Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRevegetation and Reclamation Plan REVEGETATION AND RECLAMATION PLAN FUEL GAS PIPELINE PROJECT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO DECEMBER 2018 Prepared for: BARGATH, LLC Parachute, Colorado Prepared by: LT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 4600 West 60th Avenue Arvada, Colorado 80003 (303) 433-9788 REVEGETATION AND RECLAMATION PLAN FUEL GAS PIPELINE PROJECT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Project Number: 034018022 Prepared by: December 6, 2018 Hank Raizen LTE Staff Biologist Date Reviewed by: December 6, 2018 Deidre Duffy LTE Project Ecologist Date TABLE OF CONTENTS i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................................................ 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 1 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................... 2 2.0 SOIL HANDLING ...................................................................................................................................... 4 SALVAGE OF ON-SITE TOPSOIL ....................................................................................................... 4 ESTIMATED TIMETABLE.................................................................................................................. 4 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS ............................................................................................ 4 DUST SUPPRESSION MEASURES .................................................................................................... 4 SOIL REPLACEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 5 3.0 WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................................................................. 6 NOXIOUS WEEDS ............................................................................................................................ 6 OBSERVATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 6 INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................. 6 3.3.1 Prevention and Assessment of Noxious Weed Infestations ............................................. 7 TREATMENT AND CONTROL OF NOXIOUS WEED INFESTATIONS .................................................. 7 3.4.1 Herbicides .......................................................................................................................... 7 3.4.2 Mechanical Treatment ...................................................................................................... 7 3.4.3 Grazing 8 3.4.4 Alternative Methods ......................................................................................................... 8 RECOMMENDED TREATMENT STRATEGIES ................................................................................... 8 MONITORING ................................................................................................................................. 9 4.0 SURFACE RECLAMATION PLAN .............................................................................................................. 10 DISTURBANCE AREA ....................................................................................................................... 10 RECLAMATION OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 10 REVEGETATION AND RESTORATION .............................................................................................. 10 5.0 COST ESTIMATE ...................................................................................................................................... 13 6.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) ii FIGURES FIGURE 1 SITE MAP APPENDICES APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Bargath, LLC (Bargath) proposes to install a 2-inch fuel gas pipeline on private surface in the Bargath Piceance Basin field, approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the town of Parachute in Garfield County, Colorado (Fuel Gas Pipeline Project). The pipeline will tie into the existing Williams Companies Inc. (Williams) 20-inch De Beque lateral pipeline to the Colorado Interstate Gas (CIG) pipeline from the south and deliver gas to the Solvay facility to the north. The pipeline will be installed partially aboveground, partially by trenching techniques, and partially by horizontal directional drilling to bore the pipeline under Parachute Creek (Figure 1). Per Garfield County requirements, a grading permit is required for all projects involving excavation, grading, or earthwork construction. The following Revegetation and Reclamation Plan (RRP) has been prepared in accordance with the Garfield County Vegetation & Site Reclamation Requirements per the Bargath grading permit application,. The purpose of this RRP is to ensure that the project does not result in: • Generating erosion and dust; • Propagating noxious weeds; • Causing excessive loss of wildlife habitat and food sources; or • Creating long-term visual eyesores. Temporary disturbance during construction is estimated to be 1.12 acres. Following reclamation, the long- term disturbance will encompass approximately 0.98 acres. PROJECT LOCATION The Fuel Gas Pipeline Project is located in Section 34, Township 6 South, Range 96 West (Figure 1). A field survey was conducted on November 26, 2018, along the approximately 400- foot right-of-way where the pipeline will be placed above ground and the approximately 400-foot right-of-way where the line will be trenched (project area). The pipeline construction area will occur on two adjoining privately owned parcels (Table 1-1). Table 1-1 Private land parcels in the pipeline right-of-way Parcel Owner Garfield County Parcel Number American Soda, LLP 240902200148 TEP Rocky Mountain, LLC 2171-343-00-022 EXISTING CONDITIONS The project area is located within the eastern portion of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Major Land Resource Region (LRR) E – Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Region, Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 48A – Southern Rocky Mountains (NRCS 2016). Approximately 5 percent (%) of the MLRA is in Wyoming, 76% is in Colorado, 11% is in New Mexico, and 8% is in Utah. The project area is 2 located in the canyon lands zone that extends from northeastern Utah into western Colorado. The higher hills and mesas receive more than 12 inches (305 millimeters) of annual precipitation. The geologic formations within the project area include siltstone and/or mudstone dominated formations of all ages and quaternary age, younger alluvium. and surficial deposits. Soils within the project area are dominated by Olney loam and Arvada loam. The pipeline alignment is composed primarily of desert shrubland vegetation and bare ground associated with existing activities, roads, and other disturbances in the area. Dominant plants observed in the project area are listed in Table 1-2. Table 1-2 Common Plants Observed within the Project Area Scientific name Common Name USDA Plant Code Agropyron cristatum Crested wheatgrass AGCR Artemisia tridentata Big sagebrush ARTR2 Atriplex canescens Fourwing saltbush ATCA2 Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass BRTE Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Yellow rabbitbrush CHVI8 Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed COAR4 Elymus trachycaulus Slender wheatgrass ELTR7 Ericameria nauseosa Rubber rabbitbrush ERNA10 Erodium cicutarium Redstem stork’s bill ERCI6 Grindelia sp. Gumweed BASC5 Grindelia squarrosa Curlycup gumweed GRSQ Halogeton glomeratus Halogeton HAGL Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce LASE Pascopyrum smithii Western wheatgrass PASM Salsola tragus Russian thistle SATR12 Sisymbrium altissimum Tall tumblemustard SIAL2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Ground disturbing activities will be limited to the permitted areas, including approved rights-of-way (ROW), staging areas, and access roads. If additional areas are required for constructing the pipeline project, amendments to the permit will be obtained prior to conducting further ground disturbance. 3 Stormwater controls may be placed outside the permitted areas as long as they do not interfere with normal operations or sensitive areas. Table 1-3 describes the proposed schedule of activities: Table 1-3 Estimated construction schedule Task Estimated Start Date* Estimated End Date* Contractor Mobilization December 3, 2018 December 8, 2018 One-Call & Locates Completed December 3, 2018 December 8, 2018 Horizontal Directional Drill Construction December 10, 2018 December 21, 2018 ROW Clearing & Grading (pending approval by Garfield County) December 17, 2018 December 21, 2018 Pipeline Construction December 31, 2018 January 11, 2019 ROW Cleanup/Reclamation January 14, 2019 January 18, 2019 *Dates are subject to change pending receipt of all project permits and approvals. 4 2.0 SOIL HANDLING Ground disturbing activities associated with the Fuel Gas Pipeline Project will include construction areas as well as areas used for staging of personnel, equipment, and material necessary for the project (Figure 1). Trenching will be used to bury the pipeline, except where it will be bored under a section of paved road. Stormwater controls for the project activities are outlined in detail in the Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP). SALVAGE OF ON-SITE TOPSOIL Removing and segregating topsoil from areas required for material staging, directional boring, or trenching during the construction project will be conducted as follows. • Strip topsoil from staging areas. • The topsoil horizon or the top six inches, whichever is deeper, but no greater than six feet will be stripped and stockpiled on location in an area that does not interfere with day-to-day operations. • Topsoil will be segregated from subsurface soil and characterized by changes in texture, color, and/or consistency. • Areas with little to no topsoil will be segregated as thoroughly as possible and stockpiled as previously mentioned. • Soil removal from trenching operations will be excavated using industry standard methods. Excavated material will placed on the high side of the trench based on topography. ESTIMATED TIMETABLE Topsoil salvage piles will be replaced following trenching and boring activities, within approximately 60 days following the start of construction (Table 1-3). If soils are not replaced within 90 days from the initial excavation date, they will be compacted and tracked in using a track dozer where tracks are perpendicular to water flow, to protect soils from wind and runoff erosion. Refer to the SWMP Appendix C – BMP Manual for design criteria. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS Sediment controls will be placed at the base of soil stockpiles. Sediment controls may include, but are not limited to berms, straw wattles, or ditches. Combinations of these methods may be employed as necessary for sediment control of runoff. Seeding may be employed as a stabilization method to guard against erosion if soils are not replaced within 90 days from the initial excavation date. A certified weed-free seed mix with a fast-growing cover crop may be used to establish a temporary vegetative cover of the soil during the construction project. DUST SUPPRESSION MEASURES Roads will be surfaced or dust inhibitors will be used if appropriate (e.g., surfacing materials, non-saline dust suppressants, water, etc.). Dust suppression will be used on roads and construction areas where soil is susceptible to wind erosion to reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated by traffic or other activities. 5 Speed limits will be enforced to the extent practicable on roads in and adjacent to the project area, to further reduce fugitive dust. SOIL REPLACEMENT When the construction of the pipeline is complete and the staging areas are no longer needed, segregated soils will be replaced as close as practicable to their original position. Topsoil will not be used as fill or padding material for the pipeline or for roads. Reclamation will be conducted per Section 4.0 below. 6 3.0 WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN A noxious weed survey was conducted within the proposed pipeline right-of-way on November 26, 2018. During the survey, common plant species were noted. NOXIOUS WEEDS Noxious weeds are plants that are not native to an area and considered harmful to animals or the environment. Most noxious weed species in Colorado were introduced from Europe or Asia, either accidentally or as ornamental plants that have invaded an area. Once these non-natives are established in a new environment they tend to spread quickly because the insects, diseases, and animals that normally control them are absent. Noxious weeds are spread by man, animals, water, and wind. Prime locations for the establishment of noxious weeds include: roadsides, sites cleared for construction, areas that are overused by animals or humans, wetlands, and riparian corridors. Subsequent to soil disturbances, vegetation communities can be susceptible to infestations of invasive or exotic weed species. Vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction can create optimal conditions for the establishment of invasive non-native species. Construction equipment traveling from weed infested areas into weed-free areas could disperse noxious or invasive weed seeds and propagates, resulting in the establishment of these weeds in previously weed-free areas. The Colorado Noxious Weed Act (State of Colorado 2005) requires local governing bodies to develop noxious weed management plans. The State of Colorado and Garfield County maintain a list of plants that are considered noxious weeds. The State of Colorado noxious weed list includes three categories: List A, List B, and List C. List A species must be eradicated whenever detected. List B species include weeds whose spread should be halted. List C species are widespread, and while control of List C species is not required by the State, the State will assist local jurisdictions which choose to manage those weeds. Garfield County has developed a weed management program and has compiled a list of noxious weeds in their county (Garfield County 2002). List C species not included on the Garfield County Designated Noxious Weed List are not treated as noxious weeds in this RRP. OBSERVATIONS No noxious weeds were observed in and around the project area on November 26, 2018. INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT Control of invasive species is a difficult task and requires intensive ongoing control measures. Care must be taken to prevent damage to desirable plant species during treatments to avoid further infestations by other pioneer invaders. Weed management is best achieved through a variety of methods over a long period of time including inventory (surveys), direct treatments, prevention through best management practices, monitoring of treatment efficacy, and subsequent detection efforts. Weed management strategies are used primarily to control existing species and to prevent further infestations (existing and new species) rather than eradication. After successful and effective management, decreases in infestation size and density can be expected, and after several years of successful management practices, eradication is sometimes possible. 7 3.3.1 Prevention and Assessment of Noxious Weed Infestations Weed management is costly and heavy infestations may exceed the economic threshold for practical treatment. Prevention is especially valuable in the case of noxious weed management. Several simple practices should be employed to prevent most weed infestations. The following practices should be adopted for any activity to reduce the costs of noxious weed control through prevention. • Prior to delivery to the site, equipment will be thoroughly cleaned of soil remaining from previous construction sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds. • If working in sites with weed seed contaminated soil, equipment will be cleaned of potential seed- bearing soil and vegetative debris at the infested area prior to moving to uncontaminated terrain. • All maintenance vehicles will be regularly cleaned of soil. • If possible, avoid driving vehicles through areas where weed infestations exist. Assessment of the existence and extent of noxious weeds for an area is essential for developing an integrated weed management plan. This RRP provides an initial assessment of the occurrence of noxious weeds in the project area. To continue effective management of noxious weeds, further inventory and analysis is necessary to 1) determine the effectiveness of past treatment strategies; 2) modify the treatment plan if necessary; and 3) detect new infestations early, resulting in more economical treatments. TREATMENT AND CONTROL OF NOXIOUS WEED INFESTATIONS If noxious weeds subsequently become established in the project area, there are several methods that are commonly used to treat noxious weed infestations. An overview of the use of herbicides, mechanical treatment, grazing, and alternative methods is presented below. 3.4.1 Herbicides Annual and biennial weeds are best controlled at the pre-bud stage after germination or in the spring of the second year. Several of the species identified in the survey are susceptible to commercially available herbicides. Selective herbicides are recommended to minimize damage to desirable grass species. Professionals or landowners using herbicides must use the concentration specified on the label of the container in hand. Herbicides generally do not work better at higher concentrations. Most herbicide failures observed are related to incomplete control caused by high concentrations killing top growth before the active ingredient can be transported to the roots through the nutrient translocation process. Most herbicide applications should use a surfactant, if directed on the herbicide label, or other adjuvant as called for on the herbicide label. A certified commercial applicator is a good choice for herbicide control efforts. Restricted herbicides require a state licensed applicator. A licensed applicator has the full range of knowledge, skills, equipment, and experience desired when dealing with noxious weeds. 3.4.2 Mechanical Treatment Small isolated infestations of weed species can often be controlled with cutting and digging by hand. For dense or more extensive infestations, mechanical treatments can be useful in combination with chemical control. Effectiveness of mechanical control can often be increased by severing the root just below the 8 crown of noxious weeds. Weeds that easily re-sprout from rootstocks, such as Canada thistle and Russian knapweed, may increase rather than decrease if mechanical control is the only method used. 3.4.3 Grazing In the event grazing is allowed in the project area it will be deferred in reclaimed areas until the desired plant species that have been seeded are established. 3.4.4 Alternative Methods Biological control of noxious weeds may be feasible for some weed species if they are found along the proposed pipeline alignment in the future. The musk thistle seed head weevil, Rhinocyllus conicus, for example, is a biological control agent for musk thistle (Roduner et al. 2003). This weevil may be useful for reducing musk thistle, but significant results may take several years. Vesicular-Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi An alternative method to assist revegetation, particularly where there is poor or destroyed topsoil, is the application of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, typically referred to as AMF. These fungi, mostly of the genus Glomus, are symbiotic with about 80% of all vegetation. Endo-mycorrhizal fungi are associated mostly with grasses and forbs and could be helpful when reclaiming the project area. In symbiosis, the fungi increase water and nutrient transfer capacity of the host root system by as much as several orders of magnitude (Barrow and McCaslin 1995). Over-the-counter commercial AMF products, which are better adapted to coating seeds when reseeding and treating roots of live seedling trees and shrubs at time of planting, come in powder-form and are available from many different sources. Some come in granular form to be spread with seed from a broadcast spreader. The best AMF products should contain more than one species. All Colorado State Forest Salida District tree and shrub plantings include the application of AMF (Tischler 2006). Most, if not all, Colorado Department of Transportation revegetation/reseeding projects now require use of AMF and BioSol, a certified by-product of the penicillin manufacturing process composed primarily of mycelium. Humates Compacted soil responds well to fossilized humic substances and by-products called humates. These humates, including humic and fulvic acids and humin were formed from pre-historic plant and animal deposits and work especially well on compacted soil when applied as directed. RECOMMENDED TREATMENT STRATEGIES Treatment strategies are different depending on plant type and are summarized below. It is important to know whether the target is an annual, biennial, or perennial to select strategies for effective control and eradication. Both biennial and perennial weeds are common in the vicinity of the project area. In general, recommended treatment strategies for annual and biennial noxious weeds to prevent seed production include (Sirota 2004) the following. 9 • Hand grub (pull), hoe, till, or cultivate in rosette stage and before flowering or seed maturity. If seeds develop, cut and bag seed heads. • Cut roots with a spade just below soil level. • Treat with herbicide in rosette or bolting stage, before flowering. • Mow biennials after bolting stage but before seed set. Mowing annuals will not prevent flowering but can reduce total seed production. Treatment strategies for perennials to deplete nutrient reserves in the root system and prevent seed production include (Sirota 2004) the following. • Allow plants to expend as much energy from the root system as possible. Do not treat when first emerging in spring but allow growth to bud/bloom stage. If seeds develop cut and bag if possible. • Herbicide treatment at bud to bloom stage or in the fall (recommended after August 15 when natural precipitation is present). In the fall, plants draw nutrients into the roots for winter storage. Herbicides will be drawn down to the roots more efficiently at this time due to translocation of nutrients to roots rather than leaves. If the weed patch has been present for a long period of time, another season of seed production is not as important as getting the herbicide into the root system. Spraying in the fall (after middle August) will kill the following year’s shoots, which are being formed on the roots at this time. • Mowing usually is not recommended because the plants will flower anyway, rather, seed production should be reduced. Many studies have shown that mowing perennials and spraying the regrowth is not as effective as spraying without mowing. The effect of mowing is species dependent therefore it is imperative to know the species and its basic biology. Timing of application must be done when biologically appropriate, which is not necessarily convenient. • Tillage may or may not be effective. Most perennial roots can sprout from pieces only 0.5-1.0 inches long. Clean machinery thoroughly before leaving the infested area. • Hand pulling is generally not recommended for perennial species unless you know the plants are seedlings and not established plants. Hand pulling can be effective on small patches but is very labor intensive because it must be done repeatedly. Note that herbicides should not always be the first treatment of choice when other methods can be effectively employed. MONITORING Areas where noxious weed infestations are identified and treated will be inspected over time to ensure that control methods are working to reduce and suppress the identified infestation. The sites will be monitored until the infestations are eliminated or reduced to acceptable levels. These inspections can then be used to prioritize future weed control efforts. 10 4.0 SURFACE RECLAMATION PLAN The SWMP contains mitigation measures designed to reduce or eliminate sediment moving off-site or into area drainage ways prior to site stabilization. Interim reclamation activities, including reestablishment of vegetation cover will facilitate stabilization of the disturbed areas and, once accomplished, will eliminate the potential for sediment transport from areas disturbed by project activities. Changes and additions to a Surface Reclamation Plan may be necessary over the lifetime of a site to achieve the reclamation objectives and standards. Disturbed areas will be reclaimed after construction is complete. DISTURBANCE AREA The total area of surface disturbance in the project area is approximately 2.10 acres. The total disturbance area includes 0.98 acres of permanent ROW, and 1.12 acres of temporary disturbance. The disturbance area calculations do not include permanent ROW where the pipeline will be installed using horizontal- directional drilling as surface disturbance is not anticipated. The project area boundaries and areas of disturbance are identified on Figure 1. RECLAMATION OBJECTIVES The objective of final surface reclamation is to return the land, following use for energy development, to a condition approximating that which existed prior to disturbance. This includes restoration of the landform and natural vegetative community, hydrologic systems, ecological function and other natural resource values to maintain healthy, biologically active topsoil; to control erosion and sediment transport; and to minimize loss of habitat, forage, and visual resources. Surface reclamation will be judged successful when disturbed areas have been re-contoured, stabilized, and re-vegetated with a self-sustaining, vigorous, diverse, native (or otherwise approved) plant community sufficient to minimize visual impacts, provide forage, stabilize soil, and impede the invasion of noxious weeds. REVEGETATION AND RESTORATION Disturbed areas will be seeded using seed mixes appropriate to the location (Table 4-1), based on the common plants observed during the November 2018 vegetation survey (Table 1-2). Prior to seeding, local soil conservation authorities associated with the United States Natural Resources Conservation Service, surface owners, and/or reclamation contractors familiar with the area may be consulted regarding other seed mixes to be used. The seed mix is subject to change. 11 Table 4-1 Recommended Seed Mix to Be Used for Revegetation Scientific Name Common Name Variety Drilled Application Rate (PLS lbs./acre) Atriplex canescens Four-winged saltbush Rincon 3.70 Atriplex confertifolia Shadscale saltbush 2.00 Artemisia tridentata subsp. Wyomingensis Wyoming big sagebrush Hobble Creek 0.05 Pascopyrum smithii Western wheatgrass Arriba 3.00 Pleuraphis jamesii Galleta Viva 1.80 Sporobolus airoides Alkali sacaton Salado 0.20 Poa secunda Sandberg bluegrass 0.40 Onobrychis viciifolia Sainfoin Eski 7.30 Total 18.45 Weed-free seeds will be planted in the amount specified in pounds of pure live seed (PLS) per acre. No primary or secondary noxious weeds will be in the seed mix. The re-establishment of vegetative cover as well as watershed stabilization measures will be scheduled during the working season and before the succeeding winter. Re-vegetation will be accomplished as soon as practical following the reclamation of the pipeline area. Mulch will be laid down during re-vegetation as appropriate. The cut vegetation and rocks will act like mulch in the areas where they are applied. Where straw or hay mulch is applied, the mulch will be applied and crimped into the soil. Seeding rate should be doubled for broadcast application. The preferred seeding method is multiple seed bin rangeland drill. In areas with slopes greater than 3%, imprinting of the seed bed is recommended. Imprinting can be in the form of dozer tracks or furrows perpendicular to the direction of slope. When hydro-seeding or mulching, imprinting should be done prior to seeding unless the mulch is to be crimped into the soil surface. If broadcast seeding and harrowing, imprinting should be done as part of the harrowing. Furrowing can be done by several methods, the simplest of which is to drill seed perpendicular to the direction of slope in a prepared bed. Other simple imprinting methods include deep hand raking and harrowing, always perpendicular to the direction of slope. Alternative seeding methods include, but are not limited to: • Harrowing with just enough soil moisture to create a rough surface, broadcasting seed and re- harrowing, preferably at a right angle to the first harrow. • Hydro-seeding (most economical in terms of seed cost). • Hand raking and broadcasting followed by re-raking at a right angle to the first raking. 12 The need for fertilizers will be determined in conjunction with the landowner. If fertilizing is necessary, the rates of application will be based on site-specific requirements of the soil. 13 5.0 COST ESTIMATE Bargath is financially prepared to implement the measures outlined in Sections 2.0 through 4.0 above. Estimated costs to conduct re-vegetation and reclamation activities at the Fuel Gas Pipeline Project are are listed in Table 5-1. Table 5-1 Estimated costs for re-vegetation and reclamation Task Estimated Cost Mobilization $2,000 Earthmoving $30,000 Seeding and Planting $2,000 Weed- Free Mulch, Erosion Control, Dust Suppression $2,000 Irrigation N/A Weed Management $750 per year TOTAL $36,750 14 6.0 REFERENCES Barrow, J. R., and Bobby D. McCaslin. 1995. Role of microbes in resource management in arid ecosystems. In: Barrow, J. R., E. D. McArthur, R. E. Sosebee, and Tausch, R. J., comps. 1996. Proceedings: shrubland ecosystem dynamics in a changing environment. General Technical Report, INT-GTR- 338, Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Resource Station, 275 pp. Garfield County. 2002. Garfield County Vegetation Management and Garfield County Weed Advisory Board. Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan, Resolution #2002- 94, October 21. Roduner, M., G. Cuperus, P. Mulder, J. Stritzke, M. Payton; Successful Biological Control of the Musk Thistle in Oklahoma Using the Musk Thistle Head Weevil and the Rosette Weevil. Am Entomol 2003; 49 (2): 112-120. Sirota, J. 2004. Best management practices for noxious weeds of Mesa County. Colorado State University, Cooperative Extension Tri River Area, Grand Junction, Colorado. URL: http://www.coopext.colostate.edu/TRA/Weeds/weedmgmt.html State of Colorado. 2005. Rules pertaining to the administration and enforcement of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, 35-5-1-119, C.R.S. 2003. Department of Agriculture, Plant Industry Division, Denver, 78 pp. Tischler, Crystal. 2006. District Forester, Colorado State Forest Service, Salida, Colorado. Personal communication with Bill Clark, WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado. APPENDIX E: [ADD TITLE] APPENDIX D: [ADD TITLE] APPENDIX C: [ADD TITLE] APPENDIX B: [ADD TITLE] APPENDIX A: [ADD TITLE] FIGURES LEGEND ABOVEGROUND PIPELINE DIRECTIONALLY BORED PIPELINE TRENCHED PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION ROW LINE PERMANENT ROW EXTRA WORKSPACE/STAGING AREA P:\Williams Piceance Stormwater\GIS\MXD\STORMWATER\034018022_SOLVAY FUEL GAS LINE\034018022_FIG01_SOLVAY_ROW_2018_181120.mxd IMAGE COURTESY OF GOOGLE EARTH 2016± FIGURE 1SITE MAPFUEL GAS PIPELINESWSE SEC 34 T6S R96W GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO WILLIAMS MIDSTREAM 0 200 400 Feet T6S R96W SEC34 T7S R96W SEC3 T6S R96W SEC35 T7S R96W SEC202,000 Feet SITE LOCATION MAP COMMENTS: INSPECTION DATE:PROJECT AREAPERMANENT ROW (HDDC)NOT INCLUDED IN TOTALNO SURFACE DISTURBANCEPERMANENT ROWCONSTRUCTION WORK SPACEEXTRA WORKSPACETOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE ACRES 0.80 SQFT 0.980.540.582.10 34,848 42,68923,52225,26591,476 CANALPARACHUTE CREEK SEC 34 T6S R96W SEC 3 T7S R96W ")215 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AMERICAN SODA, LLP TEP ROCKY MOU NTAIN LLC BUREAU OF LAN D MANAGEMENT LEGEND SURFACE WATER FEATURE PROPOSED LOCATION OF GRADING AREA PREVIOUSLY DISTURBED (NOT PART OF THE NEW LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE) TOWNSHIP AND RANGE PARCEL BOUNDARY (OWNER NAMED) P:\Williams Picean ce Stormwater\GIS\MXD \ST ORMWAT ER\0 340 1802 2_SOL VAY FUEL GAS LINE\034 0180 22_FIG0 2_SITE VICINITY _SOLVA Y_20 18.mxd WILLIAMS MIDSTREAM IMAGE COURTESY OF GOOGLE EARTH 2016± FIGURE 2SITE VICINITY MAPFUEL GAS PIPELINE PRO JECTSWSE SEC 34 T6S R96WGARFIELD COU NTY, CO LO RADO 0 200 400 Feet T6S R96W SEC34 T7S R96W SEC3 T6S R96W SEC35 T7S R96W SEC202,000 Feet SITE LOCATION MAP COMMENTS: INSPECTION DATE:PROJECT AREAPERMANENT ROW (HD DC)NOT IN CLUDED IN TOTALNO SURFACE DISTURBANCEPERMANENT ROWCONSTRUCTION WORK SPACEEXTRA WORKSPAC ETOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE ACRES 0.80 SQFT 0.980.540.582.10 34,848 42,68923,52225,26591,476 CANALPARACHUTE CREEK SEC 34 T6S R96W SEC 3 T7S R96W ")215 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS CONSTRUCTION ACCESS AMERICAN SODA, LLP TEP ROCKY MOU NTAIN LLC BUREAU OF LAN D MANAGEMENT LEGEND SURFACE WATER FEATURE ABOVEGROUND PIPELINE DIRECTIONALLY BORED PIPELINE TRENC HED PIPELINE SURFACE WATER FEATURE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE TOWNSHIP AND RANGE PARCEL BOUNDARY (OWNER NAMED) NATIO NAL WETLANDS INV ENTORY FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND RIVER INE P:\Williams Picean ce Stormwater\GIS\MXD \ST ORMWAT ER\0 340 1802 2_SOL VAY FUEL GAS LINE\034 0180 22_FIG0 3_SITE PLA N_SOLV AY_20 18.mxd WILLIAMS MIDSTREAM IMAGE COURTESY OF GOOGLE EARTH 2016± FIGURE 3SITE PLANFUEL GAS PIPELINE PRO JECTSWSE SEC 34 T6S R96WGARFIELD COU NTY, CO LO RADO 0 200 400 Feet T6S R96W SEC34 T7S R96W SEC3 T6S R96W SEC35 T7S R96W SEC202,000 Feet SITE LOCATION MAP COMMENTS: INSPECTION DATE:PROJECT AREAPERMANENT ROW (HD DC)NOT IN CLUDED IN TOTALNO SURFACE DISTURBANCEPERMANENT ROWCONSTRUCTION WORK SPACEEXTRA WORKSPAC ETOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE ACRES 0.80 SQFT 0.980.540.582.10 34,848 42,68923,52225,26591,476NOTE: FEMA FLOODPLAIN S NOT MAPPED FOR THIS AREA. ")TCV CANALPARACHUTE CREEK LEGEND ")TCV VEHIC LE TRACKING CONTROL ABOVEGROUND PIPELINE DIRECTIONALLY BORED PIPELINE TRENC HED PIPELINE SURFACE WATER FEATURE STRAW WATTLE CONSTR UCTION ROW LINE PERMANENT ROW EXTR A WORKSPACE/STAGING AREA P:\Williams Picean ce Stormwater\GIS\MXD \ST ORMWAT ER\0 340 1802 2_SOL VAY FUEL GAS LINE\034 0180 22_FIG0 4_SOL VAY_E ROSION CONTROL PL AN_2 018.mxd WILLIAMS MIDSTREAM IMAGE COURTESY OF GOOGLE EARTH 2016± FIGURE 4EROSION CONTRO L PLANFUEL GAS PIPELINE PRO JECTSWSE SEC 34 T6S R96WGARFIELD COU NTY, CO LO RADO 0 200 400 Feet T6S R96W SEC34 T7S R96W SEC3 T6S R96W SEC35 T7S R96W SEC202,000 Feet SITE LOCATION MAP COMMENTS: INSPECTION DATE:PROJECT AREAPERMANENT ROW (HD DC)NOT IN CLUDED IN TOTALNO SURFACE DISTURBANCEPERMANENT ROWCONSTRUCTION WORK SPACEEXTRA WORKSPAC ETOTAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE ACRES 0.80 SQFT 0.980.540.582.10 34,848 42,68923,52225,26591,476 APPENDIX A: PHOTOLOG PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Fuel Gas Pipeline Project Garfield County, Colorado Page 1 of 2 Photographs Taken: November 26, 2018 Photograph 1: View north from the project area. Photograph 2: View east from the project area. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Fuel Gas Pipeline Project Garfield County, Colorado Page 2 of 2 Photographs Taken: November 26, 2018 Photograph 3: View south from the project area. Photograph 4: View west from the project area.