretary, certified by a senior
company official:
43
a. that the facilities have been constructed in compliance with all applicable
conditions, and that continuing activities will be consistent with all
applicable conditions; or
b. identifying which of the Certificate conditions Kinder Morgan has
complied with or will comply with. This statement shall also identify any
areas affected by the project where compliance measures were not properly
implemented, if not previously identified in filed status reports, and the
reason for noncompliance.
11. Kinder Morgan shall develop an HDD Contingency Plan that describes how the
drilling operations would be conducted and monitored to minimize the potential
for inadvertent drilling mud releases or failure of the drill. The HDD Contingency
Plan shall discuss procedures Kinder Morgan would implement to clean-up
drilling mud releases and sealing the drill hole if a drill cannot be completed. This
plan shall be filed with the Secretary for the review and approval of the Director of
OEP prior to construction.
12. Kinder Morgan shall implement either full right-of-way topsoil stripping or ditch-
plus-spoil-side topsoil segregation method in actively cultivated or rotated
cropland and pastures, residential areas, and other areas at the landowner's or land
managing agency's request.
13. Kinder Morgan shall not construct within 0.25 mile of any active great horned owl
nest between January 21 and May 15.
14. Kinder Morgan shall continue to work with the City of Greeley to develop a visual
screening plan for the proposed Greeley North and West Meter Station and the
Greeley South Meter Station. Prior to construction, Kinder Morgan shall file the
final visual screening plan for the two facilities, including any consultations or
comments from the City of Greeley, with the Secretary for review and approval by
the Director of OEP.
15. Kinder Morgan shall file an HDD noise analysis and mitigation plan, for the
review and written approval of the Director of OEP prior to construction. The
plan shall include a large scale (1:3,600 or greater) plot plan identifying the
proposed HDD entry and exit locations and the nearest NSAs, quantify the
estimated noise levels at the NSAs that would result from the proposed HDD
operations, and describe how noise levels would be controlled so they do not
exceed an La„ of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, or alternatively, indicate what
mitigation would be offered to the residents of those NSAs.
44
APPENDIX A
MAINLINE FACILITY MAPS
I
I
I
I
45
13 12:
\ 3M1H31#W, _A --1 ° f 271
. n �NS ] I \ � I14 � r II � � N' - `/ 'r' II fl pla
u 2 5" _� 1 I• , o Cr Al c' o°U f
zS ) ( 1 �,S r .,‘ �� ' @ w
\ ° o l _\:„.,‘
v > d 3 vii
I
1 1✓1 l i vy o
� i u'1r
. ��
3 1
1 t tij �)1m+
C
..1� r / 1 V 1 N O
A
Vi A JYOU
"
�- J I L 1 �I
V -" , r - 1. __ � I � \\ I ,J , } s
c 'm 1 ( J< ,L^Jr , - r
f
g
fi
L
s (
/rte w ' {0�km A i C �.„ a—�1—M
5 I N
> ` r \ cr'-yr' (
; I 47 I
sr
j c
az3 l €
/ 1 G l3 �J S O ill • 9
'/ ! I \ uA NLLL \ q
(%
)I I NZI1 l'-'
lj v ,) ) �c X12 J � � g
�" 1 r g
)y\
rl i _ ri j i 1 $ C }�I DS IMA w q. g
, ti> ) rl [\ ��/I _ //- f t -
} J
3NI1H3LVN \S ]� Ti U con
I 5 \. T.• .2 ry
�q I
.N H
�' vv ;
a q n
03 0
���, a -�.. * — o
Pu i"l4 p..1 N oau A -
� r� S
r,-
n
-_ / of wn
\ 7
I 0c 0
- — - rUG
I :
y
g
N �n1, -
1 vI .— _ xr\ •I ��
j . _s % /
-..�� 8
6 ca
/ g
/ t y" —— . 1 N� 8
is
/ . —
I
;I I1
/
, 'I s
g:
rl
lb
� /
O -e 9 r^ -C
o
ti 4 1 ) )
t )
Noll
/; Nlbl ��S
_v en L i )
0
I� � A ck c1 l Y
LI oV vI � , N
\ aenNabw vJ ' ) 0
•
I, 1�1 (� 3W 1-8 w
tlG j` �s,.-+ens 3NIlH1V
o @ `f
13 'at
r 8 .1 ?c $
vam
U ,_
N
-`r s p or, IJ
Y '�. U J
G mph
Y`. N � p�1C fie'
1 +. ' W cc
4 $
—
II IT
0•1`1L.,,, I 8
}._, o
\ n s
� �
s 4
....� ; I
yNP : .____ ____ ___ .aM r
1 I . - "sl- N
� e = s>Vt I
r z rc
17 x
1 ) /,_ \ ' 4 a,wo
I I
N61
N2 011
\ n:
u
s,\ a
�F E
I
`N r
I
f 4 1 A
1 1 /
/ 1 yf1 y
[n 1 mail
I'..\ I \ ..,p \
LI__�_'6 V �1 T 3NIlHD1tlW V JE
I.
� o n
u3 .2
(f3NIlH0IVW 3 n..
fi _ X,: '� F ai S Z @ e
J C 81
9 U IIIS
<>
. - � r a.e0.i _ - .n n m^` E'
E n
Q -'" 't
o �wc
era?
o r \�- -- - - -_ i ..4 f"'' +�.._-_
uw
1 I,
0!z
i F __ 8
ft
- A re
-. 1 ; o�
NI I
1
'\ I�
I
y
__ r
N61 a
S.
In-
aI �i
I s
1 �
iunq _ - v
moo, ae unooP.16:- CM'
om w�u.o�a
' I s
N
II �
1
\ I /-\ I ' ic
C
IN 0 CD
I- Qc; r ----
vI 8 / `;',C---`-----7::‘,--\°:.-- ,c-----Nc r
\ @° .0<o s
3NIlND1tlW ` v ¢�
,I .17C- H@ '''<y,':,
` r � V 2�
1 � in,--,,,,,,) ��� A
a a ,�� r� �I ' ' i ��� , °f
h nmw
} } v I,,
. . III
' y 11 1 [— ® �q
1' . ao �I '` (� ' /' ..
k{: (� -1/_-./ l MI L ; � 1 , : � �( rig
Iaq \ • °y V - �
- Iv I ,r- ilk'
-92
v vy I / ; 1� ) ,I . o g
7 J j v �. b `r—" `r J i S
, N C in
1 \
o
� ➢1&� v l .�( �/ S
yr
8 L u
Hr
�. A /.A1 j\l III is:sJ�
I k1flop� n 1� d
/1 \ + :7 S:2r} l
\ -/ 'A IPA 1
vHv — �. an -wE a� $ytil .ls flu{ ' d,,. x';,
^� �\ 11 /, e lI)' IA
I I
-°
1 �J
v
�, ', ,
H
ins .. T r al
PD
cw
vwp 'O w
k
I,�3NIlN01tlW '. 1I CO
II f _ I 3
is
ffifl
iI
N Y- �. p— V1
W
s
H.N
¢w
A ° RL' <.,I =.....„o r
3 S
v
1
g
6 04
� I
h
m-1---a '. �� c a `_ '
v— ,--+ I-
// m
Ill
% 1 a '
� � �; fib , 2
f
I/ ۥ
a°
�x
N ,c4
/ i - / F2' _ c a v 0
Jr'
w is _7 r�/•' �� .x d — _ > _ _ 9.' _—A-4—
=la II/ \ ,a✓ L , \ yy r1 Y
g �. �� gi -
r_ „ y„, / '� `1 / , � � s i t �� / '�✓" re,an wawa
,an / , (� C vJ - J ,tis n rc? C I ����6:5,1 ,Jri 1
�ds `Itr/ ��' ( - 1 '> >it ic. I; �r t . :/ v '\\�¢F , �" Ii
: 0.
1/2%
vfiP' 7 r /7 9 U F
�' I 3NIlHp1tlW 'O`� w p
0 ( ZE' ° ft i z 4
..e:a a �i ` _ ( a \`' da ads
d -. 4'4.4I
W.k°y . i f u ��- in fl °i 4.
t _�� f .....,—.),c L� �l JrQNm
1
N \I (Th DOE s
c •61
IIL
1 [ o , a
A
my y _0 u 2 �n ��✓ y roc«
CI y
µr\
14."" -�
9tl
I\ 1 `^- '- I I4. ' O ,fin
! O'!IKti 0' C
n
D I S r
VV 2 __ `'v "t, v Pi a
66_ ¢ u�r ,-
�f �
\7- 1 CHv .a.a V
1 x og
ti„ _ 6, S
—
L � 2 P
} na,
j ` H IIi m
/ ' � � : � — :roe. �
ow
FF 1 t �I :\L-NI
zt
VI0 11,I. I � I / �� I � y�
r
5� / .uro. , 1Ea�—• u .i
I
\ �� � ?M Asy� �.� z pp
I ' / I If v I u � /� 3NIlHD1tlW 5
,fir - sad V V i' -t
ci\ t l j°�vwoauciii9�.. \_� j I J
�i :% (\ i i.� �IVy'ur?`afl its`, �1 N 'I _ Ids
— _.. - w 141 / �-r I I `a,1K i i-VAA xJ 'vrSC
1 y'"lie; iv v\
Lt ' 'tV , , I :\ \,1 3aa .t / - f ' v.v lS\. LV�LIa 'u° e
_ I I - S r\ 4 ' < 1 / , 1`111 1v\l ° -s'— H
s o3
1
z
��A 0" 3 b u,.
—\ /,°mss @ i _ u o ill / .. 'a m_
q
l �
en
r )� 4
� - '" V 1 .y �• o — 3���M
N
\V/ 4
O p
/
I
`(.\Y J� \ _� � � per?.. A /
sc
e v1y, ; S yJi. (i } 1 lit -/'''_.('c�
/�
\ art IN C. 1' ,`",<C2:::/ .' 1 J h' c e�'et �� u
11 i �v €
'. I� . / R gate. rt >CV
kp::h J2' jL / 3
H1Lf
U
\ �.#I /f \\111"—/-- // I i° i i� o-` ?:;-*• •';11//
, t 111 ! g
—`- - .. q� ' 1 1 blb - v '8
i �yA 4�\ 1 u• Q
::-------:::,,,"-I
�.\ e« ., a �" r 1` _3HIrHJlb'W L w`
s I � co
_ ", J
APPENDIX B
NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITY MAPS
54
A�
o u F o U ,_
• j
�� k
*
A'
6 7....,..e7 9. i.,—S;
S
_L in- d C C r
_ _ - i 7- _ -= weie'Py�mv as 3s O11 a m t 9
0 Y I
l
i •
i •
.. ..� .,� A ._ ,.4 Y
i
I42
1 I _jg
O
n �7 z--z o m
s
� 1
\ / it\
t\ o
•
A
I@���,✓ 'ter, �/ � 9 r F
/ )tea % " r
r
T
. r —
s •
' ate ;' -
G to
�.r ° � ' ,v t °, - 1 . g a
Ivy _ L�J,✓ -� - e.,.,x
[ G� C w ^#y i ', e. (/? d
Imo. /tom - d#,' '' ' =+. 1 e +"b '�''x`£ j p / �
1,.w iPl�/_ ',{/ 4 �3�-!-- 3�__ ,a ,.� 1 "v 1 11 A
IZ 72
q
I_ , 1, 3sa i\ ,/� -. , J
'A b
Y
J I C Z
e /2 _
/ X v / / °-"-mid ✓ °// Y /,^ r! \ }�,�f )
JY� ! / w 3NI1N91 W/� ;),/e v N, '��,,IA)
I 8 gipp`\)lit c).74",_-_,-, /'(.. �F" C _...f, • \ -o
o n
- . h Eo na
l 1`\ u ,k,..,- /2„/0..r... p9 co,
eq
C [ems" �/
tiSr—
a'a. Pcn A R� 3NIlN91bW � /R
�yR��- N d=m_
gB _
•
•
-
&.=.Bu. 32 >,� ---A1;---s--z:‘--- I I �,
o I 'e - , ,ABM
St
\ ` m g ' , too( 8
:\ ,>`r .\ '"% _.} _ ,
�, Tom`L ::
.. ) '` C �'q•./$ '
432
o
I �.� n.M. - o
o
D S
'R /� ! • u.
•
\\� IF e� a Bel \ /i
pe at, T4a
� I
j )
; .sue-- ,III
F \ V
ir(rJ ✓
V
i E
t 71
A� �� oA I I I'3NII1N91tlW ) cg cu
)'I I ,.\.. ..._ \ : ty. V 5
( / -,v 1 \ S \ Ida 3NItiNJ1tlW
y LI xH
/ + / d) ) :.':.;.7 ) 17 W 2
I rza
! payl •mil
11 ) +Kn v: ,4$ ., jet. c,„, � rnes e a°'i
i ) r ` key y -.t
1f V A . .A1 r":Fn7 I 'd! " V Au 11 _ II a.r-
' I vA�''' Iv Ir-- V y iSrl I)v1 , ',.V
i
IIII / U
ri
A
•
C
p
p L p >
ao
4 r . �� 2aa
.. rc �E. 1 �. 'L,i6Z:' V. f 1 // p°I fir ) rL° N3
C: O y1 p y
`
`y
�
o ^ r ,
s - " r ;°°"'''' Gi
5f 15 (.. ° r •••••,,,r /,,A.78.,
I '' ' 1ky `4' -A 1�^, c
00
;:,1 -/,--7--- •'' /-* E ... , , Irr)
;' ''''. ') C.N:\I-C,- --d ./ . i r - ' ':: :: A
v:,'' .
,,°6 0 A ' � : / ••• �1 // R.'�� . 9"A IA °s
/k 1
¢ ,/
' o
� � Vv� yy5 i 1 / �
i
, 'V
-/ / t et of v l ,eloiaw✓': l �� '�. __ '..+cs
I
4 C
� )fV/� c v
il •�°` —2.
_/ a _ .10 0 c
p �r tr 4 iA
��- p IL�<, (if,.../d' V V I it m 7d c NI4,\v-3Mti% /i) / m
(- J ! -
rM. l‘ / �ti �/ > \� r ties % �'� .h 5
- ;7-Y- k/:� v 7 .I tl' Nsl7-5\cr k0' - -- /----um c
°
i' , A IEl m 22/ - -
APPENDIX C
LIST OF PREPARERS
58
List of Preparers
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Laffoon, Danny— Project Manager
B.S., Fisheries and Wildlife, 2000, Virginia Tech
Boros, Laurie—Cultural Resources
B.A., Anthropology/Archaeology, 1980, Queens College, C.U.N.Y.
Johnson, Gertrude—Air Quality and Noise and Reliability and Safety
B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 2003, Virginia Commonwealth University
59
Hello