No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationAPPLICATION Special Use Permit GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.945.7785 s400 "& saS# 6l 7l owners and their addresses. you are acting as an agent for the owner that you may act rn I thru 3; generation and/or submit an impact 5.03.07, inclusive: on. you must The consideration of this proposed Special Use will require at least one () public hearing, for wluch public notice must be provided. The Planning Department will mail you i ion concermng this heanng(s), approximately 30 days prior to the scheduled hearing. You will then be ired to notifu, by certified return receipt mail, all adjacent landowners and publish the notice provided the Planning Department. in a newspaper of general circulation. Both these notices must be mailed/pub public heanng. The applicant shall bear the cost of mailing and publ publication must be submitted at the time of the public hearing. ished at least 15 days prior to the ion and proof of mailing and is complete and correctThe pd dfeo oo 14qs submittat Dile,Safla*^A \r 4 L4aB Base Fee: Applicant: Address of Applicant: Special Use Being Requested: Zone District , Nq Size of Prop erl t4* O,Yi-F- tu So'?r:d Application Requirements: These items must be submitted with the application U Plars and specifications for the proposed use including the hours of operation, the amount of vehicles accessing the site on a daily, weekly and./or monthly basis, and the size of any existing or proposed structures that will be utilized in conjunction with the proposed use. Please submit this information in narrative form and be specific. 2l If you will be using waler or will be treatrng wastewater in conjunction with the proposed use, please detail the amount of water that would be used and the type of wastewater treatrnent. If you will be utilizing well water, please attach a copy of the appropriate well permit and any other legal water supply information, including a water allotment contract or an approved water augmentation plan. 3] A rnap drawn to scale portrayrng your property, all sructures on the property, and the County or State roadways withm one (l) mile of your property. If you are proposing a new or expanded access onto a Countv or State roadway, submrt a driveway or highway permit. A vicinity map, showing slope of your property, for which a U. S.G. $ . I :24,000 scale quadrangle map will suffice. A copy ofthe appropriate portion of a Garfield County Assessor's showing all public and private 4) sl landowners adjacent to your properfy. lnclude a list of all proper Attach a copy of the deed and a legal description of the property. I property owner, you must at[ach an acknowledgment from the his/her behalf. For all applications pertaining to airports, the oil and gas ry, power transmission industry, or Eury other classified industrial statement consistent with the requirements of Sections 5.03, and 5.03.08, inclusive. Date: to the best of my knowledge: ROCKY MOI]NTAIN LOOP PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT Garfield County, Colorado INTRODUCTION Mid-America Pipeline Company ("Mid-America") proposes to construct an interstate natural gas liquids (NGL) pipeline through the westem portion of Crarfield County utilizing an existing pipeline coridor and right-of-way ("ROW"). Mid-America has an existing special use permit for its lo-inch NGL pipeline constructed in 1982. This application is for a special use permit to allow construction of a new l0-inch NGL pipeline that will be constructed immediately adjacent to Mid-America's existing NGI- pipeline and parallel to a natural gas pipeline constructed by Northwest Pipeline Company more ,r*t*"XlHffJ;#"general pipelineroute through Garfield countv will be ",ff#i,ry.I:r:,., PROJECTDESCRIPTION - qdSSY Mid-America currently operates the Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Liquids System which originates near Rock Springs, Wyoming, and ends in the Four Corners area. Mid-America's Rocky Mountain Pipeline transports natural gas liquids which are produced at gas processing plants located in Southern Wyoming, NortheasternUtah, and Northwestern Colorado, and delivers the NGL products tovarious market designations. Mid-America's pipeline was installed in 1982, and it has a current rated capacity ofapproximately 75,000 barrels per day (BPD) The NGL consists primarily of the following hydrocarbons: ethane, propane, butane and natural gasoline. Over the past few years, the NGL product volumes transported via Mid-America's pipeline have steadily increased, and the line is currently operating near its maximum flowing capacity. Increased oil and gas exploration activities in the Rocky Mountain Area, with associated gas processing plant expansion plans, will quickly exceed the capacity of Mid-America's pipeline. Further, there no available NGL pipeline capacity from the Rocky Mountain Area on any other existing NGL pipelines. In order to service the current and future NGL transportation needs of the Rocky Mountain Area, Mid-America proposes to increase its system capacity by installing a new pipeline loop from the Northeastern Uah area to San Juan County, New Mexico (see attached route map). The new loop line is designed as a combination lO-inch, l2-inch, and l6-inch diameter line, and will increase the nominal rated capacity ofthe combined system to 120,000 BPD. The new loop line is being designed to allow for independent operation from the existing line. The pipeline across Garfield County will be lo-inches in diameter. Mid-America has proposed a January 1,1999 completion date for the project. The schedule is obtainable because the existing pipeline ROW and subsequent expansion of this existing system represents the least environmental impact as defined by National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Also, the general use of this coridor for other pipeline systems, and a series of multiple pipeline Mid-America Pipeline Company Proposed Rocky Mountain Loop September 29,1998Page I I easement rights on private lands, reduces the need for new easement acquisition. The existing pipeline conidor would be disturbed and restored using acceptable reclamation practices as outlined in the Environmental Assessment and Plan of Development which are on file with the Garfield County Planning Department. Reclamation practices have improved significantly since Mid-America constructed its existing line in 1982 and, therefore, by constructing the new line within the existing pipeline ROW improvements will be realized to the existing ROW. The specific dimensions of ROW on BLM, Bureau of Reclamation @OR), and BIA administered lands will be included in the respective authorizing documents. Minor realignments may be required to avoid geotechnical, topographical, archaeological, environmental and other encroachment areas. Pipeline alignments in relation to the existing pipeline facilities are illustrated on the attached Figures I and 2. The route across Garfield County is shown on the attached Garfield County area maps. No altemate pipeline routes were determined by the public scoping meetings and route analysis conducted with respect to this proposed pipeline. ROW GRANT APPLICATION Mid-America filed the BLM Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Land with the Utah State Office in Salt Lake City, Utah, and the Colorado State Office in Denveq Colorado, on Ianuary 9,1998,and is complying with the required procedures. The BLM is the lead federal agency for writing the Environmental Assessment (EA) which is being prepared by the approved EA contractor, ENSR Consultants and Engineers. The archaeological surveys were performed by Alpine Archaeology. ENSR and other specialty consultants performed the Threatened and Endangered (T&E) plant and animal surveys. Mid-America has acknowledged the results and stipulations defined by the EA document along with cultural and T & E surveys as a condition and responsibility in the use of these public and privates land. Mid-America will contract with Alpine fuchaeology to perform the "Archaeological Compliance". Mid-America will sponsor "Quality Assurance and Quality Confrol" (QA/QC) through an independent contractoq with the approval of the BLM. The contractor will act on behalf of the BLM for compliance of the ROW grants and to execute the approved BLM Compliance Plan. Mid-America will not initiate any construction or other surface-disturbing activities on the public land portion of the ROW until after the BLM grant is issued by the BLM Authorized Offrcer. Such authorization shall be a written Notice to Proceed (Form 280015) issued by the Authorized Officer. Any Notice to Proceed shall authorize construction or use only as expressly stated therein and only for the particular location or use therein described. Although construction on the ROW is accomplished as a unit, construction on the portions of the ROW under private, BId and Tribal jurisdiction may take place upon receipt of necessary permits and a grant of easement or ROW. GARFIELD COUNTY LAND USE APPLICATION Based upon conversations with the Garfield CountyPlanningDepartmen! Mid-America submits Mid-America Pipeline Company Proposed Rocky Mountain Loop Page 2 September 29,1998 this application for a Special Use Permit and requests that this application be heard before the Garfreld CountyBoard of County Commissioners on October 5, 1998. Mid-America's proposed pipeline route, located within an existing pipeline ROW, presents no new issues or concerns that would require extended proceedings in Carfield County. Mid-America's new pipeline will not represent any change in land use within Garfield County. The proposed pipeline is being constructed adjacent to Mid- America's existing l0-inch pipeline and a 26-inch natural gas pipeline operated by Northwest Pipeline Company. The proposed pipeline route requires thatMid-America construct the pipeline across Baxter Pass. It is Mid-America's hope that the construction on Baxter Pass can take place before winter sets in on the pass. Md-America's proposed pipeline is located within an existing pipeline ROW. Mid-America has existing multiple line right easements in place for construction on private land within Garfield County. A complete listing of private landowners who own property upon which the pipeline will be constructed is submitted with this application, along with copies of the recorded easements. Mid-America has made application to the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department for road crossing permits on County Road 201. Those permits may be issued, subject to terms and conditions contained therein, upon issuance of a permit by the Garfreld County Planning Department. No construction will occur within the County right-of-way until the road crossing permits are issued. County Road 201 will be the only access to the construction area within Garfield County. There will be significant traffrc on this road during the construction of the pipeline and to a lesser extent, during the reclamation phase ofthe project Total construction time in Cmrfield County will be less than two weeks. Following construction, Mid-America will repair any darnage to CountyRoad 201. The Garfield County Road and Bridge Department has identifred a point on Mid-America's existing l0-inch NGL pipeline nearBaxterPass where the line may have been constructed too shallow- The Garfreld County Planning Department has requested that Mid-America address this issue as part of its application for a new Special Use Permit. Mid-America proposes to provide Garfreld County with cover depths for its existing line at each point where the line crosses the county road. This survey of the existing line will be conducted during construction ofMid-America's new line. If it is determined that the existing line is too shallow at any of the crossing points, Mid-America agrees to correct the problem. Mid-America requests, however, that any construction undertaken on the existing line be delayed until the new line is operational. This would allow Mid-America to re-route the flow of product to the new line while construction is undertaken to correct problems with the old line. Mid-America also provides its assurances to Crarfield County that the new line will be constructed in compliance with all Department of Transportation regulations with respect to line depth. Mid-America's Plan of Development, on file with the Garfield County Planning Departmenl contains emergency procedures to be used by Mid-America's contractor. The Plan of Development details i) the manual of emergency procedures, ii) the hazardous material spill containment plan and iii) the fire prevention and suppression plan. Emergency response procedures for the existing line are currently on file with the appropriate Garheld County agencies. Mid-America Pipeline Company Proposed Rocky Mountain Loop September 29, L998Page 3 Timing is critical for this project given the wildlife habitat areas that will be traversed by the pipeline in Cmrfield and other counties along the pipeline route. Elk and mule deer winter concentration areas have been identified along the pipeline route within Garfield County. Certain restrictions will apply to construction within these wildlife concentration areas located on public lands. On file in the office of the Crrfield County Planning Deparfrnent are the project's Environmental fusessment Plan ofDevelopment, and a complete set of route maps for each County traversed by the proposed pipeline. These documents contain details regarding the construction of the pipeline, reclamation plans, cultural resource and environmental surveys, noxious weed plan, fire prevention/suppression plans and the federal review process undertaken with respect to this project. Gven the significant advances in reclamation of pipeline right-of-ways, as evidenced by the Plan of Development, the existing pipeline ROW will be improved by this new construction. Reclamation efforts that are required on federal lands will be undertaken on all private lands within Garfield County. Mid-America will coordinate with the Garflreld County Planning Department regarding the re-seeding mixtures which will be applied to private lands. Mid-America Pipeline Company Proposed Rocky Mountain Loop September 29,1998Page 4 pRon! mcLncxlnil & 6aLDltFH MICF^EL E. McLACHtll{ MICXAEL . COLOMAN JEFFe Y ?. no8alila an(tr7|. tOGitia TAiEII PETEFSON. PAFALE6^t Ff,X N0. t 9?52595795 M c L a c h!g3.*..f"o^qffi f , LL c .: lro tu M^lN AV€NU€ iosT oFFlcE gOX 2270 ouRAN6o, coLof,ADo e1 302'227 O TELEPHOile (970r 25S't1747 FAC3lMlLc trTol 2te'37!X) oe-21-98 AB 99r4A P.0I Flcsrtuns fnrx:Yrrfl Datc: August 21, l99E Time:9:43 am r wf-D \2,"\e " /!F*ttr: .'^ff: " q+o 38> I To: ComPanY: Re: Total Pages iucluding this Page: Far< No: From: Client No: Commens: -Steve lZE:ck : AIso, Please give me a call with Yotu the letter. a pase(s'l (o?0) "'rR-1718 -Jeffery P- Robbins 4000 1 500 : Steve, pleasc provide the Tulsa' Oklatroma address for Mid-America Pipclinc' if you have it' comments, once you have had a chance to review ffi;;; * c 6- r6ds whi., ir r.o..cd bv .ht {rd'di6r pt'ttts" Y inrqrdcoisinradro,**1'Fffi"m;;1'1'-fl'ffffi TIII"HX'"H ililil;;h-1::ditt'4's'r(G9tnhi'Er{rru"t"r' ---6a rtlrn of t' dss'rstu i-fr; l!'L'r+*'cnua'rrmrr'dt*r'r';liff Clurrt --# gtidrur r fcl!ry hY XriL YLS ' NO FR0l'tt !tcLRCHLBH & 60LDilnH MICHAEL 5. MctlcHtAN TTIIC'IAET A. GOLDMAN JEFFEAY P. ROBBINS sH€FvL io6Erls "- -iJlt'Aif i' Mclachlan & Ctoldm,an, ATTORNEYS AT IJW l5o t/e MAIH /lvEl"uE ':. ?OST OFFICI ad 2210 DuRAN6o. coLonADo el 102'227 o tELEPHO]..E lp70t zr'-a7 17 ' E CSIMILE (9701 2tlrTto E MArt: LAwMCGLO@FROlmEn'Ngr August 21, 1998 LLC O o8-?L-28 bs.4a' .:.", T^TEN'ETENSON. PAE^LEG^L Ivlid-America PiPeline ComPanY Tulsa, Oklahoma Gary HarkeY Ivlid-America PiPeline ComPanY 135 East Ninth Strecg Suite A Drrango, Colorado El 301 Thomas P. Dugan, Esq- Dugan & Rasue 900 Main Avcnue, Suite A Durango. Colorado 81 301 Scott Barker, Esq. Holland & I{art 555 $Eventeenth Street' Suite 3200 Post Oflice Box t749 Dcnvcr, Colorado 80201 RE: Mid-Americe PiPeline ComPrnY Proposed fip.fi". through Le itate Couuty Our File No. 4900.1500 Gentlemen: The Board of counry commissioners of La Plata county, colorado, has received information that Mid-America pipeline company (,'luApco") has plans on constructing a pipeline from wyoming to New Mexjco, ponio* oi",ni.t *ill traveise La plata County. From comrnunications between MAPCO's representative, Gary Horf..ey'*itn the La Plata Colrnty Planning Departmenl-1nd 9" La ptata co'nty Roed & Bridge p.purtm.nr" it is _wident that there is the possibilray 9, N,lApco tloes not plan on suumiuing io .ppri.",ion for rhe proposed tand use nof does it plan on obtaining a La ifut Coooay t anJUse iit-i prior to .ommtnt*mcnt of constnrction of &c pipeline. Wc hope that the information we have received, is in error an4 assuming the project is still under consideration, that N4Apco is in the p."*; otpi"p"ri"g thc appropriatc applicatiol fol ".l33 ,se permit. Be advised, however, that eny a11emPt to consmrct bi operate a pipeline in La Plata E E- o E) DRAFT Page -2- August 21,1998 County without a County land use permit witl be in violation of thc County's land use regulations. Pursuant to the La Plata Couuty Land Use Code ("LPLUC"), the MAPCO project requires a Class lI lurd use permit, review'ed and approved by the Board of Corrnty Comrnissioners, prior to cornmencernent of any portion of the project. MAPCO is not allowed to construct, prqrars for constnrction or otherwise take any action on its pipeline project traversing La Plata County until it has obtained a Class II land use permit frorn La Plata Corurty. The La Plata County Planning Department discrrssed with MAPCO representatives in June the applicable land u-sc requirements and permits necsssary for the proposed pipeline. At that time, the Pl:uming Depanment inforrned N,IAPCO that it would take a minimum of two (2) months from the date of submittal of a complcte application to process the application for a Class tr land use permit. Despite this discussion and MAPCO's :rssurances that they would be submiaing an appropriate land use application. the Planning Departinent ha.s not received an application. On the contrary, recently our planning department, in conversation with Gary Harkey, learned that MAPCO may now attempt to initiate the project withour obtaining a County land use permit. Furthermore, the Corrnty Road and Bridge Depanrnent recently received requests from MAPCO for pcrmis to allow' consmrction in the County rights of way wtrich indicated a start date of August 3l, 1998. This request wss rcnrmcd to IvIAPCO by correspondence froru thc Rr:ad & Bridge Department explaining that no right-ot'-way permits would be issued untiI such time that a iand use permit had been applied aud obtained by MAPCO. If MAPCO attempts to construct or otherwise take action on the proposed new pipeline without Itrst securing the appropriate local land use permits from La Plata County, the County Anorneys' office has been instructed to take legal action as necessary to halt such acdvities. Legal action will be initiated if constnrction begins on the pipeline project in any county loeatcd in Colorado because ar-ty initiation of construction will be indicative of an imminent threat to construct iu this County without the requisite counry land use permits. The County will seek injunctive relief as necessary in order to halt thc project until such time that an appropriate land use permit has been reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. La Plata County requests that MAPCO address and rcply to the comments and concerns as raised herein by August 28, 1998. We would also welcome the opportunity to discuss this mattcr further with representativcs from MAPCO. On behalf of [,a Plata County, I will look forward to hearing from you. FRon, ncLnsHLnH e GoLDncH O r.n -r.'DHKfl t ga-2l-ge 'sg:41 ' P.A3 Page -3- August 2l,l99E Sincerely yours, Mclechlan & Goldman, LLC Jeffery P. Robbins Assistant La Plau CountY AttorneY JPRjeb copies to: Board of county cornmissioners of La Plata connty, colorado- Bob Brooks, La Plata Couuty Manager Joe Crain, La Plata County Planning Director Steve Zvrrck" San Miguel County Attomey Bob Slough- Montearma Cor:nty Attoruey James R. Beisel, Jr., Dolores County Anomey George E' Benner- Jr., Rio Blanco Counry Anorney Matrrice Lyle Dechant, Mesa County Attorney Don Deford, Garfield County Attorney flgp\ufl 'a9OO I 500\lcttclt!E20. gh o MAPCO o DRAFT August 24, t998 ,.: Scott S. Barker HOLLAND & HART LLP P.O. Box 8749 Denver, CO 80201-8749 Gary Harkey Project Manager - Permits Mid-America Pipeline Company 135 East Ninth Street, Suite A Durango, CO 81301 Dear Sirs: LETTER .8121198 Thomas Dugan Dugan & Rasure 900 Main Avenue, Suite A Durango, CO 81301 Paul Lookabaugh Team Leader-Rocky Mtn. Loop Project Mid-America Pipeline Company P.O. Box 21628 Tulsa, OK 7412t-1628 ' Re: Mid-America Pipeline Co. Rocky Mountain Loop Project Compliance with San Miguel County Land Use Regulations This office represents the San Miguel County, Colorado, Board of County Commissioners regarding the above referenced matter. Charlie Knox, San Miguel County Planning Director, has received a letter, dated August 6, 1998, from Ronnie Hobbs, Real Estate Services Administrator for the above referenced project. Mr. Hobbs' letter a<ivises that Mid-America ?ipeline Co. does not intend to comply with San Miguel County's Land Use Code which requires the issuance of a special use permit for the project prior to construction. Contrary to the assertions in Mr. Hobbs letter, according to the Planning Departrnent's documentation concerning the existing Mid-America natural gas liquids pipeline located in San Miguel County, the County Planning Commission's May 12, 1980 approval was limited to construction of a single pipeiine. No county land use approval was issued for a pipeline corridor at that time. Accordingly, commencement of construction in San Miguel County without having received County land use approval for the project will be considered to be a violation of the County's Land Use Code. Judge Sparr's July 9, 1998 Order regarding Montezuma County's resolution prohibiting new pipeline construction within designated parts of the County does not hold that the commerce clause of the United States' Constitution exempts the proposed pipeline project from county land use regulation. Compliance with San Miguel County's regulations does not impose an undue burden upon the proposed project. Mid-America began the BLM's process for project approval in January 1998. However, project personnel had no substantive contacts concerning the project with the County's planning staff until July 1998. It therefore appears that any delay in project construction which may result from compliance with the County's land use regulations is not due to San Miguel County. O MAPCO o IRAF'TLETTER - 8I2II98 D on July 9, 1998 the san Miguel county planning Departnent issued a "pre- Application Conference Summary" for the pipeline project to the Dugan & Rasure lawfirur. The "Summary" sets forth the Land Use Code's application, piocessing, and substantive requirements for the project. Under the County's regulitions pipelines are processed as a Public Utility Stnrcture Special Use which require both a riview and recommendation from the County Planning Commission and review and approval from the Board of County Commissioners following a duly noticed public meeting. Processing of a Special Use application requiring Planning Commission and Board review typically takes at least ten weeks from the date the Planning Departrnent certifies the submittal as complete. Should Mid-America Pipeline Company fail or refuse to obtain land use approval from San Miguel Counry prior to commencement of project construction the San Miguel County Board of Commissioners has directed this office to pursue appropriate legal action to compel compliance with the County's land use regulations. - 1'fr. project plan of Development and related documents indicate that construction is scheduled to start in late August 1998, upon receipt of project approval from the BLM. Accordingly, please advise this office by September 1, 1998 regarding whether or not Mid-America will obtain the required San Miguel County land use approval for the project prior to beginning consruction. Please be advised that should Mid-America commence construction of the Rocky Mountain Loop Project within any Colorado county which requires land use approval for the project without having obtained such approval, San Miguel County will deem such action as a refusal to obtain the necessary land use approval for the project from this County. Should you wish to discuss San Miguel County's position in ttris matter please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Your prompt aftention to this matter is appreciated. Very truly yours, Steven l. Zwick San Miguel County Attorney pc. BOCC Planning Jeff Robbins, Mcl-achlan & Goldman Don DeFord, Garfield County Attorney George Benner, Rio Blanco County Attorney Lyle Dechant, Mesa County Anorney Robert Slough, Montezuma County Attorney barkerl.let 2 tr' Project: Applicant: EA No: Lead BLM Office: BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT MID.AMERICA PIPELINE COMPANY ROCKY MOUNTA,IN LOOP PROJECT FINDING OF NO S]GNIFICANT IMPACT AND DECISION RECORD The Mid-America Rocky Mountain Loop Project Mid-Amer[ca Pipeline Company uT-UTSO-98-02 Utah State Office P.O. Box 45155 Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0155 (801) 53e4114 TNTR.DUGTT.N 1'o 1' '1*;1 '" i *"5 ri"" The Mid-America Pipeline Company (MAPL) proposes to exiand its'natu# gas iiquiOs transmission system _by mnstructing a 412-mile pipeline from Browns Park in Daggett County, lJtan to the existing Kutz Station in San Juan County, New Mexico, in order to tranifort an additiona] 45,000 barrels per day of natural gas liquids from the Rocky Mountain source region to mid- westem and Texas markets. The proposed pipeline would be constructed in an existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW) and would cross private, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Aurdau bf Reclamation (BOR), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands, and SouthLrn Ute Tribai Trust lands held in trust by the Bureau of lndian Affairs (BlA). The BLM, Utah State Office, is the designated lead agency for the project and the USFS is a cooperating agency. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT tlased on the environmental analysis documented in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Mid-America Rocky Mountain Loop Project, I have determined that the proposed action would not result in significant impacts on the human environment (as defined in 40 CFR 1SOB.14) and an Environmental lmpact Statement (ElS) is not required. This determination for a Finding of No Significant lmpact is based on the rationale discussed below, the imptementation of mi-tigation measures outllned in the EA, and the management practices outlined in the Plan of Develofiment for the selected route. DECISION The decision is to issue a ROW grant to Mid-America Pipeline Company (MApL) for the Mid- America Rocky Mountain Loop Expansion Project, as proposed (the eroposed Action). This grant is issued pursuant to theltrtineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 185) and the rules and regulaiions in 43 CFR 2880. The ROW grant includes the installation of 52 miles ol 12.T5-inch, l3dmiles of 10.75-inch, and 222 miles of 16-inch outside diameter pipe, a scraper trap at each of 10 existingpump stations, and 93 block valves. This decision applies to all federal lands inctuding public lands managed by BLM, U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation. The BIA will issue a right-of-way grant to MApCO for crossing the Southem Ute Tribal lands. The USFS, as a cooperating ageniy, nas concurred with 'rl this decision as documented in the attached letter. The decision to grant the ROW is an appealable action. The decision, unless a petition for a stay is approved, remains in full force and effect pending the cornpletion of the appeal process (43 CFR 2804.1(b)). This decision may be appealed to the lnterior Board of Land Appeals, Office of the Secretary, in accordance with the regulations contained in 43 CFR, part 4 and Form 1842-1 which is available at any BLM office. lf an appeal is taken, the notice of appeal must be filed in this office within 3O days from receipt of this decision. The appellant has the burden of showing that the decision appealed for is in error. lf anyone wishes to file a petition pursuant to the regulation 43 CFR 4.21 (58 FR 4939, January 19, 1993) or 43 CFR 2804.1 for a stay of the effectiveness of this decision during the time the appea I is being reviewed by the Board, the petition for a stay must accompany the notice of appeal. A Fotiti"'.' f.'r a "tay is required to show sufficicnt justifieatien based en the standards listed be+evi= Copies of the notice of appeal and petition for a stay must also be submitted to each party named in this decision, to the lnterior Board of Land Appeals, and to the appropriate Office of the Solicitor (see CFR 4.413) at the same time the original documents are filed with this office. Anyone requesting a stay has the burden of proof to demonstrate that a stay should be granted. Standards for Obtaining a StaY Except as otherwise provided by law or other pertinent regulation, a petition for a stay of a decision pending appeal shall show sufficient justification based on the following standards: 1) The relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied; 2) The likelihood of the appellant's success on the merits; 3) The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted, and 4) Whether the public interest favors granting a stay. RATIONALE FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFIGANT IMPACT AND DEGISION The Finding of No Significant lmpact and the decision to issue a ROW grant are based on information contained in the EA for the Mid-America Rocky Mountain Loop Project. The EA is available upon request at the BLM, Utah State Office at the address listed on the first page of this docurnent. The EA documents the process that was undertaken to analyze environmental impacts; this process is in accordance with 40 CFR 1500-1508. The process included public scoping meetings that were held between March 17 and 26, 1998, in Farmington, New Mexico; Durango, Dolores, and Grand Junction, Colorado; and Vernal and Moab, Utah. The process also included an evaluation of altematives to the proposed action, a description of the affected environment and an analysis of impacts, and consultation and coordination with affected agencies and other interested parties. A 30day public review period was held upon release of the EA in mid-July. An additional 30-day period was granted to interested parties to review the EA and prepare comments. Comments received during this 60-day period are available at the Utah State Office at the address listed above or at the BLM offices in Farmington, New Mexico; Durango, Grand Junction. and Meeker, and Moab and Vernal, Utah. BLM's response to these comments are included herein (Attachment A) along with conections and changes made to the EA as a result of- team review and public crmment (Attachment B). 2 Alternatives The EA considered alternatives to the proposed action and alternative routing scenarios. These altematives were eliminated from further consideration because they would havE resulted in greater impacts to the human environment than the Proposed Action. The alternatives and the rJasons they were eliminated from further consideration are discussed in more detail below. The No Action alternative was evaluated but would not meet the purpose and need of the project and could result in the implementation of an alternative to the pipetine that woutd have greater Impacts to the environment than the proposed action. These alternatives include: 1) Tranjport ofnatural gas liquids by truck, which would have greater transportation and safety impacts than theproposed action, 2) Construction of additional pump stations to support existing pipetines, whichwould have greater air quality impacts than the proposed action, 3) Construction of a series ofsmaller pipeline routes, which would result in higher construction costs and greater air qJality impacts due to the need for additional pump stations, 4) Construction of anotheipipeline in " n"*ROW' which would create new surface disturbance, and increase habitai and land usefragmentation, and 5) Convert another existing pipeline to natural gas liquid service, which couldresult in the construction of a new pipeline and the associated imp-acts. ' Routing alternatives that were considered but eliminated, include 1) TransColorado pipeline Corridor Alternative, 2) TransColorado-Disappointment Valley Alternative, 3) Mancos VatteyAlternatives (A and B), and 4) Montoya Route Variation. Th6se alternatives were consideredprtmarily to avoid private land to the greatest extent possible, however, none of these alternativesoffered a reduction in environmental impacts relative to the proposed action and thus wereeliminated from further consideration. lssues lssues were identified during the public scoping process and during the 60-day public reviewperiod. The BLM has determined that this pipeline project would not-cause "signiflcant', impaclsthat cannot be reduced to acceptable tevels by implementation of certain mitigation measures.These measures will be attached to the Notices to Pioceed as stipulations and were addressed inthe EA and the grant. Private property impacts were not found to be significant because the project will occur in anexisting ROW where certain impacts and limitations already exist. foi eiample, the existintpipelines in the RoW already preclude development of certiin permanent structures on privat6property such as buildings, sheds, and framed structures. Development of some structures in theRoW' such as fences, corrals, and irrigation equipment, will noi be limited, nor will annual andperennial crop production. There should be no or minimal impact on private property resale values,because the addition of a pipeline to the existing ROW does not signihcanly'alter thl existing uies.There are already pipelines within the ROW. Past and current problems with trespass, construction impacts, and lack of response to land ownercomplaints by pipeline companies were issues raised during scoping and by commenters on theEA. The basis of the pipeline company commitments to address t-hese isiues with the privatelandowner is the easement agreement. The private landowners and the pipelin" .oinp"nynegotiate the content of these agreements, and the Federal govemment does not'and cannof playa role in these negotiations. The BLM believes that the dispute between Mid-America and Montezuma County over resolutions regarding pipeline corridors and land use permitting authority does not constitute a significant impact to the human environment. lnterpretation or enforcement of localjurisdiction's land use policies or regulations is not a responsibility of the BLM in issuing a ROW grant. These processes are referenced in the EA (Table 1-2) but they are not, and can not be, a condition of the ROW grant. lmpacts to floodplains and wetlands were determined to not be significant due to mitigation including directional drilling and revegetation, replacement ratios for cottonwoods and willows, and expected rapid recovery of shrub and herbaceous vegetative cover in the majority of areas. The project has been authorized under the Natlonwide 404 Pernit program by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has responsibitity for issuing permits for construction in these areas. lmpacts to topography in the form of potential slope failure would be brought to a level of insignificance by specific design and construction commitments including drains, buttress, trench plugs, water bars, intensive reclamation, and installation of strain gauges to rneasure any slope movement. An estimated 2,500 acres of land disturbance would result frorn the project, of which a majority (generally 35 feet of the SO-foot wide ROW) woutd be within the previously disturbed pipeline ROW- These irnpacts are not considered significant because of enforceable reclamation requirements, the relatively small extent of impact in any one area, and the common and widespread occurence of the affected vegetative communities in the project area- lmpacts to soils would be rendered insignificant by construction and reclamation specifications in the POD, the implementation of which is a requirement of the ROW grant. lmpacts to wildtife are expected to be low to moderate due to construction in an existing utility corridor, conformance with construction constraints and seasonal closures, mitigation and reclamation requirements, and limited impacts and relatively rapid recovery and revegetation success in wetland and riparian areas which have relatively high wildlife values. lmpacts to species listed as endangered and threatened under the Endangered Species Act are considered to be less than significant due to a lack of habitat or documented presence in the area impacted by the project and the mitigation commitments by Mid-America where individuals or the listed species and/or their habitat may be affected. These cornmitments are contained in the Plan of Development (POD) which is made part of the grant and Notices to Proceed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field Office (with the cooperation of the Albuquerque, New Mexico and Grand Junction, Colorado field offices) has issued a Biologicat Opinion for this project, dated October 29, 1998. Because Mid-America must obtain project construction water from both the San Juan and Upper Colorado River systems, the Service has determined that depletions from these river systems would jeopardize the existence of four endangered fishes (Colorado pikeminnow or Colorado squaMish, razorback sucker, humpback chub, and bonytail chub). The Service then concluded that jeopardy to these species can be avoided by implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives included in the current recovery programs for the San Juan River and the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Service concluded that the project is "not likely to affect" the btack-footed fenet, southwestem willow flycatcher, and that the project would have "no effect" on the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and Mexican spotted owl. The conclusions of 'not likely to affect' and "no effect" for these species are predicated on appticant commltments to avoid construction during certain seasons, and to complete ground surveys for Gunnison's prairie dog in New Mexico prior to construction. 4 lmpacts to visual resources would be considered significant if the longterm effects of the proposed action would exceed BLM Visual Resource Management objectives or USFS Visual Quality Objectives (VOOs). The mitigation commitments in the POD would reduce long{erm impacts to levels consistent with these agencies'visual resource management standards. A relatively large project does not necessarily require an EIS for NEPA compliance. The test is impact significance. The proposed Mid-America project was frequently compared to the TransColorado pipeline project for which an EIS and Supplemental EIS were prepared. TransColorado is being built in an undeveloped pipeline corridor that will result in significant impacts to natural resources, which is not the case for the proposed Rocky Mountain Loop Project. The Rocky Mountain Loop project analyzed in the EA is proposed for an existing pipeline corridor. Because a project is located within or adjacent to sensitive human and natural resources does not automatically result in "far-reaching implications". The significance of impacts must be evaluated in the context of estimated resource losses over short- and long-term time frames as the result of project construction and operation, the risk of loss or injury of resources, and the mitigation opportunities available to reduce or avoid identified impacts. The concept of "controversy" must be placed in the context of the entire project irregardless of ownership or juisdiction; the overall public interest, and the intensity of impacts. The underlying issues that are at the root of the controversies associated with this project (private landowner compensation, adverse land use effects, personal inconvenience) have been acknowledged and evaluated in the analysis. Controversy alone does not constitute a basis for elevation of this EA to an EIS (40 CFR 1508.27). A more important criterion is the range of opportunities to reduce and avoid irnpacts to human and natural resources by decreasing the extent of new surface disturbance impacts, and to apply appropriate mitigation measures that protect existing resources and recover renewable resources that are temporarily removed or degraded. While it was suggested that mitigation should not be considered in assessing significance of impacts, mitigation is part of the proposed action and agreed to by the applicant in writing and is therefore to be considered in determining significance. The Council on Environmental Quality's "40 Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations" addresses this issue (Question 40): "...where the proposal itself so integrates mitigation from the beginning that it is impossible to define the proposalwithout inctuding the mitigation, the agency may then rely on the mitigating measures in determining that the overall effects would not be significant". Some pubtic comments on the EA suggested that the Mid-America pipeline proposal called for a region-wide EIS including all pipelines in southwestern Colorado and the San Juan Basin in northwestem New Mexico. Cumulative impacts have been summarized in section 4.3 of the EA, All of the pipelines in southwestern Colorado and the development in the San Juan Basin are beyond the smpe of prolects to be considered in the cumulative impacts analysis. BLM contends that the Mid-America project does not constitute a trigger for a regional NEPA EIS evaluation. Mitigation Measures The decision to issue a ROW grant is for constructlon and operation of the project as described in the Plan of Development for the Rocky Mountain Loop Project dated October 1998 (available from the BLM, Utah State Office) and additional mitigation measures identifled in the EA, BO, and grant. 5 Summary The proposed route will cause the least amount of impact to the environment. lmplementation of mitigation measures outlined in the Plan of Development and the EA will minimize impacts The proposed route willoccur in existing ROWs with previously disturbed areas, resulting in little new ground disturbance for the proposed project. ln addition, since the pipeline will be located in an existing ROW, no further permanent commitments of land to utitity use will occur. ', ,ln( odteTerry Catlin Utah State Office 6 Approved By: 8ENT BY: sAN JUAN NF.0G0 *oO0-2e-s8 l0:40; 9703851243 701 Camino del Dtrango, CO lll (97$) 247-4874 TTI' 185.12s7 801 539 4280; USI)I Bnretu of l.and [Irn:rgcmrnr San Juart Rr.sourcu r\reat'rt (970) 3s5-I.175 o Rio 30t #2t3 Ul^O.{, l'or.est Service Sln Juu - Rlo g3qn6s Nat[s561 ].oreslsIax (970) 385-114J File Codc: lg50 Route to: Subjcct: Mid-Aarcnca Pipelilc hojcct Tu : Ttrry Cadln, BLM Urah Stute Office Attn; Lavcrne Stcah Date: Octobcr 27, l99ll I havc revrewed tbc Environmcoral Assessmcnr (EA) .url plaa of Dcvelopuenl (pOD) tor rhe lvli<I-fuirefica pipelinc ProJEul, Thc Environntenht Assesment ts lirnrcd in scopc to analyzingi proposal to issuc ! Row gilr to .[. - :Y9:t+T.. Pip^eline.Cornpury (MAP(IO) for rhe Mid.Amaha nocr.i ptou,irain Loop project (RMLP). Sarr JuulNauonat Forcst (SIitlD concerns regurding the pipeline project ue accuratcly ourlinsd in the E{. App.ndi* n. Tu address the EA listcd and rimilar concerus. wc have csublishurl snvironmenral protection requiremens tbr pipe- linc-consmrcdo[, operadon and tbundonment on thc Sur Juan National Forest. Ttrisc raluircnrents uc inclurled ia tlre Junc- 1998, Rccord of Decisioo for the Tran.c.Colorarlo G.rs Trnnsmi.,{.sion Pnrjeu wtrictr is crrrrenrly lrnrler con- Slruction on Oe Forest. I am atuchirtg il srrhriet of these requirements as conditions for *rc SINF's concurreocc wih tbts projecu I hrve delead meesrres that are nor relevant rb the Rocky Mounrai-o Loop ProJecl I also recognize that oanv of thcse requircmeuLs arc rlrr:arJy liste<t in trc l(ApCo-RMLp EA and po6. ln addidon to tbe alrrchcd rtquiremenct, I also rlquest the fo[owing: Ccntining iemPorary use.sreBs to srcas prcviously tlrsrurbcrJ by thc exisrilg pipeline- hohrbrung trcc culting unless permirred by the Foresr Service Aurhorized Ofticrr. l-ruritrng :rizr: uf ttrging arcas io a sizc pentrittcd by thc Authorized Otticcr during cunsrusliun. Orlrcrrvisc saSin8 areas locaud on t}rc National Fores( shall b€ no luger than proviclcd for in Appcndix B of rhe POD. Contlnlng con$rucllon acuvlues to daytlgbr bours a.ud probibiung weekend consmrcdoo wihin 12 milc or' Tugcr liee Carnpground druing the season lbe Campgrou.od rs open. Delrying pipctinu coossucuon activiries on tre SINF until 1999 spriny'sumrncr dry our untess povided tbr by thc Auhorized OfEc<. Spring/sr.rnurer 1,999 construction shall commence at 0rc discretion of tbe Aurho- rized Otllcer when ground condidon.s permit tor uE purpo.Te of envhonnental protecdon, Constnrctron $ball bc comptctcd no Irlct rban Nuvembcr 15. 1999. Physically blocking the pipctiue right of wry (ROW) ond temporary use areiu (TUA's) uring bouldcn or othr:r nilural barriers upos construction completioo or shurdown for the purpose ol closing Oe ROW and ru. sociared TUA's ro motorized traffrc. On USFS roads" allowiog r maxiraurn of l -inch ruLr on cxisting aggregste surtaced foads or rnarlr rhlt ruquirc rurfrcing grrior to consntsdon, No damage will be rllowed on pavsd rord-s- On narive sut'aced roads rhe iunounl of permissible runiog sball be determined oa a.site-specific bayis by the authr:rizcd oflicer. Otr the collStnrclio! ROw, rparng wiI bc re.sricted to a moxlmurn 4 in<tes or us otberwi"se specifled by the Aur]ro- rized Ofhccr. (-ilrtng for the Land nnd gcpving Pcolrle sENT BY: SAN JUAN r.tFr0Go S0; JS-Se lO:41; s703851243 ->leor 53e 4260; wirh ad(tpli0n oltbe atlached altl abovu snvironurcntal protcttion meiuurcrr u,nd those contained in tie EA aad POt). I coocut rvith fre Agency Pret'ered Alternadve. I look forwud to workiag witlr your offu:e tluring project iupleurcutatiun. Sincercly, /1 --\ ;//r,-*-*-o ./. fbz*,"" // c/('vIN N. JOYNER lnf- Forest Supavisor.Jf Snr Juul Ficlrl Oflicc MEnager Enclosure: Arrachntent I #3t3 Attachment A Mid-America Rocky Mountain Loop Project EA Response to Comments October 1998 The Mid-America Rocky Mountain Loop Project EnvironmentalAssessment (EA) and preliminary Finding of No Significant lmpact (FONSI) were released on July 13, 1998 by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Utah State Office. A public comment period was established ending on August 11, 1998. The comment period was subsequently extended to August 18, 1998. ln responsL to a specific request, additional time was granted to interested parties to prepare their comments through September 18, 1998. Fiftyone comment letters were received. The letters were submitted by mail, via facsimile machines, or e-mail. Table 1 lists each comment letter received. The comment letters are available from the BLM Utah State Office. Several comments included suggestions regarding the EA text; these suggestions ranged from additional data to be considered to conections and edits to text. These cornments were considered and a "Changes and Corrections to the EA" document was prepared and is included with the Decision Record. Comments on the process, sufficiency, and conclusions of the NEPA process were also received. These comments have been grouped into major topics and are addressed here. Specific comments are also addressed and referenced below. Table 1. Comment Letters and Signatories #Organization Signatory Date 1 San Juan County Commission, Utah Bill Redd 7t27t98 2 lndividual Max Krey 7t31t98 3 Colorado Plateau Mtn-Bike Trail Assn.Y.V. Willett B/3/98 4 Utah Department of Transportation Lynn Zollinger 8/3/98 5 Utah Department of Transportation Lynn Zollinger 814t98 6 U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service - New Mexico Jen nifer Fowler-Propst 8/6/98 7 La Plata County, Colorado Nancy D. Lauro 8/6/98 8 Big West Oil Company Rob Garner 8111t98 o lndividuals Clifford & Lenora Smith 8l12ts8 10 Grand County Historic Preservation Commission Lloyd M. Pierson 8112t98 11 lndividuals Glen & Ann Humiston 8/13/98 12 San Miguel County, Colorado Charlie Knox 8/1 3/98 13 Santarelta Law Office, LLC for Rocky Mountain Pipeline Trades Councit Joseph M. Santarella Jr.8/13/98 14 lndividuals Joyce Berger and 68 signatories th4lg8 15 Amoco Pipeline Company Sandy Medley-Perry 8114198 16 lndividuals Davin Montoya 8t14t98 17 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Walt Donaldson 8/1 4/98 18 lndividual Bob Cotgan 8114198 19 Phillips Pipeline Company Brian E. Bean 8117198 20 lndividual Dave Petillo 8117198 21 Rio Blanco County Commissioners, Colorado Donald L. Davis 8117t98 22 lndividuals Eddie & Glenna Oliver 8117198 23 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Utah Reed E. Harris 8117198 24 Montezuma County Commissioners, Colorado G. Eugene Story, Kent Lindsay, Glen Wilson 8117198 25 KN Energy Robert E. Justice 8117198 26 Montoya Sheep and Cattle Company Stella Montoya 8117198 27 Mesa Verde Elk Ranch Ron & Regina Williams 8/1 8/98 28 San Juan Citizens Alliance Dr. Paul Bendt 8/1 8/98 29 Santarella Law Office, LLC for Rocky Mountain Pipeline Trades Council Joseph M. Santarella Jr.8/18/98 30 Lazy H Ranch Roland Hoch 8/1 8/98 31 Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance W. Herbert McHarg 8/1 8/98 32 Daggett County, Utah Chad L. Reed 8/18/98 33 Western Area Power Administration James E. Tomsic 8/1 8/98 34 Flying J lnc.Jeff Uttey 8/18/98 35 lndividuals Glen E. Humiston and Dixie D. Robbins 8t20t98 36 lndividual Rodney Oliver no date 37 KN Energy Richard E. Kaup 8121198 3B lndividual Bob Colgan 8121t98 39 Colgan Livestock Bob Colgan 9/9/98 40 lndividual Marty Robbins 9/1 0/98 2 41 lndividual Rodney Oliver 9t12t98 42 La Plata County, Colorado Nancy D. Lauro 9114t98 43 lndividual Rick Oliver no date 44 lndividuals Glen & Ann Humiston 9/15/98 45 Lazy H Ranch Roland Hoch 9/1 5/98 46 lndividual Bob Colgan 9/16/98 47 lndividual Jack Scott 9/16/98 48 Weaselskin Corporation William R. Thurston 9/16/98 49 Robbins Ranches Ralph E. & Dixie Robbins 9/16/98 50 lndividuals Ken & Donna Robbins 9t17t98 51 Santarella Law Office, LLC for Rocky Mountain Pipeline Trades Council Joseph M. Santarella Jr.9/18/98 Purpose and Need Several commenters (letters 8, 1 1, 19, and 34) suggested that either the project purpose and need was inadequate or the real purpose of the project was to allow shipment of refined petroleum products into the Wasatch Front market. Questions about adequacy focused on lack of stated commitments by producers to ship and customers to receive and future production estimates including the potential for declining gas production in the project source areas. The Rocky Mountain pipeline expansion proposal was made in response to shipper capacity in the region and customer demand as determined by Mid-America based on public and proprietary infoimation. BLM NEPA Handbook states that 'for externally initiated proposals, the purpose and need generally reflects what the applicant intends to accomplish by the proposed action, e.g., to transport and sell natural gas to customers." (BLM Handbook H-1790-1, Chp.V.e.1.). lt is not necessary to specifically identify potential suppliers and customers to establish a purpose andneed. Mid-America's willingness undertake the expenditures necessary to plan, permit and construct the project is a significant substantiation of the need for the project. Letter I contends that natural gas production rates are flat or dectining and therefore, the proposed project is not viable. Maximum flow rates for the proposed system are based on recovering ethane from the naturalgas stream. Ethane recovery is based on both BTU net back values and dLmands for ethane, hence it is somewhat independent of absolute production. The project proposal in the application submitted to BLM in January, 1998 included a 1O-inch and 12-inch pipeline. ln scoping, input was received that full consideration should be given to building the largest capacity pipeline that is feasible to minimize the need to construct additional pipelinei in the future. ln response, Mid-America re-evaluated their design and proposed expanding to 10.75, 1?.75 and 16.75 inch pipe. The resulting capacity would allow a total of 120,000 banels-per day to be transported in new 16.0 inch line thereby potentially freeing the existing line for other service. Commenters (letters 8 and 34) suggest that a purpose of the proposed pioject is to use the potential capacity of the existing pipeline as part of a system to move refined petroleum products to the Wasatch Front market. Such a system would necessarily include other components beyond the cunent or expanded Mid-America system. Williams Companies, which acquired Mid- America in March, 1998, and others including Phillips Pipeline Company are cunently evaluating systems to transport refined product to the Wasatch Front, but none has yet to make a determination on its feasibility or submit an application to BLM or other entities for such a project. lf a petroleum products pipeline system including the existing Mid-America pipetine were proposed by Williarns or others, it would be subject to environmental compliance requirements including, but not limited to, NEPA. Letter 51 suggested that it is reasonably foreseeable that Mid-America may seek to expand the proposed project in the future. Mid-America has disclosed its purpose and need for this project, which is to construct and operate a natural gas liquids pipeline. At this time the BLM has no basis to evaluate an "expansion" of this project as a foreseeable action that must be included in the cumulative analysis. Letter 2 expressed support for the purpose and need for the project, citing benefits to the state and county governments in the form of increased revenue and suggesting that the project is an appropriate use of the public domain. Project Alternatives Commenters stated that a full range of altematives has not been considered. Additional suggested alternatives include increasing pumping capacity, a series of partial pipeline loops, and other pipeline projects (letters 15, 19, 25,U,44,49, and 51). The installation of additionalpump stations would exc€ed the safe operating limits of the current system. ln addition, while the short-term capital cost of additional pump stations would be lower than a pipeline loop, life cycle costs include increased air emissions and excessive velocities in the system making it impractical without increasing costs to shippers. Hydraulic case analysis indicated that the loop project would provide the lowest life rycle cost and highest efficiency of all options. Details from this analysis have been included in the "Changes and Conections" Document. Partialloop systems between existing pump stations were evaluated but they would not provide the desired total capacity of 120,000 barrels per day. AMOCO (letters 15 and 50) has just made application to the Wyoming Public Service Commission for a 40,000 banels per day system including the reversal of existing lines and construction of new facilities. AMOCO has not made application to the BLM for this proposed project. The proposed system would move natural gas liquids from the Rocky Mountain Region to the Midwest and Texas. KN Energy (letters 25 and 37) references a similar potential pipeline project extending from southwestem Wyoming to Kansas. While there may be technical issues associated with additional transportation demands that the proposed AMOCO systern would put on existing Mid-America pipelines from Conway to Hobbs, Texas which would make these projects infeasible, the AMOCO and KN projects are not considered as reasonable alternatives because they were not identified during or after the pubtic scoping process and they are not defined projects which are the subject of a forrnal or preliminary application or substantive informal discussions with the BLM. lf these projects are proposed in the future, they will be subject to NEPA compliance which would include consideration of the Rocky Mountain Loop Project as a potential contributor to cumulative impacts. A commenter (letter 19) referenced the Rock Springs Eastern Altemative Extension on Figure 1 .1. This alternative was considered and rejected and is addressed as a altemative concept in section 2.4.1 Altematives Considered but Eliminated, System Modifications. The alternative across the Navajo and Ute Reservations referenced in section 1.11.2 of the EA would bypass the Mid-America lgnacio Plant which is a principal shipper on the system and does not meet the prolect purpose. Several commenters suggested that there was inadequate analysls of alternatives considered but rejected (letters 18, 19,24,25,34,44,47,49, and 51). Alternativeswhich were notcanied forward for evaluation in the EA were rejected based on their inability to meet the project purpose and need and/or extent of anticipated environmental impacts. Letter 18 suggests that the Disappointment Valley Alternative should be fully evaluated because it would impact less private lands than the proposed action. This alternative was rejected because of greater length and associated impacts than the proposed action, the location outside an existing utility corridor on Federal lands, and additional river crossings (e.9., the Dolores River, at which the crossing location has steep slopes and slope stability issues). The reduced effects to private lands were not considered an adequate offset when compared to other resource impacts and the alternative was not considered further. Letter 51 stated that technical and cost analysis regarding the System Modifications Alternatives was lacking. Technical and cost analysis summaries have been included in the EA Changes and Corrections document. Building additionalpump stations was eliminated as an altemative primarily because of system operational constraints and costs. Mid-America has estimated that the cost of constructing new pump stations, modifying existing stations, and maintaining the new and existing stations would be 11 million dollars more than constructing a new pipeline. The major sources of costs for a pump station addition/modification scenario are the cost of power to run the stations (42 percent of the total cost) and the cost of maintenance (27 percent of the total cost). By contrast, the rnaintenance cost for a new pipeline represents approxirnately one percent of the overall cost of constructing a new loop pipeline. Proposed Action Letter 31 suggested an increased pipe size in the northern section of the project and support for use of an existing conidor. The pipe size for the northern portion of the project was determined based on NGL shipping requirements and the lack of other foreseeable shipping requirements for other petroleum-based liquids north of Thompson. Letters 9, 32, and 34 inquired about how NGL would be transported from Rock Springs, Wyoming to Brown's Park in Dagget County, Utah. To clarify, the terminus at Brown's Park is at a block valve. The pipe north of the valve site is a 12-inch pipe with a higher maxirnum operating pressure than the pipelines to the south. The existing 12-inch pipe is capable of delivering design flows to the terminus of the proposed pipeline at Brown's Park. Other commenters noted that Mid-America is pursuing multiple line rights easements with some land owners and in other cases is proposing to utilize an assignment of existing easements held by Northwest Pipeline across private land and that these actions are a deviation from the proposed action presented and evaluated in the EA. The BLM would not be granting rights to private lands, those rights are acquired from private land owners. The proposed action discussion in the EA does not specifically describe what easement rights will be acquired in what areas, but the EA analyzes the environmental consequences of pipeline construction across the private lands. Letter 51 inquired as to how the various seasonal construction constraints will be addressed in construction of the project. lt is the BLM's interpretation that project construction activities must conform to the seasonal constraint windows that have been identified in the EA, BA, BO, and POD. As a consequence, there would likely be some segmentation of construction activity to meet the seasonal windows. This segmentation would be controlled by incrementat Notices to Proceed issued by the localjurisdictional offices. ln the event that a project construction activity overlaps with a seasonal constraint, Mld-America may request a waiver of the constraint. However, granting of any waivers would be subject to approval by the BLM and the USFWS. Several commenters (letters 47,48, and 51)state that there was no evaluation of the specific impacts of the potential work camp in the Baxter Pass area. On page 4-68 of the EA it is stated that, "Any construction camp would be located on private land, with self contained water and wastewater treatment facilities. Garbage would be disposed of at appropriate disposal sites, and electricity would be from available commercial sources or portable generators." ln general, Mid- America would be required to pick up all construction-related garbage in the pipeline ROW (letter 9). Mid-America has since decided against a construction camp in the Baxter Pass area. Letter 51 noted correctly that it is inaccurate to state that the Mid-America pipeline loop would located entirely within an existing 50 foot ROW (page 4€9), since the permanent ROW is less than this width in certain locations. Based on input from Mid-America, the length of ROW where the existing permanent ROW is less than 50 foot is 27.9 miles of the total 412-mile ROW. lmpact Significance and FONSI A number of commenters suggested that impacts of the proposed action were significant, that a Finding of No Significant lmpact conclusion was not justified and that an EIS should be completed (lettersS, 11,13, 14, 16, 18, 19,22,24,25,26,27,28,30,34,35,38,39, 40,44,45,47,48,49, 50 and 51). Specific areas where commenters felt impacts were or may be significant included private land issues, land use, floodplains and wetlands, topography, soils, vegetation, wildlife, endangered and threatened. species, and visual resources. Others felt that the magnitude of the project and implications for the region and the locale or its proximity to cultural resources, parks or ecologically important areas required an ElS. The controversy associated with the project was also cited as a reason for completing an ElS. ln response to these @mments, the reader is referred to the lssues section in the Rationale for the Finding of No Significant lmpact. County and State Permits Some commenters (letters 1, 4, and 5) simply requested that local and state permits be acquired and appropriate coordination take place prior to construction. Other commenters (letters 7, 12,21, 24, and 42) expressed concem that, while the EA summarizes County land use plans and permit requirements that pertinent to pipeline eonstruction (Table 1-2), Mid-America has failed to initiate the county permitting process. Some commenters asked that a Decision Record and/or ROW grant not be issued by the BLM pending issuance of the required county permits. The purpose of Table 1-Z ol the EA is to disdose the relationship of the proposed project to non-federal policies, plans, and programs. The proposed BLM ROW grant applies only to Federal lands. lt is not BLM's responsibility to enforce local requirements. Local permitting issues should be resolved through interaction between the project proponent and the localjurisdiction. Letters 11. 14, 18, 19.23,?4,44, and 51 referenced the Montezuma Countyresolution banning additional pipelines within the Mancos Valley utility corridor. The Montezuma County resolution has been determined by a federal court to be unenforceable. After the EA was issued, Montezuma County approved utility siting regulations which would be applied to this project. The BLM is required under the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) (Section 2O2.Cg ) to provide early pubtic notice of its actions, and to coordinate with local officials to the extent practical. lt is not BLM's responsibility to insure consistency with new local siting regulations. BLM does not believe that the opposition of Montezuma County to the selected route means that the impacts of the pipeline will be significant. ln addition, BLM concludes that the selected route is the most environmentally sound route for the pipeline. Private Land and Other Land Use lssues Private landowner concerns are discussed in Section 1.11.1 Private Lands of the EA, which provides responses to comments received during scoping; the expected impacts to private lands and their uses are described in Sections 4.2.22.7 Private Property, 4.2.22.8 Natural Resources and Crop Production, 4-2.23lmpacts to Transportation, 4.2.24lmpacts to Land Use, and 4.2.25 lmpacts to Public Safety. Letters 11,14, 18, 36, 41,44,46,47,48, and 50 cite inconsistencies between the language presented in the EA and that provided in MAPCO's easement contracts, concern over offered easement purchase prices, lack of consideration of private lands in the analysis, and general protection for private land owners. An easement contract describes the business relationship between the pipeline company and the individual landowner. The commitments made on behalf of either party are negotiated, agreed upon, and formalized within the easement contract. Because the terms of this contract are between the individual and the pipeline company, it is beyond the authority of the BLM and, as such, beyond the smpe of this document to analyze how these private contracts are consummated and/or their value. The use of and impacts to private lands have been considered in the evaluation of altematives and in the analysis of impacts of proposed action. As stated in the EA, the construction and mitigation requirements in the POD are applicable to private lands as well as Federal and can be included in the easement contract per negotiations between the land owner and Mid-America. However, as noted in the EA, the Federal government cannot enforce a performance bond on private lands. Letters 11, 16, 18,27,30, and 41 reference land use limitations associated with the pipeline rights- of-way on private property. Similarly, leller 22 expresses concern over crop losses resulting irom pipeline construction. Compensation for land use limitations and losses are to be negotiated between Mid-America and private land owners on an individual basis through the ealement contract. As such, these matters are beyond the authority of the BLM and the scope of this document. Because these impacts may be compensated, they are not considered significant impacts to the human environment over the project as a whole. Letters 14, 16, 18, 26, 27,35,38, 41, 43, and 44 comment on the different rates applied to the aquisition of rights-of-way on private versus federal and tribal lands. Again, these rates are based on rnarket forces and, to the extent they are negotiated with private landowners on an individual basis, are beyond the scope of this analysis. Tribal lands are not subject of condemnation. BLM cannot force adoption of certain rates for easernent contracts. One commenter (letter 44) stated that an EIS would provide greater protection for private land owners. The same constraints on action by the BLM with respect to private lands apply regardless whether an EA or EIS is completed for the project. One commenter (letter 51) questioned whether reseeding on private lands may be subject to National Resources Conservation Service requirements. The NRCS has not been contacted concerning reseeding requirements on private land in the context of the Conservation Reserve Program for this EA. tt is logicat to assume that landowners will follow reseeding specifications mandated by the NRCS if there is a formal agreement between the landowner and NRCS related to such specifications. Letter 51 questioned whether consent from the Southern Ute Tribe has been obtained for the project to cross tribal lands. lt is expected that authorizations from the Southern Ute Tribe wilt be received in the same time frame as the BLM ROW grants. No comments were received during scoping, or during the EA review period that would suggest that the Tribe had specific objections to the Proposed Action route requiring the consideration of an alternative route segment. The proposed pipeline ROW on tribal lands was surveyed for threatened and endangered plants and noxious weeds. No resources were found along this segment of the ROW that wananted detailed discussion in the EA. lmpacts and Resource Analysis One commenter (letter 51) suggests that the EA fails to adequately distinguish between the impacts of the proposed project from other similar projects, including the original Mid-America pipeline and the TransColorado project. The other projects that share the same utility conidor have been identified, and general estimates of the utility corridor width are provided in the EA in section 1.12 Related Projects. The Mid-America project has been differentiated from adjacent projects by estirnates of additional natural vegetation that would be removed if the Mid-America project is located on the outer edge of the existing utility corridor. The TransColorado project has been acknowledged as a cumulative project, and the locations where the two projects overlap have been described. The impacts identified in this EA are always considered in the context of the conditions within an existing utility conidor (baseline). The cumulative impacts are the incremental expansion of this existing utility corridor, and their importance depends upon the resources affected. The resources that BLM has identified as experiencing cumulative impacts are described in EA Section 4.3 Cumulative lmpacts. Wildlife and Vegetation Letter 17 states that the EA was weak in its coverage of potential impacts to the northern sage grouse and remmmends that the project mmply with 'Guidelines for Maintenance of Sage Grouse Habitats' by Braun et al. (1977)where construction would occur within sage grouse habitat. As stated in the EA, no human activity effects on breeding northern sage grouse are anticipated, based on the cunently proposed construction schedule. However, [f construction were extended into the spring of 1999, Mid-America would coordinate with the appropriate jurisdictional agencies on protection of breeding and nesting sage grouse, including the northern species. These protection measures could include pre-construction surveys to determine the potential presence of active leks within the Project area, avoidance of any identified lek site during the appropriate breeding season, and the implementation of a maximum seasonal constraint period between March 1 and July 15 within a Z-mile buffer around any identified lek slte for protection of breeding hens. These measures would be in accordance with Braun et al. (1977). However, a permanent restriction within 2 miles of an active lek would not be warrented, based on the short-term nature of the Project (i.e., one breeding season) and the minimal amount of suitable breeding and nesting habitat that would be affected as a result of Project construction. Language to reflect this has been added to the Addendum to the EA. Letter 18 contends that the EA is lacking in sufficient analysis of potential impacts to wildlife and plants and that little or no actual field work was performed in this regard. Extensive field work to assess potential impacts to biological resources was conducted for this project. Technical reports describing this work may be found in the Administrative Record. Letter 6 states that the EA adequately addresses potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources and measures to mitigate unavoidable impacts. However, Letters 6 and 17 both express concern over the adequary of a 1:1 revegetation ratio, particularly where the pipeline would impact riparian vegetation. Letter 6 provides a preferred ratio along with various other measures designed to increase revegetation success in riparian areas. These suggested changes have been incorporated into the EA and appear in the Changes and Corrections Document. Threatened and Endangered Species Letter 51 raised questions regarding the adequacy of the analysis for Parish's Alkali Grass, Utes- Ladies Tresses, and Black Footed Fenet. The determination that the Parish's alkali grass was not present along the pipeline ROW in northern New Mexico was not based solely on the review of the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program. An expert on this species, Arnold Clifford, was consulted on the potential for the occurrence of this species along this segment of the pipeline route. Mr. Clifford, a consulting botanist, also conducted threatened and endangered plant surveys along the southern portion of the Mid-America route from Kutz Station in San Juan County, New Mexico to the vicinity of Dove Creek in Dolores County, Colorado. During 1998, Mr. Clifford discovered Parish's alkaligrass along the TransColorado Pipeline route in San Miguel County, Colorado which represented the first known occurrence of this species in Colorado. ln summary, the determination to eliminate this species from detailed field investigations was not based solely on a literature review, but also was based on the input from a knowledgeable botanist with direct experience with this species and its habitat. ln populations of long-lived perennial plants consisting of individuals of different ages, it is likely that some individuals of the Ute Ladies' Tresses would bloom in any particular year. Other considerations in the search for this species is habitat suitability. Field investigations conducted for this species were completed by two botanists who have seen this species and its habitat on prior projects. These botanists visited a known population near Vemal (where Ute Ladies' Tresses were found blooming), and consulted with local BLM and NPS botanists (Jean Nitchske-Sinclear, and Tamara Naumann) who are familiar with this species. An examination of wetlands and drainages crossed by the pipetine between the Green River floodplain at Jensen and the terminus of the line at Brown's Park did not yield any orchid individuals, nor any highly suitable habitats for this species. Appropriate mitigation for this species (if it were found) would be to avoid the population by re-aligning the pipeline, and then protecting the population from disturbance during construction by installing warning flagging, and by environrnental inspector monitoring. The preliminary conclusion that the black-footed fenet "would not likely be adversely affected" was reasonable because of the extreme rarity of this animal, the lack of recent records from the vicinity of the pipeline route, and the local disturbance caused by pipeline construction retative to the very large prairie dog colony extent. This conclusion was supported by negative findings from noctumal ferret surveys completed in August 1998. The EA states that the BLM made the commitment to protect ferrets in the unlikely event that they were found. This project-specific commitment is unrelated to the USFWS fenet reintroduction program. Letter 51 contends that the preliminary conclusions concerning effects on threatened and endangered fishes reached in the FONSlwere fatally flawed because of reliance on "unenforceable and unarticulated mitigation measures'. The BLM disagrees with this contention. The major considerations that the BLM relied upon to reach this conclusion included: 1) the non-toxic nature of the drilling mud (natural bentonite) (see Material Safety Data Sheet included in the POD Attachment D, Drilling Contingency Plan); 2) the applicant commitment to a horizontal drilling contingency plan that provides criteria for detecting, and responding to seepage incidents; 3) specific mitigation measures developed to prevent entrainment of fish larvae and impingement of fish adults during hydrostatic test withdrawal; and 4) the requirement that hydrostatic test water be discharged in accordance with state NPDES standards, and be discharged and filtered on flat ground or dry drainages away from live streams. Letter 5't contends that hydrostatic testing is not minor due to depletion and potential contamination. The basis for the determination that withdrawal effects to fish species would be minor is based on a general comparison of the withdrawal rate for hydrostatic testing with the flows in the rivers at the time hydrostatic testing takes place. Based on a review of recent hydrographs for the Green River at Jensen, the Colorado River near Moab, and the San Juan River at Bloomfield, it is apparent that minimum flows in these rivers have not fallen below 1000 cubic feet per second (cfs) on the Green River, 2000 cfs on the Colorado River, and 500 cfs on the San Juan,.since the Colorado River system dam-building era that began in the early 1960's. Based on a withdrawal rate of about 5 cfs for hydrostatic testing, the instantaneous depletion of these larger rivers would be one percent or less. Mid-America does not intend to directly discharge hydrostatic test water into rivers and streanrs. The water would be discharged to filtration impoundment on an upland site, or within a dry dralnage, where filtration would also be implemented prior to release. As stated in the EA and BA, discharged hydrostatic test water must meet the NPDES standards for Utah (no hydrostatic test water would be discharged to the surface water system in New Mexico). As discussed above, hydrostatic test water would not be directly discharged to streams and rivers, and there are no water temperature issues related to the discharge (during hydrostatic testing, water is compressed, but is not heated as part of this process). Letter 51 contends that the proposed directional drilling under rivers may result in impacts to endangered fish and that there are no alternative plans for crossing these rivers if drilling is not successful. The Mid-America project POD includes a horizontaldrilling contingency plan to insure that no, or only very small quantities of drilling mud would be released into the water column above the river bed. There is no way to guarantee that there will be no release of drilling mud into the water column, but the risk is considered acceptable considering the overall success of this technology at many locations across the United States, and the opportunity to avoid streambed disturbance from an open-cut trenching method. To insure that threatened and endangered fish adults and juveniles would not be affected by a short term release of drilling fluid into the water column, Mid- America has agreed to a seasonal constraint measure that would not allow directional drilling under the Green River at Jensen or the Colorado River at Moab from mid-June through mid-August to avoid effects on spawning squaMish and drifting squawfish larvae. Mid-America has investigated prior attempts to directionally drill the San Juan River in New Mexico to avoid the dritling fluid release problems associated with these prior projects. Mid- America intends to extend its drilling operation at a much greater depth than previous drilling operations on the San Juan River near Mid-America's crossing location. This additional depth increases the amount of surface over the pipeline, and consequent reduced risk of dritling fluid migration upward. ENSR staff were interviewed who were involved in water quality and fish tissue monitoring after the TransWestern directionat dritl failure. The following is their 10 recollection of the events that took ptace. The horizontal drilling operation lost circulation, and drilling fluid was released into the water column from seepage. No fish kills resulted from this initial seepgge incident. lt was then decided to grout the bore to restore circulation and seal up the bore. This attempt failed, and grout was released into the water column. The grout was toxic to fish, and a fish kill occuned in the immediate vicinity of the seepage point. As a result of this incident, the directional drilt was abandoned, and the crossing was completed with an open-cut crossing. Water quality and fisheries monitoring in the river was not cpnducted during the initial drilling operation; an intensive monitoring prograrn was initiated after the horizontal drilling failure. Mid-America has not proposed an open cut crossing method for oossing the major rivers (Green, Colorado, and the San Juan). Failure of the directional drilling program at any of these river crossings would result in major project delays (Mid-America would have to amend its COE 404 Application, and BLM would have to reopen consultation with the USFWS). Letter 51 states that the EA does not support the conclusion that impacts to fish from a pipeline rupture would be minor. Based on a literature review on the effects of a leak or rupture from natural gas pipetines on aquatic resources, no post-spill studies were found that addressed this topic. Therefore, the approach used in the MAPCO EA was to evaluate impacts of a potential spilt or leak by describing the fate and toxicology of the transported products. As stated'on EA page 4-38 paragraph 6, the majority of any spilled products would rapidly volatilize to the gaseous pnasl. To provide additional information about the fate and transport of potentially sfiilea or ieaked products, the following insert was added to the end of the last sentence in paragraph 6 "(see discussion on page 4-8 for fate and transport of products)". The discussion in Section 4.2.3.2 (lmpacts to Surface Water Quality) was based on information provided in the following publication: Verschueren, K. 1983. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicats. Van Nostrand Rheinhold company, New York, 1310 pp. This reference was cited in the EA. Letter 51 inquires as to if directional drilling at the White River has been considered to protect nearby critical habitat and whether impacts would occur at the mouth of the Mancos River or to roundtail chub (a non-listed species) in the La Plata River. Directionaldrilling was evaluated as an option for the White River, but the presence of bedrock and other geologic fictors made open-cut trenching the preferred method. A new protection measure hhs beln added to the irlan of Development to avoid impacts to migrating Colorado squawfish in the White River. The measureis as follows: 'Potential impacts to migrating Colorado squaMish in the White River would be avoided by scheduling open-cut trenching between mid-October and June 1ggg." This measure was developed from discussions with Bob Muth, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City,Utah. The EA states that approximately 9,600 square feet of disturbance would occur within designated critical habitat for Colorado squaMish. No critical habitat or existing individuals for the other three endangered species are found at the proposed White River crossing. Razorback sucker occasionally occur in the lower portion of the White River. Due to the considerable distance between the proposed crossing and razorback occupied habitat, sedimentation impacts would be considered minor. Any potential increases in sedimentation would not be expected to affect the mouth of the Mancos River (possibly inhabited by Colorado squavrrfish in the ipring) or ' the New Mexico portions of the La Plata River (roundtail chub) due to the considerable distince from the crossings to these downstream areas. Letter 17 states that whooping cranes, an endangered species, also occur within the project area and should be treated in the EA. Whooping cranes were not identified by the U.S. Fish anO WitOtife Service as a species with potential to be impacted by this project. Nevertheless, to the extent that this species may occur in the vicinity of the project on a transitory basis during migration, a brief 11 discussion of its occunence and potential for being impacted by project implementation has been added to the Changes and Corrections Document. Wetlands Letter 10 expresses concern about the pipe crossing the Matheson Wetland Preserve in Moab and suggests that the alignment be made to go around the preserve in order to prevent impacts to the roots of willow, tamarisks, and cottonwoods which go very deep and could be impacted bf directional drilling in this area. lmpacts to the Preserve will be minimized by directional drilling rather than open-cut trenching. This construction method and additional mitigation for residual impacts have been accepted by Preserve owners/managers: The Nature Conservancy Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and the Corps of Engineers as adequate and appropriate. Letter 51 questions whether The Nature Conservancy has given consent to crossing land under their ownership. Mid-America has acquire rights to cross land held by The Nature Conservancy, similar to crossing lands held by any private land owner Letter 51 questions that adequate information on wetlands was provided, whether soil maps were used, and what methods were used to identify vernal pools. ln the EA, Appendix B provides a table that summarizes the location, characteristics and widths of wetlands and water bodies that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline projects. Appendix B corresponds to the table submitted with the project 404 Application. Published soil surveys were consulted where available to identify hydric soils, and USFWS National Wetland lnventory maps were also obtained to establish a preliminary list of wetlands to be crossed. lt should be noted that a large portion of this pipeline route is not covered by a published soil survey. As a consequence, ground reconnaissance, supported by limited aerial reconnaissance where ground access could not be obtained, was implemented to collect wetland data. The geomorphology, soils, and precipitation patterns in the region crossed by this pipeline are not conducive to the formation of vernal pools that required detailed investigation in the context of Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. Historic Resources Letter 10 identifies potential impacts to historic resources where the pipe would be constructed adjacent to old kilns in Spanish Valley near Moab. Historic and other cultural resources are addressed in the Programmatic Agreement and Treatment Plans for the project as part of compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Visual Resources Letter 10 expresses @ncern over impacts to visual resources in the Kane Springs area. lmpacts to vrsual resources are not projected to exceed BLM VRM objectives. River Crossings Letter 31 states that the EA provided an inadequate analysis of impacts associated with river crossings and potential impacts to groundwater, fish, and aquatic habitats. The EA outlines the impacts expecled to occur wrth river crossings using open-cut and boring construction techniques and concludes that the impact:s are not significant. Environmentat Justice 12 Comments on environmentaljustice were provided in letter 47. The scope of the environmental justice evaluation is to determine if any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects will be imposed on minority communities and low-income communities. Section 3.24.5 and 4.2.22.6 present the results of this analysis which concludes that no such effects on minority or low-income communities are expected. An additional analysis was done for the Mancos Valley area and no minority or low-income cornmunities were present. Air Quality and Noise Letters 9 and 20 commented on air quality and noise issues. As described in Section 4.2.1 of the EA, an increase in fugitive dust would be experienced by residents that are located within 1,200 feet of the pipeline ROW for a 2 to 3 week period during construction. ln addition, the only pump station that would be modified as a result of this prolect is the Dinosaur Pump Station in-Uintai-r County, Utah. The other pump stations would continue to operate as they are. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Lefter 51 suggests that the BLM has failed to implement NEPA in accordance within the letter and spirit of its underlying regulations by not providing the BiologicalAssessment and other supporting documents, not adequately discussing any inconsistencies with local laws, and predetdiminin! impacts to listed species prior to issuance of a Biological Opinion by the U.S. Fish and WildlifE Service. This commenter also suggested that the BLM had establish-ed a precedent by issuing apreliminary FONSI with the EA. As a matter of policy the BLM does not furnish a project Biological Assessment to the public toprotect the sensitive resources described in this document. ln some cases, the BA provides specificsensitive species location information that was not included in the EA. Tne BLM incorporated information into the EA from a variety of sources (including the BA) without furnishing the source documents, consistent with common practice in preparing NEPA documents under-CEe NEpAguidelines (40 CFR 1502.21 tncorporation by reference). While the BLM endeavors to insure that a project is consistent with local laws and plans, there is no legal mandate that prevents the BLM from issuing a Decision Record, or right-of-way grants onfederal lands for a project that is not fully consistent with local laws and ptans. T-hj primary inconsistency with local law issue for this project is the Montezuma County, bolorado resolution banning additional pipelines in the existing utility corridor traversing the Mincos River Valley. ltshould be noted that a federal court recently ruled that this resolution was not enforceable. Onpage 1'21 of the EA, the BLM acknowledges the intent of the Montezuma County Resolution, andthe resolution is included as a footnote to Table 1-2(page 1-18 of the EA). ihe opposition ofMontezuma County to the selected route does not mean that the impacts of the pipeiine on the environment will be significant. ln addition, BLM concludes that the selected rouie meets thepurpose and need of the project and is the most environmentally sound route for the pipeline. lssuance of a prelimin_ary FONSI for public review prior to a final determination is a procedure established in the CEQ guidelines for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1S01.4). The FONSI is a determination on the significance of the potential impacts of the proposed action, but is not a decision to approve or deny the proposal. A signed FONSI and decision is included in the Decision Record that is issued following public review and completion of the EA. The Decision Recordprovides the rationale for the decision. 13 The BLM based its preliminary FONSI conclusions on the facts available at the time the EA was issued. The BLM clearly recognized its coordination responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act by acknowledging that Section 7 consultation was still ongoing at the time the EA was published (Preliminary FONSI, page 2, paragraph 3). Part of BLM's responsibilities is to assess potential impacts to listed species and to report these findings in a NEPA document. Subsequent to the release of the EA, additional field data were collected and furnished to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for their review during preparation of the Biological Opinion. The Biological Opinion will be the controlting document for the management of threatened and endangered species. Notices to Proceed for this project will not be issued for affected areas until the Biological Opinion is provided by the Service. ln summary, there has not been a predetermination of impacts to threatened and endangered species, as indicated by the clearly preliminary nature of the FONSI that accompanies the EA, and by the commitment by the BLM to incorporate the directives of the Biological Opinion into project stiputations prior to issuing Notices to Proceed. 14 A,TTAGHMENT B CHANGES AND CORREGTIONS PER TEAM REV]EW AND PUBLIC COMMENTS for the ENVI RONM ENTAL ASSESSMENT MID-AMERIGA ROCKY MOUNTAIN LOOP PROJECT Environmental Assessment page 1-3, paragraph 4, line 3: replace "A 3S-foot-wide temporary use area adjacent to the existing ROW would be required for all Federal and Tribal lands crossed by the pipelineJ with "A 35- foot-wide construction ROW would be required for all Federal, Tribal, and private lands crossed by the pipeline." page 1-3, paragraph 4, line 4: change'Other temporary use areas" to "Temporary use areas" page 14, paragraph 2, lines 3 and 4: change "Table 1-1 lists the Federal and State agencies" to'Table 1-1 lists the Federal, State, and local agencies" page 1-5, paragraph 5, line 1:- change-"lt is assumed that the BLM will" to ,The BLM will" page 1-7, State of Utah, State Lands Department, column 3: insert "Easement for Green River (Jensen) crossing,' page 1-9, paragraph 1, lines 2 through 4: change "an individual Section 404 (Dredge and Fill) permit for construction across wetlands and streams. The only navigable stream requiring a Section 10permit is the Colorado River in Utah (COE 1998)" to "a Sectlon 404 (Dredge and Fill) permit (Nationwide General Permit #12) lor construotion across weflands and streams. The only navigable stream (as defined under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for "Navigable Waters") requiring a Section 10 permit is the Colorado River in Utah (COE 1998). page 1-12,paragraph 1,line 10: after the sentence ending 'slope stability consistent with the SDPs" insert "The 1998 geotechnical studies and field reviews have demonstrated that the pipeline can be safely constructed and operated within this area because the pipeline has been engineered to a level consistent with the BLM SDPs for pipeline projects." page 1-12, paragraph 2, lines 4, 5, and 6: change 'The proposed Mid-America pipeline route would coincide with designated major utility corridors with the exception of the portion the traverses Raven Ridge in T2N, R104w.'to "The proposed Mid-America pipeline route does not follow the designated ROW corridors within the White River Resource Area; however, it does follow an existing ROW including the portion that traverses Raven Ridge in T2N, R104W." page 1-16, Table 1-2, row 3 (La Ptata, CO), columns 7 and 8: change "No" to "Yes' change "Special Use permit" to " Class ll Permit page 1-20, response to #7,line 2: change "Sections 2,2.3.19 and 2.2.3.21'to "Section 2.2314' page 1-ZA, response to #8, line 2: change "Section 2.2.3.20" to "Section 2.2.3.10" page 24,last paragraph, line 5: replace "The total working width of the ROW that would be disturbed by construction would be 50 feet." with "Ihe typical construction ROW width would be 35 feet. Temporary use areas ranging in width from 25 feet to 100 feet would be located adjacent to the 35 foot construction ROW at a limited number of locations where extra work width would be needed (e.9., road crossings, stream crossings, steep slopes). To provide a simplified estimate of the overall temporary use area surface disturbance area. lt was assumed that there would be a 15 foot temporary use area along the entire 412 mile,35 foot construction ROW. For purposes of estimating overall surface disturbance area, it has been assumed that the average construction ROW width would be 50 feet, which includes the necessary temporary use areas." page 2-7 , paragraph 1 , line 5: replace "2,4OO acres" with "1 ,750 acres" page 2-9, paragraph 3, lines 3,4, 5, and 6: change "The locations of these discharge points, and the affected drainages are shown on the detailed route maps (in the map volume). Primary discharge locations would be the Colorado River, Tributaries to McElmo Creek for waters transported from Utah to Colorado, McPhee Reservoir, the Animas River, and the surface impoundment in New Mexico." to "The locations of these discharge points and the affected drainages are presented in the POD volume. Discharge locations will be in compliance with the Project's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by each state (e.9., Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico). Primary discharge locations would be tributaries to the Colorado River, tributaries to McElmo Creek for water transported from Utah to Colorado; tributaries to the Dolores and Animas Rivers in Colorado; and a surface impoundment in New Mexico.' page 2-9, paragraph 4, line 1: change "approximately 700 to 800 personnel." to "approximately 700 to 1,000 personnel.' page 2-10, paragraph 4, line 2: change 'August 1998 and extend through year end of 1998" to 'early October 1998 and extend through early 1 999" page 2-1 1, end of paragraph 2: add : "Mid-America will meet with the BLM and affected private landowners concerning fence and gate management and repair just prior to construction." page 2-11, paragraph 4: following the first sentence insert "Firewood (greater than 4 inches in diameter) will require a permit prior to cutting, and wood must be removed from public lands unless specific permission is granted to leave it in place. No bulldozing of trees will be allowed. Trees must be cut and removed from the work area prior to grading." page 2-13, paragraph 1, line 2: change "retrieval by the landowner" to "retrieval by the private landownef page 2-13, paragraph 5, line 2: following "separately from subsoils." insert "Topsoil stripping depths and segregation requirements would be subject to Authorized Offlcer approval on public lands." page 2-24, paragraph 2, lines 3 and 4: change "willows and/or cottonwoods would be replanted at rates as agreed upon between Mid-America and the jurisdictional agencies or landowner" to 'ttlid- America will replace mature cottonwoods (in excess of 6 inches dbh) at a ratio of 10 rooted pole transplants for each mature tree removed from the construction ROW. Wire mesh (up to a height of 3 feet) will be used to enclose transplanted cottonwood poles. Mid-America will mow willows within the construction ROW to preserve the root system in areas where ROW grading is not required. Mid- America will replace willow clumps excavated from the trench line at a ratio of2:1. This commitment is waived in the case of sandbarwillow (Sa/x exigua) because of the very high individual stem densities arising from an extensive, rhizomatous root system. Sandbar willow will be replanted at an average rate of 1 stem cutting per square foot, with higher cutting densities in the mos[ favorable sites to insure rapid willow regrowth.' page 2-24, paragraph 3, line 2: add to the end of the first sentence "and the largest wetland on the upper Colorado River.' page2-26, paragraph 1,line g: change "ROW holders would be contacted prior to construction." to "ROW grant and lease holders would be contacted prior to construction.' page 2-28, paragraph 2, line 3: foltowing "soil stabilization and reseeding.'add "Ground preparation and reseeding efforts would follow the same procedures described in the POD Reclamation Plan (Exhibit J). Weed control measures would follow those described in the POD Weed Management plan (Exhibit F)." page 2-29,last paragraph (continuing on to page Z-30): replace with "Bl-tild additional pump stations to support the existing pipelines. Construction of additional pump stations would avoid the surface disturbance associated with pipeline construction; however, based on a hydraulics analysis it was determined that a total of 44,500 additional horsepower, distributed acioss 13 new pump stations, would be required to move an additional 125,000 barrels per day within the existing pipeline. These horsepower additions would exceed the safe operating range of the existing pipeline system. Additionally, it [s estimated that the addition of 44,500 horsepower to the system would result in a regional increase of nitrogen oxides emissions by 845 tons per year and carbon monoxide emissions by 751 tons per year. This compares with approximately 19 tons per year of nitrogen oxides emissions and 17 tons per year ol carbon monoxide emissions from the proposed additional turbine at the Dinosaur Station for the proposed pipetine Project. These estimates are based on installation of Solar Saturn T-1302 units, which operate at an average rate of 1 ,000 horsepower per unit and are natural gas fired. Table 7 in the POD illustrates the emission rates for various existing units. The potential for emisslons reduction from installation of additional emissions control equipment on these existing units is negligible compared to the emissions that would be yielded by addition of 44,500 horsepower to the system. Addition of the 13 additional pump stations would result in the increase in operational noise in the vicinity of these stations, and consequently, the likelihood of affecting residences near the pipeline is greater than with the existing system, where no increased noise impacts are anticipated. The combined costs of constructing new pump stations, increased operating costs, and long-term station maintenance would make this pipeline system non-competitive with the cost of facilities and maintenance included in the Proposed Action." page 2-30, paragraph 1, lines 1: change "combustion air pollutants (nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide) would increase." to "combustion air pollutants would increase resulting in an additional 845 tons per year of nitorgen oxides and 751 tons per year of carbon monoxide." page 3-12, following paragraph 2: insert new paragraph "From the mouth of West Salt Creek to the high point on the Roan Plateau (AM 695 - AM 715) , the route, for the most part, follows the valley bottom. Soils consist primarily of sandy loam, and are often saline. Dominate vegetation is sagebrush scrub." page 3-14, paragraph 2, line 2: change "Camino- to "Cameo" page 3-21, Table 34, row 9, column 4: change "10/15 - 4115* lo"1Z1- 3/31" page 3-23, paragraph 2. lines 3, 4, and 5: change 'Mouming dove habitat would be limited within the Project area but may be found within riparian zones with trees and shrubs that are large enough for nesting.' to "Mouming dove habitat is likely to occur anywhere below 8,000 feet in elevation.' page 3-24, paragraph 1, lines 5 and 6: change "lt is assumed that this bird was a transient from the Arizona condor reintroduction program." to "lt is known that his bird was a transient from the Arizona condor reintroduction program by docurnentation and observation of a wing rnarker of the type ptaced on reintroduced birds." page 3-24, paragraph 3, line 6: following 'adjacent to the ROW.' insert "Burrowing owls were observed in association with prairie dog colonies near Cisco and Thompson, Utah during August 1998 in conjunction with black-footed ferret surveys." page 3-26, paragraph 2, line 5: insert "Numerous nongame native and nonnative fish species also occur in the rivers crossed by the Rocky Mountain Loop Project. lf abundant, these species are mentioned in the descriptions of fish communities." page 3-31 , below paragraph 1: insert "The whooping crane (Grus americana) was not one of the species identified by USFWS for the proposed pipeline Project. Although a whooping crane staging area exists north of Jensen, Utah, the USFWS has not designated critical habitat for this species within the area crossed by the proposed Project. This transitory population is part of the experimental, non-essential flock that migrates between New Mexico, and Grays Lake, ldaho (lreland lgg8)." page 3-31, following paragraph 5: insert .Based on field survey recommendations from BLM and USFWS, large prairie dog colonies adequate to support black-footed ferrets were surveyed during August 1998 between Cisco and Thompson, Utah. No ferrets were found. This information was included in the final survey reports submitted to the BLM and USFWS in August 1998.' page 3-32, Table 3-7. rows 17 and 18, column 3: change "Bitter Creek Well (UT)" to "Bitter Creek Well (UT, CO)" page 3-32, Table 3-7, row 19, column 3: change "Badger Wash (UT)'to "Badger Wash (CO)" page 3-44, paragraph 2, line 3: change "within frequently flooded palustrine and scrub/shrub wetlands crossed by" to "within frequently flooded palustrine and scrub/shrub wetlands, as well as wetlands and riparian areas adjacent to perennial streams, crossed by" page 345, paragraph 4, lines I and g: replace "No Federally endangered fish species utilize the section of the river in the vicinity of the southern crossing." with "Adult Colorado squavrrfish and razorback sucker may occasionalty migrate into the Browns Park area near the northern Green River crossing (Bestgen 1998). However, neither species would occur in the area on a consistent basis." page 345, after paragraph 4: insert "Cliff Creek, a tributary to the Green River located approximately 1 mile northeast of Jensen, Utah, is an important nursery area for razorback sucker (Muth et al. 1998). Larvae have been collected in the lower 600-foot section of the stream during May through July.' page 345, paragraph 5: revise as "The White River contains critical habitat and adult Colorado squaMish and razorback sucker. Colorado squawfish use the White River as a migratory route between Taylor Draw Dam and the Green River in May through mid-July (lrving and Modde 1994). Squawfish return to the White River from mid-August through November. Most of the squavrfish cornplete their return migration by mid-October. Adult razorback sucker occur in the lower portion of the river during the spring. One critical habitat reach has been designated for each species in the White Rlver; one or two critical habitat reaches are located in downstream areas below the White River (Table 3-10).' page 3-51, paragraph 3, line 1: change "The BLM has recently released a Paleontology Program Manual and Handbook (March 4, 1996) which establishes" to *The BLM's lnstructional Memorandum No. 96-97, Mitigation and Planning Standards for Paleontological Resources on Public Lands (extended to 3/30/98) establishes page 3-55, paragraph 3, line 3: change "Animas formation" to "Animas Formation" page 3-55, paragraph 3, line 9: change "insects that are found in the oil shales" to "insects and other fossils that are found in oil shales" page 3-61, Table 3-17, row 6 (White River ffi), column 3: change'lll and lV'to "ll and lll" page 3-88, row 41: change "San Juan County, Colorado" to "San Juan County, Utah' page 3.88, row 47 , column 2: change "576.3" to "573' page 3-88, rows 49: insert new row "Grand County, Utah'below County Road 131 page 3-88, row 52, column 2: change "61 1.5" to "609" page 3-89, row 7, column 2: change'680.8' to "679" page 3-89, row 36, column 2: change "781 .6" lo "779" gage 4-1, following paragraph 1: insert as a new paragraph " "Mid-America has committed to a number of applicant protection measures, as part of the Proposed Action. These resource- specific protection measures are summarized in Section 3.3, Environmental Resources and Surveys, Plan of Development (POD). The impact analyses conducted for the EA incorporated these commiHed-protection measures, as part of the impact conclusions. [f warranted, additional mitigation measures were recommended for specific resource issues.' page 4-1 , paragraph 4, lines l through 5: change "An average ROW width of 50 feet would be needed for constructionpurposes. Approximately 35 feet of this width were previously disturbed by past pipeline construction within the same utitity corridor. For purposes of estimating impacts to native habitats and plant communities, it has been assumed that an average of 15 feet of new surface disturbance (vegetation clearing, minor grading) w9u!d be necessary to provide construction equipment pissage.'to "An average ROW width of 35 feet would be needed for construction purpoles with an additional 15 feet of temporary use area that would be needed in areas of special construction (e.9., stream and road crossings, steep slopes). ln general, the 3S-foot-wide construction ROW is within an exiiting uti[ity corridor thit haspreviously been disturbed by past pipetine construction. rutnough a 1S-foot-wide temporary use area is not needed for the length of the entire Project, forpurposes of making a conservative estimate of the impacts to naiive habitats andplant communities it has been assumed that an average of 15 feet of new disturbance (vegetation clearing, minor grading) would be needed along the entire construction ROW length." page 4-1, paragraph 4, line B: add to the end of the sentence ", except where the work area (temporary use area) width is expanded for special construction needs (e.g., stream and road crossings, steep slopes)." page 4-10, paragraph 2, line 2: change 'some_ of the large river bottoms." to "some of the large river bottoms including the Colorado River, Green River (Brownls Park and-Jensen), Animas River, and San Juan River and the Scott M. Matheson Wetlands preserve." page 4-10, paragraph 2,line 2: change "lmpacts would be avoided by successful horizontal boring." to "lmpacts would be avoided by successful horizontal boring at these crossin-gs." page 4-10, paragraph 5, line 2: change "no permanent facilities" to "no permanent surface facilities" page 4-16, paragraph 3, lines 4 and S: change "fhe Project would avoid the loss of mature cottonwood trees and willows by directional dritling and narrowing the construction ROW at river crossings." to "The Project would avoid the loss of mature cottonwood trees and willows whenever possible by directional drilling and narrowing the construction ROW at river crossings. The size and number of trees wouldle determined during the pre-construction field survey when construction limits are established., page 4-17, paragraph 3, lines 4, S, and 6: change'The SO-foot-wide construction ROW includes land previously cleared and graded for pipeline construction (35-feet-wide) and native vegetjtion or agricultural land (1S-feet-wide).' to 'The 3S-foot-wide constructioi nOW includes land previously cleared and graded for pipeline construction, and the 1S-foot- wide temporary use area, where needed (e.g., stream and road crossings, steep slopes), includes native vegetation or agricuitural land .' page 4-21, paragraph 3, following sentence 4: insert "However, if construction were extended into the spring of 1999, Mid- America would cooridnate with the appropriate jurisdictional agencies on protection of breeding and nesting sage grouse, including the northem species. These protection measures could include pre-construction surveys to determine the potential presence of active leks within the Project area, avoidance of any identified lek site during the appropriate breeding season, and the implementation of a maximum seasonal constraint period between March 1 and July 14 within a 2-mile buffer around any identified lek site for protection of breeding hens." page 4-26, paragraph 3, following sentence 2: add "This conclusion is based on the non-toxic nature of the drilling mud (natural bentonite), the criteria for detecting and responding to potential seepage of drilling mud outlined in the Horizontal Directional Drill Contingency Plan (POD - Exhibit D), and the commitrnent to avoid drilling of the Green River at Jensen or the Colorado River in Utah between mid-June and mid-August.' page 4-25, paragraph 4, following sentence 3: add 'Potential impacts to fish species from the water withdrawals would be minimized by the mitigation measures discussed in Appendix F of this EA which are designed to prevent entrainment of larvae and impingement of adult fish." page 4-25, paragraph 4, line 4: change "discharge of hydrostatic test water would follow methods that would minimize potential effects" to "discharge of hydrostatic test water would be in accordance with the Project's NPDES permits and would follow methods (e.9., discharge to a filtration impoundment or dry drainage, filtration prior to release) that would minimize potential effects" page 4-26, at the end of paragraph 2: insert "Additionally, no impacts to the whooping crane were identified based on the transitory nature of this "experimental non-essential" (USFWS classified) population in the Jensen, Utah area and the current construction schedule for the proposed Project." page 4-27, column 1: change "AMMALS" to " MAMMALS" change'RDS'to "BIRDS" change'SH" to "FISH" change "ANTS" to "PLANTS" gage 4-29, paragraph 2, lines 4 and 5: change "probability of adverse impacts to this species would be low based on the commitment by the BLM'to 'probability of adverse impacts to this species would be low based on the low probability of its occurrence and the BLM" page 4-30, paragraph 4, lines 1 through 3: change "Based on the 1998 survey results and the committed protection measures, no impacts would be anticipated for breeding southwestern willow flycatchers from the Proposed Action." to "Based on the 1998 survey results and the committed protection measures, it would be antiquated that implementation of the Proposed Action would have no effect on breeding southwestern willow flycatchers and would not likely affect migrating individuals., gage 4-37 , paragraph 5, lines 8 and 9: delete "or the White River crossing that are used by migrating Colorado squawfish in May and June." page 4-38, after paragraph 1: insert "Construction in the White River would be scheduted between mid-October and late November. This schedule would avoid the period when most of the Colorado squawfish return to the White River and return to an area below Taylor Draw Dam. Therefore, construction activities would not disrupt or block the Colorado squavuflsh migration in the White River.' page 4-38, paragraph 2, lines 3 and 4: delete "Endangered fish that may be present would likely move away from the release area." page 4-38, paragraph 3, lines 7 and 8: change "A portion of the hydrostatic test water would be returned to their stream source, but the quantity has not been determined at this time." to "ln compliance with the NPDES permits issued for the Project by each of the affected states (Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico), the primary discharge locations would be tributaries to the Colorado River, tributaries to McElmo ereek for water transported from Utah to Colorado; tributaries to the Dolores and Anirnas Rivers in colorado; and a surface impoundment in New Mexico. water quality standards, as stipulated by the NPDES permits, will be met prior to release of hydrostatic test waters. " page 4-38, after paragraph 4: insert "Water withdrawal for hydrostatic testing and dust abatement also couldpotentially entrain endangered fish larvae and irnpinge individuals on the intake screens in the Colorado River near Moab and Green River near Jensen. The extent of potential entrainment and impingement would depend upon the intake velocities, volume of water, and timing of the withdrawals." page 4-38, paragraph 6, end of last sentence: add "(see discussion on page 4-8 for fate and transport of products)." page 4-39, paragraph 2: delete paragraph, added to committed measures in Appendix F page 4-39, after paragraph 3, followlng sentence 1: add "lmpacts to these species would be minimized to the extent possible by the environmental protection measures presented in Appendix F of this EA. page 4-39, paragraph 6 (continued onto page 440): T-odify the paragraph to read "As the result of field surveys conducted within a 2O0-foot-wide survey corridor along the ROW on Federai and private lands where access was available, populations of several sensitive plant species wereencountered. The general locations where these populations were found are presented in Appendix C. The construction ROW could potentially affect: 10 populations of the Aztec milkvetch, consisting of approximately 300 indlvidual plants; 5 populations of the Brack's hardwall cactus, consisting of approximately 50 individuals1,2 populations of Aztec gllia, consisting of approximately 600 plants; and 10 populations of little penstemon, consisting of approximately 500 plants." page 4-62, paragraph 5, lines 4 and 5: delete "would not occur during the expected peak use times (during the summer or during weekends)." page 4-63, paragraph 2, lines 5 and 6: delete "and would not occur during expected peak use times (during the summer or during weekends)." page 5-5, mid-page: change "Joe Cresto - Wildlife/T&E Plants" to "Joe Cresto - Wildlife/T&E Animals" change "Linda Seibert - Wildtife/T&E Plants" to "Linda Seibert - Wildlife/T&E Animals" page 6-1, below entry 5: insert'Bestgen, K. 1998. Larval Fish Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Personal communication with Rollin Daggett, ENSR, August 26, 1998.' page 6-6, below entry 5: insert "lreland, T. 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Grand Junction, Colorado). Personal communication with L. Nielsen, ENSR. August 18, 1998. page 6-7, below entry 8: insert "Muth, R. T., G. B. Haines, E. G. Wick, T. E. Chart, D. E. Snyder, and J. M. Bundy. 1998. Reproduction and Early Life History of Razorback Sucker in the Green River, Utah and Colorado, 1992-1996. Final Report of the Colorado State University Larval Fish Laboratory to the Recovery lmplementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Denver, Colorado. 62 pp." Appendix F, page 3, paragraph 2 (Cottonwood/Riparian Areas), line 2: change -Mid-America has committed to a 1:1 replacement ratio forwoody riparian species removed during construction." to "Mid-America will replace mature cottonwoods (in excess of 6 inches dbh) at a ratio of 10 rooted pole transplants for each mature tree removed from the construction ROW, Wire mesh (up to a height of 3 feet) will be used to enclose transplanted cottonwood poles. Mid-America will mow willows within the construction ROW to preserve the root system in areas where ROW grading is not required. Mid-America will replace willor,rr clumps excavated from the trench line at a ratio of 2:1. This commitment is waived in the case of sandbar willow (Salx exigua) because of the very high individual stem densities arising from an extensive, rhizomatous root system. Sandbar willow will be replanted at an average rate of 1 stem cutting per square foot, with higher cutting densities in the most favorable sites to insure rapid willow regroMh." 10 Appendix F, page 5, paragraph 2 (Rare plants), lines g and 10: change "and appropriate protection measures will be developed, if warrented.' to"and appropriate protection measures including realignment of the pipeline, delineation of adjacent populations parallel to the ROW with stakes and flagging, and the use of construction monitors will be implemented, as appropriate." Appendix F, page 5, paragraph 3 (Fish), lines 5-10: change "floodplain; and 3) applying the Recoyery tmptementation Program..." lo"floodplain; 3) directional drilling of Cliff Creek (near AM tBS); 4) const-ruction of the open-cut crossing at the White River (AM 745.2) between October 1S and June 1 to avoid the adult colorado squawfish migration period; 5) implementation of rneasures to minimize the potential entrainment or impingement of Colorado squavuftsh and razorback sucker during water withdrawals for hydrostatic testing purposes frorn the Colorado {iver near Moab and the Green River near Jensen including installation of an appropriate sized screen on the intake pipe, withdrawal of water from the mid-section of the river, and installation of exclusion screens (5 to 10 feet wide) around the intake ports; and 6) applying the Recoyery lmplementation program..." 11 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS from the U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE UTAH FIELD OFFICE for the ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MID.AMERICA ROGKY MOUNTATN LOOP PROJECT General Comments Comment 1: The Service believes that s6me of the information presented in the Fisheries sections (3.16.2 and 3.17.1.4lris out-dated or could be presented with more substantial literature. The following are areas of concern. Please contact our office for further information. Additional references and names are provided below. (Sections 3.16.2 and 3.17.1.4 Green River, northern crossing; Section 3.16.2 Green River, southern crossing; and Section 3.16.2, Colorado River, near Moab, UT.) Response: Some of the suggested literature sources and contacts were used in describing fisheries in the Green and Colorado Rivers. Steve Brayton (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources) provided results of an electrofishing study for the northern Green River crossing. The Colorado River Recovery Program lnteragency Standardized Monitoring was used for the southem Green River crossing and the Colorado River crossing (see Brunson et al. 1998 and UDWR 1998). Comment 2: Section 3.17.1.4, Green River - The statement "No Federally endangered fish species utilize the section of the iver in the vicinity of the southem crossing" is inaccurate. Response: The sentence was replaced with the following insert "Adult Colorado squav,rfish and razorback sucker may occasionally migrate into the Browns Park area near the norihem Green River crossrng (Bestgen 1998). However, neither species would occur in the area on a consisfenf basis." Comment 3: The Service is very concerned about the crossing of Cliff Creek. lt has been demonstrated since 1992 that lower Cliff Creek is the single most important nursery arca for razorback sucker larvae in the Green River system under present regulated Green River flows. Lower Cliff Creek is a reference site for the razorback sucker monitoring program. Response: The EA was revised to provide information on the importance of Clifl Creek as a razorback sucker nursery area. Gomment 4: What is the evidence for suggesting that endangered fishes near the mud seepage route would likely avoid the disturlced area? The Service has evidence to suggest the opposite. Response: The general statement about possible avoidance of mud seepage was based on studies that documented fish movement away from a disturbed area with increased sedimentation (e.g., Gammon, J.R. 1970. The Effect of lnorganic Sediment on Stream Biota. Water Quality Office, U.S. Environmental Agency Grant No. 18050, 113 pp.). However, it is unknown how endangered fish species would react to any potential seepage. Therefore, the statement will be deleted from paragraph 2 on page 4-38. 12 Comment 5: The Service is concemed about potentialimpacts at the Cliff Creek, southem Green River, and the northem Green River crossings. A better description of fish use in the vicinity of these crossings is needed. Response: As discussed in the response to Comment 3, the EA was revised to provlde information about the importance of Cliff Creek. We betieve that the information used to characterize fisheries in the Green River was adequate (see response to Comment 1). Specific Comments Comment: Page 3-26 (Fisheries) - The EA states that 14 game fish species are known to occur in the rivers crossed by the pipeline. We believe that all fishes (e.g., nongame, nonnative, etc.) should be included because of the retationships and cornpetition between species. Response: Abundant nongame native and nonnative fish species were mentioned in the text for the rivers crossed by the pipeline, if data were available. A general statement about these additional species was added to the discussion on page 3-26, paragraph 2. Comment: Page 3-45 (Fish) - Please watch how the term 'population' is used throughout the document. The White River does not support existing "populalio6s" of Colorado squavrrfish and razorback sucker. The White River has a resident adult (no young fish) stock of Colorado squaMish. Similarly, there is no populations of bonytail, only-individuali scattered throughout the system Response: The text in paragraph 5 on page 3-45 was revised in response to the concern over the use of the term "population." Comment: Page 3-45 (Fish) - Colorado squawfish in the White River undertake annual spawning migrations downstream into the Green River during June through mid-July and retum to the White River during mid-August through November. Blockage or disruption of downstream or upstream migrations during these periods by in-channll alterations is a concem and should be avoided. Therefore. trenching needs to occur between late July and mirt-August. Response: The migration periods for Colorado squavrrfish in the White River were listed in paragraph 5 on page 345. The period when squawfish return to the river was added tothe paragraph. Comment: Page 3-45 (Fish) - Adult (no young fish) razorback suckers are collected in the lower White River durin^g the spring. Please be careful about how ISMP data (e.g., McAda et al. 1997) are used; ISMP sampling is intended to target adult or young-of-year Colorado squawfish or adult humpback chub (in canyon reaches)'and extrapolatidn to other species is problematic. Response: The second sentence in paragraph 5 was deleted and replaced with the following sentence: "Adult razorback sucker occur in the lower portion of ine White River during the spring." Comment: Page 346 (Table 3-10) - The table of critical habitat designation in rivers crossed by the proposed pipeline is confusing. For example, under the rizorback sucker 13 for the White River, the table states critical habitat for the Green and Colorado Rivers. For each river, the table should describe the species critical habitat along the river. Response: The table lists critical habitat reaches in each river crossed by the pipeline. Critical habitat reaches that are located in downstream rivers below their confluences also are included in the tabte. Comment: Page 4-24 (Fisheries)- This section states that no spawning habitats would be affected as a result of open trench digging across rivers- Brown trout and brook trout are fall spawners. Loss of eggs and fry could result from increased sedimentation resulting from the open trench method. The Service recommends.that construction across rivers occupied by brown and brook trout be scheduled to avoid spawning periods. Response: Based on discussions with Mike Japhet (Colorado Division of Wildlife), no important spawning areas for brook and brown trout are known to occur at the proposed crossing in the Animas, Mancos, La Plata, and Florida Rivers. Comrnent: Page 4-37 (Fish) - Please see comment for rnigration of Colorado squawfish in the White River (page 3-45). Response: Pipeline construction in the White Riverwould occurafter mid-Octoberto avoid potentialdisruption to migrating Colorado squav'rfish. Bob Muth and Tim Modde indicated that most of the squaMish would likely complete their return migration by mid-October. Gomment: Page 4-39 (Mitigation Measure) - Please provide a thorough explanation and address all impacts of the intake pipe and screen.to be used forwaterwithdrawals. The Service is concerned about the impingement of larvae, not only entrainment, resulting from the volume (current velocily) of the intake pipe. Response: A new paragraph was added to page 4-38 that discussed potential entrainment and impingement impacts on endangered fish from water withdrawals. 14 Du6an 6 Qasure O ANORNEYS AT LAW 900 MnrN Avrxur, Sunr A Dunerieo. CoLoneoo 8l 30] (970) 259-1770 Fex (970) 259-1882 E-Metrr dno@frontier.net(er.r Assocnnoru or Anonrurvs, Nor e Pnnrruensure) November 6, 1998 n:qE*iV€ Garfi eld County Planning Department ATTN: John Barbee, Senior Planner 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Mid-AmericaPipelineCompany Rocky Mountain Loop Project Dear John: Enclosed herewith for your records is Mid-America Pipeline Company's Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record issued by the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM'). Construction is scheduled to commence in the next week or two following issuance of a Notice to Proceed by the BLM. Mid-America will contact you when the construction schedule has been finalized and confirm at that time that i) you have received the necessary bond, ii) Mid-America has complied with all other pre-construction conditions of approval and iii) Mid-Americahas obtain the required road crossing permits from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. On behalf of Mid-Americ4 we would again like to thank you for your very professional handling of Mid-America's application and hope that we have the opportunity to deal with your department in the future. Yours truly, BrettM. D'Spain Paralegal to Thomas P. Dugan Enclosure Alan Wurtz (w/o enclosure) Tim McCoy (w/o enclosure) Steve Seibert (w/o enclosure) Ronald Hobbs (w/o enclosure) All'i^'^''- 'm db\G:\WPDOCS\3552\CORRESPO\GARFIELD.LTR(bmd) ,..* . fUemo Tor Don Deford Fmmr King Lloyd Drt r Atgu$26,1998 Please find the attached material in reference to the MAPCO Pipeline located on Coun$ Road 2Q1 on Baxter Pass. a Page 1 t GARFIELD GOU}.{NT ROAD & BRIDGE i'"'*$: ji. '. . ', '-"rFd{';tiave Just reeeav nd :-: r:.- , ':,'- ...*',:'ji...* -J,-:r:. : a dema amaqes : -.--i ,-.,-$3,$15? ,s23.25 .slbEtno s'tnitlLrU.*#:./ : : lt1...w,.'nsUruction'.'C .:cr;f ieid': Htffi*;.:;:Ei.ffilhil lf ndi eate f iin tn" amount '' ,,-.T';' i''ia 'result of ' :-..'*-.:,,:, [+i,] 1'' -: - en'your ."probIem, an4,roblem. I lrrould you have /.x r.1+t \F{. ,ae1,-: oqo ':::' i''isc D€ EY) Zyt- | 6t8 o/ cL an az4 . a.:1.i -r R0A0fgfiOOt ,iru /-/ '8? - /'/'0A i::,:.o, tz.6' F>lt .r..' - !,.nr.;IrF i' : I raal i: RECEIVED GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE P.O. BOX 2254 GLenwood Sprirrgs, Colorado 8LGA2-2254 Phone 945-5lLL November 18, 1987 l{rd-America Pipeline CcmpanyMr. Max Young General Manager Operations ConstructionP. u. Box 645 TuIsa, C)klahoma 741U1-0645 ptr'Inc. 10" Pipeline onin Garf iel-d County, 'Repair to MAPCO, 201, Bax*rer Pass, County Road Colorado Dear Mr. Young, Garf ield County, orr Apri fl3,2U, for the purpose of 10" pipeline across our so that you rnay refer to L 25, 1980, issued a Road Cut Permit, Mid-America Pipeline installing a right-of-way. I have enclosed a copy provision #11 of the permit. On September l-8, 1987, during routine road maintenanceactivities, your pipeLine was damaged and has since beerr repaired. The pipline was ruptured while maj-ntaining the drainange swale adjacent to the inside of the road, which is critical in insuring the integrity of the roadway. Thepipeline r^Ias found to be only inches below the established flow lj-ne of that ditch, rather than the required 48 " as mandated on our permit. Since the accident f have made an inspection of the site, to document the repair procedure. I believe adequate time has passed and your repairs seem to be completed. My observations are, as the enclosed photo will verify, that the pipeline still does not meet the provisions of your permit regarding depth of line. The pipeline repair crew placed wooden posts and a six (6) inch diameter piece of culvert in the roadway, to facilitate flow past the repair, that will affect our road malntenance operations and the safety of the motoring public. I would I1ke a response from your offlce as soorr as possible, denoting your plans for this problem. If you should havefurther questions, please contact my office (303) 945-6111. Respectfully Submitted, KL/cl Enclosures cc: Don DeFord, County Attorney tendent & Bridge BARFIELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE P.O, BoX 2254 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8LbO2-2254 Phone 945-6LLt November L7 , Lg87 A. Michael Doring 6rand VaIley CIaim ServiceP.O. Box 9032 Grand Junction, CO 81501 RE: MAPCO, Inc. Pipeline County Road 7OL Baxter Pass Dear Mr. Doring: On November 4, L987, I traveled to Baxter Pass to inspect therepairs made to the l"lAPCO Pipel.ine and County Road ZOL. It would appear that |'{APCO does consider their repairs to thepipeline complete at this time. After reviewing photos taken of the repair prior to back-{i11ing, and after on site j.nspection, I wou}d estrmate thatthe pipeline is buried a maximum of 1.5 {eet. In response toyour letter, I would say that MAPC0 lacks approximately 2.3{eet of cover to be in cornpliance with the permit issued to them by Garfield County. I will be in touch with their office about this installation. Thank you. Sincere 1 y , cc! Don DeFordl County Attorney Garfield County Board o{ Coun KLlc I ty Commissioners .' i: {. - .':,." ti. . -1,.:.{' ' Road supeiiirtendent, eiriid'faP. O.'lBox -2254 ' etenwo'od .,Spr-injs Iounty.Roa iarf ield :C Dea ,: l1ay e a .resPo.n omy A. ltich,aeI 'Doring .:....:r. ;;., . . :-,,.1;1., ,..: .- ... '-.-Y. ..!" .', AMD: gh et : ..I-i. ,::.r- . \-,r'),".:'" .. , :;1:.:.,,..111.; - _. .. ,ie.\ GVCS Grand V'all,-,,v Claim Service P.O. Box 9O?'J Uranrt .iunctron, CoioraCo 8L501 (a03t 215.6060 October 1, L987 Mr. King Lloyd Road Superintendent, Garfield County P. O. Box 2254 Glenrvood Springs, Colorado 81502 RE: Mapco, Inc. Pipeline tocated on County Road 20L, On Baxter Pass In Garfield County, Colorado Dear 1,1r. Lloyd: On September 18 , L987, while doing road work in Garfield County for the County of Garfield, a road grader being operated by Buniger Construction Company struck a 10" high pressure pipeline owned by Mapco, Inc. of Tulsa, Oklahoma. According to a permit issued by Garfield County for the construction of this particular pipeline, dated 4/25/80, and identified as Permit #12U, ftem #11 under that particular permit indicates that this PiPe "shall be installed beneath the surface of the right of way at a ninimum depth of 48n. This particular pipe was not then located 48" beneath the surface, nor is it now. The pipeline has remained in its original location, the repair has been made by l'lapco, Inc-, and cemented over with vertical stakes installed right at the side of the road. ft would aPPear as though this pipeline is in violation of this particular perilit, and it also aPPears as though this is the second time within four years that it has been struck. This pipe in i.ts present condition represents a danger to the motoring public. I would appreciate it if you could check on this for me and see if you agree that this pipeline is in violation of the above described permit. I am the insurance adjustor investigating this occurrence on behalf of the insurance carrier for Buniger Construction Company. If you have any questions, Please contact me d ir ect. I shall await your resPonse. Sincerely, GOP{A. l[ichael Doring AMD: gh t_ b Il\l 7.\ t.N_)t"^. l'--l( ' 1 r i-l e t-.l-.L. -[t r"- l-'f-,pf It;l.:-1 -,1 -'li /'1 l;+l:1l<ol< r lr; lii/ooL'131. ;ihi;t< ol-. : l-: I-ool"iihc f l{e i ,- iI ;l! z ii sl:l;l ,l l= ?, It-' Et-lr. j-, z I C7 m orlzlal almlil I ,nr i o ,n on ,lhl\tolrl roo _-{oz oitl zlol;lml 1lICl_r- tt' a -t-l L / r' J I I r' t-\v C / I / I / I 2!o m, -t f, m1'o7-l o o .lJ ot o r'rr mt-o oo Cz -l t- m 3fl To o m! ! -..|3 mzl i?. ;it',.ii;.*1 r., ,6.1i 1 lz' ,r u -) 1,u v) Fp l]\^ p I r-l /. Ili(ll.( ) (:t )t,tl'Allf {) MD-AMERT.APTPELTNEC,MPANY tv 2(, Ju'ly 1985 Garfield County Board of Commiss'ioners Glenwood Springs, Colorado Attention: Mr. Larry Schmueser, Sr. Dear Mr.Schmueser: M'id-America Pipel ine Company, successor to I'IAPC0 Inc., respectfully requests that the Conditional Use Permit No. 079 origina'l1y granted to MAPC0 inc. on April 14, i980 by Garfield County and the road crossing permit granted to MAPCO Inc. on April 25,1980 by Garfield County be amended to allow the 10" pipeline, the subject of the permits, to be relocated as shown on the attached maps, for the following reasons: 1. That port'ion of the pipeline which is proposed to be relocated'is in an area jn which an active landslide has devdloped. The landslide has already broken the pipeline once and in spite of efforts to keep the force on the pipeline from the landslide relieved, the landslide poses a contjnual threat to the security of the pipeline and the public. 2. Soi I 'invest'igati ons show that the securi ty of the pi pe'l i ne and safety can be great'ly enhanced if the pipeline was relocated 100 feet to 300 feet westerly as shown on the maps. 3. The ex'isting road crossing would be moved to the location shown and the pipeline would l'ie in the county road right-of-way for approximatley 2638 feet. 4. The total length of the proposed relocation is 4485 feet of which 537 feet is on Federal land (BLM) and the remainder on private land and road right-of-way. 5. An appf ication (copy attached) has been submitted to the BLM to amend the grant for the pipe'line on Federal l'ands. The requested amendment would allow the relocation as shown on the maps. 6. An easement, for the proposed relocat'ion from the owner of the private land involved has been obtained and a copy'is attached. 1800 SOUTH BALTTMOBE AVENUE P6r OFFTCE BOX 645 TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74101-0645 (918) 581.1800 !'. o'' * 8.,-^ [ r,,i i i;i B I ? J si Jlr,.,^l' s y I ; : M s GENERAL INFORMATION ALASKA NATJONAL 'NTERESJ' LANDS Thir apPlication urill be ueed whcn applvrng. lor e right-of'way. pernit, lrcenre, leise, or certrficate for the use of Federal landg whrch lre wrthrn conBervation t-li sten unrts and National Recteatton or Conrervetion Areer er dcfined rn the Alaske Netional lnterert Landr Conrerv.troo Act. Conrerration iyEtcm unit! includa the N.tional Park 51'ste;r, National $ildlife Refuge Systcm, ltatronel llild and Sccnic River3 S,'stem. !iational Trails System. !iational 1l ilderness Presen'atron Svsten:, and National Forest lrlonu;entg. Transponation a:rd utility s)'Etet:}s end facility uses for !*'hich thc epplicarion may be uscd are: 1. Canals, ditchca, flumes, late;als, pipes, pipelitca, tunnels, and. other syste,:ls for the transponation of watet. 2. Pipelines and other s:istems for the transportation of liquids other than water, lncluding oi1, natural gas, synthetic tiqurd and gaseous fuels, and any refined product produced therefrom. 3. Pipelines, sluny and emulsion systems, and conveyor belts for transpoftatron of solid materrals. 4. Systems for the transmission and disttibution of electric energy. 5. Systems for transmission or teception of radio, television, telephone, telegraph. and other electronic signals, and other neans of communications. 6. Improved rights-of-way for snow machines, air cushion vehicles, and all-terrarn vehicles. 7. Roads, highways, railroads, tunnels, tramways, aitports, landing strrps, ciocks, and other systehs of generai tlansPottation. D"portm.nl OI TrontDOtlolron Fedcrll Avratlon Admtntstra!ton Alaska Region AAL-{, P.O. l1 Anchorugc, Alerkr 99513 NCfE - The Depanment of Tran:potlat.ion has estgblished the above ccntral filrng pornr ior agencicr wtthlD that Dcperlment. Affccred agencret rie: Fedcrgl Avretron Admrntrtrstton (FAA), Coact Guard (USCG), Federa! Hichwey Ad;tinrrlratron (FIi11 A)' Fedcral Railroad Adsrinirtratron (FRA). OTHSR THAN ALASXA NAT'ONAL 'NTEREsI LANOs Use of this form is not lirarted to National lnterest Conservai.ion Lands of Alaska. lndividual departments/agencies may authorize the use of this form by applicants for transportation and utility systems and facilities on other Federal lands outside thos. ateas descti.bcd above. For proposals located outside of Alaska, apPlications will be filed at the local agency office or at a location specified by the resPon- sible Federal agency. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS (Items not listed are sell'explanatory) Item 7 Attach preliminary sitc and facility construction Plans. The responsible agency *'ill provide instructions whenever speci- fic ptans are requrred. 8 Generally, the map zzsl show the section(s). townshiP(s), and range(s) within which the project is to be located. Show the proposed location of the project on the map es accutately as possible. Sor:re agencres require detailed suwey maps. The responsible agency x'rll provide additional instructions. 9, 10, and 12 - The resPonsible agency instructions. 13 Providing information on alternate routes and modes in as much detail as possible, discussing why certain routes or modes were rejected and why. it is necessary to cross Federal lands will ass!st the agency(ies) in processing your application and reachrng a finel decision Include only reasonable alternate routes and modes as related to curent techoology and economtcs. 1,1 The responsible agency provide instructions. l5 Generalty, a simple statetnent of the purpos. of the proposal wilt be sufficrent. However, majot Ptoposals located in critical ot sensttive ereas may require a full analysis wilh additional specific information. Thc responsible agency will provide additronal instructions. 16 through l8 - Providing this information in as much detail as possible will essrst the Federal agency(i:si ie prc::s:::-1 the application and reaching a decision' Shen complettng these ltems, you should use sound judgment tn furnrshrng relevent rnformation. For example. il the Proiect is not near a stream or other body of walet, do no, address this subjcct. The responsrble agency wrll provtde additronal rnsttuctlons. Application mzs, be siqned by the autl'.orrzed representatlve. applicant or applicant's Tbis application rus, be filed simultaneously with each Federal depanment or agency requiring authotlzat.ion to establish an4! operate your proposal. In Alaska, the following application and identify contact and possibly file agencies will help the other agencies with: the appticant file an the applicant should Dcoortnent of Agriculturc ReEional Forestir. Forest Service (USFS) Federal Office Building, P.O. Box 1628 Juneau. Alaska 99802 tetephone: (907) 58E-7217 (or a local Forest Service OlIice) Daportmenl o[ lnterior Br:.reau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Juneau Area Office, P.O. Box 3-8000 Juneau, Ataska 99802 Telephone: (9O7) 586-72O9 Bureau of Land llanagement (BLM) 701 C Street, Box 13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Telephone: (907) 271-5055 (or a local BL.rl O/lice) Nztionat Park Service (NPS) Alaska Regionat Office, 540 $.st Sth Avenue, Room 202 Anchorage, Alaska 995O1Telephone: (907) 27t-.1t96 U.S. Fish & rrildtife Service (FWS) Office of the Regional Directorloll Ersr Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telcphone: (907) 276-38O0 Note-Filinqs uirth any Interior aqency mry be filed wrth any office noted.sbove or E'tth the: Office of thc Secretary of the lalerior,lf odditionol spocc ir nceded to completc ony item, plcorr-pul thl in{ormotion on o scPorotG rhccr o{ poprr ondjdoattly itot "Cont -' additional Envuonnental Officcr, Box 120, f675 C Strect. Anchor- votron of Itcm ., N;;=D S:ATES =PARTh:=NT CF T3F INT=R;JR G=OI-CGI3AL SUR\'=Y T53-Rto3W rl5 5'33" c- :'i\\\\ \ GENTR \? Jdcn :8C? I t \7 lt #,),li i.:Kfi iI rii('., 'i)i ,q\lli lil ) 1.iriL4; \')/t, lU 'mvilffi1t::d&. iMg,ffi \.,:\", I t l,' 1l ft, F)' :',,/'_ V l;l e' f ll ', ?zopseo F,extvl Pees RezooreY1 \.rr I \t,. i '.\ 'l/ [ i " u,a18.\ c-o-, cocoeoot, ".- '-.,),4 , ,t.s.a.s,;Jih:t!A,ori,, ,' ::id#j Al( i 1-8.,o, -prrr, tSJt,tl t "6a*{ffn ta iskui i8 : RU4GELY C i lr. Garfield County Board of Commissioners 26 July 1985 Page 2 7. Mid-America Pipeline agrees to bury the relocated pipe'line with a min'imum cover of 4 feet in County Road right-of-way. 8. Mid-America agrees to backfill the proposed road crossing with grave'l and to maintain the crossing adding grave'l as necessary, untilall subsidence of the road crossing has ceased. 9. Mid-America agrees to restore the surface of the County roadto its condition prior to the re'locat'ion of the pipeline if the road'is damaged by construction during the relocation of the pipe'line. 10. The proposed relocation wil'l be done in accordance with Departnrent of Transportation Regulation, CFR 49, Part 195, Min'imum Federal Safety Standard for Liquid Pipe'l'ines. hJe would appreciate a favorable response to our request as soon as possible so that the work of relocation can begin as soon as possible. Th'ank you. S i ncerely, L i eber Manager Des i gn JHL: pj c Attch. ames H. As s i stant Pipel ine I ,tri.truaO D, ,J., Ur-., 'PV, P.L, g6-ae7 .nd Fo6.r.l Rrlttt"t Nolrc: 6-l-tl A?PLlc^irori Fo;i TBANtPof(i^Tlc,.i AriD UTILITY 5Y57EI{3 AND FACILITIES OX FEDERAL L^NDS FORM APPROVED olrB rio. t004-0060 Exprrer: Mp.y 31, l9E6 FOR A6ENCY USE ONLY Applicrtron ltumbcr Dete filed NOTE: BeforccompletingandfitingthGrpptrc.tion,thcrpplicrntrhouldcotnPlcrelyreviesthirpec_!. ege end rchedule'e prerppilcrtto'lmcctrng wtth r"prerenletives of the egency responrible for piocerring fhe applic.tion. E.ch .gency may hrvc tpccific rnd unrque r"quirement; to be lnet rn prcperrng and procesring the .pptic.tio'r. Ilbny timc3, with thc helP of thc agency tcPreten' tsttvc, th" epplicetion cen be completcd .t the PterPPlicetion meetrng. t. Name and .ddresE of applicant (tnclude =tpcodo) I Mid-America Pipel ine ComPanY P.0. Box 645 Tulsa,0K 74101-0645 4. As applicant are you? (chech one) a. [_.l tndividuat b. m Corporation' .. I Partnership/Association' d. D Statc Government/State Agency e. l--l Local Government f. E Federal Agency '!l checLed, complete supplemental page ^o''ulB7sa1- 18oo Authorized Agent 9t8/599-379? 5. Specify what application is for: (cbeck one) .. I New authorizetion b. E Renew existing authorizatioo No.-. .. E Amend existing authorizat;en Nq- '-2a?6n (NM-362?0) d. E Assign existing authorization No.-. ". f Existing use for which no authorization has been received' f. D other' ' l/ checLed, provide details under ltem 7 2. liarne, title, end address of euthorized agent if dilferent from Ilem I (include =ip code) James H. Lieber Assistant llanager- P'ipel ine Design 6. U an individual, or partnership arc you a citizen(s) of tbe United States? i-l yo" E Xo N/A 7. Project descriptioa (descibe zn detail): (a) Type of system or facility, (e.g., canal, prpelne, road); (b) related ties; (c) pbysical speciJications (length, u,idth. {adng, erc.).. (d) term o[ years needed; .(e) tirne of year of use umc or amount of product to be transported; (g) duratio-n and timing of construction; and (h) temporary work areas tiot. (Attach additional sheets, il additional space is neeried-) See Attached Sheet structures and facili- or operation; (f) Vol- necded for construc- g. Attach map covering area and show location of project proposat I'lap #USA-C0-04AB & Dwg USA-C0-04A8 - RL 9. State or tocal government approvat: l-l Attached I-f'] Applied for [- xot required 10. Nonreturnable application fee:l-l Attached I(X xot required 11. Does project cross internationat boundary or affect internationat walerways? l_l Y." M Xo (tl "yes," indicate on map) 12. Give statcment of your tcchnicat and financiat capabitity to construct, operate, maintain, and terminate system for which .uthotiz.lion Mia=-h.;tlTSli'iioperine co. is a whol]y owned subsidiary of l.'tApc0 Inc., a Delaware corporation with assets of over 1.4 billion dollars. I'IAPCO (l'1id-America Pipef ine Co.) has built, and operates and maintains approximately 8,100 m'iles of pipe1ines in 15 states. This proposed relocation is a part of a natural gas liquids transportation system known as MAPCO Rocky Mountain Pipeiine, built in 1980 under BLM Grant C-29360 (NI'1 36230). Attached: MAPCO 1984 Annual P.eport. "*. Iku:, i2tltgiI.;ic\" lJe. Deecrtbc othgt tc.sonablr' r Relocating the P'iPe1 'No other alternat'i the area of the of the 'landsl 'ides . p'ipe'l i ne. b. Uhy rrGrc th?rr allernrlrvct not telcclcd? Relocatjng the pipeline to the bottom lake and through the dam of the 'lake. landowner refused permission for this. of the va1 1 ey The lake and f1 oor wou'ld pl ace dam are on private the pipe'line in a'land and the c. Give explanatron as to why it ra necessary to crors Fcderal the e'xisting location of the pipel ine is remove the pipeline off Federa'l 'lands if physical constra'ints are recogn'ized. I ands. on Federa'l I ands and the corridor concePt practicai to observed and i t vras not was to be i4. List authortzations and pending apphcations fiied for srmilar projects which may provide rnformatron to the authorrzing agency. (5per ily nuaber. ciate, code, ot name-) 1'j'MAiio Tni "Eltit "6i"u1i'NM36320 (c-29360) August 15, 1980. Assignment MAPC0 Inc_ (Ass'ignor) to Mid-America Pipeline Co., (Aisignee) approved by BLM 4-2'82, effective 3'22'82- 2. W88866 - December 4, 1984, Mid-America Pipeline Company 3. W89380 - June 6, 1985, I'lid-America Pipel ine Company. 15. Provide statenrent of need for project, including thc economic feasibility and itet:rs such as: (a) cost of proposal (con.sltuctton' oP"' atioi. ,rnti matatenance); (b) estimaied cost of next b€st altemative; and (c) expected public benefits. See attached sheet. 16. Describe probable effects on the population in the area, including the socral and economlc asPec!s, and the rural_lifestyles. The area is very remote and at times inaccess'ible. The effects on the popu'lation'in the area would be'insignificant and not greater than now existing. 17. Describe likely envrronrrental elfects that the proposed project wil! have on: (a) art qualrly; sater quatity and quantity; (d) the control or structur3l change on any stream or other body (f) the surfaie of the land, including vegetation, permafrost, soil, and soil stability. (a) none; (b) temporary surface damage from construction operations; (c) non9i.(d).none; (;i i.rporiw .onitrrciion noise; (f) see (b) above; vegetat'ion to be reestab'lished by reseeding stipulations furnished by BLM (b) visual impact; (c1 surface and gioun of E'ater; (e) existing noise levcls; an 18. Descrrbe the probable effects that the proposed project will have on: (a) populations of fish, plant, wildlile, and nirinc tifc, inctudin threatened and endangered species; and (b) marine mammals, inciuding huntlng, capturrng. collecting. ot killing these anrr:lels' (a) none;(b) none 19. Name all thc Department(s),/Agency(res) where this applrcation is berng filed. BLM (}Jhite River Resource Area) I HF-REBy CERTIFi. That t am of tegal aqe and aurhorized to do busrness tn the Statc-and th,at I have 7e111nallf eramined the in(ormatro conterncd rn tte appiicatton and believe thai the rnforrr:ation subrilitted is correct to the b.st of nt knowledPe. /4 f4l $. U.S.C- s&i;$; logt. h'atcs it e crrr:re for any pcrson knowingly and witlfully to make to anv S-ta1!i--31f..-{als;;liilltjilus; or ir.ra,rt"nt statements ot icates.t t"lrons as lo anv matle? wilhrn its tuil ot egency ol 7. Hjd-America P'ipe1ine Company proposes to re1ocate a por!]on of its Rocky Mountajn 10,,iripe'line in Sections 16, 1.7 and 21, T5S, R103l.l, Girf .ie'ld County, Coloraoo. The proposal wou'ld remove "he pipel ine from an actjve 'landiiiOe to a more secure area. Drawjngs showing the proposeo re]ocation are noted jn 8 be'low. Logs of the soi'l obtajned froin three test pits are attached which jnd'icate the iustjfication for re'locating the pipef ine. The tota'l 'length.of re'location js uppioiiruieiy ++Ab feet. The re1ocatjon w'i'l'l resu'lt in the length of thl pipe]ine-on Federal 'land being reduced from.1635 feet to 537 feet in the irLa of the relocation. The iemainder of th re]ocation'is on fririt. land. Mid-America Pipeline Company has an easement for the relocaijon from the owner of the pricate land. The width of the amended giant on Federa'l land is requested to be 50 feet 'in wjdth, lying 25 feet 6ach side of the survey line for the relocation as shown on the attached maps. The existing pibeline that is to be replaced by-the relocated pibeiine vrill be r6mbvbd from Federal lands after cgmpletion of.the reiocatjon. The surface of the ground vrhere the existing p'ipeline is to be removed and where the relocated pjpeline is to be placed shajl be rehabi'litated in accordance with stipu]ations furn jshed by the BLM. The relocated pipe'line will be neecied as long_as the pipeline is in operation,'ut least as long as the term of the grant (30 years). The r!1ocat.ion is proposed to 5e done'in August of 1985. The pipeljne has a capacity to trinsiort 65,000 barrels of liqu]d hydrocarbons per.da,v'- It js'estiirated that construction operatjons will rake about 3 weeks. It ii iequested that a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) for temporary work space on Federal lands 10 feet souihwesterly from, para;llel wjth and adjoining ine i.qu.sted 50 ft. grant be authorized as a part of the amended grant. 15 (a) The relocatjon is needed to remove the pipefine from an act'ive sljde'aiea jn which it is located. The pipeline has broken in the area and a contribut'ing cause was the externai load placed on the pipeline by the sl.ide. Tne eit'imated cost is approximately $190,000. Maintainance costs so far approach this amount and are cont'inuing. The relocatjon wjll renrove thb'pipeline from the slide on BLM land' (6i nt p..*ission from the landowner for relocatjng !he. pipeline tnrough'th; like anO dam could not be obta'ined, the cost of th'is alternative was not ascertained i;i n.roiuiion of the pipeline will resu'lt in the Pipeline. be1ng 'in a jeis hazardoui area, thbrbUy reducjng its chances of being broken and risk to the pubf ic and environment. t tiOTE: The rerpcnsible rfrncl(rerr srll provlde sddrlroncl lnattuctront'lcxgct: iF;,RoPRtATE| :':ocx I - ?RIvIT5 COFDORATIONS a. Articlcs of lncorporation b. Corgoration Bylewr - A ccrtrfrcation from !he State shou'rnt the "' strt.. rs rn good standing and rs entrtled to operate s'rthln thc d. Copy of resolul:,on authorilrng filing The name and address of each sha;cholder o*'ning 3 percent or mote of the shares, togethat u'ith tha number and perce;ttage of any class of vottng shares of the entrtl' u'htch such shareho,lder is authorized to vote and the neme and address of each affiltate of the entrty logether with, rn the case of an affiliate controlled by the entity, the nunber of shares and the percentage of an1' class of votrng stock of that affiliate o*'neC, directly or i,ndrrectly, by that entitr, and in rhe case of an affiliate which controls that entity, the nuraber of shares and the perientage of any class of voting stock of that entity orlned, directly or rndirectly, by the affiliate. tf application is for an oit or gas oipeline, describe any related rrght-of-way or tempotary use pernit apPli- cations, and icientify previous applications. g. If application is for an oil and gas pipeline, identify all Federal lands by agency impacteC by A;?^cnE; | ,,"ro. m [] t]rm SeeI lowtl N - PUBLIC CORPORATIONS a. Copy of lau' forming corporation b. Proof of orgarizatioa c. Copy of Bylaws d. Copy of resolutioa author:.zing fitiag t] T t] t] D- If application is for an oil or gas pipeline,-' bY Item "I-f" and "I-g" above. provide inforaation required III - PARTNERSHIP OR OTHER UNII.ICORPORATED ENTITY a. Articles of association, if any b. If one partner is authorized to sig::, resolution authorizing action is c. Name and address of each particrDant. partner, assoclation, or othet , If applicaiion is for an oit or gas prpelire. provide inforrnation required-' by ltem "l-[" and "I-g" above. . If the required information is already filed *'ith the agcncy processirg this applicatioo and is cutrent, check block eilrtled "Filed." Provide the file identification rnformatron (e.t., number, ciate, code. name). l[ not on file or cunent. attach the requested rnforaat!on. (e) l'Ijd-America Pipel ine Company is a whol'ly ovrned subsiiliary of MAPC0 Inc.(f) c-?e360 (NM-36320); W-88866; W-89380;(g) The proposed relocation impacts Federal lands in parts of Sections 16 & 21 T5S,R103W,Garfield County, Colorado. D D D E NOT ICE The Privacy Act of 1974 provides thal you be furnished the following inlormatjon in conncction with information required hy this oppltcation for an authorrratrorr. AUTHORITY: l'6 U-S.C. 3lO; 5 U-S.C. 301. PRINCIPLE PURPOSE: The rnformation is to be used to process thc epplicetion ROUTINE USES: (l) The processing of the applicant's request for en authorization. (2) Docurnent.tion for public in orrnation.'(3) Trensfer to.pproprt.tc Federel agenciel when concurrenccis required prror to gr.nting . rtght in public lrndt or rc3ource3.(4)(5) lnformetton from the rccord andlor the record witt ba tr.ns- fcrred- to rgproprrrle-. Fedcrel, Strrc. tocrl or .foreign egcneics. DATA COLLECTION STATEIiliNT The Federel agencies cottect this inlormatlon frorn applicenls requ"strng right-of-wly. Permtt, license, leese. or certlfication for the use of Fcdcral lends. Tlre Federet egencier usc thil in otmstion to ev.lu.lc thc ep' EFFECT OF NOT PROVIDING inJormation is voluntarY. If all application may be tciected. tNFORh,IATION: Disclosure of the the informatton is nol Provtded, the reque3t ;ii,,$,,, pticrnt's proposeL l.!''.1,'i' ' ' --''>'2 . ' !r'r:i' Thc public ir obligrted -to_ respond to thls rnJomalron thcy wrsh to obtei.h-perrnrsiion to usc Federrt lendr.cnmrnel or ton3-, ot...:;i*'-{' j, ;';iO;;" le5- Prrp;sed PiPel in I'i;,-,ncirews Le i.e 0n iuesday, June 35, 19S5,3 iest Pjts (TP) H3r: e\:3r'ateC r';:"h d backhoe at ticAnOrews Lake to dereri:i ne "he f easaoi , l:1 c; re'ioca: i n-c our i0" p'ipel ine t.o a Stable so j'l forr,aiion. 'l'he Tesi i'::s r','ere 'lo;a-"ed at t,ne f o'i1owi ng 'locat'ions eas" of Baxter Pess Road: TP.i TP -2 TP-3 ,Res u'l ts : TP-1 South of the slide area tlorth of the s'l 'ide area dam at l'icAndrews Lake and East o; "he Surface Surface in the middle of "he slide area TP -2 Su rfa ce TP.3 See attached usA-c0-04 AB drawi ng -RL for, Test Pits. ?' Atlt qr oll) 10' 18' ?a' Top Soi 1 3rown, 0rganic I'iateri al found, moist P roposed pi pe'l i ne I ocat'ion C1 ay beds, gray, mixed wi th sand rela'u'ive1y pu re near 5' mark turning to sandy c1 ay at 10' C'layey sand l{oi st red col or appear- 'ing as depth i ncreases sand c'leans up water tabl e sand Ciays - red & brown, apparen'r.1y from sl ide wet. I^tel I graded dry, tan sandy ma ieri al very 1 ow pl asti ci ty i nd'icati ons of an o'ld road bed. Prcposed pi pe1 i ne 'l oca t,i on Top So'i'l Li gh'" Brown, 0rEani c I'iateri al very dry, organicsiit, low plesticity Wel I graded 1 i ght brown dry sand Brown sandstone cl ayey sand dark brovrn bedrock2A'20' - . t^r/tl0ca-.10n.o, 17' 18' Dsprnmaglrr oF Ehrrz CnnrtFICATE. g, NATALIE MEYER , gwata,Ly o/ %kh of l/re glok 4 grlon"lo fa*fy ,*hb lt"l -{r".b/ir7 A tk u*do o/ l/ra ,//tu MID-AMERICA PIPELINE COMPANY (Delaware Corporation) Aor t o,7r/rb/ *il/, l/,n "l/r/,?nltk /An*tbrcnt o/ t/re hot ,/ fk ghk "/ grhb"/, " / o* l/rh /rh a * g"td olor,/,kg ,nJ ou,l/*ory/ " / tum/plonl h harrua,il ht,rineu ot h **,/oil ih a//ar;tb *ol/r* t/rA */"h. July 10, 1985 , I -t.- no.-gZ9- Ga rf i e'l d County , Co'lo . February 29 ,1 9-g.o' I'1APC0, Inc.Appl i cant: , Address of APPlicant: I.lestern Garfiel d CountY This Conditional Use Permit is in Garfield Couniy Zoning Resolution Building Permit llo. (if applicable): compf iance with Sectjons 4.03 and 7'02 of the and as per aPP'lication. N/A This Condit;onat Use Permit is denied) subiect to cornPi i ance provisions and conditions set fol I owi ng condi t'i ons : Any damages to be repai red bY with the terms obtained prior hereby granted , (state whether by applicant with all statements, forth i n the aPP'li cation and al so County roads caused by the applicant will the applicant at their expense, in accordance of the County Road permit-, which must be to any construction. granted or representati ons , subject to the .PERMI Yi ,r^r, *uoro,. oOF'1,.1,* ,o* or*,0. ,"0*'afi!) IPR z 1 1980 I theThe concurring Ccimnissioners. is a vote of the maioritY of Board of CountY Da."ed this ry' day of 7 . .. , A.D. 1984 BOARD OF COUI'ITY GARFIELD COUNTY, 4l';1,itl ';,ri'., t t tlo.'l 2rr Da te ,.q nn GARFIELD COI]IITY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR II{STALLATIOI{ OF UTILITIES IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY Pernl ttee's tlame:Mid-America PipeJ.ine Address: 1800 S. Baltimore, Tulsa, Ok. , 74LL9 Type of Insta'l lation: Location and description of work: Rajrfar D:<c araa Cn prt .o] pifa] ina thrnrrgh ia Estimated Construction Schedule {Start October 1 1980 Compete:0aJanuarY 1, 1 . Request for permission to make the above-described installation at the'location specified ls here-by granted, subject to the following terms, conditions and special p'rovisions: l. It is understood that the Permittee wi't't cause the installation to besoever to Garfield County and that the Permittee will own and maintain thepleti.on .of the work. 2. The Permittee shall maintain the installation at all times and agrees to hold harm'less theCounty of Garfie'ld and its rdpresentatives, agents and employees from any and a'lI liability,'lossand damage which may arise out of or be connected with the installation, ma'intenance, alteiation,removal, or presence of the insta'llation above described or any work or facility connected there-with, within the area covered by this Permit. 3. The entire instal'lation, repairs and clean-up shall be completed prior to:. made at no expense what-insta'llation upon com- 4. The trave'ling pub'lic shall be protected during the insta'llation with properslgnals both day and night, and wqrnlng signs and-signals shaJl be instalied byof the.Permittee and in accordance with directions given by the Board of Countytheir representatlve. No open trench shall be permitted in the traveled roadwayless otherrise specified in.the Special Provislons below. 5. If the Board of County Commissioners so requires, Permittee shall mark the installat{on atdesignated locations in a manner acceptable to'the Board or Cornii-iorrissioners or thiir repre-sentative. 6. In the event any changes are made to thts highway in the future that would necessitate removalfor relocation of this insta'llation. Permittee will do so promptly at its own expense upon writ.tenrequest fron the Board of-County Commissioners. The County wi l'l not be responsib'le for any damagethat-may resu'lt ln the maintenance of the hlghway to installation placed inside PubIlc Rlg-trts-otlway 1{mits. 7. Permittee wi'll be requlred to shut off'lines and remov€ all combustible materials from therlght-of-ray when requested to do so by.the Board of County Cornmissioners because of necessaryroad constructlon or maintenance operatlons. 8. l{here the lnstallatlon crosses the.roadway, {t shall be incased in pipe of larger diameter ahdthe-crosslng shall be as nearly perpendlcular to the roadway as physicaltj, possib'lE. Thls instal-Iation shall be {nstalled by the method of borlng or Jacking tnrbu!tr beneith the road surface;however,-open cut shall be allowed up to the edge of the suifaced portion of the highray. 1o wa-ter shal'l be used ln the boring and no tunnellng shall be permitted. 9. Hhere the lnstallatlon crosses any dltche!r- canals or water carrying structures, wherever pos-sib'le lt shaII be pushed through and beneath ln-a plpe of larger diarneter thereby eilminatlng ihenecessity of trenchlng. In no case shal'l the flow of water eier be impaired or interrupted. 10. The installatlon must be accompllshed ln accordance with accepted good practlces and conformto the recommendatlons of the l{atlonal E'lectrlc Safety Code and to such-Coloiado statutes as are warning slgns or and at the expense Commissioners orafter dark, un- appl lcable. : I I I . The above-descrl bed line shall be installed beneath the surfaceof the rlght-of-way at.a rnlnlmum depth-9f +6 iii fnches, and the dlsturbed-portfon of itre rlof-xay rlll bc restored to 'lts.orlqlnal condltloit.l Xnv backflllino ln the roadwav shall be.rna he right: be made lnof-ray rtil bc restored t9 'l!t.orlginal'condlt slx-lnch llfts and r :ored to lts orlginal condltt-ori./\ny bickfllling ln the-ro!dwiy shall bi maZe Ihechan{caIly. tamped and packiid;'-.and the Iast twEIve inches of -backflll shall be - thc, .r:l-l!|'t'r 'lnstallrtloli any i.. gravel. ,- &q.r:i:..r.,i , '_-i . a. , t .-.ffi fole r 't3. Permittee's lnsr.rC]}, shall be made at a locatton rnutffiagreed upon by pcrrnttte: and thrBoord of County Commlssloners or thelr represent0tlv!, and ln tccordancc rlth drtallr and rpcclfl-catlons shown on thc constructlon plansr a copy of whlch shall be furnlshcd to Garfleld County. 14. Permlttee shall lnfonn the Board of Cognty Commlssloners of constructlon mcthodtr rgulpnrntand oper!tlonal procedures that wlll be utlllzed and shall obta'ln thr concurrrncr of thc Eoird ofCounty Commlssloners. 15. Perrnlttee shall advlse the Board of County Commlssloners or thelr reprcsent!tlve at least 48hours'ln advance of the tlme at whJch work on the lnstallatlon wlll commence. 16. Any materla'ts frbm excavatlon as the result of thc lnstallatlon rl'll be removed fron thc road- way surface each day. 17. Under no condltlon ls an asphalt surface to be cut unless otherrlse speclfled ln thc SpeclalProvlsions below. ... .: . 18. llhere reference ls nade herein io tir" represinfitlve'df the Board of County Commlsslonersl such representat'lve shall be the District Road Supervlsor, unless otherwlse speclfled ln rrltlng bythe Boa rd of County Comml s s i oners . SpECIAL pRoVISioilS;-Par:;,.iir:a ,{1'! l- rar{r:lrO.: +,..-:intlln :Jc ;;.: ,..}.,ral-, ,.?{Iltr..lrstelletlon !s nade <Jurlno-coi:Firirq.tlon.pe:lol en<i a ful] -vear afLef cof,l- --'at- L tL)'l g6iEtJ THE BOARD OF COUI{TY COI{I,IISSIO'IERS OF GARFIELD COUIITY COLORADO i V In accepting this Permit the undersigned, representing the Pernlttee, verifies that he has readr and understands al'l of the foregoing prov'isions; that he has authorlty to slgn for and blnd the Pernlt-tee; and that by virtue of his signature the Permittee ls bound by all the condltJons set forth hereln. Permit Applicant:Mid-America Pipel Systeu, a division of l,lAPCO. Inc, B!:_.\a{z<';'<t, ..'/ .r' ' ' t(1.,'' Asst. Manager Pipeline Design i lrOru' Iull.l5lo.\)f orl J =e z- b I-+ T8S-R104Yy, SEC, 1 0 GARFIELD COUNTY, CO. Plpollno llortors pipe rnsto,,.o ,*ffing sho* Be Advonced At.A Rote Approximotely Equol To Rote of Boring. Atl Ditching Sholl Be Bockfilled At 958 Pmctor. All Dimensions Are Strbjeet To lndividuol Rood Specificotions. Pipe To Be Used: lO.75O' O.D, X 0.365 " W.T., )L4? . -. 1- 2_ s. 4. rN Tt€ t$Ivl4 9wt4 0f 9ECTION fi); T65 - RIO4W 34bf, *7{lIr[FL PlPgLt]€ (APPfr0*rrATE) \O Fts;Orcffi 0' FlPH,ll€ COUNTY ROAD 2O1IIID-ATEHCA PIPEUIIE COPA]IY TI'LBA, OTLAHOIIA l8 t-qot z0'd /88-l 288 I -E SZ-0t 6 lunsyu ? llv3flo:uorJ. t0:0t 8t-61-130 T7S-R104W, SEC. 27 GARRELD COUNTY, CO. 2te I* t. 2, 3. 4. .qEUEMI NqJ.ES Pipe lnstolled Under Roodwoy By Boring Sholl Be Advanced At A Rote Approximotely Equol To Bote of Boring. All Ditching Sholl Be Bockfilled At 95fi Proc'tor. All Dimensions Are Subject To Individuol Rood Specificotions. Pipe To Be Used: lO.75O " O.D. X O-AO_5-1 W.T., X_4?_ LOCAflON lN TFE eW/4 t,{E./4 ffi 5ECTION 27, 1-19*RlO4tY 3'?.2A1t13 (wo 4t*vL 1-6. ws) AFE: PPt- -'7Tb67 TID.ITBrcI PPELI]IE COHPATY TUL3A, OXLAIiOTA COUNTY ROAD 2O1 GARFIELD COUNTY. COLORADO OEflN Br: CLH 601-CO-GA-RO-1-2 scALE N.T.S. I orrr: 7- 10*sB eppnono. UEI t81-q0t 0t/e0'd ls8-l z88r-592-0.16 SnsYU ? ilWn0:uorl z0:0t 86-El-130 i Z T7S-R104W, SEC. 14 GARFIELD COUNTY, CO. Xr0ru'rl. EIo'Jl TDP OF PIPE pipe rnstored ,"offiing shott Be Advonced At' A Rote Approximately Equol To Rote of Boring. All Ditching Sholl Be Bcckfilled At gSE Proctor. All Dimensiona Are Subject To lndividuol Rood Specificotions. pipe To Be Used: 1O.75O " O.D. X ,q.,395 " W.T., re- = = I ?+ 1. t. 3. 4. (ppnoxurr4 *e"-{q-&*r-\6:% \ \ LOCATION IN TIJE 5E/4 NE/4 NW/4 OF 9E6T tON 14. T75 -RIO4W FPL -?ira-z HD'AHQI HPA'IE COfPltlY TULaA, OTLAHOXA COUNTY ROAD 2O1 GARFItr.D coUNTY. COLOBADO orrm m MllC 001-co-GAr-RD-3.1 scAtE: N,T.S, I oarr' tO-r-98 TFPFOtrD: UEI l8t-qot 0t/?0'd /68-J. I881-6EZ-016 3UnSVU ? ilVtflo:urorJ z0:01 88-cl-m0 = o Ir T6S-R103W, SEC. 6 GARFIELD COUNTY, CO. GB{ERAL NOTES 1. Pipe lnstolled Under Roodwoy fo Bgring Sholl Be Advonced At A Rote Approxirnotely Equol To Rute of Boring. 2. All Ditchine Sholt Be Backfilled At BSE Proclor. 3. All Dimensions Are Subject To lndividuol Rood Specifications- 4. Pipe Io Be Used: lO.75O" O.D. X 0.ie5 " W.T., X 42 ANGLE OF CROSSING (AFPRoxrHArE)LOCATION IN THE NW/4 'E/4 'E/4 ffi I5Ecr10N 6. T69 -R.IC3W I 3-7t?t1 fr r'/ I ( {*e w*u*{ sn*di'T'wi I U\*-aQlO*t'. *;/r**) | EXlgT.tC-ttl MAF|- FTFELThE/J i lil AFE: PFI- -TT1S7 HID.ATEHCA PIPELI}IE GOHPAilY TULgA. OKLAH#A COUNTY ROAD ZO1 GARFIFI D ONIINTt' COLORADO meffi gA JTH eo1 -co-GA-RD-17.t scalE N.TS. lort 9-18-98 IFFROVFI} UEI i8l-qor 0rls0 d 168-1 288 t-sl e-0.1 0 :ilnsw ? ilwno:u0rl z0:0t 86-61-130 Fr QlOru' E,1zl?r 3r z t t> I+ TOP OF PIPE = T5S-R103W, SEC. GARFIELD COUNTY, 6 co. o.9 CL F- Fipelina Morkare GENERAL NQIES 1. Pipe lnstolled Under Roodrroy By Bgring Sholl Be ,Advonced At' A Eote Approximotcly Equol To Rote of Boring. 2, All Ditching Sholl Bo Bockfilied At 958 Proctor. 3, A{l Dirnenaions Are Suhject Io lndividucl Rood specificotione. 4. Pipe To Be Used: 0.750 " O.D. X ,Q'-1E5 " W.T', re.- ANGLE OF CROSSING (app6qHMaE)I it I IN THE NE/4 'W/4 NW/4 AF IECT|ON 6. Tb, - R103W 3'ru;'l ftfig - r.(*,o 5?4-/-w-L 44ta'/ fl*- * *a- cVwl*-e-'''-t^ ) LOCATION '-a<trr. p' IIAPL PIFA.INE AFE: PPL'7Ttr7 ilD.AffiNA PPELI]E COTPA]IY ?UL8A, OKLAITOTIA COUNTY ROAD 201 SARFIELD COUNTY. COLORADO ffirxH Ef: JTH 601-CO-GA-RO-17.? scnLE: N.T.S. Iuti l-l!:qq ,PFRWEO: UEI t8t-qof gtls0'd ,168-J, Z88t-692-015 SnsYx ? ilwr|o:uotl t0:0t 86-61-130 F, "l<lOroL' EI atJI TOP OF PIPE T5S-R103W, SEC. 55 GARRELD COUNTY, CO.R LI<. v 2 d\) TOP OF PIPE 1. GENERAL NOTE fine lJrstolled Under Roodwoy By Boring Shoil Be AdvoncedAt A Rote Approximotely fqilot io Rotd of Boring. AII Ditching Sholl Be Bockfitled At g.SIE Proctor. All Dimensions Are subject ro lndividuol Rood specificotions. Fipe To Be Used: lO.75O' 0.0. X 0.365 " W.T., X 42 t-. ? 4. lN TFE tw/4 NE/4 9W/4 0F ?ECTtoN 35. T55 -RIO3W <,lbqo+ 11 G*o-iyo*,-Il tu), *\b-*'*uA) AFE: PPL -7r5&-I HID{HHICI PIPELIilE MTRlilY TUL8A. OKLAHOilA COUNTY ROAD 2O1 0vt0.d 288 I -6 SZ-0r I tunsvu ? HWn0:llrorJ E0:01 8B-81-130 T5S-R1 03W, SEC. 35 GARFIELD COUNTY, CO.E o au, Fz o U -:J I I Pipelirr Mur 1_ GENER,AL NO.TES Pipe lnstolled Under Roodwoy Ey Eodng Sholl Ee Mvonced At A Rote Approximately Equol To Rote of Boring. All Ditching S.holl Be Bockfilled At 95% Proctor. All Dimensions Are Subject To lndividuol Rood Specificotions. Pipe To Ee Used: 10.7rc " O,D. X _A.3_6,5_" tt/.T., X42 2- 3. 4, LOCATION tH TtE awt4 1wt4 NW/4 0f SECT|ON 35. T55-Rt35W 311U r+3 ,{ AFE: PPL *"7T5b7 TE.AIIHIGA PPELIIIE GOHPAilY ?UL8A. OTLAHOIIA COUNTT ROAD 201 GARFIELD COUI{TY^ COLORADO DF*rx wr JTH 6C1_Co_cA_RD_17.4 sc^rE: N.T.S. I uerr 9- 1 8-98 AFFio\trD, lJEl :HflSYI T ilWn0:urorl t0:01 86-El-Dor8t-q0f 0t/80"d J,68-.1 288 t-t9 z-01 I \rrI (IFPE0XTM,ATI? FF'trOiF,D D" TFELII{E T5S-R103W, SEC. 21 GARFIELD COUNTY, CO. lrOr rlhl sl+ z b I !t- 2. 1 IL 1. Tipeline Morkarc GEITERAL NOTES Pipe lnstolled Under Roodwoy By Boring Sholl Be Advonced ,4t' A Rote Approxirnotely Equal To Rste of Boring. All Ditching Sholl Be Eockfilled At SSE Proctor. All Dimensions Are Subject Io lndividuol Rood Specificotions. Fipe To Be Used: lC.75C ' O.D. X 0.365 ' W-T., rc- ANGLE OF C (AFFRoxrtr lltr. lo' ROSSINGntil \.\ \ LOCATION 31797{try IN THE 1W {4 I.T\,Y/4 OF SECTION 2L Tse -R.IO3W ( *o\J^t-,s /a'Vz- w--, ;;,,A a., rr"-A+ k4-. tz-- n"ag--{a"P I "-u-S) AFE: PPL -719.b7 ilEhlEEl PlPELlllE GOtlPAllT tuL8A, OELAHOnA COUNTT ROAD 2O1 GARFIFI D COUNTY. COLORADO DErnH Fr: GLH 6ol -CO-GA-ft0*25.1 REV. 1 6-Zr-90scau: N.T.S. lOmt, 7-U-tU APPROI/EI} UEI r8l-qof 0t/$0'd ls8-l t88t-692-010 BnsH T Nw|l(I:uroJJ ?0:0t 86-61-J30 2 tD I? TsS-R 1 03Vy. SEC. 21 GARRELD COUNTY, CO.F q ou F2 tsd.; = b Ib :3 V Ttpaline Morl<aro TDP OF PIPE piqe In'to,,"o ,n*ffins shott Be Advsnced At'A Rote Approximotely Equol To Rote of Boring- Atl Ditching Sholl Be Bockfitled At 958 Proctor. All Dimensions Are Subject To lndividuol Rood Specifications. Pipe To Be Used: lO.71O ' O.D. X 0-J65.'.IYJ-, X 42 1. 2, 3. 4. LOCATION er449r1? tN THE 1el4 NW/4 NW/4 r'l1l1,/4 0f 9EGTION 21, T59.R,O3W f1-*tt4*,)$p,*t ^v,#+\'-/e"d*+) COUNTY ROAD 2O1HID|*EEA PIPELIlil COTPA]IY TULEA OXLAHOIIA -,'r= 1P-f-98 iai-qci 0t/01'd 168-1 288 t-69 Z-01 5 !il|.]sYd ? IYSI'|o:!r0Il 90:0t 8E-61-J30 , (APPRoXIMATE) \ \ Ir > Q= irl t'r 6; lr IttI16)rtr lq., dE 11 =L lr-'tsl= IF Bo 6 3 € l-,lx lrDti I -lC 6 h F l-lo lc+lololrDl-l-ls I I 6l-loo I 5r t:!ln ld o>;r. l5 tr1 15 l- Hd l= l; F# ld l= l-I l(D lor li ls li It l; l=IN l(D lol('l l= lcl-\ lo- l=l= lE lct 13 13 l. lt Eldll ll. lp li lil' lill llFl Ell ipilEtrga zTo3o =o6xO i5FH=*z7oo !a-i"gE3g? =o-f c ==tto o -3=.F FE oE _,Jo LN JI 4 a aa C] l4J ts tsoE rL,E Ltl aa oJ t J'r LN rL{ ru a ? P :OHoo- r-t oR E!rEtrlF.PB =oal^ p zI FO (,(o(o I.lE -tNl' .}MID-AMERICA PIPELINE COMPANY October 19, 1998 Mr. John Barbee Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8th Street Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Mid- America Pipeline Company - Special Use Permit Dear Mr. Barbee, As requested in your October 15th letter to the offices of Dugan & Rasure, enclosed please find check number 107599, in the amount of $506.25. This payment represents the balance due on the work to date for the Mid-America Pipeline Company Special Use Permit from September through October 15, 1998. Thank you for your consideration and attention in this matter. Ronald L. Hobbs Administrator Real Estate Services Enclosure frCi z C Des 135 East Ninth, Suite A. Durango, Colorado 81301 .970-382-8535 . 888-565-0008 II .l -.( NOTE: Before completing anC filing the application. the applicant should completely review thispac-k- age and schedrrle a preapplicatron meet;; wtth representatives of the agency resPonsible for processing ttre applilation. Each agency mal, have specific and unrque requirements to be met in prepariig a.d'processrng the applicaiion. lrlany times, with the help of the agency repreSen- tative, ttre application can be completed at the PreaPplication meetrng' rrrr!rrDto DY .jJr' \ii-.-- P.L.9o-a8? end Fcderel R.girt"r Noirce 6-3-81 l. Name and address of applicant code) Mid-America PiPel ine ComPanY P.0. Box 645 Tul sa, 0K 74101-0645 4. As applicant are you? (check one) a. f lndividual b. m CorPoration' c. f Partnership/Association r d. E State Government/State Agency e. [--lLocal Government f. E Federal Agency 'tl checLed, conp!ete supplemental page APPLICA.i IOTi F(,,;i TRANSPORTATIOI.. AND UTILITY SYSTEHS ANO FACILITIES ON FEDERAL LANDS .FORlt APPROvED oltB lio.'100{-0060 Exprtes: May 31, 1986 FOR AGENCY US5 ONLY Application liumber TELEPHONE r a,ea code.l ooo'flB7 ssr.- lBoo Authorized Agent 918/599-3792 Specify what application is for: (chech one) ". I New authotization b. f] Renew existing authorization No. ' .. m Amend existing authorization r'ro' C-2a?50 (NM-?62?O) d. E Assign existing authorization No. ' ". I Existing use for which no authorization has beeo received' f. E other I 'Il checked, provide details under ltem 7 U an individual, or partnership are you a citizen(s) of the United States? i-_l yu= E llo N/A 2. Name, title, and address of authorized agent if different from ltem | (include zip code) James H. Lieber Ass i stant l4anager- Pipel ine Des'ign p-;..t au..riprion(describe tn detail): (a) Type of system or facility, (e-g., canal, plpeltne, road); (b) related ties; (c) physicai specifications (lenRtb, u,,dtb) prodrit, etc.); (d) teim oiy."ts needed;, Jt) tlt" of vear of use ume or amount or proau.i'iJ;;'i;;;;:;;d; (;iii'"ttoi'''ra ii*l'g of consiruction; and (h) temPorary work areas tion. (Attach aririitional sheets, il additional space is needed.) structures and facili- or operation; (f) Vol- needed for construc- See Attached Sheet 8. Attach map covering area and show location of project proposal I'lap #USA-C0-04A8 & Dwg USA-C0-04A8 - RL 9. State or local government approvat: [-l Attr.h"d ffi Applred for I-l Not requrred 10. Iionreturnable application fee:[--l Attached XX Not reQurred It. Does proiect cross international boundary or affect international waterways? [--l y." [Xl no (ll "yes," indicate on map) 12. Give statement of your technical and financiat capability to construct, operate, maintain, and terminate syslem f63 whrch authorlzation Mjll=-h'fit-rf3'a"'ii'per jne co. js a wholiy owned subsidiary of MAPCO Inc., a Delaware corporation with assets of over 1.4 billion dollars. MAPCO (t'lid-America Pipeline Co.) has bui1t, and operates and ma'intains approximately 8,100 miles of pipel ines 'in 15 states. This proposed relocation is a part of a'natural gas liquids transportation system known as MAPC0 Rocky --Mountain Pipelinb, built in 1980 under BLM Grant C-29360 (NI'i 36230). Attached: MAPCO 19a4 Annual Report. (Coattnued on reterse)rsx 73ra-at-1.1-ttl, Date filed 13a. Descrrbe othe! reasonable alternatrve routes anci modes consrciered- Relocating the p'ipef ine to the bottom of the va11ey floolin the No other ilternatives were reasonable or improve the security of area of the I andsl i des. the pipel ine. b. \\'hy u'ere these alternatrves not selected? Relocating the pipeline to the bottom lake and ihrough the dam of the lake. landowner refused permission for th'is. of the va1'leY The lake and f I oor woul d p'lace dam are on Private the pipeiine in a I and and the c. Give explanatton as to why it is necessary to cross Federal The ex jst'ing locat'ion of the pipe'line 'is remove the p'i peI i ne of f Federal I ands 'if physical constraints are recognized. I an ds. on Federal I ands and the corridor concePt it vras not Practica'l to was to be observed and ctswhichmayprovideinfcrmatlontotheauthorlzingagency'(5pec. ily numbet, aate, code, or nane.) 1':' MAitti Tnt'BLI'i Gi;nt' NM36320 (c-2e360) Ausust to Mjd-America Pipeline Co., (Assignee) approved 2. W88866 - December 4, 1984, Mid-America Pipel 3 . I,JB93B0 - June 6, 1985, I'ii d-America P i pe1 i ne 15, i980. Assignment MAPC0 Inc (Assignor) by BLM 4-2-82, effective 3-22-82. ine Company Company. 15. Provide state!:ent o[ need for project, including the alton, und matntenance); (b) estimated cost of next See attached sheet. economic feasibilitY best alternative; and and items such as: (c) expected public (a) cost of proposal (conslructton' ope'i' : benefits. 16. Descrrbe procable effects on the populatron in the area, rncluding the social and economic asPecis, The area is very remote and at timesinaccessible. The effects on area would be insignificant and not greater than now existing. and the rural lifestyies. the population in the 17. Describe likely envrronmental effects that the proposed project will have on: (a) air qualrty; (b) visual water quality ""a q"r"i,i"; (d) the control or structural ch"nge on any stream or other body of *'ater; (Q the surface of the tani, inciuding vegetation, permafrost, soil, and soil stability. (a) none; (b) temporary Surface damage from construction operations; (.i tempordry construciion noise; (f) see (b) above; vegetatjon to be reseedjng stipulations furnished by BLM impact; (c) (e) existinB surface and ground noise !evels; and (c) none; (d) none; reestabl i shed bY lg. Descrrbe the probable effects that the proposed project will have on: (a) populations of fish, plant' wildlife, and m'arine life, including threatened and endangered species; ,na 1U1 ."ri.u *".*als, including hunting, caPturrng, collecttng, or killing these anlrnals. (a) none; (b) none t9. Name all the Department( s),/Agency(tes) where this applrcation is being filed. BLM (I,lhjte River Resource Area) I HF-REBy CERTIF-i, That I am of legal aqe and authorized to do busrness rn the State and that I have personally examrned the informatron contalned rn the acplrcatrcn and believe that the rnformatton subrrirted rs cortect to the best of mv knowledqe' Applrc;r: 'r rt""rr *"t***ty and *'illfully to make to 'nU/fStates anV false, frctrtious, cr fraudulent statemenls or representatlons as lo an-v matter wrth!n tts ,utr<dlctton' of the unrted D are ,7*t/)t /lt /!i 7 . Mi d-Ameri ca Pi pe1 i ne Ccnpany propcses to-rel ocate a Por!] on of i ts Rocky Mounta'in 10" Fipetine jn Sections 16, 17 and 21, T5S, R1C3Ir]' Garfield County, Co'loraoo. The propcsal would rernove the pipel ine f rom in act'ive lanOiiide to a more seturb area. Drawings showir-rS lhe p.opos"O relocation are noted in 8 belor'i. Logs of the soil obtained from three test piir u.. at'uacheci which indicate the justifjcation for ..io.ui'ing the pi pel i ne. The total 'length . of rel ocati on j s upp.o*i*iieiy +qeb feet. The relocat'ion will result in the length of ihL pipeline on F"a.tul land being reduced from, i635 feet to 537 feet in the irba of the relocation. The iemainder of th relocation is on piirit. land. Mid-Amerjca Pipeline Conpany has an easement for the relocation from the owner of the pricate lind. The width of the amended grini-on-Feaeiit land is requesteb to be 50 feet in w'idth, lying 25 feet each s i de of the survey 'l 'i ne f or the rel ocati on as shown on the attached ;;pr.- The exjsting piieljne that is to be replaced by-the relocated ;ip;i'ine will ue r6mbvbd from Fecjeral lands after completion of the i^eiocat j on. The surface of the ground vrhere the exi st'ing Pi pPl 'ine i s to be removed and where the relocat;d pipei'ine is to be placed shall be iehabil.itated in iciordance wjth stipi,tations furnjshed by the BLM. The retoiatea pipeline vrill be neecied as long-as the pjPeJllt l: ilo;.;;li;;,'ui-teast as long as the term of the grant (10 years). The rbtocat.ion is p;;p;t;a to 6e done in August of 1985. The pipeline has a capacity to trinipoii OS,OOO barrels of-liq!ld hydrocarbons per, day' It is'estiirated that construction operations wjll take about 3 weeks. It ii i.qr.tted thii u T.*potury Usb Permit (TUP) for temporary work space on Federal landi-i0 feet souihwesterly from, parallel w'ith and adjoining in. i.qr.steO 5O it. grant be authorjied as a part of the amended grant. 15 (a) The relocat'ion'is needed to remove the pipeline from an active sl.ide'aiea.in wh.ich it'is located. The pipeline has broken'in the area and a contributint cart.-*ut the externai joad placed on the pipeline by the sl ide. f ne eitimated cost 'is approx'imately $190,000. Mulnta jnance costs so far approach thjs amount and are contjnuing' The relocat'ion will re*ove thb'pipeline from the sljde on BLM land. ibi At p..hiss'ion from the landowner for relocating !he. pipeiine tfrrouifi' t,he I uf . ui,O dam coul d not be obtai ned , the cost of thi s al ternati ve was not ascerta i ned.(;i n"tocuiion-oi-il,. pjpgl'ine will result in the PiPe'line being 'in a less hazaraori ut.u, thbrbUy reducing its chances of be'ing broken and risk to the public and environment' NCTE: The resFcnsible agenc\'(ies) urll provrde additronal rnstructrons' lcxscx iFPRoPRIATEI s:-ocx ATTACIiE: Articles of lncorporation b. Corporation Bvlau's A certifrcation from the Statec'st"te. I - ?RIYAT5 CORDORATIONS shou'ing the corPoration is in good standinE and is entitled to operate urthin the E D el owfl I e, The name and address of each shareholder ou,ning 3 percent or more of the shares, togethet u'ith the number-' ;;J;;;;;"i;a" of any class of vorrng shares of tfre entrt-v *'hrch such shareholder is authorized to vote and ' the name and address of each affiliate of the entity tog"ih", with, in ihe case of an affiliate coatrolied bv the .iiiil,,"ii. irru", of shares and the percentage oi'an1'''class of voting stock of that affiliate os'nec, directiy or indirectly, b-y that entity, and in the case o"f an affiliate which controls that entity, the number of shares and the percentage of any class of voting stock of that entity owned, directly or indirectly, by the affiliate' d. Copy of resolut'ion authorizrng filing , If application is for an oil or gas pipeline, describe " cations, and irientify previous applications. any related right-of-way or temPorary use per::rit appli' g. If application is for an oil and gas identify all Federal lands by agency impacted by proposal' T _ PUBLIC CORPCRATIONS a. Copy of 1a*' foming corPoration b. Proof of orga:ization c. Copy of Byiaws d. Copy of resolution authorizing filing D f] T f] D tl ^ If applicatron'' by Itern "l-f" is for an oil or gas and "I-g" above. provide information required III - PARTNERSHIP OR OTHER UNIi-ICORPORATED ENTITY t] a. Articles of association, if anY b. If one partner authorized to sign, resolution authotizing action is c. Name snd address of each particiPant. Partnet, association, or other is for an oit or gas prpeline, provide information required and "I-g" above, If the required information is already filed with the agcncl' processing this i;r.ria. ilu filu identifrcation rnformatron (e.&, number, riate, code, name1. lf l'1id-America Pipel ine Company is a whol ly ovrned C-29360 (N1,1-36320) ; W-88866; tJ-89380; The proposed rel ocat.ion 'impacts Federal lands Garfield County, Colorado. if D and is current, check block entitled "Filed." or current, attach the requested rnfomatton. E Td.tf application by Item "I-f" application not on file (e) (f) (g) subs'idiary of MAPCO Inc. 'in parts of Sect'ions 16 & 21 T5S,R103l^l, NOTICE The Privacy Act of 1974 provides that you be furnished the following rnformation in connection with rnformation requrred by this applicalion for an authortzation. AUTHORITY: l6 U.S.C, 310; 5 U.S.C. 301- PRINCIPLE PURPOSE: The rnf ormation is to be used to process the application. ROUTINE USES: (l) The processing of the applicant's requesl for rn authorrzat!on. (2) Documentatron for PUblic inJormation' (3) Transfer to approprrate Federal agencies when concurrence is requtred prtor to grBnti.ng a rrght in publrc lands or resources' (4)(5) Inf omatron from the record endl or the record will be trans- ferred to approprrste Federal, Stete, locel or forergn agencies, when ralevant io crvil, crtmtnal or regulatory lnves!tgettons or EFF=CT OF NOT PROVIDING rnJormation is voluntarY. If all application maY be re1ected. INFORIIATION the informatron : Disclosure o{ the is not ProviCed, the DATA COLL ECTION STAT EME}.IT The Federal agencies colleci this tnformatron from applicants requesting rrght-of-way, permti, hcense, leese, or certrfjcation for the use of Federal lands. The Federat agencies use this in ormation to evaluate the ap' plrcant's proPosel. The pubhc is obligeled to respond to thrs rnlomallon request thev wlsh to obtaln Permtsston to use Federal lands' ^?^'a^rrtr^he I rnEv uvro.' r!rrrr'+ E APPLICATION FOR iRANSPORTATICN AND UTILITY SYSi:IIIS AND FACILITIES ON FEDERAL LANDS Transportation ard utilitv sYstems and appircation maY be usL'd are: 1. Canals, ditches, flumes, laterals, and other systens for the transportation facility uses for which the pipes, pipelines, tunnels, of u'ater. GENERAL INFORMATION ALASKA ,\ATIONAL /NTSREST LANDS This application !rill be used *'hen applying for a riqht-of-way' permit. license, lease, or certificate for the use of Federal lands *'hich lie u'rthin conservation system untts and National Recreation or Conservation Areas as defined rn the Alaska National Interest Lands Ccnservatron .{ct. Conservation svstem units rnclude the Natlonal Park 51-ste:::, National $ ildlif e Refuge System, I\atronal \l ild and Scenic Rivers S!'stem, National Trails System. Nalional \lilderness Presen'ation Syster., and National Forest l[onunents. Deporlment o{ Tronsoortotron Fecieral Aviation ACrnrntsttaiion Alaska Region A.{L-{, P.O. l4 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 NOfE - The Depanrent of Transportation has established the above central fiitng polnt for agencies wrthln that Department' Affected agencies ire: Federal Aviatron Administration (F{A)' Coast Guaid (USCG), Federal Highway Ac::rrnrstratron (FIiiIA), Federal Railroad Administratron (FRA). QTHER IHAN ALASKA NATIONAL 'NIERsST LANDS Use of this form is not limrted to National lnterest Conservation Lands of Aiaska. Individual departmentslagencies may authorize the use of this form by appiicants for transportation and utility systems and facilities on other Federal lands outside those areas described above. For proposals located outside of Alaska, applications will be filed at the locai agency office or at a location specified by the resPon- sible Federal agency. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS (ltems not listeri are sell'explanatory) I tem 7 Attach preliminary site and facility construction Plans. The r.=porsible agency will provide instluctrons whenever speci- fic plans are requrred. I Generally, the map uust show the sectron(s)' township(s), and rangL(s) within which the project is to be located. Show the proposed tocation of the Project on the map as accurately as possible. Sorne agencres require detailed survey maps' The responsible agency wrll provide additronal instructions. 9, 10, and 12 - The resPonsible agency instruct ions. l3 Providing information on alternate routes and modes in as much detail as possible, discussing whv certain routes or modes were rejected and why. it is necessary to cross Federal lands will assist the agency(ies) in processing your application and reaching a final decision. Include only reasonable altetnale routes and modes as related to current techoology and economrcs. l.t The responsible agency provide instructions. l5 Generally, a simple statement of the purpose of the proposal will be -sufftcrent. However, maior proposals located in critical or sensrtive areas may require a full analysrs B'ith additional specific inJormation. The responsrble agency will provide additronal instructions. 16 throuqh l8 - Providing this inlormation in as much detail as possrble will assist the Federal agenc';(::s) rn iit.:?s::'a the applrcation and reaching a deciston. When completrnq these ltems, you should use sound .ludgment rn furnlshrng relevant rnformation. For example, if the project is not neat a stream or other body of water, /o not address this subiect' The responsrble agency wrll provrde additronal lnstructions' Applrcation mus! be siqned by the aPplicant or applicant's authottzed rePresentatrve. ll odditionol sDocc is nceded to compiele ony rl"m-, pleosc.gut tha iniormotroa on o s"porolc:heel ol popcr ond rdentrly rloi-Loni -' uorron o{ lten". 2. Pipelines and or.her svstems for the transportation of liquids other than water, i.nciuding oil, natural gas, synthetic liqurd and g'aseous fuels, and any refined product produced therefrom. 3. Pipelines, slurry and emulsion s]'stems' and conveyor belts for transportatron of solid materials. 4. Systems for the transmission and distribution of electric energy. 5. Systems for transmission or reception of radio, telephone, telegraph, and other electronic signals, and of communications. 6. Improved righrs-of-way for snow machines, vehicles, and all-terrarn vehicles. t el evi s ion, other rneans air cushion 7. Roads, highu'ays, railroads, tunnels, tramways, airports, landing strrps, .iccks, and other systems of generai transPortation' This application rt!sl be filed simultaneousty with each Federal department or agency requiring authorlzation to establish an{i operate your Proposal. In Alaska, the following agencies will help the aPPlicant file an application and icientif/ the other agencies the applicant should contact and possiblY file with: Deportment of Agriculture Regional Forester, Forest Federal Office Building, Juneau, Alaska 998O2 Seruice (USFS) P.O. Box 1628 additionalTelephone: (907) 586-72:17 (ot a local Forc st Seruice Ollice) Dcportmcnt of lnterior Bueau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Juneau Area Office, P.O. Box 3-8000 Juneau, Alaska 99EO2 Telephone: (907) 586-7209 Bureau of Land llanaqement (BLill) 701 C Street, Box l3 Anchoraqe, AIaska 99513 Telephone: (907) 271-5055 (or a local BL.rl Ollice) National Park Service (NPS) Alaska Regional Office, 540 West 5th Avenue, Room Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 271-{196 U.S. Fish & WrlClife Seruice (F\lS) Offrce of the Regronal Directorl0l I East Tudor Road Anchorase, Alaska 995O3 Te Iephone (907) 276-380O 202 Noie-Filrngs wtth an)' Intertor aqency noted above or *'rth the: Office of Regronal Envuonrental Officer, Box eqe, Alaska 99513. (Fo, srrpplenenla!, see tetetse) may be f iled wtth anv office the Secretaru of lhe Interior, 120, f675 C Street, Anchor' , '\'':-=I: a- r l-Fq.J-\ll--l/ 9;.at-v :PARTI'I=NT CF T:-{E ]N:=R:3R G:Ci O3I:AL SUR\'=Y T53-RIO3W t) V, Mrg Hray -{ I:86.' ) ( ,J.L(\ 1.1tt -. *: m J \.\\t -' \.. ,A /.------ \ lll'-;i"' ":''Avl#:tc| ?t?ELttJE. r'l) till Co. ?eorcseo BI$1E,F. ?AEg Reg-oate 6-a.$.U rJ.6.6.q. 7'/r' G,ooo " 6a*{e. ?trr" A- , Co'o*oor^n, , Purq. Na,i 5d-co -04 As .\>/ ( ..' /,' -) ,t q ?,rs ! r,Aclive Skde(--. / )l,ii ) I ' a-.,,- ftt= ?aao' Fr!6alv 6; Aa,.!( ia i:" \s., 1?); r;=L t,/ , i /J,.ri\('i \ t',\t ',. \>kr) ) Tes'. ii:s Prop:seci fi pei i ne Rel ocatj cn I'i;incirerrs Lai-e, itrl oracio 0r: Tuesda.y,,)une 25,:-oS5,3 i:sr Piis (TP) \i3re e\:arated ri'lth a backhoe at l.icAndrews l-ake tc deteri. i ne the f easabi i i:1' c' rel oca: i ng our i0" pipef ine to a stable soil forri,a:ion. The Test li:s i';ere locarecj at '"he foliorr'ing locations east. of Baxter Fass Road: TP-1 South of the slide area -t? -2 l,iorth of the s'iicie area and East oi the dam at i'icAndrer+s Lake Su rfa ce 10' 18', rop Soil Broln, 0rgani c I'iaterial found, moist P ropo sed pi pe1 i ne I ocati on C'l ay bed s ,gray, rn j xed v;i th sand rel a'ui vely pu re near 5' mark turni ng to sandy c1 ay at 10' C1 ayey sand l,'io'i s t red col or appear- ing as depth i ncreases sand cleans up water tabl e sand TP-3 I n Resul ts: TP.1 the mi ddl e of the sl 'ide area I?-Z Su rfa ce tv TP-3 C'lays - red & brown, apparently f rom sl'ide wet. I,'el I graded dry, tan sandy ma-,erial ver^y 1ow pl asti ci ty i nd'icati ons of an cld road bed. Proposed pi pe1 i ne I ocati on Note: See a"tached drawin9 USA-C0-04 AB -RL for I oca:i on of Test Pi ts Su rface 2', Att 5', ol C) t7' 1g' Top Soi 1 Lighi. Brown, 0rgan i c Materjal very dry, organic si1t, low plas'uicity hlel I graded'l1ght brown dry sand Brourn sands tone c1 ayey sand dark brot'rn 20'(U Drp.rnrrrENT oF Sarrr CTnUFICArB. g, NATALIE MEYER , %r",te,lany ,/ gklc ,/ lfi" fll*h 4 Gr/rr*/, h*4 ,*k/y l/ril .ilr*Llt rg h tlrn t ,*c/,t o/ l/rit ,//* MID-AMERICA PIPELINE COMPANY (Delaware Corporation) 4^ **/*./ *o1/, l/ra "/r//r;calh /naarith"rl o/ lle /*rt ,/ l/* 9/ah *"1 cnm/Ele,r'Ll h kantorl /qttinetc aa. h caot/rrl ih a/faiu *il/rtm l/ott ':rlah. of Go/o+"/, *rd om {/ott dalc ia in gaad ol.a,nil,ng aotd aal/rati7ed DATED:July 10, I9B5 , I ,',13 c c: i"-- - '': . 3et:ept ir:rr ,,2b/0 -'..,., ,', 3r-8t.}2l].. o Aat'co-fu++qz Btlo( 544 pAGrS_i_ii M4.88 - Rev. tt.il R/W No.- fr,n IVIAR - 3 19BU .ll cd A1::rlolf , Reco.rrr.er GMANE {DF'tsAStsMBNT FOR AND lN CONSIDER/!.TION.of the sunr of Ten Dollars (t10.00) in hand paid, rcccipt end sufficicncy of which ir hcrciry acknowlcdged,andafurthcrsum,cquel intheaggregatetoSeVen Dol'lpfq (\7.OOI'crrodforcechlincelrodof pipclinctobc constructed undcr the terms herco( to be paid after a suwcy establishing thc routc of the linc hs bcn complctcd, ead bcforc con3truction is commenced, I, or wc, Co . 81524. D. Go1d.en. Colo.Rlchard Coff men, 6035 Vlci<t John, Houston, Tex 7T096 ohn Iletoloza s Retoloza, both of 171 Orchard Ave., Grand. Junctlon, a, hcreinaftcr referred to as "Grantor" (whethcr onc or more), do hereby grent, bargain, scll end convcy unt(: MAPTIO lrrc., e Frciawrrc corporation, its succcssors end assigns, hercinafier ref.'rrcd to rs "Grantec", the righ: privilcgc lnd c:scrnenr, rt aoy rirnc anct liom r'sc io rrmc to construct, maintein, inspect, operate, p[otectr repair, replecc, chenge the si:e of, or i.mov. a pipeline oi pinehncs, rnd othcr rppurtct{3nccs, within the confines of a right of way Fifty feet in width, said right of way b.i^g - - 16--f,cet on thc |lorth/Wcrr side .nd-35=-fcct on the South/East side of a line (to bc) (as) survsyed and .lefiniteiy established by thc ccntcrline of thc iniriel pi;:clinc cons[ructed for the transportation of naturel gas, oil, petrol:um products or any oiher liquids, gascs or ruLstaic.3 which cen bc r.irnsportcd through a pipeline, togerher with rhe right of ingress and e&ress to rnd from thc sarnc for the purp,rscs aforcs:id, ovcr, undcr, thrcugh and across the following dcscribed lends, of which the Grrntrrr warrants they arc thc owncrs in fee simplc, rituirtcd in tlrc County of Garf 1el-d Stete of Colorad o to wlt i- 14 and the 7 Souih, Range IN THE trVENT that Gra.ntor needs to use the area of the easement belnggranted hereby for constrlrctlon of a bulIdlng, bu1ldln6s or road.I'Iay, the Grantor hereby glves and. Srants hereund.er, to the Grant,eer 1ts suc(ressors or asslgns, the rlght to use an addltlona1 acceptable area of the sqme slze and for the sa,me purppses as above, at no ad.dltlonaI cost to Grantee, and. t,he Grantee hereln agrees'r,o remove the p1pe1lne to the nevr locatlon at no cost to the Grantor. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD seid right of wey end eascmcnt unto raid Crantec, its ruccesrorr end essigns forevcr, It is agrccd thet the pipclinc or pipclines to be laid under this grant shall bc constructed at sufficicnt dcpth bclow thc rurfecc of thc ground to pcrmit normd cultivation, and Grantor shall havc thc right to fully use and enjoy thc abovc dcrcribcd prcmiscr, rubjcct to thc righr hcrcin grented- Granrcc shall hevc the right to clcar and kecp clear all rrecs, undergrowth and othcr obrtructions from thc hercin grutcd right of wey, end Grantor egrccs not to build, construct or creete, nor pcrmit others to build, construct or crcatc any buildings or othcr rtnrcturcr on thc hcrcin granted right of way thet will interfere with the normal opcrarion end meintcnencc of thc reid linc or liner, Grantcc tgrees to pay to thc then owners ud to any tenrnt, as thcir intcrcsts may bc, eny md ell demeger to crop3, fimbcr, fcnccr, drein tilc, or othcr improvcmcnts on said premises that mey arisc from thc cxcrcisc of the rights hcrcin grented. Any peymcnt duc hcreun&r mry bc medc direct to thc srid Grrntor or lny one of thcm. Grantor hercby expressly egrces that in the cvcnt the route of thc pipclinc or pipelincs to bc consructcd hcrcundcr rhould cros rny rordr, reilroads, crecks, rivers or othcr wlterways locetcd on the abovc dercribcd lend or othcr placcr rcquiring crtra working rprc.r thcn Grentcc rhell heve the right end tcmpor;rry acccst to eddirionel working spacc which mey bc ncccss.ry for conrrucdon rnd Grutcc agrccr to pey Grantor any end all &mages which Grentor suffers by reason of Crantee's use of seid :dditiond working rpecc. Grantor repres€nts that thc above dcscribed lend S5.) (is not) rcnted for thc pcriod bcginning 19-to , l9-on (cath) (crop) basis to Thc tcrms and conditions hereof shall be binding upon and inurc to thc bcncGts of thc hcirs, cxccutorsr adminittr.torsr dcvilccr, 3ucccrrcrrl rustees or assigns of the parties hercto, and the rights herein grantcd may bc ersigncd in wholc or rn pert. in witncss lvhereof the said crantor-he^S-hereunio ,"c t?{R ha^d-rnd scal-, ,6i" /1fna.y o6Deeenbef ,i9 79, R. C. B. D. L. Bosl'le1l. ' Rtchard Cof'fmen Jotrn Retolora South one-haIf (s+) South trast Quartcr (sn*) of Sectlon North East Quarter (l,tti*) of Sectt on 23, all 1n Townehlp 104 \,,iest, 6trr r. I,I. W]TNESS: Louls Retoloza - on (lndividual) FOR USE ONLY IN NEW MEXICO, ColoradoSTATE ON couNTy oa Ivbsa BE IT REMEMBERED, That on this Notuy Public in and for said County andof R.c.B. Ltd. State, personally appeared TEXAS, l': 19th Btlo( 544 pAcESi_3 OKLAHOMA, MISSOURI, NEDRASKA,MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, IOWA, KANSAS day oF Decenibrer , t.o.,:979 bcfore me, a B. K. Spam, C,enera1. Partner to me known to be the iilentical person-described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me ,h", sh€ cxccured the samc ", her free and voluntary act and deed for the uses. purposes, and consideraiion rhcrcin sct forth. , I have hereunro ser my official signature and affixed rny notarial seal, the day and year first abovc written. Notary i'ublrc , That on this day of A.D., 19-beforc me, a County and State, personally appeared to rnc known to bc tlrc identical person-dcscribed in and who executed clrc within and forcgoing instrument, and acknowledgcd to me that-executed the same as free and voluntary act and deed for the uses, purposes, and consideration therein set forth. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my official signature and affixed my notarial scal, the day and year first above written' My comnrission expires Notary Public STATE OF- COUNTY OF, BE IT REMEMBERED, Thet on this day of , A.D., 19- beforc me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State,-personally appeared to me known to be thc identical person-described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument' and acknowledged to me that-executed thc same as free and voluntary act and deed for the uses, purposes! and consideration thcrein set forth' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto ser my official signature and affixed my notarial seal, the day and year lust ebove writtcn. My commission expires Notary Public >,i..'v\.(..1.*-.- 4I ;' l*in l-""lslfl ale ii=s,ilFat " i-fla E'ita i'e ir,:,' i: + i-\5-d iEi\q'n ioi Ht .x'* r l\":'iti o -tr r:-'P 5EFioo6t.'il i roi ;\o i E*[\3 < r 3a5Zc5a.eB Ao ^oiei;2 ;16 +!NtF:rl 13 I , s lN WTTNESS WHEREOF. I lrave hereunto sct my offi 3o E u6 3: \'::-, ^,r+.,R,,r\ conrmission expires ,t ss. MA-277 xocir:'r.ir: i . 3-73 I et:eP i' i r:: r Draft No. ;,..- A. * u .. ['di!-:iJ9&ru; [ti ].il.rrlrl A.l.rilorf , f(ecorrletr Btlo( 544 prr;E5?l R/W No. RATIFICATION AGREEMENT OF GMNT OF EASEMENT The undersigned (hereinafter ca1led "Grantor" whether one or more), for and in consideration of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00) , cash in hand, and other good, valuable and sufficient considerations paid by MAPCO Inc.(hereinafter caIled "Grantee"), the receipt of which is acknowledged, hereby accepts, adopts, ratifies, and confirms unto Grantee, it succes- sors and assiBfls, that certain Grant of Easement dated December fQ t rc:f9 , executed by B. K" Spann covering certain of Colorado County, State , described as follows: s/2 sE/4 section l-l{ and NE/4 section 2J, TZs, Rl-04w, 6th p.M. For the same consideration, Grantor hereby grants and conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assignS, a Right of Way or, over, and through the above described land for the purposes and with the rights contained in the Grant of Easement aforesaid, hereby approving and confirming all acts heretofore done and all payments made under and by virtue of the terms of said Grant of Easement. lands situated in Garfiel-d Januar.y ,1960 ( Indivi dual ) A. D. State BE IT REMEMBERED, that , 19 *D , before fl€, a on this day of Notary P-[51Tc,in and for srArE or (s{n . 1 couNrY or 7Zel6t__ _ ) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I affixed my notarial seal, , peEonalTy appeared JoLrn Retoloza to me known to be the identical person descrrbed rn and who executed tne within and foregoing instrument, and aEFnowledged to me that he exe- cuted the same is tris free and voluntary act and deed Tor EF uses, purposes, and confdEJE-Ei6i- therein set forth. have hereunto set ..nr/" i'td[f.l,qL signature and i tten. Dated tnis /'(- , _ aay of WITNESSES: RetoJoza My Commission Expires: 4!..l the day and year O, MA-277-2 5- /J ( Indivi dual ) STATE OF t$\-i dt"rA.t; t\) H kY ICOUNTY OF BA. D., State, E IT REMEMBERED, that on this day of s aid-Tounty and to me known to be the identical person described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and aEFnowledged to me that exe- cuted the same as free and voluntary act and deed fEilEe uses, purposes , and..conilde-Ta therein set forth. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my official signature and affixed my notarial sea1, the day and year first above written. My Commission Expires: ( Indivi dual ) STATE OF COUNTY OF day of 19 , before r€, a.Notary PuETIc-lTil--Ei?I-forpeEonally appeared ) ) ) BEA. D., State, IT REMEMBERED, that 19 , before ile, a Fu5ff c;--ii- and for said County and on this NotarypeisEIally appeared ctl t' -lErl) -5 9.6rP :v ?> E ! identical person described within and foregoing instrument, and aEk-nowledged inland who executed the to mb. that exe- and (.eed ffirTE-e- uses, \\ cuted the same as free and voluntary act purposes, and conFttfe-E-fi6i- therein set forth. i IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my official s'ignature and affixed my notarial seal, the day and year first above written. My Commission Expires: Not aTy -Put 11 c oo lhs Nn [JU0K 544 Pl0E5.,j0 Draft No. lrl ilr.:'-''-'1 A-l:'lorf , Rr;cordt:r' R/W No. RATIFICATION AGREEMENT OF GMNT OF EASEMENT The undersigned (hereinafter cal1ed "Grantor" whether one or more), -for and. in consideration of Ten and No/IO0 Dollars ($f0.00), cash-in land, ""a other good, valuable and sufficient considerations pai-d by-MAPCO Inc. (hereinaftEr cilt"d "Grantee"), the receip_t of which_is acknowledged, hereby accepts, adopts, ratifi6s, and confirms unto Grantee, it succes- sors and asiigtrS, that certain Grant of Easement dated December p , L9 T9 , executed by B. K" Spann covering certain lands situated in County, State of Colorado , described as follows: s/2 SE/4 Section l-4 and NE,/4 section 2J, T7S, R1o4w, 6th P.M. Dated tnrs /O - d,aY of January ,19go WITNESSES: ( Indivi dual ) srArE oF Cfth - ) COUNTY ' ) For the same consideration, Grantor hereby grants and conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigtrS, a Rj.ght-oi.Way onr gvPT, and through the above described land for the-puiposes-and with. the rights-- contained in the Grant of Easement aforesai-d, hereby approving and confirming- all ,Ltr heretofore done and all payments made under and by virtue of the terms of said Grant of Easement. Garfie].o 's-iri", p"ffi" itty appeared Louis Retoloza Retol- to me known to be within and cuted the purposes, enticaJ- person escrlbe f,oregoing instrument, anq aEFnowledged that he exe- In an to me o execute same aS his free and voluntarY act and deed ffir EEd uses, and conil?GTatEi- therein set f orth. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I affixed my notarial sea1, My Commission ExPires: have hereunto set *y .rfi,l..iau*!ig,,ature and the day and year first uhgneilyr.I't'ten. o 3-73 areept,i,rir [i, . .'-:-]-i.f:]''1":i" ' (r< Is3atr,a <; 9-6 C,9=^Ef ir xj. t\)Bfr.N .F, t',0 Ual.1 +$t iEs sCoif,1a'(\"';' i ,, i.Nr i.ol tIi r^ ia,-.-[Lf iBisB NN, i.\i N' I :- & H,i\q,R* i i s iN i", i .ui NiNg z . MA-277-2 3-73 (Individual) OF OF BE IT REMEMBERED, that on this day of A. D., State, 19 , be fore re , a .Notary PuSlTEl--iE- ai-if-for sai@and peEonally appeared Orri Ni '[=Bi lnir{i 5 ! c I I ISTATE COUNTY within and foregoing instrument, and adFnowledged cuted the sane as free and voluntary act purposes, andlconFiTe-ratf on therein set f orth. to me known to be the rdentrcal person My Comnission Expires: ( Indivi dual ) STATE COUNTY OF OF s crr be nandwto me that and deed o execu fr-i-TEe edt exe - uses, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my official signature and affixed ny notarial seai, the daY and year first above written' ) ) ) BEA. D., State, IT REMEMBERED, that 19 , before D€, a day ofon this Notary mmlc;-in and for sE1d County and pe?56-n-a11y appeared o me known to be t identical person escrl rn and w o executed t within and foregoing instrument, and aEEnowledged o me that cuted the same as free and voluntarY act nd deed purposes, and conilffiaEffi therein set forth. IN WITNESS''WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my affixed rny notarial seal, the daY and year first exe - foT-TEe uses, ott1c1 al signature and above'wri t ten . My Commission Expires: Notary-Pub 1i c iruolt 543 prcE3gl_ 5- /5 Draft No.R/W No. RATIFICAT.ION AGREEMENT OF GMNT OF EASEMENT The undersigned (hereinafter ca11ed "Grantor" whether one or more), ,for and in consideration of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($f0.00), cash in hand, and other good, valuable and sufficient considerations pai_d by_MAPCO fnc. (hereinaft6r ca11ed "Grantee"), the receipt of which_is acknowledged, hereby accepts, adopts, ratif ies, and conf irms unto Grantee, it -succes- sors ind asiigtrS, that certain Grant of Easement dated Decenbe{l ' 19 T9 , executed by B. K" Spann covering certain lands of Colorado situated in Garfield , described as follows: County, State For the same consideration, Grantor hereby grants and conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, a Right -of -Way -on, 9v9r, and through the above described land for the-puiposes and with the rights_ contained in the Grant of Easement aforesaib, hereby approving and confirming- all acts heretofore done and all payments made under and by virtue of the terms of said Grant of Easement. S/2 SE/4 Sectiorr l-4 and NE/4 Sectiorr 2J, T7S, Rl-o4W, 6tY, P.M. D. L. Boswel-I s* pe?Giln-ally appeared D. L. Boswel-I *Dated thrs / 7 daY of W Fulr*r., , 19 bO ) Z,(,6*-*rlc ( Indivi dual ) STATE s' co l, fo" n, * ) COUNTY OF Sa,. Dr. to ) BEA. D., State, IT REMEMBERED, that 19 , before fl€, a on this Notary PEb-Li C, day of Fcbyuqrw 'iln--n and for@ WITNEP'SES: o me known within and cuted the purposes, e identical person s cr]. be ].n anto me who execu edt foregoing instrument, and adk-nowledged that he s ame as iris free and voluntarY act and deed Toi-Ee and conffiGTaffi- therein set forth. exe - uses, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my official signature and affixed my notarial seai, the day and year first above written. My Commission ExPires: O * &, trcz otary llttrrrtttr:f lttr- sttr r- rttl.lt!, [ /ffi' oFFlclAL oEAL , l. W. :un:,l,,.*:,,.l,; u - ^ / *- rr,,l;;;;r,,,,'^,'&*'r,,rlr, ."^.;*ffij S.\\N N-. F"N* o Ip. {"BIb t on this day of Notary Pu6-fiE, r-Ifn-ai?[-for sai ount to me known to be t entical person es crr be 1n an4 w o executed t within.,and foregoing instrument, and adFnowledged to that exe- \ ---- - - - - O-cuted t\" same as free and voluntary act and"deed ToilTEe uses , purposes', and conilderrEf6 therein set forth. /'/''/' IN WI\NESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my of-f,iciaI signature and affixed ny irotarial sea1, the day and year first 6bove written. My Comnission Expl.res : ( Indivi dual ) STATE OF COUNTY OF BE IT REMEMBERED, that on this day of Notary PuEff c,--1n and for said County and * Nt \,\ \\ \ I ta F I r'l l-nfr I Il^r HIOp trtr i ii @ i I I EIs CN F}lA UlciI OI: Elt=^ aa :.'F ()- =2 a g q jr ,iil: I-Sfl:\- i 'tii-:I *9 i*fri"aFr MA-277-2 3-73 ( Indivi dual ) STATE OF COUNTY OF ) ) ) \ BE IT REMEMBERED, tha A. D., 19_, before il€, B, State, personally appeared ) ) )' A. D. , 19_, before me, -aState, personally appeared within and foregoing instrument, and aEFnowledged to me that exe- cuted the same as free and voluntary-act and deed mT-Lh'-e- uses, purposes, and conilffiaETon therein set forth IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hcr"eurittr set my of f 1ci-aI signature and affixed my ndtarial seal, the day and year first above'Written. My Commission Expires: Nofary-TuFla c | .,,J:2-,J' ii-t';.,O'*. ltr .\U:]tf^ -. , !y!)rL.)t-co MA-88 - Rev. ll-71 R/W No. GNANT OF BASBI|BNT FoR AND lN ..NSIDERATI.N of rhe sum of Ten Dollers (t10.00) in hand paid,rcceipt and sufficicncy of which ir hercby ::*;I$"j;;::;j":j*:',T:j:1"]l.I.:T::.:::pcrrodforcachlincelrodofpipclinctobc commenced.,, o, *., IIAROLD F . YOUNG and I4ARJ M.Y hus W OUAll of the Towns of Mack I{esa Count ;..,, b-rt", r.x -coroomtion its errrrarrn..,h, .""i--- L--^:-^t^- --t-. -til'lljll]li:tl::::::i:'-_.:1.:'llT: hcreinarter rererrcd to rs "Grantec-,,r* .;gi,, p,rir.o.l"a;;;;,:,.r, ,',Illi'o"i;';."::;I: , .; ;*'#:';;";:;;;il::,;within the confincs of e right of way Fifty fcet in widrh,within the confincs of e right of way Fifty fcet in widrh, said righr of way being _- 15- f,ccr on _:hd lorth/Wcrt sidc ""d -J5- feet on the South/Eest side of a line (to be) (as) surveycd and &finitciy esteblishcd by thc ccntcrlinc of thc initirl oinalinaesteblishcd by thc ccntcrlinc of thc initiel pipclinc ,J '.i'""..' *'r",; ff ;:T':I":::;throuch e nineline rnoether w.ith rl,- .i-t r ^f i----- -- r:::::.tt; ,lli,,*'_-,.r,.-,-1.-l:,,,1^:1. '11, -..r,l:"Ty r1a .q,e" io "nd r."* ;;.;,;" ;; ;: il;-;;:;; ;il,'"L;',,:.:1I;:'::":"* t:^ll;",1.gdcscribcd lands, or which the Gj."ior *".;"i, ;;;y";;;.'";;;;'I;l;;''ffi1,'i,i.ll;T";i'il"""3:",7o6 G-anf 1e1d 5,.j" o6 Colot ad.o to wit:- Grantor rcPrescnts thet thc above describcd landlG) (is not) rcntcd for thc pcriod bcginning 19- to , l9-on (cash) (crop) besir to "{,fadail"i;;3? 1{2 NW4 and. I{r,^I4 S1{4 Sectlon 2, Townshlp Z South, Range 104,[{egt.-sE4 sE4 Sectlorr 1, Townshrp 7 souirr, n"rg. io4'lrJst._ ^ryE4 _\E4 Segtlop tO, . Townshlp 7 south, nailge -IO4 West_ ) )$3"lYu, sw4 s.vf4, lW4 sw4, Ee sw4 seciron ir,-rownshtp Z south, Ranse 1o4- Lrye,NE1r IiW4.sE4f ItE4.NW4 sectlon 14, _Townphlp 7 southe Ra.nge 104 1^Iest.-t1eE4 sE4, slt4 5E4r_N!r4 sE4, E2 Nvr4; ir,y4-ilry+l-fiE4 ffi[-;;";Tffi"ol-rcor,r,rro' ''9.&tb, Rango 1oi west, NW4 SI{m^7, TownshSp { South, Range IOJ lrrest.Ea NE4, Nr{A sE4 sectlon ?4', ro*nshii o southi n."E" io4 w""i.wz sectlon 25. (axcnfl sp1 sw1], Tovrnshl; 6-b-6"trrl'nanse io+-wert.w2.NE4? Ea NW4, SW4 sectton 35'rownship-O-s;;;;;'Rtns; 104 r,'l;;;.SE4 NE4 SectiDo_n J4r'fovrnshlp 5 South, Range 1O3 lrrest.NW4 SW4, E2 g1{4, 52 NW4 sectton J5, iowns[rp 5-South, Range IoJ tlest.sw4 sE4, seetlon 35, rownshlp 5 south, Ran6e lot w;;; ,-i/.iY n 4Y" )7*7 t tJtr To HAVE AND To HoLD gid right of way and e.semcnt unto eeid Grantec, irs lucccrgo6 end assigns fo..*I.' I r ' " ' It is agrecd thet the pipcline or pipelines to bc laid under this grant shall be consrructcd at rufficicnt &pth bclow thc rurfacr of the gound topcrmit normd cultivation, and Grentor shall hevc thc right to fully use and enjoy thc ebovc &rcribcd prcmircr, rubjcct to thc rljh' hcrcingrante4 Grrntee shell havc thc right to clcar'and kecp ctear all trecs, undergrowth rnd othcr obrtructionr from thc hcrcin grentcd right of wry, endGrantor etrces not to build, construct or creete, nor pcrmit oth"rs tL build, construct or crcatc eny buildingr or othcr rructurer on thc hcrcingranted right of wey that will interfere vith the normal opcretion end meintcnencc of thc sid tinc or lincr. Grentec agree! to pey to thc then qmers end to any ten.nt, as their intcrcrts mry bc, uy end ell dem|ger to cropr, timbcr, fcnccri &rin tilc,or other improvcmcnts on s'id premises thet may tisc'from thc crcrcisc of the rights trcrcin grented. Arry peymcnt duc hcrcun&r mey bcmtde direct to thc seid Gnntor or any one of thcm. Grentor hcrcby cxpressly egrces that in thc cvcnt thc route of the pipclinc or pipclincs to bc conrtructcd hcrcundcr rhould crog rny rordr,refuol&, crceks, rivers or othcr w'terw.ys loceted on the abovc a"."d*a lend or other placcr rcquiring crue worting rpecc, thcn Grentcc lrdlhevc the right and tcmPorary 'cc€'s to edditional worling spacc which may tr n"."r,".y for conrgucrion end Grentcc rgrccr to pey Grentoreny and all &megcs which Grentor suffcrs by reeson of Grenice'r use of seid additional working rpecc. The terms and conditions hercof shall be binding upon end inurc to thc bcne6tr of thc hcirs, crecutorsi rdminirretorr, dcvilccr, rucccrx)rl,rustccs or assigns of the parties hercto, and the rights hcrein grentcd mey bc esigncd in whoic o, ir-p".,, In witncrs whereof thc said Grantor g hevohereunto ,", thelnends rnd rcar s , ,nir/ &a, ot December , to79 MTNESS: 'i ,'. li.:r,1orf , [] r:r:orcier DooK 54.2 PrctSSl-) Individual) :oR USE .NLY IN NEw MExIco, TExAs, .KLAH.MA, MISS.URI, NEBRASKA, MINNE'.TA, wlscoNslN, IowA, KANSAS irare or colorado 1r.. rouNTy ", HE s 4 -l ' ^^^^m,^an .n 7g herare me. aNTY OF / -/r+ J /, BE rr REMEMBERED, rhet on ttris 12th 'j'"ir*ffi *;il;il'*" J&# *.,t,r.Jfl;:Ju:'l[:r'",i,i'iUl "U,iE"HitllHlt'iil' "4 '. .{', -.1,1,:l STATE OF- COUNTY OF. Se tt RfN,tSt,iBERED, That on this )" Notary l'ublic , A'D., 19-bcforc me' a day of Notary public'ir, "ird fo. said County and State, personally appeared ,:- to me known to be rhc identicar person-described in and who "*".rrr.dlil-*"nin and foregoing instrument' and acknowledged to me 'L^; executed the same as free and voluntary act and deed for the uses' purPoscs' end consideretion therein sct forth' tnal r:--. ^t^.,-.*irten - L^-^"-r^ "r -- ^ffi ry notarial seal' the day endyeer first above written' IN WITNESs WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my official signature and affixed n My commission'exPires I,, Public STATE OF- COUNTY OF BE IT REMEMBERED, That on this day of , A.D., f 9 'before me' a Notary Public in and for said County and State'-personally appeared to me known to be the identicar person-described in and who "*""u,.Ilnllilt *d foregoing ins*ument' and acknowledged to me thatexecutedthesameasfreeandvoluntarv"""nideedfortheuses''""lll-l-l-::l:::::.:".insetforth' IN WITNESSWHEREOF,I have hereunto set my offi Notary Public My commission exPires STATE OF COUNTY OF BE IT REMEMBERED, That on this.-.- Notary Public in and for said County and State' personr to me known to be the identical person-describe' .L^r executed the same as lN WITNESS WHEREOF' ! have hereunto set my of l" ;oo<i:'o Atrl>rT>r<o^r"Ii l-4r9 o?!m{oZDa<@rtm-:T}; OZOmTM o0:o : C.,(3o(o' ru Sl P qel! t{,.?1 i.Q E)-fI"I I N$ Ns;st q Io\rn\orx-\ rn N\rN't L0 s.x xt \-\My commission exPtres ".' Atrgust krd. 19&1 ;'!rO.n 3\n a' '3 E,t t,t c }\E I iGr!\ti ,';qIIr lslFr ! I I I ILr* ' . -\:L,(-'-'Recorded of a)lo,rrr.- r.,rro ., .- IRED ALSDORF, RECORD'ER o'clock Recoption N". 3O4561r.i,r\'-17s- 4-73 ; VALVE EASEMENT The Grantee and its successors to erect a fence around said valve This Agreement is binding upon tors, successors and assigns of the Executed this e Pe daY of and assigns shal1 have the right or valves. the heirs, executors, administra- parties hereto.tu,le Po BE IT REMEMBERED, That on this Af ay n d 1 of A S D. - t9 ftn before rl€, a No--Lls- - - cJ'*e,, _persgn.al LY.--apPeare(r & ary Pu an and wto me deed IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto [et my official signature and affixed my notarial seai, the day and yeai first above written" .r,tr.rrl...;rrrrr, c..,'r,fTlt "',,). ...:...... ...':r.. . ,,.. Jf. tt ,,', '-, , it' " . ^,, " ".:,lMi Cflnstission ExPires:. r.', " ,l ,-' 1'! B00x 549 pAcE837 t,ite /3A - C-/o-€e&€.il ru AND IN CQNSIDERATIQN of the initial payment of the sum of€-t+ n^oriars ($/O,oo - ), n hand par.d,f which ii [e re6r' affi"ow- ledged, INq in. ADDrrroilAL suln o! aznre'h,'n/f c-l-{;n'fZt Dollars ($ 4dp,@) per valve to be paid-or tendglgd-_for paymdnt.on or r]"#ffir"uorva1vesare.insta11ed,(I)(We),.theundersignedGrantor(s), do(es) hereby grant unto MAPCO Inc., a Delaware corpor-\rI allrL(JI \)J, LTUL(,J ) treLvv)t ts,refrL urrev Ir^ ation, h"i6inaftei referied to as Grantee, its successors and assiEDS, the right to instal1, operate, maintain, remove and replace a valve or valies, with neceisai'y fittings qnd appurtenances in connection with the ionstruction, oleration-and maintenance of Grantge's piPe- Iine, or pipelines, together with the right ^of .ingress an{ egress to and irom iafoe, or trre Iand located in Gae'fr-/J County, State of (r/o,qra ln , to-wit: - %,.rn-rhrf A S.*71-, Rog. /o3 t')ecf, $e-cfi^* 4 se l+ 1eY+" sd, /+sE t/+, /l/u ytr-s€ W e 2 /uU /4 ,,tlr, Y,*,Ut s ttV, //e WsE lf . Wi tne STATE J,'.-.r'. i i\,,1, C., \d,F UIoP \ o!. trF? =€g a6 ib ='E=v*E F Ni iFi P l\'' icor IR\:, i< i i NilHNi Nt\r ; E,i(\F I iiiNT I P I N\i)1 i i' h., -f$ o t lCO,:d3r.l o ..v.4[ J-llgso-- Alsclorf, Booorder SUl]i( R/W l' Ow{{oe* GI]ANT Or. BASBMBTTT FOR AND lN CONSIDERATION.of rhe surn of Ten Dollers (t10.00) in hand peid, rcceipt end sufficicncy of which ir hcrcby acknowledged, and e furthcr sum, equal in the aggregat" ,o Seven Dollars ($7.00) pcr rod for cach lincat rod of pipclinc to bc conctructed undcr the terms hcreo( to bc paid after a survey esublishing thc rout of the linc hee complctcd, erd bcforc consruction is commcnced, I, or we,and Velda his wife harcinefter rcfcrrcd to as "Gr.ntor" (whethcr onc or more), do hercby g1alt, bargain, tcll end convcy unto MAPCO lnc.' a Dclawerc corporetion, its succcssors end essigns, hcreinafter referred to ls "Grrntcc", the right privilcgc end cescmant, rt eny timc and from time to timc to construct, maint.in, inspect, operate! protcct, rcpair, replece, chenge thc sizc of, {,r rcrnov. e pipelinc or pipclincs, and othcr.PPurtcnsnccs' within the con{ines of e right of way Fifty feet in width, said right of way t.i.g -J5---f,cet on thc tJg6[/Wcst side .^a 3( fect on the&6h/Eest side of a line (to bc) l{3f suweyed end &finitciy.cstablishcd by thc ccntcrlinc of thc initirl pipclinc constructcd for the transportation of natural gzs, oil, petrolcum products or eny other liqrrids, gtscs ot 3ubrt.nccr which cen bc tranrportcd through a pipeline, together with the right of ingress :nd egress to and from thc aame for thc purposss eforcraid, ovcr, undcr, through end actoss the following dcscribed lands, of which the Grrntor warrrnts they arc the owner3 in fce rimplc, rituetcd in thc County o6 Garfield st"t.of@to*it, bt-d;t+ Section 5; and d6S& and Lot 1 Section 5; and I+€Sdr4, NP45l,e4, SsmPn and NVPalfiP4 of Section 8; ana garda, M.P-nlt&, $zsPa and sS.iS& of section 17i ana #z!fur Nd4strPa, r^irSda ana SDaS& of Section Z1iand *NB< and S& of Section 28 au in r5s, R1o3hr. This easement shr']'l be subject to prior easement granted to IaIESCO and Northwest Pipeline Co. This easement shaI-l be located westerly of the WESCO plpeline as nol^, existlng in, Section 28, T5s, R103trf. Grantee agrees to reseed grasslarld where disturbed by construction with Grantorts seed specj-ficatlons, Ala Fences of Grantor cut by Grantee duri-:ng constmction of said pipelines sha11 be repaired by Grantee at Granteets sole exlpense, using materials of like kind and quality. TO HAVB AND TO HOLD said right of wry end c.semcnt unto raid Grantec, its rucccrsor end essigrr fotcvcr. It is agrecd thrt the pipclinc or pipclines to bc laid under this grent shall bc conrtructcd et sufficicnt &pth bclow the rurfecc of thc jround to pcrmit normal cultivation, end Grrntor shall htvc thc right to fully usc and enjoy thc above dcrcribcd premirer, rubjcct to thc rightr hercin granted. Grrntce shall havc the right to clcar and kccp clcu all trecs, undergrowth and othcr obttrucrionr from thc hcrcin Srentcd rig[rt of wly, end Grantor .grees not to build, construct or creltc, nor pcrmit othcrs to build, conrtruct or crcatt rny buildingr or othcr atructuirct on thc hcrcin grantcd right of w.y thet wilt interfcre with the normal operetion rnd meintcnencc of thc raid linc or liner. Grantcc agreer to p.y to thc then owncrs and to eny tenentr .s their intcrcrts may bc, eny and ell demeger to croptr timbcr, fcnccr, &lin tilc, or othcr improvcmcnts on said premises that may erisc from thc cxcrcirc of thc rights hctcin granted. Any peymcnt duc hcrcun&r mry bc madc dircct to thc s:id Grantor or any one of thcm. Grantor hercby expressly rgrees that in thc event the route of the pipelinc or pipclincr to bc hcrcundcr rhould crou rny rordr, reilroads, crccks, rivcrs or othcr waterweys locrtcd on thc ebovc dercribcd lend or othcr pleccr rcquirin3 worting rprcr, thcn Grentcc drdl havc thc right and tcmporry acccrs to edditional working spacc which mey bc ncccsrary for rnd Grutcc rgrccs to pry Grrntor eny and all &megcs which Grentor ruffers by reason of Grentee'l usc of seid additionel worting rpscc, Grrntor rcprer€nts that thc ebove described lend (is) (is not) rcntcd for thc pcriod bcginning 19- to , 19-on (cerh) (crop) besir to The rerms end conditions hcreof shell be binding upon end inurc to thc bcncfitc of thc hcirr,.dminirtratorr, dcvisccr, tuccatxrrl, t.rustees or assigns of the parties hercto, end thc rights hercin grentcd mey bc a.rsigncd in wholc or in In Witnesr Whereof the said Grantor-S-hawE hereunto set thei P hand s rnd scel-.S-, this <)a,BCU -flt?er0qoztoq) 542 prr;EtE.'l 2 ,{,MTNESS: 1 I (Individual) FOR USE OKLAHOMA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA' MI A, WISCONSIN, IOWA, KANSAS 17th day of 19 R0 before me, n Boo( 5412 rrcrEJ'13 STATE OF. ONLY IN NEW MEXICO, UTAH UINTAH TEXAS, ),'COUNTY OF BE lT REMEMBERED, That on Notarv Public in and for said County. H.A. GENTRY AND this and State, personally aPPeared - CJ. CNNTNY,, JOEIW RJ GA{TRY AND \M.DA l" yltn J )4.'e'. to me known to be the identical persons--described in and who executed the within and th"t----Fe-X-executed the same ", -lheif-free and voluntary act and deed for the uses' pur IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my official signature and affixed my notarial seal' the day My commission exPites APB.IL 1. 1-980 VERNAL, UTAH STATE ON COUNTY OF. BE IT REMEMBERED, That on this 19.-before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared to me known to be thc identical person-described in and who executed the within and instrument, and acknowledgcd to me that-executed the same as free and volulrtary act and deed for the uses's, end consideretion thcrein set forth' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my official signature and affixed my notarial seal' the day yeer first above written' Notary Public My commission exPires STATE O SS. COUNTY OF. day of 19- before me, a BE IT REMEMBERED, That on Notary Public in and for said County State, -personally aPPeared to me known to be the identical person-described in and who executed the within and instrument, and acknowledged to me that-executed the same as free and voluntary act and deed for the uses'and consideration therein set forth' IN WITNESSWHEREOF, I have hereunto set my official signature and affixed my notarial seal' the da year first above written' Notary Public My commission exPires STATE ON COUNTY OF this and 6o €ri,o 5tri >rfF*:^roni9mi;ooCogn/\ ?xeml- \ \ *. $ \.\\ N $,(- t' N N I\ IIE lT t\EMEMnERED' Tltat ott Notary Public in and for said County tlr is -.--..- and State, persona q)shr Fr CrIIA $ q.-loI(: -', i:i (' Jio'rt o{ooP ,ii o ? to me known to be the identical person-describet that-executed thc same as lN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereurtto sct my of My commission exPire l,' rI;n"'.fr ./_\/ MAO6 R6,(tOAl) ri rQ" at 9; I t o,",o"* P *( t*.i,.. nr.. 3&31"93 ;'l'frTfr?^. of which is hereby acknorvledged, {X}iliS,fiUi6Ur}ffi{06KX}6XXeE}6Ue{d('x DtHd(filrFxdn NileXDFX(DBTHr)SXqA}A{ XilfiXffi{}Flfilsxtl6}€Nfl[F)FXtsXXXfieXX)FXIXq{F$ilun${tpB11tpailO(flffXD6XN{XA6trx*X x xq QplpFxqaxarx{ wxrx x {&ffiild&U, r, o' Jo Ann R.Gent ry u nn elson ar I ene eresa e d,1g G ent ry hereinafter relerred to as "Grantor" (whether one or more), do hereby grant, bargain, sell and MID.AMERICA PIPELINE COM. PANY a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee", the time and lrom time tO time, to construct, maintain, inspect, op€ralo, protect, repair, replace, chango the ;ht, privilege and easement, at any of, or remorve a pipeline or pipelinos, abweground gate valves and other appurtenances, including electric lines, cathodic protsction equi and other devicss for the control of pipeline corrosicn, within the contines of a right ot way Fifty (50)in width, said right of way being feet on rhe Xilr!6/west side and Thirty- f i taer on tneb&lflfEast side @yedanddefinitelyeslabliShedbythecenter|ineoftheinitialpipeline for the transportation of natural GFIANT OF EASEMENT FoR AND tN coNstDERAIoN or the Jrim or ren Dbflars ($ro.oo)/"1]n* pli3,fiS.B8,l]es[ gas, oil, petroleum products or any other liquids, gases or substancos which can be transportod tl of ingress and egress to and from tho same for the purposes aloresaid, oveG under, through and whichtheGrantorwarrantstheyaretheolvnorsinleesimple,situateintheCountyot Garfield State of Co lorado To- wit: Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27; and Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 21, Towns Range 103 West. RF, RE@RDER ', cotonADo B00x 67L Pt0E983 a pipeline, together with the right the following described lands, ol 77; and the 20:' and thethe Northeast ip 5 South, TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said right of way and easem€nt unto said Grantee, ils successors and It is agreed that the pipeline or pipelines to bo laid under this grant shall be constructed at sufficient below the surlace ol the ground subject to the rights h€rein the herein granted right of way, and Grantor agrees not to build, construct or create, nor permit oth€rs to build, construct or craate any I granted right of way that will interfere with the normal operation and maintenance of the said line or of Grantee. Granteo agrees to pay to the then owners and to any tenant, as their interests may be, any and all d tile, or other improvemsnts on said premises which may arise from the exercise of the rights herein may be made direct to the said Grantor or any one ol them. Grantor hereby expressly agrees in the e to be constructed hereunder should cross any roads, railroads, creeks, rivers or other waterways or olher structures on the horein without the express writton consent to crops, timber, fences, drain Any payment due hereunder the route of the pipeline or pipelines on the abo/e described land or other places requiring extra nrrorking space, then Grantee shall have the right and temporary access additional working space which may be necessary for construction and Grantee agrees to pay Grantor any and all damages which sutters by reason of Grantee's use of said additional work sPace. It is hereby understood the party securing this grant on behalf of the Grantee is without authority make any convenant or agreement not herein expressed. Grantor roprosents the above described land ($ (is not) rented lor the period beginning 19- to No Tenant 9- on (cash) (crop) basis to Tho terms and conditions horeof shall be binding upon and inure to th€ benelits of the heirs, trustoes or assigns ol the parties hereto. devisees, successors, ln Witness Whereof the said Grantor S-ha Ve- hereunto sel J une 1e B520th 6", o1 WITNESS: --fere---T-e-drg 5 oDavidGentr hand s- and seal s- this fi r,, ii' lr,'Yl,,R,'qW,n . *o,,rtr ;n ;Zrirf,Ji*' * $ sau rrlqnd l(rEloN -61 'Jo fEp - or{l argJo Jo [Ba8 puB pusq {tu rapun uaAtC palB?e ureraql rllJBdBt aql u! puB uraraql uoqBJaprsuoc puB sasodrnd ar{l roJ Jo lcB 0r{l 8a puaroJlBqaq uo eruEo eql pelncaxa eqlBql aur ol porpal^rou{cB puB 'luaurnrlsut rulotaroJ aql ot paqtlcaqns sr aruBu recgJo puu uosJad aql aq ol atu 01 uaoul pa.rBaddB f llBuoB:ad,{Bp '^lHoqtnE paurrsrepun aql 'aur aroJag JO IJNnOS dO SIVJS ,Uqnd frBtoN aalrd xa uotaf ttuuroc r(Ii\l 'uallua a^qlB lsrg rBad PuE fEp aql 'lEaE lEualou ^tu PaXIJJE PUE aJnlaurls IRlrUJo /(ul lag a^oq l 'JogugH/il ssgNrIA\ { 'rr I INSHSCOS,I/IIONYCV SJVUOdUOC :saJrdxg uoresruuo3 /(W NI tEr{1 atu ol potpal^rou{cB puB'luaunrl8uf lutolaroJ PuL ulqll/tr aql Palncaxo otl.s PUE ut PaqlJJsaP - lucrluaPr aq? aq 01 umoul at! ol ^[Euosrad puE /(lunoo pfus roJ puu ut rllqnd /fiuloN s btu aroJaq - 6I ''C'v ' - Jo ABP srql uo ieqJ'ogugghlsNsu JI g8 do AJNnoS do sJvJs sarrd xa uorsstur(uoc Al! .uallua e^oqB 18rg rBad puB ^ep ar{l '[sas JuuBlou ^ur FaXIJJE PUE alnlBuEts IUIJUJo Atu lae naraq a^Eq I 'dogustIAl sssNu/r\ .qFoJ las ularaql uollBrapreuoc puB 'Basodrnd 'easn aql JoJ paap puE lro if:e1un1on Putr ea{ --_--------l- 8B aql Palncaxa lrlqnd /UBloN .r{|loJ la8 uraroql uorlBrepreuoc puB'ea€odrnd 'saan aql roJ paap puE lrE ^rutunlo^ Puu aa{at{l palniaxa t, Lir.l u aIIt 01 pa8pal,rou:lJB puE,luauulsut turoraJoJ PUE urqlln aql PalnJaxa oqm PUE ut Paqlrf,eaP - NI lpr{1 lucrtuapt ,q1 "q n1 um0ul aur ol paluaddu ,{llEuosrad 'pur ,(1uno3 pru8 roJ puu ur Jllqnd ^tuloN srrll uo lBqI'ogusswgwsu u ss JO ATNnOC JO SJVIS - aarrdxa uol8struuoJ flAI a^cq l'JOgUgH/Yl SSgNII/I\ NI B iaru aroJeq - 61 1o t(eP -_ B 'et t "ro!oq--T, gt ''otv ' --JErrf=.lo ,{Ep . fYrT=f 1VT Paruaddu {11n uosrad aqr palnraxa --+vF- $tr1 lEJrluaPr aql a(l 01 u^loul aur ol lo; pun ur crlqnd i(ruloN srql uo lEr{I'ogu.Jgwswgu u gs -i/VT.A4fi- .{o ^rNnoo --VWf '{o'iiivJ's 086$n Teg lofl$ .-l (lunpr^rPuJ) =.1 -'l 'I