ENERGY TRANSFER Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PRESIDIO CROSSING PROJECT May 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TRANS-PECOS PIPELINE, LLC PRESIDIO CROSSING PROJECT PRESIDIO COUNTY, TEXAS Prepared for: TRANS-PECOS PIPELINE, LLC 1300 Main Street Houston, Texas 77002 Prepared by: GREMMINGER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 226 South Live Oak Street Bellville, Texas 77418 GAI Project No. 215127 CONTENTS 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Purpose and Need .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Description of Proposed Facilities ....................................................................................... 1 1.3 Location of Proposed Facilities ........................................................................................... 1 1.3.1 Land Requirements ................................................................................................ 1 1.4 Construction Procedures .................................................................................................... 2 1.4.1 Construction Environmental Inspection and Compliance ...................................... 2 1.4.2 Construction Schedule ........................................................................................... 3 1.4.3 Construction Workforce ......................................................................................... 3 1.4.4 Restoration of Construction Area ........................................................................... 4 1.5 Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................................ 4 1.6 Future Plans and Abandonment ......................................................................................... 4 1.7 Permits and Approvals ........................................................................................................ 4 1.8 Affected Landowners .......................................................................................................... 5 1.9 Homeland Security, Customs and Border Patrol ................................................................ 6 1.10 Non-jurisdictional Facilities ................................................................................................. 6 RESOURCE REPORT ON WATER USE AND QUALITY .............................................................. 8 2.1 Surface Water Resources ................................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Potable Water Intakes ............................................................................................ 8 2.1.2 Perennial Waterbodies and Construction Impacts................................................. 8 2.1.3 Contaminated Sediments ....................................................................................... 9 2.1.4 Public Watershed Areas ........................................................................................ 9 2.2 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 9 2.3 Groundwater Resources ................................................................................................... 10 2.3.1 Public and Private Water Wells ............................................................................ 10 2.4 Hydrostatic Test Water...................................................................................................... 11 2.5 Construction Permits ......................................................................................................... 11 2.6 Sensitive Surface Waters .................................................................................................. 11 2.7 Waterbody Construction Procedures ................................................................................ 11 2.8 References ........................................................................................................................ 11 RESOURCE REPORT ON VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE ......................................................... 13 3.1 Fisheries ............................................................................................................................ 13 3.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 13 3.2.1 Existing Resources .............................................................................................. 13 3.2.2 Migratory Birds ..................................................................................................... 14 3.3 Existing Vegetation Resources ......................................................................................... 15 3.4 Construction and Operation Impacts to Wildlife ................................................................ 15 3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................. 16 3.5.1 Birds ..................................................................................................................... 17 3.5.2 Fish ...................................................................................................................... 18 3.5.3 Plants ................................................................................................................... 18 3.5.4 Mammals.............................................................................................................. 18 3.5.5 Species to Consider Under Special Circumstances ............................................ 19 3.5.6 Federal Listed Species Conclusions .................................................................... 19 3.6 State Listed Species ......................................................................................................... 19 3.7 References ........................................................................................................................ 20 RESOURCE REPORT ON CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................ 22 4.1 Cultural Resources Assessment and Results ................................................................... 22 4.2 Tribal Consultation ............................................................................................................ 22 4.3 References ........................................................................................................................ 23 RESOURCE REPORT ON SOCIO-ECONOMICS ........................................................................ 24 5.1 Socioeconomic Impact Area and Project Affects .............................................................. 24 ii CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 5.2 Environmental Justice Statement ..................................................................................... 25 5.3 References ........................................................................................................................ 25 RESOURCE REPORT ON GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................... 26 6.1 Geologic Setting ................................................................................................................ 26 6.2 Blasting ............................................................................................................................. 26 6.3 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 26 6.4 Geologic Hazards, Flooding .............................................................................................. 26 6.5 Paleontology ..................................................................................................................... 27 6.6 References ........................................................................................................................ 28 RESOURCE REPORT ON SOILS ................................................................................................ 29 7.1 Location Soils .................................................................................................................... 29 7.2 Construction and Operation Impacts and Mitigation ......................................................... 30 7.3 References ........................................................................................................................ 31 RESOURCE REPORT ON LAND USE, RECREATION AND AESTHETICS .............................. 32 8.1 Land Use, Workspace, Easements, Residences .............................................................. 32 8.2 Public Land, Recreational Areas, and Other Sensitive Lands .......................................... 33 8.3 Visual Resources .............................................................................................................. 33 RESOURCE REPORT ON AIR AND NOISE QUALITY ............................................................... 34 9.1 Project Air Emissions ........................................................................................................ 34 9.2 Noise at Sensitive Receptors ............................................................................................ 35 9.3 References ........................................................................................................................ 35 RESOURCE REPORT ON ALTERNATIVES................................................................................ 36 10.1 The No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................. 36 10.2 Location Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 36 RESOURCE REPORT ON SAFETY AND RELIABILITY ............................................................. 37 11.1 Design and Construction Practices ................................................................................... 37 11.2 Inspection and Maintenance Procedures ......................................................................... 38 11.3 Engineering Measures and Training ................................................................................. 38 11.4 Emergency Procedures .................................................................................................... 38 11.5 References ........................................................................................................................ 39 RESOURCE REPORT PCB CONTAMINATION .......................................................................... 40 DISTRIBUTION TABLES 1.7 3.2.1 3.5 7.1 9.1 11.1 11.2 Project Permits and Approvals List of Observed Wildlife Species Federal Listed Threatened and Endangered Species (IPaC Results) Soil Series Impacted by the Proposed Project Summary of Potential Emissions from Construction Class Location and Design Factor Class Location and Maintenance Schedule ILLUSTRATIONS Figures 1 - 2 Figures 3 - 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Project Location Maps Horizontal Directional Drill Plan and Profile USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map Project Wetland Location Map Non-Jurisdictional Facility iii CONTENTS (CONTINUED) APPENDICES A B C D E F G Agency Communications, Responses, and Permits Landowners Affected by Construction and Operations (Privileged Information – See Volume II) Directional Drilling Contingency Plan Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan Cultural Resource Survey Report (Privileged Information – See Volume II) Unanticipated Discovery Plan Tribal Consultation and Responses ACRONYMS iv CONTENTS (CONTINUED) ACRONYMS BBNP CBP CFR Commission CWA DOT FERC GAI HDD IPaC NAGPRA NWI PCB Plan Procedures Project RCT SPCCP TCEQ THC TAS TPWD TWDB Trans-Pecos TWS USACE USCBP USEPA USDA - NRCS USFWS USGS Big Bend National Park Customs and Border Patrol Code of Federal Regulations Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Clean Water Act U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Gremminger and Associates, Inc. International Boundary and Water Commission Information for Planning and Conservation National Wetland Inventory polychlorinated biphenyl Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Mitigation Plan Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures Presidio Crossing Project Railroad Commission of Texas Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Texas Historical Commission Turpin and Sons, Inc. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Texas Water Development Board Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC temporary workspace United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Customs and Border Patrol United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey v 1.0 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION Resource Report 1 describes the facilities associated with the proposed project, special construction and operations procedures, construction time tables, future company plans for related construction or facility expansion, compliance with regulations, and project specific permits or agency clearances obtained to authorize construction and operations. 1.1 Project Purpose and Need Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC (Trans-Pecos) proposes to construct, and install by horizontal directional drill (HDD), an approximate 2,000-foot segment of 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline for natural gas export or import to the Republic of Mexico (Mexico) for use in operating gas fired turbines for electrical power generation and other industrial end users. This project is referred to as the Presidio Crossing Project or Project. 1.2 Description of Proposed Facilities The scope of the proposed Project facilities reviewed by this analysis is a 1,093-foot segment of a total 2,000-foot HDD of 42-inch diameter steel pipeline under the International Boundary between the United States of America (U.S.) and Mexico. 1.3 Location of Proposed Facilities The pipeline segment will commence at a point 1,093 feet northeast of the International Boundary and approximately 12.5 miles northwest of the City of Presidio in Presidio County, Texas, and will terminate approximately 906 feet southwest of the International Boundary in the State of Chihuahua, Mexico. Project location maps, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographical maps, and aerial photography overview of the work location layout, and survey plan and profile are provided in the Illustrations section fronting the appendices. 1.3.1 Land Requirements Trans-Pecos requires the use of a 7.1-acre temporary workspace (TWS) for the HDD and construction of the HDD pipeline segment. Trans-Pecos would utilize 5,755 linear foot, or 6.6 acres of the connecting intrastate pipeline permanent easement to access the TWS during construction. Trans-Pecos will retain a 1 50-foot-wide permanent easement associated with the border crossing pipeline segment that would encumber 1.3 acres. 1.4 Construction Procedures The only construction procedure proposed for use is a HDD. To complete the pipeline installation using the HDD method, a drill rig would be placed on the entry side of the HDD in the U.S. and a small pilot hole would be drilled following a designed profile beneath the Rio Grande River and exiting in Mexico. Once the initial pilot hole is completed, the pilot hole would be progressively enlarged through a process called “reaming”. A reaming tool would be installed at the end of the drill string on the exit side of the pilot hole, and then drawn back to the drill rig to enlarge the hole. Several passes with progressively larger reaming tools could be needed to enlarge the hole to a sufficient diameter to accommodate the pipeline. During the entire process, drilling fluid, or mud, consisting of bentonite clay and water would be circulated through the hole to remove drill cuttings and maintain the integrity of the hole. Once the reaming process is complete, the prefabricated segment of pipe would be attached to the drill stem string on the U.S. side of the crossing, and pulled into place through the hole towards the exit point in Mexico. 1.4.1 Construction Environmental Inspection and Compliance All construction personnel involved in the Project will be provided with an orientation and training session prior to the commencement of construction activities to communicate the environmental conditions and compliance requirements of the Project. Trans-Pecos inspectors, the Contractors’ Superintendent and all Crew Foremen will be provided with copies of all compliance-related documents, permits, and permit conditions. A qualified individual knowledgeable in the environmental requirements for this Project will perform environmental inspections. Since the Project is limited in geographic extent, one environmental inspector will be sufficient to monitor the Project. The environmental inspector will be on duty during ongoing construction and restoration activities. The general duties of the environmental inspector will include conducting pre-construction training seminars for Trans-Pecos and contractor personnel and to familiarize construction personnel with construction environmental compliance procedures including, the Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP), the Project’s Unanticipated Discovery Plan, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Mitigation Plan (Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures), and the Environmental Conditions contained in the FERC Order issued in this proceeding. 2 The environmental inspector will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions of the FERC Order and all other environmentally related permits and authorizations. The environmental inspector’s duties will include, at a minimum, the following tasks: • Ensure that all clearing and grading are within the FERC authorized construction right-of-way (ROW) dimensions; • Placement and installation of temporary erosion controls; • Maintenance of erosion controls by contractor, as necessary; • Inspection and monitoring dewatering activities, locations, and proper function of controls; • Compaction in residential and agricultural areas; • Construction activities are restricted during periods of adverse weather; • Contours and top soil are restored properly; • Verification that permanent erosion controls structures are properly installed; and • Restoration of disturbed grounds, including restoration of any compacted soils, restoration of original contours and replacement of top soil. The environmental inspector will have “stop work” authority to insure compliance with environmental measures and/or where potential for immediate harm to natural resources exists. Trans-Pecos will comply with the FERC’s May 2013 Plan, and the Procedures for construction and restoration activities for the Project. 1.4.2 Construction Schedule Trans-Pecos anticipates commencing construction activities during the first quarter of 2016, subject to receipt of necessary certificates, permits, and clearances. The HDD should be completed in approximately 40 work days. 1.4.3 Construction Workforce The construction workforce will be comprised of a HDD contractor selected by Trans-Pecos that will make the initial pilot bore and then ream the drill profile to a suitable diameter void for pulling the 42-inch pipeline segment through from the work location on the U.S. side of the Project. 3 A HDD crew typically numbers from 12 to 15 individuals varying by the size and setup of the unit and supporting equipment. A separate workforce of approximately 30 personnel, including company representatives, on the U.S. side will string, weld, and test the pipeline segment prior to pulling the segment into the HDD profile under the river and border crossing. 1.4.4 Restoration of Construction Area Trans-Pecos has consulted with the Range Department at Sul Ross University, and the USDA Agriculture Extension Service on a recommended herbaceous species blend and application practices for restoration of the grounds disturbed by construction. Their recommendations will be incorporated into the Project restoration requirements to be employed by the contractor. 1.5 Operation and Maintenance Trans-Pecos will operate and maintain the proposed facility in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of Pipeline Safety. Maintenance and inspection requirements for pipeline facilities are outlined in DOT regulations at 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 192.613 through 192.615. The pipeline ROW will be inspected periodically on the ground, as required by the applicable regulations, to detect possible leaks, unauthorized construction activities, erosion, exposed pipe, and any other potential concerns that may affect the safe operation of the pipeline. Population changes will be monitored and class locations changed as necessary. Resource Report 11 discusses the nature and frequency of required maintenance and inspection requirements. 1.6 Future Plans and Abandonment Trans-Pecos has no plans for future expansion of the Project. However, if market conditions change such that further expansion is justified, Trans-Pecos will seek authorization from the FERC and other applicable federal, state, and local agencies. 1.7 Permits and Approvals With the exception of a certificate under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act and a Presidential Permit processed by FERC, Trans-Pecos is in the process of obtaining the authorizations and permits from the state and federal agencies required to authorize the Project. The permits and clearances to authorize construction of the Project are listed in Table 1.7 below. 4 Table 1.7 Project Permits and Approvals Agency Permit/Clearance Status United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Albuquerque District, Las Cruces Field Office Authorization under Section 404 of Clean Water Act (CWA), and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act Authorization Request Submitted May 19, 2015. Intent to authorize using Nationwide Permit 12 after receipt of Presidential Permit United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation for Federal Listed Species Concerns Informal Consultation Initiated April 3, 2015. “No effect” determination sent May 14, 2015. Texas Historical Commission (THC) National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 306108 Compliance Request for concurrence to opinion of No Effect to Cultural Resources submitted May 18, 2015 Railroad Commission of Texas (RCT) 401 Water Quality Certification Issued for Nationwide Permit 12 USACE Albuquerque District RCT PS-48 Construction Notice Filed 30 days prior to construction RCT Hydrostatic Test Water Discharge Permit Request submitted 30 days prior to start of HDD; permit valid for 60 days United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Stormwater Disturbance is exempt from registration requirement by Energy Act of 2005 International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) License for Border Crossing Facility Initial Submittal May 13, 2015 All agency consultation letters, requests for authorization, responses, and permits received are included in Appendix A. 1.8 Affected Landowners Two landowners, one (1) private individual, and the State of Texas; General Land Office, own all the property that will be directly affected by construction activities, and access. The names and addresses of these landowners are designated as Privileged Information pursuant to Section 388.112 of the FERC regulations. This landowner information is provided under Appendix B and is designated as Privileged Information. 5 1.9 Homeland Security, Customs and Border Patrol The Project location is in the Big Bend Sector of the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) headquartered in Marfa, Texas. In April 2015, Trans-Pecos representatives met with the Acting Station Chief, and Deputy Assistance Chief Counsel to provide a presentation on the Project. Trans-Pecos agreed to keep CBP management updated on the Project and provide advance notice prior to the start of construction, and to work with them on developing security procedures while construction is on-going to assist their effort to identify construction personnel. 1.10 Non-jurisdictional Facilities Trans-Pecos currently does not own any pipeline facilities, nor is it currently engaged in any natural gas 1 transportation operations. The proposed Trans-Pecos non-jurisdictional pipeline system will consist of approximately 143 miles of 42-inch intrastate pipeline and related facilities located within the State of Texas that will be regulated by the RCT. Trans-Pecos will be an intrastate pipeline as defined in Section 2 2(16) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (“NGPA”) and 15 U.S.C. §3301(16) , and its principal business will be the transportation of natural gas from a hub on the pipeline grid located near the Waha Hub, located 2.9 miles northwest of the community of Coyanosa in Pecos County, the pipeline then proceeds generally southwest until reaching the connection to the Project in Presidio County, Texas. The general route of this pipeline is presented on Figure 7 in the Illustrations. Trans-Pecos will construct and operate this intrastate pipeline upstream of the Presidio Crossing Project subject to the jurisdiction and requirements of the RCT. FERC requires applicants to address four (4) factors that indicate the need for FERC to do an environmental review of related non-jurisdictional facilities. These factors include: 1. Whether or not the regulated activity comprises “merely a link” in a corridor type project (such as a transportation or utility transmission project); 2. Whether there are aspects of the non-jurisdictional facility in the immediate vicinity of the regulated activity which affect the location and configuration of the regulated activity; 3. The extent to which the entire Project will be within the FERC’s jurisdiction; and 1 The term non-jurisdictional as used above in Section 1.10 is defined as not requiring construction authorization from the FERC. However, non-jurisdictional facilities must be described under Resource Report 1 in compliance with Section 380.12(c) of the FERC regulations. 2 The term “intrastate pipeline” means any person engaged in natural gas transportation (not including gathering) which is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the Natural Gas Act [15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.] (other than any such pipeline which is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission solely by reason of section 1(c) of the Natural Gas Act [15 U.S.C. 717 (c)]). 6 4. The extent of cumulative Federal control and responsibility. With respect to factor (1), the intrastate pipeline extension is a corridor type project, but the regulated activity does not comprise any kind of link in a corridor type project. The proposed Project facilities are to be utilized to export and/or import natural gas between the U.S. and Mexico. As the FERC has previously determined, “foreign commerce” does not constitute “interstate commerce.” Therefore, the FERC jurisdiction is not invoked as to the export and/or import of natural gas. Therefore, this factor does not support the review of the non-jurisdictional facility. With respect to factor (2), the intrastate pipeline does connect directly to the regulated activity but does not affect the configuration and location of the regulated activity. This factor does not support a review of the non-jurisdictional facility. With respect to factor (3), the proposed intrastate pipeline facilities are under the jurisdiction of the State of Texas regulatory agencies. With respect to factor (4), the cumulative level of Federal control and responsibility over the Project, Federal control is determined by the amount of federal financing, assistance, direction, regulation, or approval inherent in a project. The intrastate pipeline will be developed by Trans-Pecos and the nonjurisdictional facilities will be constructed by private companies subject to state and local regulatory jurisdiction. No major Federal permits will be involved and no Federal lands are involved. Therefore, cumulative Federal control is minimal and this factor does not warrant FERC environmental review. The Trans-Pecos intrastate pipeline facilities are exempt from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission's) Natural Gas Act Section 7 certificate jurisdiction because the facilities and transportation services will be used in intrastate commerce under the jurisdiction of the RCT. The Presidio Crossing Project facilities analyzed by this ER are to be utilized to export and/or import natural gas between the U.S. and Mexico. As the Commission has previously determined, “foreign commerce” does not constitute “interstate commerce.” Therefore, the Commission’s Section 7 jurisdiction is not invoked in the instant proceeding as to such export and/or import of natural gas. 7 2.0 RESOURCE REPORT ON WATER USE AND QUALITY This Resource Report describes the hydrological setting of the project area and details the surface waters and ground waters that may be directly or indirectly affected by the construction and operation of the proposed project facilities. The following section provides data collected from field assessments, review of available technical literature, and consultation with various federal, state, and local regulatory authorities concerning water quality issues potentially related to the project. The scope of the proposed Project facilities reviewed by this analysis is a 1,093-foot-long segment of a total 2,000-foot-long HDD of 42-inch diameter steel pipeline under the International Boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. 2.1 Surface Water Resources The Project crosses underneath the Rio Grande River. The location of the Rio Grande River in relationship to the work location and HDD profile is depicted on the HDD plan and profile included in the Illustrations section. The Project’s crossing location is in Fort Quitman-Cibilo-Red Light segment of the Rio Grande River; USEPA, and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Identification No. TX-2307_01. The 2012 TCEQ analysis for this segment of the Rio Grande River is as an “impaired water” with listed impairments for bacteria, chlorides and total dissolved solids. No monitoring stations are maintained by any federal or state agency on this segment of the Rio Grande River. The nearest monitoring stations are managed by the USGS and occur upstream at the El Paso County line, an overland distance of 145 miles, and downstream of Big Bend National Park (BBNP), 186 miles overland to the east. 2.1.1 Potable Water Intakes There are no direct potable water intakes in the Rio Grande River within three (3) miles downstream of the Project. Gremminger and Associates, Inc. (GAI) performed a field review of the Project on May 6, 2015, and the Rio Grande River was dry on the day of our review. 2.1.2 Perennial Waterbodies and Construction Impacts The Project will have no impact on surface water resources. The Rio Grande River is above the HDD profile and there are no crossing related surface impacts. Trans-Pecos has prepared a Directional 8 Drilling Contingency Plan included as Appendix C to minimize the Project’s potential to affect this water during construction of the Project. 2.1.3 Contaminated Sediments There are no known reports of contaminated sediments within the Rio Grande River where it is crossed by the Project. 2.1.4 Public Watershed Areas The proposed route does not cross any municipal watershed or designated surface water protection areas. 2.2 Wetlands The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) for the Project location indicates the entirety of the Project TWS, permanent easement, and 867 foot of the access using the intrastate pipeline corridor occur as Palustrine forested wetlands. A NWI image is included as Figure 5 in the Illustrations section. GAI biologists’ performed a field assessment of the Project location on May 6, 2015. A wetlands review was performed in accordance with the USACE 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual and Arid West Supplement. Two small areas occurring in the alluvium filled depression of a relic ox-bow of the river were determined as meeting wetland criteria and delineated. Both areas are vegetated by emergent species only. The location of these wetland resources are shown on Figure 6 in the Illustrations section. The largest expanse of emergent wetland is crossed by the means of access to the TWS and would affect 0.17 acres. A second much smaller area of emergent wetland occurs within the footprint of the TWS for the stringing of the pipeline pull segment and would affect 0.08 acres. No forested wetlands occur within, or adjacent to, the grounds that would be disturbed by the Project as indicated by the NWI. The plant community is dominated by non-hydrophytic species; the occurring soils lack hydric indicators and are listed by the United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA - NRCS) as “non-hydric”, and there are no indicators of hydrology meeting regulatory criteria. Trans-Pecos will employ the Commission’s May 2013 Procedures during construction through this resource area. Either laminated or equipment mats will be laid over the wetland areas before 9 construction, and removed after construction. By employing these procedures no long-term effect to the wetland areas should result from construction of the Project. 2.3 Groundwater Resources The Project is located in a minor aquifer area named the West Texas Bolsons. This aquifer occurs as water-bearing, basin-fill deposits as much as 3,000 feet thick. It is composed of eroded materials that vary depending on the mountains bordering the basins and the manner in which the sediments were deposited. Sediments range from the fine grained silt and clay to the coarse-grained volcanic rock and limestone of alluvial fans. Freshwater saturated thickness averages about 580 ft. Groundwater quality varies depending on location within the basin, ranging from freshwater, containing less than 1,000 milligrams per liter of total dissolved solids, to slightly to moderately saline water, containing between 1,000 and 4,000 milligrams per liter of total dissolved solids. Based upon a Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) well drillers report for a domestic water well located 1.9 miles east-southeast of the Project location, the static groundwater level was 37 foot below ground when drilled in 2009. The proposed Project does not overlie a State of Texas or USEPA designated sole-source aquifer. No groundwater resources in the Project area will be used for the Project’s construction. Hydrostatic test water resources, volume requirements, and the proposed testing and disposal procedures are discussed in Section 2.4 of this report. No blasting will be necessary for construction of the proposed facility. The Project will not affect groundwater resources of the Project area. The HDD activity is not a source of materials that could result in contamination of any aquifer. In accordance with the FERC May 2013 Plan, Trans-Pecos has developed a SPCCP to be employed during construction of the Project. This plan is included as Appendix D 2.3.1 Public and Private Water Wells No public or private groundwater supply wells occur on or within 150 feet of the proposed work location. The TWDB well report data base, TCEQ well database, and USGS mapping result in no wells being 10 known or mapped within one mile of the Project location. As stated in Section 2.3 above, the nearest water well to the Project location is 1.9 miles east-southeast. 2.4 Hydrostatic Test Water Due to the lack of water within the Rio Grande River, and local limitations on groundwater availability, hydrostatic test water will be acquired from the City of Presidio, or from an irrigation well in Pecos County and trucked to the Project location for filling and testing of the HDD segment. 2.5 Construction Permits As stated in Section 1.7 of Resource Report 1, an authorization for the Project under Nationwide Permit 12 will be issued by the USACE Albuquerque District after the Presidential Permit is issued and copied to the USACE permit manager. Processing of the IBWC License requires issuance of the FERC Presidential Permit, and consent from IBWC’s counterpart agency, the Comision de Internacianal de Limita Y Agua (CILA). CILA requires issuance of the Operating Permit from the Comisión Reguladora de Energía (CRE) in Mexico for the operating pipeline the border crossing section would interconnect to within Mexico before providing their consent to the crossing installation. Secondary permit requirements includes a hydrostatic test water discharge permit from the RCT, which will be acquired at the onset of construction due to the 60 day validity of this permit. 2.6 Sensitive Surface Waters The Project’s crossing location is in Fort Quitman-Cibilo-Red Light segment of the Rio Grande River; USEPA and TCEQ Identification No. TX-2307_01. The 2012 TCEQ analysis for this segment of the Rio Grande River is as an “impaired water” under the CWA Section 303(d) with listed impairments for bacteria, chlorides and total dissolved solids. This analysis was approved by the USEPA on May 9, 2013. 2.7 Waterbody Construction Procedures Trans-Pecos has adopted the FERC’s May 2013 Procedures. No impacts to waterbodies are anticipated as a result of the Project. 2.8 References Gremminger and Associates, Inc.: Field Assessment Results, May 2015 11 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: “Texas Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality for Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d)”, 2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Texas Water Quality Assessment Status for Reporting Year 2012 Texas Water Development Board: TWDB Well Data Online Query, http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/ Texas Water Development Board, Groundwater Database Reports: http://www.twdb.texas.gov/groundwater/aquifer/minors/west-texas-bolsons.asp 12 3.0 RESOURCE REPORT ON VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE This Resource Report provides a description of the existing fish, wildlife, and vegetation resources within, and adjacent to, the project and assesses the potential impacts to these resources that will result from the proposed construction and operation activities. This report also identifies the mitigation measures proposed to reduce potential impacts to these resources. The scope of the proposed Project facilities reviewed by this analysis is a 1,093-foot segment of a total 2,000-foot HDD of 42-inch diameter steel pipeline under the International Boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. 3.1 Fisheries The Project location and area of disturbance associated with the HDD of the pipeline has no direct effect to waters. In many areas within Texas the Rio Grande River is a freshwater fishery that supports a variety of native warm water species; however, no significant recreational or commercial fishery is supported by the river. Upriver flood control, and water demand and competition by agricultural, municipal, and industrial users both in Mexico and the U.S. decrease in-stream flows and affect the health of the river. The long-term regional drought has also effected local and upstream contribution to the river flows, while runoff from agriculture and urbanized areas upstream negatively affects water quality within the river. At the time of GAI’s field assessment of the Project, the Rio Grande River was completely dry. Construction of the Project could potentially affect fish through turbidity generated during construction (if water is present), spills, leaks, or other accidental releases of hazardous materials, or through a possible frac-out during the HDD; however, by following the FERC Plan and Procedures and requirements of the SPCCP no effect to this water or populations of fish species should result from the proposed Project activity. 3.2 Wildlife 3.2.1 Existing Resources GAI biologists conducted a field assessment of the proposed route on May 6, 2015. The habitats that would be affected by construction activity, as defined by the USDA - NRCS -Ecological Site Descriptions, 13 are Salty Clay Fan Desert Scrub and Loamy Bottomland Desert Scrub as discussed in Section 3.3 below. A list of observed wildlife species is presented below. Table 3.2.1 List of Observed Wildlife Species Common Name Scientific Name Birds Geococcyx californianus Zenaida macroura Cardinalis sinuatus Mimus polyglottos Cathartes aura Polioptila melanura Callipepla squamata greater roadrunner mourning dove pyrrhuloxia Northern mockingbird turkey vulture black-tailed gnatcather scaled quail Mammals Odocoileus hemionus Sus scrofa Equus asinus Lynx rufus mule deer feral pig burro bobcat Reptiles Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum No direct affects to local fauna should result from the Project. The minor disturbance associated with equipment operations and noise may prompt some species to shift land use patterns in the immediate vicinity; however, the extent of the work is temporary and the duration is so short (approximately 40 days) such that only this short-term impact may affect wildlife resources. 3.2.2 Migratory Birds Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ([MBTA] - 16 U.S. Code 703-711), and bald and golden eagles are additionally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Act (16 U.S. Code 668-668d). The MBTA, as amended, prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, or nests unless authorized under a USFWS permit. Executive Order 13186 directs federal agencies to identify where unintentional take is likely to have measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations and avoid or minimize adverse impacts on migratory birds. The USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) results included a list of sixteen (16) avian species of conservation concern. Of these, based upon GAI’s field assessment of the Project location, the lack of water resources, and nature of habitats (mesquite flats no ground cover, and mesquite-salt 14 cedar woodlands) offer little to no supporting habitat for these species occurrence. Those that could utilize the area, such as the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) were not observed on, or adjacent to, the Project location. It is GAI’s opinion the Project will have little to no effect to birds of conservation concern. 3.3 Existing Vegetation Resources The proposed Project transects two (2) ecological sites, as defined by the USDA - NRCS; Salty Clay Fan Desert Scrub and Loamy Bottomland Desert Scrub. In the Salty Clay Fan Desert Scrub, vegetation was limited to scattered shrubs, half-shrubs, forbs, and cacti. These included honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), creosote (Larrea tridentata), desert marigold (Baileya multiradiata), rough poolmat (Nama hispidum), Wright wild buckwheat (Eriogonum wrightii), tasajillo (Cylindropuntia leptocaulis), nipple beehive cactus (Corycantha macromeris), globe mallows (Sphaeralcea coccinea), lotebush (Ziziphus obtusifolia), and four-wind salt bush (Atriplex canescens). There was evidence of cattle grazing though no cattle were present. The Loamy Bottomland Desert Scrub was dominated by mesquite ranging from 6-10 ft in height with a canopy cover between 80 and 100 percent. Salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima) and wolfberry (Lyceum torreyi) were also observed. An alluvium filled, relic oxbow of the Rio Grande River which now supports emergent wetland habitat will be transected by the Project route. Species observed within the wetland include: Canada spikerush (Eleocharis geniculate), spiny aster (Chloracantha spinosa), frogfruit (Phyla nodiflora), smallhead sneezeweed (Helenium microcephalum, willow baccharis (Baccharis salicina), and vine mesquite. Approaching the Rio Grande River, the shrub vegetation was noticeably taller with individual salt cedars reaching approximately 20-25 ft of height. Other species observed along the river include: honey mesquite, willow baccharis, arrow weed (Pluchea sercea), wolf berry, and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). No forested wetlands were observed during the field assessment. 3.4 Construction and Operation Impacts to Wildlife The Project will have a short-term negative effect to wildlife use of the lands directly affected by construction of the Project, and on adjacent lands in immediate vicinity to the construction activity. Primarily this effect is dispersion or relocation from the immediate area resulting from clearing of the workspace and operation of the construction equipment during the HDD, assembly of the pipeline pull segment, and then restoration of the disturbed grounds. Post construction the use by endemic species should return to pre-construction levels since no surface facilities are planned. 15 3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species On April 10, 2015, GAI consulted the Austin Ecological Services Office of the USFWS by supplying electronic Project location data (a shapefile set) and requesting a database query to see if any federal listed species occurrences were documented in the Project vicinity for which GAI should account for in our field assessment and analysis in this Environmental Report (ER). In response on April 14, 2015, Ms. Christina Williams of the USFWS stated GAI should utilize the USFWS IPaC web tool to obtain a list of species for consideration and analysis. The IPaC query (Appendix A) resulted in the following list of species of concern for the Project location in Presidio County, Texas. Table 3.5 Federal Listed Threatened and Endangered Species (IPaC Results) Common Name Scientific Name Birds Strix occidentalis lucida Falco femoralis septentrionalis Empidonax traillii extimus Coccyzus americanus Mexican spotted owl (T) northern aplomado falcon (E) Southwestern Willow flycatcher (E) Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (T) Fish Rio Grande silvery minnow (experimental/nonessential) Hybognathus amarus Plants Festuca ligulata Quercus hinckleyi Echinomastus mariposensis Guadalupe fescue (C) Hinckley oak (T) Lloyd's Mariposa cactus (T) Mammals Leptonycteris nivalis Mexican Long-Nosed bat (E) Species to Consider Under Special Circumstances Sterna antillarum Least tern (E) Charadrius melodus Piping Plover (T) Calidris canutus Red Knot (T) E-Endangered T-Threatened C-Candadite 16 3.5.1 Birds The Mexican spotted owl occurs in varied habitat, consisting of mature montane forest and woodland, shady wooded canyons, and steep canyons. In forested habitat, uneven-aged stands with a high canopy closure, high tree density, and a sloped terrain appear to be key habitat components. They can also be found in mixed conifer and pine-oak vegetation types. This owl species generally nests in older forests of mixed conifer or ponderosa pine/Gambel oak. Nests are found in live trees in natural platforms (e.g., dwarf mistletoe brooms), snags, and on canyon walls. Elevation ranges from 4,100 to 9,000 ft. No critical habitat for this species occurs in Texas. No preferred habitat for the Mexican spotted owl occurs at the Project location and no individuals were observed during the field review. The northern aplomado falcon is found in open rangeland and savannas, semiarid grasslands with scattered trees and shrubs. In the U.S. this species was found in coastal prairies along sand ridges, in woodlands, along desert streams, and in desert grasslands with scattered mesquite and yucca. Encroachment of thick tall grass and brush degrades habitat historically utilized by the species. No critical habitat for the species occurs near the Project location. No individuals of this species were observed during the field review and an occurrence of this species is unlikely due to habitat conversion to mesquite (Prosopsis glandulosa) shrublands and overgrazing by livestock. The southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) breeds in dense riparian habitats in southwestern North America, and winters in southern Mexico, Central America, and northern South America. Breeding habitats include relatively dense riparian tree and shrub communities associated with rivers, swamps, and other wetlands, including lakes (e.g., reservoirs). Loss of breeding habitats due to destruction and modification of riparian habitats and brood parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) are the principal threat to this species. No critical habitat for the species occurs near the Project location. No individuals of this species were observed by GAI biologists during the field review of the Project. An occurrence is unlikely due to the lack of water in this segment of the Rio Grande River that would support this species habitat preferences. The Yellow-Billed Cuckoo occupies open woodlands where undergrowth is thick, and deciduous riparian woodlands in the West, nesting in tall cottonwood and willow riparian woodland. Habitat loss is the principal threat to the species and it is estimated that more than 90 percent of the bird's riparian habitat in the West has been lost or degraded as a result of conversion to agriculture, dams and river flow management, bank protection, overgrazing, and competition from exotic plants such as salt cedar (Tamarisk sp.). No individuals of this species were observed by GAI biologists during the field review of the Project. An occurrence is unlikely due to the lack of water in this segment of the Rio Grande River that would support this species habitat preferences. 17 3.5.2 Fish The Rio Grande silvery minnow habitat includes pools and backwaters of low-gradient creeks and small to large rivers. This riverine minnow occurs in waters with slow to moderate flow in perennial sections of the Rio Grande and associated irrigation canals. Loss of natural flows, and flood events are thought to be the principal reasons for this species decline. There was no water in the Rio Grande River at the time of GAI’s field review; therefore, no individuals of this species could be present, and an occurrence is unlikely in the future due to water diversions and withdrawals in the river segments upstream of this location. 3.5.3 Plants The Guadalupe fescue is a perennial grass, 5-8 decimeters tall, with a few-branched inflorescence having drooping spikelets, that flowers August-September. It is associated with moist woodland slopes and creek bottoms above 1,830 meters elevation in the Pine-oak-juniper woodland community. The species community association does not occur at the Project location. Hinckley’s oak is an evergreen shrub that forms thickets, up to 1.2 meters tall. Leaves are distinctly graygreen and spiny-tipped. Acorns are produced annually in late August and early September. It is associated with arid, rocky, limestone-derived soils or limestone outcrops at mid-elevations in Chihuahuan Desert shrublands above 1,350 meters elevation. The species community association does not occur at the Project location. Lloyd’s Mariposa cactus is a small succulent with rounded, blue-green stems, up to 6 centimeters in diameter, partially covered by pinkish to chalky-blue spines. It produces pinkish flowers that are as large as the stem, blooming February-early March. It is associated with arid, gravelly, limestone-derived soils on gentle slopes, primarily on the Boquillas Formation (a Turonian geologic unit known in the Big Bend) in shrublands at 750-900 meters elevation. The species community association does not occur at the Project location. 3.5.4 Mammals The Mexican Long-Nosed bat is a colonial species that roost in caves (or similar mines and tunnels), sometimes in culverts, hollow trees, or unused buildings. This species feeds mainly on nectar and pollen at the flowers of cacti and paniculate agaves. It’s preferred habitats include desert scrub, open coniferoak woodlands, and pine forests in the Upper Sonoran and Transition Life Zones; generally arid areas where agave plants are present. No individuals of this species was observed during the field review and 18 an occurrence of this species is unlikely due to habitat conversion to mesquite (Prosopsis glandulosa) shrub lands, overgrazing by livestock, and absence of preferred forage species, or roosting habitat. 3.5.5 Species to Consider Under Special Circumstances The Least tern, Piping plover, and Red Knot are winter residents of Texas that utilize coastal and interior sandy beaches, especially where scattered grass tufts are present, and sparsely vegetated shores along the coast and inland shallow lakes, ponds, rivers, and impoundments. The IPaC results included these species in the report related to potential wind energy projects. 3.5.6 Federal Listed Species Conclusions GAI conducted a field assessment of the proposed route for federally listed threatened and endangered species on May 6, 2014. No individual of a federal listed species were observed at the time of the field review. The habitats that would be disturbed by the construction activity for the Project are not optimal, and lack key characteristics to support occupation by an individual listed species. Secondly, based upon federal and state agency water data, this segment of the Rio Grande River rarely contains any water. Several of the federal listed species are riparian habitat associates, and that habitat requires regular sustained water availability for at least some portion of the year for development. On May 14, 2015 GAI submitted its analysis of the Project’s potential to effect federal listed species via a letter report to the USFWS Austin Ecological Services. Based upon their analysis, GAI has determined that the proposed Project will have “no effect” to federal listed species. USFWS policy is to not respond to finding of “no effect”. A copy of this communication is included in Appendix A. If a response from the USFWS is received it will be provided to FERC staff in a supplemental filing. Please note that the total acreage of effect submitted in GAI’s assessment report is 0.5 acres less than requested in Section 1.3.1. GAI utilized the initial HDD Plan and Profile engineering data on the acreage of the workspace (6.6 acres rather than 7.1). Engineering and Survey staff assured GAI that the staked area reviewed in the field was the 7.1 acre area. If Commission staff requires, GAI can submit a corrected assessment report to the USFWS. 3.6 State Listed Species The State of Texas lists 18 birds, 10 fish, 4 insects, 20 mammals, 4 mollusks, 6 reptiles, and 24 plants as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare in Presidio County, Texas. This list of species is provided in Appendix A. 19 In April 2015, GAI requested a download from the Natural Heritage database managed by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). The results of this records check revealed no known occurrences of state species of concern within the Project area. The nearest known occurrences were for a single species of rare plant over 10 miles north of the Project location. As identified in Section 3.2.1, the Texas horned lizard, a state listed threatened species, was observed during the field assessment. This observation is not out of character for the area since west Texas still has strong populations of this reptile species. Its decline throughout Texas is associated with habitat loss and conversion in its historic range in central and eastern Texas, and the expanded presence of Red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) in central, east, and south Texas. Fire ants are detrimental to Texas horned lizards and can be acutely toxic if too many are ingested, and fatal by direct defense behavior by the ants themselves. On privately owned lands in the State of Texas, state listed species are managed as “non-game”. Only intentional takings or collection are prohibited by law. On state owned lands, which a portion of the access to the Project TWS will pass through, state listed species have direct protection. Texas has no regulatory method to permit incidental take of state listed species. As a result, TPWD requests direct consultation on activities undertaken by private parties on state lands such that they may review the proposed actions and recommend best management practices to employ during the activity such that effects to state species of concern can be minimized. A copy of GAI’s field assessment report and request for best management practices to TPWD is included in Appendix A. When the TPWD best management practices are received in response, Trans-Pecos will incorporate those into the Project construction plans and a copy will be provided to FERC staff in a supplemental filing. Please note that the total acreage of effect submitted in GAI’s assessment report is 0.5 acres less than requested in Section 1.3.1. GAI utilized the initial HDD Plan and Profile engineering data on the acreage of the workspace (6.6 acres rather than 7.1). Engineering and survey assured GAI that the staked area reviewed in the field was the 7.1 acre area. If Commission staff requires, GAI can submit a corrected assessment report to the TPWD. 3.7 References Gremminger and Associates, Inc.: Field Assessment Results, May 2015 NatureServe Explorer Species Reports: http://explorer.natureserve.org United States Fish and Wildlife Service: Information for Planning and Conservation” (IPaC) http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac 20 United States Fish and Wildlife Service: Environmental Conservation Online System http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: Endangered Species by county; http://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/land/maps/gis/ris/endangered_species/ Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: Natural Heritage Database Results Transmission; April 15, 2015 Verbal Consultation with Ms, Julie Wicker, Program Leader; Wildlife Habitat Assessment TPWD, May 11, 2015 21 4.0 RESOURCE REPORT ON CULTURAL RESOURCES This resource report addresses the nature, and extent of cultural resources including any “historic properties” listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or any Native American traditional cultural places within the project’s Area of Potential Effect including lands that may be affected by construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed facilities. The scope of the proposed Project facilities reviewed by this analysis is a 1,093-foot segment of a total 2,000-foot HDD of 42-inch diameter steel pipeline under the International Boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. 4.1 Cultural Resources Assessment and Results GAI’s, archaeological subcontractor, Turpin and Sons, Inc. (TAS) performed a cultural resources assessment of all lands on and immediately adjacent to the proposed work location on May 6, 2015. As a result of this effort no existing or previously unknown cultural resources were discovered. A report on the review and assessment of these lands was prepared and submitted to the THC to solicit concurrence to a finding of no effect. The Cultural Resource Survey Report prepared by TAS is included with this Environmental Report (ER) in Appendix E. The Cultural Resource Survey Report is designated as Privileged Information pursuant to Section 388.112 of the FERC’s regulations and is being submitted for filing in Volume II. An Unanticipated Discovery Plan has been prepared for the Project and is included within this ER in Appendix F. 4.2 Tribal Consultation GAI utilized a query of the National American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act online Database, and tribal information published by the THC or published by the tribes themselves, in order to identify federally recognized tribes with a potential interest in the Project area due to their historic use of and presence within the Project area. As a result, GAI issued consultation letters to the following tribes: • Comanche Nation of Oklahoma; • Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, including Chiricahua, and Warm Springs bands; • White Mountain Apache Tribe; 22 • Ysleta del Sur Pueblo; • Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; • Mescalero Apache Tribe; and • Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma. Copies of, and any responses to, these consultation letters are provided in Appendix G. No objections to the Project or requests for additional information have been received as a result of these consultations. Please note that the total acreage of effect submitted in GAI’s tribal consultation letters is 0.5 acres less than requested in Section 1.3.1. GAI utilized the initial HDD Plan and Profile engineering data on the acreage of the workspace (6.6 acres rather than 7.1). If Commission staff requires, GAI can submit corrected letters to the tribes listed above. 4.3 References Turpin and Sons, Inc. Cultural Resource Survey Report, May 2015 23 5.0 RESOURCE REPORT ON SOCIO-ECONOMICS This resource report summarizes the base existing socioeconomic conditions in the project area and discusses any positive or negative effects that construction or operations of the project would have to the community at large, or to nearby municipalities and government provided services. The scope of the proposed Project facilities reviewed by this analysis is a 1,093-foot segment of a total 2,000-foot HDD of 42-inch diameter steel pipeline under the International Boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. 5.1 Socioeconomic Impact Area and Project Affects The immediate socioeconomic impact area is Presidio County and the City of Presidio, Texas. As of the 2010 census, the county population was 7,818 with a population density of 2 people per square mile. The county seat is located in the City of Marfa. The principal industry in the county is agriculture. The Project is minimal in nature, size, and construction duration; therefore, the Project would have only a minimal positive affect to the local economy from purchase of consumable supplies from local vendors and merchants, and potential lodging of the workforce for the short duration of the construction activity. The Project will not have a substantial affect, positively or negatively, on the local socioeconomic area due to: • No temporary or permanent employees are required by Trans-Pecos; • The Project does not require support from nearby Municipal Resources; • The Project will not require substantial housing for workers; • The Project will not have an effect on local transportation corridors; • The Project will not permanently remove any lands from production; • No residences or businesses will be displaced by the Project; and • Construction payroll will occur from corporate offices distant from the location. 24 5.2 Environmental Justice Statement Executive Order 12898 (General Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) requires all agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on minorities and low-income populations or communities. None of the direct or indirect activities have impacts to individual’s residences or populations of individuals; therefore, impacts from the Project would not have disproportionately high adverse health or environmental effects on minorities or low-income populations or communities as defined in the USEPA’s Environmental Justice Guidance. 5.3 References U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Justice Guidance, July 1998 25 6.0 RESOURCE REPORT ON GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES This resource report describes the geological resources and hazards in the project area that may be directly or indirectly affected by the project or that could place proposed facilities at risk, the potential effects of those hazards to the facilities, and any methods proposed to reduce the effects or risk. For underground storage facilities, information is included on how old wells and drilling activities are identified and monitored. The scope of the proposed Project facilities reviewed by this analysis is a 1,093-foot segment of a total 2,000-foot HDD of 42-inch diameter steel pipeline under the International Boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. 6.1 Geologic Setting The Project location is within the Hueco Bolson, an extensive interior basin drained by the Rio Grande River extending from central New Mexico to the Rio Conchos Valley west of Presidio, Texas. The geologic formations within the Project area consist of Quaternary age surficial deposits consisting of colluvium, pediment-capping gravel deposits, stream and river alluvium, and alluvial-fan deposits. 6.2 Blasting As stated in Resource Report 1, no blasting will be used for the construction process. 6.3 Mineral Resources There are no identified hydrocarbon mineral resources in the Project area. The Project location is within the Shafter Mining District, an area in south central Presidio County where fifteen prospects were mined for silver and related ores from 1883 until 1952. The district's boundary runs from the Chinati Mountains on the northwest to the flats of the Rio Grande on the southwest and to Cienega Mountain on the east. The Project location is greater than 10 miles in distance from any of these historic mine locations. 6.4 Geologic Hazards, Flooding The USGS earthquake hazard program site lists the Project area as having .03-.05 g (peak acceleration, expressed as a fraction of standard gravity) probability for seismic hazards. According to the USGS 26 earthquake hazard program site, there have been three (3) earthquakes in the last 50 years within 50 miles of the Project area. The largest of these earthquakes was a 4.3 magnitude in 1985. According to the USGS earthquake hazard program site, there are three (3) unnamed quaternary-age faults in the Project vicinity, with the nearest fault located approximately 12 miles north. These faults were only investigated by aerial photographic studies so the “active” status is unknown. Soil liquefaction is generally associated with saturated sandy and silty soils of low plasticity and density. Soils with clay contents greater than 15 percent are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. There are five (5) soil series at the Project site, the Castolon, Lomapelona, Melado, Pantera, and Vicente. The Castolon series has a clay content between 26 and 33 percent, the Vicente series has a clay content between 15 and 24 percent, and the Melado series has a clay content between 33 and 50 percent. These three soil series are therefore not considered susceptible to liquefaction while the Lomapelona series has a clay content of 14 to 22 percent and the Pantera series has a clay content of 5 to 48 percent. Therefore, the Lomapelona and Pantera series has some potential for liquefaction. The Project site is within the floodplain of the Rio Grande River and is typified by low slope soils gently increasing in elevation as distance from the river bank increases. Average annual rainfall is 11 inches. The Rio Grande, from El Paso downstream to Presidio, is a dry riverbed because of extensive irrigation in New Mexico and was dry at the time of GAI’s field review in May 2015. The likelihood of flooding with the potential to scour is non-existent under normal climatic circumstances, with the exception of strategic significant rainfall in the contributing watershed to this portion of the river resulting from a tropical storm or hurricane. 6.5 Paleontology Based upon State of Texas reports and research publications by Sul Ross State University there are no known paleontological resources at, or immediately adjacent to, the Project area. Because of the small footprint and a relatively shallow drilling depth, there is low potential for impacts to paleontological resources. The Project location occurs within deep Alluvium deposits overlying a band of identified Quaternary deposits from the Cenozoic period. Fossils are found in Alluvium deposits where they shallowly overlay Quaternary formations and include mammals of the Chadronian mammal age, a variety of species from the Order Artiodactyla, and other species such as bison, mammoths, and deer-like species. Regionally, these occur mainly as exposures in the banks of river and stream channels at higher elevations in Alluvium deposits in low terraces along streams. 27 The nearest known surface occurrence of Alluvium Formation fossil resources are in the Marfa area which is approximately 50 miles northeast of the Project location. Likely there are paleontological resources within, or in near vicinity to, the Project location, but are likely too deeply buried to be discovered by normal anthropogenic activities. It is unlikely the Project will affect any Paleontological resources. 6.6 References Geologic Atlas of Texas; 1979 Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, 2015 Texas State Historical Association Handbook Online; Shafter Mining District https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/gps02 U.S. and Canadian Fossil Sites-Data for Texas; www.fossilsites.com/states/tx.htm United States Geological Survey; Mineral Resources Online data United States Geological Survey; Earthquake Hazard Program: (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/) United States Geological Survey; Earthquake Hazard Program/Faults: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/imsintro.php 28 7.0 RESOURCE REPORT ON SOILS This resource report describes the soils that would be affected by the project, the effect on soils, and measures proposed to minimize or avoid impact. The scope of the proposed Project facilities reviewed by this analysis is a 1,093-foot segment of a total 2,000-foot HDD of 42-inch diameter steel pipeline under the International Boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. 7.1 Location Soils The USDA - NRCS online Web Soil Survey for Presidio County maps the soil series within the Project’s area of affect as: • Melado-Pantera complex, 1 to 5 percent slopes; and • Vicente, Lomapelona, and Castolon soils, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded. The Castolon series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils formed in stratified alluvium. These soils are on floodplains of large rivers and mostly used for livestock grazing and where irrigated for cultivated crops and pasture. The Lomapelona series consists of very deep and moderately well drained soils formed in stratified alluvium. These soils are located on floodplains and alluvial fans and are mostly used for livestock grazing and sometimes wildlife habitat and where irrigated for cultivated crops and pastures. The Melado series consists of very deep well drained soils that formed in clayey alluvium. These soils are on alluvial flats of the Presidio Bolson and in the desert shrubland vegetative zone and are mostly used for livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and recreation. The Pantera series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately rapidly permeable soils formed in loamy gravelly alluvial materials. These soils are on nearly level to moderately sloping wide arroyos and drainage ways and are mostly used for livestock grazing and wildlife habitat. The Vicente series consists of very deep and well drained soils formed in stratified alluvium. Vicente soils are on floodplains and are mostly used for livestock grazing and where irrigated for cultivated crops and pastures. 29 None of these soil series are considered Prime Farmland soils. The individual soil series and percent occurrence within the Project area of effect are listed in Table 7.1. Table 7.1 Soil Series Impacted by the Proposed Project % Occurrence in Project Area Soil Rutting Hazard Rating Soil Capability Class Melado-Pantera complex,1 to 5 % slopes 52 Severe/ Moderate 6s/7w Vicente, Lomapelona, and Castolon soils, 0 to 1 % slopes, occasionally flooded 48 Severe 7w Soil Series The Project would only result in temporary soil impacts during construction. After the pipeline is installed, the site will be restored to its pre-construction condition. 7.2 Construction and Operation Impacts and Mitigation All soil series have some potential for erosion. Considering the desert setting of the Project location, wind erosion is of greater concern that erosion from rainfall receipt. Although minor erosion and sedimentation is anticipated during construction, employment of the FERC's Plan and Procedures will minimize any erosion occurrence. Other direct impacts to the soil result from rutting and compaction of the soil surface and immediate subsurface by equipment and vehicles. The degree of this impact will depend largely on the moisture content of the soil. By employing the erosion control and mitigation measures outlined within the FERC’s Plan and Procedures, Trans-Pecos believes that off-ROW sedimentation will be minimized to the greatest extent practical. Surface disturbances will be restricted to desert shrub land and topsoil will be restored to the original location pursuant to the easement agreement. Implementation of the appropriate measures should contain and control any erosion and minimize any runoff sedimentation from the ROW. Permanent erosion control structures will be installed where needed to reduce runoff erosive potential for the lifetime of the Project. 30 Trans-Pecos will adhere to, and enforce compliance with, the Plan and Procedures throughout all phases of construction. All contractor non-compliance issues will be addressed immediately by Trans-Pecos. 7.3 References Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan, 2013 United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey, http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov 31 8.0 RESOURCE REPORT ON LAND USE, RECREATION AND AESTHETICS This resource report addresses use of all lands that would be affected by construction and operation of the project and characterizes and quantifies the lands affected, identifies public lands and designated recreation or other special use areas affected, summarizes consultations with federal and state agencies, and discusses any special construction techniques or other forms of mitigation that would be used to reduce impact during construction and operation of the facilities. If applicable, the report should discuss potential visual impacts of the facilities on designated scenic rivers, areas, or roads, recreation areas, and public lands or residential areas. The scope of the proposed Project facilities reviewed by this analysis is a 1,093-foot segment of a total 2,000-foot HDD of 42-inch diameter steel pipeline under the International Boundary between U.S. and Mexico. 8.1 Land Use, Workspace, Easements, Residences Land use at the Project location is occasional grazing of livestock. The adjacent land use is the same. At the time of GAI’s field assessment of the Project location and workspace, no active use of lands were observed, meaning no livestock were seen, but evidence of cattle grazing was apparent through grazing of grass clumps and manure piles. Trans-Pecos requests the use of a 7.1 acre TWS for the HDD and construction of the HDD pipeline segment, and use of 5,755 linear foot, or 6.6 acres of the connecting intrastate pipeline permanent easement for ingress and egress to the TWS during construction. Trans-Pecos will retain a 50-foot wide permanent easement associated with the border crossing pipeline segment that would encumber 1.3 acres. No other locations of land are required for the Project. The Project components do not include any aboveground facilities. There are no residences in vicinity to the Project location. The nearest residence (1 only) is two (2) miles east-southeast of the Project location. 32 8.2 Public Land, Recreational Areas, and Other Sensitive Lands There are no public lands in near vicinity to the Project. The TPWD Big Bend State Park is thirteen (13) miles east at the nearest point to the park border, and BBNP is fifty-four (54) miles southeast at the nearest point to the park border. The TPWD Natural Heritage Database query and dataset obtained in April 2015 includes public lands and sensitive resources. No other resources were identified in vicinity to the Project location. This segment of the Rio Grande River is not designated or proposed as a candidate for the National Wild and Scenic River Program. 8.3 Visual Resources No significant visual resources were located at, or adjacent to, the work location. No impairment of current visual resources will result from construction activities. 33 9.0 RESOURCE REPORT ON AIR AND NOISE QUALITY This resource report addresses the effects of the project on the existing air and noise environment and any proposed measures to mitigate these effects. The scope of the proposed Project facilities reviewed by this analysis is a 1,093-foot segment of a total 2,000-foot HDD of 42-inch diameter steel pipeline under the International Boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. The Project location is in the TCEQ El Paso-Juarez Air Monitoring Region. There are no state or federal air monitoring stations in Presidio County. The nearest air monitoring stations are in and around the City of El Paso, in El Paso County, and at BBNP in Brewster County. The BBNP station was deactivated in 1999. Based upon USEPA data published on the Federal Register under 40 CFR Parts 81 -84, Presidio County, Texas is listed a “Unclassifiable/Attainment” for all air quality parameters. Haze (atmospheric light dispersion) is a regional air quality issue in the Big Bend-Trans Pecos area. As reported in the Big Bend Regional Aerosol and Visibility Observational (BRAVO) study published in 2004, coal-fired power plants in Mexico were the largest “single source” contributor to ammoniated sulfate haze at BBNP during the BRAVO Study period. Since an intended end user of the natural gas that will be carried by the Project are gas-fired power plants in Mexico, we assume the decreased use of the coal-fired plants is an objective of the Mexican entities, which if so, would be a benefit to the issue of haze as an air quality issue in Presidio County, and at BBNP. 9.1 Project Air Emissions The scope of activities does not include the installation of equipment having air emissions. Direct and indirect air emissions will result from operation of the horizontal drilling rig, supporting equipment, supply trucks, and vehicles used to commute to and from the work location and nearby habitation. Since the Project is not anticipated to exceed 40 work days in duration, no significant amount of regulated emissions will be discharged to the local atmosphere. GAI calculated the potential air emissions using 35 days operation at standard workloads for the large and most active machinery emissions, and 40 days of 34 full work for support vehicle and commuter emissions. The summary results of these calculations are presented below. Table 9.1 Summary of Potential Emissions from Construction Source e VOC Tons NOx Tons CO Tons SO2 Tons CO2 Tons TSP Tons CO2 TPY 0.63 4.64 3.94 0.0 293.5 0.84 296.5 All Direct and Indirect Sources 40 Days Totals 9.2 Noise at Sensitive Receptors Noise assessment of the ambient noise levels at the Project location were performed. The Project location is isolated in setting and would have an ambient noise environment in 40-45 decibel A-weighted range if measured. There are no sensitive receptors in near vicinity to the HDD setup location. The nearest structure to the HDD location is a single residence located 2.0 miles east-southeast of the HDD entry point. Due to the setting of the Project work location, scrub rangeland habitat that provides increased ground absorption of noise and lack of sensitive receptors within audible range of equipment operations, noise generated by construction will have no effect on sensitive receptors. 9.3 References 40 CFR Parts 81 -84. Gremminger and Associates, Inc. Air Emissions Calculations, May 2015 35 10.0 RESOURCE REPORT ON ALTERNATIVES This Resource Report describes alternatives to the project and compares the environmental impacts of such alternatives to those of the project. Alternatives include the no action alternative, the potential for alternative sites within the project area for placement of the facilities. The scope of the proposed Project facilities reviewed by this analysis is a 1,093-foot segment of a total 2,000-foot HDD of 42-inch diameter steel pipeline under the International Boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. 10.1 The No-Action Alternative The “no-action” alternative applied to the proposed Project would result in the loss of new infrastructure to market and export natural gas supplies produced in the U.S. and would result in fewer gas supplies for electric generation plants in Mexico. For these reasons, the “no action” alternative is not in the best interest of the public. 10.2 Location Alternatives The proposed installation is to accommodate a border crossing facility to interconnect to a planned transmission pipeline commencing in Mexico, the location of which has been assessed, aligned and is being permitted by the Mexican proponent. The location of the border crossing facility is dictated by the interconnect location inside Mexico. No alternative crossing points exist due to interconnect location dictated by the preferred alignment for the pipeline inside Mexico. Based upon the results of the field assessments performed for sensitive resources, the proposed crossing location is environmentally benign and lacks issues of any type that would prompt consideration of the crossing point relocation. 36 11.0 RESOURCE REPORT ON SAFETY AND RELIABILITY The scope of the proposed project facilities reviewed by this analysis is a 1,093-foot segment of a total 2,000-foot HDD of 42-inch diameter steel pipeline under the International Boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. Measures to assure the safety and reliability of the proposed pipeline will be incorporated into the design, construction, and operating practices. These measures will be utilized throughout the life of the facilities. 11.1 Design and Construction Practices Pipeline systems must be designed with sufficient wall thickness and be installed with adequate protection to withstand anticipated internal and external pressures and loads that will be imposed on the pipe after installation. The design pressure for steel pipe is determined using the general steel pipe design formula in compliance with 49 CFR § 192.105. One of the factors used in this formula is the Design Factor (F), which is found in 49 CFR § 192.111 and is based on one of four class locations. The class locations are found in 49 CFR § 192.5 and refer to the proximity of the proposed pipeline to human population and or habitable structures. A Class I designation indicates that human populations will have a minimum exposure to the pipeline, while a Class IV designation indicates that human populations will have a greater exposure to the pipeline. The table below shows the class location and its designated Design Factor (F). Table 11.1 Class Location and Design Factor Class Location Design Factor (F) Class I Class II Class III Class IV 0.72 0.60 0.50 0.40 The proposed facilities are in a Class I area and a design factor of 0.72 will be used. The following operational standards will ensure that the system will qualify for other Class requirements in the event of future changes in Class occurring along the pipeline route. Pipe joints will be connected by welding and will be radiographically inspected (in accordance with applicable codes and standards) and 37 externally coated with fusion bond epoxy. In addition to the protective external coating, the pipeline will have cathodic protection to prevent corrosion. Prior to being placed into service, the pipeline will be hydrostatically tested to ensure that the system is free of leaks and that it provides an adequate margin of safety for operation at anticipated gas pressures. Hydrostatic testing will be done at 1.5 times the design operating pressure not to exceed 90 percent of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) of the pipe. 11.2 Inspection and Maintenance Procedures Trained and qualified personnel will regularly monitor the pipeline for leak detection and encroachments at intervals that meet or exceed requirements established by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, and ensure that the cathodic protection system remains effective in mitigating corrosion. All pipeline appurtenances, such as mainline valves and regulators, will be on a regular monitoring and maintenance schedule that will meet or exceed regulatory regulations. Table 11.2 Class Location and Maintenance Schedule 11.3 Class Location Leak Detection Crossings Cathodic Protection I II III IV Once – year Once – year Twice – year Four – year Twice – year Twice – year Four - year Four – year Once – year Once – year Once – year Once – year Engineering Measures and Training All Trans-Pecos personnel are trained in DOT Hazardous Material Incident Response. Personnel are located in close proximity to the facility and on-call should an emergency situation arise. 11.4 Emergency Procedures For this Project, an emergency will have occurred in the event of any significant pipeline leak or a significant loss of gas supply. In the event of an emergency, the proper emergency procedures will be followed according to federal, state, or local regulations. Continuing Surveillance, Damage Prevention Programs, and Emergency Plans are required by DOT regulations 49 CFR § 192.613 through 192.615. Copies of these documents are available for review. Typical information flow in the event of an emergency might be as follows: (1) a description of the emergency is reported to Trans-Pecos’s Regional Gas Control Office via an incoming 38 wide area telephone service line or other means; (2) this information is relayed to the Trans-Pecos District Office responsible for the section of line involved in the emergency, and (3) the District Office is empowered to make other notifications as deemed necessary for the specific situation provided the notification process does not delay immediate response to the emergency. As personnel are being notified, corrective action will be taken. Consideration is first given to the safety of the people in the area, and only thereafter are measures taken for the protection of property. Proper corrective action will be based upon the circumstances encountered at the emergency site. The TransPecos District Office will coordinate and act as a liaison between all company departments, regional gas controllers, governmental agencies, the public, contractors, and the appropriate field superintendent. The Trans-Pecos District Office will also initiate and coordinate the gathering of additional personnel, equipment, supplies, materials, and outside services, which may be required. Additional equipment, operators, and labor can be supplied by an established network, if required. 11.5 References U.S. Department of Transportation, 49 CFR Part 192 39 12.0 RESOURCE REPORT PCB CONTAMINATION This resource report is required for application involving the removal, replacement, or abandonment of facilities determined to have polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) in excess of 50 parts per million in contained liquids. The scope of the proposed Project facilities reviewed by this analysis is a 1,093-foot segment of a total 2,000-foot HDD of 42-inch diameter steel pipeline under the International Boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. All of the facility components planned for installation will be new; therefore, the potential for PCBs is not of concern for the Project. 40 DISTRIBUTION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TRANS-PECOS PIPELINE, LLC PRESIDIO CROSSING PROJECT PRESIDIO COUNTY, TEXAS 41 ILLUSTRATIONS APPENDIX A AGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, RESPONSES AND PERMITS APPENDIX B LANDOWNERS AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS Contains Privileged Information – Do Not Release Pursuant to Section 388.112 of the FERC Regulations (Appendix B is designated as Privileged Information and is submitted in Volume II) APPENDIX DIRECTIONAL DRILLING CONTINGENCY PLAN APPENDIX SPILL PREVENTION, CONTAINMENT, AND COUNTERMEASURES PLAN APPENDIX E CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY REPORT Contains Privileged Information – Do Not Release Pursuant to Section 388.112 of the FERC Regulations Appendix E is designated as Privileged Information and is submitted in Volume II. APPENDIX UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY PLAN APPENDIX TRIBAL CONSULTATION LETTERS AND RESPONSES