The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20173292.tiffY r USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW ' (U F I APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES * 1555 N. 17TH AVENUE * GREELEY, CO 80631 voNw. a ldgt ova. core * 970-353-6100 EXT 3 540 FM 970-304-6498 FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE: AMOUNT APPLICATION RECEIVED BY DATE RECEIVED: CASE # ASSIGNED: PLANNER ASSIGNED: Parcel Number*: See attached Parcels Crossed list T Address of site: Weld County,. CO t 12 - sections 22. 15. 10, 4 16 & 3.12N. RUIN: Sections 25 & 12, TUN, ROSW: Legal Description: Seobcas33 30.29-26, 21, 20.'it i6.17.947 x314, precis) Section: Township: N Range: Zone District: A Acreage: Floodplain:Y p la in:Y Q NO Geological Hazard: CY + N Airport Overlay: Y FCC OWNER(S) OF THE PROPERTY: EASEMENTS Name: Erik T. Van Decay Company: Green River DevCo LP Phone #4. 7 QII y67 24 2. Street Address: 1625 Broadway #2200 _ City/State/Zip Code: Denver. CO 80202 mail: errk.vandecartenblerteray.com Name: Company: Phone #: Email: Street Address: City/State/Zip Code: Name: Company: Phone #: Street Address: City/State/Zip Code: Email: APPLICANT OR AUTHORI ZED AGENT: (See below,: Authori7etton m 'staccompanyal/ applications signed by Authorized Agents) Name Erik T. Van Decal Company: Green River DevCo LP Phone #: ,720-587-2462 Street Address: 1625 Broadway#22QQ_ City/State/Zip Code: Denver.CO 80202 PROPOSED USE: Email: eritvandecar nblenergv.corn Construction of 16", 2O'" and 24" natural gas pipelines, I (We) hereby depose and state under penalties or 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 fee owners must be i nciude d with the application. If a corporation is the fee owner, notarized evidence must be included indicating that the signatory has to legal a uthori t t "gritrthe corpo atio n. 511.542. at e: ignaturOwner or Authorized Agent Signature: Owner or Authorized Agent Date frk' r Print Name Print Name Rev 4/2016 SOUTH AREA GAS PIPELINE PARCELS CROSSED PARCEL NAME ADDRESS1 ADDRESS2 CITY STATE ZIPCOOE TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION ZIT 61 I I or 25 I 64 64 I 59 64 `D 64 w 64 64 T a 3 64 1/40 64 up 64 2 j 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 w 64 m sr, m I 3 m m m m m m c m NI N N N N N N m m m 3 ci N m 8{J631959b1 730343230 730343230 w cri un m ei m # 0 cat VI +p 14) crm N qt O CO 806429605 8415000221 841500022 841500022 806150517 N t'v CI Cl 0 tn ri e000 00 LI'1 e-4 ri m el N era 00 Liti i-I H m r -I N 1/4O O 00 III ,-1 m In, N Q 00 275348341 lD' h-� N N en CD 0 00 806322176 806322176 806322176 I 8064296021 8063221761 606901450 C.G ri N N m 0 *d G Itit t-1 O cr+ 0 CO (NI £J r til LO r1 N 0 00 1806429515' 806439360 w vt Lo 01 Ill lit W O CO 806430088 806430088, 1806319596 806319596' Lf7 0 tNI O r I N 0 CO SIN 0 10 CII N vt kt 0 QQ ua Ln 01 t1 c+, 1/40 0 +x 802032398 1806319596 U Z 0 V 0 U O 0 he 0 he 0 0 LI 0 U 0 L I_ D I'_ n I-- n 0 u I- D 0 u 0 u 0 'Ivy 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 u J 0 u-- -1 0 u 0 U 0 �(6 i / U O L (O t0 0 LJ 0 C 0 C.) 0 U 0 p 0 U 0 L) --- SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY !GREELEY EDMOND EDMOND 'GREELEY Z VI 'n r NOSC tl H SALT LAKE CITY a w SALT LAKE CITY' FORT LU PTO N FORT LUPTON FORT LUPTON % a: MI �O C _I WI GREELEY GREELEY GREELEY GREELEY Z 0 0 _ GREELEY CHICAGO GREELEY I 0 9100I HD et > z C 1 NOSCHH KEENESBURG KEENESBURG KEENESBURG KEEN ESBURG GREELEY GREELEY FORT LUPTON NOSCru GREELEY cc a 0 GREELEY I 50 E NORTH TEMPLE FL 22 1 1004 RICHMOND RD 1004 RICHMOND RD 50 E NORTH TEMPLE FL 22 `50 E NORTH TEMPLE FL 22 50 E NORTH TEMPLE FL 22 1 501 N OAK FOREST RD PO BOX 1450 PO sox 1450 8029 COUNTY ROAD 39 8029 COUNTY ROAD 39 1 8029 COUNTY ROAD 39 J -J g m CO �' kj PO BOX 2176 11500 ST C10 JERRY ANDERSON CJO JERRY ANDERSON 11500 ST 111521 COUNTY ROAD 49 11521 COUNTY ROAD 49 IC/0 LDS CHURCH TAX DIVISION C/O LDS CHURCH TAX DIVISION C/o LDS CHURCH TAX DIVISION PO BOX 517 2 0 71 I- I kJ to zer O Li PO BOX 2176 IPO 64X 2176 1 PO BOX 2176 13650 COUNTY ROAD 49 PO BOX 2176 ,C/0 WASTE MANAGEMENT PO BOX 2176 C/0 WASTE MANAGEMENT 355 E 55TH AVE 22432 COUNTY ROAD 22 9490 COUNTY ROAD 55 9757 COUNTY ROAD 57 PPO BOX 88 88 XQ8 Od j1150OST IW£LD COUNTY I1150OST [WES MOSER INC IP0 BOX 205 ! 113650 COUNTY ROAD 49 1150 0 ST 1127 N SHERMAN ST STE 300 1150 0 ST FRONT RANGE FEEDLOTS LUC (WELD COUNTY OF lOGG & S LLC (50% INT) STROH FAMILY TRUST (50% INT) WELD COUNTY DECHANT ALVIN J R & DECHANT DAVID ALAN DECHANT ALVIN JR & DECHANT DAVID ALAN CORP OF PRESIDING BISHOP OF CHURCH OF CORP OF PRESIDING BISHOP OF CHURCH OF CORP OF PRESIDING BISHOP OF CHURCH OF CORP OF PRESIDING BISHOP OF CHURCH OF TEN HAND TRUST (50%) DECHANT ALVIN JR (25%) DECHANT SCOTT (25%) CONAGRA FOODS PACKAGED FOODS CO INC GUTTERSEN RANCHES LLC GUTTERSEN RANCHES LLC GUTTERSEN RANCHES LLC GUTTERSEN RANCHES LLC ADAMS MCWILLIAMS FARMS LLLP GUTTERSEN RANCHES LLC WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP GUTTERSEN RANCHES LLC WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP ORAJ LLC PRALLE CRAIG E I HAWKPNS HAROLD R JR FEATHER JERRY L MINNE FREDRIC F LIVING TRUST MINNE FREDRIC F LIVING TRUST WELD COUNTY ADAMS MCWILLIAMS FARMS LLLP WELD COUNTY STATE OF COLORADO uNno� a-UnnI 121312100003 1121312100004 121312100004 121507200005 121507200006 i s-I OO 0 co 0 N ri 1121508000011 LZOOoOLLSSZCi 1121517100002 O O O CO 4-# N si 1121519000012 O 0 0 tJ R -I N et 121519200006 121519200006 121519200016 1121520000014 121521000002 121528000001 O 0R N NJ r1 11215301110015 1121533000002 �i 0 O al rail e-�i 0 - O t r-1 500 m �1 130515000029 p130515000032 1130515000034 r-1 .v -I en I-1 1130522100024 1130522200023 rit O 0 la e4 N It -I 121325400015 121325400016 121530100015 1121530200008 O r r# 0en r1 I121S3O2O14 noble1 25 Broad ra , Suite 2200 N Denver, Colorado 80202 MIDSTREAM PARTNERS 303.228.4000 February 1, 2017 Mr. Kim Ogle Weld County Planning 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: South Area Gas Pipeline 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 Jeannette Jones to serve as the Authorized Agent for Green River DevCo LA related to any application with Weld County for the South Area Gas Pipeline project. 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 Decal. Attorney -In -Fact DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT CIF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONNMENT 1555 NORTH 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, CO 80631 AUTHORIZATION FORM FOR BUILDING, PLANNING AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT PERMITS AND SERVICES I, (We), Erik T. Van Decal- give permission to Pam Hora (Owner — please print) (Applicant/Agent — please print) to apply for any Planning, Building or Health Department permits or services on our behalf, for the property located at: See attached "Parcels Crossed List" Sections 22, 15, 10, 4,16 & 3 T2N, R64W; Sections 25 & 12, T3N, R6SW; Sections 33,30, 2.9, 28, 21,2C), 19, 18, 17, 8 & 7 T3N, R,64W Legal Description: of Section , Township N, Range III Subdivision Name: ! of Block Property Owners Information- Phone: 720-587-2462 E -Mail: eril'cvandecar@nblener. .com Applicant/Agent Contact Information: Phone: 720-864-4507 E -Mail. Pam,Hora@tetratech.com Email correspondence to be sent to; Owner Applicant/Agent Both Postal service correspondence to be sent to: (choose only one) Owner Applicant/Agent P Additional Into. Owner ignalure: Date, -5//77/1.7 Owner Signature: Date: Sauter Area Gas Pipeline 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 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 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) P) to a third party compressor station to be located in the vicinity of WCR49 and WCRS6 . The South Area Gas Pipeline will collect natural gas from surrounding Econodes (production wells), A 12 - inch pipeline starts on a parcel south of WCR20 about 1/2 mile east of WCR55. From there, it travels north approximately 1± miles to a combination point with a 1.2± mile 16 -inch steel pipeline from an Econode located 1/2 2 mile west of WCR55 and 1 mile north of WCR20. From this combination point the line becomes a 20 -inch pipeline that travels to the north then west for 6.6± miles to a second combination point located one mile east of the intersection of WCR 49 and WCR 30. From this second combination point, another 20 -inch line extends west approximately 1.8± miles. From there, the two 20 -inch lines combine into a 24 -inch steel pipeline. The 24 -inch steer pipeline extends about 4.5± miles north to the third party compressor station. The total length of natural gas pipeline to be permitted with this application is approximately '15.1 miles. All pipelines will have a wall thickness of at least 0.375 of an inch; increased wall thickness or increased in 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. Once natural gas arrives at the 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 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 15.1 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 existing roads including WCRs 20, 55, 49 (twice), 32, 51, and 34. Weld County Right -of -Way (ROW) Use Permits will be obtained for each county road crossing. Any ditch crossing requiring permits will be identified and appropriate crossing agreements will be obtained. The pipeline is planned to cross the Box Elder Creek Floodplain; therefore, a Floodplain Development Permit will be obtained. Along the length of pipeline that falls in the floodplain, Green River will have launcher/receiver assemblies. A launcher is a short above -ground section of pipe with a bolted opening 1 into which a "pig" can be periodically inserted into the pipe. A pig is a plug of plastic or rubber that fits within the inside diameter of the pipe and is pushed through the length of the pipeline under pressure, pushing hydrocarbons and water out of the pipeline to prevent corrosion and reduce pressures. 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. At this time, the exact locations of launchers/receivers along the pipeline is not known. However, Green River will not install a launcher/receiver in a location permanently under water. If a launcher/receiver is installed in an area that experiences a temporary flood, the launcher/receiver will not be hurt by the temporary flood water because they are fabricated from pipeline steel that is designed to withstand pipeline pressures of up to 720 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. Therefore, floodwater flows within the floodplain will not affect it. The launcher/receiver portions of the pipeline are essentially the same diameter as the pipeline (i.e. 16- to 24 - inches in diameter), and will not significantly affect the flow of flood waters through and around the equipment installation. 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 to allow for a more efficient transfer of product from production to market, A number of other potential routes were considered before selecting the proposed route. The route proposed was selected based on meeting the needs of Noble's operations area, avoiding existing improvements, and coordinating with landowners in the area to minimize impacts on properties and agree upon easement locations. Some alternate routes that were considered by Noble are described below. Alternate Route 1 along County Road 49. Approximately 8 miles of the route could have been located running north -south adjacent to County Road 49, with a total length approximately equal to the planned route mostly along County Road 51. However, CR 49 is a paved arterial with substantially more traffic that CR 51, which would unnecessarily increase both construction costs and inconvenience to the travelling public. Alternate Route 2, along the County Road 53 Right_ of Way. Approximately 8 miles of the route could have been located running north -south in the CR 53 right-of-way. However, most of that right-of-way is currently undeveloped as a roadway. Construction along undeveloped rangeland is feasible, but access to the pipeline would be less convenient for construction and future maintenance as cornpared to the chosen route. Other Alternate Routes: A number of other routes were investigated; however, they were abandoned due to a lack of interest from the landowners to grant an easement to Green River for the pipeline. • 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 being located along a lesser -travelled County Road versus a higher -speed arterial road. Temporary and permanent access points to the County Road from the pipeline easement will be planned out during t h e 2 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 either 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 launcher/receivers will be located off of the County Road right- of-way, 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 sto rrnwater 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 service. Cultivated land will be graded to minimize erosion and then planted by the landowner for the next growing 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 the pipeline in late 2017. Construction of the pipeline is expected to begin on the southern portion of the pipeline and end near the location of the third party compressor station. ■ 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 150 feet of the proposed pipeline by sending them a packet of information about the project and its purpose within the Mustang lDP 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. 3 • 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 right-of-way 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. • 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 USR application is be consistent with the intent of Chapter 22 Weld County Code and Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: 0G. Goal 1. Promote the reasonable and orderly exploration and development of oil and gas mineral resources. The South Area Gas Pipeline 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 own er/operations with respect to any developments of either the surface or the mineral estate. 4 The South Area Gas Pipeline 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. 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. 0.G. Goal 2. Ensure that the extraction of oil and gas resources conserves the /and and minimizes the impact on surrounding land and the existing surrounding land uses. The proposed route of the South Area Gas Pipeline will minimize surface impact by placing the pipeline on the edges of parcels rather than cutting through the middle of parcels of land. 0.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.. • 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 and Highway 52, 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 lie within the Keenesburg, CO and Weld County intergovernmental agreement (IGA) planning area. The pipeline is not currently within the Keenesburg town limits. 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. 5 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 lDPs 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 (Ecoriodes), 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. 6 South Area Gas Pipeline 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 Emergency Action Plan Noble Midstream Partners' emergency response manager is working on an Emergency Action Plan for this pipeline project. The plan will be prepared in coordination with the Southeast' Weld Fire Protection District. South Area Gas Pipeline Easement Status Report Attached is the Easement Status Report for the South Area Gas Pipeline. 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 June 8, 2017. SOUTH AREA. GAS PIPELINE EASEMENT STATUS REPORT PARCEL NAME ADDRE5S1 ADDRES52 CITY STATE ZIPCODE TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION EASEMENT STATUS I Expected by 11/1/171 I Expected by 8/1/17 CO ›- V CLP a) CL x w I Expected by 11/1/11 Expected by 8/1/17 Expected by 8/1/17 Expected by 11/1/1 I Expected by 11/1/1 - "rirN it JZI -I >. a Cis w a ktt 0 :n Expected by 11/1/1 I Expected by 8/1/17 Expected by 8/1/17 Expected by 8/1/17 I Expected by 8/1/171 I Expected by 8/1/171 I Expected by 8/1/17 Expected by 8/1/17 Expected by 8/1/17 Expected by 8/1/17 Expected by 8/W17 VQ7 ttin Un MEM Expected by 8/1/17 ££ �C 66 Partially Signed 64 f 15 Partially Signed CP 41) C00 Vi iif irn U, r N M {nn N ai u CN 25 Expected by 11/1/171 25 Expected by 11/1/11 N tCC wit} LT) — U'i NI 30 Expected by 11/1/1 16 Expected 10/1/17 N tril mow. 12 w 1.3 cid a w rn CD ri r4 I -t r4 ,-t r l it -t r` r~ e° ri r4- 00i 01 ri 01 r cm 1-4� CA si CA tr+ C) r ri NI -n I 28 ON f-..1m U1 T -t OE j 64 1-33 Ul ri ipt TiTt`g 222222232222332 64 it ' oct 64 V. 64 I.O LO N m m m M IN r n M m m m m m cart m m m m m m m cwt ri m m m en N L N rsl rti na NI NI e 841500022 rw rw 0 0 r itt DJ U2 Lei 01) 1-I3—i m Li 0 CCP 730343230 730343230 Lb m ua eV n m LO 0 CO 806429605 Lin 0 W dt N m t P.D 0 CO 841500022 841500022 re. r1 tf5 0 tri .t 0 DQ ' V LII r I rat m ri this! to O CO U1 +-I ri m ,-I IN IJ3 O OO u°t t -I H. m l H N I.0 0 OD 275348341 806322176 806322176 806322176 806322176 806429602 806322176 Cr Ln 'It Hr,4 C.1 a', 1 0 td tD rw t-i N r+�'t LO 0 CO 0 Lin S t-1 O 0't t Ct %.0 rN 0 PI% riCT)0 to c-i r•J 0 CC 806429515 0 CD en en 'et u} 0 CO 806439646' 0 m Cr P.0 0 CO 8064300881 806319596; LO on Lti 0) e-i M crr 0 CO 806210205 806319596 802032398 806319596 J (..) Id ' XO 0 1 V 0 t V 0 t(....1 F— r= I— 1— r Q u o 0 o 0 c , +V DN 'o L+ c U Q© U U o o t, -i - O-i 'Lit c 4+ o' t,.3 o LPL) o o L.P o (J o U o ►U o l.3 o 0 OD 0 GREELEY �0 Z kJ Ui EDITION D GREELEY NOSY! t1H [ NOSG 0YH SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY LU SALT LAKE CITY FORT LUPTON FORT LUPTON FORT LUPTON GOLDSBORO GREELEY GREELEY [GREELEY GREELEY 1 2 in t GREELEY O9VJIHDI GREELEY OE YJIHDa cc i.0 > O z 0 ve, _ KEENESBURG KEENESBURG KEENESBURG KEENESBURG GREELEY GREELEY FORT LUPTON GREELEY Cd LLI > 0 IGR EELEY 1004 RICHMOND R0 11004 RICHMOND RD I50 E NORTH TEMPLE FL 22 50 E NORTH TEMPLE FL 22 SO E NORTH TEMPLE FL 22 50 E NORTH TEMPLE FL 22 501 N OAK FOREST RD PO BOX 1450 PO BOX 1450 0 0 Lel C/O JERRY ANDERSON Let o Lei ri 11521 COUNTY ROAD 49 'C/O LDS CHURCH TAX DIVISION J S 0 OSTT C/O JERRY ANDERSON 11521 COUNTY ROAD 49 C/O LDS CHURCH TAX DIVISION C/O LDS CHURCH TAX DIVISION [PO BOX 517 LIO LDS CHURCH TAX DIVISION $029 COUNTY ROAD 39 8029 COUNTY ROAD 39 8029 COUNTY ROAD 39 C/O BUTTERBALL LLC I PO BOX 2176 1 PO BOX 2176 spa eox 2176 IGUT1ERSEN RANCHES LLC PO BOX 2176 ADAMS MCW ILLIAMS FARMS LLLP 113650 COUNTY ROAD 49 PO BOX 2176 CIO WASTE MANAGEMENT PO BOX 2176 WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP IC/0 WASTE MANAGEMENT 355 E 55TH AVE 22432 COUNTY ROAD 22 9490 COUNTY ROAD 55 9757 COUNTY ROAD 57 03 op 0 PO BOX 88 V) 0 0 Lti 1SGtstz 1POBOX 205 1 0 0 V') 11127 N SH ER MAN ST 5TE 300 J WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP GUTTERSEN RANCHES LLC FEATHER JERRY L I WELD COUNTY OF OGG & S LLC (50% INT) I STROH FAMILY TRUST (50% INT) WELD COUNTY U ECHANT ALVIN JR & DECHANT DAV I D ALAN DECHANT ALVIN JR & DECHANT DAVID ALAN CORP OF PRESIDING BISHOP OF CHURCH OF ;CORP OF PRESIDING BISHOP OF CHURCH OF ,CORP OF PRESIDING BISHOP OF CHURCH OF 'FRONT RANGE FEEDLOTS LLC CORP OF PRESIDING BISHOP OF CHURCH OF iTEN HAND TRUST (50%) DECHANT ALVIN JR (25%) DECHANT SCOTT (25%) CONAGRA FOODS PACKAGED FOODS CO iNC GUTTERSEN RANCHES LLC GUTTERSEN RANCHES LLC GUTTERSEN RANCHES LLC GUTTERSEN RANCHES 'IC DRAJ LLC [PRALLE CRAIG E HAvoarts HAROLD R JR MI NN E FREDRIC F LIVING TRUST IVII NN E FREDRIC F LIVING TRUST WELD COUNTY WELD COUNTY WES MOSER INC WELD COUNTY [STATE OF COLORADO WELD COUNTY 1121520000014' m 8 0 t~ `tit ri ry - N t'000 ItziEtzil i r4 IN ,-i ra iri N u, c r4 r% 0 u1 t~ f i co ri rt 0 i.rt rel ni a O C 0 u7 pool TIOOODSOSMI N C) N. rl Ul - Ni 1121517100002 CO CD at ,-t um rail N j121519000012 CD 121519200006 1215192+[x}OO6 }121519200006 tioi 0 0 8 r1 rid Lon NI 121528000001 121529000007 121530100015 121533000002 r'�- 9 0 rn 0 1,1 0 i^rt ri 0 V CI u1 0 m tD 0 ,-1 u1 0 crt CI Ln t--i Ln 0 m 130515D00032 130515000034 130515200012 130522100024 130522200023 121325100011 121325400015 121325400016 co 0 0 rw 0 rn in r-1 130516000001 1215302010014 TETRA TECH May 22, 2017 Hayley Balzano, Engineer I Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80632 RE : Drainage Narrative for South Area Gas Pipeline; PRE1 G-0193; Weld County, Colorado; Tetra Tech Job No. 133-35719-18008 Dear Ms. Balzano Tetra Tech is pleased to present this drainage narrative for the South Area Gas Pipeline in Weld County, Colorado. The South Area Gas Pipeline will collect and transport natural gas between multiple facilities within Weld County. The pipeline is being proposed by Green River DevCo LP (Green River). A location map is attached. As of the writing of this narrative, a USR number has not yet been assigned. A list of parcels that will be crossed by the pipeline are attached as Table 1. 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 oil/gas development. The pipeline will cross the mapped FEMA floodplain for Box Elder Creek. As described above, the construction methods of the pipeline are not expected to place fill in the floodplain or otherwise impact flood water surface elevations. Based on the criteria set forth in Section 23-12- g,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 Jeff.bufson tetratech.com . Sincerely, TETRA TECH e bi• Jeffrey A.:BJatson, P.E., CFM Project Engineer Attachments: Figure 1 - Location Map Table 1 - Parcels Tetra Tech 1900 S. Sunset Street, Suite I -E, Longmont, CO 50501 Tel 303-772-5282 Fax 303-772-7039 vwwwv.tetratech.com 1900 S Sunset Strut, Ste 1-E Longmont, Colorado 80501 PHONE: (303) 772-5262 FAX: (303) 772-7039 TABLE 1. SOUTH AREA GAS PIPELINE PARCELS CROSSED MAME 1'51 A 1.UllMt55L Lff if SIAM DIPLOM TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION" N H 12 I 0 m 1'A in H u s-i 0 el N ( J i ZZ ul N tt1 t''•.i tl) N I of 0 Or) 6D +-I O rn e- I iii hti o0 GO N 1-I N erg f0 e-1 O1 r -I alCT r-1 t s --I on r -I 0•1 r -I '3 NN eel �. in r1 m M 0 H GO N 5 t'+,1 L 59 I U3LD40 �LCLD 64 Fit WWW *4. ctict 64 �� 64 L 64 ‘ct kir 'et Lr) I 59 11'11 m CO m (YI m N N rq fin m m CTI m CY) m m m m m m m rn m en N t'^•1 806439«3604 2 1 N rw 3 o') en m m (NI m N 806319596 730343230 730343230 vo Co0 ce) el en '0 co 8064296051 ul Up c91 N 'Sf' to co 841500022 no rsi 0 0 0 in ref c00 841500022 806150517 841500022 in t i ,-i CT) el N kU CD co [8062191151 in es t -I CT) rl (NI cO a0 ti Et CO 00 It m ifs N 806322176 806322176 8063 22176 8063 22176 806429602 806322176' O tt) d- T-i a c:n LO Lb 806322176; 606901450 em 0 r~ r-1 tit" e -I N CO 806429515 806439646 806430088 _806430088 kD CT) L1 I?t el m LO XI tL? th C.h ry m 00 CO5210245 CO 806429602 CO 806319596 co 802032398 CO ; 806319596 o 0 NO ' 0 0 0 I- I H 0 I- 0 0 0 0 0 OD OOOO-1O-IO CO 0 0 0 o W 0 09101 HO: PO BOX 1450 CHICAGO A 2 0 NOSCI f H r KEENES►BURG GREELEY EDMOND EDMOND GREELEY 1 2 La 1I I 2 li) I SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY] SALT LAKE CITY NOIV3 SALT LAKE CITY FORT LU PTO N FORT LUPTON FORT LUPTON GOLDSBORO GREELEY GREELEY GREELEY GREELEY N OSCI O H GREELEY KEENESBURG ID f: M m Z W Ne 'KEENESBURG GREELEY GREELEY FORT LUPTON 2 VI a I GREELEY U13AN3C1 GREELEY 1004 RICHMOND RD 1004 RICHMOND RD 50 E NORTH TEMPLE FL 22 50 E NORTH TEMPLE FL 22 50 E NORTH TEMPLE FL 22 50 E NORTH TEMPLE FL 22 . 501 N OAK FOREST RD PO BOX 1450 9757 COUNTY ROAD 57 1 l as xos od 8'8 X00 Od 1150 0 ST 1150OST PO BOX 205 13650 COUNTY ROAD 49 ,H UII71 O 0 Lyn el rI 1127 N SHERMAN ERMAN ST STE 300 15OOSIT I— CAI O CO 7-4 r -I CEO JERRY ANDERSON C/0 JERRY ANDERSON Ita' t € 0 iii el r -I 11521 COUNTY ROAD 451 11521 COUNTY ROAD 49 C/O LDS CHURCH TAX DIVISION C/O LDS CHURCH TAX DIVISION Ld1O ADS CHURCH TAX DIVISION PO BOX 517 C/O LDS CHURCH TAX DIVISION 1[8029 COUNTY ROAD 39 8029 COUNTY ROAD 39 8029 COUNTY ROAD 39 C/CI 13UTTERBALL LLC PO BOX 2176 PO BOX 2176 PO BOX 2176 PO BOX 2176 13650 COUNTY ROAD 49 tilo sox 2176 Cio WASTE MANAGEMENT PO BOX 2176 C/O WASTE MANAGEMENT 355E55THAVE 22432 COUNTY ROAD 22 9490 COUNTY ROAD 55 WELD COUNTY OF OGG & S LLC (50% I NT) 'WELD COUNTY I DECHANT ALVIN JR & DEC HA NT DAVID ALAN DECI-IANT ALVIN .IR & DECHANT DAVID ALAN CORP OF PRESIDING BISHOP OF CHURCH OF ICORP OF PRESIDING BISHOP OF CHURCH OF CORP OF PRESIDING BISHOP OF CHURCH OF FRONT RANGE FEEDLOTS LLC CORP OF PRESIDING BISHOP OF CHURCH OF ITEN HAND TRUST (50%) LDECHANT ALVIN JR (25%) I DECHANT SCOTT (25%) 'CO NAG RA FOODS PACKAGED FOODS CO INC IE3U1TERSEN RANCHES LLC GUTTERSEN RANCHES LLC I GUTTERSEN RANCHES LLC GUTTERSEN RANCHES LLC ADAMS MCWILLIAMS FARMS LLLP i�GUTTERSEN RANCHES LLC WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP • iG UTTERSE N RANCHES LLC JWASTEMANA6EMENTCQRP DRAJ LLC PRALLE CRAIG E Yx O 0 a:eyY I v) z 2 -"h = FEATHER JERRY L MENNE FREDRIC F LIVING TRUST MrNNE FREDRIC F LIVING TRUST WELD COUNTY WELD COUNTY 'W ES MOSER INC ,ADAMS MCWILLIAMS FARMS LLLP ELD COUNTY :STATE OF COLORADO WELD CO U NTY STROH FAMILY TRUST (50% I NT] 1121312100003 VOOOOtZT ETZT 121312100004 121507200005 1121507200006 0 c0 I/dy /5 •4 1121508000011 121517000021 1121517100002 CC Q �o0 r 7 N 1121519000012 1215 19200006 11121519200006 1121519200006 121519200006 121520000014 I121521000d02 X0/0 V/ 1''a 121529000007 121530100015 e1/41 8888 rill �LJ1 V I ra. '1,j�•��/yy/ List el 'V ,Lil 5111 m 1/40 y0' 1 1 m j130515000029 IN 0 § fur) �Lt5 X 1 1 I 130515000034 130515200012 130522100024 130522200023 1213 2510001. 121325400015 1213 25400111E 121530100015 121530200008 el 00 00 00 TWO min •) r1 ier 0 r-1 ,t SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL. CONSULTANTS Sound Sciences Creat Solutions!' Aquatic Resources Inventory Report for tie Mustang Pipeline Project, Weld County, Colorado Prepared for Noble Energy, Inc. Prepared by SWCA environmental Consultants June 2017 K s - 7 • r - Q 1 • _ttI, X4 . '• 1' , y I, V.- .1 . J { rt 4 . satin r a a 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 Interlocker 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 :4::... Eagg 1 2.0 METHODS 14494444410b 66144444 1 21 Existing Data Review .. 1 2.2 Field Methodology 2.2.1 Wetlands 2.2.2 Streams and Other Waterbodies 3 2.3 Site Documentation t.t.......,,.40 3 3.0 RESU_T 44ttPPPPtt■.i..P - - .4 3.1 Wetlands 444141 ttttt 3 .1 .1 e etation . 3.1.2 Soils ttt..tttitt44e IIPPRielliti04000444411........ 3.1 ..3 Hydrology - A*�YMaa 1*.�M 1 Y a1... - 342 Streams and Other "'iWaterbodies _ �iiJlf i 4. i. i.. i i..Yi. b9 41.&•P i Ni 4H B 4.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 540 REFEREN E .aaa . LIST OF TABLES +•1. 1'•s:}} a. 4 4,44 e f-fe f4.e44.: a i 4 4 V Tablee 1 Monthly Recorded Precipitation at the Greeley Weather Station 4 2 Wetland Features 3 Dominant Plant Species in the Survey Area 4 Stream and Waterbody Features with an OHWM7 5 Potential Impacts and Recommendations LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Aquatic Resources Inventory Maps B Wetland Photographs C Waterbody Photo graphs D Wetland Data Forms SII' CA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado This page intentionally left blank. 11 SWCA 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 the U.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 fora 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 h drophytic (water4ovrng) vegetation; and 3) soils characteristic of frequent saturation (i.e., hydric soils). 2.0 METHODS T"HOD 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 (NWT) 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 presence/absence 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 etlan 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 (O13L), 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 (U18. 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 redo .innorphic 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 root channels, 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 te Ordinary High Water Mark ('OHWM,I in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 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 OHWM. Identified streams are characterized by seasonal persistence as perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral based on field observations. Perennial streams typically flow year-round because tile 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 (GIS) software is used to analyze recorded features, calculate areas, and generate the survey area maps. The expected acreage of potential waters of the US. 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 (US. Fish and wildlife Service 2013) and 22 drainages were identified by the NI -ID (US Os 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 waterbody 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 areaexperienced 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 I. Monthly Recorded Precipitation at the Greeley Weather Station Month Recorded Rainfall (inches) Difference (inches) Normal Rainfall (inches) April 2017 1.97 1.81 0.16 March 2017 1.12 -0.55 0.57 February 2017 . 0.30 0.40 -0.10 January 2017 0.48 0.05 0.53 3.3'7 -0.44 Total 3.81 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). SWCA tsCI cat Isega tzsa }FS t72 .471 <14 tIS Fin ka racteristics 'der Creek dominated spikerush Led by cattail adjacent to train :mow' s sedge and cattail I t wetland in swale dominated by cattail and threesquare ;i;te;11:i;i; and co; hand dominated 1 )enver-Hudson C ks of Denver -1 by common Is I-4 Czt ill PO ric -t az . — eri itzt. in N o Art hst0 0. frctol- -104,54 40.20294 Yes - Riverine shwater t tl F2 rc czt a I z II 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 shoe nop/ectus pun -ens), Emory's sedge (Carex e o !), and broadleaf cattail (Typha latj oila). 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 Great Indicator Plains Status Scientific Name Burnin I bush Bassin sco 0 aria FACU Smooth brome UPL &o us finer is Cheat' rass Byrom us tectorum I, Carex em.oryl OBL Emoo 's s ed e e Lambs. carters Cheno sodium um album FACU FACU Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Distichiis s icata FACW Salt trass Common s * ikerush Ele ocharis ealustris OBL Russian olive &'!aea: nus an • sti olia FACU Mountain rash FACW Juncus ba!ticus Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola FAC Western. wheat'�''rass Pascoa rum smithii FACU Reed canar zrass FAC' Phalaris arundinacea Schoenoilectus s n Bens OBL Common threes I care Tall wheat • rass .thin°, /rum tonticum UPL Broadleaf cattail ; T 'ha 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): AltWan loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes; Haverson loam, 0 to l 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 USACE (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 USACE (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 chrorna 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. 6 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 L.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. .2 STREAMS AND OTHER WATERBODIES All features mapped by the NHD (U 2014) intersecting the survey area were surveyed in the field using the methods outlined by the US' ACE (2008). Many of these features were swales dominated by upland vegetation with no indicators of flow or an OHWM. The 11 streams and other waterbo di es (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 by NHD? Latitude Longitude g Width (feet Water Present? Description P' WB 01 No 40.22529 -104.5815 35 o Holding pond WBO2 Yes 40.20301 -104.5841 20 Yes Box Elder Creek WB O 3 40.203 27 40 Yes Ditch Elder during connected to Box Creek (flooded survey) -104.58071 Yes WBO4 No 40.14518 -104.5457 45 Yes Holding pond 40.45879 -104,6400 Yes Keen Lateral WBO5 Yes 4 WBO6 No 40.12006 -104,5424 2 Yes Tributary of Keen Lateral WBO7 No 40.10890 -104,5459 4 Yes Erosional channel WBO B No -104.5748 Concrete ditch No 2 40.10825 WBO9 Yes 40.10872 -104.5729 4 Yes , Jim Number 2 Lateral Yes 40.10191 -104.5426 35 Yes Denver -Hudson Canal WB10 WB11 Yes 40.0915 -104.5317 25 Yes J 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 OH I, including Box Elder Creek, ditches, and ponds. These features, potential impacts, and recommendations are summarized in Table 5. Table 5. Potential Impacts and Recommendations Acres in light -of -Way (130 feet) Crossing Recommendation" Wetland/ Waterbody n ' ETO1 (Box Elder Creek) 1.4098 Bore Bore WETO2 0.3200 WET03(Denver-Hudson Canal) Bore 0.0426 ETO4 (Denver -Hudson Canal) 0.0352 Bore Bore 0i494 WETO5 WBO1 0.0686 Trench WBO2 (Box Elder Creek) 0.1818 Bore Bore WBO3 (Box Elder Creek ditch 0.0 93 2 WBO4 0.0009 Crossing can be avoided W805 (Keen Lateral) 0.0125 Bore WBO6 0.0057 Bore WBO7 0.0124 Trench WBO8 0.0047 Bore WBO9 (Jim Number 2 Lateral) Bore 0.0169 WB10 (Denver -Hudson Canal) 0.1235 Bore 0.1018 Bore ' B 11(Denver-Hudson Canal) * Recommendations based on CWA permitting, Endangered Species Act compliance, and existing infrastructure. If 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 U.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 the National 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 SWA's professional opinion. Only the USACE E 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. La Roe. 1979. Classification off, Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FW /+CBS -79/31. Washington, ton, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Lichvar, R.W. 2013. The National Wetland Plant List: 2013 Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron ron 2013(49):1 241. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Lists of Hydric Soils (December 2015). Available at: http://www.nres.usda.goviwpsiportalinrcsimainisoilsiuseihydrict Accessed May 2017. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2017, National Weather Service Forecast Office — NOAA Online Weather Data. Available at: http:// . eather.gov/climate/xmacisiphp? for-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. ERD / RR.EL TR-0 -1 . Hanover, New Hampshire: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers 'etland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2. 0), edited by J . S . Wakeley, , R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERIC/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 , or Identifying and Delineating Hydric c oils, Version 7.0. Available at: http://ww .mes.usda.gov/ as/portal/nres/main/soils/use./hydric/. Accessed October 2016. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. National Wetlands Inventory. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services. Available at: hittp://www.fws.goviwetlands/DataiState- Downloads.html. Accessed May 2017. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. National Hydrography Dataset. Available at: hap://nhd.usgs.goviindex.html. Accessed May 017. • 5147C24 Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld Counoi, Colorado This page intentionally left blank. 10 Si CA Aquatic Resources Invent°ly Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado APPENDIX A Aquatic Resources Inventory Maps SWCA ir r It • • Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld county, Colorado b• 1 ,t N a.z aSs a E a I 13N R65W ■2N R65W II Y :kr L L T3N R64 4. -sp M 12N R64W MSS -as t,.'nti'st';Yrg. TIN R64W ::+!. ! ' _ '. 4J 13N R63W ' •2t1 R63W Is I. TIN R63W Legend Centerlin a Tow rash i p/Ra nge I 2 3 a 6 100,000 Base Map World_Imagery Esn Online 5erviae Source Esn DigitaiGlobe, GeoEye ircubed, USDA USGS AEX Gelrnapping Aer€Ygrid, JUN IGP, swieslopa and the GISUser Community Weld Caunly, CO MAD 1983 UTM Lone 3N 6/5(2017 4 rinei Fpm I. 295 Intedocken BMd, Suite 300 Broornheio CO 80021 Phone 303 487 1 183 IWO* MCA tell Figure 1. Project location. A-i C Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld 'run , Colorado a - -- _----r- Y u I,'.- • 1- 4 1'►2a( ,4,411a Legend Photo Waterbody (CHWM} Wetland Boundlary NHD Strea rnIR leer (intermittent) NHD Artificial Path NHD Caaa lID ttch NWI Wetland Centerline 200 -foot Survey Area Section nTDWnshlp/Range N. Jo Figure 2. Wetlands and waterbodies (map 1 of 3). r aMajaMilre 1 36,0OO Page 1 of 3 NAD 19$3 UTM Zone 13N 6C1112017 EMVIIIQH'-IENTAL COI1/41$UL1ANTS 295 Inierir,c;ke.n Blvd , Suite 300 6rorrnfietk' CO X2'1 Phone 303 487 1193 Fax 303 407.1246 wztnwr stiff c7 .tarn A-2 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld Co un y, Colorado Legend Photo Walerbody �{ HrJtrA1} —• UHC3 Strearu/R rer (Intern ill eni) NHD Art.& dal Path r r NHD CannV Ditch N+1WI Weiland Centerline 200 -Coot Survey Area r Section C TownsropRange 2,000 0 5 1:36,000 Page 2 o13 NAD 1983 UTM1 Zone 13N 5i31/2017 4.000 Feel 1 -- Kilometers Figure 3. Wetlands and waterbodies (map 2 of 3). 295 Inleriorckert Blvd * Suite 300 Br®rnfrekl. CO e.0921 Phony "303,407 1181 Fax 303 AID? 1245 0w rive -41 taifl A-3 CA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Legend Photo Waterbody (OHM) Wetland Boundary WHO $treamtRiver (Inierrnittaht) Nf''ID Artofic aI Path NHD CanalMDitch Page 3 of 3 NWI Welland Centerline 200 -foot su rVey Area Q Section c_ Township/Range 1' 2,000 0 0,5 I rot PP17 4,000 Feel 1 1:36,000 MAU 1983 Zone 13N 5131/2017 Kactixtion cshlr c EHOIlIoNMEHrAI CON5ULTAMT5 295 Intarlacken Blvd Sued 300 Rraomfieki, 0O 80021 Prone 303 467 1183 FaK 303 487 1245 YAW'. SWC' CUM Figure 4. Wetlands and waterbodies [map 3 of 3). A-4 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado APPENDIX B Wetland Photographs S • F A Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld Cowity, Colorado Photograph 3 DP03 facing north (Wetland 02). Photograph 4. DP04 facing east (upland). B-2 rA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld Coup, Colorado Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado This page intentionally left blank. B-6 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld Coun , Colorado APPENDIX C Waterbody Photographs SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 1. PP0 1, WB01 (holding pond) facing south. Photograph 2. PP02, NITID blue line (no OH I) facing south. C-1 SW A Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph I PF0 , NHD blue line (no OH ) facing north. Photograph 4. FDA NHD blue line (no OHWM) facing west. C-2 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Jim _- I.. 4 �.�,, i,�r�1 CIF" f t 4' �!" p ,- v'i' 44"x►^� 1. • 1 .T Et1'4i q 4! , ! Photograph 5. PP05, NHD blue line (no HT ) facing south. Photograph 6. PP06, NI -HD blue line (no H M) facing north* tali se', C-3 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 9 PP09, NHD blue line (no OHWM) facing south. Photograph 10. PPM, NEED blue line (no OJI M) facing west C-5 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 11. WB04 facing southeast. Photograph 12. PP11, WB05 facing north. C-6 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Photograph 13. WB06 facing west. Photograph 14. WB07 lacing east. -7 SWCA Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Adi tang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Aquatic Resources Inventory Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado as - • Photograph 17. PP14, NHD blue line (no OIH M) facing north towards right-of-way. Photograph 18. PP15, '' B 1 o facing southwest. C-9 SWCA 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: Mustang Pipeline County: Vileid Sampling Date: Applicant/'Owner. Noble State: CO Sampling Point May 22, 2017 0P01 Investigator(s): P Gordon, M Dina and M Dina Section, Township, Range: NA Lar clform (hillslope, terrace, etc,): terrace Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (°%o): ,January 0, 1900 Lat: -104 58130 Long: 40 20294 Datum: NAa33 Soil Map Unit Name: Haverson loam, 0 to 1 percem slopes NW 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 Vegetation Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No No ,Soil No_ _ ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Hydric Soil Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X No X No X is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes 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 Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) % cover 1 None Observed 2. 3 4 Sai2itlid(,Si 53. StraRitmr (Plot size: 15 ft, ) 'I None Observed 2 3 4. 5 Dominant Indicator Species? Status = Total Cover = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft, ) 1 Bromus tectorirf 45 YES UPL 2 Pascopynim srm ithrr 30 _ YES FACU 3. Lactuce serraola 25 _ YES 4. 5. 6, 7, 8. 9, 10 Woody Vine Stratum 1. None Observed 2, (Plot size: 30 ft. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 100 = Total Cover = Total Cover FAC Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are ODL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (NB) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by_ O B L species 0 x 1= 0 FACW species 0 x2= 0 FAO species 25 x 3 = 75 FACU species 30 x 4 = 120 UPL species 45 x 5= 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% S - Prevalence index is s 3 01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (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 (a500/D of dominant species indexed as FACU or drier) US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains -Version 2 0 SOIL Sampling Paint DP01 Profile Description: (Describe tot the depthneeded to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (inches) 0-18 Matrix Color moist) °o 10YR 3)2 100 Redox Features Color (rnciR Type1 None 'Type G_Conc.ernhration. D=DepIation. RM=Reduced 'ha'latrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains Hydric Soils Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (AS) (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 (32) (LRR Ga H) 6 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (33) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyecl Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (35) Stripped Matrix (66) 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 (F1E) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Texture Remarks Sandy Loam roots present in top 41° T'Loc.3t ort PL=Pore Lining M=Matrix Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis]: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I .3) Coast Prairie Redox (A 16) (LRR F' G, H) Dark Surface (37) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vedic (F16) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3lndicators of hydraphytic vegetation and wetland hydro ogy must be present, unless disturbed or problematic, Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X Remarks: No positive indication of hydric soils was observed, HYDROLOGY Wetland hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B 1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Iron Deposits (BS) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (BO) check all that applyl Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (02) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (03) (where nottilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secan airy' Indicators trnirirrturn of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (BE) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (CS) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CO) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (DS) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes Yes Yes No No No X Depth (inches): NSA X Depth (inches): >20 X Depth (inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous 'ns.pections), 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: DP 02 Investig atcr(s): P Gordon, and M Dina Section, Township, Range: NA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-1 Subregion (LIR R) Western Great Plains Lat: -104.55130 Long: 40.20294 Datum: NAD83 NWI Classification: PEM May 22, 2017 Soil Map Unit Name: _ Haverson loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No _ (if no, explain in Remarks. ) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation No _,Soil No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No ,Soil_ No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Remarks: This point was determined to be within a wetland due to the presence of all 3 wetland criteria. WET01 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. ) alp cover Species? Status 1_ None Observed 2.. 3. 4 ,S aQnv/S►hrub Stratum (Plot site: 15 ft. ) 1. None Observed 2 3. 4. 5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft, ) 1. PascopynJ'Fn s.rni/hii 2. Eleocharis palustris 3. Juncus beiticus 4. Typha rafrfi(ia 5, Lactuca serriofa 6, 7, $. 9. 10 25 20 15 5. 35 = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67% (NB) Prevalence Index Worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply b GEL species 25 x 1= 26 = Total Cover FACW species 15 x 2= 30 FAC species 35 x3= 106 Yes FACt FACIA species 25 x 4 = 100 Yes 09 L UP L species 0 x 5= 0 No FACW Column Totals: 100 (A) 250 (B) No OBL Prevalence Index = WA = 2.60 Yes FAG 100 = Total Cover yilioocly We Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. ) 1, None Observed 2_ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation X 2 - Dominance Test is >50% X 3 - Prevalence Index is 5 3,0' 4 -Morphological Adaptations' (Explain) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hyd rophytic 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 s 3.0) US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2,0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP82 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth (inches) Matrix Color. (moist) 0.4 1 OYR 312 100 4-18 1OYR 4/2 Redox Features CoSlor(moist) °�'a Typ'e1 None 95 10YR 5/8 5 C Loci?' h 1Type: CC ancentratiion, D=Depar tion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains Hydric Soils Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (Al) 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 (Al 1) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (52) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) Sandy Redox (SS) - Stripped Matrix (S6) - Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gieyed Matrix (F2) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (FB) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Depth (inches): Texture Remarks Sandy Loam. roots Sandy Loam 2Locatior . PL=P4re Liniri , M=M -atria., Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls3 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A18) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (37) (LRR 6) High Plains Depressions (FIB) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3IndiN ators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic, Hydric Soil Present? Yes X 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 rea aired: check all that apply) _ Surface Water (Al) X High Water Table (A2) X Saturation (A3) Water Marks (BI) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iran Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B?) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) -Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) 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 (mirtimuu rn of two re t irei II Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) 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? Yes Water Table Present? Yes X Saturation Present? Yes _ X (includes capillary fringe) No No No X Depth (inches): NIA Depth (inches): 16 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 Eider Creek present outside of pit. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.8 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region P roj ect/'S ite Mustang Pipel ne Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Noble County: _ Weld P Gordon Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Subregion (LRR): Soil Map Unit Name: and x swale Western Great Plains Ccalby-Adena Ioarns, 3to 9 Sampling Date: State: CO Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: May, 2017 DP03 NA Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-1 Lat: -104,54570 Long: 4010254 Datum; NADB3 aercent. slo -.)es Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation No ,Scot No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? NW Classification: PEM Yes X No Of no, explain in Remarks ) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X Hydric Soil Present? Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No No No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X No Remarks This point was determined to be within a wet ire swale next to train tracks. WET02 and due to the presence of all 3 wetland criteria VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree S;raturn (Plot size: 30 ft. ) 1 None Observed 2 3 4 Absolute ` cover S olir q'Snruiis) Stratum (Piot size: 15 ft. ) 1 None Observed 2 3 4 5 Het Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft. ) 1. Typha Iatifo&ia 2, 3.. 4, 5. B. 9. 10 Oirsiwn arvense Bromus tectorum 50 30 5 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size; 30 ft. ) 'I None Observed 2 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 15 Dominant p ecs7 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes Yes No B5 = Total Cover = Total Cover Indicator Status OBL FACU UPL Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACVV, or FAC: 1 (A) 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (NB) Total Number of Dominant Species Across Ali Strata: Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total Dia Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 50 x 1 = 60 FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 30 x4 = 120 LPL species 6 _x5= 25 Column Totals: 85 (A) 195 (B) Prevalence Index = BiA = 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 Adaptations' (Explain) Problematic Hyrdrophybc Vegetations (Explain) 1 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 hyrdrophyt c vegetation was observed (Prevaence Index is 5 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 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Color (moist) 0-3 10YR 3/1 100 3-20 10Th 6/2 100 Redox Features Color (moist). None 1 0YR 5/8 Simian 2 Type1 C Loc' M !Type: C=Conccntraiion, D =Depletion, RM=Reduced MatrixrC&Covered or Coated Sand Grains Hydric Soils Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, Histosol (A1) Histic- Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, C, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (}12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2 6 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (32) (LRR G, H) 6 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (83) (LRR F) unless otherwise noted.) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S 6) Stripped Matrix (86) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F6) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Sampling Point: DP03 Texture Remarks Clay Loam Clay 7Lcca.iion PL=Pore M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils,: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, JO Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) _ Dark Surface (87) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F10) Red Parent Material (TF2) 'fiery Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3lndicators 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 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 appiy1 Surface Water (A1) X High Water Table (A2) X Saturation (A3) 'mater Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (63) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (85) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B?) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) r Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry -Season Water Table (02) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary indicators itninimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Drainage Patterns (610) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (CS) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (08) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (09) Geomorphic Position (02) FAG -Neutral Test (D6) Frost -Heave Hummocks (O7) (LRR. F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes Yes Yes No X Depth (inches): No Depth (inches): X No Depth (inches): NIA 12 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous irlspediOnSi 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 County: Applicant/Owner: Noble Investigator(s): P Gordon and Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): _ plain Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains Lat: -104 54570 Long: 40.10254 Datum: NAD83 x Weld Sampling Date: State: CC) Sampling Point: May 10, 2017 D PO4 Section, Township, Range: NA Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 0-1 Soil Map Unit Name: Colby -Adana barns, 3 to 9 percent slopes NWI Classification: Upland Are cli rnatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No ,S.c,'t4_ No _ ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation No ,Sail No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No (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. above swale VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. 1. None Observed 2. 3 4 tpti rr tStt ru:t Sltat.0 1. None Observed L-- 2. 3. 4 5. (Plot size: 15 ft Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft_ ) 1. Cirsiun arvense 2. Bromus fectorurn 3. Pascapyrum srrrithii 4. Bessie scopada 5. 5. 7. a. 9. 10:. Absolute Dominant Yck cover Species? 40 40 15 5 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes Yes No Indicator Status FACU UPL FACU No FACU 100 -s Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft, _) 1. None Observed 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (NB) P reva l en c e Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: ---- Multi p yS: OBL species 0 x l = 0 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species $0 x 4 = 240 UP'L species 40 x 5= 200 Column Totals: 100 (A) 440 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 440 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3,01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (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 documentthe indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth (inches) 0-8 8-20 Matrix Redox Features Colodmaist) 10YR 3/2 100 10Th 4/2 100 Color (moist) ° o Type None None Loo' Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentrauon, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Hydric Soils indicators: (Applicableto all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (Al) Histic Epi pedvn (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 (82) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (SS) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (34) Sandy Redox (85) Stripped Matrix (66) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (FB) High Plains Depressions (FIG) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR. H) Clay Loam Clay Loam 2Location: PL Pore Llnirs_ PlitizMetrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3; 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 1, J ) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (87) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) 'fiery Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3lndicators 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 aoolut Surface Water (Al) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (51) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (54) iron Deposits (95) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B?) Water -Stained Leaves (B 9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sult~ide 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 (03) (whore tilled) Crayfish Burrows (CO) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAG -Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (07) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes Yes Yes No X No X No X Depth (inches): NIA Depth (inches): >20 Depth (inches): >20 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous insptions). 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: Mustancg Pipeline County: Weld ApplicantlOwner: Noble State: CO Investigator(s): P Gordon and x Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hank Sampling Date: May 10.2017 Sampling Point: DP05 Section, Township, Range; _ NA, Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1-5 Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains Let: -104.54260 Long: 40.10091 _ Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Weld loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes NWI Classification: 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? NADB3 PEM Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No (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? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X Yes X No No No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes X 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. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. ) 1- Norte Observed 2r 3, 4., Sachinc/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, Thinopyrumianficum 4. Bromus fnerrr s 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Absolute Dominant % cover Species? 50 40 5 1 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes Yes No No 96 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stra ur I (Plot size: 30 ft. ) 1r None Observed 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 4 = Total Cover Indicator Status _ OBL OBL UPL _ UPL Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FAC\N, or FAC: 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 j (B) 100% (A/B) Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total °fie• Cover of: Multi 0 I by OBL species 90 x 1 ! 90 FACW species 0 x 2 _ = FAC species 0 x 3= 0 FACU species 0 x4= 0 UPL species 6 x5= 30 Column Totals: 96 (A) 120 (6) Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.16 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 a Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation X 2 - Dominance Test is >50% X 3 - Prevalence Index is 5 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Explain) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetations (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 5 3,0) 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 (inches) Matrix Color (moist) 0-4 10YR 5/2 100 4-20 10YR 5/2 100 Redox Features Color (moist) �4 None 10YR 5/8 5 Type1 C Loc2 M 'Type: C=Concentratiork D=Depletaan, RMr.Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 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) {LIAR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral ($1) _ 2 „5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (84) Sandy Redox (95) Stripped Matrix (56) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F8) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F 18) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Texture Remarks Clay Loam Clay Loam Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Mairix- Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A18) (LRR F, G, I -I') Dark Surface (97) (LIAR. G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3I ndicators 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 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 alt 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) (wheFra not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (07) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two Eeq+fired) Surface Soil Cracks (86) 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 (05) Frost -Heave Hummocks (O7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes Yes Yes No X X No X No Depth (inches): N/A Depth (inches): 10 Depth (inches): a 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 County: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): P Gordon Noble Weld Landform (hill slope, terrace, etc_): Subregion (LRR): Soil Map Unit Name: and x upper bank Western Great Plains Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on Are Vegetation No ,Soil Are Vegetation No ,Soil State: CO Section, Township, Range: Local relief (concave, convex, none): Lat: -104.54260 Weld loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Long: Sampling Date: _ Sampling Point May 10, 2017 DP06 NA none Slope (%): 0-1 40,10091 Datum: NWI Classification: NJADB3 Upland the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (if no, explain in Remarks.) No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? No ,ter Hydrology _ No naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances' present'? Yes X No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS , Attach site map showing ing sampling point locations, transects, 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 hi 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. ) I None Observed 2. 3_ 4 apliin.g/Shrub Stratum 1,. None Observed 2. 3_ 4. 5. (Plot size: 15 ft. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft. ) 1. Dishichiis sprcata 2. Brornus /norm/s 3. Carex ernoryi 4. Pascapyrrum smifhii! 5. 6. 7. a. 9. 10. Absolute Dominant Indicator % cover Skies? Status = Total Cover = Total Cover 30 Yes FACW 40 Yes UPL 1 10 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) 1. None Observed 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 19 No OBL No 81 = Total Cover e Total Cover _. . FACU Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are GEL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (B) 50% (NB) Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 1 x 1= 1 FACW species 30 x2 = 50 FAC species 0 x3=____ 0 FACU species 10 x4= 40 UPL species 40 _ x 5 = 200 Column Totals: 81 ! (A) 301 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.73 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 5 3.01 - Morphological Adaptations.' (Explain) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1l ndicators 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 10YR S12 100 Redox Features Color (moist) None TYPei 'Type: C=concentration, D=Dean, RM=Reduced N,4atrax, GS Covered or CDattsd Hydric Soils Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) H istic 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 (83) (LRR F) Sand Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (55) Stripped Matrix (86) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Suffice (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (FB) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Loci Grains Texture Clay Loam Remarks 2Location: PL=Pore Lining ii. tzMairl;b Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 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 (TF 12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydroMogy must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: hardpan Depth (inches): 16 Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: No positive indication of hydric soi s 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 (02) 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 (86) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (BID) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (09) 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 hydro ogy 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: I nvestigator(s): P Gordon Landform (hil islope, terrace, etc): Subregion (LRR): and Noble County: Weld Sampling Date: State: CO Sampling Point Ma yr 10, 201? DP07 Section, Township, Range: NA bank Western Great Plains Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1-5 Lat: -104 53170 Soil Map Unit Name: _ Colby loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No Are Vegetation Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? No , Scil No ,or Hydrology No _ significantly disturbed? Long, 40„09152 Datum: NAD83 NWI Classification: _ PEM (if no, explain in Remarks) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Yes X Wetl a n d Hydrology Present? Yes X Yes X No No No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? 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 WET04 VEGETATION t Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft ) 1. None Observed 2_ 3. 4 Absolute Dominant % cover Species? $aplingiSlirub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft._ _ ) 1, None Observed 2: 3,. 4 S Herb Stratum (Piot size: 5 ft, ) 1. Carex emory/ 2. Phil/ails arundrnacea 3. aromas fnermis 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10_ 60 20 20 s = Total Cover Total Cover Yes Yes Yes 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. ) 1. None Observed 2. % 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 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACVV, or FAG: 67% (NB) Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 60 xl= = 60 FACW species 20 x2= 40 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 FACU species 0 x 4= 0 UPL species 20 x 5= 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 5 3 01 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Explain) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetations' (Explain) 1 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 5 3.0). Patches of typha 50' away US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2 0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP87 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches) Colc,rirrioistl 0-4 10YR 5/2 100 4-20 10YR 5/2 100 'T ,we: =Concentration. D=De Redox Features Color _(moist) None 10YR 5/8 Type' 5 C Loc2 M et or) RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Texture Remarks Clay Loam CI! Loam 7Location: PL=Pore Linint, M=Malrix. Hydric Sails Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (AS) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (82) (LRR G, Ha 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (34) Sandy Redox (3 5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (El) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) - Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions (FB) High Plains Depressions (F18) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR. F, G, H) Clark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F18) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3I Micators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (lf 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 mininurrm of one is required; check all that "Sal --82-..4T�a4Lt4— 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 (U5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (89) 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 (B8) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish purrows (CB) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (02) X FAC-Neutral Test (DS) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes Yes Yes No No X No X Depth (inches): NIA 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 County: Weld Sampling Date: May 10.2017 Applicant/Owner: Noble State: CO Sampling Point DPOB investigator(s): P Gordon and x Section, Township, Range: NA Landform (hilislope, terrace, et): upper bank Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0-1 Subregion (LRR): Western Great Plains Lat: -104 53170 Long: 40.09152 Datum: NADB3 Soil Map Unit Name: Colby i oam, 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 No _ Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,ot Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Hy+dric 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 upper bank of Denver Hudson Ca real VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. ) % cover Species? Status 1 None Observed 2. 3. 4 aolin�p/; l ruts Stratum (Plot size: 15 ft, 1, None Observed 2, 3, 4 5 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft_ 1. Brcrmus rnermis 2. Pascopyrum smith!) 3. Bessie scoparia 4. 6. 6. 7. 5. 9, l [l t 60 15 1 Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. ) 1 None Observed 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 4 = Total Cover Total Cover Yes No UPL FACU No FACU 98 ; Total Cover = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 _ (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACIA/. or FAC: 0 (NB) Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x1= Q FACW species 0 x 2 _ 0 FAC species tM x 3= t1 FACU species 16 x 4= 64 UP L species 80 x b= 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 _ 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Explain) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation° (Explain) ' Indicators of by dric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yea 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 Pro#ite Description: {Describ.e lx, the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators,) Depth (inches) 0-20 a�. Matrix Color (moist) p� 10YR 4/2 100 a: C=Conceniration D=De Redox Features Color (moist) °,_o Type' None Loc2 letior►RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grain 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 (Al 1) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (52) (LRR +3, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (53) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) Sandy Redox (35) Stripped Matrix (36) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (FS) High Plains Depressions (FIG) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Sampling Point: DP0B Texture Remarks Clay Loam ?Location: PL=Pore Lmnii 1{ M=Matrnc.. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Saila3: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR i, J) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, Dark Surface (S7) (LRR O) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (FIB) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3lndicators 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 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 (A1) 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 (57) 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 (07) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two refuted) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (CB) Saturation Visible on Aerial imagery (09) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (07) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capi)Iaryr fringe) Yes Yes Yes No No No X Depth (inches): _ N/A X Depth (inches): _ >20 X Depth (inches): >2O 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: Investigator(s): Noble County: Weld Sampling Date: _ May 10.2017 State: CO Sampling Point: OP09 P Gordon Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ): Subregion (L RR ): Soil Map Unit Name: and x swab° Western Great Plains Section, Township, Range: NA Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0-1 Lat: -104 52430 Shingle-Renohill complex, 3 to 9 percent slopes Long: 40,09139 Datum: NAD83 Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? NWI Classification: PEM (if no, explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland H ydroiogy Present? Yes X No Yes X No Yes X No is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? 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 W ET05 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants, Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft. ) % cover Species? Status 1. None Observed 2_ 3. 4, SeplinotShrub Stratum (Plot size: _ _ 15 ft. ) 1- None Observed 2. 3.. 4. 5. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft. ) 1. Typha tatifolia 50 2. Oir-sium arvense 20 3. Chenopodium a}burrs 10 4. Schoenopiecfus purrgens 10 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes Yes No Ho 90 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plat size: 30 ft. ) 1, None Observed 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 Total Cover OBL FACU FACU OBL Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 i (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (AFB) Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total 04 Cover of. N'Julliply : OBL species 50 x 1 = 60 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 FAC species 0 x 3= 0 FACU species 30 x4= 120 UPL species 0 x 5= a 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 ≤ 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Explain) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1(Explain) 1 i ndicators 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 ≤ 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 (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) Color (moist) Tyrpe1 0-4 1 OYR 4/2 100 None 4-20 10YR 4/2 100 10Y R 5/8 2 C Loc2 'Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix,, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 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 (All) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) 2,5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (36) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (FB) - Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (IVI LRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) Texture Remarks Clay Loam Clay Loam 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 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) 'mater Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Iron Deposits (65) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water -Stained Leaves (69) Salt Crust (611) Aquatic Invertebrates (613) 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 (03) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LEER 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): WA 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: Mustana_Ppeline County: Weld Sampling Date: May I0. 2017 Applicant/Owner. Noble State: CO Sampling Point D P I0 Investigator(s): P Gordon and x Section, Township, Range: NA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ): Subregion (LIAR): swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): Western Great Plains Lat: -104.52430 Soil Map Unit Name: Shingle-Renohill complex:, 3 to 9 percent slopes Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation No ,Soil No ,or Hydrology No naturally problematic? Long: convex - Slope (%): 40 09139 Datum: NW Classification: No (if no, explain in Remarks ) Are "Normal Circumstances" present? 0-1 NAD63 Upland Yes X No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, 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 SaOno/Shrub Stratum 1. None Observed 2 3 4 5 (Plot size: 15 ft. Absolute Dominant Indicator u cover Species? Status H rb Str'aau m (Plot size: 5 ft ) 1. Chenopodrvm album 50 2. Crrsf m arvense 20 3. i_actuca ser oia 10 4. 5. 5. 7. 8. 10 'Ai 0cdVine t/atuni None Observed 2 = Total Cover = Total Cover Yes FACU Yes FACU No FAG 80 = Total Cover (Plot size: 30 ft. ) % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 20 = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (NB) Prevalence Index Worksheet Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 FACW species 0 x 2 = o FAC species 10 x3 = 30 FACU species 70 x 4 _ _ 280 UPI_ species 0 x 5 = 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 550% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.O1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Explain) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 I ndicators of hydric soil and uvetiand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 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: DP'l0 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) 0-2 2-20 Matrix Color ii„rnctst'" 10YR 3/2 10YR 4/2 0/4 100 100 Redox Features Color (rnoSSi) °o Types None None r Texture Remarks Clay Loam CIly Loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS ----Covered or Coated Sand Grains `Location: FL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soils Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Histasol (Al) Histic Epipedori (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (31) 2 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (53) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) Sandy Redox (5 5) Stripped Matrix (36) 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 (Ft6) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) tir Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: 1 crn Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (57) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) 8) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 9Indicators 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) HMgh Water Table (A2) Saturation (A.3) Water Marks (5 1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (54) 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 (02) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (04) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Secondary Indicators (rnindnum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (86) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BS) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (03) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (08) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (05) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ Water Table Present? Yes _ No X Depth (inches): NIA No Depth (inches): >20 Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >20 (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous iris:peclions), if available - Remarks: No positive indication of wetland hydrology was observed US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2 0 trariat i =-rS - - r. Tl - O tsT • a , a .pr=,p : Walks• - ne- t - _ I ,�r� tie;.,a-----' s . ' - .... ale .. �-a a- T'�'z-.Jt+ "s ---- we- :- , lM , ja-'• r.1i• At, a'l'it 3 . - - s --_.- .. _ • r.�. U'. . A ; • .f • r - I rs=r" -a -aa "la r ar .� - _ i p. II a 1 I p. s-21 ! _,-- w- 1 y i_tL.. .t • a '�& a' ''a 1 • S . Ir. --i• >' ,y�_� + - a ___- a .' _—_ana _ ==sue i + _ • - r-1611. t^.40 - r alett a ar .. +ate --'-arty • �- _ - -r n s . . - --r- IC r .-• _ ,'�� 7 �. T>=t a ,�•�' to, -. all. 4 Ir.,.I t t. r i s�lR'� VC _. - -_ - _ - - #--1 - = s a nat.!. ., y. .r: • w . - r - • -4 •. - -+ 4 - 7 . y a i �.t. - I _ rya, - r I •s - - .1H. ♦- ^ 11 q f= .sy+, 'i li rt1 . c I ♦i 1 t s .: �7H a �e a '.a vs-«i �. Ic IIY ile .. _] Rs . e a f - . :.� , - --- - �'. f x,1440-i =1St - e‘4 arm -.,r T 3NrR64 e IVY lo Legend 1 aterbedy (OH M) Cal Township/Range NHD Canal/Ditch I NWI Wetland Centerline 200 -foot Survey Area Section 300 Feet BC Meters Page 1 of 8 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 13N 5/31/2017 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 295 Interiacken Blvd I Suite 300 Broomfield, CO 80021 Phone: 303 4B7 1183 Fax: 303 467 1245 wvw swca corn . �._ . d , f N pi I I I r 4 J ' . i (,- A 3 « 1 1 t' I - f I E 1 I I it1s I I1 - a , ' f i I I I 1r III .-_ r ^' 77 •' - �� 1i ii€11R64W r ^+ T cs L �� - - _ �, _ imp - - -t_ WB03 -s ■ _ - .• "- - D P02 - i _ _ ; t 4 • t P b . 4 A r 4 1 4 m , St • q yr i , i _ 1 In 4 Legend O Wet and Determination ] NWI Wetland 4 150 3t. spe Feet 0 Water'body (OHM) .: Centerline0 40 80 c A -6,_ 0 Wetland Boundary Meters and 200 -foot Survey Area _ NTS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS -.1 N H D Stream/River ( Intermittent) Section 1;6,000 295 InterlockerBlvd 300 Ni-ID Artificial Path Township/Range -r CO X21 r N H d Canal/Ditch -fr e l�+�r Page of $ Phone: 303.37 1183 Fax: 303 4871245 „ udsCri NAD 1983 5/31/2017 UTM Zone 13N www awed tom alitssilsnmaall H 1- + ls Ye 'A* .4 i ,• 6 2N R&M 1Q " fl r, 0%,441 I Legend Waterbody (OH ) _... NHD Stream/River (Intermittent) NWI Wetland Centerline 200 -foot Survey Area Section L . Township/Range 0 150 300 Feet 0 A0 1:8,000 80 Meters Page 3 of 8 NOD 1983 UTM Zone 13N 5/31/2O17 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 295 Inter acken Blvd,., Suite 300 Broomfield, CO 80021 Phone: 303 487 1183 Fax: 303 487 1245 vuww swea corn Legend 1Naterdody (OH M) L_� Township/Range m NHD Canal/Ditch NWI Wetland Centerline 200 -foot Survey Area J Section 0 150 300 Feet 0 40 1,6,000 8O Meters Page 4of8 MAD 1963 UTM Zone 13N 5/31/2017 ;INC A. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 295 Interiocken Blvd,, Suite 300 Broomfield, CD 80021 Phone: 303 457.1163 Fax: 303 487 1245 wvww swca,corn K .• Legend Waterbody (OHWM) en N H D Stream/River ( Intermittent) NHD Artificial Path N H D Canal/Ditch Q NW Wetland Centerline 200 -foot Survey Area Section la Township/Range au10•S4?bra%I : T2N R64W WBOT etnetbut 150 300 Feet 40 80 M et ers Page 5of8 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 295 Interlocken Blvd , Suite 300 Broomfield, CO 80021 Phone: 303.487 1183 Fax: 303 487 1245 www swca.com Legend Waterboely (OHWM) Township/Range NHD Canal/Ditch NWI Wetland Centerline 200 -foot Survey Area ri Section L 0 150 300 Feet 0 40 80 Meters 1;6,000 Page 6of8 WAD 1983 LUTM Zone 13N 5/31/2017 J A -4klit, fr M ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 295 Interiocken Blvd,, Suite 300 Broomfield, OO 80021 Phone: 303 457 1183 Fax: 303 487 1245 www... wca,corn Legend Wetland Determination Section V laterbody (OHWM) J Township/Range Wetland Boundary NHD Canal/Ditch NW Wetland Centerline 200 -foot Survey Area 12N 64W Keeirie lnarizi HildJen 150 3D0 Feet 40 1:Q000 80 Meters Page 7 of 8 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 13N 5/31/2017 95 Interlocken Blvd , Suite 300 Broomfield, CO 80021 Phone: 303 487 1183 Fax: 303 4071245 WWW swca corn A64 4f ,. Legend C Wetland Determination -i Waterbody (OW/WO Wetland Boundary NHD SIre am/River (Intermittent) NHD Canal/Ditch WWI Wetland Centerline 200 -foot Survey Area -_i Section j Township/Range 150 300 Feet 40 80 Meters Page $ of 8 NAD 1983 LITM Zone 13N 5131/2017 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Phone: 303 487.1183 Fax- 303 487 1245 woo/ .swea corn SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Sound Science. Creative Solutions? Biological Survey Report for the Mustang Pipeline Project, Weld County, Colorado Prepares! 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: SWCA Environmental Consultants 295 Interlocken 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 Las., e; 1.0 INTRODUCTION FPPP.i*i��. a�c:aaa:aaaa...i.sr�.s�u,., f1 2.0 METHODS .:.:. ;•}i}uf.Yiin• 3 .1 Desktop top Review/Site Characterization 3 2.2 On Site Surveys r•f f 3 2.2.1 Potential Waters of the U P . < . r . u r - .. 1 . 1 3 242.2 Wildlife Habitat and Listed Species a 3 .0 RESULTS. a 3.1 Land Uand Habitat • • • i ► ► ► . ► . a 4 P r a u a i 3.2 Surface Waters and Wetlands r i .. .. 5 3.3 Big me .. 444PtPttPiPPPP- '1 • 5 .4 Threatened and Endangered Species . 5 3.4.1 Black -footed Ferret , f 3.4.2 T'reble's Meadow Jumping Mouse i. 1 9► 3.4.3 Black -tailed Prairie Do ! • n { a .. 1 • 3.4.4 Swift Fox ■►►►►4444f ...ene a 34415 Mexican Spotted Owl : . 3.4.6 Bald Eagle t..,P,P,P....a.arrra+.ular-.P 10 3.4. ' Ferruginous Hawk 10 3.4.8 Burrowing Owl 10 3.4,9 Mountain Plover•.P.►.lrif++r } paa tl,410 3.4.10 Platte River Species 1.Y rr ri?iiiii! !!!4NNr ..4 11 3.4.11 Ute Ladies' -tresses and Colorado Butterfly Plant 444 11 3.5 Migja or r Birds rr.frlere. eee.e . 11 4.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 5.0 REFERENCES CITED ►P►,444411th{{ 13 LIST OF FIGURES Fi ur+e Eggs 1 Proposed Mustang Pipeline overview .. 1 n a+.t,.t 2 Wildlife recorded in the northern portion of the survey area l r r r r r ...... , t .. , , ! { 3 Wildlife recorded in the southern portion of the survey area.. P .. , 8 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld Coun Colorado LIST OF TABLES Tabl: iSe 1 Plant Species Identified in the Survey Area . _ ....... a a . a r a ra..,a 4 2 Listed Species for Weld County and Their Potential to Occur 3 Raptor Nest Locations Recorded in May 01 ; , } : } a o 12 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Photographs ii S CA 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. ICA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado I' ?Arel1d148114r# affN.: 'ale lr T3N R65W oit I T2N R65W a ,at,rl,:4 - L 1 T3N1R64W s a 1. i -a - TNT ,t, T3N R63W T2N R64VV tilt id I' 1! sire:. It el Krcurrahu rk L I I - — - aguamnaless~a Nks . 4 ` ij a. TI N R64_i" _c "NA_ T2N R63VV TIN RB3W Legend Centerline Survey Area Raptor Survey Area 200 -foot Survey Area QTownshiplRange 1 2 3 4 2 1 96,400 4 6 .Km Base Map Worki_lmagery Esti Onfine Senrioe Source: Esri, OigitaIGFobe, GecEye, i-cubed. USDA, USGS, AEX, Getrnapping, A'eroQnd,1GN, I+ P, zwisstapo and the GIS User Community Weld County, CO MID 1983 UTM Zone 13N 611'2011 ta1� t MAMMA ENTAL GOHJUITAHT3 295 Irerkadicen Blvd , Suite 30.0 Brooatfiaki, CO 80421 Phone: 303 487 1 163 'NOW sv►t P Q1O11 Figure 1. Proposed Mustang Pipeline overview. 2 SPVCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld county, Colorado 2.0 METHODS 2.1 DESKTOP REVIEW/SITE CHARACTERIZATION Prior to visiting the survey area, SW A. conducted a desktop review of environmental resources in the general vicinity of the project. This included review of aerial imagery; U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle maps; USGS National Gap Analysis Program (GAP) vegetation data (USGS 2011); Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey maps (NRCS 201.6); NRCS hydric soils lists 2015); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory(NWT) maps (USFWS 2017a); 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 017b). 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 Manua/ (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE1 198 7) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2. 0) (USAGE 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 threatened) 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 documented either during or prior to the field surveys by a reliable observer. 3 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld Co un, 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 Sandhi11 Steppe, and Western Great Plains Shottgrass Prairie. The primary land uses in the survey area are agriculture, livestock razing, 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 (Pascopyrum s ithii), smooth brome (Broinus inermis), sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus) r"u) and fringe sage (Arter isia igida). Several areas are dominated by weedy species including cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and burningbush (Bassia scoparia). Wetland areas are dominated by broadleaf cattail (Typha l tolia). 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 Arte isia frigida Burningbush ngbush Bass is scoparia Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis Smooth brome Bromus inermis Cheat rass * Brous tectorurn Emory's sedge Carex error i Canada thistle Cirsiun arvense Field bindweed* Convoivulus arvensis Western tansymustard, Descurainia pinnata Herb sophia Descurainia sophia Saltgrass Distichlis spicata Needle and thread Hesperostipa cornatci Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado Common Name Scientific Name Western Pascopyrum sin ith wheat ass Tall tumblemustard _ Sisyrnbriurn altissimum Sand dropseed us Sporobolus cryptandrus Tall wheat;rays T i opyrur ponticurn Common wheat Triticun aestivio Yellow salsify Tragopogon o dubius Broadleaf Typha is `a olio cattail 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 (Cirstuin 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 NWT (USFWS 2017a) and 22 drainages were identified by the NHD (U 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 (SW CA 2017). 3.3 BIG GAME The survey area is within the overall ranges of pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), , mule deer (Odocoilcus e ionus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus vir -inianus). 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 I SA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County. Colorado Table 2. Listed Species for Weld County and Their Potential to Occur Common Name (Scientific Name Status* Potential to occur in Survey Area Mammals I FE, SE None. Species is extirpated in eastern Colorado, Black -footed Ollustela nigripes) ferret Preble's meadow (Zapus hudsonius jumping mouse preblei) FT, ST Unlikely to occur. Within range, but outside of occupied suitable riparian habitat. the species' overall range. No SC Known. Observed within survey area. r Black (Cynotnys -tailed prairie dog ludovicianus) 'fl Swift fox (Vulpes velox) H SC Unlikely. Suitable grassland outside of overall range. habitat but Birds Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) FT, ST None. Lack of suitable forested habitat. Whooping crane (Grus americana) c FE, SE ' None. species depletions Lack of suitable habitat. Outside of expected range. No proposed water in the South Platte River. Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) c _ S FT, ST � None. Lack of suitable migrant in northern water depletions in habitat. Colorado. the South Very rare No proposed Platte River. Least tern (Sterna antillar m) FE, SE None. visitor water Lack of suitable to northern depletions in habitat, Very rare Colorado. No proposed the South Platte River., Bald eagle ( aliaeeius leucoces alas) SC May occur. Winter range and historic nest within survey area. Ferruginous hawk Butea regalis) SC May occur. Suitable prairie do * town grassland habitat and 'resent. May Suitable habitat Burrowing owl ST occur. grassland and (14 then e cuniculari a) prairie dog_ town 'resent. Mountain plover (' aradri montanus) - SC May occur. Suitable grassland rairie dog town present. habitat and Fish Pallid sturgeon (cc hirh nchus albus) FE None, Lack water depletions of suitable habitat. in the South No Platte proposed River. Flowering Plants FT None. Lack water depletions of suitable habitat. in the South No proposed Platte Diver. Western prairie fringed (Platanthera era pracclara) orchid FT May occur. Suitable wetland habitat. Ute (Spiranthes ladies' -tresses di luvialis) Colorado butterfly plant (Guara neomexicana exi Cana spp. coloradensis) FT May occur. Suitable wetland habitat. FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened; S _ State Special Concern; SE _ State Endangered; ST = State Threatened 6 SA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado ,- II� ICa i - II - k• •*1 r .1 ---"-ter. a .. a.. ' .E i t•-- . sa .. . 1 -4114..- i •!Ma I. 9 i's. r • 1 3 _ k S • 'Z. z r : 1-N # I T 4 T. s 1 I h - 1' , y F I y r. I$ - .k. ._ '. I . - 1 .. � .. .. _... its41. 1 ;:- I1n ' 11 a `1 it. l - c t•I r i4 4 Legend � Active Raptor Nest.''' Feel o Inactive Raptor Nest c 05 1 iSI‘Alr r MCbmelers w Prairie Dog Town 1:36,000 Ei lIDHM4NTAL C4*SULTA►n Centerline -` Survey Area 295 Inteitiocfcan Blvd , suite 300 @fextryifis, co 26021 200 -fool EJ Raptor Surrey Area Phone: 303 d87r 1183 ice ,gym i . n ' FAD 148.3 LITM 13N .bane Le at 611/2011 Figure 2. Wildlife recorded in the northern portion of the survey area. 7 SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado - - =i, . F ii I _ sat PI _r,s i ! Lem - � I x.w ! _4 - i 1 0. ...•Islais♦ r I - l .. A -a ilk ^ - x •t - 11 - cat ty 4 a � I �a -a • 1,4 as - 4 ) ) p irliespar • e. NestO5 ii .. Legend 11 0 2,1'CIL) rr, r' Ac:tier Raptor Nest l Iii Potentially Active Raptor Nest I - . r::''3ifLtai invite NEt' AL CON5atAriT5 [,'fl to rl C?[iaUL&i l ll�L 200 -loot Survey Area S imilititn aim Slide no , -, firm litri isatobvir s M9 Peru Ore —n NAL) 1S!U3'JTkM1 Z�,rn'r 1 - ).N Aar a 6)1:2017 Figure 3. Wildlife recorded in the southern portion of the survey area. 8 SA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado 3.4.1 Black -footed Ferret Black -footed ferret (Mustela i h es) depends exclusively on prairie dog (Cynoinys 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 (USEWS 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) le i) is generally found within the North Platte, South Platte, and Arkansas River drainages of Colorado and Wyoming (USFWS S 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; therefor; this species is unlikely to occur. 3.4.3 Black -tailed Prairie Dog In Colorado, black -tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludavicia us) 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 ontanus), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicu1aria). The population has declined throughout its range partially due to agriculture and urban developmentwhich 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 V lees ve/ox) 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 (Strix 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 (Pin us ponderosa). There is no forested habitat for Mexican spotted owl in the survey area or vicinity and this species is not expected to occur. SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado 3.4.6 Bald Eagle Bald eagles (Haiiaeetus 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 rega/is) 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 owls 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 torn). 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 PW's Recommended Survey Protocol and Actions to Protect Nesting Burrowing Owls (CPW 008a). 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 SA CA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado .4.1 0 Platte River Species Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus alb us), western prairie fringed orchid (Platantherapraeciara), whooping crane (Grus americana), least tern (Sterna antillarum), 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. .4+11 Ute Ladies's-tresses and Colorado Butterfly Plant Ute ladies' -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) and Colorado butterfly plant (Laura neo ex icana 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 habitat is present and these plants may occur within WETO 1, the large emergent wetland associated with Box Elder Creek. 33 MIGRATORY BIRDS The USFWS 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 U FW . Bird species that are associated with agriculture and open lands include horned lark (Eremoph i la alpestris), McCown' s longspur (Rhynchophanes cca ii), lark bunting (Calamospiza ineianocor s), and vesper sparrow (Fooccetes gramineus). eus). Raptor species known to nest in or near Weld County include golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), saetas), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperi°, Swainson's hawk (Bute° swainsoni), red-tailed hawk (B. jainaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparveni us), great horned owl (Bubo virgin is us), 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 Nest Number Species Latitude Longitude Substra to Statu s Nest 01 Swainson's hawk 40420324 -104.5815 Tree Active Nest 02 Unknown 40.20379 -104.5804 Tree 1 Inactive Nest 03 40.09485 -104.5367 Tree Active Red-tailed hawk Nest 04 Red-tailed hawk 40.09457 -10415184 Tree Active Nest 05 Red-tailed hawk 40.08754 -104.5168 Tree Potentially active 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: 0150 -mile buffer from November 15 through July 31 • Golden eagle: 0.50 -mile buffer December 15 through July 15 • Ferruginous hawk: 030 -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 SWC.A Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado 5.0 REFERENCES CITED Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2008a. Recommended Survey Protocol and Actios to Protect Nesting Burrowing Owls. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver. Available at: http://cp .state.co.use'Documents/ ildlifeSpecies iving ith ildlife/Recommended SurveyO ls.pdf. Accessed April 2017. . 2008b. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors. Available at: tittp://cpw.state.co.usiDocuments/WildlifeSpeciesi Livin ith ildlife/.RaptorBuffer+ uide1ines200►8 pdf. Accessed April 2017. . 2016. Species Activity Mapping (SAM). Available at: http://arcg.is/UtvBHE. Accessed May 2017. . 2017a. Threatened and Endangered List. Available at: http://cpw.state.co.us/learn&Pages/ 0C-ThreatenedEndan,geredLislt.asp . Accessed April 2017. 2017b. Species Profiles. Available at: http://cpw.state.co.usilearn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx. Accessed April 2017. Colorado Weed Management Association. 2017. Noxious Weed Information. Available at: http://www.cwma.orginoxweeds.html. Accessed May 2017. Fertig, W. 2000. Status Review of the Colorado Butterfly Plant (Laura neomexicana ss , 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.. an, e ide Status Review of Ute ladies '-tresses (Spiranthes diluviali s,). 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. Flute, T.Q.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-16001-2003, Washington, D.C. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Lists of Hydric Soils (I _ )ecember 2015). Available at: littp:// .nres.uscda. ov/ ps/portal'nres/main/soils/uselhydric/. Accessed March 9, 2016. 13 S WCA 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://websoitsuryey.se.egoviusda..gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.asp .. Accessed March 9, 2016. SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA)I 2017. Aquatic Resources Inventory Report 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 y High Water Mark Identification. Available at: http:// - .usace.army.mil/ issians/Civil orks egulatoryProgramandP'errnits/ GuidanceLetters.aspx. Accessed March 2016. . 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Egineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0), edited by IS. Wakeley, R.I. Lichvar, and CV. Noble. E C/EL TR-08-12. -12 . i cksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preb lci) 5 -year Review, Short Form Summary. Region 6. . 2009. US. Fish and Wildlife Service and. Colorado Department of Wildlife block clear eastern Colorado's black -tailed prairie dog habitat. Available at: hap://www.fws.govimountain-prairie/pressre1/09-60.1itm. Accessed May 2017. 2013. Endangered Species: Preble's meadow jumping mouse critical habitat. Available at: http://www.fws.govimountain-prairieispeciesimammalsi preble/CRITICAL . L HABITATTRITICALHABITATindex.htm. Accessed May 2017. . 2017a. National Wetlands Inventory Data. Available at: http://www.fws.goviwetlandsidataiData-Download.html. Accessed April 2017. . 2017b. USFWS Endangered Species Program. Environmental Conservation Online System, Species by County Report. Available at: http://www fws.goviendangered. 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 sis Program, National Land Cover, Version 2. Available at: http://gapanalysis.us s.gov/gaplandcover/viewers. 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 A Photographs SWCA Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project eld County, Colorado 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. A-2 W A Mi F. • 11 "' �� n - r. r Y. . jss <f. x>t'_ _ _ �i i - 1 .• _. ,._ t. . Y � if Y •dP_-- F r .Irti�•/{. ..i'�i- . • � _ '�•� _� s'_� ..-7 , •r . '_� I _' S I f k .�• . _ y .. -L-' -is �°Y_f7 �-y� - - i�r_ -_ � � � � r � vYi IA •4t 1^ a : om u Y . _ - ,v , • _ r e a_.: it II.. ' ,'Y - s ! 1, eT .a T - in iRI. T., I ! - T tea/o l`yr_ Tx s,l„ l f ! rr^ .F . y. • An N % . eirr '•t �' '.4. `� t 55 - c i a - • 4 i a ear: a P. a r' >IEp!g _. ..a w r .-,U` {..ey. .�/ `r ,.�1" 'r la`T }' ,^ -.Ill yn r• 7 11 .« .s,�.a- 0. IAN - -.,f' n•r i' itf ".,` rl�i7'- Y'1►� '... ;r i�{ Ar�'f _w �+a ' r, 44 Ai • A� • I' apt, e . ♦♦ }yye•��1{j Pkrt...7r at�l1. �r 1A.\?• #.AI.� All, •« 1 , 1 .y ..z,7'. .yS. • .'_�F,/ Y_ ,. r ti .' P. • :46.4. .*a ';,�' ` Y t• e;^�n.'t rti'�p a* +',��"Frll. L_. - � F'F`. aw l", 7 r -►r ,. iY•N ` • e:1,,,...";,,,,,lt:41. i _'Y��. `�,��••w� ♦ �s•j's�'r•-��i �}. , AT3Fil 1 a'I Ill 1 in pi �I r As I .81,r' -i4.�r�1 �r�,ra:li • I 14t ir•, lrAltlt= Y'�c . '.• ' •'` 1 ♦ --i.i�,i..•�1L_ i!.Y{� • a�riI . f ��t1. iP�rl ti, ._ ot Ire 1�' r;.4:.1/44:•► -I 1��.�-Later -,tyr R ' 1�!.L„�1° r• j�.r'lIlY �I r . i~/.r • • 1.jH p,� tn ?._ F Y r' t .nl� . 't A P r. r • , .•ai . -•1 a. r 1 l ea •1 0., Yr j . r «". bl • ' a • �•• " � w . `•. .-. 8 �Y ' ( ."`'`� f_ r' , _ 1 . ) T p �!• M F • • . 1 • Y.>r•r b• . P• i r - �_ ♦ y, R t • a. -I'-7 ., w 1�r7, p r �: a r• 14 a'2.1 • � . "'�1 3 ; � A • i. A , F y .( S" w 'e `, r.+ ' t � 'C-. = lr f' s �• ' • � w n Iit Y ^� 'IC Y ,1t ,. _ r X P : s.. +�. �I � I ob' ' s Y • E t w •• . ,^ ',t_.11 i : ' r r ^ �S • Y S Y' !+. r ' r _ 1 ^ w ' R .' . f- • r � '11 V • ,``� * - e _IL' '' III 1. s .a.• r� i.• 1'1 k' • • _a - ..1 _� �• ••r�II, ,' Ft•IA�. I.'..x c •fir- B]r.r- 1P �l I �1� •;g' • , a pl -� 'I .Fr- I. • .� 1 yr �.,`y�' �.. +1 ••• 'Cr Y7 �. .WY • 9- ,•.Lil ••ale- y� YtiT'=, �' - t.. •' r.• Yea r r - rR7/,-i. r. •r•T•• 'll 4 6r�... • a / a- ,1 Y Irl _ t a�, 11,. 'r ` II lit * _ -1•.,;, - r `q_ r1 r- 1 - 'p ft R n:1,-,re t �� i �r.�. i. 7 1 L■b.{�.E1:,1*. �.. .1 'A .. wI _ 0 r� F /. l,t II�f#� 'R a . .' _ w 5 x r • IF 1 w „ y 1 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. A-5 Biological Survey Report Mustang Pipeline Project Weld County, Colorado This page intentionally left blank. A-6 SWCA 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 SAGA 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 (MVPs) 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 neomexicona ssp. co/oracdensis) are federally protected Threatened species by USFWS under the Endangered Species Act 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 Hello