Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.1 Application Cont'd• • • Noise Hunter Ridge Energy Services LLC Wolf Ranch Compressor Station OLSSON ASSOCIATES OA Project No. 013-1093 760 Horizon Drive, Suite 102 1 Grand Junction, CO 81506 1 TEL 970.263.7800 1 FAX 970.263.7456 O\OLSSON • ASSOCIATES • • July 1, 2013 Ms. Renata Busch Encana OH & Gas (USA) Inc. 143 Diamond Ave. Parachute, CO 81635 Subject: Noise Analysis — Wolf Ranch Creek Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Dear Ms. Busch, At the request of Hunter Ridge Energy Services LLC and in response to the proposed installation of noise generating equipment at the Wolf Ranch Compressor Station (the station), Olsson Associates (Olsson) has conducted an initial (pre -installation) noise analysis of the station's equipment. The intent of this survey was to review the equipment specifications provided (Attachment A), and determine if the equipment's operation would be in compliance with the noise limits set forth in the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) Rule 802 and Section 25-12-103 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS). The COGCC and CRS limits are the same for general noise measurements. The sound -generating equipment associated with this assessment is three (3) natural-gas driven compressor units. The compressor units consists of one (1) skid mounted engine -driven compressor with an engine -driven fan cooler and a hospital grade silencer. The compressor engines are Waukesha Series Four Model L7044GSI. The proposed compressor unit will be enclosed in a fabricated structure. The enclosure is rated to a sound pressure level of 75 db(A) at 23 feet. Olsson has assessed the potential noise level at 350 feet using the noise/distance extrapolation equation provided in COGCC Rule 802 and this enclosure rating. The calculated sound pressure level at 350 feet from the station will be approximately 51.4 db(A) (see Attachment B). Note that this distance is less than the distance from the compressor to the nearest property boundary. The maximum sound pressure level created by the operation of the compressors at the nearest property line (approximately 2,300 feet north) would be approximately 35.0 db(A). As prescribed in COGCC Rule 802, in remote locations, where there is no reasonably proximate occupied structure or designated outside activity area, the light industrial standard may be 826 211/2 Road TEL 970.263.7800 Grand Junction, CO 81505 FAX 970.263.7456 www.olssonassociates.com 013-1093 Wolf Ranch Compressor Station Noise Analysis 7/1/2013 applicable. Therefore, both calculated sound pressure levels noise standard. These sound pressure levels are calculated and actual noise equipment operation to insure regulatory compliance. If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact me at 970-263-7800. Sincerely, Olsson Associates are below the applicable Colorado levels should be measured during Ken Kreie Senior Scientist Enclosures — Attachment A — Compressor Engine Specifications Attachment B — Noise Attenuation Calculations Cc: Project File • • Attachment A G gas I drIvEs:. May 15th 2013 EnCana RE: Waukesha VGF8GSI Generator Set Attention: Stephanie Meany Dear Stephanie, As per your request Gas Drive Global Inc. is pleased to submit the following engine/generator proposal for your consideration, the proposal is based on the requested scope of supply with the following applying. Based on the spread sheet of Toads provided, a gas sample for the location obtained from Enerflex and evaluation of site conditions I can suggest the following. 1 One only GE Waukesha VGF18GSI generator package 480 Vac 60HZ 240 Kw at site conditions, complete as per attached specification sheet and including the following: • 342 Continuous BHP i 1800 RPM at site conditions • Turbocharged and Inter -Cooled, Rich Burn • 6 cylinder in line • 152 mm Bore x 165 min Stroke • Unit mounted radiator with engine driven cooling fan. • Option 3067 — K -type thermocouples for generator bearing and winding indication • Option 3433E — Battery charging alternator, belt driven from engine crankshaft Option 4023- Engine jacket water heater 4500 watt 240 Vac • Option 4650A — Low coolant level switches for jacket and aux water circuits Option 5200 - Kenko oil level maintenance device with 20 gallon reservoir • Option 6192A K -type exhaust thermocouples • Option 6951 Adjustable trip main line circuit breaker • Option SPC2000 - GE Waukesha series 2000 control for engine generator set • EMIT Edge NG air fuel ratio controller • EMIT Critical grade catalyst silencer combination unit sized for the required emissions • Stainless Steel exhaust flexible connection • Sound Attenuated enclosure designed for site conditions with a sound rating of 75dba at 23 feet , includes inlet and discharge sound hoods, mounting of catalyst silencer, ac lighting package. All fuel gas piping run to skid edge, along with drains for coolant and oil. • Structural steel base for generator set and housing that allows for crane lifting of the entire package • PECO 89-1-336-6-285 fuel gas coalesce filter assembly with auto drain valve. Mounted inside generator set enclosure, with liquids drain piping pumbed to skid edge for customer connection to suitable low pressure resivoir. • SENS 24Vdc 10 amp automatic battery charger for off line maintenance of batteries Distributor Gas Engines 11151 East 51 Avenue, Denver, Colorado, 80239 Phone: 303.373.8100 Email: info@gasdriveglobal.com Fax: 303.373.0115 www..gasdriveglobal.com gas i drive;;• .• • Start—up services included. 3 man days on site per generator set to verify alignment, interconnect wiring and to start and test run unit. Includes travel labor, mileage, lodging and periderm. Additional days as necessary charged at published rates per the attached rate sheet. • Start-up spares included in this proposal, spares for 1" year of operation will be included on an itemized quotation attached to this document Price for 1 each VGFI8GSI per above $257,273.43 As an option, Provide 1 each ASCO Cat# 7ACTSB3600N5XF 600 amp 4 pole ATS Equipped as follows Feature 1113 Generator to Generator controls for prime power applications as more fully described in attached ASCO documentation Commissioning services of an ASCO startup technician on site for one day for ATS set up and programming Lead time on ATS 6 to 8 weeks ARO Price for 1 each ASCO ATS as above $13,722.00 All prices are EXW Gas Drive, Denver CO , with all applicable taxes extra. Above pricing allows for progress invoicing as follows: 25% at time of drawing approval 70% upon notification of unit ready to ship 5% upon the earlier of 60 days from date of shipment or completion of Start-up Quotation is valid for ninety days from date of this proposal Lead time 22 to 24 weeks from approved order I trust that the above and attached are in order however should you have further questions, comments or concems please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience. Best rds Jim Jodice Power Generation Sales Gas Drive Global Inc. 11151 E.51aAve, Denver CO 80239 Distributor Gas Engines 11151 East 51 Avenue, Deriver, Colorado, 80239 Phone: 303.373.8100 Email: info@gasdriveglobal.com Fax:303.373.0115 www.gasdriveglobat.com • • ENERELEX STANDARD EQUIPMENT AIR CLEANER - Tut, dry type ttilh rain shield and service indicator. BARRING DEVICE • Manual BATTERY BOX • Designed le accommodate two series 31 12 VDC batteries Includes power daconnad switch and 20 foot (6.1 m) cable for connection to ESM Power Distribution Box BEARINGS • Heavy duty. replaceable. precision type. BREATHER - Closed system CONNECTING RODS • Drop forged sleet doe drilled. CONTROL SYSTEM - Waukesha Engen ius Engire System Manager(ESM) ihiegrates spark timing control. speed governing. detonatcn protection. start -stop control. diagnostic tools. faith logging and engine safeties. Engine Conhoi Unit (ECU) is central braxy of Orn centre: system and main crs!ormer interface Interface with ESM s through 25 toot (7.8 m) harness to local pane, through L;ODBUS RTU save connececn RS -485 mu!lefeop Irarowere. and through the Electron'.: Service Program (ESP). Customercaneections are only required to the loral panel. fuel valve. and for 2411 DC power supply Campadbte wdth Woodward load sharing module ESM meets Canadan Standards Association Claes I. Division 2. Group D. hazardous beatial reeithernenls CRANKCASE - trlegral crankcase and cylinder frame Man bearing caps drilled and tapped for temperature sensors. floes not include sensors. CRANKSHAFT • Forged steel, seven man bearings. counterweighted and dynam,• ca8y balanced. CYLINDERS - Removable wet type cyt:neer ureas. chrome plated on miter dameter CYLINDER HEADS • Twelve interchangeable. valve•ir.-head type. Four valves per cylinder. Vier water cooled exhaust valve seats Rater valve fifers and hydraulic push rods Flange mounted within cods. ELECTRONIC SERVICE PROGRAM (ESP) - Microsoft Windows•baseo program provided on CD•ROM for wog:awning and mlerfaae to ESM Includes E-Hetp for troublesheoiing any ESM isuts. Serie, harness s provided for connection c(a customer supplied laptop 1c Las ECU RS -232 port. ENGItr1E MONITORING DEVICES - rectory mounted and wired sensors for lube ori pressure and ierrperalure, make manifold temperature and pressure. arid jacket wsler temperature. ell accessbbe througn ESM. ESM continually monitors combustion performance through individual knock census to provide detonation protection Dud magnetic pick-ups are used for accurate engine speed monitoring. ESM provides advanced diagnostics of engine end all ESM sensors are( logs any faults into eon -volatile fash memory, ENGINE ROTATION - Ceunlercloorsnse when lacing Ilywr eel. FLYWHEEL • Approx WR' ='.55000 ib ia': watt rirtg gear (208 teeth), machined to accept two drive adapters. 31.88' (810 mm) pilot bore. 33.25" (768 mm) boll dre!e. (12) 015" 10 tapped holes; or 28.88" (734 mm) plot bore, 27.25"(692mm) boll circle. (12) 0.625"-11 tapped holes and (12)0.75"40 tapped holes. FLYWHEEL HOUSING - lea 00 SAE FUEL SYSTEM - Two natural gas, 4" (102 mm) 1.0a0 carburetors and two Fisher Mode 99. 2" (51 m w) gas regrlelrs, mounded. 25 psi (172 kPa) fuer inks) pressure required. 10 fool (3 m) harness prvrdad for ESM control of customer supplied fuel shulo) valve. GOVERNOR Electric throttle actuator =trolled by ESM with throttle position feetback Governor tumttg is performed usfrrg ESP. ESM includes option of a load -coming feature to improve engine resporfse to step loads. IGNRION SYSTEM • Ignition Power Module (IPM) controlled by ESM. with spark timing optimized briny speed - load oondlion. Dual voltage energy levels automaticai:y controlled by ESM to maximze spark plug life. INTERCOOLER • Air -lo -water LEVELING BOLTS LIFTING EYES • Requires 9.5 ton Waking Load Um l (W.L.L.) anchor shaddes LUBRICATION • Full pressure, gear type pump Furl lube oil fifer with replaceable depth•type elements and tleacitee connections, shipped loose. MICROSPIN bypass eller, engine mounted. Lube ori strainer, mounted. Airgas mo!cr driven prebhbe pump, requires final ppfng. MANIFOLDS • Exhaust. (2) water cooled OIL COOLER - She!I and tube type. with thermostatic temperature controlter and pressure regulating valve. Factory mounted OIL PAN - Base type 90 gallon (340 L) capacity, including filler end cooler PAINT- Oilfield orange primer, PISTONS - Aluminum with floating piit al tooted. 8:1 compression ratio. SHIPPING SKID - Sleet for domestic truck or re:l. TURBOCHARGERS • (2) with water-cooled bearing housing and adjustable wastegalas. Single vertical exhaust outlet al rear. Flexible sairtess steel exhaust connection wilh 8" (203 nim) pipe flange_ VIBRATIONDAMPER - Viscous type. WATER CIRCULATING SYSTEM Auxiliary Circuit - Bell driven water circulating pump for iniercoo!er and lube ori cooler. Engine Jacket - Bell deven water circulating pump. Cluster type thermostatic temperatiwe regulating valve, full How bypass type with 185" 170" F (74' • 77" C) start to open thermostats Flange connections and mating lenges for 12) 4"(102 cern) inlets and (1) 5" (127 mm) meet Qante: Bate: t'ustomerPope: Q4 1202114 i%l'\ (12 vent -into 1rr 14. 2013 1:nrsuut 26 of -41 Waukesha SERIES FOUR L7044GSI with ESM VHPTM' Series Four 1120-1680 BHP Model L704dGS! with ESM Turbocharged and Intercoo!ed, Twelve Cylinder, Four -Cycle Gas Engine SPECIFICATIONS Cylinders V 12 Piston Displacement /840 cu (115L) Bare & Stroke 9315"x85" (23433k21hnine Compression Ratio 81 Jacket Water System Capacity 107gal. (41)5 L) Luke cal Capacity 90 gal (340 L) Starting System 125 - 150 psi arrlgas 24132 Velectric Dry Weight 22.75010 (10,320 kg) li IS() 9001 C.1 TIPlED I'eI u.... I+•, r 1 e1 ENERFLEX POWER RATINGS: L 44GSI VHP SERIES FOUR h ESM ()yet v: Customer ; Q412(1204 RI 1112 rhruers 14. 2-01.1 Eireann 27 or 4.9 Modal Brake Horsepower (Mt) Output) l.C. Water Inlet Temp. (°C) (Tera) C.R. 8 O rpm 900 rpm 1000 rpm 1100 rpm 1200 rpm L7044GSI 130' (541 81 1120(836) 126(1(940) 1400 (1044) 1540 (1149) 1680 (1253) Riling Standard; All models. Ralings are based en ISO 304611.1995 with mechancal efficiency of 90?: and auxdi3ry walar Iemperakure Tura (clause 10'1) as specked ;:cove limited to ± 10' F (z 5 ` C). Rolmgs are also veld for SAE 31349, 855514, DIN6271 and API78.11C standard atmospheric conthbans ISO Standard Powor!Conlinuous Powcr Rating: The highest load and speed which can by applied 24 hours a day. saved days a week. 365 days per year except for normal ma inanely-, 11 is permissible to aerate the engine 01 up to I0% overload, or maximum load indcated by the intermittent rat'rg, w)ircrlever s lower. for two hours in each 24 our perem. Ali natural gas erejne ratings are basad on a fuel of 900 B1011' (35.3 l3Jinmr) SLHV value with a 91 Waukesha Knock Index' For condtons or fuels ogler then standard, the Waukesha Engine Sales Engrneenng 0eparimenl PERFORMANCE. L7044GSI VHP SERIES FOUR with ESM English 130°F IC Water Temperature, RPM Fearer (Bhp) BSFC (Btumhp-hr) NrOx (gramsrbhp•hr) C0(grantsrbhp•hr) NMHC (drams!:bhp—hr) BSFC (Blwbhp-hr) NOx (gramsrbhp-hr) CO (gramsibh(rhtr) NMHC(gramsibhp—hr) 1200 1000 1680 1400 7765 7580 12,7 12.33 138 12.0 038 036 7570 215 16 030 7430 214 IF 030 Metric 54' C I.C. Water Temperature RPM Pawer(k'h'b) BSFC (kJikWhr) NOx (grnm') C0 (rimmr) NMHC BSFC (g/nm,) NOx (ginm`) GO (gfim) NMHC (glum') 1200 1253 10973 47 5.1 013 1000 1044 10720 4.6 44 0-13 10712 10513 8.0 7.6 0.6 00 0.11 0.11 NOTES; 1) Fan w sumpuon and exhaust eness:ons arc bused '9 ISO 304611.1995 standard reference seasons and r.omncrCmal ()unity natural gas of 900 Btuhr (35.30 Who' (25. V(0, 101.325))) saturated (ower heat value. Waukesha Knock Index` of St and x:;rr methane content by volume. ISO 3046,1.1995 slande'u ra;arcncc sand lions ate 77"F (25'0) ambient Imperatore 29.54 inches Hg (100 kPa) baromelns pressure. 30% (slaava humidly (1kPa103 mthes Hg %valor'r„,ar pressure) 2) S 1, exhaust err scions ale crxrochd l0 0. (0"C and 101.325 kPa) 3, Data w;0 very due to veria1)3.ne in site card )lens. For conditions and:or fuels o0ier tha^ standard. consul: the Waukesha Engine Salix Engineering Department 83.333, (2117 mm) --4- \ LPRESSER Waukesha 142,75' (3626 mm) WAUKESHA ENGINE WAUKESHA ENGINE DRESSER, INC. DRESSER INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, B.V. 1000 West SI Paul Avenue Farmsumemeg 43. Postbus 330 Waukesha. WI 53190-4999 9900 AH Appingedam, The Nethedands Phone (262) 547-3311 Fax (262) 549. 95 Phone (31) 596.652222 Fax (31) 596-628111 waukesfinengoid dresser.crnn Bulletin 7066 0102 Consull your local Waskaha 941ributor for system 'operation osslatonoe. Tna manufacturer reserves (hu dphr to ohmge or madly without notice, the design es equlprnenl spao'dioallons as herein set forth withal incurring any obligation either with respect to equipment previously sold or Li the props: of conorrucdon except where otherwise *podiatry gurrantood by the atonic fear.. Waukesha, VW. Wes Farr.1,1crospn,and;Worths Knack hoot aretedtmarksfragiseredaademeksol'Nadas . rn 1IS. . Enene.Dre ENERFLEX Certificate of Engineering Approval Are Special Codes or Equipment Required for this Approval? Approval Criteria Ignition Timing: ESM Carb Setting (Lambda or MAFR): 0.38° o CO When operating per the site conditions listed at 8290 feet elevation. 100F combustion air inlet temperature. and per the attached fuel analysis. a maximum continuous rating of 1450 BHP (fif, 1200 RPM with no overload allowed is approved. Based upon the site conditions and the fuel analysis provided. the engine data at 100°0 load is: Load (bhp): 1450 Speed: 1200 RPM Overload: 0 qo BSFC (13m/Blip-hr); 8188 -0!+.5°0 Induction Air (SCFM): 2174 ± 7 0.6 Exhaust Flow (lbfhr): 10108 7 00 Exhaust Temp ( °F): 1168 ± 75.0 Heat to (Btuthr x 1000) Jacket Water : 3568 ± 3°0 Lube Oil: 541 ± 8 00 Intercooler: 266 ±8 Po Total Exhaust: 3396 ± 8 0.6 Radiation: 640 ± 30 0.0 Emissions: NOx: 14.0 ethp-hr CO: 11.9 g.bhp-hr nnic: 0.6 • Q4120204 ki:t 112 hriir .1, 2013 1..h.voito 20 or 49 . ,*. • . 111. . ENERFLEX Quote: Date: (\mount ; Pow:: Q412020 till: (12 k'ellrour14,21113 it ltl':1 it. 39 of 19 When operating per the site conditions listed at 8290 feet elevation, 75F combustion air inlet ternperarure. and per the attached fuel analysis. a maximum continuous rating of 1610 BHP ft 1200 RPM with no overload allowed is approved. Based upon the site conditions and the fuel analysis provided. the engine data at 100° v load is: Load (bhp): 1610 Speed: 1200 RPM Overload: 0 90 BSFC (Bttt/Blrp-hr): 8055 -0/+5° 0 Induction Air (SCFM): 2 375 -1 7 00 Exhaust Flow (lbtbr): 11042 = 7 90 Exhaust Tenip ( °F): 1189 ± 75ao Heat to (Btu/hr x 1000) Jacket Water . 3 746 ± 8 ° o Lube Oil: 549±8 90 intercooler: 230 = 8 °o Total Exhaust: 3855 ± 8 ° o Radiation: 742 ± 30 % Emissions: NOx: 14.0 g•'bhp-hr CO: 11.9 g/bhp-lir N14,1HC: 0.6 g'blip-hr NOx emission at absolute humidity of 75 grains H20/lb of dry air. Fuel roust comply with the Gaseous Fuel Specification in effect at the time of the SAA approval. BSFC is stated in lower heating value (LHV) per IS0 3046. Ignition timing determined by the Engine System Manager (ESM) map based on load, speed. and WKI. 1. .1 I- . I.'' ` u..:.. • ENERFLEX 04120204 $U.\ 112 rch: osr. 14. 1111? 1 _:t r:ttna 411 nr-f9 DCL OCE Americo Inc 11610,1i 196o ;. %. 4,1161t M %60 Howson. n "tlb4 R.! 14-4197•9'49 Li! .91I-615 4KSN irdatoddmirice.corn ENGINE. DATA Engine model Waukesha 7044GS1 Power 1450hp fuel Pipeline NG Exhaust Flow 10378 Exhaust Temperature 11734 CATAI•YST SYSTEM DATA Catalyst Model 2-DC76-16 Catalyst Type NSCR Number of Elements 2 Cell Density 300 cpsi App -ox. Dimensions See Drawing Approx Weight 23001.17s Approx, Pressure Drop 6.S"w.c. Coinfection Size Recommended 16" min S • 411• S Exhaust_Gas Com o� n nt NOX CO Engine Output (u-bhpJhr). 12 12 Converter Outputg-bhp/hrl 2 NMNEHC 1 .15 ,;Z The catalyst model and volume selection is based upon the reduction requirements above. Any variance in these requirements may effect the price and model selection. I n,:i!.. I ENERFLEX Q4 120204 id:' 112 i ehruan 14.20] 4 I-.1=ctlu^ Al c:f 49 SILENCER SYSTEM DATA Silencer Grade Approx. Attenuation cQ r 30 r ,5 0 DCL OCL Americo Inc 116!0 !N 1960 S. Mr 41 io.. 1611. Ikta.nll. T'< "1161 1.! o-7-gq'.9'59 !,st m1.605.c.S% Voront ietoeddi atrica,cxml 31 ` G9 J1OSPITAIt Hospital 35-4Od6A i:. i $0 OCLtWTBi.ND (MU FhEQi LtCT (SJ Et+ -Z. III, I1. I I: 1 l .'1 it.,. • 1. •-- _-2 i_, ! r _ __ • '. ! i i it ,t,r ; ril • • Attachment B • • • Table 1 Distance Extrapolation Worksheet Site: Wolf Ranch Compressor Station (Encana) Extrapolation to 350 ft. dBA1 = D2 = = 75 350 23 dB (A) ft. - -- ft. dBA2 51 dB (A) (Noise Attenuation Rating of Enclosure) (COGCC Compliance Distance) (Distance of Noise Attenuation Rating of Enclosure) (Calculated dB (A) at Property Line) Extrapolation to 2,300 ft. dBA1 = D2 = 01 = 75_ 2.300 23 dB (A) ft. ft. dBA2 = 35` JdB (A) (Noise Attenuation Rating of Enclosure) (Nearest Property Line) (Distance of Noise Attenuation Rating of f Enc losure)_ (Calculated dB (A) at Property Line) as publlished in COGCC Rule 801 dB(A) Distance 2 = dB(A) Distance 1 - 20 x log in (Distance 2/Distance, ) • Figures Hunter Ridge Energy Services LLC Wolf Ranch Compressor Station OLSSON ASSOCIATES OA Project No. 013-1093 760 Horizon Drive, Suite 102 1 Grand Junction, CO 81506 1 TEL 970.263.7800 1 FAX 970.263.7456 113x; ;131 iN)tlW 191:70710000/ 1191706100004,E 191514200004 Wolf Ranch Compressor Station 191714300002 i 110052 101/21400011 1!3'102 0000 I incana Oil & Gas Inc. 191727400012 1919323000231 ._ . .. 4 9 . 9 +F 9 • • .. :. 9 ". 9 11} 1 r21330�4100952, 1 1.,10 12001 1001;') 213305100008; 213303200007 213300-I 00006 213527300015'.. II° PROJECT NO 013-1093 II Wolf Creek Compressor Station Q Affected Parcel ^s Local Roads Q Parcels N Miles w E 0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4 s DRAWN BY. BKR DATE, 05/21/2013 Adjacent Parcel Map Wolf Ranch Compressor Station Hunter Ridge Energy Services LLC Garfield County, Colorado S [/�] A' 760 HORIZON DRIVE, SUITE 102 LSSL f ® GRAND9 970263745681506 ASSOCIATES FIGURE AP -1 191520100952 191523200001 Wolf Ranch Compressor Station 191727400012 191536400004 213304100952 213501200013 213305100008 213303200007 213302400951 213308400006 213515100955 213529100008 213533400010 217104100021 213532100009 213534300957 ■ Wolf Creek Compressor Station Access Road ti Local Roads Parcels 0 1 2 3 4 Miles PROJECT NO 013-1093 DRAWN BY BKR DATE 05/21/2013 Access Road Map Wolf Ranch Compressor Station Hunter Ridge Energy Services LLC Garfield County, Colorado 7G NFA/970.26 746185062 04\OLSSON ASSOCIATES® FIGURE AR -1 • Wildlife and Vegetative Impact Analysis Hunter Ridge Energy Services LLC Wolf Ranch Compressor Station 0\OLSSON ASSOCIATES OAProject No. 013-1093 760 Horizon Drive, Suite 102 1 Grand Junction, CO 81506 1 TEL 970.263.7800 1 FAX 970.263.7456 • HUNTER RIDGE ENERGY SERVICES WOLF RANCH COMPRESSOR STATION Impact Analysis: Section 4-203-G (7) Environmental Effects Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution • Prepared for: Hunter Ridge Energy Services, LLC. Prepared by: WestWater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 May 2013 • • • • INTRODUCTION Project Description At the request of Hunter Ridge Energy Services, LLC (HRES), WestWater Engineering (WestWater) has prepared a Garfield County Impact Analysis for the proposed Wolf Ranch Compressor Station project in Garfield County, Colorado (Figure 1). The proposed compressor station is located along the west side of the Sprague Gulch Road and is located entirely on privately owned lands in Section 24, Township 4 South, Range 96 West; Sixth Principal Meridian. The current primary uses of the land are natural gas development, rangeland, and wildlife habitat. This document reports the results and analysis of the findings that are pertinent to the Garfield County Land Use Resolution 2008 (as amended) that apply to this project. Survey Methods The project area was evaluated for the potential occurrence of special status plants and wildlife, raptors, noxious weeds, and potential Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. by WestWater biologists on May 9, 2013. Vegetation types were determined through aerial photography and on -the - ground assessments. Plant species identification was aided by using pertinent published field guides (Kershaw et al. 1998, Spackman et al. 1997, Weber and Wittmann 2012, Whitson et al. 2001, CWMA 2007). Mapped soil types, as published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), were reviewed to determine the soil types and expected natural vegetation characteristics at the project site (NRCS 2013). Data locations were recorded using handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) units (Datum: NAD83, Zone 12) and photographs were taken of the habitat, terrain, and biological features found during the survey. Raptor and special status wildlife species surveys were conducted on foot within 0.25 miles of project features within suitable habitats for these species. Cliff nesting raptor habitat within 0.5 miles was surveyed for nests using binoculars and spotting scopes. Surveys for threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant species were conducted within suitable habitats in conjunction with wildlife surveys. Noxious weeds infestations within 30 meters of project features were documented and are reported in an Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan that was prepared for this project (WestWater 2013). SECTION 4-203-G (7) - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WATERS OF THE U.S. — Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) WestWater biologists determined that no wetlands or drainages showing characteristics of Waters of the U.S. would be affected by the project. VEGETATION The project area is located on a ridge -top in the upper elevations of the Roan Plateau, with vegetation consisting of sagebrush, mountain shrub, and aspen communities typically found in the region. Common plant species observed near the site are included in Table 1. Table 1. Common plant species observed near the site. Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Plant Species Within 100 Feet of the Site Arrowleaf balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittate Intermediate wheatgrass Thinopyrum intermedium Astragalus Astragalus spp. Mountain mahogany Cercocarpus montanus WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 12 May 2013 Table 1. Common plant species observed near the site. Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata Mutton grass Poa fendleriana Bitterbrush Purshia tridentata Needlegrass Achnatherum spp. Bluegrass Poa spp. Prickly pear Opuntia spp. Clover Trifolium spp. Rock goldenrod Petradoria pumila Columbia needlegrass Achnatherum nelsonii Salsify Tragopogon dubius Creeping barberry Mahonia repens Serviceberry Amelanchier utahensis Deathcamus Zigadenus spp. Snowberry Symphoricarpos oreophilus Larkspur Delphenium spp. Sulfur flower buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum Lupine Lupinus argenteus Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Gambel oak Quercus gambelii Western yarrow Achillea millefolium Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides Yellow rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Additional Common Plant Species Expected Near the Site Aspen Populus tremuloides Penstemon Penstemon spp. Smooth brome Bromus intermis Rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa Ceanothus Ceanothus fendleri Wavy -leaf thistle Cirsium undulatum Chokecherry Prunus virginiana White sagebrush Artemisia ludoviciana Wax currant Ribes cereum Woods' rose Rosa woodsii Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Plant Species A review of the Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide (Spackman et. al. 1997) indicated that no sensitive plant species would be expected in the project area. Noxious Weeds Noxious weed infestations, control techniques, and revegetation recommendations are reported in an Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan that was prepared for this project (WestWater 2013). Weed species listed by the State of Colorado (2005) detected in the project area include Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense — State B List), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum — State C List), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus — State C List), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinals — State B List), and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa — State B List). Canada thistle, houndstongue, and spotted knapweed are listed by Garfield County. No other state listed weeds were observed. The landowner (Encana) has adopted an internal weed management program that is in compliance with all state and federal laws (WestWater 2009), and would be adhered to as it relates to this project. WILDLIFE Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species The project area was evaluated for threatened, endangered, or sensitive wildlife species listed in Garfield County (Table 2) (USFWS 2013a). WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 12 May 2013 Table 3. Raptor species that may nest near the nroiect area. Common Name Scientific Name BCC* American Kestrel Falco sparverius No Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii No Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus Yes Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Yes Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus No Long-eared Owl Asio otus No Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus No Northern Pygmy Owl Glaucidium gnoma No Northern Saw -whet Owl Aegolius acadicus No Peregrine Falcon+§ Falco peregrines Yes • • • 1‘ Table 2. Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species for Garfield County Common Name Scientific Name Status Bonytail Gila elegans Endangered Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus Lucius Endangered Greater Sage -grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Candidate Greenback cutthroat trout* Oncorhynchus clarki stomias Threatened Humpback chub Gila cypha Endangered Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus Endangered Yellow -billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Candidate * Recent genetic studies indicate that pure greenback cutthroat trout likely do not exist in western Co orado. Until the review and rulemaking process is complete. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is recommending that "Lineage GB" cutthroat trout be managed as greenback cutthroat (USFWS 2012) Greater Sage -Grouse occurs in suitable habitat on the Roan Plateau and is a candidate for listing under the ESA. There is occupied sage -grouse habitat surrounding the project area, although sage -grouse prefer vast, continuous sagebrush communities, and project is located in an area where sagebrush is interspersed with mountain shrub communities. No sage -grouse sign was observed during survey efforts. The project area is within a mapped sage -grouse production area by the Natural Diversity Information System (NDIS) maintained by CPW (CPW 2013b) (Figure 2). There are several known leks within four miles of the project CPW 2013aCPW 2013a), of which two are considered active (unpublished CPW data). Lek sites (breeding/strutting grounds) are important features in sage -grouse habitat. Research by CPW indicates that approximately 80 percent of sage -grouse nesting takes place in suitable habitats within 4 miles of the lek on which they were bred (Colorado Greater Sage - grouse Steering Committee 2008). No other species listed in Table 2 would be expected as habitat conditions are not appropriate for these species. Raptors At least fourteen raptor species may nest in suitable habitats surrounding the project area (Table 3). Nesting season for raptor species in this area takes place from January through mid-August. The most common raptor species observed in the area include American Kestrel, Cooper's Hawk, Golden Eagle, Great Horned Owl, and Red-tailed Hawk. Swainson's Hawks have also been observed frequently on the Roan Plateau in recent years. WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 12 May 2013 Table 3. Raptor species that may nest near the nroiect area. Common Name Scientific Name BCC* Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Yes Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis No Sharp -shinned Hawk Accipiter striates No Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni No *BCC=U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bird of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008) + State species of concern (CPW 2013b) §BLM sensitive species (BLM 2009) One unoccupied raptor nest was located in an aspen draw east of the project within the 0.25 -mile survey area (Figure 1). This nest has been occupied by Long-eared Owls in past years, but the nest does not appear to have been recently inhabited. No owl sign was detected near the nest. Birds of Conservation Concern, Migratory, and Non -migratory Birds (other than raptors) WestWater biologists evaluated the project area for bird species (in addition to raptors and sage -grouse) that could be affected by the project. Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) have been identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for priority conservation management in an attempt to prevent or remove the need to list additional species under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2008). The survey was conducted prior to the arrival of most neo -tropical migrant bird species; therefore a thorough literature review was conducted to identify BCC species with potential to occur in the project area (Table 4) (Andrews & Righter 1992, Kingery 1998, Poole 2012, Righter et al 2004). Table 4. BCC sensitive species that may occur in the nroiect area. Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Description Potential to Occur Brewer's Sparrow* Spizella breweri BCC Expansive sagebrush shrublands; occasionally found in greasewood or other shrublands Low potential to occur due to limited extent of shrublands in the area. Cassin's Finch Carpodacus cassinii BCC Nests in conifer forests and may occur in pinyon/juniper woodlands, cottonwood stands and aspen groves. Potential to occur in riparian area and Gambel oak in project area. * BLM sensitive species (BLM 2009) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidance indicates that developments may potentially affect nesting migratory birds within 100 -feet of a project. The survey took place outside the typical nesting season for birds at this altitude in western Colorado and no birds were observed actively nesting within 100 feet of the project. American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Black -billed Magpie (Pica hudsonii), Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerina), Common Raven (Corvus corax), and Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) were observed near the site. American Elk and Mule Deer Elk and mule deer utilize the summer range extensively on the Roan Plateau, following the snow line up to higher elevations in the spring. Mule deer rely on forbs, sagebrush, and other shrubs to meet their nutritional requirements, while elk rely more on grasses for food. Adjacent areas of aspen and mountain shrub provide necessary forage and production areas as well as escape, thermal, and loafing cover for deer and elk during the summer. The site is located in CPW Game Management Unit (GMU) 22. The project area is within CPW-NDIS mapped mule deer and American elk overall range. The site is completely within a mapped elk WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 12 May 2013 • production area and an elk winter concentration area. The site is approximately 215 -meters south of mapped mule deer severe winter range, and is 375 -meters from a mapped mule deer winter concentration area (CPW 2013a) (Figures 3 & 4). Both species utilize the area extensively throughout the year. Black Bear and Mountain Lion CPW-NDIS mapping shows the project area to be within overall range for black bear and mountain lion (CPW 2013a). There is plentiful forage nearby and black bears frequent the area. Black bears are omnivorous and the diet depends largely on what kinds of food are seasonally available, although their mainstay is vegetation. In spring, emerging grasses and succulent forbs are favored. In summer and early fall, bears take advantage of a variety of berries and other fruits. In late fall, preferences are for berries and mast (acorns), where available. Black bear are in hibernation from mid- November through May. Mountain lion typically follow migrating deer herds in search of deer as the primary food source. They tend to have large territories and are highly mobile as they search for food or new territories. Mountain lions likely inhabit the general project area during the summer months. The project area is not mapped by CPW as a potential mountain lion conflict area. Small Mammals Common small mammal species in the project area include black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), coyote (Canis latrans), golden -mantled ground squirrel (Spermophilus lateralis), mountain cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii), northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides), least chipmunk (Tamias minimus), and a multitude of rodent species. . Reptiles Western terrestrial garter snakes (Thamnophis elegans) have previously been observed in the vicinity of the project area. This species is common on the Roan Plateau and is typically observed around perennial creeks and ponds but can be found far from water. Smooth green snakes (Liochlorophis vernalis) were not observed during surveys, but are known to occur on the Roan Plateau (Hammerson 1999) and have been observed at similar elevations on Old Mountain by WestWater biologists. Short -horned lizards (Phrynosoma hernandesi) are fairly abundant in sagebrush habitats. These species do not have any special protection by CPW or USFWS. Aquatic Species Since there are no permanent water sources near the project area no aquatic species are expected to occupy the area and none would be potentially affected. SECTION 4-203 (7) (a) - DETERMINATION OF LONG AND SHORT-TERM EFFECTS ON FLORA AND FAUNA FLORA Approximately 14.04 -acres of native vegetation would be removed for construction. No TESS plants would be affected. The landowner (Encana) has adopted an internal weed management program and implementation of the plan would reduce the effects of disturbance to the project site (WWE 2009). FAUNA Greater Sage -Grouse Approximately 14.04 acres of sagebrush habitat would be removed by the project. This sagebrush removal would take place within occupied habitat and a mapped sage -grouse production area. An increase in edge habitat could result in additional predation on sage -grouse. An increase in vehicle traffic WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 12 May 2013 could result in mortality due to collisions (road -kill), although the project would minimally contribute to a cumulative impact, given current traffic volumes on the Sprague Gulch Road. The landowner (Encana) has developed a Wildlife Mitigation Plan (Encana Oil & Gas 2011) that specifically addresses sage -grouse management practices and has been accepted by Colorado Parks & Wildlife. Mitigation measures outlined in that document will be implemented for this project and serve as an appropriate basis for mitigation for impacts related to this project. Raptors No raptor nesting habitat is directly affected. There is a possibility for long or short-term effects related to the increased human presence and activity associated with operation and maintenance of an injection well site. American Elk and Mule Deer The construction of a compressor station will reduce available habitat for foraging, escape, and thermal cover by approximately 14.04 acres. Human presence and activity may affect animal distribution. No migration corridors will be affected. Deer and elk in this area have become somewhat habituated to human activity and any additional indirect impacts from construction of this project would be unlikely. An increase in vehicle traffic could result in mortality due to collisions (road -kill), although the project would minimally contribute to a cumulative impact, given current traffic volumes on the Sprague Gulch Road. Black Bear and Mountain Lion A small amount of serviceberry and Gambel oak has been affected by the existence of the injection well site, minimally reducing the amount of available forage for black bears. Human presence and activity may affect animal distribution. Potential encounters of black bear with construction personnel could occur if garbage or food is available to resident bears and incidences of human -black bear interactions sometimes result in the euthanasia of offending bears by the CPW. An increase in vehicle traffic could result in mortality due to collisions (road -kill), although the project would minimally contribute to a cumulative impact, given current traffic volumes on the Sprague Gulch Road. Small Mammals, Birds (BCC), and Reptiles Habitat loss to these species would be approximately 14.04 acres. Human presence and activity may affect animal distribution. An increase in vehicle traffic could result in mortality due to collisions (road - kill), although the project would minimally contribute to a cumulative impact, given current traffic volumes on the Sprague Gulch Road. Nesting habitat for migratory bird species, including BCC species, would be directly affected by the project. Construction activities have the potential to interfere with nesting birds if conducted during nesting season. SECTION 4-203 (7) (c & d) — DETERMINATION OF THE EFFECT ON SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES The development of the project is not expected to significantly affect any critical wildlife habitat for any wildlife species. Potential issues are outlined below. • Creation of hazardous conditions: Some passerine bird species may choose to nest in or on equipment or objects on the site, though inherent risks associated with these structures is low. By closing or covering all ports, hatches, cavities, and openings (such as the ends of pipes) this potential is decreased. Most non -game bird species and their nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712; Ch. 128; July 13, 1918; 40 Stat. 755) and damaging occupied nests could be considered a "take" resulting in a violation. WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 12 May 2013 • • • Indirect Construction Effects: Additional human presence and activity related to construction, operation, and maintenance of the compressor may influence spatial and temporal use of habitat surrounding the project by wildlife. Since the site exists amid significant human presence related to other activities in the area, the additional disturbance from this project is expected to be low, but does contribute to the cumulative effect of development in the area. • Alteration of Existing Vegetation: There would be approximately 14.04 acres of native vegetation removal related to this project. • Big Game Production Areas, Winter Range, and Migration Corridors: The project is located within an elk production area and near deer and elk winter ranges. No specific deer or elk migration corridors are affected. In the project area, the migration patterns are not confined to any specific route. Elk and deer migrate through this area, although there is no restrictive feature confining animals to this route, and this project would not create such a feature. • Road -kill: Speed limits are 25 miles -per -hour or Less on Encana's private property and most wildlife in the area have become habituated to vehicle traffic. The potential for road -kill for most species should be low, with the exception of small mammals, birds (including sage -grouse), and reptiles. • Bird Nesting Habitat: Bird nesting habitat will be lost within the footprint of the project, including sage -grouse nesting and brood rearing habitat. REFERENCES Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History. Denver. • BLM. 2009. BLM Colorado State Director's Sensitive Species List. November 20, 2009 Update. Colorado Greater Sage -grouse Steering Committee. 2008. Colorado greater sage -grouse conservation plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado, USA. CPW. 2013a. Natural Diversity Information Source—Colorado Division of Wildlife. http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlife.asp. Accessed March 14, 2013. CPW. 2013b. State of Colorado species of concern list. Available online: http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/Pages/SpeciesOfConcernl.a spx Accessed March 14, 2013. Encana Oil & Gas. 2011. Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. Wildlife Mitigation Plan 2009 – North Parachute Ranch (as amended). Parachute. Garfield County. 2013. Vegetation Management Section – Noxious Weed List. Available online: http://www.garfield-county.com/vegetation-management/noxious-weed-list.aspx. Rifle. Hammerson, G. A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado, Second Edition. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Kershaw, L., A. MacKinnon, and J. Pojar. 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountains. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. Kingery, H. E. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. NRCS. 2013. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Available online: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed March 14, 2013. • Poole, A. (Editor). 2012. The Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 12 May 2013 Righter, R., R. Levad, C. Dexter, and K. Potter. 2004. Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country. Grand Valley Audubon Society, Grand Junction. Rogers, K.B. 2012. Colorado Parks and Wildlife Aquatic Research Section. Characterizing genetic diversity in Colorado River cutthroat trout: identifying Lineage GB populations. Steamboat Springs. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. State of Colorado. 2005. Rules pertaining to the administration and enforcement of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, 35-5-1-119, C.R.S. 2003. Department of Agriculture, Plant Industry Division, Denver, 78 p. UiUSFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia. USFWS. 2013a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species List — Colorado Field Office County List. Updated June 2010. Available online: http://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/endspu/countylists/colorado.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2013. USFWS. 2012. Updated position paper on ESA consultations on greenback cutthroat trout, including the cutthroat trout referred to as Lineage GB. Updated Oct 4, 2012. USFWS. 2013b. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.). Available online: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/esa.html Accessed March 14, 2013. Weber, W. A., and R. C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado Flora, Western Slope. Fourth Edition, University Press of Colorado, Boulder. WestWater. 2009. North Parachute Ranch Integrated Vegetation Management Guidance. Reclamation and Noxious Weed Control. Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. Prepared by WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado. WestWater. 2013. Integrated vegetation and noxious weed management plan for Hunter Ridge Energy Services proposed Wolf Ranch Compressor Station. Grand Junction. Whitson, T. D. (editor), L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee and R. Parker. 2001. Weeds of the West — 9`J' edition. Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with Cooperative Extension Services, University of Wyoming, Laramie. WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 12 May 2013 • Legend Unoccupied Raptor Nest 1/4 Mile Raptor Survey Area Compressor Pad Access Road County Road BLM Figure 1 Hunter Ridge Energy Services, LLC Wolf Ranch Compressor (E 24-496) Biological Survey Location and Raptors nWestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 0.1 02 0.3 Miles May 2013 p aurce. under •rdge nergy err cesl Jo' • anc ompressor gore 1 mada� •r r1 rbb 20 s yi Figure 2 Hunter Ridge Energy Services, LLC Wolf Ranch Compressor (E 24-496) Biological Survey Sage -Grouse •%"',WestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers &Scientists C5 Legend Compressor Pad Access Road Sage -Grouse Production Area County Road BLM • 011r iag 4CS'•:TO31 tildes May 2013 EO 15 11 22 Sprin'i Spain y RIO BLANCO COUNTY: "� Project Location GARFIELD COUNTY RiQLBLA.RGO CO ' G ARgLD CO Legend Compressor Pad Access Road Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area nMule Deer Severe Winter Range County Road BLM 2 e -s< 827 401 (t so 403 • T04S 096W ', 1 A' i e / 1/ 52?C a t' 1% T04SR095W. 11l 'HtfrS ; 20 S N Figure 3 Hunter Ridge Energy Services, LLC Wolf Ranch Compressor (E 24-496) Biological Survey Mule Deer Activities WestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers&Scientists 05 Aides May 2013 !dam Sou•ce Z •Mama Rage Energy Ser ces'•Woft Rancn Compressor ISA GIS.Frg-re 3.m.a o c // ///// // RIIO BLANCO COUNTY)( TO4S'R096W TO4S R095W' l® 27 26 Legend Compressor Pad Access Road EIk Winter Concentration Area EIk Production Area County Road BLM • Figure 4 Hunter Ridge Energy Services, LLC Wolf Ranch Compressor (E 24-496) Biological Survey EIk Activities nWestWater Engineering Consulting Engineers & Scientists 05 Maes J May 2013 , Z ,unter Rage Energy Senotts',Wo t Ranch Compressor ISA,GIS,F.pu16r2013rob • • HUNTER RIDGE ENERGY SERVICES WOLF RANCH COMPRESSOR STATION Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution WILDLIFE Greater Sage -Grouse Sage -grouse occupy and probably nest in the sagebrush habitat surrounding the site. The landowner (Encana) has developed a Wildlife Mitigation Plan (Encana Oil & Gas 2011) that specifically addresses sage -grouse management practices and has been accepted by Colorado Parks & Wildlife. Mitigation measures outlined in that document will be implemented for this project and serve as an appropriate basis for mitigation for impacts related to this project. Sage -grouse predators such as Red-tailed Hawks and Golden Eagles could benefit from the additional edge habitat created by the site resulting in an increase in predation on sage -grouse. Deterrent devices should be used to prevent raptors from utilizing structures on the site as hunting perches. The potential for road -kill exists, although speed limits are low and signage warning drivers of the presence of sage -grouse is in place. Implementation of the landowner's noxious weed management and revegetation plan (WestWater 2009) would minimize the effects of approximately 14.04 -acres of habitat alteration to the extent possible. Raptors Activities associated with the project have minimal potential to impact raptor populations as no high quality raptor nesting habitat would be directly affected. There is potential for raptors to nest in aspen stands nearby, but due to the current level of human activity in this area it is unlikely that this project would contribute significantly to any negative impacts. If any raptors are observed nesting within 0.25 -miles of the project before construction, every effort should be made to apply timing and buffer distance limitations (Table 1) to reduce potential affects. These recommendations are based on Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) recommendations (Craig 2002 and Klute 2008) and literature review of nesting season timing for raptors in the region (Andrews and Righter 1992, Kingery 1998, Poole 2012, Righter et. al. 2004). Table 1. Timing and buffer recommendations for active rautor nests Species Buffer Zone Seasonal Restriction American Kestrel * * Bald Eagle 0.50 mile 15 October — 31 July Burrowing Owl 150 feet 15 March — 31 October Cooper's Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April — 15 August Ferruginous Hawk 0.50 mile 1 Feb — 15 July Flammulated Owl 0.25 mile 1 April — 1 August Golden Eagle 0.50 mile 15 December —15 July Great Horned Owl * * Long-eared Owl 0.25 mile 1 March - 15 July Northern Goshawk 0.50 mile 1 March — 15 September Northern Harrier 0.25 mile 1 April — 15 August Northern Saw -whet Owl 0.25 mile 1 March — 15 July Osprey 0.25 mile 1 April — 31 August WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 3 March 2013 Table 1. Timing and buffer recommendations for active raptor nests Species Buffer Zone Seasonal Restriction Peregrine Falcon 0.5 mile 15 March — 31 July Prairie Falcon 0.5 mile 15 March — 15 July Red-tailed Hawk 0.33 mile 15 February - 15 July Sharp -shinned Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April —15 August Swainson's Hawk 0.25 mile 1 April - 15 July * Great Horned Owls and Kestrels are relatively tolerant of human activity. Keep activity to a minimum during breeding season. American Elk and Mule Deer Implementation of the landowner's noxious weed management and revegetation plan (WestWater 2009) would reduce the impacts of habitat alteration. A reclamation plan should be implemented to reduce the establishment of noxious weeds in disturbed areas. Reclamation of disturbed areas not utilized as part of the facilities would decrease the presence of noxious weeds and provide forage for mule deer and elk. Any necessary fencing should be constructed consistent with published standards that reduce impacts to big game (Hanophy 2009). Black Bear Black bear will likely be foraging in the habitat surrounding the project site, particularly when berries and acorns ripen. Personnel may be unfamiliar with wildlife in the area and should be informed of the potential for bear interactions. Personnel should not feed bears at any time. Bears should not be approached if encountered in the project area. All garbage and any food items should be stored in bear - proof receptacles and/or removed from the site on a daily basis to prevent attracting bears to the site to prevent interactions that result in euthanasia of problem bears. Birds Approximately 14.04 acres of nesting habitat would be removed that could result in direct or indirect effects to nesting birds, including resident species, as well as neo -tropical migrants. To further reduce potential effects, vegetation removal should occur outside of the nesting season, which is generally considered to occur between May15 and August 1 for the species in this area. If vegetation clearing occurs prior to nesting season, most affected birds will relocate to alternate sites. After late July, most fledging has occurred and vegetation clearing impacts would again be minimized. Small Mammals and Reptiles There are no seasonal restrictions or special requirements for development related to these species. PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION Application of the landowner's noxious weed management and revegetation plan (WestWater 2009) as discussed in the vegetation and noxious weed management plan for this project (WestWater 2013) would provide a basis for appropriate mitigation. Reducing the amount of vegetation removed to only the area needed for construction will help reduce the effect of the project on native vegetation and wildlife habitat. The best method to mitigate loss of wildlife habitat is to increase the availability of native forage in the form of grasses and shrubs. Revegetation with native species would provide the greatest benefit for wildlife. Subsequent to soil disturbances, vegetation communities can be susceptible to infestations of invasive or exotic weed species. Vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction can create optimal conditions for the establishment of invasive, non-native species. Construction equipment traveling from weed -infested areas into weed -free areas could disperse noxious or invasive weed seeds and propagates, resulting in the establishment of these weeds in previously weed -free areas. WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 3 May 2013 • • • • Several simple practices should be employed to prevent most weed infestations. The following practices should be adopted for any activity to reduce the costs of noxious weed control through prevention. The practices include: • Prior to delivery to the site, equipment should be thoroughly cleaned of soils remaining from previous construction sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds. • If working in sites with weed -seed contaminated soil, equipment should be cleaned of potentially seed -bearing soils and vegetative debris at the infested area prior to moving to uncontaminated terrain. • All maintenance vehicles should be regularly cleaned of soil. • Avoid driving vehicles through areas where weed infestations exist. REFERENCES Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado. Craig, Gerald R. 2002. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Encana Oil & Gas. 2011. Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. Wildlife Mitigation Plan 2009 — North Parachute Ranch (as amended). Parachute. Hanophy, W. 2009. Fencing with Wildlife in Mind. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver. Available online: http: //wildlife. state. co. us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DO W /LandW ater/PrivateLandPrograms/DO W FencingW ithWildlifelnMind.pdf Kingery, H. E. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Klute, D. 2008. Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Poole, A. (Editor). 2012. The Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Righter, R., R. Levad, C. Dexter, and K. Potter. 2004. Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country. Grand Valley Audubon Society, Grand Junction, Colorado. WestWater Engineering. 2009. Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.'s North Parachute Ranch (NPR) Integrated Vegetation Management Plan: Reclamation and Noxious Weed Control. Grand Junction, Colorado. WestWater Engineering. 2013. Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan for I-IRES Wolf Ranch Compressor. Grand Junction. WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 3 May 2013 • • • Reclamation Plan Hunter Ridge Energy Services LLC Wolf Ranch Compressor Station O\O LSSON ASSOCIATES OAProject No. 013-1093 760 Horizon Drive, Suite 102 1 Grand Junction, CO 81506 1 TEL 970.263.7800 1 FAX 970.263.7456 North Parachute Ranch (NPR) Reclamation Plan ' • TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND 1 Climatic Zones within the NPR 1 Upper Zone Middle Zone ? Lower Zone 3 RECLAMATION CHALLENGES AND AVOIDANCE RECOMMENDATIONS 5 RECLAMATION CONSIDERATIOtiS 5 Timing of Re -vegetation W ork 5 Topsoil Handling 6 Use of Fertilizer 6 Use of Mulch 7 Use of C ertiied Seed 7 Harvesting Local Seed 7 Seed Testing 8 Inoculation of Legumes 8 Inoculation of Sterile Soils 8 Determination of Pure Live Seed (PLS) ratio 8 SEED MIXTURE RECOMMENDATIONS .9 Reclamation Monitoring 1 1 Weeds 1? REFERENCES 16 • • • INTRODUCTION This document is a reclamation guide for use in restoration of lands on Encana's North Parachute Ranch, where oil and gas development activities have disturbed the surface by the construction of well pads. roads, and pipelines. Encana has asked West Vater Engineering to provide recommendations that will facilitate initial re -vegetation and re-establishment of natural succession of native plant species. This plan is based on the combined knowledge of WcstWater's biologists (Michael W. Klish, Rusty Roberts and Bill Clark), who have personal experience in the project area vicinity that spans more than 30 years each, and available literature provided in the reference section. Encana's land use objective for the North Parachute Ranch is to re-establish a self-sustaining vegetation cover integrated with the surrounding ecosystems. The plan is a "working document" and subject to amendment and revision based upon new information and changes in land use at NPR. The recommendations included herein apply to disturbances on upland plant communities. Recommendations for wetland habitats are not included as disturbance to these plant communities are expected to be minimal. This document provides recommendations for the following major subject areas: (1) Reclamation Challenges and Critical Area Avoidance (2) Reclamation (3) NPR Seed Mixtures (4) Reclamation Monitoring BACKGROUND Climatic Zones within the NPR There are three climatic zones within the NPR and are referred to as the Upper, Middle and Lower Zones. Similar precipitation patterns, soils and plant communities exist within the three zones. The Upper Zone consists of lands above the rirnrock escarpment of the Roan Plateau at elevations between 7,500 to 8,500 feet; excluding slopes greater than 20%, south facing areas. The Middle Zone consists of lands between the escarpment of the plateau to the toe of the slope along the valley floors at elevations between 7,500 and 6,000; including steep, south facing slopes above 7,500 feet. The Lower Zone consists of the lower terraces and floodplains along the valley bottoms of the major drainages below elevations of 6,000 feet. The location of NPR is shown on Figure 1 (attached). a 2005 aerial photo showing the general locations of the Upper, Middle and Lower Zones. NPR Reclamation Plan 1 May 2006 Upper Zone The Upper Zone receives 16 to 25 inches of annual precipitation. A majority of the annual precipitation is received during non -growing season (late fall winter). Primary plant communities in the Upper Zone are Mountain Big Sagebrush, Wheatgrass and Upland Deciduous Shrub'Wheargrass shrublands with smaller occurrences of Aspen and Douglas Fir forests and riparian shrub, tree and wetland habitats. The plant communities in the Upper Zone have the greatest diversity of plant species. Most of these species have adapted mechanisms for establishment and survival in the presence of the competition exerted by other species in the community. These communities are dominated by short-lived cool season bunch grasses, which are an important factor in providing interspaces for establishment and maintenance of forbs and shrubs within the community. Some of the major species in the Upper Zone are listed in the following table. Major Native Plant Species within select Upper Zone Plant Communities Grass/Grass like Forbs Shrubs Letterman Needlegrass Mountain Lupine Mountain Big Sagebrush Colombia Needlegrass Silky Lupine Antelope Bitterbrush Slender Wheatgrass Rocky Mtn. Penstemon Mountain Snowberry Mountain Brotne Watson Penstemon Low Rabbitbrush Nodding Brotne Sulphur Buckwheat Utah Servicebery Green Needlegrass American Vetch Gambel's Oakbrush Idaho Fescue Western Yarrow Chokecherry Elk Sedge Many -Flowered Phlox Red Elderberry Basin W1ldtye Arrowleaf balsamroot Blue Wildrve Upper Zone Summary Soils within this zone are primarily loam textured soils within the Parachute-Rhone-Irigul series. These soils are mostly well -drained, cool soils with dark -colored, organic -rich surface layers derived from shale and sandstone. Soil textures above the rim are generally loam with loam to clay loam sub -soils and range in depth from <20"on ridges to >60" in swales. All of the upland soils above the rim are in low to medium erosion classes (BUM, 2004, Fox, et al., 1973). Middle Zone The Middle Zone receives 13 to 14 inches of annual precipitation. A majority of the annual precipitation is received during non -growing season (late fall/winter). A significant portion of this zone consists of unstable slopes that are relatively barren of any vegetation. According to Fox, et al., 1973, these barren slopes are fairly erosion resistant if undisturbed. Primary plant communities on more stable slopes are Bunchgrass/Forb Open Grassland, Upland Deciduous Shrub `Whea:grass shrublands, Pinyon/Juniper woodlands and Douglas Fir forests. These communities are dominated by cool season bunch grasses. NPR Reclamation Plan May 2006 • • • Major Native Plant Species within select Middle Zone Plant Communities Grass/Grass like Forbs Shrubs Bluebunch Wheatgrass Fringed Sage (I-lalf-Shrub) Utah Serviceberry Indian Ricegrass Watson Penstemon Mountain Big Sagebrush Thickspike Wheatgrass Sulphur Buckwheat Antelope Bitterbrush Green Needlegrass Western Yarrow Mountain Mahogany Junegrass Lewis Flax Gambel's Oakbrush Basin Wildrye Silky Lupine Mountain Snowberry Elk Sedge Utah Sweetvetch Low Rabbitbrush Middle Zone Summary The area below the rim encompassing the cliffs, talus and steep colluvial slopes at the base of the cliffs are derived from the Green River shale. Below the cliffs and talus is a zone of soils formed from colluvium and Wasatch Formation. Soils are shallow, poorly developed and there are many rock outcrops and badlands. Badlands are steep, nearly barren areas dissected by many ephemeral drainages. content and are calcareous. Lower Zone Soils on the upper slopes of this zone have a thin, organic -rich surface layer and little development of soil horizons. Soils on lower slopes are shallow to moderately deep and are well -drained. Surface texture is loam, clay loam, or silty clay loam with variable amounts of gravel, cobbles and boulders, talus slopes and colluvial slopes below rock outcrops. Soils are moderate to highly alkaline. Sub -soils usually have higher clay Erosion hazard is usually severe (BLM, 2004). The Lower Zone receives 10 to 13 inches of annual precipitation. A majority of the annual precipitation is received during non -growing season (late fall.'winter). This zone contains some of the most arid sites. Primary plant communities in the Lower Zone on benches and terraces are Wyoming Big Sagebrush/Wheatgrass shrublands grading to salt desert shrubs like fourwing saltbush or shadscale on the most arid sites. The tloodplain communities include Basin Big Sagebrush/Greasewood shrublands on old floodplain terraces and streamside riparian woodlands with cottonwood or box -elder habitats. Cool -season bunchgrasses or cool -season sod -forming grasses or both dominate plant communities in the Lower Zone. NPR Reclamation Plan 3 May 2006 • Major Native Plant Species within select Lower Zone Plant Communities Grass/Grass like Forbs Shrubs Western Wheatarass Hoods Phlox Wyoming Big Sagebrush Indian Ricegrass Scarlet Globernallow Basin Big Sagebrush Needle -and -Thread Grass Utah Sweetvetch Greasewood Bottlebrush Squirreltail Silverleaf Lupine Rubber Rabbitbrash Junegrass Lewis Flax Antelope Bitterbrush Sandberg Bluegrass Longleaf Phlox Low Rabbitbrush Bluebunch Wheatgrass Thickleaf Penstemon Broom Snakeweed Basin Wildrye Sandbar willow Winterfat Peachleaf willow Shadscale Saltbush Bebb willow Four Wing Saltbush Riparian Habitat in the Lower Zone Streams are narrow and low and high points in the annual hydrograph are widely divergent. Riparian plant communities below the cliffs are deciduous woodlands on lower stream terraces and tloodplains dominated by Fremont cottonwood at lower elevations and narrowleaf and box - elder at higher elevations up to the escarpments. Mature box -elder woodlands with a dense understory of shrubs including river birch, alder and red -osier dogwood dominate the lower West Fork irnrnediately below the West Fork Falls. The East Fork woodlands may include Douglas fir. Woody plant diversity is greatest in undisturbed riparian habitat in this zone. Major Native Plant Species within select Lower Zone Riparian Communities Grass/Grass like Forbs Shrubs/Trees Inland saltgrass Western white clematis Fremont cottonwood Foxtail barley Marsh -elder Narrowleaf cottonwood Arctic rush Wild licorice Box -elder Switchgrass Wild mint Black chokecherry Western Wheatgrass Brook cinquefoil Skunkbush sumac Prairie cordgrass Canada goldenrod Wood's rose Golden currant Sandbar willow Peachleaf willow Bebb willow Lower Zone Summary Soils in the lower zone are calcareous, moderate to strongly alkaline, some highly saline, loans and silty clay loans on benches, terraces and alluvial fans. Floodplain soils are sandy loam or loam stratified with sand, gravel or cobbles derived from shale or sandstone. Soils formed in the alluvium are derived from sandstones, shales and marls and appear on benches, terraces, alluvial NPR Reclamation Plan 4 May 2006 fans and lloodplains in :he Lower Zone. Surface texture ranges from loam and sandy loam to clay loam with sub -soils of sandy loam to clay (Fox, et. al 1973 and BLNI, 2004). RECLAMATION CHALLENGES AND AVOIDANCE RECOMMENDATIONS North Parachute Ranch presents extreme reclamation challenges from a broad array of climate and geomorphological factors inherent to the site. These factors often act synergistically and increase the negative effects exponentially. These factors include: • Steep slopes and potential for soil movement. • Effective soil moisture issues including timing of seeding to coincide with natural precipitation. • Difficulty in re -contouring to blend with extreme slopes of natural topography. • Thin soils due to infertility from slope, exposure and soil source materials. • Slumps (instability, difficulty in holding slopes). • Difficulty preventing establishment of noxious weeds in disturbed land. • Riparian areas especially those dominated by mature cottonwoodsibox-elder/shrubs (due to wildlife and water quality value and long-term needed to establish large trees). Such areas, if disturbed, are very likely to require more time and expense to effectively reclaim. For example, riparian woodland and shrubland disturbances may require installation of live plant materials in the form of containerized trees and shrubs. [nstallation and three years of careful oversight and watering of these woody species to insure survival is far more costly than disturbance on sites, which can be successfully re -seeded. In addition to susceptibility to erosion and sediment problems, difficult, listed noxious weeds also present a reclamation challenge of huge proportions. For these reasons, it is recommended livestock grazing be postponed indefinitely. Canada thistle on the West Fork and houndstongue on the East Fork seriously threaten riparian plant communities. Both problems are exasperated by grazing of livestock upstream from NPR property. Prudence suggests reducing the problem as much as possible and one technique for slowing the spread of invasive weeds is to remove livestock. Livestock decrease native plant abilities to compete with invasive species. Livestock can physically move weed seeds around the property in their coats or by ingesting and excreting viable weed seeds. RECLAMATION CONSIDERATIONS This section provides recommendations for actions that should be taken in conjunction with seeding of sites undergoing reclamation. Timing of Re -vegetation Work Timing of re -vegetation is critical to the success of the work. Replacement of topsoil should occur just prior to re -seeding to prevent early germination and establishment of highly competitive annual weeds. in nearly all cases, re -vegetation should occur as quickly as possible NPR Reclamation Plan 5 May 2006 after topsoiling, in order to maintain soil nutrients and microbe levels, discourage weed invasion, and control erosion. Re -seeding should be timed to coincide immediately prior to the season of greatest precipitation, late fall/winter. Seed of many native plant species require a period of freezing temperatures prior to germination which ensures the seed will germinate in spring when soil moisture conditions are optimum for establishment and survival of the seedling. Also, several native species, such as big sagebrush, begin their slow germination process under snow cover. Ideally, topsoil replacement should occur in late August and September followed by re -seeding in late September to early December prior to freezing soil surface. If re -vegetation occurs too early, seeds are subjected to unnecessary exposure to seed predators and spoilage. If it occurs too late (spring planting), seeds and plants may encounter insufficient moisture to germinate or to survive after germination, and will be faced with higher competition from annual weeds. Topsoil Handling Proper handling and storage of topsoil is critical to successful re -vegetation, especially in the case of re-establishing important native plant species on disturbed areas. The topsoil contains soil microbes (bacteria, micorrhiza, invertebrates) and seed banks of viable seed for the native plants present on the site. Many native plant species depend upon the activity of soil microbes for germination in some instances and for establish and survival of most seedlings. Topsoil is usually stripped from a site and stored in the smallest place possible in deep, unstable piles. Stockpiling topsoil in deep, unstable piles for long periods (over 30 days) results in the Toss or limitation of topsoil microbes and viable seed. This is especially so where soils are stockpiled more than several feet in height and biological activity is diminished from lack of oxygen. Topsoil should be protected from erosion and weed invasion. Topsoil should be stockpiled in piles no deeper than 2 feet with stable slopes and be positioned to minimize exposure to wind and water erosion. Topsoil piles stored for longer than 30 days should be immediately seeded to provide cover to reduce erosion, provide competition for weed species, and to maintain viability of the soil fungi and microbe communities. Several fast germinating sterile cover crops ("Regreen" and "Quickguard") are commercially available that should be used for short period storage of topsoil. Topsoil stored for more than one growing season should be seeded with one of the recommended seed mixes based upon the zone the site is in. Using the recommended seed mixes on long-term storage piles will help maintain biological activity and provide a seed bank of viable seed. If long-term stockpiling or deep stockpiling can not be avoided, application of micorrhizal inoculants (see section below) may be beneficial. Use of Fertilizer Use of fertilizer should not be used in the reclamation of arid or semi -arid sites. These areas are typically at high risk of invasion by exotic annual weeds, almost all of which are favored by higher levels of nitrogen. Native western species are well adapted to the low fertility of soils in these areas. There are many cases of severe weed infestations, which are directly attributable to NPR Reclamation Plan 6 May 2006 • • • addition of nitrogen. In addition to the considerable cost incurred, the routine use of fertilizer may well trigger problems with undesirable annual invaders, which can be essentially impossible to correct. Use of Mulch Mulch should be used only where there are specitic indications for its application, and not as a routine element in reclamation. It may be useful in wetter areas or on extremely steep areas where severe erosion potential exists. On drier upland areas there are a number of potential problems. These include: wicking of soil moisture leading to increased evaporation, alteration of carbon: nitrogen ratios, attraction of rodent and invertebrates to seed and seedling predators, and plant competition from grain or weed seeds in the mulch. Where mulch is used, it is imperative that it be retained either by mechanical crimping, application of a tackifier, or with netting. These materials and the time required for their application add substantially to reclamation costs. Use of Certified Seed The two types of certified seed are "Blue Tagged Certified Seed" and "Yellow Tagged Source Identified Seed". Certified Seed (Blue Tag): Seed Certification is the means of maintaining the pedigree (genetically pure seed) of a specitic variety of seed. Each state has a seed certifying agency or crop improvement association that certifies seed. Blue Tagged Certified Seed must meet high purity and germination standards and have a low weed content, usually less than 0.25 percent. Blue tagged certified seed can not contain any prohibited noxious weeds of the state of certification. Many native species are now available in certified cultivars and in most cases the certified cultivars are lower cost. Source Identified Seed (Yellow Tag.): There is a strong market for native plant materials, but there may not be certified ecotypes available due to a lack of breeding, low supply, or high cost to produce, or unreliable demand. In most cases, native plant material should be acquired from harvest areas with the same or higher latitude of the area of intended use. State seed laws only require that the actual state of origin be on the label. To receive seed from the area you designate, it is advisable to request "Source Identified Seed" in order to ensure that a certification agency has verified the exact location from which the seed was harvested. Source Identified certification is in place in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and Montana. Yellow tags do not guarantee that the seed is free of noxious weeds. Buyers should refer to the vendor's label for analysis and weed content. or better yet, test the seed themselves. Harvesting Local Seed Plant species commonly display considerable site adaptation and variability. Thus seed collected far from its eventual planting site often does Tess well than seed of the same species collected closer to the planting site. Most professional seed suppliers record the collection site, and it may be possible to choose seed that is from locally adapted plants. If such seed is not available, the possibility or contracting with collectors to obtain local seed should be investigated. NPR Reclamation Plan 7 May 2006 Seed Testing Testing seed is the only way to insure the quality of the seed (purity and viability) and that no undesirable species are present. Purity tests will show the percentages of crop, weed and inert natter (material other taan seed such as stems or chaff), and show if the percentage of each species in the mix meets the standards ordered. The terms germination and viability are sometimes used interchangeably, but do not have the same meaning. A germination test will determine how seeds perform under favorable conditions; however, some seeds are dormant and do not germinate even though they are still alive. Dormant seeds have the potential to germinate if dormancy is broken, usually through time and'or physiological stimulus. A viability test will show the sum of the percent germinated and percent dormant seeds in a seed lot, providing information on the potential germination of the lot. Proper seed sampling is very important. The test results received can be no better than the sample sent in. Samples should be sent to a seed lab that tests according to the standards established by the National Association of Official Seed Certification Analysts. inoculation of Legumes Most legume seeds should be treated with commercially available Rhi_obium inoculants to ensure that they are able to make best advantage of their capabilities for nitrogen fixation. Legumes included in seed mixes are: American Vetch, Cicer's Milkvetch, Sainfoin, and Utah Sweetvetch. Inoculation of Sterile Soils Arbuscular mycorrhiza (fungi) are components of live topsoil and form symbiotic relationships with plant roots. There are two types and they are especially critical for plants in infertile soils or drought prone areas such as those found on NPR. In most cases on NPR, endomycorrhiza should be used to inoculate the soil since this is the type of fungi that associates with herbaceous and broadleafed woody plants. If coniferous species such as pinyon pine, Utah juniper, or Douglas fir are prescribed in reclamation, an ectomycorrhizal fungi would also be desirable. Improperly stored topsoil and areas with little or no topsoil should be treated with commercial mycorrhiza (Barrow, 1995). Mycorrihizal inoculants are available in two forms: as a granular fora for application during seeding, and as a powder for coating of seeds prior to seeding. Granular forms are typically applied at a rate of 20 lbs/acre and powder inoculents are applied to the seed at a rate of 1 lbs/acre. When broadcast seeded, the granular form must be incorporated into the soil with seed by harrowing. Determination of Pure Live Seed (PLS) Ratio Before a seed application rate can be determined it is necessary to determine the percentage of pure live seed (pis) in the supplied seed. Seed may contain weed seed, seed of other species, chaff, sand, and other inert material, and broken seeds. PLS equals the percent purity times the percent gerr,ination. Most species are sold on a PLS basis, with the price adjusted accordingly. When given a choice between buying on a PLS or bulk basis, PLS is always preferable. Less NPR Reclamation Plan 8 May 2006 • • expensive seeds with lower purity and germination may actually cost more on a PLS basis than more expensive seed. SEED MIXTURE RECOMMENDATIONS The following seed mixn•es include native grasses that 1) provide good soil protection, 2) are not overly competitive to allow native forbs and shrubs to repopulate disturbed areas, and are commercially available in quantities for small acreage projects. Mountain big sagebrush is not included in the mixture as it is expected to repopulate disturbance from undisturbed stands (anticipated disturbances are small linear). Sagebrush also requires a different seeding strategy (broadcast on frozen soil or on early snow cover). Activities that result in removal of areas greater than 5 acres of sagebrush, and are not within 100 feet of sagebrush to provide seed source may need to have sagebrush included in the seed mixture. Recommended Seed Mix for Upper Zone Disturbances Species._ Variety (cultivar) Seedm Rate (PLS*/Ac) __ 'sI _: Slender Wheatgrass San Luis 3.0 lbs Mountain Brome Garnet 2.0 lbs Nodding Brome 2.0 lbs Idaho Fescue or Letterman's Needlegrass 1.0 lbs trir}. r Rocky Mtn. Penstemon 1.0 lbs Cicer Milkvetch 1.0 lbs Utah Sweetvetch 1.0 lbs Western Yarrow 0.5 lbs American Vetch 1.0 lbs Antelope Bitterbrush 2.0 lbs *Pure Live Seed Total 14.5 lbs/pls/ac NPR Reclamation Plan 9 May 2006 Recommended Seed Mix for Middle Zone Disturbances Species Variety (cultivar) Seeding Rate (PLS*/Ac) Grasses Slender Wheatgrass San Luis 3.0 lbs Bluebunch Wheatgrass or Beardless Bluebunch P-7 preferred, Goldar Anatone, or Whitmar 2.0 lbs Thickspike Wheatgrass Critana 2.0 Ibs Indian Ricegrass Rimrock 1.0 lbs 2.0 lbs Rocky Mtn. Penstemon Rimrock 1.0 lbs Utah Sweetvetch Bluebunch Wheatgrass or Beardless Bluebunch 1.0 lbs Western Yarrow 1.0 lbs 0.5 lbs Cicer Milkvetch Scarlet Globemallow I 1.0 lbs American Vetch Utah Sweetvetch 1.0 Ibs 1.0 lbs Antelope Bitterbrush 1.0 lbs Mountain Mahogany 1.0 lbs Four -wing Saltbush Rincon 1.0 lbs *Pure Live Seed 1.0 lbs Total 15.5 lbs pls/ac Recommended Seed Mix for Lower Zone Disturbances Species Variety (cultivar) Seeding Rate (PLS*/Ac) Grae ,.. Wester' Wheatgrass Arriba 3.0 lbs Needle -and -Thread Grass 1.0 lbs Thickspike Wheatgrass Critana 2.0 lbs Indian Ricegrass Rimrock 2.0 lbs Bluebunch Wheatgrass or Beardless Bluebunch P7 preferred, Goldar, Anatone or Whitmar 1.0 lbs Fors. _ _ __... Scarlet Globemallow I 0.5 lbs Utah Sweetvetch 1.0 lbs Cicer Milkvetch 0.5 lbs Lewis Flax 0.5 lbs Rubber rabbitbrush 1.0 lbs Four -wing Saltbush Wytana 1.0 lbs Gardner Saltbush and/or Shadscale Saltbush 1.0 lbs *Pure Live Seed Total 14.5 lbs pis/ac NPR Reclamation Plan I0 Nlay 2006 • • • • • • Recommended Seed Mix for Lower Zone Riparian Disturbances Species Variety (cultivar) Seeding Rate (PLS*/Ac) Grasses Western V 1icatgrass Arriba 3.0 lbs. Bluebunch Wheatgrass P-7 2.0 lbs. Basin Wildrye Magnar 2.0 Canby Bluegrass Canbar 0.5 Forbs Western Yarrow 0.5 Utah Sweetvetch I 1.0 Scarlet globemallow I 0.5 Fourwing saltbush 1.0 Skunkbush Sumac 0.5 *Pure Live Seed Total 11.0 lbslpls/acre Attached as an Appendix is the table Reclamation Seed Mix Preferred Species for North Parachute Ranch Plant Communities, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. listing potential species suitable for reclamation work on NPR. The list is provided to account for site diversity, unstable prices and availability of plants useful for reclamation. The table can be used to replace a single, unavailable species or to develop a complete seed mix. Of great importance is the soil texture adaptation information in the Appendix. Species with wide ranges of tolerance (i.e., species with adaptation ratings of mostly twos and threes) should be selected whenever possible. It is necessary to adjust the total number of seeds planted per square foot to precipitation. soil moisture and texture, slope and aspect. In the Lower Zone and riparian terraces fewer total seeds per square foot will likely yield better results if seedling plants are not over-whelmed by total numbers of plants. In the Middle Zone of NPR, more seeds can be planted due to generally higher precipitation and better soils in localized areas, while Upper Zone precipitation and deeper soils will successfully. sustain higher numbers of seedlings per square foot. Grasses have consistently performed better than forbs or shrubs in land reclamation. More species of grasses should be in a mix than forbs or shrubs except in the case of shrub -only plantings. Species selected and the number of seeds per square foot allocated to that species are based on soil, zone, and experience in similar situations with other plantings. Generally, Lower Zone and riparian area recipes should have fewer species of plants in the mix, e.g. three grasses, one forb and one shrub for a total of five species in the mix. Middle Zone mixes should have a moderate number of species of plants in a mix. e.g. four grasses, two forbs and one shrub species for a total of seven species in a mix. Upper zones can have as many as nine species in a mix including four grasses, two or three forbs and two or three shrubs. Reclamation Monitoring Success of revegetation should be judged on the effectiveness of the vegetation for the post - development land use of the property, and the extent of cover compared to the cover occurring in natural vegetation of the area. Projected cover of desirable species should be based on cover NPR Reclamation Plan 1 l May 2006 measured in undisturbed reference areas (not including non-native, invasive species such as noxious weeds). A Natural Reference Area for each zone should be established in order to measure the success of reclamation. Transects would be established in each zone establish for representative plant communities to enable biologists to determine if desirable species have been successfully established. and if they provide sufficient aerial cover to adequately protect the site from erosion and invasive weeds. Reclamation Monitoring will provide evidence of whether a self-sustaining plant community has been established and whether vegetative processes such as reproduction and seedling establishment are occurring. Transects in late spring and late summer will provide identification and contribution of most if not all dominant plants found on NPR (Ferchau, 1973). Monitoring results can be compared to studies conducted for oil shale projects in the 1970's. Ferchau, 1973 covers the ExxonMobil property adjacent to much of NPR lands. Environmental studies conducted on NPR by previous owner Union Oil of California should be located and could serve as reference information. Weeds The need to cooperate with adjoining landowners, especially those upstream, to reduce and control invasion of noxious weeds is imperative. Two species, Canada Thistle and Houndstongue are currently invading undisturbed NPR lands on the East and West Forks of Parachute Creek from adjoining private and public lands. Encana needs the cooperation and assistance from adjoining landowners to control this serious problem. A separate integrated vegetation and noxious weed management plan listing and locating all known populations of noxious weeds on NPR is in preparation. NPR Reclamation Plan 17 May 2006 • • • Representatitie views of current conditions reflect the diversity of plant communities on NPR. Upper Zone Ridgetop Shrublands Lower Zone Benches East Fork Parachute Creek Riparian NPR Reclamation Plan Middle Zone cliffs, colluvium, harsh slope and aspect Riparian Woodlands Below West Fork Falls. 13 May 2006 Cross Reference of Names of Plant Species used in Document Scientific Name Common Name Grasses/Grass Like Basin Wildrye Levmus cinereus Bluebunch Wheatgrass, Beardless Pseudoroegneria spicata ssp. inermis Bluebuneh Wheatgrass, Bearded Pseudoroegneria spicata ssp. spicata Blue Vildrye Elvmus glaucus Bottlebrush Squirreltail Elvmus elymoides Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Columbia Needlegrass Achnatherum nelsonii ssp. dorei Elk Sedge Carex geyeri Green Needlegrass ,Nassella viridula Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale Idaho Fescue Festuca idahoensis Indian Ricegrass Achnatherum hvmenoides Letterman Needlegrass Achnatherurn lettermanii Mountain Brome Bromus marginatus Needle & Thread Grass Hesperostipa comata ssp. coniata Nodding Brame Bromus anomalus Prairie Junegrass Koeleria cristata Sandberg Bluegrass Poa sandbergii Slender Wheatgrass Elvmus trachycaulus ssp. trachvcaulus Thickspike Wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus WesternWheatzrass Pascopyrum smithii Forbs American Vetch Vicia americana Arrow leaf Balsamroot Balsamorrhiza sagitata Cicer Milkvetch Astragalus cicer Fringed sagebrush (half -shrub) Artemisia frigida Lewis Blue Flax Linum lewisii Longleaf Phlox Phlox longifolia Many -flowered Phlox Phlox multiflora Mountain Lupine Lupinus argenteus ssp. rubricaulis Rocky Mountain Penstemon Penstemon strictus Sainfoin Onobrvchis viciifolia Scarlet Globemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea Scarlet Indian Paintbrush Castilleja miniata Silky Lupine Lupinus sericeus Silverleaf Lupine Lupinus argenteus Small Burnet Sanguisorba minor Sulfur Buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum Thickleaf Penstemon Penstemon pachyphvilus Utah Sweetvetch !Kedvsarum boreale Watson Penstemon Penstemon wastonii Western Yarrow Achillea lanulosa NPR Reclamation Plan 14 May 2006 • • • Western Yarrow .-Ichillea ►nillefolieun ssp. occidentalis Wyoming Indian Paintbrush Cactilleja linariaefolia Shrubs Antelope B1tterbrush Purshia tridentata Big Sagebrush, Basin Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata Big Sagebrush, Mountain Artemisia tridentata ssp. vasevana Big Sagebrush, Wyoming Artemisia tridentata ssp. rt_vomingensis Broom Snakeweed Xanthocephalum sarothrae Chokecherry Prunus virginiana Four -wing Saltbush Atripler canescens Gambel Oak Quercus gambelii Gardner Saltbush Atriplex gardneri Low Rabbitbrush Chrvsothamnus viscidijlorus Mountain Snowberry Svmphoricarpos oreophilus Red Elderberry Sambucus racemosa Rubber Rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosus ssp. nauseosus Skunkbush Sumac Rhus trilobata ssp. trilobata Shadscale .4triple_r conferti/olia Utah Serviceberry Amelanchier utahensis Wintertat Krascheninnikovia lanata Trees Box Elder Acer negundo Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga men_esii Narrowleaf Cottonwood Populus angustifolia NPR Reclamation Plan 15 May 2006 REFERENCES Alstatt, David K. 2003. Soil Survey of Douglas -Plateau Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa County. US Dept. Ag., NRCS, 355 pp., 46 Map sheets. Barrow, J.R., and Bobby D. McCaslin, 1995. Role of microbes in resource management in arid ecosystems. In: Barrow, J.R., E.D. McArthur, R.E. Sosebee, and Tausch, Robin J., comps. 1996. Proceedings: Shrubland ecosystem dynamics in a changing environment. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT -GTR -338. Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service., Intennountain Res. Sta., 275 pp. Colorado Natural Areas Program. 1998. Native Plant Re -vegetation Guide for Colorado. Caring for the Land Series, Vol. [1[. State of Colo., Division of Parks and Outdoor Rec., Dept. Nat. Res., Denver, 258 pp. Ferchau. Hugo, 1973. Vegetative inventory Analysis and Impact Study of the Parachute Creek Area, Garfield County. Colorado. Chap. VI In: The Colony Environmental Study, Parachute Creek, Garfield County, Colorado. Vol. 111, Thorne Ecological Institute, Boulder. 77pp. Fox, Charles J., H.D. Burke, J.R. Vleiman, and J.L. Retzer, 1973. Soils Inventory Analysis and Impact Study of the Colony Property — Garfield County, CO. Chap. M. In: The Colony Environmental Study, Parachute Creek, Garfield County, CO., Vol. 111. Thome Eco. Inst., Boulder, 52 pp. Granite Seed Company, 2004. Granite Seed Catalog. Granite Seed Company, 1697 West 2100 North, Lehi. UT 84043, 89 pp. NicNab, W.H. and P.E. Avers, 1996. Ecological Subregions of the United States. USDA Forest Service. http:'J'www.fs.fed.us/land/pubslecoregions/. Washington, D.C. Sirota, Judith, 2003. Best management practices for the noxious weeds of Mesa County, Colorado. Tri River Area, CSU Coop.Ext., Grand Junction, CO. World wide web publication at: http:l'www.colostate.edu/Deets/CoopExt/TRAlindex.html#main.html USDA, NRCS. 2006. The PLANTS Database, 6 March 2006 (http:!/plants.usda.aov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. NPR Reclamation Plan 16 May 2006 • • Appendix A Reclamation Seed Mix Preferred Species for North Parachute Ranch Plant Communities, EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. This table is provided for flexibility in the field to adjust seed mixes to site conditions, cost and availability. To create a custom seed mix for NPR, first determine the zone which will establish the total number of species in the mix and total number of seeds/112 targeted for the zone, i.e., 25 seeds/112 and 5 or 6 species for Lower Zone, 35 for Middle Zone, and 50 seeds/ft- and up to 9 species for Upper Zone (see recommended seed mix section of report). Next, determine the species and the desired number of seeds of that species in the mix. For example, in a mix titr the Upper Zone, select 8 or 9 species and allocate the number of seeds ofeach species desired in the seed mix. (For example, in a 50 seed/ft' seed mix, each species could be allocated in the following manner: Grass A = 8 seeds/ft', Grass B — 8 seeds/ft-, Grass C = 7 seeds/It-, Grass D = 7 seeds/ft--, Forb E = 5 seeds/1t', Forb F = 5 seeds/112, Shrub G = 5 seeds/ft`, Shrub 11 = 5 seeds/ft- ). Then, use the following formula: Target no. seeds/ft2 (e.g. 50) = No. seeds of each species X 43560 (t 2/ac) = total no. seeds of each species /ac Total no. seeds oleach species/ac/no. seeds/lb. of that species — Total lbs. of PLS of the species in the mix/ac Continue for each species, Then, add lbs of PLS ofeach species = Total Lbs. of Mix/ac For percent by species in mix, Total lbs. of each species/Total lbs. of seed mix = Percent ()leach species in mix. Common Name't Botanical Name " CultivarsSoils, Soil Texture Adaptation('Tbd Comments on !titbits, Other factors Seeds/Lb. Cost/Lb. NO. Pt.S"/Ft.'' I.bs. PI ,Sl Acre ' /1 in Mit at time needed S�wds/ti.'Seedxlli.'Srcdsili.= (w 25/F11 Total 'a'35/Ft' !Mal 'u, 50/Ft' Total C MC M MF I' Grasses': Indian rieegrass Aclnrutherum km:c on ides Nezpar 3 3 3 1 0 2" planting depth in sandy soil 141,000 Paloma Rimrock Desert Needlegrass ilt /ma herton .speciosum 2 3 3 1 0 150,00( Mountain Brume Bruruus marginulur F3runtar 0 1 3 3 1 Short lived 90,000 Garnet I'hiekspike wheatgratss Etymalcu►c•cularrrs lanceohous Bannock 2 3 3 2 0 Strongly rhiiom_, long lived. sod forming 154,000 Critana Schwendintar inland sallgrass Disiieltlis spicula 0 1 2 3 3 For strongly saline sites 520,0011 Streamhank wheatgrass l:Ivrurrs hi/tem/aimSodar psurnrnopltilrrti 0 1 3 3 2 Strongly rhiiont`" dro tight tolerant 156,000 Slender Wheatgrass Glumus t. rrac•Irycaulus Printar, 0 2 3 2 0 Short-lived 159,000 Pryor Revenue San Luis Common Name" Botanical Name Cultivars" Soil 7•extureLbs. Adv ltatinuc 1 Comments on Habits, Soils, Other factors Seeds/Lb. Cost/Lb.NO.1'LSI//Ft.' , 1 l.S/ % in Mix Tbd at time needed Sceds/It.' 44, 25/Ft' Fora) Seed s/ft.'Seeds/It.' (a 35/Ft loud rut 501Fr- Total C MC M MF F Arizona Fescue I esinca urizonic:a Redondo 1 3 3 3 1) 'thin soils, >14" precip. 550,000 It lain, Fescue I -" na•., hltilmer)viv Joseph 0 2 3 3 3 1 •150,00( — — — Needle and thread I leverustipa r. rc»nalu 3 3 2 0 115,000 June rass Kuehl-hi macninth1a 1 3 2 I 0 2, 3 15,400 Basin wildrye /.e'mu.cinereus Magnar O 2 13{1,(100 '1'ral lhead Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smith), Arriba U 2 3 3 2 Sod fommng 1 10,000 Barton Rosana (iallela Plc nrupbis jun,esii Viva florets U 2 ? 3 3 Wane season, sod forming or bunch 15'9,(0)0 Viva caryupsis470,000 Big bluegrass I'oa umplu Sherman 1 3 3 2 1 882,000 Canby bluegrass Poet c•unbvi Canbar I 2 3 2 I _I0" precip 926,000 Multongrass Poo /i'ndlericntu 1 2 3 3 2 890,00( Sandberg bluegrass J'uu secunda 1 3 3 3 I <10" prccip. 925,000 Beardless bluebunch wheatgrass Pseuduroegneric, spiculn,1, inermes WiunarU ' 3 ? 0 <10" precip.. sod forming 117,000 tilucbunch whealgrass Nseucbruegneria spircrtru„ vit./monAnatolie U 2 3 3 1 8-14" precip., P-7 widely adapted 140,000 Cioldar I'-7 Preferred eultivar Secar Iottlebrush syuirrehail Silanin►, bvstrix Sand I lollow I 3 3 3 1 192,000 Alkalai sacaton Spam/witty airuicIes Salado 0 2 3 3 3 6" precip.. Warm season 1,758,000 Sand dropseed Sju,rub,lus c•rvpiamins 3 3 2 1 0 10" precip.Wann season 5,298,00( Forbs W. Yarrowoccidentals'- /IAillca n,illefidiu , 3 2 I 0 Not adapted to line soils 2,770,0(1(1 ('icer milkvcich /Isvragahts cher Lutana, 1 U 2 2 3 3 2 2 I O Non-bloating legume Not adopted to time or Foarse soils 145,000 55,000 Monarch Oxley Arrowleaf balsatnroot Buleurno hiza saggittala Sulphur flower Buckwheat Er•iugun n, mubellarnn, 2 3 3 2 0 209,00() Northern sweetvetcll Iledv.►•ctr,n►, boreule 1 2 3 2 1 aka Utah 33,600 • • • • • • Common Name° &Hanka! Name Cultivars ►' Soil Texture Adaptation' p Comments on Ilabits, Soils, Other factors Suds/Lb. Cost/Lb. CO. ('LSI'/ Lbs. , 1 LS/ Acre /� in Mn 'i'bd at time needed Seals/ft.2Secdsift.'Scedsift.' +ai 25/1'1' Total (w35/Fr 'Total (a, 50iFt- fatal al MC M MF F Blue flax Litton► lewisii Appar 1 3 3 1 0 293,000 Prairie Aster A-t„rh.,rr,,,rrlrr,v, tanctceti/irlict 2 3 2 1 0 490,000 Sainfoin Onobrvchis vic•ii/ulia Eski 0 2 3 2 0 Nonbloating legume 30,000 Itemont Rocky Mtn. Penstemon Penstemon str•ients l3andera 1 3 3 1 0 592,000 Small burneu Sanguisorba minor I)elar I 2 3 2 0 Nonbloating legume 55,000 Scarlet globemallov Sjrhueralcea coceinea 2 3 3 2 1 500,000 Hairy vetch Vida Wilma 0 I 3 2 I Shuro-lived, good green manure 20,000 A me riean velrh Viri, inner/ram, I 2 3 3 2 Non -bloating legume 11,((110 Shrubs Basin big sagebrush Ar'te�mesicr n iclertlaat tridentate. 0 2 3 2 0 2,500,000 Mountain big sagebrush A. 1. vaSevancr Bobble Creek Cherry Creek 0 1 3 2 0 2,500,000 Wyoming big sagebrusl► A. 1. ►vvominge,rsis Gordon ('reek 0 3 3 1 (1 2,500,000 Founving sallbush Atriplex a me Bens 3 3 3 3 1 52,000 Shadscale Atriplex con/ierN/olio 0 2 3 3 I 64,900 Gardner saltbush Atriplex garchteri 0 1 2 3 2 111,500 Curl -leaf min mahogany Cercoca pus fedi/alias 0 2 3 2 0 30,000 Rubber rabbitbrush Gricanmeria nauseam spp. 2 3 3 3 2 400,000 Low rabbitbrush Chiysuthummrs vise icli/lortrs I 3 3 2 1 782,000 Winterfat Krascheninnikovicr luuuta Hatch 2 3 3 2 I 56,700 Skunkbush sumac Rhus trilobata trilobata 2 3 3 1 0 20,300 Bitterbrush Pnrshia lridenlala Lassen I 3 3 2 0 15,000 'Species so (narked are introduced, all others are native. "Cultivars are variety of a plant developed from a natural species and maintained under cultivation while retaining distinguishing characteristics. Cultivars may or may not be in production and are therefore unavailabile. `Soil 'texture adaptation. C = coarse, MC = moderately coarse, M = medium, MF = moderately tine, F = fine. 0 = not adapted, I = marginal, 2 = average, 3 = best (Granite Seed, 2004). "Pure Live Seed per square foot desired in planting for the species selected. Target number of total secds/ft2 is 25/t1' for Lower Zone and riparian zone, 35/11' for Middle Zone. and 50/112 total li►r Upper Zone plantings. ''Cool season and bunch grass unless otherwise noted in comments (i.e. sod forming or warm season). • • NRCS Soils Report Hunter Ridge Energy Services LLC Wolf Ranch Compressor Station OLSSON ASSOCIATES OA Project No. 013-1093 760 Horizon Drive, Suite 102 1 Grand Junction, CO 81506 1 TEL 970.263.7800 1 FAX 970.263.7456 • • • USDA United States Department of Agriculture 4 ARCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Wolf Ranch Compressor Station May 16, 2013 Preface • Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app? agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://soils.usda.gov/contact/ state_offices/). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Soil Data Mart Web site or the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil Data Mart is the data storage site for the official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 2 • • • for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Contents Preface 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made 5 Soil Map 7 Soil Map 8 Legend 9 Map Unit Legend 10 Map Unit Descriptions 10 Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties 12 38—Irigul-Starman channery loams, 5 to 50 percent slopes 12 53—Parachute-Rhone loams, 5 to 30 percent slopes 13 61—Rhone loam, 30 to 70 percent slopes 14 References 16 • • 4 • • • How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the Custom Soil Resource Report individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil - landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 6 • Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. • • Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 0 0 746800 746850 746900 746950 747000 747050 747100 39° 41' 33" 8 tO 0 0 39° 41' 33" n- -n m m M Q Q M 39° 41' 18" 0 O O O N N N. m u> M Q O O O Q m a m M M Q Q 0 0 UI M O N O� v 108° T 20' 746800 746850 746900 Map Scale: 1:2,190 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. 746950 Meters 0 20 40 80 120 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 747'000 749050 747100 0 O M 39° 41' 18" Q • • • • • Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit X Clay Spot Closed Depression x Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill A. Lava Flow ,k, Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry © Miscellaneous Water ID Perennial Water Ne Rock Outcrop -F Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot 0 0 a CO Very Stony Spot l Wet Spot y Other Special Line Features Gully Short Steep Slope r.. Other Political Features Cities Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation F Rails ,,y Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1:2,190 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Waming: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 12N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 6, Mar 25, 2008 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 8/8/2005; 7/21/2005 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties (C0683) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of A01 38 Irigul-Starman channery loams, 5 to 50 percent slopes 0.0 0.0% 53 Parachute -Rhone loams, 5 to 30 percent slopes 15.4 75.1% 61 Rhone loam, 30 to 70 percent slopes 5.1 24.9% Totals for Area of Interest 20.5 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into Iandforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If 10 • • • Custom Soil Resource Report intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha - Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 11 Custom Soil Resource Report Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties 38—Irigul-Starman channery loams, 5 to 50 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 7,800 to 9,000 feet Map Unit Composition Irigul and similar soils: 55 percent Starman and similar soils: 30 percent Description of Irigul Setting Landform: Mountainsides, ridges Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainflank Down-slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Convex Parent material: Marl and/or residuum weathered from sandstone Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 50 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very low (about 1.2 inches) Interpretive groups Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Land capability (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: Loamy Slopes (R048AY303C0) Typical profile 0 to 6 inches: Channery loam 6 to 17 inches: Extremely channery sandy clay loam 17 to 21 inches: Unweathered bedrock Description of Starman Setting Landform: Mountainsides, ridges Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainflank Down-slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Convex Parent material: Marl and/or residuum weathered from sandstone Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 50 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 3 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained 12 • • • Custom Soil Resource Report Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water capacity: Very low (about 1.6 inches) Interpretive groups Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Land capability (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: Dry Exposure (R048AY235C0) Typical profile 0 to 3 inches: Channery loam 3 to 13 inches: Extremely channery loam, very channery loam 13 to 17 inches: Unweathered bedrock 53—Parachute-Rhone loams, 5 to 30 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 7,600 to 8,600 feet Map Unit Composition Parachute and similar soils: 55 percent Rhone and similar soils: 30 percent Description of Parachute Setting Landform: Mountainsides, ridges Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainflank, mountaintop Down-slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Convex Parent material: Marl and/or residuum weathered from sandstone Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Low (about 3.3 inches) Interpretive groups Farmland classification: Not prime farmland 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Land capability (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Mountain Loam (R048AY228C0) Typical profile 0 to 5 inches: Loam 5 to 18 inches: Loam 18 to 29 inches: Extremely channery loam 29 to 33 inches: Unweathered bedrock Description of Rhone Setting Landform: Mountainsides, ridges Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainflank, mountaintop Down-slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Convex Parent material: Marl and/or residuum weathered from sandstone Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 20 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 40 to 60 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.2 inches) Interpretive groups Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Land capability (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Mountain Loam (R048AY228C0) Typical profile 0 to 8 inches: Loam 8 to 28 inches: Sandy clay loam 28 to 52 inches: Very channery sandy clay loam 52 to 56 inches: Unweathered bedrock 61—Rhone loam, 30 to 70 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 7,600 to 8,600 feet Map Unit Composition Rhone and similar soils: 85 percent 14 • • Custom Soil Resource Report Description of Rhone Setting Landform: Ridges, mountainsides Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountaintop, mountainflank Down-slope shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Convex Parent material: Marl and/or residuum weathered from sandstone Properties and qualities Slope: 30 to 70 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 40 to 60 inches to paralithic bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate (about 6.2 inches) Interpretive groups Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Land capability (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: Brushy Loam (R048AY238C0) Typical profile 0 to 8 inches: Loam 8 to 28 inches: Sandy clay loam 28 to 52 inches: Very channery sandy clay loam 52 to 56 inches: Unweathered bedrock 15 References • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://soils.usda.gov/ Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://soils.usda.gov/ Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://soils.usda.gov/ Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://soils.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.glti.nres.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http://soils.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://soils.usda.gov/ 16 • • • Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. 17 • • • Geological and Soil Hazards Report Hunter Ridge Energy Services LLC Wolf Ranch Compressor Station OLSSON ASSOCIATE S OAProject No, 013-1093 760 Horizon Drive, Suite 102 1 Grand Junction, CO 81506 1 TEL 970.263.7800 1 FAX 970.263.7456 • • • FINAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION WOLF RANCH COMPRESSOR STATION GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO June 17, 2013 Prepared For: Ms. Stephanie Meany Hunter Ridge Energy Services, LLC 143 Diamond Avenue Parachute, CO 81635 Prepared By: Yeh and Associates, Inc. 1525 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone (970) 3841500 Fax (970) 3841501 Project No. 213-087 /A Wolf Ranch Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Project No. 213-087 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope 1 1.2 Proposed Construction 1 1.3 Site Conditions 1 1.4 Site Geology 2 2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION 2 2.1 Subsurface Investigation 2 2.2 Subsurface Conditions 3 2.2.1 Groundwater 4 2.3 Site Grading 4 3,0 SETTLEMENT 4 4.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 5 4.1 Footing Foundations 5 4.2 Mat Foundations 6 5.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 6 6.0 CONCRETE AND CORROSIVITY 7 7.0 LIMITATIONS 7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 — Structure/Test Hole Designations 2 Table 2 — Estimated Settlement 4 Table 2 — Seismic Design Parameters 6 Table 2 — Seismic Design Parameters for Site Class C 6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 —Approximate Site Location Figure 2 — Approximate Test Hole Locations Figure 3 — Drill Logs Figure 4 — Drill Log Legend Summary of Laboratory Test Results Wolf Ranch Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Project No. 213-087 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 1.1 Purpose and Scope This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed Wolf Ranch Compressor Station in northern Garfield County, Colorado (Figure 1). The investigation was performed to provide recommendations for foundation design and construction of a gas processing facility at this site. The purpose of this study was to evaluate geotechnical characteristics of the on-site soils and bedrock and provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed construction. The site investigation consisted of geologic reconnaissance and exploratory test hole drilling to investigate subsurface conditions. Test hole drilling was observed by a representative of Yeh and Associates. Samples obtained during the field exploration were examined by the project personnel and representative samples were subjected to laboratory testing to determine the engineering characteristics of materials encountered. This report summarizes our field investigation, the results of our analyses, and our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed construction, site reconnaissance, subsurface investigation, and results of the • laboratory testing. • 1.2 Proposed Construction We understand the proposed construction will consist of multiple structures related to natural gas production. The proposed structures will include but are not limited to a shop building, an MCC building, slug catcher, glycol regeneration unit pad, compressors, pig launchers, discharge meters, inlet filters, fuel gas skid, glycol contactors and dehydration filter pad and a future amine plant. The structures will likely be supported on prefabricated steel bases supported by concrete pad foundations or footings. From site plans dated May 14, 2013, provided by the client, plans indicate cuts of up to 10 feet and fills of up to 22 feet will be necessary to achieve an average finish pad elevation of approximately 8136 feet. Proposed cut and fill slopes will be constructed at slopes of 3H:1V. 1.3 Site Conditions The proposed Wolf Ranch Compressor Station was approximately 22 road miles north and west of Parachute, Colorado (Figure 1) and was located on the Roan Plateau in the northern Piceance Basin of western Colorado, a major gas production area made up of high plateaus, mesas, ridges and deep valleys. The proposed site was located on a north -south trending ridge with the high point as a knob at an approximate elevation of 8149 feet. The site sloped down to 1 ri Wolf Ranch Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Project No. 213-087 the north, west and south with moderate to strong slopes at grades of between 10 and 12 percent. The east face consisted of moderate to steep slopes at grades of between 27 and 39 percent. The site was accessed off Garfield County Road 403, approximately 1 mile north of the "turkey track" intersection with County Road 401, north of the existing L24 496 compressor and south of the existing Conoco/Phillips man camp. An existing two -track road was situated at the south-southwest portion of the site. Existing vegetation included sage, scrub oak and other natural brush and grasses. 1.4 Site Geology The project site was located in the Piceance Basin of western Colorado, a structural basin that is a major gas production area. The asymmetrical, arc -shaped basin is 100 miles long by 50 miles wide, is oriented northwest -southeast, and is deepest on the east edge. It is bounded structurally on the northeast by the Axial Uplift, on the east by the White River Uplift/Grand Hogback and the Elk Mountains, on the south by the Uncompahgre Uplift and on the west by the Douglas Creek Arch. Exposed in the project area was Tertiary age sedimentary rocks including the slopes and ledges of light brown and gray siltstone and sandstone and slopes of siltstone and claystone of Unit D of the Uinta Formation. The surficial deposits included alluvium and residuum of the erosional surface of the Uinta Formation which included clay, silt, sand and gravel. 2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION 2.1 Subsurface Investigation Eight test holes were drilled on May 23, 2013. Table 1 provides the structure investigated with respect to the test hole location. Test hole locations were specified by Yeh and Associates and were located using a hand held GPS. Location accuracy is only within the limits of the methods/instrument used. Table 1 — Structure/Test Hole Designations `_.Structure _ ,est1iole besigrattori'` Shop Building TH-1 MCC Building TH-2 Inlet Slug catcher TH-3 Glycol Regeneration Pad TH-4 Compressors TH-5, TH-6 and TH-7 Future Amine Plant TH-8 2 jA • Wolf Ranch Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Project No. 213-087 The locations of the test holes are presented in Figure 2. Alt test holes were advanced with a CME 55 rubber track rig using 4 -inch continuous flight auger to pre -determined depths where a modified California or split -spoon sampler was used to record blow counts and obtain samples. Bulk samples were also obtained at depths indicated on test hole logs presented on Figure 3. To perform the modified California penetration resistance tests, a 2.0 -inch inside diameter sampler was seated at the bottom of the test hole, then driven up to 12 inches with blows of a standard hammer weighing 140 pounds and falling a distance of 30 inches utilizing a "auto" hammer (ASTM D1586). The number of blows (Blow Count) required to drive the sampler 12 inches or a fraction thereof, constitutes the N -value. The N -value, when properly evaluated, is an index of the consistency or relative density of the material tested. Test hole logs and legend are presented on Figures 3 and 4. 2.2 Subsurface Conditions Subsurface conditions generally consisted of occasional topsoil over silty and clayey sand underlain by weathered to comparatively unweathered shale and/or sandstone bedrock. Differentiation between the topsoil and natural silty and clayey sand was difficult and therefore, where encountered topsoil depths were approximated. Hard to very hard shale and/or sandstone bedrock was encountered in all test holes at depths of between 0.5 and 3.5 feet from existing grades. The bedrock was occasionally cemented and silty. Practical drill rig refusal was encountered in all test holes except TH-6 and TH-7. Three shale bedrock samples tested had 65 to 76 percent fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve). Atterberg limit testing on these same samples indicated liquid limits of 37 to 41 percent and plastic indices of 16 to 23 percent. Two sandstone samples tested had 11 and 42 percent fines and both samples were non -liquid and non -plastic. One sandstone sample had an unconfined compressive strength of 9950 psf. Results of the laboratory testing are summarized in the Summary of Laboratory Test Results. Chemical testing was also performed, and the results are presented under section 6.0. 3 I'A Wolf Ranch Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Project No. 213-087 2.2.1 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. Delayed groundwater levels were not possible. Variations in groundwater conditions may occur seasonally. The magnitude of the variation will be largely dependent upon the amount of spring snowmelt, duration and intensity of precipitation, site grading changes, and the surface and subsurface drainage characteristics of the surrounding area. 2.3 Site Grading Cuts of up to 10 feet and fills of up to 22 feet are planned for the proposed construction. Based on drilling and our observations, we believe that material can be excavated by conventional construction equipment; however, hard to very hard shale and/or sandstone bedrock, occasionally cemented, may need to be excavated by means of heavy ripping and/or blasting. We believe that proposed fill and cut slopes of 2H:1 V or flatter, are appropriate for the soil conditions at the site. The on-site cut soils can be used in site grading fills provided the material is substantially free of organic material, debris and particles are no larger than 6 inches. Areas to receive fill should be stripped of vegetation, organic soils and debris. Topsoil is not recommended for fill material. Fill should be placed in thin, loose lifts of 8 inches thick or less. We recommend fill materials be moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D 698). Placement and compaction of fill should be observed and tested by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. 3.0 SETTLEMENT We believe that improvements placed in areas where transitions from cut to fill or large variations in fill depths occur could result in differential settlement of structures or flatwork. Based on review of the grading plans, we believe improvements that could be affected would be the west portion of the future Amine Plant. We believe movements in the compressor area would be within tolerable limits. Provided the fill is placed according to the specifications above, we would estimate differential and total movements as indicated the table below. Movement tolerances should be determined by the structural engineer. Total and differential movements cannot be eliminated. !n order to decrease differentia! and total movements, if desired, several alternatives could be utilized. Further discussion and recommendations for alternatives can be 4 FI • Wolf Ranch Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Project No. 213-087 provided, if needed. The table below provides anticipated differential and total movement for selected areas, equipment and or structures constructed in cut/fill, fill and cut areas. Table 2 — Estimated Settlement ��� t Estimated Total _, -Estimated Differential Settlement � ArealE uipm S ructure km _'---,7__•,-,.Setfilem, Future Amine Plant Approximately 1 -inch Less than 1 -inch All other areas, equipment and structures 1 -inch or less Less than 1 -inch 4.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS We believe that the site is favorable for proposed construction. We believe all structures and equipment can be supported by a footing, pad or mat foundations placed on natural soils, bedrock, or controlled fill. We believe that consolidation of the controlled fill would be low and therefore, a low risk of associated foundation movement as discussed in section 3.0 above. Foundation recommendations for structures supported by natural soils, bedrock or controlled fill are presented below. 4.1 Footing Foundations Foundations should be constructed on undisturbed, natural soils, bedrock or controlled fill. Loose, disturbed soils encountered at foundation level should be removed and the foundation should be extended to natural soils, bedrock or undisturbed controlled fill. We recommend fill be placed in accordance with the specifications presented in section 2.3. Placement and compaction of fill should be observed and tested by a representative of a geotechnical engineer. 1. Foundations can be designed for a maximum allowable soil pressure of 3,000 psf. 2. Resistance to sliding at the bottom of the matfioundation can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.35. Passive pressure against the side of the footing can also be considered for the sliding resistance if it is properly compacted. Passive pressure can be estimated based on an equivalent fluid density of 350 pcf for a level backfill. 3. The soils below foundations should be protected from freezing. We recommend the bottom of foundations be constructed at least 3.5 feet below finished exterior grade or as required by local municipal code. 4. All foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of concrete. 5 Wolf Ranch Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Project No. 213-087 4.2 Mat Foundations Foundations should be constructed on undisturbed, natural soils, bedrock or controlled fill. Loose, disturbed soils encountered at foundation level should be removed and the foundation should be extended to natural soils, bedrock or undisturbed controlled fill. We recommend fill be placed in accordance with the specifications presented in section 2.3. Placement and compaction of fill should be observed and tested by a representative of a geotechnical engineer. 1. Mat foundations placed on the undisturbed natural soils, bedrock and/or controlled fill can be designed for a maximum allowable soil pressure of 3,000 psf or vertical subgrade modulus of 250 psi times the correction factor, CF. The correction factor is based on the mat width and is determined by the equation: CF. 1/ ((B+1)/2B) 2. Mat foundations can be designed for dynamic loading using a shear modulus (G) of 10,000 psi and a Poisson's ratio (p) of 0.25. 3. The soils below foundations should be protected from freezing. We recommend the bottom of foundations be constructed at least 3.5 feet below finished exterior grade or as required by local municipal code. 4. All foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of concrete. 5.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS The project is located at approximate latitude 39.692 and longitude -108.122. The site is classified as Site Class C. The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), and the short- and long - period spectral acceleration coefficients (SS and S1 respectively) for the site were obtained using the USGS 2007 Seismic Parameters for an event with a 7% Probability of Exceedance (PE) in 75 years and a Site Class B (reference site). An event with the above probability of exceedance has a return period of about 1,000 years. The values were adjusted using Site Factors for Site Class C in accordance with 2006 International Building Code, Table No. 1613.5.3 (1) and (2). The seismic parameters for this site are shown in the tables below. Table 3 — Seismic Design Parameters PGA (0.0 sec) Ss (0.2 sec)' ri = S1-(1 0 sec) 0.084 0.171 0.041 6 ri • Wolf Ranch Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Project No. 213-087 Table 4 — Seismic Design Parameters for Site Class C As (0.0 sec) SDs (0.2 sec) SD1 (1 0 sec) Setsm c l Zone 0.100 g 0.205 g 0.070 g 1 6.0 CONCRETE AND CORROSIVITY The concentration of water-soluble sulfate measured in the laboratory on selected samples was between 0.014 and 0.028 percent. This concentration of water-soluble sulfate represents a negligible/low (Class 0 exposure) degree of sulfate attack on concrete exposed to this material. The degree of attack is based on a range of 0.00 to less than 0.10 percent as presented in the American Concrete Institute Guide to Durable Concrete. Due to the negligible/low degree indicated by the test results, no special requirements for concrete are necessary for Class 0 exposure. The pH and electrical resistivity was also determined for the same selected samples. Test results measured pH values of between 8.0 and 8.2, considered slightly basic. The resistivity measurement was between 1316 and 1379 ohm -centimeters and the water-soluble chloride was between 0.0008 and 0.0009 percent. See the Summary of Laboratory Test Results. A qualified corrosion engineer should review this data to determine the appropriate level of corrosion protection. 7.0 LIMITATIONS This study was conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this area for use by the client for design purposes. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from exploratory test holes, field reconnaissance and anticipated construction. The nature and extent of subsurface variations across the site may not become evident until excavation is performed. If during construction, conditions appear to be different from those described herein; this office should be advised at once so reevaluation of the recommendations may be made. We recommend on-site observation of excavations by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. 7 jd Wolf Ranch Compressor Station Garfield County, Colorado Project No. 213-087 The scope of services for this project did not include, specifically or by implication, any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, and bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions or biological conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, conditions or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. The report was prepared in substantial accordance with the generally accepted standards of practice for geotechnical engineering as exist in the site area at the time of our investigation. No warranties, express or implied, are intended or made. Respectfully Submitted: YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Keith E. Asay Staff Engineer 8 Reviewed by: Richard D. Johnson, P.E. Project Manager Vif Ji; 57TA�1AR1 PARA. 1.€tr SQIJTH O AN l ti� 4,04'A k_ Topographic maps created with TOPO!C National Geographic 1 N-1 1 Yeh and Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers & Scientists DRAWN BY: SW DATE: 6/10/2013 CHECKED BY: RDJ DATE: 6/10/2013 DESIGNED FOR: Hunter Ridge Energy Services, LLC PROJECT: Wolf Ranch Compressor Station PROJECT NUMBER: 213-067 SCALE HORIZ: NOT TO SCALE VERT: NOT TO SCALE Approximate Site Location FIGURE 1 2.3 TH-4 pt 1 1 0'2 Zia: u 0 Ow°--�J' vl L 1111111111I1I,�Li, TH-1 Approximate test hole locations NOTE: 1. Test holes were located by Yeh & Associates, Inc. based on field stake and plans provided by Hunter Ridge Energy Services, LLC. 2. Drawing based on plan set dated May 14, 2013, provided by Hunter Ridge Energy Services, LLC. )A Yeh and Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers & Scientists DRAWN 8?, SW DATE, 6/11/2013 CHECKED 8Y. RDJ DATE. 6/11/2013 DESIGNED MR, Hunter Rltlge Energy Services, LLC PROJECT Wolf Ranch Compressor Station PROJECT NUMBER, 213-087 SCALE 008)2' 1' 100' VERT 7 = 100• D W 100' Approximate Test Hole Locations FIGURE 2 • • • • • • FENCES BY ELEVATION -A SIZE 213-087 BORING LOGS.GPJ RDJ.GDT 6/17/13 8,145 8,140 8,135 8,130 c 8,125 O N 0) W 8,120 8,115 8,110 8,105 8,100 TH-1 TH-3 TH-4 Elevation: 8147.5 ft Elevation: 8145.5 ft 50/7 50/2 50/2 1 TH-2 Elevation: 8138.0 ft 50/5 50/2 Elevation: 8148.5 ft t 50/5 50/3 50/0 t 50/3 50/0 TH-5 Elevation: 8140.5 ft t 50/4 • 50/1 TH-6 Elevation: 8142.0 ft 50/1 50/2 50/4 TH 7 Elevation: Elevation: 8141.5 ft 8141.0 8 8,140 8,135 8,130 8,125 8,120 8,115 8,110 8,105 8,100 NOTE: Dashed line indicates approximate proposed pad elevation from plan set provided by client. 7 50/12 50/3 50/2.5 T 50/4 50/3 • 50/3 YEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Wolf Ranch Compressor Station Project Number: 213-087 Figure No. 3 'AYEH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Project: Wolf Ranch Compressor Station Project Number: 213-087 Legend for Symbols Used on Borehole Logs Sample Types Bulk sample was obtained from auger cuttings at the depths indicated, Modified California Sampler. The symbol 16/12 indicates that 16 blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches was used to drive 2 -inch I.D. sampler 12 inches. I Split Spoon Sampler. The symbol 15/12 indicates that 15 blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches was used to drive 1.5 -inch I.D. sampler 12 inches. Other Symbols tIndicates practical drill rig refusal, - Indicates approximate elevation of proposed pad from plans provided by client. Soil Lithology 1/ 1, 1, Topsoil, brown, dark brown. SAND, clayey, slightly moist, medium dense, brown (SC). SAND, silty to gravelly, slightly moist, medium dense to very dense, brown (SM). Bedrock Lithology Weathered Sandstone Bedrock, medium hard, slightly moist, white, light brown, rust. SANDSTONE Bedrock, occasionally cemented, hard to very hard, slightly moist, white, light brown, rust. SHALE Bedrock, cemented, hard to very hard, slightly moist, white, light brown, rust. NOTES: 1. Test holes were drilled on May 23, 2013 with 4 -inch continuous flight auger. 2. Groundwater was not encountered. 3. Test hole descriptions are subject to explanations contained in this report. 4. Elevations were estimated from topography by others. Figure 4 YEH & ASS.IATES, INC • Project No: Summary of Laboratory Test Results 213-087 Project Name: Wolf Ranch Compressor Station Sample Location Moisture Content (%)(%) Dry Density (pcf) Grain Size Analysis Atte berg Limits Water Soluble Sulfate (%) Water Soluble Chloride (%) Resistivity (ohm -cm) pH Unconfined Compressive Strength (psf) Soil Description Test Hole Depth (ft) Sample Type Gravel Sand (%)(%) Fines <#200 LL PL PI TH-1 10 to 14 Bulk 13.7 73 40 17 23 SHALE Bedrock TH-2 4 CA 13.6 107 42 NL NP NP 9946 SANDSTONE Bedrock, silty TH-3 9 to 13 Bulk 12.5 76 41 18 23 SHALE Bedrock TH-4 4 to 9 Bulk 0.028 0.0008 1379 8.2 SANDSTONE Bedrock TH-5 4 CA 0.014 0.0009 1316 8.0 SANDSTONE Bedrock TH-7 4 CA 14.9 11 NL NP NP SANDSTONE Bedrock TH-8 5 to 9 Bulk 12.5 65 37 21 16 SHALE Bedrock 1 i CA - Indicates Modified California Sampler NL - Indicates non -liquid NP - Indicates non -plastic Page 1 of 1