The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20173669.tiffw •J r 'Jr P: USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES * 1555 N. 17TH AVENUE * GREELEY, CO 80631 www.weldgov.com * 970-353-6100 EXT 3540 * FAX 970-304-6498 FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE: AMOUNT $ APPLICATION RECEIVED BY DATE RECEIVED: CASE # ASSIGNED: PLANNER ASSIGNED: Parcel Number*: See attached Parcels Crossed list Address of site: Weld Count CO Sections 35, 34, 27, 22, 10, & 11 Legal Description: Zone District: A Acreage: Floodplain:YON FEE OWNER(S) OF THE PROPERTY: EASEMENTS Name: Erik T. Van Decar Company: Green River DevCo LP Section: Township: Geological Hazard: Phone #4 720-587-2462 Email: erik.vandecar nblenergy.com Street Address: 1625 Broadway #2200 City/State/Zip Code: Denver, CO 80202 Range: 64 w N Airport Overlay: Name: Company: Phone #: Email: Street Address: City/State/Zip Code: Name: Company: Phone #: Street Address: City/State/Zip Code: Email: APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT: (See below: Authorization must accompanyall applications signed byAuthorizedAgents,) Name: Erik T. Van Decar Company: Green River DevCo LP Phone #: 720-587-2462 Email: erik.vandecar nblenergy.cam Street Address: 1625 Broadway #2200 City/State/Zip Code: Denver, co 80202 PROPOSED USE: Construction of two seperate 12" natural gas pipelines. I (We) hereby depose and state under penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals, and/or plans submitted with or contained within the application are true and correct to the best of my (our)knowledge. Signatures of all fee owners of property must sign this application. If an Authorized Agent signs, a letter of authorization from all feeowners must be included with the application.--ser-peon is the fee owner, notarized evidence must be included indicating that the signatory has to legal juth yt• •r theor oration. 7/4777 Signa • = Owner or Authorized Agent Date Signature: Owner or Authorized Agent Date 6:ger 417 Print Name Print Name Rev 4/2016 South Area Gas Pipeline, Phase 2 Parcels Crossed List PARCEL NAME ADDRESS1 ADDRESS! CITY STATE ZIPCODE TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION 130510000006 WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP C/O WASTE MANAGEMENT PO BOX 1450 CHICAGO IL 606901450 2 64 10 130511000002 WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP C/O WASTE MANAGEMENT PO BOX 1450 CHICAGO IL 606901450 2 64 11 130522000005 GINGERICH STANLEY F 120 W NELSON AVE KEENESBURG CO 806439043 2 64 22 130522000006 GINGERICH STANLEY F 120 W NELSON AVE KEENESBURG CO 806439043 2 64 22 130522200028 MINNE FREDRIC F LIVING TRUST PO BOX 88 KEENESBURG CO 806430088 2 64 22 130522300002 GINGERICH STANLEY F PO BOX 316 KEENESBURG CO 806430316 2 64 22 130527000020 GINGERICH STANLEY PO BOX 316 KEENESBURG CO 806430316 2 64 27 130527000021 KRCMARIK SUSAN FLEISCHMANN (1/4 INT) C/O SUSAN FLEISCHMANN KRCMARIK 3316 SAGEWATER CT FORT COLLINS CO 805289471 2 64 27 130527000021 HEINICKE KIMBERLY E (1/4 INT) C/O SUSAN FLEISCHMANN KRCMARIK 3316 SAGEWATER CT FORT COLLINS CO 805289471 2 64 27 130527000021 CRAIG CLAUDIA (1/4 INT) C/O SUSAN FLEISCHMANN KRCMARIK FORT COLLINS CO 805289471 2 64 27 3316 SAGEWATER CT 130527000021 TOMPKINS MARCIA (1/4 INT) C/O SUSAN FLEISCHMANN KRCMARIK 3316 SAGEWATER CT FORT COLLINS CO 805289471 2 64 27 130534000013 FRITZLER ROBERT A PO BOX 343 KEENESBURG CO 806430343 2 64 34 130534000014 FRITZLER ROBERT A PO BOX 343 KEENESBURG CO 806430343 2 64 34 130534000032 FRITZLER ROBERT A PO BOX 343 KEENESBURG CO 806430343 2 64 34 130535000001 VINES SANDRA 6745 SOUTHRIDGE LN CO 801203238 2 64 35 LITTLETON 130535000003 SHARP WC LAND LLC 9378 S STAR HILL CIR CO 801245443 2 64 35 LITTLETON fjnoble no e MIDSTREAM PARTNERS June 30, 2017 Mr. Kim Ogle Weld County Planning 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 1 620 Broadway, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202 303.228.4000 RE: Hudson-Keenesburg CGF Authorized Agent for Green River DevCo LP Dear Mr. Ogle: I am the designated Attorney -In -Fact for the Green River DevCo LP. On behalf of Green River DevCo LP, I authorize Robert Smetana to serve as the Authorized Agent for Green River DevCo LP related to any application with Weld County for the South Area Gas Pipeline Project, including both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Sincerely, Green River DevCo LP By: Green River DevCo GP LLC, its general partner By: Noble Midstream Services, LLC, its sole member Erik T. Van Decar Attorney -In -Fact DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION 1555 N 17TH AVENUE, GREELEY, CO 80631 (970) 353-6100 X3540 AUTHORIZATION FORM Pam Hora represent Erik T. Van Decar for the (Applicant) (Owner) property located at See attached "Parcels Crossed List" Legal Description: Qtr/Qtr Section , Township N, Range Subdivision Name: Lot Block can be contacted at the following phone ##'s: Homc Pam.Hora@tetratech.corm Work Cell 720-864-4507 • 720-201-0173 Correspondence mailed to (only one): Applicant ❑ Property Owner Owner's Signature Date s777 South Area Gas Pipeline, Phase 2 Easement Status Report Attached is the Easement Status Report for the South Area Gas Pipeline, Phase 2. The Easement Status Report provides information on how many► easements have been signed and the most current estimate of when all easements will be signed. The Easement Status Report was created on July 6, 2017. South Area Gas Pipeline Environmental Health Amendment The following Environmental Health Amendment is being submitted for the South Area Gas Pipeline USR to address sanitary facilities for workers, waste disposal, and dust control and APEN requirements. Sanitary Facilities for Workers The South Area Gas Pipeline USR is to permit the installation of a gas pipeline. The only time during which sanitary facilities would be necessary is during construction of the pipeline. Therefore, during construction, it will be the contractor's responsibility to provide portable toilets with handwashing facilities for use by the construction crews. Waste Disposal The only time when waste disposal will be necessary is during construction and the contractor will be responsible for providing waste receptacles to collect trash as a result of the construction process or by the construction workers. There will be no hazardous waste or materials generated during construction of the pipeline. Dust Control and APEN Requirements During the installation of the pipeline, water trucks will be utilized to suppress dust. An APEN will be obtained for construction of this project. South Area Gas Pipeline, Phase 2 Easement Status Report PARCEL NAME ADDRESS1 ADDRESS2 CITY STATE TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION EASEMENT STATUS 130510000006 WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP C/O WASTE MANAGEMENT PO BOX 1450 CHICAGO IL 2 64 10 ROW EXECUTED 130511000002 WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP C/O WASTE MANAGEMENT PO BOX 1450 CHICAGO IL 2 64 11 ROW EXECUTED 130522000005 GINGERICH STANLEY F 120 W NELSON AVE KEENESBURG CO 2 64 22 ROW EXECUTED 130522000006 GINGERICH STANLEY F 120 W NELSON AVE KEENESBURG CO 2 64 22 ROW EXECUTED 130522200028 MINNE FREDRIC F LIVING TRUST PO BOX 88 KEENESBURG CO _ 2 64 22 ROW EXECUTED 130522300002 GINGERICH STANLEY F PO BOX 316 KEENESBURG CO 2 64 22 ROW EXECUTED 130527000020 GINGERICH STANLEY PO BOX 316 KEENESBURG CO 2 64 27 ROW EXECUTED 130527000021 KRCMARIK SUSAN FLEISCHMANN (1/4 INT) C/O SUSAN FLEISCHMANN KRCMARIK 3316 SAGEWATER CT FORT COLLINS CO 2 64 27 ROW EXECUTED 130527000021 HEINICKE KIMBERLY E (1/4 INT) C/O SUSAN FLEISCHMANN KRCMARIK 3316 SAGEWATER CT FORT COLLINS CO 2 64 27 ROW EXECUTED 130527000021 CRAIG CLAUDIA (1/4 INT) C/O SUSAN FLEISCHMANN KRCMARIK 3316 SAGEWATER CT FORT COLLINS CO 2 64 27 ROW EXECUTED 130527000021 TOMPKINS MARCIA (1/4 INT) C/O SUSAN FLEISCHMANN KRCMARIK 3316 SAGEWATER CT FORT COLLINS CO 2 64 27 ROW EXECUTED 130534000013 PO BOX 343 KEENESBURG CO 2 64 34 ROW EXECUTED FRITZLER ROBERT A 130534000014 PO BOX 343 KEENESBURG CO I 2 64 34 ROW EXECUTED FRITZLER ROBERT A 130534000032 FRITZLER ROBERT A PO BOX 343 KEENESBURG CO 2 64 34 ROW EXECUTED 130535000001 VINES SANDRA 6745 SOUTHRIDGE LN CO 2 64 35 ROW EXECUTED LITTLETON 130535000003 SHARP WC LAND LLC 9378 5 STAR HILL CIR CO 2 64 35 ROW EXECUTED LITTLETON South Area Gas Pipeline, Phase 2 Decommissioning Plan The pipeline will be designed to be safely used for hydrocarbon delivery for a projected lifetime of approximately 40 to 50 years. Corrosion of the pipeline will be regularly monitored during the life of the pipeline to ensure the thickness of the pipe is maintained at a level required to withstand pressures within the pipeline, with adequate Factors of Safety included. When the decision is made by the Owner that the pipeline must be taken out of service, the typical process is that the pipeline is cleaned of all hydrocarbons and repeatedly flushed to achieve a condition to minimize any off -gassing or leaking, then the terminations of the pipe segments are sealed shut. The pipeline is typically idled or abandoned in place, and well -marked to show where it is located. If the pipeline is idled and empty, all operations and maintenance activities under DOT Part 192 will continue. If required by the jurisdiction, the pipeline can be dug up and the disturbed earth re -graded and restored. In such cases, the steel would be recycled. The restoration requirements would include final grading to match pre-existing conditions, and to prevent any increased drainage runoff. The disturbed areas are seeded with native grass mixes matching the construction restoration specifications for non -cultivated areas (including rangeland and fallow areas). For cultivated areas, the disturbed area would be re -graded and then replanted by the landowner in the next growing season. In all cases, temporary erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMP's) would be put in place to control erosion until the native and cultivated plants are established. Note that removal of the pipeline is ideal from the standpoint of safety issues in congested areas. However, some pipelines achieve a productive secondary use if cleaned out and used as a conduit for other utilities, including fiber optic lines. Similarly, the segments of the pipeline crossing under existing County Roads can be left in place and used for future utility crossings, thereby reducing the damage and inconvenience associated with those future crossings. For longer segments of abandoned steel pipeline in places where fiber optic lines are being installed, the pipeline has a residual value and may be sold to the telecommunications carrier. In cases where the piping at road crossings is left in place, the piping can be donated to the County and/or future utility(ies) to offset the costs and requirements of digging up and restoring the roads. South Area Gas Pipeline, Phase 2 Summary Statement Following in bold are bullet points of the topics Weld County asked be explained within the Summary Statement for the project. Following each bullet point is an explanation of how the point has been addressed. • Source, capacity, size destination and type of facilities, support structures, lines, etc. • Description of pipeline. The South Area Gas Pipeline, Phase 2 (the pipeline) is proposed by Green River DevCo LP (Green River). For some background as to who Green River is, Noble Midstream Services, LLC is the sole member of Green River DevCo GP LLC, which is the general partner of Green River DevCo LP. The South Area Gas Pipeline, Phase 2 is a pipeline that will transport natural gas from Noble's operations area in southeast Weld County, referred to as the Mustang Integrated Development Plan (IDP) to the South Area Gas Pipeline. The South Area Gas Pipeline, which is the first phase of this project, is currently under review as USR17-0034. The South Area Gas Pipeline, Phase 2 includes two separate 12 -inch natural gas pipelines, both of which will connect to the South Area Gas Pipeline currently under review. The total length of natural gas pipeline to be permitted with this application is approximately 6 miles. As with the South Area Gas Pipeline, the Phase 2 lines will have a wall thickness of at least 0.375 of an inch; increased wall thickness or increased steel hoop strength will be used where engineering design determines it is needed. The pipelines will be coated with fusion -bonded epoxy (FBE) and will have a maximum operating pressure of 740 per square inch gauge (prig) at 100°F. The pipeline flow measurement will be monitored by a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. The natural gas that flows into the Phase 2 pipeline will come from other Econodes in the vicinity of the Phase 2 pipelines and that gas will travel north in the South Area Gas Pipeline to a third -party compressor station that is independent of Green River. The independent natural gas processing company will process the natural gas and sell it to an end user such as Xcel Energy for use by the public. The typical easement agreement that Green River is acquiring from landowners will include provisions for both a permanent easement and a temporary easement. Green River would like to obtain permanent easements that it can accommodate not only the gas pipeline being permitted with this Use by Special Review (USR) application, but also future oil and fresh water pipeline projects through this same corridor, in order to minimize the impacts of its pipelines on landowners. Temporary construction easements are also being requested so that contractors have adequate space to work during pipeline installation. When the proposed 6± miles of natural gas pipeline is constructed, the depth of the pipeline will vary depending on surface conditions, but the minimum pipeline depth will be compliant with DOT requirements. DOT 192.327 code requires the pipeline to have at least 30 inches of cover in Class 1 locations and 36 inches of cover in Class 2, 3, and 4 locations. Where it crosses under roads, ditches, or railroads, it needs to have at least 36 inches of cover. Green River will evaluate class locations to determine applicable cover. The pipeline is planned to cross Weld County Roads (VCRs) 18 and 16, Interstate 76, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad right-of-way (ROW). Permits will be acquired from Weld County, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and BNSF to cross each of these ROWs. In addition, ditch crossing agreements permits will be obtained from ditch companies for any ditches that need to be crossed. Occasionally, a "smart pig" may be sent through the pipe to electronically measure the pipe wall thickness to detect the extent of any corrosion. At the other end of the pipeline, a similar above -ground section of pipe has a bolt -on opening that allows the pig to be removed from the pipeline after scraping it clean. A launcher/receiver is similar, and allows the pig to be sent in either direction depending on the direction of flow within the pipeline. A►t this time, the exact locations of launchers/receivers along the pipeline is not 1 known. The launchers/receivers are fabricated from pipeline steel that is designed to withstand pipeline pressures of up to 720 pounds per square inch (psi) and permanently anchored to the ground with either concrete foundations or drilled helical piers. In addition, it is continuously anchored to the below -grade portions of the pipeline. The launcher/receiver portions of the pipeline are essentially the same diameter as the pipeline (i.e., 12 inches in diameter). • Description of the preferred route or site and reasons for its selection. • A description of the method or procedures to be employed to avoid or minimize the impacts on irrigated agricultural land. • An explanation of how the design of the pipeline mitigates negative impacts on the surrounding area to the greatest extent feasible. The route selected is generally the shortest and most direct route to collect gas from the Mustang IDP area. Econodes in the Mustang IDP area connect directly into the South Area Gas Pipeline, Phase 2 to allow for a more efficient transfer of product from production to market. There are limited options for routing the pipeline from the Econodes to the South Area Gas Pipeline, but the most direct route that avoids existing improvements and with landowners willing to grant easements to Green River have been selected. • Procedures to be employed in mitigating adverse impacts of the proposed route. In general, the route selected was deemed to be the most direct and will be placed on properties owned by landowners who are willing to grant easements to Green River. In addition, the route selected will minimize impacts on the community, minimize cost, and maximize safety during construction by crossing as few roads as possible. The pipeline needs to cross Interstate 76 and the BNSF Railroad; however, Green River is already working on crossing agreements with both entities. Temporary and permanent access points to the County Road from the pipeline easement will be planned out during the design process and permitted with the County Public Works Department. These access points will be constructed in locations with adequate visibility, and will be designed with tracking control to keep mud off the county roads. Noble will work to find access locations into properties where fencing and gates are placed far enough away from the county road to ensure that vehicles entering the site are completely off the road when they stop to open a gate. If needed, they will work with landowners to temporarily modify fencing or gates during construction to prevent problems with vehicles blocking county roads as they access properties. Physical facilities such as valves and pig launchers/receivers will be located off of the County Road ROW, and laid out to allow safe access by Green River maintenance technicians. Environmental reports were completed for the proposed pipeline alignment by SWCA (reports are included in the application package). It was determined that some sensitive environmental resource areas are along the route and will require mitigation measures to avoid and minimize impacts during construction of the pipeline. Each mitigation measure is outlined in a letter from Noble Midstream Partner's Senior Environmental Coordinator, which is included in the application package along with all of the environmental reports. • A description of the plan for controlling soil erosion, dust, and the growth of noxious weeds. • A statement addressing how there will be no adverse impact from stormwater runoff to the public rights -of -way or surrounding properties as a result of the pipeline. Grading, erosion, and sediment control plans and details will be included in the design plans for the pipeline. Dust mitigation will be conducted by watering the disturbed area several times a day during construction with a watering truck, using water purchased from the local water district. Revegetation of disturbed areas will occur following placement of the pipe. The surface will be graded to minimize erosion and then replanted with the vegetation that existed prior to pipeline construction. Revegetation will be required for grassland and fallow land using native seed mixes specified by the local soil conservation 2 service. Cultivated land will be graded to minimize erosion and then planted by the landowner for the next growin g season • An outline of the planned construction, including startup and commissioning schedule, to include the number of stages and timing of each. It is estimated that the pipeline construction and commissioning dates will be as follows: • Green River is planning to begin construction of this pipeline in late 2017. • Pipeline testing is planned for 2018. • Pipeline Commissioning is planned to occur in 2018. • Information of any public meeting conducted, to include the location, date, time, attendance, and method of advertising. Green River/Noble will be notifying all landowners within 500 feet of the proposed pipeline by sending them a packet of information about the project and its purpose within the Mustang IDP area. Landowners will be directed to contact Noble Energy if they have any concerns. Depending on the response received to the information mailed out, Noble will determine whether or not they will host a meeting with neighbors. Noble will provide a copy of the information sent out to neighbors to Weld County, they will track any feedback received from neighbors and then share the information with the County. If a community meeting is scheduled, Weld County staff will be invited. • A description of any hazards, if any, of fire, explosion, and other dangers to the health, safety, and welfare of employees and the general public. Gas pipelines are inherently dangerous due to the presence of pressurized hydrocarbons being conveyed within the pipeline. However, the risks associated with pipelines are much lower than alternative means of delivery, such as trucking and railroads. These risks are mitigated by: • Locating the pipelines, wherever feasible, away from heavily populated areas and sensitive areas such as schools and hospitals. • Classifying pipeline segments according to federal regulations in accordance with proximity to populated areas, schools, and hospitals and upgrading Factors of Safety associated with the pipeline strength with respect to pipeline volume and allowable pressures. • Burying pipelines to appropriate depths and using adequate engineering and construction principals to prevent geological damage to the lines. • Engineering valves and shut-off controls required to depressurize the pipeline when required for emergency situations. • Marking and identifying pipeline routes with appropriate warnings. • At locations where the proposed pipeline will cross existing pipelines (including County and public utility infrastructure), the existing pipeline owners will be contacted and plans and construction details will be approved for each crossing. Timber mats are typically used to protect existing pipelines at locations where the Green River's construction vehicles must cross over the infrastructure. • Green River has rigorous procedures for One -Call Notification that is uniformly enforced with both in-house personnel and contracted construction crews. Additionally, sweeping of the ROW also occurs to identify any additional pipelines not identified with the 811 One Call Notification process. • The pipeline route design will be mapped and field -located by crews working under the direction of a Licensed Surveyor. Immediately prior to construction, the survey crews will stake out the pipeline centerline and easement boundaries based upon the approved and permitted construction drawings. 3 • A description of emergency procedures to be followed in case of a reported failure or accident involving the proposed pipeline. We would suggest developing an emergency action plan consistent with what is typically required for other USR sites. A Pipeline Safety Plan and a Spill Prevention Plan (Emergency Action Plan) is being developed currently and can be submitted prior to finalization of the USR for this pipeline. • A discussion of how the proposal conforms to the guidelines of Chapter 22 of the Code and any other applicable code provision or ordinance in effect. The South Area Gas Pipeline, Phase 2 USR application is consistent with the intent of Chapter 22 Weld County Code and Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: O.G. Goal 1. Promote the reasonable and orderly exploration and development of oil and gas mineral resources The South Area Gas Pipeline, Phase 2 is located in an area where there is already a significant amount of oil and gas development. By locating the pipeline in this area, Green River will be able to lower the overall impact of oil and gas development in the area by providing the safest, cleanest, and most efficient means of resource transportation. Pipelines remove trucks from county roads and allow for a more orderly development of oil and gas exploration in the area. O.G. Policy 1.1 The County should encourage cooperation, coordination and communication between the surface owner and the mineral owner/operations with respect to any developments of either the surface or the mineral estate. The South Area Gas Pipeline, Phase 2 is surrounded by land uses primarily associated with the Agriculture Zone. Land uses near the pipeline include existing oil and gas facilities, existing agricultural facilities such as feed lots and animal storage structures, and existing residential properties. Residential properties surrounding the pipeline are sparsely distributed and consist mainly of range homes and large lot single family homes. Other than roads, the highway, and railroad tracks, the pipeline will not travel through or underneath any significant structure. Green River will agree to an easement with each property owner that the pipeline crosses in order to ensure that the pipeline is compatible with the land the pipeline crosses. By agreeing to an easement with each landowner, Green River is committed to working with all landowners along the pipeline route to ensure that the pipeline will not adversely impact any property along the route. O.G. Goal 2. Ensure that the extraction of oil and gas resources conserves the land and minimizes the impact on surrounding land and the existing surrounding land uses. The proposed route of the South Area Gas Pipeline, Phase 2 will minimize surface impact by placing the pipeline on the edges of parcels rather than cutting through the middle of parcels of land. O.G. Policy 2.1 Encourage oil- and gas -drilling activities to be coordinated with seasonal production schedules associated with agricultural activities. Promote and encourage the use of directional drilling to protect surface rights of agricultural lands and possible future land uses. Green River has worked with each landowner to minimize impact to agricultural land. The proposed pipeline route minimizes surface impact and Green River will work with each land owner to best minimize impact during pipeline installation. Green River's easement agreements with each landowner stipulate that they will provide compensation for loss of production as a result of the pipeline installation. • A decommissioning plan. Included in the application package is the Decommissioning Plan for the project. 4 • A description of any haul routes during construction, identifying the roads and bridges involved and the weight of the loads. The haul routes selected for the project will depend on which portion of the pipeline is being constructed. The general haul route will utilize Interstate 76. Green River and its contractors will avoid smaller community roads. Green River does not anticipate needing laydown yard locations during construction of the pipe; however, if one is needed, only approved/permitted laydown yards will be used. Green River will identify access points for getting trucks into sites and then back onto the ROW. The locations will be primarily selected based on the ease and safety of getting semi -truckloads of piping off of the County Road and onto the pipeline corridor with minimal disruption to traffic patterns on the road. The access points will be constructed to County standards with respect to visibility, drainage, mud tracking, and safe egress without stopping on the County Roads to unlock any gates. The haul routes selected will be documented on maps that will be provided to Contractors and truck drivers to direct them on how to get each truckload to its intended destination with minimal disturbance to other road users, with maximum safety to both Contractors and the public, and with minimal damage to existing County infrastructure. • An explanation of how the pipeline will not have an undue effect on existing and future development of the surrounding area as set forth in applicable Master Plans. Portions of the South Area Gas Pipeline, Phase 2 lie within the Keenesburg, Co and Weld County intergovernmental agreement (IGA) planning area. The pipeline is close to but not within the Keenesburg town limits. However, Noble Energy has met and will continue to meet with Keenesburg, as needed, about planned activity in their planning area so that any issues of concern that the Town has can be addressed by Green River. The route selected generally parallels existing County Roads and is the shortest and most direct route between the beginning sources of the pipeline system and the delivery termination of the pipeline system without bisecting parcels of land. The selected route also minimizes disturbance to the land to allow landowners to continue their farming practices while also protecting the surface so that it can be used for possible future development. • An explanation as to how reasonable alternatives to the proposal have been adequately addressed and why the proposed proposal is consistent with the best interests of the people of the County and represents a balanced use of resources in the affected area. Noble Energy developed IDPs to design and coordinate production activities in a manner that is less disruptive to residents and the communities in which the drilling is occurring. An IDP results in a smaller operational footprint, reduced emissions, less truck traffic, and increased water management. This is accomplished by drilling multiple wells from a single well -site (Econodes), which creates greater efficiencies throughout the exploration, drilling, and production phases of production. The use of IDPs also reduces the number and overall miles of pipelines required to collect and deliver the resources to consumers. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, pipelines are the safest mode of transportation for natural gas, crude oil, and other energy resources. Pipelines are able to transport vast quantities of these resources more efficiently and cost effectively; for natural gas, pipelines are the only manner to transport it in large quantities over land, lowering traffic on the roads and reducing emissions. 5 HIED TETRA TECH July 5, 2017 Hayley Balzano, Engineer Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 North 171h Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80632 RE: Drainage Narrative for South Area Gas Pipeline Phase 2; Tetra Tech Job No. 133-35719-16008 Dear Ms. Balzano: Tetra Tech is pleased to present this drainage narrative for the South Area Gas Pipeline, Phase 2 in Weld County, Colorado. As of the writing of this narrative, a USR number has not yet been assigned. The South Area Gas Pipeline, Phase 2 will collect and transport natural gas between multiple facilities within Weld County. The pipeline is being proposed by Green River DevCo LP (Green River). The pipeline will be constructed using traditional cut and cover methods over open ground. Horizontal directional drilling will be used to construct the pipeline under existing public roads, other pipelines, and jurisdictional waters. The ground will be returned to pre -project contours. Historic drainage will continue to enter and leave the pipeline corridor in the same manner as it does today. No drainage problems with the subject parcels has been reported to Green River. Surrounding land uses are agricultural (ranching) and oillgas development. The pipeline will not cross any mapped FEMA floodplains. Based on the criteria set forth in Section 23-12-30.F.1' .a.5 of the Weld County Code, this project does not require a detention pond. Pipeline projects are exempted from drainage requirements per this section of Weld County Code. If you have any questions regarding the content of this drainage narrative, you can contact me at 720-864-4566 or at eff.butsontetratech.com. Sincerely, TETRA TECH Jeffrey 1 ': B1tsq i, P.E., CFM Project Engineer Tetra Tech 1900 S. Sunset Street, Suite I -E, Longmont, CO 80501 Tel 303-772-5282 Fax 303-772-7039 www.tetratech.com noble MIDSTREAM PARTNERS Noble Midstream Services/ LLC June 6, 2017 • Subject: South Area Gas Pipeline Environmental Mitigation Attachments: Biological Survey Report for the South Area Pipeline Project, Weld County, Colorado Aquatic Resources Inventory Report for the South Area Pipeline Project, Weld County, Colorado Robert, The attached SWCA environmental reports (Biological Survey Report for the South Area Pipeline Project, Weld County, Colorado and Aquatic Resources Inventory Report for the South Area Pipeline Project, Weld County, Colorado) document a number of sensitive environmental resources that will require mitigation measures to avoid and minimize impacts during construction of the South Area Gas Pipeline. Potential burrowing owl habitat in prairie dog colonies was identified and mapped within the project area. Construction after November 1 and before March 15 will avoid any impacts to burrowing owls which are protected as Threatened species in Colorado by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). Five hawk nests were mapped within 0.50 mile the project area. Hawks are federally protected by US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and CPW has recommends spatial buffer distances for some breeding raptor species in Colorado. The spatial buffers from 0.25 mile to 0.50 mile are recommended as species specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) during the nesting season, generally from February 1 and July 15. Therefore, construction outside of either the spatial and/or temporal windows will greatly reduce the likelihood of impacts to the raptor nests mapped near the project area. If temporal avoidance of the nesting season is not possible, nests should be monitored by qualified biologists. Ute ladies' -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) and Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis) are federally protected Threatened species by USFWS under the Endangered Species A►ct and have the potential to occur within the mapped wetland "WETO1" associated with Box Elder Creek. Potential impacts to these species and their habitat will be avoided by boring the entirety of this mapped wetland. Numerous wetland and waterbodies were mapped along the project area. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates dredge and fill within the boundaries of Waters of the US (WoUS). The US Environmental Protection Agency and US Army Corps of Engineers are the CWA permitting agencies and have final legal authority in determining the presence/absence of federally jurisdictional WoUS and their boundaries. Of the five wetlands and 11 waterbodies identified, boring the length of the mapped boundaries within the construction ROW of 13 features (including WET01), open trenching two, and avoiding one will minimize impacts to the greatest extent practicable (less than 0.10 acres) and avoid permitting requirements including a Pre -Construction Notification and/or Nationwide Permit. Respectfully, Matt Cummings Certified Ecologist Sr. Environmental Coordinator cc: Scott Park SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, Sound Science. Creative Solutions? Biological Survey Report for the Mustang Pipeline Project, Weld County, Colorado Prepared for Noble Energy, Inc. Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants June 2017 Biological Survey Report for the Mustang Pipeline Project, Weld County, Colorado Prepared for: Noble Energy, Inc. 1625 Broadway, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202 Prepared by: SWTCA Environmental Consultants 295 Interlacken Boulevard, Suite 300 Broomfield, Colorado 80021 303.487.1183 www.swca.com June 1, 2017 Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 METHODS 3 2.1 Desktop Review/Site Characterization 3 2.2 On -Site Surveys 2.2.1 Potential Waters of the U.S... 3 2.2.2 Wildlife Habitat and Listed Species 3 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Land Use and Habitat 3.2 Surface Waters and Wetlands 3.3 Big Game 5 3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 5 3.4.1 Black -footed Ferret 9 3.4.2 Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse 9 3.4.3 Black -tailed Prairie Dog 14.4 Swift Foy 3.4.5 Mexican Spotted Owl 9 3.4.6 Bald Eagle .... 10 3.4.7 Ferruginous Hawk 10 3A.8 Burrowing Owl 10 3.4.9 Mountain Plover..10 3.4.10 Platte River Species 11 3.4.11 the Ladies' -tresses and Colorado Butterfly Plant 11 3.5 Migratory Birds 11 4.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 5.0 REFERENCES CITED . . 13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Proposed Mustang Pipeline overview 2 Wildlife recorded in the northern portion of the survey area 7 3 Wildlife recorded in the southern portion of the survey area .. 8 1 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Plant Species Identified in the Survey Area 2 Listed Species for Weld County and Their Potential to Occur 6 3 Raptor Nest Locations Recorded in May 201 ... 1 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Photographs 11S \" C Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado 1.0 INTRODUCTION SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) conducted biological resources surveys and a desktop analysis for the proposed 25 -mile -long Mustang Pipeline (project) near the city of Keenesburg in Weld County, Colorado (Figure 1). SWCA conducted the surveys within a 200 - foot -wide survey corridor generally centered on the centerline of the proposed project (survey area). The purpose of the biological resources surveys and desktop analysis was to identify protected natural resources that could be affected by ground -disturbing activities. This report documents the general habitat, wildlife, water resources, and special -status species that occur, or have potential to occur, in the survey area. 1 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado County Road 36 t4 • h :Q t O s a 0 T3N R65W • county Road T2N R65W I I • Choy • ne Denver Courtly d 34 aunty Re d 32 I • T3N'R64W County Road 34 J1. T2N .R64W County , oad 18 3 0 u Gaunt Count t . d t6 ,caad 20 5018 ft • A, Iceenesbu rR T3N RS3W 9-T2N R63W t ' 5g1b "d' County IR.; • 161/2 1 1 !fl 0 Cf a if TIN R64W kJ ,,i,- t i.rr.il I:,PrUjectst,43000-43999'.43619_Nobie_ Midstream _hMMuscangWIXD''Repon''NR 43619_Noble_Mus TIN RGSW N R_Prajec t_Locatlen.rucd Legend Centerline Survey Area Raptor Survey Area 200 -foot Survey Area L--- I Township/Range 1 0 2 4 1:96,000 2 3 Base Map: World_Imagery, Esri Online Service Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed. USDA_. USGS, AEX, Getmapping , Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Weld County, CO NAD 1983 UTAA Zone 13N 6/1/2017 6 ]Km 4 Miles SWC ENVIR0 NM EHTAL CONSULTANTS 295lnterlocken Blvd., Suite 300 Broomfield, CO 80021 Phone: 343.487.1183 www. swwea co rn Figure 1. Proposed Mustang Pipeline overview. 2 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado 2.0 METHODS 2.1 DESKTOP REVIEW/SITE CHARACTERIZATION Prior to visiting the survey area, SWCA conducted a desktop review of environmental resources in the general vicinity of the project. This included review of aerial imagery; U.S. Geological Survey (USES) topographic quadrangle maps; USGS National Gap Analysis Program (GAP) vegetation data. (USGS 2011); Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey maps (NRCS 2016); NRCS hydric soils lists (NRCS 2015); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps (USFWS 201 7a)g National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (USGS 2017); USFWS lists of threatened and endangered species within the county (USFWS 2017b, 2017c); Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) state -listed species (CPW 2017a); and CPW species profiles (CPW 2017b). 2.2 ON -SITE SURVEYS Biological resources surveys were conducted between May 10 and 22, 2017, to document general habitat, aquatic resources including wetlands, vegetation communities, noxious weeds, wildlife, and habitat for special -status species within the survey area. Raptor nesting habitat within 0.5 mile of the survey area was surveyed for nests using binoculars. 2.2.1 Potential Waters of the U.S. The presence/absence of wetlands was identified in the field using routine on -site delineation methods outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers [USACE] 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (version 2.0) (USACE 2010). The presence/absence of lotic systems (e.g., creeks, rivers, arroyos, human -made ditches; collectively "streams") was identified in the field using the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) identification methods described in the USACE Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05 (USAGE 2005). 2.2.2 Wildlife Habitat and Listed Species Biologists recorded general wildlife, vegetation communities, and habitat suitable for special - status species within the survey area. The special -status species evaluated in this report consist of 1) all federally protected (i.e., endangered and t i eatened) species; 2) additional species listed by the USFWS as candidate and proposed species, and species under review; 3) state protected species; and 4) migratory birds and raptor nests. The potential for local species occurrence was based on 1) existing information on distribution; and 2) qualitative comparisons of the habitat requirements of each species with vegetation communities, landscape features, and/or water quality conditions in the survey area. The potential for occurrence was summarized according to the categories listed below. • Known to occur the species was documentedeither during or prior to the field surveys by a reliable observer. 3 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado • May occur within the species' currently known range, and vegetation communities, soils, water quality conditions, etc., resemble those known to be used by the species. • Unlikely to occur —within the species' currently known range, but vegetation communities, soils, water quality conditions, etc., do not resemble those known to be used by the species. • None the project is clearly outside the species' currently known range and vegetation communities, soils, water quality conditions, etc., do not resemble those known to be used by the species. Possible impacts to these species were evaluated based on reasonably foreseeable project - related activities and the temporary loss of habitat. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 LAND USE AND HABITAT As observed in the USGS GAP data, the primary ecosystems in the survey area are cultivated cropland, western Great Plains Sandhill Steppe, and Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie. The primary land uses in the survey area are agriculture, livestock/grazing, residential, and oil and gas development. The survey area is located in a rural area within an upland landscape mostly used for cropland, livestock grazing, and oil and gas development. Dominant upland species include western wheatgrass (Pascopyrurn smithii), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus) and fringe sage (Artemisia frigida). Several areas are dominated by weedy species including cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and burningbush (Bassia scoparia). Wetland areas are dominated by broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia ). Representative photographs of the survey area are provided in Appendix A. Table 1 lists the common plant species that were identified during field investigations throughout the survey area. Table 1. Plant Species Identified in the Survey Area Common Name Scientific Name Fringe sage Artemisia frigida Burnin2bush Bassia scoparia Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis Smooth brome Bromus inermis Cheatgrass* Bromus tectorum Emory's sedge Carex emoryi Canada thistle* Cirsium arvense Field bindweed* Convolvulus arvensis western tansymustard Descurainia pinnata Herb sophia Descurainia sophia Saltgrass Distichlis spicata Needle and thread Hesperostipa comata Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Common Name Scientific Name Western IA hcatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Tall tumblemustard emustard Sisymbrium a ltissimum Sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus Thinopyrum ponticum Tall wheatgrass Common wheat Triticuin aesti\`um Yellow salsify Ira gopogon dubius Broadleaf cattail Typha la ti fol is Corn Zea mays * Colorado noxious weed Noxious weeds are non-native invasive plants that displace desirable vegetation and degrade natural and agricultural lands. Noxious weeds observed in the survey area include Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), cheatgrass, and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Canada thistle is on Colorado Noxious Weed List B and was found in drainages and wetland areas. Cheatgrass and field bindweed, List C species, were found throughout the survey area. List B species are managed by the state noxious weed advisory committee and local governments to stop the continued spread of these species. List C species are widespread and common throughout the state (Colorado Weed Management Association 2017). 3.2 SURFACE WATERS AND WETLANDS According to baseline data, 17 wetlands were identified by the NWI (USFWS 2017a) and 22 drainages were identified by the NHD (USGS 2017) within the survey area. During the field investigation, five features were identified as containing wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Many of the NHD features are swales dominated by upland vegetation with no indicators of flow or an OHWM. Eleven streams and other waterbodies (e.g., ponds, agricultural ditches, concrete ditches) contain an OHWM, including Box Elder Creek, and were delineated during surveys. The full results of the wetland delineation are detailed in the aquatic resources report prepared for this project (SWCA 2017). 3.3 BIG GAME The survey area is within the overall ranges of pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). In addition, mule deer winter range, severe winter range, and concentration areas overlap the survey area (CPW 2016). Box Elder Creek is a migration corridor for mule deer. White-tailed deer winter concentration areas also overlap the survey area. 3.4 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES SWCA reviewed and analyzed the likeliness for species protected by the State of Colorado and under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, to occur in the survey area. The Endangered Species Act -listed species (USFWS 2017b, 2017c) and Colorado state -listed species for Weld County that were reviewed to determine if they could occur in the survey area are listed in Table 2 and summarized in the following sections. Locations of wildlife recorded in the field are illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. 5 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Table 2. Listed Species for WeldCounty and Their Potential to Occur Common Name (Scientific Name) Status'' Potential to Occur in Survey Area Mammals Black (Mustela -footed ferret nigripes) FE, SE None, Colorado. Species is extirpated in eastern (Zapus Preble's meadow hudsonius jumping preblci) mouse FT, ST Unlikely range, suitable to but riparian occur. With., outside of occupied habitat. the species' range. No overall Black (Cynomys -tailed ludovicianus) prairie dog SC Known. Observed within survey area. Swift (Vulpes fox velox) SC Unlikely. Suitable outside of overall grassland habitat range. but Birds Mexican (Strix spotted owl occidentalis lucida) FL ST None. Lack of suitable forested habitat. whooping crane (Grus americana) FE, SE None. species depletions Lack of suitable expected range. in the South habitat. Platte No Outside proposed River. of water Piping (Charadrius plover melodus) FT, ST None, migrant depletions Lack in northern of suitable in the Colorado. habitat. South Platte Very rare No proposed River. water Least (Sterna tern antilla rum) FE, SE None. visitor water depletions Lack to of northern suitable in Colorado. the habitat. South No Platte Very rare proposed River. Bald (Haliaeetus eagle leucocephalus) SC May occur. Winter within survey area. range and historic nest Ferruginous (Buteo hawk SC May occur. prairie dog Suitable town present. grassland habitat and regalis) Burrowing (Athene owl May occur. prairie dog Suitable town present. grassland habitat and ST cunicularia) (Charadrius Mountain plover montanus) SC May occur. prairie dog Suitable town grassland present. habitat and Fish Pallid (Scaphirhynchus sturgeon a lbws) FE None. water depletions Lack of suitable in the habitat. South Platte No proposed River. Plants Flowering Western (Platanthera prairie fringed praeclara) orchid FT None, water depletions Lack of suitable in habitat. the South No Platte proposed River. Utc (Spiranthes ladies' -tresses diluvialis) May occur. Suitable wetland habitat, FT Colorado (Guara coloradensis) butterfly plant neomexicana spp. FT May occur. Suitable wetland habitat. FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened SC - State Special Concern; SE = State Endangered: ST = State Threatened 6 S\ 'CA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado w-.1..:._ ss w ii-�4 SI . wi t — , .i I - r AI 1 J 4 , , 1 -- _ _ - ` { YY r L I. J ..rte �. I ,1 ,V4 at... p -I 1 I 1 1 _ ice_. 6 �•-- I ... a .a l" 0- rat ;IP-a>tP a' iil tr " ti Leisir Y T = l` r '1 $t r ,t ` -,..,,, a` 1 ( I ti L 1 I w al I ._ IIir .----44?--A0 tri.. • Sri r - I 1 ,III i 14 a. Legend Active Raptor Nest nl c 900 4.000 greet == Inactive Raptor Nest ,, c 0.s 1 SWCJ. K iameter5 Prairie Dog Town CONSULTANTS 1:36,000 1:36,000 Centerline 200 -foot Survey Area Imil,w., "I,eo11 N 295 Irteriodcen BIvJ., Suite 300 r«�mner0348, CO Raptor Survey Area Phone; 301487.1183 .1183 Donvor NAD 1983 UTPrll Zone 13N www. swca .co m Aura a 6/1/2017 iii\ Figure 2. Wildlife recorded in the northern portion of the survey area. 7 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado I ire' ltHra r M Al - I r . - •J .a °.1 ., IIii i, , 1 1. F I t _ , '•� I -i II i i j.11.- - r -it:- lirlirr4 se .-. t _ ......,..PC �/ I . i- i , I 1_ F l Asti- • a .. I - r �• OPP ?4. \ III t 4. _ -tip Jet ' - �• , I,,a i. _ _ _ �`- S- ,- �.. Jul. _ _1� die ,.. 1 y 1 ••_ il _• M \ • . +e l /// • \ 1i __ t . - _.• M !'. If. � 1 11.E - •' , I . ••••••.••••••.� - _ —fy -_-.w..-_-.w...p.--- .. •.. t 1.. •S ' •s• F t 't A A'. _ -i1 a I . I ,..- ....v Ir." ♦ •A, - ./14 4 "it? r hEr• Il• III' r ` '!,, a ar• r rrtzgi 1�R it: .11� ff IR AK- ALA F� k ^ T r . i I 1 fi ; Nest05r. or". I �\ \tit r . _ -.• i t i - OP ay -� t _ - • _ i 1 • •ti- i f - .. — 4 ,r a - . _ Legend Active Raptor Nest 2,D00 4,000 Feet /J.a • Potentially Active Raptor Nest ; a a. 1 s\ivcA Kilometers ENYIRGNMENTAL CONSULTANTS ��terlir� a 1:36,000 200 -foot Survey Area 295 Interlocker' alvc,, Suite 300 I ! Raptor Survey Area rot Nall Bro3mfield, CO 50021 IntI bary»e N V Phore: 303.487.11£'3 0. var NAD 19 3 UTf zone 13N A I,vin►w.sw�ca.00m Aar ' a 6/' 12017 Figure 3. Wildlife recorded in the southern portion of the survey area. S SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado 3.4.1 Black -footed Ferret Black -footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) depends exclusively on prairie dog (Cynomys sp.) burrows for shelter and prairie dogs make up more than 90% of the ferret's diet. The USFWS has block -cleared all prairie dog habitat in eastern Colorado after determining that these areas no longer contain any wild black -footed ferrets (USFWS 2009). Therefore, this species is not expected to occur in the survey area. 3.4.2 Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse The Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) is generally found within the North Platte, South Platte, and Arkansas River drainages of Colorado and Wyoming (USFWS 2008). This species inhabits heavily vegetated, shrub -dominated riparian habitats and immediately adjacent undisturbed grassland communities up to 100 meters beyond the 100 - year floodplain, Critical habitat has been designated, although these areas are generally along the foothills of the Colorado Front Range and none include Weld County (USFWS 2013). The project is located within the mapped overall range boundary for Preble's meadow jumping mouse, but outside of occupied range (CPW 2016). The survey area lacks heavily vegetated, shrub -dominated riparian habitats; therefore, this species is unlikely to occur. 3.4.3 Black -tailed Prairie Dog In Colorado, black -tailed prairie dogs ( • omys ludovicianus) occur east of the foothills in short- or mixed -grass prairie. These burrowing ground squirrels live in "towns" or "colonies" made up of territorial family groups. Prairie dog towns can provide habitat for other sensitive species, including black -footed ferret, mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). The population has declined throughout its range partially due to agriculture and urban development which have fragmented their habitat. A large active prairie dog town was observed within the extreme northern portion of the survey area, north of County Road 34 (see Figure 2). 3.4.4 Swift Fox The swift fox (Vulpes velox) is native to the shortgrass and mid -grass prairie ecosystems of the Great Plains and is often associated with prairie dog colonies. The range of swift fox is primarily east of the survey area; however, suitable grassland habitat and prairie dog towns provide potentially suitable habitat for this species. No dens were observed within the survey area. Project activities would not preclude use of the surrounding area by the swift fox. 3.4.5 Mexican Spotted Owl Mexican spotted owl (Stria occidentalis lucida) occurs in varied habitat consisting of mature montane forest and woodland, shady wooded canyons, and steep canyons. They typically nest in older forests of mixed conifer or ponderosa pine (Pines ponderosa). There is no forested habitat for Mexican spotted owl in the survey area or vicinity and this species is not expected to occur. 9 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado 3.4.6 Bald Eagle Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) feed on fish and carrion and typically roost in large trees near a water source. In Colorado they are often found near reservoirs, especially in areas of abundant fish. In winter, they may also occur in semi -deserts and grasslands, especially near prairie dog towns. CPW recommends no surface occupancy within 0.25 mile of nests and roosts. If active, nests should be avoided by 0.5 mile from November 15 to July 31 and roosts by 0.5 mile from November 15 through March 15. The southern end of the pipeline, south of 1-76, is within bald eagle winter range (CPW 2016). The closest active nest is approximately 3 miles south; however, a historic (destroyed) nest was located just south of Keenesburg adjacent to the survey area. Bald eagles may fly over and forage within the survey area but are unlikely to nest or roost there. 3.4.7 Ferruginous Hawk Ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis) inhabit open grasslands and shrub steppe communities, nesting in isolated trees, on elevated rock outcrops, or on the ground. Wintering and migrating hawks prefer grasslands where ground squirrels and prairie dogs are present. Black -tailed prairie dog is an important prey species for the hawk in Colorado, and ferruginous hawk occurrence is positively correlated with proximity to prairie dog colonies. No hawks were observed during the survey, however there is a prairie dog town that may attract hawks to the survey area. Ferruginous hawks may migrate through or forage in the survey area, but are unlikely to nest there. 3.4.8 Burrowing Owl In Colorado, burrowing owls are a migratory species and are typically found in prairie dog towns from March through October. Burrowing o :\, is are known to breed in Weld County (Klute et al. 2003) and nest in active and inactive prairie dog burrows. A large active prairie dog town in the survey area provides suitable habitat for nesting burrowing owls. Appropriate avoidance measures should be taken to protect active burrowing owl nests including establishing buffers around nest locations or delaying construction activities until after nesting season (after November 1 or until it can be confirmed that the owls have left the prairie dog town). The recommended avoidance buffer for burrowing owl nests is 150 feet. Additional surveys would be required to determine the location of nests. Surveys should follow CPW's Recommended Survey Protocol and Actions to Protect Nesting Burrowing Owls (CPW 2008a). 3.4.9 Mountain Plover Mountain plovers nest in flat, open areas with low, sparse vegetation including shortgrass prairies and agricultural fields. in shortgrass prairies, they tend to use prairie dog towns or fields grazed by livestock. Mountain plovers are known to occur in Weld County. The prairie dog town within the survey area would provide suitable nesting habitat for the plover. The survey was conducted during nesting season (April 10 July 10) and no plovers were observed. 10 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado 3.4.10 Platte River Species Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara), whooping crane (Grus americana), least tern (Sterna antillaruin), and piping plover (Charadrius melodus) are listed for Weld County since water depletions may affect the species and/or critical habitat in downstream, out-of-state reaches of the South Platte River. These species are not expected to occur in the survey area based on the lack of suitable habitat and the known range of the species. No water depletions are proposed with this project. 3.4.11 Ute Ladies' -tresses and Colorado Butterfly Plant the ladies' -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) and Colorado butterfly plant (Laura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis) depend primarily on wetland and/or subirrigated fields adjacent to perennial waters that remain moist through most of the growing season (Fertig 2000; Fertig et al. 2005). In Weld County, suitable habitat for these species may occur along the South Platte, Big Thompson, and Cache la Poudre Rivers. Based on the field survey, suitable habitatis present and these plants may occur within WETO 1, the large emergent wetland associated with Box Elder Creek. 3.5 MIGRATORY BIRDS The USEWS protects most avian species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Act makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued by the USFWS. Bird species that are associated with agriculture and open lands include horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), McCown's longspur (Rhynchophanes inccownii), lark bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys), and vesper span -ow (Pooecetes gramineus). Raptor species known to nest in or near Weld County include golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperi), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), red-tailed hawk (B. jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), ferruginous hawk, and burrowing owl (Kingery 1998). Five raptor nests were recorded within 0.5 mile of the survey area during the surveys (see Figures 2 and 3). An active Swainson's hawk nest is located 170 feet outside of the survey area along Box Elder Creek. An active red-tailed hawk nest is located along the Denver -Hudson Canal approximately 300 feet outside of the survey area. Another active red-tailed hawk nest is 1,400 feet north of the survey area near the southern end of the right-of-way. A red-tailed hawk was seen near a nest along County Road 14, and may be nesting at this location. Nest locations are summarized in Table 3. 11 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Table 3. Raptor Nest Locations Recorded in May 2017 Pest Number' Species Latitude Longitude Substrate Status Nest 01 Swainson's hawk 40.20 324 -104.5815 Tree Active Nest 02 Unknown 40.20379 -104.5804 Inactive Tree Nest 03 Red-tailed hawk 40.09485 -104.5367 Tree Active Nest 04 Red-tailed hawk 40.0945 7 -104.5184 Tree Active Nest 05 Red-tailed hawk 40.08754 -104.5168 Potentially active Tree To protect these nests, or if additional nests are found, the project should adhere to the following nest buffer zones and seasonal restrictions recommended by CPW (2008b). • Bald eagle: 0.50 -mile buffer from November 15 through July 31 • Golden eagle: 0.50 -mile buffer December 15 through July 15 • Ferruginous hawk: 0.50 -mile buffer February 1 through July 15 • Red-tailed hawk: 0.33 -mile buffer February 15 through July 15 • Swainson's hawk: 0.25 -mile buffer April 1 through July 15 • Prairie falcon: 0.50 -mile buffer March 15 through July 15 • Burrowing owl: 150 -foot buffer March 15 through October 31 4.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS In May 2017, SWCA conducted a desktop review and on -site surveys to determine if protected natural resources occur within the Mustang Pipeline right-of-way. Wetlands and other potential waters of the U.S. are present within the survey area as detailed in the aquatic resources report (SWCA 2017). Wetland and riparian habitat may support Ute ladies' -tresses and Colorado butterfly plant. Bald eagle and ferruginous hawk have the potential to occasionally occur within the survey area. Burrowing owl and mountain plover potentially nest in the survey area due to the presence of grassland habitat and the black -tailed prairie dog town. If construction would occur before November 1, additional surveys are recommended in the prairie dog town to determine the presence of nesting burrowing owls. Other species listed under the Endangered Species Act and by the State of Colorado for Weld County are unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable habitat. Three active and one potentially active raptor nests were observed within 0.5 mile of the survey area. It is recommended that Noble Energy, Inc., implement CPW's recommended nest buffer zones and seasonal restrictions or contact SWCA to identify other ways to avoid a take and ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 12 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado 5.0 REFERENCES CITED Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2008a. Recommended Survey Protocol and Actions to Protect Nesting Burrowing Owls. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver. Available at: http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Wildli eSpecies/Living ith ildlife/Recommended SurveyOwls.pdf. Accessed April 2017. . 2008b. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors. Available at: http://cpw.state.co.usiDocuments/WildlifeSpecies/ Living WithWildlife/RaptorBufterGuidelines200 8.pdf. Accessed April 2017. . 2016. Species Activity Mapping (SAM). Available at: http://arcg.is/UtvBIE. Accessed May 2017. . 2017a. Threatened and Endangered List. Available at:. http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/ OC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx. Accessed April 2017. . 2017b. Species Profiles. Available at: http://cpw.state.co.us/Ieam/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx. Accessed April 2017. Colorado Weed Management Association. 2017. Noxious Weed Information. Available at: http://www.cwma.org/noxweeds.html. Accessed May 2017. Fertig, W. 2000. Status Review of the Colorado Butterfly Plant (Laura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis). Report prepared for the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Laramie: Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. Fertig, W., R. Black, and P. Wolken. 2005. Rangewide ide Status Review of t la es' -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Central Utah Water Conservancy District. Kingery, H.E. (ed.), 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Denver: Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Klute, D.S., L.W. Ayers, M.T. Green, W.H. Howe, S.L. Jones, J.A. Shaffer, S.R. Sheffiedl, and T.S. Zimmerman. 2003. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTP-R6001-2003, Washington, D.C. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Lists of Hydric Soils (December 2015). Available at: http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/main/soils/use/hydric/. Accessed March 9, 2016. 13 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado . 2016. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Weld County Southern Part, Colorado. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed March 9, 2016. SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2017. Aquatic Resources Inventory Report for the Mustang Pipeline Project, Weld County, Colorado. Prepared for Noble Energy, Inc. June 2017. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. . 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05, Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. Available at: http://www.usacesarmy.miliMissionsiCivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits/ GuidanceLetters.aspx. Accessed March 2016. . 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0), edited by J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and. C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-12. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) 5 -year Review, Short Form Summary. Region 6. . 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Colorado Department of Wildlife block clear eastern Colorado's black -tailed prairie dog habitat. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pressrel/09-60.htm. Accessed May 2017. . 2013. Endangered Species: Preble's meadow jumping mouse critical habitat. Available at: http://www.fws.govimountain-prairieispeciesimammalsi preble/CRITICAL HABITAT/RITICALHABITATindex.htm. Accessed May 2017. . 2017a. National Wetlands Inventory Data. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Data-Download.html. Accessed April 2017. . 2017b. USFWS Endangered Species Program. Environmental Conservation Online System, Species by County Report. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered. Accessed May 2017. . 2017c. IPaC - Information, Planning, and. Conservation System. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed May 2017. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. National Gap Analysis Program, National Land Cover, Version 2. Available at: http:l/gapanalysis.usgs.gov/gaplandcover/viewer/. Accessed March 2016. 14 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado . 2017. Hydrography — Get NHD Data. Available at: http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html. Accessed April 2017. 15 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado This page intentionally left blank, 16 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado APPENDIX Photographs S W C Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 1. Active Swainson's hawk Nest 01, facing northeast. Photograph 2. Active red-tailed hawk Nest 03, facing south. A-1 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 3. .Active red-tailed hawk Nest 04, facing south. Photograph 4. Potentially active red-tailed hawk Nest 05, facing south. Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 5. Prairie dog town, facing east. Photograph 6. Grassland habitat dominated by cheatgrass, facing north. A-3 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 7. Wheat field within survey area, facing north. Photograph 8. Habitat dominated by smooth brome and burningbush, facing north. A-4 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 9. Mixed -grass prairie, facing south. Photograph 10. Mixed -grass prairie, facing north. SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado This page intentionally left blank, SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONS LTANTS Sound Science. Creative Solutions Aquatic Resources Inventory Report for the Mustang Pipeline Project, Weld County, Colorado Prepared for Noble Energy, Inc. Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants June 2017 Aquatic Resources Inventory Report for the Mustang Pipeline Project, Weld County, Colorado Prepared for Noble Energy, Inc. 1625 Broadway, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202 Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants 295 Interlocken Boulevard, Suite 300 Broomfield, Colorado 80021 303.487.1183 June 1, 2017 Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 METHODS 1 2.1 Existing Data Review 1 2.2 Field Methodology 1 2.2.1 Wetlands 2 2.2.2 Streams and Other Waterbodies 3 2.3 Site Documentation 3 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Wetlands 3.1.1 Vegetation 6 3.1.2 Soils 3. 1.3 Hydrology 3.2 Streams and Other Waterbodies 4.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.0 REFERENCE 9 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Monthly Recorded Precipitation at the Greeley Weather Station 4 2 Wetland Features S 3 Dominant Plant Species in the Survey Area 6 4 Stream and Waterbody Features With an OHWM 7 5 Potential Impacts and Recommendations 8 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Aquatic Resources Inventory Maps B Wetland Photographs C Waterbody Photographs D Wetland Data Forms SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado This page intentionally left blank. P 1 11 S\\:CA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado 1.0 INTRODUCTION SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) has completed a delineation of potential waters of theU.S., commonly referred to as a "wetland delineation," for the proposed 25 -mile -long Mustang Pipeline (project) near the city of Keenesburg in Weld County, Colorado (see Map 1 in Appendix A). To comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, SWCA conducted the wetland delineation within a 200 -foot -wide survey corridor generally centered on the centerline of the proposed project (survey area). The pipeline right-of-way will include an 80 -foot -wide permanent right-of-way and an additional 25 feet on either side as temporary workspace. The wetland delineation includes the identification and recording of physical features that may be considered waters of the U.S. As defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), waters of the U.S. include most "rivers, creeks, streams, arroyos, lakes, and their associated special aquatic sites. Special aquatic sites include sanctuaries, refuges, wetlands, mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, and riffle and pool complexes". When applying for a CWA permit, the USACE requires special aquatic sites, including wetlands, to be addressed separately from other waters of the U.S. Wetlands are the most common special aquatic site and are defined by the USACE as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (USACE 1987). According to the USACE (1987), in order for an area to be considered a wetland, it must contain the following three parameters under normal circumstances: 1) the presence of hydrology showing regular inundation; 2) a predominance of hydrophytic (water -loving) vegetation; and 3) soils characteristic of frequent saturation (i.e., hydric soils). 2.0 METHODS Prior to field investigations, SWCA biologists reviewed existing data to determine where waters of the U.S. might occur. These data were used to determine locations in the field for a more detailed survey and data collection, although the entire survey area was evaluated during both the existing data review and field survey. 2.1 EXISTING DATA REVIEW A review of existing data was performed in the office prior to any field investigations to identify areas with the greatest potential of aquatic resources. The existing data reviewed included U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles, National Wetlands Inventory (NW!) maps, the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil surveys, and historic and current aerial photographs of the survey area. 2.2 FIELD METHODOLOGY The presence/absence of aquatic resources including wetlands, streams, and other waterbodies was determined by visual observation during a field investigation of the survey area. The survey 1 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado area includes a 200 -foot -wide survey corridor, centered on the proposed pipeline centerline as illustrated on the maps in Appendix A. 2.2.1 Wetlands The presenceabsence of wetlands is determined in the field using routine on -site delineation methods outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USAGE 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2010). Data at each potential wetland are recorded on a USACE sample site form (datasheet). Determination of wetland habitat (type) is based on the classification system developed by Cowardin et al. (1979). Wetland boundaries are delineated where all three fundamental characteristics of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology were present. 2.2.1.1 Vegetation If a shift in vegetation suggests the potential for hydrophytic plants, species are documented along with percent cover and the wetland indicator status, as recorded in The National Wetland. Plant List: 2013 Wetland Ratings (Lichvar 2013), is assigned to each species. Hydrophytic and non-hydrophytic (or upland) plant species are differentiated by their respective indicator status, such as facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW), obligate (OBL), facultative upland (FACU), and upland (UPL). A plant community with greater than 50% dominant hydrophytes (FAC or wetter) is determined to meet the USACE criteria of a hydrophytic community. 2.2.1.2 Soils Hydric soil determinations are made according to criteria listed in the appropriate wetland delineation manual/supplement and Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0 (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2010). Soil pits are excavated to a depth of at least 20 inches, and the soil profile is then described by horizon. Each horizon is evaluated for soil color; thickness; the color, abundance, and contrast of redoximorphic features (e.g., mottles); and soil texture. Munsell Soil Color Charts are used to determine the color of the soil matrix and redoximorphic features. The "feel" or "ribbon" test is used to determine soil texture. The soil profile is studied for hydric soil indicators listed in the appropriate wetland delineation manual/supplement. If the soil profile displays one or more hydric soil indicators, a positive hydric soil determination is made, 2.2.1.3 Hydrology Wetland hydrology is determined in the field by considering the frequency and duration of inundation; visual observation of saturation in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile: and the presence of other primary wetland hydrology indicators, such as oxidized rootchannels, water - stained leaves, water marks, sediment deposits, or algal matting. Secondary indicators used to determine wetland hydrology include surface soil cracks, crayfish burrows, drift deposits, drainage patterns, and aerial saturation. If the area displays one or more primary hydrology indicators or two or more secondary hydrology indicators, a positive hydrology determination is made. SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado 2.2.2 Streams and Other Waterbodies The presence/absence of lotic: systems (e.g., creeks, rivers, arroyos, human -made ditches; collectively "streams") is determined in the field using the methods outlined in A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USAGE 2008).. An ordinary high water mark (OHWM) is a line on a shore established by fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. The OHWM is a defining element for identifying the lateral limits of non -wetland waters. Federal jurisdiction over a non -wetland water of the U.S. typically extends to the 0HWM. Identified streams are characterized by seasonal persistence as perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral based on field observations. Perennial streams typically flow year-round because the water table is located above the stream bed, which causes groundwater to be the primary source of water. By contrast, intermittent streams only flow seasonally when rising groundwater discharges into the stream channel. Finally, ephemeral streams only flow during and shortly after precipitation events in a year with typical rainfall. Ephemeral stream beds are geologically higher than the water table throughout the year and, therefore, rainfall is the primary source of water for stream flow. The presence/absence of lentic systems (e.g., ponds, lakes, oxbows) and other open water areas (e.g., outflows, deltas) is determined by identifying the presence of OHWMs. 2.3 SITE DOCUMENTATION A Trimble global positioning system (GPS) unit with submeter accuracy is used to record the spatial extent of features, geographically reference data points, and demarcate wetland and waterbody boundaries during the field survey. Geographic information system (GI) software is used to analyze recorded features, calculate areas, and generate the survey area maps. The expected acreage of potential waters of the U.S. is obtained by calculating the area where such waters overlap the proposed project footprint. Additionally, photographs are taken at each wetland, stream, or waterbody feature delineated in the field. Photographs of wetlands and waterbodies are labeled with the feature identification number, photograph number, and cardinal direction of the photograph. 3 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado 3.0 RESULTS According to baseline data, 17 wetlands were identified by the NWI (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013) and 22 drainages were identified by the NHD (USGS 2014) within the survey area. Field surveys occurred between May 10 and 22, 2017. Data were collected in the field at the NWI and NHD features, and any other waterbodies identified during the surveys, to determine if they are potential waters of the U.S. Wetland and w aterbody photographs are provided in Appendices B and C, respectively. Normal climatic/hydrologic conditions existed at the time of the surveys. Table 1 summarizes the recorded and normal rainfall amounts for January through April. According to data obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Greeley Weather Station, the survey area experienced rainfall slightly below average in the 4 months prior to the on -site delineations; however April was slightly above average. Precipitation through May 22 exceeded the monthly average recorded rainfall. Table 1. Monthly Recorded Precipitation at the Greeley Weather Station MonthRecorded (inches) Rainfall Normal (inches) Rainfall Difference (inches) April 2017 1.97 1.81 0.16 March 2017 0.57 1.12 -0.55 February 2017 0.30 0.40 -0.10 January 2017 0.53 0.48 0.05 3.37 3.81 -0.44 Tall Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2017) 3.1 WETLANDS During the field investigation, five features were identified as containing wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology. The wetlands identified during field surveys are summarized in Table 2 and illustrated on the maps in Appendix A. The remaining data points were determined to be within uplands (see data forms in Appendix D). 4 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Table 2. Wetland Features Name DataMapped Points by NI? Latitude LongitudeCorridor Survey (acres) Characteristics DP0 DP02 1, Yes - Riverine 4 0.2 02 94 -104.5813 2.31 Large emergent wetland along Box Elder by common threesquare and common spikerush Creek dominated WET0 1 WETO2 D►P03, DP04 No 40.10254 -104.5457 0.54 Emergent wetland dominated by cattail adjacent to train line DP05, DP06 Yes - Riverine 40.10091 -104.5426 0.07 Emergent wetland dominated by Emory's sedge and cattail WET03 on banks of Denver -Hudson Canal WET04 D►P07, DP0 8 Yes - Riverine 40.09152 -104.5317 0.06 Emergent wetland dominated by Emory's sedge and cattail on banks of Denver -Hudson Canal DP09, DP 10 Yes - Freshwater Emergent 40.09139 -104.5243 0.40 Emergent wetland in swale dominated by cattail and WET05 common threesquare NUT = National Wetlands Inventory 5 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado 3.1.1 Vegetation The survey area is primarily located in an upland landscape dominated by shortgrass and mixed - grass prairie species with a few stream crossings, irrigation ditches, and associated wetlands. The vegetative communities within wetlands are dominated by hydrophytic species including common threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens), En o y's sedge (Carex emoryi), and broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia). The common plant species that were identified at wetland and upland data points are listed in Table 3. Photographs are included in Appendix B and additional details on vegetative cover are provided in the data forms in Appendix D. Table 3. Dominant Plant Species in the Survey Area Common Name Scientific Name Great Plains Indicator Status Burningbush Bassia scoparia FACU Smooth brome Bromus inermis UPL Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum UPL Emory' s sedge Carex emoryi OBL Lambsquarters Chenopodium album FACU Canada thistle Cirsium arvense FACU Saltgrass Distichlis spicata FACW Common spikerush Eleocharis palustris OBL Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia FACU Mountain rush Juncus balticus FACW Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola FAC Pa scopyrum smithii FACU Western wheatgrass Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea FACW Common threesquare Schoenoplectus pungens OBL Tall wheatgrass Thinopyrum ponticum UPL Broadleaf cattail Typha latifolia OBL FAC = facultative, FACU = facultative upland, FACW = facultative wet, OBL obligate, UPL = upland 3.1.2 Soils According to the NRCS soil surveys for Weld County, Colorado, three soil map units within the survey area are on the hydric soil list and have strong potential to satisfy the hydric soil criteria (NRCS 2015): Altvan loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes; Haverson loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes; and Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded. Haverson loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, are mapped at Data Point 01 (wetland 01, Box Elder Creek). Hydric soils are not mapped for other data points. Wetland communities displayed at least one hydric soil indicator, as defined by the USAGE (2010). Upland communities either failed to display hydric soil indicators or failed to meet one or more of the other two wetland criteria, as defined by the USAGE (2010). Hydric soil indicators found at wetland soil pits in the survey corridor included depleted matrix and redox concentrations. When a soil layer has a value of 4 or more and a chroma of 2 or less it meets the requirement for depleted matrix. Refer to the data forms in Appendix D for NRCS soil map units and a full soil profile description for the wetland data points. SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado 3.1.3 Hydrology According to NHD, Box Elder Creek is an intermittent stream. Other NHD flowlines include ephemeral streams, irrigation ditches, and upland swales, including Keen Lateral, Denver - Hudson Canal, and Jim Number 2 Lateral. Wetlands and surface waters with downstream connectivity are likely considered jurisdictional waters of the Q.J.S. and subject to Section 404 of the CWA. Therefore, features identified by NWI and NHD were field -verified. NHD drainages are discussed below in Section 3.2. Primary wetland hydrology indicators recorded within wetland data points included one or more of the following: high water table, saturation, and oxidized rhizospheres. Secondary indicators included geomorphic position and FAC-neutral test. Refer to the data forms in Appendix D for a full description of hydrology at the wetland data points. 3.2 STREAMS AND OTHER WATERBODIES All features mapped by the NHD (USGS 2014) intersecting the survey area were surveyed in the field using the methods outlined by the USACE (2008). Many of these features were swales dominated by upland vegetation with no indicators of flow or an OHWM. The 11 streams and other waterbodies (e.g., ponds, agricultural ditches, concrete ditches) that contained an OHWM are summarized in Table 4 and are illustrated on the maps in Appendix A. Photographs of waterbodies are included in Appendix C. There are no perennial streams within the survey area.. Table 4. Stream and Waterbody Features with an OHWM Name Mapped Latitude Longitude g Width (feet) th Water Present? tion Description p by NHD? WB01 No 40.22529 -104.5815 35 No Holding pond WB02 Yes 40.20301 -104.5841 20 Yes Box Elder Creek WBO3 Yes 40.20327 -104.58071 40 Yes Ditch connected Elder Creek (flooded during survey) to Box WBO4 No 40.14518 -104.5457 45 Yes Holding pond WBO5 Yes 40.45879 -104.6400 4 Yes Keen Lateral WBO6 No 40.12006 -104.5424 2 Yes Tributary of Keen Lateral WBO7 No 40.10890 -104.5459 4 Yes Erosional channel WBO8 No 40.10825 -104.5748 2 No Concrete ditch WBO9 Yes 40.10872 -104.5729 4 Yes Jim Number 2 Lateral WB 1 O Yes 40.10091 -104.5426 35 Yes Denver -Hudson Canal WB11 Yes 40.09152 -104.5317 25 Yes Denver -Hudson Canal NHD _ National Hydrography Dataset 7 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado 4.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Following a review of baseline data and field investigations, SWCA biologists determined that five wetlands are present within the Mustang Pipeline right-of-way. Additionally, 11 features contained an OHWM, including Box Elder Creek, ditches, and ponds. These features, potential impacts, and recommendations are summarized in Table 5. Table 5. Potential Impacts and Recommendations Wetland/ Waterhodyr Acres in Right (130 feet) -of -Way Crossing Recommendation WETO1 (Box Elder Creek) 1.4098 Bore WETO2 0.3200 Bore WETO3 (Denver -Hudson Canal) 0.0426 Bore 0.0352 Bore WET04 (Denver -Hudson Canal) WETOS 0.2494 Bore WBO1 0.0686 Trench 0.1818 Bore WBO2 (Box Elder Creek) WBO3 (Box Elder Creek ditch) 0.0932 Bore 0.0009 Crossing can be avoided WBO4 0.0125 Bore WBOS (Keen Lateral) WBO6 0.0057 Bore 0.0124 WBO7 Trench WBO8 0.0047 Bore WBO9 (Jim Number 2 Lateral) 0.0169 Bore 0.1235 Bore WB I O (Denver -Hudson Canal) 'NB 1 I (Denver -Hudson Canal) 0.1018 Bore Recommendations based on CWA permitting, Endangered Species Act compliance, and existing infrastructure. 11 the final project design avoids aquatic resources including wetlands (features identified in Table 5), with greater than 0.5 acre temporary impact at any individual crossing, then no Individual Permit would be required for compliance with Section 404 of the CWA. If less than 0.5 acre of potential waters of the L . S. are filled, resulting in temporary impacts, then the project would likely be authorized under Nationwide Permit 12 for Utility Line Activities. Pre - construction notification and mitigation would be required if impacts are greater than 0.1 acre. Additionally, to qualify for Nationwide Permit authorization, the project would need to be constructed in accordance with the Nationwide Permit General and Regional Conditions. This includes compliance with general conditions 18 and 20 regarding compliance with the Endangered Species Act and theNational Historic Preservation Act. If the project were to affect habitat for federally listed species or historic properties including irrigation ditches, a Pre - Construction Notification would be required. The findings presented in this report are restricted to and based on SWCA's professional opinion. Only the USACE and/or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have final and legal authority in determining the absence/presence of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and the extent of their boundaries. SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado 5.0 REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Lichvar, R.W. 2013.. The National Wetland Plant List 2013 Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron 2013(49):1-241. Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2015. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Lists of Hydric Soils (December 2015). Available at: http://www.nres..usda.govlwps/portallnres/main/nails/use/hydric/. Accessed M.ay 2017. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2017. National Weather Service Forecast Office — NOAA Online Weather Data. Available at: http://w2.weather..gav/climate/xma.cis.php?wfo=bou. Accessed May 18, 2017. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. . 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States, edited by R.W. Lichvar and S.M. McColley. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Hanover, New Hampshire: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. . 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0), edited by I.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V.. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-12. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0. Available at: http://www.nres.usda.gov/ pslportallnreslmain/so1ls/use/hydricl. Accessed October 2016. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. National Wetlands Inventory. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/Wetlands/Data/State- Downloads..html. Accessed May 2O17. L .S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. National Hydrography Dataset. Available at: http:/f'nhd.usgs.gov/index.html. Accessed May 2017. 9 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado This page intentionally left blank. 10 S\\:CA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado APPENDIX A Aquatic Resources Inventory Maps SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado County Brad 41 5 .r. County Road I T3N R65 ■ tI_ County flo tyt9 (:utlnly I- T2N R65W Denver I in SWOON SENS MS -1- County Road 36 a Cunt; Road 51 iY '1 P f T2 N R64V1 C urdy Road• 16 11. County float 18 a =tscub load 20 g 50.38 R 4? 3 V n C4 O County Road 6* T3N R63W ST�N R63W �{! E'lle5lillT Count, I I g 1J2 C2 v TIN R64W Id •' 1 lltrrrrte vetegh Projcas 43.00 0-439%91,434519fioble Midstearn_MtrsLan¢iTdF C3'th'e.paxt R'ti4 1 Nable rvis tang WR_Prcje (_a¢atron.n�c TiN R63W Legend Centerline [_ I Township/Range 0 1 2 3 4 la 2 4 6 1:100,0 00 Base Map: World_Imagery. Esri Online Service Source: Esri, DigitaIG lobe, Geo'Eye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getrrtapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the @IS User Community We l d County*, CO NAD 1983 UTNI Zone 13N 6/112017 Kin Miles N SWCA Etall.0MMINTAL CONSULTANTS 295 Interlocken BNd, Suite 300 Broomfield, CO 300421 Phone: 303.4971193 www.swca. co Figure 1. Project location. A-1 SC Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Figure 2. Wetlands and waterbodies (map 1 of 3). NHD Stream/River (Intermittent) NHD Artificial Path Cr NHD Canal/Ditch A-2 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Figure 3. Wetlands and waterbodies (map 2 of 3). Legend Photo Waterbody (OHWM) -• NHD Stream/River (Intermittent) NHD Artificial Path I I NHD Canal/Ditch A-3 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Figure 4. Wetlands and waterbodies (map 3 of 3). Legend Photo Waterbody (OHWM) Wetland Boundary NHD Strearn/River (Intermittent) NHD Artificial Path Cr- NHD Canal!Ditch A-4 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado APPENDIX B Wetland Photographs SW CA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 1. DPO1 facing west (upland). Photograph 2. DPO2 facing west (Wetland 01). B-1 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 3. DP03 facing north (Wetland 02). Photograph 4. DPO4 facing east (upland). B-2 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County. Colorado Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 7. DP07 facing northwest (Wetland 04). Photograph 8. DP08 facing north (upland). B-4 S 5'1/ CA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 9. DPO9 facing northeast (Wetland 05). Photograph 10. DP10 facing southwest (Wetland 05 and upland berm). B-5 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado This page intentionally left blank. Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado APPENDIX C Waterbody Photographs SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 3. PPo3, NHD blue line (no OHWM) facing north. Photograph 4. PPo4, NHD blue line (no OHWM) facing west. Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 7. PP07, WB02 (Box Elder Creek) facing east. Photograph 8. PPOS, WBO3 (Box Elder Creek ditch) facing north. C-4 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 9. PP09, NHD blue line (no OHWM) facing south. Photograph 10. PP10, NHD blue line (no OHWM) facing west. C-5 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 11. WB04 facing southeast. Photograph 12. PP 11, WBO5 facing north. S Vs CA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 13. WBO6 facing west. Photograph 14. INB07 facing east. C-7 S w C1A Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 17. PP14, NHD blue line (no OH 'M) facing north towards right-of-way. Photograph 18. PP15, WB10 facing southwest. C-9 YWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado APPENDIX D Wetland Data Forms SWCA WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Mustang Pipeline County: Noble P Gordon, M Dina and Weld Sampling Date: State: CO Sampling Point: M Dina Section, Township, Range: May 22, 2017 DP01 NA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): January 0, 1900 Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains Soil Map Unit Name: Lat: -104.58130 Long: 40.20294 Datum: NAD83 Haverson loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes NWI Classification: Upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks,) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Hydric Soil Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X No X No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Remarks: This point was determined not to be within a wetland due to the lack of all three wetland criteria. Located on sloping ground above depression associated with Box Elder Creek. VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. ) % cover Species? Status 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft. ) 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4. 5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft. 1. Bromus tectorum 2. Pascopyrum smithii ) 3. Lactuca serriola 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 Woody Vine Stratum 1. None Observed 2. (Plot size: 30 ft. = Total Cover = Total Cover 45 YES UPL 30 YES FACU 25 YES FAC 100 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 ) Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 3 (B) 33% (A/B) Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x2= 0 FAC species 25 x3= 75 FACU species 30 x4= 120 UPL species 45 x5= 225 Column Totals: 100 (A) 420 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.20 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptationsi (Explain) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Remarks: No positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (≥50% of dominant species indexed as FACU or drier). US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP01 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 0-18 4/O 10YR 3/2 100 Redox Features Color (moist) None Type' Loc2 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Texture Sandy Loam Remarks roots present in top 4" 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soils Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: No positive indication of hydric soils was observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes Yes Yes N o X Depth (inches): N o X Depth (inches): N o X Depth (inches): N/A >20 >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No positive indication of wetland hydrology was observed, US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Mustang Pipeline County: Weld Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: Noble State: CO Sampling Point: Investigator(s): P Gordon, and M Dina Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Subregion (LRR): Soil Map Unit Name: depression Western Great Plains May 22, 2017 DP02 NA Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-1 Lat: -104.58130 Long: 40.20294 Datum: NAD83 Haverson loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes NWl Classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks,) Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: This point was determined to be within a wetland due to the presence of all 3 wetland criteria. W ET01 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. ) % cover Species? Status 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft. ) 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4. 5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft. 1. Pascopyrum smithii ) 2. Eleocharis palustris 3. Juncus balticus 4. Typha latifolia 5. Lactuca serriola 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. None Observed 2. (Plot size: 30 ft. = Total Cover = Total Cover 25 Yes FACU 20 Yes OBL 15 No FACW 5 No OBL 35 Yes FAC 100 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 3 (B) 67% (A/B) Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 25 x 1 = 25 FACW species 15 x2= 30 FAC species 35 x3= 105 FACU species 25 x4= 100 UPL species 0 x5= 0 Column Totals: 100 (A) 260 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.60 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation X 2 - Dominance Test is >50% X 3 - Prevalence Index is s 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptationsi (Explain) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Remarks: A positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (>50% of dominant species indexed as OBL, FACW, or FAC). A positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0). US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP02 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 0-4 4-18 4/O 10YR 3/2 100 10YR 4/2 95 Redox Features Color (moist) None Type' 10YR 5/8 5 C Loc2 M Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Texture Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Remarks roots 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soils Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (56) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: A positive indication of hydric soil was observed. soils moist from recent rain event HYDROLOGY Wetland hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) X High Water Table (A2) X Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) X Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No X Depth (inches): N/A Yes X No Yes X No Depth (inches): 15 Depth (inches): 18 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: A positive indication of wetland hydrology was observed (at least one primary indicator). surface water from Box Elder Creek present outside of pit. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Mustang Pipeline County: Noble Investigator(s): P Gordon and Weld Sampling Date: State: CO Sampling Point: x Section, Township, Range: May 10, 2017 DP03 NA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-1 Subregion (LRR): NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Western Great Plains Lat: -104.54570 Long: 40A0254 Datum: Colby-Adena loams, 3 to 9 percent slopes NWl Classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X Are Vegetation (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks,) No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: This point was determined to be within a wetland due to the presence of all 3 wetland criteria, in swale next to train tracks. W ET02 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. ) % cover Species? Status 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft. ) 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4. 5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft. 1. Typha latifolia ) 2. Cirsium arvense 3. Bromus tectorum 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. None Observed 2. (Plot size: 30 ft. = Total Cover = Total Cover 50 Yes OBL 30 Yes FACU 5 No UPL 85 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 15 ) Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2 (B) 50% (A/B) Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species 50 x1 = 50 0 x2= 0 0 x3= 0 30 x4= 120 5 x5= 25 Column Totals: 85 (A) 195 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.29 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% X 3 - Prevalence Index is s 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptationsi (Explain) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Remarks: A positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (Prevalence Index is s 3.00). A few Russian olive and Siberian elm to west. Dominated by Typha and Candada Thistle. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP03 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 0-3 3-20 4/O 10YR 3/1 100 10YR 6/2 100 Redox Features Color (moist) None Type' 10YR 5/8 2 C Loc2 M Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Texture Clay Loam Clay Remarks 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soils Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (56) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: A positive indication of hydric soil was observed. light reduced soils below 3" with redox concentrations HYDROLOGY Wetland hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) X High Water Table (A2) X Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes Yes X No Yes X No No X Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): N/A 12 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: A positive indication of wetland hydrology was observed (at least one primary indicator). Recent heavy rains have saturated soils. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Mustang Pipeline Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Noble County: Weld P Gordon Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Subregion (LRR): Soil Map Unit Name: and x plain Western Great Plains State: CO Section, Township, Range: Sampling Date: Sampling Point: May 10, 2017 DP04 NA Local relief (concave, convex, none): Lat: -104.54570 Colby-Adena loams, 3 to 9 percent slopes Long: none Slope (%): 0-1 40A0254 Datum: NAD83 Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X Are Vegetation Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? No naturally problematic? NWl Classification: Upland No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks,) Yes X SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes No X No X No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Remarks: This point was determined not to be within a wetland due to the lack of all three wetland criteria. above swale VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. ) 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4. Absolute Dominant % cover Species? Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft. ) 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. Cirsium arvense 5ft. ) 2. Bromus tectorum 3. Pascopyrum smithii 4. Bassia scoparia 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 Woody Vine Stratum 1. None Observed 2. (Plot size: 30 ft. 40 40 15 5 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes Yes No No 100 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 ) Total Cover Indicator Status FACU UPL FACU FACU Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x2= 0 FAC species 0 x3= 0 FACU species 60 x4= 240 UPL species 40 x5= 200 Column Totals: 100 (A) 440 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.40 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptationsi (Explain) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Remarks: No positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (≥50% of dominant species indexed as FACU or drier). Weedy grassland vegetation US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP04 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 0-8 8-20 4/O 10YR 3/2 100 10YR 4/2 100 Redox Features Color (moist) None None Type' Loc2 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Texture Clay Loam Clay Loam Remarks 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soils Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (55) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: No positive indication of hydric soils was observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes Yes Yes N o X Depth (inches): N o X Depth (inches): N o X Depth (inches): N/A >20 >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No positive indication of wetland hydrology was observed, US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Mustang Pipeline County: Noble Investigator(s): P Gordon and Weld Sampling Date: State: CO Sampling Point: x Section, Township, Range: May 10, 2017 DP05 NA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): bank Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1-5 Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains Lat: -104.54260 Long: 40A0091 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Weld loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWl Classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks,) Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: This point was determined to be within a wetland due to the presence of all 3 wetland criteria, on bank of Denver Hudson Canal WET03 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. ) % cover Species? Status 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft. ) 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4. 5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft. 1. Typha latifolia ) 2. Carex emoryi 3. Thinopyrum ponticum 4. Bromus inermis 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. None Observed 2. (Plot size: 30 ft. = Total Cover = Total Cover 50 Yes OBL 40 Yes OBL 5 No UPL 1 No UPL 96 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 4 Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2 (B) 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 90 x 1 = 90 FACW species 0 x2= 0 FAC species 0 x3= 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 6 x5= 30 Column Totals: 96 (A) 120 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.25 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation X 2 - Dominance Test is >50% X 3 - Prevalence Index is s 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptationsi (Explain) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Remarks: A positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (>50% of dominant species indexed as OBL, FACW, or FAC). A positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0). US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP05 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 0-4 4-20 4/O 10YR 5/2 100 10YR 5/2 100 Redox Features Color (moist) None Type' 10YR 5/8 5 C Loc2 M Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Texture Clay Loam Clay Loam Remarks 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soils Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (55) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: A positive indication of hydric soil was observed. redox concentration below 4" HYDROLOGY Wetland hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) X High Water Table (A2) X Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Yes X No Yes X No X Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): N/A 10 8 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: A positive indication of wetland hydrology was observed (at least one primary indicator). US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Mustang Pipeline Applicant/Owner: County: Weld Noble Investigator(s): P Gordon and Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Subregion (LRR): Soil Map Unit Name: State: CO x Section, Township, Range: upper bank Western Great Plains Sampling Date: Sampling Point: May 10, 2017 DP06 NA Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-1 Lat: -104.54260 Long: 40.10091 Datum: NAD83 Weld loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWI Classification: Upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes No X No X No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Remarks: This point was determined not to be within a wetland due to the lack of all three wetland criteria. upper bank of Denver Hudson Canal VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. ) 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4 Absolute Dominant % cover Species? Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft. ) 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4. 5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft. 1. Distichlis spicata ) 2. Bromus inermis 3. Carex emoryi 4. Pascopyrum smithii 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 Woody Vine Stratum 1. None Observed 2. (Plot size: 30 ft. 30 40 1 10 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes Yes No No 81 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 19 ) Total Cover Indicator Status FACW UPL OBL FACU Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species 1 x1= 1 30 x2= 60 0 x3= 0 10 x4= 40 40 x5= 200 Column Totals: 81 (A) 301 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.72 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptationsi (Explain) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Remarks: No positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (≥50% of dominant species indexed as FACU or drier). A few small coyote willow about 30' away US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP06 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 0-16 4/O 10YR 3/2 100 Redox Features Color (moist) None Type' Loc2 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Texture Clay Loam Remarks 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soils Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): hardpan 16 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: No positive indication of hydric soils was observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes Yes Yes N o X Depth (inches): N o X Depth (inches): N o X Depth (inches): N/A >20 >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No positive indication of wetland hydrology was observed, US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Mustang Pipeline Applicant/Owner: County: Weld Noble Investigator(s): P Gordon and State: CO x Section, Township, Range: Sampling Date: Sampling Point: May 1012017 DP07 NA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): bank Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1-5 Subregion (LRR): NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Western Great Plains Lat: -104.53170 Long: 40.09152 Datum: Colby loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWl Classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks,) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: This point was determined to be within a wetland due to the presence of all 3 wetland criteria, bank of Denver Hudson Canal W ET04 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. ) 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4 Absolute Dominant % cover Species? Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft. ) 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft. 1. Carex emoryi ) 2. Phalaris arundinacea 3. Bromus inermis 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 Woody Vine Stratum 1. None Observed 2. (Plot size: 30 ft. 60 20 20 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes Yes Yes 100 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 ) Total Cover Indicator Status OBL FACW UPL Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) (B) 67% (A/B) Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 60 x 1 = 60 FACW species 20 x2= 40 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 20 x5= 100 Column Totals: 100 (A) 200 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.00 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation X 2 - Dominance Test is >50% X 3 - Prevalence Index is s 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptationsi (Explain) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Remarks: A positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (>50% of dominant species indexed as OBL, FACW, or FAC). A positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0). Patches of typha 50' away US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP07 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 0-4 4-20 4/O 10YR 5/2 100 10YR 5/2 100 Redox Features Color (moist) None Type' 10YR 5/8 5 C Loc2 M Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Texture Clay Loam Clay Loam Remarks 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soils Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (55) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: A positive indication of hydric soil was observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) X High Water Table (A2) X Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No X Depth (inches): N/A Yes X No Yes X No Depth (inches): 12 Depth (inches): 10 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: A positive indication of wetland hydrology was observed (at least one primary indicator). US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Mustang Pipeline Applicant/Owner: County: Weld Noble Investigator(s): P Gordon and Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Subregion (LRR): Soil Map Unit Name: State: CO x Section, Township, Range: upper bank Western Great Plains Sampling Date: Sampling Point: May 10, 2017 DP08 NA Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0-1 Lat: -104.53170 Long: 40.09152 Datum: NAD83 Colby loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWI Classification: Upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks,) Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes No X No X No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Remarks: This point was determined not to be within a wetland due to the lack of all three wetland criteria. upper bank of Denver Hudson Canal VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. ) 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4 Absolute Dominant % cover Species? Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft. ) 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4. 5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft. 1. Bromus inermis ) 2. Pascopyrum smithii 3. Bassia scoparia 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 Woody Vine Stratum 1. None Observed 2. (Plot size: 30 ft. 80 15 1 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes No No 96 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 4 Total Cover Indicator Status UPL FACU FACU Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 1 0 Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x2= 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 16 x 4 = 64 UPL species 80 x5= 400 Column Totals: 96 (A) 464 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptationsi (Explain) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Remarks: No positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (≥50% of dominant species indexed as FACU or drier). US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP08 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 0-20 4/O 10YR 4/2 100 Redox Features Color (moist) None Type' Loc2 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Texture Clay Loam Remarks 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soils Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: No positive indication of hydric soils was observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes Yes Yes N o X Depth (inches): N o X Depth (inches): N o X Depth (inches): N/A >20 >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No positive indication of wetland hydrology was observed, US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: Mustang Pipeline County: Noble Investigator(s): P Gordon and Weld Sampling Date: State: CO Sampling Point: x Section, Township, Range: May 10, 2017 DP09 NA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-1 Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains Lat: -104.52430 Long: 40.09139 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Shingle-Renohill complex, 3 to 9 percent slopes NWl Classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks,) Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: This point was determined to be within a wetland due to the presence of all 3 wetland criteria, swale below dam/berm WET05 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. ) % cover Species? Status 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4 Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft. ) 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4. 5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft. 1. Typha latifolia ) 2. Cirsium arvense 3. Chenopodium album 4. Schoenoplectus pungens 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. None Observed 2. (Plot size: 30 ft. = Total Cover = Total Cover 50 Yes OBL 20 Yes FACU 10 No FACU 10 No OBL 90 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 ) Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2 (B) 50% (A/B) Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 60 x 1 = 60 FACW species 0 x2= 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 30 x4= 120 UPL species 0 x5= 0 Column Totals: 90 (A) 180 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.00 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% X 3 - Prevalence Index is s 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptationsi (Explain) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Remarks: A positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (Prevalence Index is s 3.00). US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP09 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 0-4 4-20 4/O 10YR 4/2 100 10YR 4/2 100 Redox Features Color (moist) None Type' 10YR 5/8 2 C Loc2 M Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Texture Clay Loam Clay Loam Remarks 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soils Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (55) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: A positive indication of hydric soil was observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) X High Water Table (A2) X Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No X Depth (inches): N/A Yes X No Yes X No Depth (inches): 11 Depth (inches): 8 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: A positive indication of wetland hydrology was observed (at least one primary indicator). US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Project/Site: Mustang Pipeline Applicant/Owner: County: Weld Noble Investigator(s): P Gordon and State: CO x Section, Township, Range: Sampling Date: Sampling Point: May 10, 2017 DP10 NA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0-1 Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains Soil Map Unit Name: Lat: -104.52430 Long: 40.09139 Datum: NAD83 Shingle-Renohill complex, 3 to 9 percent slopes NWI Classification: Upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks,) Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes No X No X No X Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No X Remarks: This point was determined not to be within a wetland due to the lack of all three wetland criteria. on slope above swale VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. ) 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4. Absolute Dominant % cover Species? Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft. ) 1. None Observed 2. 3. 4. 5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft. 1. Chenopodium album ) 2. Cirsium arvense 3. Lactuca serriola 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Woody Vine Stratum 1. None Observed 2. (Plot size: 30 ft. 50 20 10 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes Yes No 80 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 ) Total Cover Indicator Status FACU FACU FAC Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 2 0 Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x2= 0 FAC species 10 x3= 30 FACU species 70 x4= 280 UPL species 0 x5= 0 Column Totals: 80 (A) 310 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.88 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is s 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptationsi (Explain) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Remarks: No positive indication of hydrophytic vegetation was observed (≥50% of dominant species indexed as FACU or drier). US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP10 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Color (moist) 0-2 2-20 4/O 10YR 3/2 100 10YR 4/2 100 Redox Features Color (moist) None None Type' Loc2 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Texture Clay Loam Clay Loam Remarks 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soils Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (55) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: No positive indication of hydric soils was observed. HYDROLOGY Wetland hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water (Al) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes Yes Yes N o X Depth (inches): N o X Depth (inches): N o X Depth (inches): N/A >20 >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No positive indication of wetland hydrology was observed, US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains Version 2.0 rarrp1 ;a Y - .h - .� h a. 4 �^ w is st err flurPOWEIP 4_._ . 14 •r. - _ MOO _IC r - _. '4.. n .r. n iii WI nieratilt.'‘ItTiltra 41. -4 . 1Dit=rt -a l K r fl . ( 4. San delingareell -.011Pralts ass 10.- ,•� , . a Y nine WeeY " < 4 .mss. . _4 L IA c` I' r. • -.- 0 "!;Feet It 1 X11 94ACtri Meters NWI Wetland111 295 I Blvd Suite rr nterlocken Centerline // Broomfield, CO 80021 00#!Survey Area. i Phone:303.487.1183 Fax: 303.487.1245 Section 1 t NAD 1983 5/31/2017 '3� fs%+d �;��C zl rC (� - o-: rt jel 109 ifi > ~% J r 4 'hv o-1 a }' 1 .:�..... a �,�0 .�� . -� � ,KNe ,�. � d .a�;;i�(.,�JIl �e �� '7 I. F.' , �_+�. _, �,� ' III .1= Legend ,: Wetland Determination Waterbody (OHWM) ) Wetland Boundary —NHD Stream/River (Intermittent) N H D Artificial Path r-� NHD Canal/Ditch fir • f -♦ { • Met tir g_i 4ttakiPi "Ht,C$1104:* *t y h ii. h 1 .. masa v : % 4. I is ;pie kg, vie s_, .4‘ % no 7x _ . • ..,... , 7 _ A I•itt at J. . Nibs f ski, • 28 LTe Legend 1 150 300 a Ikii 0Township/Range — Feet t ril. 1 1 :1 Canal/Ditch r Meters ■ ■N NWI • 1:6,000 295 Interlocken Blvd., Suite rr Centerline / Broomfield, • 80021 200 -foot s Area Keen esburg Page . of 8 N Phone:303.487.1183 30 3.487.1245 Section . 1983 UTMZone 13N www.swcv 5/31/2017 a a I Legend Waterbody (OHWM) —NHD Stream/River (Intermittent) NHD Artificial Path NHD Canal/Ditch NWI Wetland Centerline 200 -foot Survey Area Section Township/Range 7 B07 \ • itNorte P:fsd,tie;dnMtistang'L4XDcReport NR''.436.1J Noble Mustang NR Project Wetlands Detail nixd 0 150 300 Feet 40 80 Meters 1:6,000 Page 5 of 8 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 13N 5/31/2017 N A SWCA DivmotimprrALcornutztam 295 Interlocken Blvd., Suite 300 Broomfield, CO 80021 Phone: 303.487.1183 Fax: 303.487.1245 www.swca.com 7 L 1 1 1•J/ fi u' ,I tp4.`..��.=1��} Ja,�[�'."l�t,{'.>..<.Z'�•:�`,�:� =.11, :,g.�" l 3.:��., �4: �„9'41 ':�'�_1=_i,�:�� •�h,l,..�;..ira�: /"- - lr 34 I1iPef eC'1.�u13O(JJ-4iJ:•J ��17;i1�J NoLl � t.iiclsieE&etit ��.iGtSldel;�i�:' ��.{ eFICIFt\f� ��:�+�Fii J Diu r �^ n e Vii a • ➢ _ _ - _ '1'• ti e i' c L:I:ietsian��_!v �_ e �¢..:c!_arellrae�z.s Legend C Wetland Determination 0 Section Waterbody (OHWM) r I, Township/Range Wetland Boundary I _ NHD Canal/Ditch NWI Wetland Centerline 200 -foot Survey Area 0 150 300 Feet 40 80 Meters NAD 1983 UTM Zone 13N 5/31/2017 N A SWCA NIVIOIIMDRAL 0QN*U1TAN1l 295 Interlocken Blvd., Suite 300 Broomfield, CO 80021 Phone: 303.487.1183 Fax: 303.487.1245 www.swca.com I'T.Pr j4,=.•,l aril 4,:i t i;a ie 1' x i?fJp r,-,lci Legend ` Wetland Determination Waterbody (OHWM) ) Wetland Boundary — • NHD Stream/River (Intermittent) NHD Canal/Ditch Hello